Sustainable Control of Newcastle Disease in a Village Poultry Population in Rural Zambia Sarah E Dumas Advisors: Alexander Travis, VMD, PhD Jarra Jagne, DVM, DACPV Senior Seminar Paper Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine November 16, 2011 Keywords: Newcastle disease, village poultry, vaccination, livelihoods, sustainability, international development 1 ABSTRACT Village poultry flocks are an important contributor to family nutrition and household income in Zambia’s Eastern Province. However, the traditional village poultry production system is based on a low‐input and low‐output scavenging system, and productivity is most severely limited by the devastating impact of Newcastle disease (ND). In collaboration with Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO, Lewis et al. 2011), we have attempted to achieve sustainable control of ND through a community‐based vaccination program. By maximizing productivity, we aimed to improve overall household welfare and provide a viable alternative to poaching. Initial assessment of the vaccination program found an increase in average household (HH) flock size, from 12.8 birds per HH in 2007 to an average of 30 birds per HH in 2011. This contrasts to HHs in control villages (not vaccinating), where the average flock size grew to 22 birds with disease prevention education and improved management training alone. Households participating in the vaccination program also experienced significantly fewer flock losses compared to control HH (2 losses per month, versus 9). Farmer demand for the vaccine is high, indicating that farmers see value in vaccinating their flock against ND, and plans to expand the program are underway. INTRODUCTION Poultry production in the Luangwa Valley Agriculture is the foundation of the economy in Zambia’s Eastern Province, and many households practice mixed farming consisting of both livestock and crop production (Bagnol 2007). However, cattle production in the Luangwa Valley is severely limited by trypanosomiasis, and productivity on the plateaus is low, due in part to poor nutritional value of the pastures (Mfuwe District Veterinary Officer, pers. comm. July 2009; Aregheore 2006). Cattle production is further limited by the high cost of cattle and laws prohibiting the rearing of cattle in the Game Management Areas that cover much of the Luangwa Valley. These constraints further emphasize the role of village poultry production in the region. Backyard poultry makes up 42% of the nation’s total flock and contributes to household nutrition and food security by providing a source of animal‐based protein and micronutrients in the form of meat and eggs (Songolo and Katongo 2000). This is invaluable in a country where an estimated 43% of the population is undernourished and 68% of children have stunted growth (FAO 2011). Chickens and eggs also are an important source of cash for household items, bicycles, medical fees and school supplies, thus significantly contributing to overall family welfare in rural areas (IRPC / KYEEMA Foundation 2007). Finally, poultry has an important potential role in wildlife conservation by providing an alternative to bush‐meat consumption, which is often used as a coping mechanism when crop production fails (Lewis 2005, Brashares et al. 2011). Despite this pivotal role, due to poor yields, poultry production is often considered of secondary importance compared to other agricultural activities of the family. A random survey of 1,065 households in the Luangwa Valley in 2001 found that although poultry was the most common source of income, it ranked only 34 out of 2 50 income sources in terms of relative contribution to overall household income, bringing in an average of only $8 per year (Lewis et al. 2001). Given that the average household flock size was 10‐20 birds and that the reported price of a chicken was $2.50 to $3.50, this finding suggested that the backyard poultry production system was operating substantially below its potential due to poor productivity. The traditional village poultry production system in Zambia is based on a low‐input and low‐output scavenging system, and productivity is limited by genetics, standards of housing, poor nutrition, and disease. A survey conducted in 2001 found that over 50% of village flocks in the Luangwa Valley are lost prior to consumption or sale, primarily due to disease and predation (Lewis 2005). A separate survey conducted in 2001 found that Newcastle disease (ND) was the primary constraint to poultry production, followed by predation and poor nutrition (Songolo and Katongo). These findings were supported by a 2007 survey, in which farmers ranked ND to be by far the biggest problem they faced in poultry production. Lack of feed was ranked as the second most important problem they faced, followed by day‐time predators (birds and wild cats), external parasites, respiratory disease, diarrhea, night‐time predators (snakes), and fowl pox (Bangol 2007). Interestingly, the top three constraints to production described by farmers in the Luangwa Valley (ND, poor nutrition, predation) are identical to the top three constraints to production in village poultry worldwide, as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization (Branckaert et al. 2000). Newcastle Disease Given the severe impact of ND on village poultry production, control of the disease through an economically sustainable vaccination program was our first goal of intervention. ND is a highly infectious viral disease affecting both domestic and wild avian species, with up to 100% mortality rate in infected individuals. Endemic in many developing regions around the world, it severely disrupts poultry production in affected areas and can be particularly damaging to village farmers and their communities (Alders and Pym 2008). In the Luangwa Valley, the virus infected an estimated 60% of the chicken population annually. Sustainable control of this disease, combined with basic husbandry improvements, was expected to improve poultry yields three to four‐times over its baseline production in 2001 (Lewis 2005). The disease is caused by a virus in the Paramyxoviridae family, called Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV), and the different strains cause distinctly different clinical signs and severity of disease. Based on the disease they produce, the various strains have been grouped into five pathotypes: viscerotropic velogenic, neurotropic velogenic, mesogenic, lentogenic respiratory, and asymptomatic enteric. Both viscerotropic and neurotropic velogenic pathotypes are highly virulent, with up to 100% mortality in infected flocks. This high mortality rate is often the first indication of infection within a flock. Other clinical signs of the velogenic pathotypes include severe depression, edema of the head, green diarrhea, shell‐less or soft‐shelled eggs, 3 respiratory disease, and neurologic signs such as tremors, torticollis, limb paralysis, and opisthotonos. Mesogenic pathotypes are less virulent, with up to 50% flock mortality. Clinical signs include severe respiratory distress, characterized by open‐ mouth breathing, gasping, coughing and tracheal rales, followed by the neurologic signs described above. Finally, the lentogenic pathotypes may cause mild respiratory disease or decreased production, but birds in affected flocks often show no clinical signs. There are no pathognomonic lesions on post‐mortem examination of infected birds, but the virus can be found in nearly every tissue in the body within 24 hours after infection with a highly virulent strain. NDV is shed in respiratory secretions and feces, and transmission is primarily through direct contact between affected birds. In commercial production, humans play a major role in transmitting the disease between barns and outside operations through movement of potential fomites, such as personnel, equipment, vaccination or thinning crews, and vehicles. In the traditional village poultry system, where an individual’s flock scavenges free‐range and interacts regularly with neighbor flocks, the virus spreads quickly through direct contact between birds. It is also easily transmitted between villages with any movement of people, bicycles, or birds. Wild animals and roaming dogs may also play a role in transmission of the disease by hunting infected birds or scavenging their carcasses. The exact role of wild birds in transmission of the virus is not fully elucidated, but the variable susceptibility of different avian species to the disease has led to the prediction that wild birds with subclinical infections may serve as carriers and transmit the virus to domestic poultry (Pattison pp. 32). NDV vaccines Both inactivated and live‐attenuated vaccines are available against ND. Inactivated vaccines are administered yearly, but are relatively expensive to produce and must be administered by injection, making them inappropriate for village flocks. These vaccines must also be primed by live‐attenuated vaccines two weeks prior to use, further limiting their practical use in village flocks. In contrast, live‐attenuated vaccines are inexpensive to produce and can be administered by feed, water, aerosol spray, or eyedrop methods. Although they need to be given every three to four months, in a traditional village system where new birds are constantly introduced to the flock, this regular vaccination protocol provides the best overall flock immunity. There are also thermostable live‐attenuated vaccines available, which is are absolutely essential for a successful vaccination program in much of the developing world, where high environmental temperatures and a lack of a cold‐chain make the use of thermolabile vaccines impractical. 4 MATERIALS AND METHODS Baseline data Focus group surveys were conducted in order to establish baseline information regarding poultry production and constraints in the region. This information, summarized below, was crucial in both determining the design of the vaccination campaign and assessing its impacts. These meetings also served to assess ND awareness in the community, determine receptiveness to a vaccination, and publicize the upcoming campaign. Prior to intervention, estimates of the average household flock size in the region ranged from 10 to 20 (Lewis 2001, Bagnol 2007, McDonald 2006). Farmers in the Luangwa Valley reported heavy rains from November to March and extreme heat from September to February. The harvest season (and thus time of greatest food availability for both families and chickens) is April and May, with the hungry season starting as early as November and extending into March. Farmers also reported large die‐offs in their flocks during the months of August to November, which they blamed on a disease that was identified as ND based on descriptions of clinical signs. As a result of these extremes of weather, fluctuation in availability of food, and seasonality of ND, flock sizes were highest from May to July and lowest in September and October. Farmers sold most of their chickens in June and July, prior to the onset of the high‐mortality season, and consumed the most chickens from August to November, when chickens that died of disease were often eaten rather than burned or buried. A separate survey found significant seasonal variation in egg hatchability, with farmers reporting 78% hatchability on average in the dry season and only 22% hatchability in the rainy season. In addition, approximately one‐third of respondents reported a cessation of egg laying activity during the rainy season, citing a lack of nutrition during this time (McDonald 2006). The vaccine A thermostable, live, freeze dried vaccine, ND ‘V4 HR’, produced by Malaysian Vaccines & Pharmaceuticals was obtained by COMACO. This vaccine was maintained at a central location in a refrigerator, then transported in cool boxes with ice packs to vaccinating areas the day before the start of each campaign. The vaccine was diluted by community vaccinators using clean drinking water, administered via the eyedrop method, and used for two days (one drop per bird on the first day after dilution, two drops per bird on the second day) before being discarded. Vaccinator training Selected vaccinators were trained following the Controlling Newcastle Disease in Village Chickens: A Manual for Extension Workers training manual, created by the 5 International Rural Poultry Centre and COMACO. Using pictures, the vaccinators were trained on how to recognize a sick bird, the clinical signs of ND, and how ND is transmitted. Using expired vaccines, they were carefully trained on how to correctly store, transport, dilute and administer the ND V4HR vaccine in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Vaccinators were instructed to vaccinate only from the hours of 4am to 7am in order to avoid biological degradation of the vaccine by exposure to extreme daytime temperatures and direct sunlight. Special training sessions focused on how to answer farmers’ questions about the efficacy and safety of the vaccine, and attention was given to training vaccinators not to vaccinate in the face of a potential ND outbreak, which would not only fail to protect birds but would also destroy farmer confidence in the campaign. Finally, vaccinators were trained on data collection methods, described below. These training sessions were repeated annually with all vaccinators. Program design Based on reports of high flock losses in the months of August – October, it was determined that a vaccination campaign should start in July, with subsequent campaigns in November and April. Two community vaccinators were selected from each village area group (VAG), one woman and one man, based on criteria established by residents at the June 2007 focus groups. Each experimental vaccinated and control unvaccinated pair of VAGs was assigned a COMACO Extension Officer to monitor vaccination activities and data collection. In July 2007, the ND vaccination control program was piloted with five vaccinated VAGs and five non‐vaccinating control VAGs selected randomly by a lottery system at a community meeting. To offset program costs and establish a sense of the value of the vaccine, farmers were asked to pay 250 ZMK (0.05 USD) per dose. As incentive to vaccinators to promote the program and encourage farmer participation, vaccinators were paid based on their performance. An additional base allowance was provided to each vaccinator at the start of each campaign, which was intended for bicycle repairs, the primary mode of transportation for most vaccinators. Monitoring of activities In order to monitor activities and assess the efficacy of the campaign, vaccinators were given a field book and asked to record the name, gender, and village of each participating farmer as well as the number of birds owned, number of birds vaccinated, and payment made. They were also asked to document any significant die‐offs in the preceding three months, the number of households (HH) affected, the number of birds affected, and the vaccination status of the dead birds. This information was verified by the VAG Extension Officer and transferred to a central database. The data were then compiled to summarize the total number of HH 6 participating in the vaccination campaign, the total flock size, and the flock vaccination rate for each village, VAG, Chiefdom, and district. It was also summarized in a Vaccinator Performance form in order to monitor the activities of each community vaccinator, allowing Extension Officers to suggest individual improvements for future campaigns. In a second method to monitor the ND campaigns, community vaccinators collected monthly data from HH in one vaccinating and one non‐vaccinating control VAG per Chiefdom. The information collected included flock demographics, consumption, sales and losses. This information was intended to elucidate the impact of the vaccination program not only on flock size, but on household income and family nutrition. It would also identify sources of loss to guide future intervention programs. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION After initiation of the ND vaccination program in July 2007, vaccination campaigns took place relatively consistently in the months of March, July and November every year. Due to the impassability of the roads after flooding that year, the campaign did not take place in March 2010. It was also suspended in March 2011 due to lack of funding. The data documenting the July 2009 campaign have been lost, though the campaign did take place. Average household flock size Documentation of the average HH flock size in all vaccinating areas is a crude method of monitoring the efficacy of the program. We predicted that farmers within the program would experience fewer annual losses due to ND, allowing their flocks to grow to the extent that the environment could sustain them nutritionally. Indeed, Figure 1 demonstrates a general increase in the average number of birds owned by farmers participating in the vaccination program, documented at the time of vaccination, from an average of 10.8 birds per HH in July 2007 to 30.4 birds in November 2010. This contrasts with control VAGs, which had an average HH flock size of 21.8 birds in January 2011 (data for November 2010 not available). There are at least three potential explanations for why average flock size doubled in control VAGs: 1) extension activities focusing on disease control, improved housing, and supplementing food and water were carried out in both vaccinating and control VAGs; 2) other COMACO livelihood initiatives, such as organic farming and bee‐ keeping, have resulted in improved crop yields, which may have increased farmers’ abilities to invest more in their flock in terms of supplemental food; and, 3) vaccination in areas surrounding the control VAGs may have resulted in improved “flock immunity”, protecting control flocks from challenge by velogenic ND. Due to poor record‐keeping, only data on the total number of birds vaccinated and total number of farmers participating per Chiefdom exist for most vaccination campaigns. Since the data at the household, village, and VAG levels after March 2009 7 are no longer available, we cannot assess the statistical significance of the trend in average flock size since the inception of the vaccination program. We can, however, note that the difference in the average HH flock size from the start of the program in July 2007 to March 2009 was statistically significant in vaccinating VAGs (Table 1; p< 0.0001). In contrast, the average HH flock size actually decreased slightly in control VAGs during this period, though the difference was not significant (p= 0.405). Interestingly, the annual poultry cycle previously discussed would predict flock size to peak during the month of July and be lower during the month of March. In addition, the program was continually expanding during this period, adding new VAGs and HHs to the vaccinating group that had not been involved in the program since its inception. As a result, these new HHs were likely still building up their flocks, resulting in an underestimate of the improvement in average HH flock size for those HHs that had been vaccinating since 2007. Average HH flock size in vaccinating VAGs 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 1. Average household flock size in vaccinating VAGs at the time of vaccination since the inception of the ND vaccination program. July 2009 data were lost; no vaccination took place in March 2010. 8 Average # birds owned Jul 2007 Nov 2007 Mar 2008 Jul 2008 Nov 2008 Mar 2009 Jul 2009 Nov 2009 Mar 2010 Jul 2010 Nov 2010 Table 1. Comparison of the average household flock size prior to vaccination (July 2007) and after 20 months of NDV vaccination in vaccinating and control VAGs. July 2007, all # Households 386 Mean flock size 12.8 March 2009, vaccinating 442 16.8 March 2009, control 85 11.8 The dip in average flock size in November 2009 corresponds to a campaign in which many birds were vaccinated (10,755) at a record number of participating HH (940). This likely reflected an attempted expansion of the program by a new COMACO Poultry Manager to reach a greater number of farmers in new areas. Because these areas would have been previously unvaccinated, it follows that they would have relatively smaller flocks, affecting the overall average HH flock size. Interestingly, there was a large increase in the average flock size in July 2010, despite the fact that there had been no vaccination in March 2010. We would have expected increased losses due to reemergence of ND after this gap in protection, resulting in a lower average flock size in July 2010. The increased flock size despite a lack of vaccination raises the possibility that residual titers from the November 2009 campaign were able to provide sufficient protection to the flock as a whole. Alternatively, baseline surveys indicated that farmers experienced the majority of flock loss in August through October (Bagnol 2007, McDonald 2006), making it plausible that ND never challenged the flock during the lapse in protection from March to July 2010. While this disease is endemic in the Luangwa Valley, it affects villages in a stochastic fashion. Offtake dynamics Given that the goal of this program is to improve overall household welfare through improvements in income and nutrition, while simultaneously providing an alternative to poaching and bushmeat consumption, an increased average flock size does not in itself indicate success of the program. For the program to be successful, it is necessary to document that farmers are capitalizing on the improved survivability of their flocks by selling and eating more chickens and eggs, thereby realizing the potential benefits in income and nutrition. The initial program design intended that offtake data be collected on a monthly basis from select households in both vaccinated and non‐vaccinated control VAGs. These data would allow us to assess the impact of the vaccination campaign on household income and nutrition as determined by the numbers of chickens and eggs sold and eaten. Various problems prevented consistent and accurate collection of 9 these data. First, poor road quality during the rainy season severely restricted the data collectors’ mobility during these months. Some VAGs were completely inaccessible, while in other VAGs, the significantly greater amount of time required to accomplish the task during the rainy season was sufficient disincentive to data collection. Second, there was an apparent failure of communication among the program designers, COMACO leadership, and community vaccinators about the purpose and importance of the surveys. As a result, the data were not verified and analyzed regularly, and gaps in collection and, in one case, data falsification were not recognized until later analysis. This same lack of communication caused some data collectors to survey only vaccinated VAGs in their Chiefdom, while others surveyed only control VAGs in their Chiefdom, making assessment of the campaign’s impact within each Chiefdom impossible. Finally, funding of the offtake data collection activities was intermittent, leading to gaps in payment to the data collectors. Due to these setbacks, analysis of offtake dynamics data is limited. In Mwanya, the Chiefdom with the most complete data, April 2007 (one month after the first vaccination campaign in this area) data revealed that HH in the vaccinated VAG had significantly smaller average flock sizes (0.8 birds per HH vs. 3.3, p‐value <0.0001) and significantly greater losses for the month (8.0 lost vs. 3.7, p‐value <0.0001). There was no significant difference in the numbers of birds consumed or sold in the two VAGs at that time. By January 2011, the Mwanya vaccinated VAG had a significantly larger average flock size than the control VAG (29 birds vs. 8, p‐value <0.0001) and significantly higher rates of monthly chicken home consumption (1.3 birds eaten vs. 0.02, p‐value <0.0001) and sales (4.1 birds sold vs. 0.04, p‐value <0.0001) as well as egg home consumption (1.0 vs 0, p‐value=0.0056) and sales (1.8 vs. 0, p‐value=0.0021). The vaccinated areas did experience a significantly higher flock loss compared to controls that month (1.7 deaths vs. 0.3, p‐value=0.0003); however, 68.8% of these losses were due to predation (42 losses due to predators reported in the vaccinated VAG versus only two in the control), rather than failure of the vaccination campaign. Due to a lack of funding, no vaccination campaign was conducted in March 2011. Nonetheless, offtake data collected in Mwanya in May 2011 found that the previously vaccinated VAG maintained a significantly larger average flock size (p‐ value <0.0001) and had significantly fewer losses (p‐value=0.0001) compared to the non‐vaccinating controls, suggesting potentially residual protection from the November 2010 vaccination. Although only from one Chiefdom, these data are telling, indicating that ND vaccination not only leads to a significantly larger flock size, but that farmers are capitalizing on this change, consuming and selling more chickens and more eggs. Although not directly measured, this has presumably had a positive impact on both household income and family nutrition. In contrast, offtake data collected in January 2011 in the Chiefdom of Mnkhanya found no statistically significant difference in average HH flock size, meat consumption and sales, or egg consumption and sales between the vaccinating and 10 control VAGs. However, the vaccinating VAG did have significantly fewer losses that month (3.3 deaths vs. 12.5, p‐value=0.0012). When the data from all Chiefdoms are merged, we can compare non‐vaccinating VAGs from Mwanya and Mnkhanya with vaccinating VAGs in Mwanya, Mnkhanya and Msoro in January 2011 (most recent data collected except in Mwanya). This analysis revealed that vaccinating VAGs had a significantly larger average HH flock size (30.8 birds vs. 21.8, p‐value=0.0092) and experienced significantly fewer losses (2.0 deaths vs. 9.2, p‐value=0.0003). However, HH in vaccinating VAGS ate significantly fewer birds (1.5 eaten vs. 3.2, p‐value=0.0008) and eggs (3.4 vs 6.9, p‐ value=0.0226) that month compared to non‐vaccinating controls, and there was no difference in the sale of either birds or eggs. This suggests that overall, while the vaccine is allowing for a larger flock size, farmers are not taking advantage of this by eating and selling more meat and eggs. Importantly, these data reflect only their activities for a single month. As described earlier, there is an annual poultry cycle dictated by rainfall, temperature, and agricultural activities. It is possible that farmers in the vaccinating VAGs in January were trying to maintain their flock for later in the hungry season. Similarly, the market for chickens and eggs is generally particularly weak during this month, since most farmers spend the cash made from their harvest by November, and many people are selling their birds at a very low price in order to buy staple foods (Bagnol 2008). Without offtake data from the rest of the year, these details are impossible to elucidate. However, the available data are convincing enough to warrant extension activities emphasizing the importance of capitalizing on improved flock survivability by selling and consuming eggs and meat. Traditional management practices focus on maintaining flock size in the face of high annual mortality rates by hatching all eggs and slaughtering birds only occasionally. But in a free‐range, scavenging system where ND is controlled, flock size is limited by the environment’s ability to support their nutritional demands. Thus, we need to encourage a new approach to flock management where flock size is curtailed by consuming and selling meat and eggs, for the improved wellbeing of both the flock and the family. Growth of the program A final measure of the success of the ND vaccination program is its growth. Since its inception in July 2007 to the most recent campaign for which data are available (November 2010), the program has grown 4.5‐fold, from a total of 2,933 birds vaccinated to 13,185 birds vaccinated (Figure 2). Interestingly, other than a large surge in November 2009 – where more than twice as many HH participated in the program compared to the previous campaign for which data is available – there was very little expansion of the program in terms of HH participation. Thus, while a record number of birds were vaccinated in the July and November 2010 campaigns, these were concentrated at HH with larger average flock sizes. Because the average HH flock size in participating areas has surged to over 30 birds per HH, expanding 11 the program to access more HH is a reasonable goal for the program in the future. Using 2000 Census data, only 3.9% of HH in the district participate in the vaccination program. With greater than 80% of HH raising poultry, the program is currently reaching only a small percentage of potential beneficiaries. A new source of funding from the Silent Heroes Foundation should provide COMACO with a reliable source of NDV vaccine, allowing expansion of the program and improved access to the vaccine for a greater number of farmers. # HH participating in program 1000 # HH 800 600 400 200 0 # chickens vaccinated 1.4 104 1.2 104 1 104 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 # chickens vaccinated Jul 2007 Nov 2007 Mar 2008 Jul 2008 Nov 2008 Mar 2009 Jul 2009 Nov 2009 Mar 2010 Jul 2010 Nov 2010 Figure 2. Growth of the ND vaccination program from July 2007 to November 2010 in terms of the number of participating HH and number of chickens vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS The improvement of village poultry production has a huge potential role in poverty alleviation, wildlife conservation, and improved family nutrition. This research found that, as in many developing countries around the world, ND is the primary constraint to production in the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. The data indicate that a community‐based vaccination program against ND can significantly improve 12 average household flock size, especially when combined with extension activities focused on disease prevention education, improved housing methods, and best management practices. Plans are underway to expand this program throughout Zambia’s Eastern Province. Further research will determine if this growth in flock productivity has in turn resulted in improved household income, improved family nutrition, and decreased bushmeat consumption. As ND becomes less of a concern for village poultry farmers, other constraints to production such as predation, external parasites, respiratory disease and diarrheal disease, will need to receive greater attention. The impacts of these constraints can be greatly limited through adequate housing and husbandry practices. After a 2006 survey found that almost no farmers provided housing to their birds, COMACO extension efforts focused on teaching farmers the skills to build elevated chicken houses from locally‐available materials. A survey five years later found that 91.5% of farmers had some sort of housing for their birds, and 71.2% were using the elevated housing type promoted by COMACO. Those farmers had significantly larger flock sizes and experienced significantly fewer losses compared to farmers not using elevated housing. Combining regular and reliable ND vaccination with improved housing and management practices, farmers have begun to see the greater potential value of poultry production. In response to farmer interest in semi‐intensive poultry production, COMACO recently piloted three small layer facilities of 10 to 20 hybrid layers each. Preliminary results have been staggering, with the sale of eggs resulting in an average 144% increase in net household income for facility owners. The nutritional impact of these small facilities on their neighboring community was also promising, with the twenty HH nearest to each facility consuming 73% more eggs per person on average this year, or 5.5 eggs per person compared to 3.2 eggs per person last year. These same communities reported eating meat only once every two months, which further emphasizes the potential role of eggs as a source of animal‐based protein and micronutrients. Construction on five additional community‐operated layer facilities is underway. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special thanks to project advisors Dr. Alexander Travis and Dr. Jarra Jagne, COMACO‘s staff and its director, Dr. Dale Lewis, for their assistance with data collection and program operation, and Drs. Benjamin Lucio, Ricardo DeMatos, and Elizabeth Buckles for their poultry expertise. Thanks also to the work of Drs. Erin McDonald, Emily Stuebing, and Tamika Lewis. This research was funded by US AID Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program (EPP‐A‐00‐04‐00013‐00; to A.J.T.), the Silent Heroes Foundation, and Cornell University’s Expanding Horizons Foundation (to S.D.). 13 REFERENCES Alders RG, Pym RAE. Village Poultry: Still Important to Millions Eight Thousand Years After Domestication. Unpublished, Presented at XXIII World’s Poultry Congress. Bisbane, Australia, 2008. Alexander DJ, Senne DA. Newcastle Disease, Other Avian Paramyxoviruses, and Pneumovirus Infections: Newcastle Disease. In: Saif YM, ed. Disease of Poultry. 12th ed. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing, 2008; 75‐100. Aregheore EM. 2006. FAO Country Pature/Forage Research Profile: Zambia. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/agpc/doc/Counprof/zambia/ zambia2.htm#_Toc131995483 . Accessed Jul 13, 2011. Bagnol B. Improvement of village poultry production by communities surrounding South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. Trip Report to COMACO, WCS and KYEEMA Foundation. Participatory Rural Appraisal. 2007. Bagnol B. Improvement of village poultry production by communities surrounding South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. Trip Report to COMACO, WCS and KYEEMA Foundation. Participatory Rural Appraisal. 2008. Branckaert, R.D.S., Gaviria, L., Jallade, J. & Seiders, R.W. Transfer of technology in poultry production for developing countries. In: FAO Sustainable Development Dimensions, October 2000 and Proceedings WPC2000 Montreal, Canada. Brashares JS, Golden CD, Weinbaum KZ, Barrett CB, Okello GV. Economic and geographic drivers of wildlife consumption in rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Aug 23;108(34):13931‐6. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Food Security Statistics, Prevalence of Undernourishment in Total Population [online database]. Available at: http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess‐fs/fs‐ data/ess‐fadata/en/. Accessed Oct 20, 2011. International Rural Poultry Centre, Community Markets for Conservation. Controlling Newcastle Disease in Village Chickens: A Manual For Extension Workers. 2007. International Rural Poultry Centre / KYEEMA Foundation. Improvement of village poultry production by communities surrounding South Luangwa National Park, Zambia. Proposal to the Wildlife Conservation Society. May 2007. Lewis D, Tembo N, Nyirenda P. Baseline analysis of rural household incomes in Luangwa Valley. Wildlife Conservation Society, 2001. Lusaka, Zambia. 1‐7. 14 Lewis D. Synergies between Animal Husbandry and Wildlife Conservation: Perspectives from Zambia. AHEAD, 2005; 153‐156. Lewis D, Bell S, Fay J, Bothi KL, Gatere L, Kabila M, Mukamba M, Matokwani E, Mushimbalume M, Moraru C, Lehmann J, Lassoie J, Wolfe D, Lee D, Buck L, Travis A. Community Markets for Conservation (COMACO) links biodiversity conservation with sustainable improvements in livelihoods and food production. PNAS, 108 34, 2011; 13957–13962. McDonald E. Report to WCS: Improving Poultry Health and Management in Zambia. Developing a Participatory Socio‐Economic Model for Food Security, Improved Rural Livelihoods, Watershed Management, & Biodiversity Conservation in Southern Africa Project. Cornell University. 2006. Pattison M, McMullin PF, Bradbury JM, Alexander DJ. Poultry Diseases. 6th ed. Philadephia: Saunders Elsevier, 2008; 294‐316. Songolo A, Katongo JC. Country Report: Zambia. In: Alders, R.G. and Spradbrow, P.B., eds. SADC Planning Workshop on Newcastle Disease Control in Village Chickens. Proceedings of an International Workshop, Maputo, Mozambique, 6‐9 March, 2000. ACIAR Proceedings N° 103; 43‐45. 15