ArticleTropical animal health and production2026
An assessment of Nigeria's microlivestock value chain: insights from six species.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microlivestock farming offers potential to improve incomes and nutrition in Nigeria, yet the subsector remains fragmented and underdeveloped. There is, in addition, a lack of reliable data to support value-chain-wide development. This study presents an explorative, mixed-methods assessment of the value chains of six microlivestock species commonly raised in Nigeria. The study was conducted in six purposively selected states: Oyo (rabbits), Anambra (grasscutters), Ondo (snails), Katsina (guinea fowl), Plateau (quail), and Kwara (honeybees), spanning five agroecological zones, integrating data from questionnaire surveys (n = 114), gender-disaggregated focus group discussions (n = 120), and key informant interviews (n = 18). Microlivestock production was the primary source of livelihood for 10% (honeybees) to 33.3% (grasscutter) of farmers sampled. Across the value chains, the proportions of surveyed farmers engaged in multiple economic activities ranged from 10.0% (guinea fowl) to 88.9% (quail), indicating the supplementary role of microlivestock to household incomes. Farmer association membership was highest among rabbit (95%), honeybee (70%), and grasscutter (61.1%) farmers. In comparison, farmers of guinea fowl (10.0%), quail (17.0%), and snail (27.8%) in the sample had lower rates of association membership. The farmers reported persistent challenges, including limited access to specialized feed and veterinary services, and weak market linkages. The study participants also reported gender disparities and barriers to youth participation in microlivestock value chains, despite high youth interest. The study identified strategic opportunities in the formation of cooperatives, digital marketing, e-commerce, species-specific extension, and supporting youth-led enterprises. The findings underscore the need for gender-sensitive, youth-inclusive policies and programs, alongside species-targeted interventions in the subsector. This assessment provides evidence to support current livestock policies and strategies, as well as the integration of microlivestock into broader livestock reform agendas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.