Main Article Content
Entrepreneurial Characteristics And Constraints Of Poultry Enterprises In Imo State, Nigeria
Abstract
The, entrepreneurial characteristics marketing strategies, poultry drugs distribution methods and constraints were studied among 110 poultry enterprises in Imo State, Nigeria. Ten types of poultry businesses were identified with commercial feeds retailing, egg and broiler productions being the most frequently practiced (18.1, 15.3 and 15.2% respectively). Guinea and Top feed brands were the most popular commercial poultry feeds, with each rating 28.1 and 23.4% respectively. Thirty-five(55.6%) of poultry farmers use commercial poultry feeds in feeding their flocks. Small-scale commercial poultry farms (40.4%) were more as against middle and large scale units that averaged 30.8 and 28.9% respectively. 82.9% of the poultry farmers sell their products unprocessed either by retails and wholesales (41.9%), or by retail only (20.9%). Twenty-three (79.3%) of poultry drugs sellers in the state are not qualified to sell such drugs, while a higher percentage of the farmers consult veterinary doctors before administering drugs. Antibiotics (23.9%), coccidiostats (23.1%), vitamins (17.4%) and vaccines (14.1%) were the most frequently sold poultry medicinal products. Practitioners identified high cost of livestock inputs (31.3%) lack of adequate finance (26.6%) and disease (17.2%) as major constraints to their business. Researching for cheaper sources of raw materials (30.8%), visiting farms for advice (23.1%) and producing animals with higher feed efficiency by animal production scientists and financial support in forms of soft loans, credits and subsidies from government (58.33%), were listed as the highest expectations of the practitioners.
Key words: Nigeria, poultry business, veterinary drugs, poultry feeds, Poultry farmers
Journal Of Agriculture And Social Research Vol. 5 (1) 2005: 25-32
Key words: Nigeria, poultry business, veterinary drugs, poultry feeds, Poultry farmers
Journal Of Agriculture And Social Research Vol. 5 (1) 2005: 25-32