INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
Poultry Production and the Risk of Zoonotic Diseases in Kubwa  
District of Bwari Area Council, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja  
Nigeria.  
Aniefiok Moses1* and Andrew Reign2  
1Facilitator, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, National Open University of  
Nigeria, Abuja  
2MSc Research Student, Department of Public Health, National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja  
*Corresponding Author  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12020039  
Received: 25 December 2024; Revised: 01 February 2025; Accepted: 06 February 2025; Published: 07  
March 2025  
ABSTRACT  
The study assessed the biosecurity measure and risk of zoonotic disease from poultry production in Kubwa,  
Abuja. As a result of increasing human population and the need to meet food protein requirement, there has  
been corresponding increase in poultry production in recent time, with most of the poultry farms lacking  
basic biosecurity measures, hence likely to expose farmers and the general population to risk of zoonotic  
disease outbreak. A descriptive study design was adopted and purposive sampling technique was used to  
select sixteen (16) poultry farms with bird population of fifty or more as well as thirty-two (32) farmers aged  
18-65 years. Spatial location coordinates were established using hand-held Global Positioning System  
Garmin GPSMAP 76 device to establish proximity of each farm in relation to built-up areas, while field  
observation, and questionnaire were used to obtain data for the study. Data obtained was analyzed using  
spatial epidemiological Geographic Information System Software and descriptive statistics; and the results  
were presented in percentages, tables, and charts as well as the map of geo-coordinates of poultry farms  
locations. The results revealed that 44% of the farms were located within ten meter radius of residential  
buildings and no farm was situated within the 500 meter radius bench mark established for the study. The  
use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was none-existence as 45% of the farmers claimed to use them,  
while field observations proved otherwise. The use of disinfectants was dismally low as 56% of farmers  
never use disinfectant in their farms. Poor poultry waste management was also amplified as 37% of poultry  
waste was dumped in drainage and surface water bodies. The study concluded that the risk of outbreak of  
zoonotic diseases was high in the area. It is recommended that the Abuja Environmental Protection Board  
should issue and enforce regulations on proper siting of poultry farms within the city, while Agriculture  
Extension Workers should be empowered to monitor and train poultry farmers to adopt biosecurity measures  
in their farms.  
Keywords: Poultry production, Risk, Zoonotic diseases, Biosecurity, Kubwa District, Poultry farmers; Built-  
up areas  
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND  
This study was carried out to assess the biosecurity measures adopted by poultry farmers in Kubwa District  
to prevent the risk of zoonotic disease from poultry production to the general population. In recent time, food  
security has been greatly challenged due to rapidly increasing population. In particular protein intake has  
also reduced, hence the increase in poultry production of meat and eggs for human nutrition. Abreu, et al  
Page 448  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
(2023), stated that the world population’s significant increase has promoted a higher consumption of poultry  
products, which must meet the specified demand while maintaining their quality and safety. Their study  
raised serious safety concern just like is noted in this study. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)  
also noted that in recent times, production of chickens as a source of protein has witnessed massive growth  
over the last 50 years (FAO, 2020). The raising of poultry could either be for economic, social or family use.  
Most production are intensive-based in cities, while few free-range holdings are in the country-side and  
villages. The studies by Bilal, Khaled and Khatib (2017) and Yisheng (2019) pointed to the fact that poultry  
has dominated the meat’s consumption in many developed and developing countries, and has become one of  
the most dynamic animal product globally.  
In Nigeria, the poultry sub-sector accounts for more than 50% of total livestock production (Abiodun, et al,  
2022). This was 50% increase from what was earlier noted barely seven years as at 2016. Tsado et al (2017)  
stated that in Nigeria’s livestock production, poultry dominates a prominent position in providing animal  
protein as it accounted for 25% of local meat production. This finding further emphasized the fact that the  
poultry sub-sector offers the quickest returns on investment outlays in livestock enterprise generally by  
virtue of its short gestation and harvest time as well as high feed conversion ratio. It is also the cheapest  
sources of animal protein in the country.  
In the Nigeria’s Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, poultry farming has become a popular business venture,  
also providing employment and entrepreneurship opportunity for some unemployed individuals (Charles,  
2021). It has been estimated that there were about eighty-eight (88) poultry farms in Abuja as at 1st  
December, 2024, (Smartscrapers, 2024). This appears to be gross underestimation, when compared with the  
one hundred and twenty-two (122) functional poultry farms sampled in three out of the six Area Councils  
(Abuja Municipal, Bwari and Kuje) in the territory by Tsado, et al (2017). The size of these farms vary from  
place to place and some of them were just freeholding with bird population of less than five hundred. This  
tandem with the finding of Tsado, et al (2017), who found out that most of the farms had bird population of  
901-1100.  
The rearing of poultry either for meat or egg comes with different health risk. The prevalence of emerging  
and reemerging diseases from animals to humans has been one of the greatest challenges to global health and  
food security today (Joanna and Xavier, 2018). Diseases of animal’s origin remain a serious concern due to  
economic losses they usually caused and health emergencies, when transmitted to humans.  
There are more than three dozen of zoonotic diseases that can be transferred from animals to man through  
touch and more than four dozen that may result from bites (CDC and WHO, 2017). This transfer of diseases  
from animal to man raises serious concern for biosecurity measures around poultry businesses. Observation  
within Kubwa and its environs, revealed that there was increase in poultry farms springing up in some places  
and residential backyards with little or no biosecurity measures.  
Poultry birds are said to be one of the carriers of some kind of infections that can affects humans. Closeness  
of such farms to residential places could therefore exacerbate the spread, if there is outbreak of diseases like  
Avian flu, Newcastle disease, Fowl Pox, Gumboro disease, Avian encephalmelitis, Pollorum disease, Avian  
mycoplasmosis, Infectious coryza, Aspergillosis, Coccidiosis, Syngamosis, etc., among the bird population.  
This raises serious concern for food safety and public health. This is because the mode of transmission of  
animal diseases to humans has taken disturbing dimension in the past few years. The prevalence and  
transmission of diseases of poultry origin in recent times has increased the level of concern for biosecurity  
due to related public health emergencies they have caused. Consequently, emerging technology such as  
Geospatial science has been used to track location of disease source-points, thereby enhancing public health  
surveillance. Abudukadir and Barder (2020) have confirmed that the use of GIS in public health has greatly  
enhance disease surveillance and mapping, hence, its wide application today. Therefore, this study was  
designed to assess biosecurity measures put in place by poultry farmers to avoid risk of zoonotic disease  
outbreak in the area.  
Page 449  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
METHODOLOGY  
This study was conducted in Kubwa, a satellite town in Bwari Area Council of the Federal Capital Territory  
(FCT), Abuja, Nigeria. Descriptive design was adopted and the population for the study was the poultry  
farmers and their assistants, aged between 18 – 65 years. Purposive sampling technique was used to select  
sixteen (16) poultry farms with bird population of fifty (50) or more from eight wards (table 2) as well as  
thirty two (32) farmers, made up of sixteen (16) proprietors/owner and sixteen (16) assistants, who were  
either paid worker or family members rendering any service in the farm. Field observation, questionnaires  
and hand-held global positioning system device – (Garmin GPSmap 76) were used for data collection on  
poultry farms, slaughter points, biosecurity measures and zoonotic disease prevention measures. The base  
map of Bwari District from the survey department of the Council provided needed guide and clarity for the  
study.  
Data obtained was subjected to descriptive analysis using Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and presented in  
percentages, tables, and charts. The spatial epidemiological tools (Geographic Information System Software  
(QGIS Version 3.14) and remote sensing imagery was applied to produce the map of geo-coordinates for  
location of poultry farms.  
RESULT AND DISCUSSION  
The result of the study was presented in two dimension: i) spatial presentation and mapping of the location of  
the poultry farms sampled for the study; ii) biosecurity measures among poultry farmers presented in tables  
and charts.  
Table 1: Spatial Coordinates of the Distribution of Poultry Farms in Kubwa  
Farms  
Places  
Spatial Coordinates  
Latitude  
Longitude  
A
B
C
D
E
F
Bazango  
Byazhin  
90 171 26.01” 70 221 57.95”  
90 171 2.10”  
90 91 18.33”  
90 81 15.41”  
90 91 06.36”  
70 241 59.17”  
70 201 26.68”  
70 191 59.49”  
70 221 4.30”  
FO1 area  
Arab road  
Kukwaba  
FCDA Qtrs 90 181 12.68” 70 161 41.63”  
G
H
I
Marocco  
Kukwaba  
Chikakorie  
Marocco  
90 51 59.86”  
90 121 3.60”  
90 91 34.49”  
90 531 0.92”  
70 241 57.31”  
70 181 39.47”  
70 211 11.26”  
70 231 51.12”  
70 181 20.21”  
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
FCDA Qtrs 90. 051 1.01”  
Bazango  
Chikakore  
Arab-Road  
Byazhin  
90 231 17.11” 70 241 43.21”  
90 451 26.11” 70 321 67.21”  
90 141 66.51” 70 111 21.03”  
90 261 12.08” 70 201 34.01”  
90 161 42.65” 70 221 28.72”  
FO1 area  
Two poultry farms were purposively sampled from each ward in the district. The Wards included Bazango,  
Kukwaba, Maroco, FCDA Quarters, FO1, Biazhin, Arab-road and Chikakore, thus, giving a total of 16 farms  
which locations are shown on the map with yellow dots. The coordinates result presented in table 1 above,  
was used to generate the spatial distribution of the poultry farms in Kubwa district as it revealed their various  
Page 450  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
locations. Some poultry farms were located at backyard of homes, some very close to drainage channels and  
others very close to access roads.  
Figure 1: Map of Spatial Distribution of Poultry Farms in Kubwa Districts  
Source: Field Work, 2022  
The poultry farms plotted in figure1 above show cluster of farms around residential areas and major roads.  
This practice was common in all the sampled locations. The implication of this is the possible breach of  
biosafety measures which could affect the bird population, thereby leading to the spread of poultry related  
zoonotic diseases to human. According to Marisa (2019), it was noted that certain bacteria and virus can be  
transferred from animals to humans if proper care was not taken. Intriguingly, although Section 12 of the  
Animal Diseases (Control) Act, CAP A17 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN), 2004 (as amended)  
provide for poultry farms of 250 birds or more to have a consulting Veterinary Surgeon and obtain license  
for its establishment from the Director of Veterinary Services (DVS); none of the farm studied met these  
requirements. This situation may have apparently existed due to the dearth of Veterinarians in FCT, lack  
monitoring, lack of surveillance and lack of enforcement of the law.  
Data from the study revealed that most of the poultry farms (90%) were located at backyard of residential  
homes, close to road and some within neighborhood. Some of them (44%) have close proximate distance of  
5-10 meters radius from residential buildings as in table 3. Ideally, poultry farms should be situated far away  
from residential buildings due to the offensive ordour that typically emanates from them, (Chenchuk, 2022).  
Indeed, Shelton (2022) and Meyer (2023) stated that poultry farms should be sited far away from residential  
building because of noise and offensive ordour nuisances.  
Siting poultry farms close to residential buildings negate expected standard for biosafety. For instance,  
although the Regulations for Breeder Farms, Hatchery Operations and Day Old Chicks Quality in Nigeria,  
18 of 2020; merely stated that poultry farmers shall construct poultry houses in compliance with guidelines  
issued by Nigerian Institute of Animal Science, without mentioning standard distance from residential  
Page 451  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
houses, there are strict measure and standard in other climes. The Municipal Ordinance No. 18 S. 2020,  
Regulating the Operation of Piggery and Poultry Farms in the Municipality of Burgos, Ilocos Sur of the  
Philippines; clearly stated in Article VII, that “Commercial piggery and poultry farms shall be at least 1,000  
meters away from the built-up areas (residential, commercial, institutional and industrial)”. In this study, a  
500 meters radius between poultry farm and built-up areas was adopted. Although there is no national  
regulatory standard as regard setback from poultry farm to residential building in Nigeria, the benchmark of  
500 meters was set using standard available in countries like Philippines and India, with similar sociocultural  
settings like Nigeria, which expressly set 500 metres regulatory requirements as in Republic of the  
Philippines Resolution No. R. 674: the Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing the Processing of  
Applications for Locational Clearance of Poultry and Piggery, 2000 and Poultry Farms Establishment Rules  
of India, published by UPSC (2022).  
The standard on minimum distance varies from countries to countries, but Myers (2023) pointed out that  
such standard requirements were very necessary to safeguard against nuisances such as ordour, noise, air  
pollution and water contamination. Crow (2021) further stated that as tens of thousands of birds were  
confined within a small space, there was smell nuisance and risks of the spread of disease pathogens like  
bacteria and viruses. Your Quick Advice (2021) also stated that poultry farms should be at least 500 metres  
from residential building because smell from poultry farms travels up to 610 metres. UPSC (2022) further  
confirmed that gaseous emissions and waste were major problems in poultry farming, as the feces of poultry  
birds emit gaseous ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and methane, all of which produce odors. Despite all these  
observations for the need for adequate setback for poultry farms, none of the sampled poultry farms in the  
study area satisfied this buffer criteria. The spatial distribution of the poultry farms revealed how close they  
were to the various built-up neighborhoods.  
Table 2: Bird Population in Farms in the Study Area  
Location  
Farm  
A
B
Arab road  
102  
180  
Bazango  
Chikakore  
Byazhin  
260  
255  
412  
350  
1,006  
220  
FCDA Qtrs 68  
505  
102  
116  
98  
FO1Layout  
Kukwaba  
Morocco  
120  
211  
132  
Table 3: Proximity of Poultry farms to Residential areas in Kubwa  
Proximity of poultry to Residence  
1 – 10 meters  
Frequency  
Percentage  
7
44  
19  
25  
12  
0
11 – 50 meters  
3
60 – 100 meters  
101 – 200meters  
200 – 400meters  
500 – 1000  
4
2
0
0
0
1001 – meters and above  
Total  
0
0
16  
100%  
Page 452  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
The study took particular cognizance of the proximity of poultry farms to residential areas to determine the  
level of social, public health and environmental interaction, and noted the relationship of such proximity  
with possible outbreak of bird related zoonotic diseases. Findings from field observations revealed that most  
of the poultry farms were not appropriately located. For instance, in place like FCDA Quarters, thought to  
have standard housing regulations, it was discovered that most poultry farms were located at backyard of  
residential premises. This practice fall short of the biosafety requirements for siting poultry farms anywhere  
else in the world.  
The implication of this close proximity is that several production activities like noise from laying birds could  
cause noise pollution to residents, release of ammonia gas and fumes from poultry decomposing remains  
could cause air pollution, while poor poultry waste management could result in the discharge of poultry  
waste by-products into drainages and water bodies which could lead to environmental health hazards. These  
backyard poultry farm practices increase the frequency of close contact between individuals in the residential  
areas, thus negating biosafety standard, thereby enhancing the risk of outbreak of poultry related zoonotic  
diseases in the area.  
Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)  
Figure 2 presents the use of PPE by poultry farmers in the study area. The result showed that 30% of poultry  
farmers in Kubwa do not use personal protective equipment (PPE) at all, 25% utilized them sometimes while  
45% claimed to have used any of the equipment on their farms at any time, but were unable to present for  
sighting during field observation.  
The non-utilization of PPE by poultry farmers did not only exposed the farmers to biohazards while working  
in the farm, (Bulafu, et al, 2023), but a very dangerous practice that exposes the general population to health  
risk. This is because micro-organisms may be introduced into the bird population from foot wear, clothing  
materials, soiled hands, etc., which may trigger-off zoonotic infection, which could spread to humans. When  
this happen, the health of the birds will be affected and can lead to outbreak of Avian flu or such other  
disease among the bird population, capable of being transmitted to human. WHO (2018) and WHO 2019  
have noted increasing number of Avian Influenza in recent time in some regions of the world. Most of the  
outbreaks well linked to lack of biosecurity measures in those farms.  
Figure 2: Use of PPE by Poultry Farmers in Kubwa Districts  
It is obvious from the study that some of the farmers were not conscious of the possibility of spread of  
poultry related zoonotic infections from birds to human. Thus, the neglect of safeguarding oneself with PPE  
is of serious concern. Indeed, there appear to exist a gap in biosecurity knowledge and practices in the area.  
Page 453  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
Ameji, et al (2022) have identified poor knowledge of biosecurity measure as a major factor affecting  
poultry production and public health safety in Kogi state, Nigeria. Consequently, farm workers, poultry  
product vendors, transporters of birds, backyard poultry farmers, meat processors and consumers were at  
higher risk of contracting zoonotic infections due to lack of adequate knowledge of relationship between  
biosecurity measures and zoonotic diseases transmission. As stated, the real magnitude of poultry related  
zoonotic diseases remain unknown among majority of the poultry farmers, (FAO, 2017; Marisa,  
2019). Akintunde and Adeoti (2014) have also noted that infectious diseases thrive in areas where hygiene  
measures are not considered during poultry production and consumption of poultry products. The same  
unhygienic practices were observed at chicken slaughter points, and point of sales around St. Luke Church  
Junction, Kubwa market, where bird slaughterers were not observing any personal protective measures. This  
lack of biosafety consciousness exposed them and the general population to the risk of pathogenic infections  
from the poultry birds. This is one of the factors Akintunde and Adeoti (2018) identified to be hampering  
zoonotic disease prevention and control in south west Nigeria.  
Materials like overall, hand gloves, eye googles, face or nose masks, booths and caps are very essential PPEs  
that should be used when handling birds or working in poultry farm to prevent direct physical contact from  
infectious pathogens like bacteria, fungi, protozoa and viruses. Observation of activities at the poultry farms  
and slaughter points were pointers to the fact that infectious pathogens could be transferred from these birds  
to humans during handling, collection, transportation to farms, place of brooding the birds and during  
purchase from farms and markets.  
It was also observed that even the bird slaughterers do not use PPE. This practice exposes them to risk of  
Work-Acquired Infection (WAI) that can further be taken home and spread to their family members. A  
greater amount of risk during slaughter activity comes from the fact that most slaughterers are highly  
exposed to blood remains, sputum, flesh and waste from this meat been handled, couple with the poor  
sanitation around the various slaughter point. Obviously, there could be easy transfer of pathogens through  
feacal matters via touch to the face, mouth, nose and skin, and even taken to their homes. This could  
translate into a community-wide infection of zoonotic disease.  
Personal Hygiene  
Poor personal hygiene among poultry farmers was very common in the study area. This was observed from  
hand washing practices and disinfection measures around the poultry farms. Hand washing and disinfection  
of poultry environment are public health measures to prevent the transmission of zoonotic diseases. It is  
expected that hands should be washed or sanitized regularly and after an activity that can expose an  
individual to risk of infections. Results of data gathered from the poultry farmers on table 4, revealed that  
38% of these farmers usually forget to wash their hands after an activity in the farms. Surprisingly, 62%  
claimed they wash their hands always after attending to the birds. The implication of poor personal hygiene  
around poultry is an increase exposure to microorganism that can cause spread of diseases in poultry farms,  
likely to spread outside the farm.  
While 63% of the farm workers claimed to wash their hands always after attending to the poultry, field  
observation during the study revealed that many of them were not aware of the risk of direct handling of  
poultry birds without PPE and not washing their hands after such activities.  
Table 4: Hand Washing Practices among Poultry Farmers in Kubwa  
Hand washing Frequency  
Percentage  
Always  
20  
12  
0
62  
Sometimes  
Not at all  
I usually forgot  
Total  
38  
0
0
0
32  
100%  
Page 454  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
If 38% of farmers only wash their hands sometimes after attending to their poultry and majority of the  
farmers do not even have PPE of any sort to use while working in the poultry house, there is a high level of  
risk of getting infected from such exposure. Regular handwashing is a recommended public health practice  
that should be observed during and after activities that will expose an individual to any contact with  
pathogenic agents. Observations from different poultry farms in Kubwa show that activity such as feeding  
of the birds, collection of poultry waste, cleaning of the poultry farms and administration of some  
medications were carried out without regular handwashing. This practice exposed the farmers to risk of  
spreading poultry related zoonotic disease within and around their communities.  
Sanitation of Poultry Environment  
Another factor which could contribute to the risk of poultry related zoonotic infections as revealed in the  
study is attitude of the farmers towards sanitation of poultry farm and the immediate environment. Field  
observation revealed that the environment surrounding the poultry farms were filthy and full of liters.  
Cleaning and disinfection of poultry house is a highly recommended poultry management methods to ensure  
biosecurity, protection of the environment as well as protection of public health. Disinfection and sanitation  
are components of hygienic environment. Frequent use of appropriate disinfectants helps to reduce the  
population of disease causing agents. However, regular use of disinfectant was abysmally low among the  
farmers.  
Data gathered from the study as presented in figure 3, revealed that poultry farmers were not prioritizing  
disinfection in their farms. Analysis of sanitation and disinfection of poultry house revealed that 4 (13%) of  
poultry farmers disinfected their farm every three months and every six month respectively. Only 2 (6%)  
disinfected theirs after each flocks, while 18 (56%) did not practice disinfection at all. This result indicated  
poor attitude to poultry hygiene in the area.  
Darre (2014) stated that decontamination of poultry house is crucial to prevent Marek’s disease,  
Mycoplamosis, respiratory viruses, E-coli, Salmonella enteritidis,¸mites and other poultry health problems.  
By principle, disinfection of pen house should be carried out regularly, so as to bring down the microbial  
load in a poultry house and the farm environment. Darre (2014) recommended that poultry house should be  
washed and disinfected after each flock or a minimum of once a year. It is noteworthy that, application of  
disinfectants such as Polidine, Neodine and Iodersteryl, helps to reduce general microbial loads that can  
infects both poultry and humans. Not keeping to this standard gives opportunity to risk of spread of  
pathogens within such environment and put public health at risk of zoonotic infections.  
Page 455  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
Poultry Waste Management Practice in Kubwa  
The study revealed poor poultry waste management in the district. Figure 4 shows the result of how poultry  
waste was being managed in Kubwa. Indeed, all the farms visited did not observe good waste management  
practices. Poultry wastes were left unattended for days. Some farms (25%) stored their waste in the pen  
house where the birds live with the hope of selling them later as manure for crop farmers, while others (25%)  
burnt them in the open. Yet few others (13%) spread them in the open to dry for manure. Most of the farms  
(37%) either dumped their poultry waste in the drainage and water bodies especially during rainy season  
when it was difficult to dry the waste for sale.The dangers of improper management of poultry waste have  
been documented. According to Rahman, et al (2022), poultry waste was contributing to global climate  
change by emitting greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide, CO2 , and CH4 , through microbial activity and  
changes in temperature, pH, moisture, and oxygen concentrations. They confirmed that these air pollutants  
could have a significant negative impact on both human and animal health, and may lead to a variety of  
illnesses like nose discomfort, breathing issues, and coughing; while long-term exposure may lead to allergic  
reactions and negative effects on life span. Nwanya, et al (2023) confirmed that poultry workers were at  
greater risk of lung function impairment and airway obstructions due to exposure to air pollution in their  
work environment. In their study, they observed that air quality in the selected poultry farms in Imo State  
(South East Nigeria), was very poor due to poor poultry waste management.  
In Kubwa, the practices of burning of poultry waste in the open and dumping in drainage and bodies of  
surface water were very worrisome, with serious environmental health consequences. Open burning of waste  
of any kind is said to be responsible for 11% of global black carbon emissions and contribute to 5-12% of  
total global green-house gas emission (Climate Champions & Engineering X (2022). Indeed, Ramadan, et al  
(2023) observed that open burning of waste served as a source of particulate matter and black carbon  
possessed a greater greenhouse effect potential than CO2. The health consequences of air pollution as a  
result of open waste burning are very serious. According to Seriki and Maag (2019), open burning of waste  
was responsible for high level of unintended Persistent Organic Pollutants (uPOPs) in the environment,  
capable of causing cancer, respiratory diseases, skin irritation, poor cognitive development in children, etc.  
Akporube, et al (2023) observed that excessive production of waste from poultry farms and its improper  
disposal has led to air pollution and contamination of surface and groundwater, which has become a major  
public health concern to the society. According to them, improper disposal of poultry waste affects poultry  
farmers, individuals residing close to the farms, and the environment. Therefore, as highlighted by Seriki and  
Maag (2019) and Nwanya, et al (2023), there is obvious pending danger of health consequences due to air  
pollution as poultry farms in Kubwa were very close to residential buildings.  
Dumping of poultry waste in drainage and particularly in water bodies in Kubwa is another major concern.  
This practice may lead to contamination of surface and ground water. Such has been the case elsewhere.  
Interestingly, Taiwo, et al, (2013) found some heavy metals including Nitrate, Phosphate, Lead, Cadmium,  
Zinc, etc, and high Coliform in body of water where poultry wastes were discharged in a study they  
conducted in Abeokuta, Nigeria; even after the farm has been closed down before their study. The poor  
management of poultry waste constitute nuisance and give room for microorganism and flies to act on them,  
leading to decomposition and transfer of pathogens from one point to another. Also, there were cases of  
contact of farm attendants with the wastes. Such practices may contribute significantly to the spread of  
poultry related diseases.  
Furthermore, these wastes can pose serious social, environmental and public health problems. Ordour from  
exposed poultry remains can pollute ambient air quality. Decomposed and littered poultry wastes do release  
gases such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen sulphide and nitrous oxide, especially when  
exposed to water and heat, which may pollute the air. As noted, some of these gases may reach toxic levels if  
adequate ventilation is not maintained within the farm house, (FAO, 2021). The various antibiotic remains  
found in poultry waste could be possible triggers for antimicrobial resistance, which is yet a major public  
health concern today (Bamidele, et al, 2022 and Abreu, et al, 2023).  
Page 456  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
Rahman, et al (2022) have stated that the constant production of poultry waste causes environmental  
annoyances that were hazardous to animal and human health. This is more so when the poultry farms are  
close to human population as they are in Kubwa. They further stated that poultry farms have been linked to  
poor air quality and environmental degradation due to high atmospheric ammonia emitted from poultry litter.  
Generally, it was overserved that even though Section 20 (a) of the Animal Disease (Control) Act, provide  
for all establishment (poultry farm with bird population of 250) shall comply to biosecurity plan, none of the  
farm visited complied with this legal provision. Furthermore, none of the farm also complied with the  
requirements of engaging a Veterinarian and obtaining a license from the DVS for their operations. Indeed,  
there is a yawning gap between legal provision and enforcement in the area as regard poultry production.  
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
Conclusion  
The study confirmed that the increasing need to meet food protein requirement has led to increase number of  
persons venturing into poultry production as an economic stop-gap but with little or no biosecurity  
consciousness. This gap was capable of exposing large human and animal population to risk of zoonotic  
disease outbreak if care was not taken. All the farms studied were unable to meet basic biosecurity standard,  
thereby exposing the bird population, their immediate family members and the general public to bird-related  
infections. Unhealthy sanitary activities within and around the farms, non-utilization of PPEs by poultry  
farmers, poor poultry waste management, as well as location of poultry farms within build-up areas  
exacerbate this risk and is a call for concern. The utilization of spatial technology in this study has  
demonstrated how human-animal-environment interface can be better monitored to safeguard public health.  
Therefore, the study concludes that if the current state of affairs in poultry production persist in the area,  
there is great risk of poultry related zoonotic disease outbreak in Kubwa area.  
Recommendations  
From the data gathered and presented in this study, it is hereby recommended that the Abuja Environmental  
Protection Board (AEPB) should issue and enforce regulations on proper siting of poultry farms within the  
Territory, while Agriculture Extension Workers should be empowered to monitor and train poultry farmers  
to adopt biosecurity measures in their farms.  
Page 457  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  
This work was extracted from the MSc Dissertation titled: The Risk of Zoonotic Infections Resulting from  
the Production and Consumption of Poultry Products in Kubwa, Abuja by Andrew N. Reigns in the  
Department of Public Health, National Open University of Nigeria.  
REFERENCES  
1. Abiodun, A., Sunday, O., and Olajide F., (2020). Poultry Production in Nigeria: Exploiting its  
Potentials for Rural Youth Empowerment and Entreneurship, Journal of Agriculture and  
Sustainability, Vol. 4, (1) Pp. 52-66.  
2. Abreu, R.; Semedo-Lemsaddek, T.; Cunha, E.; Tavares, L.; Oliveira, M. (2023). Antimicrobial Drug  
Resistance in Poultry Production: Current Status and Innovative Strategies for Bacterial Control.  
3. Abudukadir M., and Barder F.K., (2020). Using GIS for Disease Mapping and Clustering in Jeddah,  
Saudi Arabia, Special Issue for GIS in Healthcare, Journal of Geo-information Science Vol. 4, P.234  
4. Akintunde, O.K., Adeoti A.I. (2018). Assessment of Factors Affecting the Level of Poultry Disease  
Management in Sothwest Nigeria, Trends in Agricultural Economy, Vol. 7, Pp 41-56.  
5. Akporube, K.A., Kalu E. Ikpendu C., Edward I.G. (2023). Nigeria Poultry waste Management in  
Nigeria: a neglected sector. Jour. of Sustainable Veterinary and Allied Sciences. Vol 4, Issue 2: 137-  
145.  
6. Ameji, O. N., Abdul, P. A., Saidu L., and Ochepa, I. (2022). Knowledge of Poultry Disease,  
Biosecurity and Husbandry Practices among Stakeholders in Poultry Production in Kogi state, Nigeria.  
Sokoto journal of veterinary science, Vol. 10 (2) Pp. 26-31.  
7. Balafu, D., Ninsiima, L. R., Tamale, B. N., Bagumuma, J. N., Namakula, L. N., Niyongabo F., Ndejjo,  
R and Musoke, D. (2023). Awareness of Occupational Biohazards and Utilization of PPE among  
Workers in Hazardous Environment: A Case of Fecal-waste Management Plants in Uganda. Book of  
Abstracts, 11th Conference of Environmental Health Scientists of Nigeria, pg 51.  
8. Bamidele, O.; Yakubu, A.; Joseph, E.B.; Amole, T.A. (2022). Antibiotic Resistance of Bacterial  
Isolates from Smallholder Poultry Droppings in the Guinea Savanna Zone of Nigeria. Antibiotics, 11,  
973. https:// doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11070973.  
9. Bilal, G., Khaled, C., Khatib, K., (2017). A Poultry Farming Control System Using a Zig-based  
Wireless Sensor Network, International Journal of Control and Automation, Vol. 10 (9) P. 191- 198  
10. CDC and WHO (2017). National Archives; Live Science reporting.  
11. Charles M., W. (2017). Location, Siting and Concentration of Poultry units. North Carolina State  
University, Department of Poultry Science, Raleigh NC, United States of America (FAO pub.)  
12. Charles, L. (2021). Total Poultry Population by Agriculture Zone in Nigeria, Data on Poultry.  
13. Chenchuck, A. M., (2022). Poultry Farming in Nigeria: How to Get Started. Babban Gona,  
www.babbangona.com/poultry-farming-in-nigeria-how-to-get-started  
14. Crow  
R.  
(2021).Health  
Risks  
of  
Living  
Near  
a
Chicken  
Farm  
Explained.  
chickenandchicksinfo.com/health-risks-of-living-near-a-chicken-farm. (Accessed 29 Dec 2024).  
15. Climate Champions & Engineering X (2022). A Clarion call to Reduce and Phase out Open Waste  
Burning. www. climatechampions.unfccc.int/a-clarion-call-to-reduce-and-phase-out-of-open-waste-  
burning. Accessed 30/12/24.  
16. Darre  
M.  
(2014).  
Cleaning  
and  
Disinfecting  
your  
Poultry  
House.  
Cornel  
CALS.  
www.smallfarms.cornell.edu/2014/04/cleaning-and -disinfecting. (Accessed 30/12/24).  
17. FAO, (2017) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, retrieved from  
https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/176955EN/  
18. FAO, (2020). Gateway to Poultry Production and Products; Special Focus on Information on the  
Global Poultry Sector, http://www.fao.org  
19. FAO, (2021) The Food and Agricultural Organization: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021,  
Retrieved from: www.fao.gov.ng  
Page 458  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue II February 2025  
20. Joanna, V., and Xavier, A. (2018). Emerging Infectious Disease Literatures and the  
ZombieConditions, Center for Disease Control, 24:1774  
21. Marisa, V. (2019). Poultry and Poultry Products – Risk for Human health. Journal of Poultry  
Development Review  
22. Myers, A. (2023). Ensuring Safety and Livability Distance between Poultry Farms and Residences.  
Travel Twek, traveltweaks.com/ensuring-safety-and-livability-distance-between-poultry-farms-and-  
residences-47456/.  
23. Municipal Ordinance No. 18 S. 2020, Regulating The Operation Of Piggery And Poultry Farms In  
The Municipality Of Burgos, Ilocos Sur of the Philippine. (Accessed 12/10/ 2024, 10:43:32).  
24. Nwanya, F. C., Bada, B. S., Oyebanji, F. F., & Fanolu, A. O. (2023). Effects of Poultry Production on  
Air Quality and Human Health in Selected Agricultural Zones of Imo State. Book of Abstracts, 11th  
Conference of Environmental Health Scientists of Nigeria, pg 78.  
25. Rahman M. M., Hassan A., Hossain I., Jahangir M. M. R., Chowdhury E. H., Parvin R. (2022).  
Current State of Poultry Waste Management Practices in Bangladesh, Environmental Concerns, and  
Future Recommendations. J Adv Vet Anim Res; 9(3):490–500.  
26. Ramadan, B.S., Rosmalina, R.T., Syafrudin, Munawir, Khair, H., Rachman, I., Matsumoto, T. (2023).  
Potential Risks of Open Waste Burning at the Household Level: A Case Study of Semarang,  
Indonesia. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 23, 220412. doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220412.  
27. Regulations for Breeder Farms, Hatchery Operations and Day Old Chicks Quality in Nigeria, 18 of  
2020.  
28. Republic of the Philippines. Resolution No. R. 674: the Implementing Rules and Regulations  
Governing the Processing of Applications for Locational Clearance of Poultry and Piggery, 2000.  
29. Seriki Y. and Maag J. (2019). Risks of open burning to health and environment. UNITAR.  
stopopenburning.unitar.org/site/assets/files/1014/1-risks_from_open_waste_burning-sep19-  
30. Shelton J. (2022). Why Chicken House Should Not Be Close To Residential Are  
www.sweetishhill.com/why-chicken-house-should-not-be-close-to-residential-areas/  
31. Taiwo, A. M., Adekunle, I., Arowolo, T., and Adetunji, M. T. (2013). Evaluating the Environmental  
Impacts of Poultry Farming on Stream Water Quality: A Study from Abeokuta, Nigeria.  
Environmental  
Quality  
Management,  
DOI:  
10.1002/tqem.21344.  
/www.researchgate.net/publication/264225416; accessed 22/11/23.  
32. Tsado, J.H., Ajayi, O.J., Fatoki, P., Mohammed, H. U. and Mercy, O. (1017). Agricultural Information  
Systems and Communication Networks: The Case of Poultry Farmers in the Federal Capital Territory  
Abuja, Nigeria. Ethiopian Jour. of Environmental Studies & Mgt 10 (3): 276-285. doi:  
https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejesm.v10i3.1  
33. UPSC (2022). Poultry Farms Establishment Rules. civilsdaily.com/news/poultry-farm-establishment-  
rules/#:~:text=Location Accessed 29 Dec 2024).  
34. WHO,  
www.who.int/influenza/human_animal _interphase/en/  
35. WHO, (2019). Cumulative Number of Confirmed Human Cases for Avian Influence A(H5N1)  
Reported to WHO, 2003-2019,  
www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/2019_02_tableH5N1.Pdf  
(2018).  
Avian  
and  
other  
Zoonotic  
Influenza:  
available  
at  
36. Yamane, T., (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Edition, New York: Harper and Row.  
37. Your Quick Advice (2021). Why poultry farm should be distanced from residential areas?  
yourquickadvice.com/why-poultry-farm-should-be-distanced-from-residential-areas. Accessed 30th  
Dec 2024).  
38. Yisheng, S. (2019). Chinese Chicken Farmers Expects 2,700% Profit Leap. Bloomberg Business  
News  
Page 459  
www.rsisinternational.org