Study zone

The state of Guerrero is located in the south of the Mexican Republic. It is made up of seven economic regions with a variety of climates like warm sub-humid, semi-warm, temperate and temperate sub-humid. Of the population, 58 % is urban, 42 % rural, and 15 out of 100 people who are older than five years old are speakers of some indigenous language (^{INEGI, 2011}).

After Chiapas, Guerrero is the state with the highest proportion of inhabitants under conditions of poverty (69.7 %) and extreme poverty (31.7 %) in all of México. By 2012, of the 3.5 million inhabitants in the state, 39.4 % showed scarcity over access to food (^{CONEVAL, 2013}).

Sources of information and collection instruments

Between 2007 and 2009, 6,909 poultry production projects were supported with resources from PESA. Of the 2,268 that corresponded to the 2009 exercise, a random sample of 329 Family Poultry Production Units (UAPF) was selected, with 95 % reliability and 5 % precision, through sampling of proportions with maximum variance. From this sample only 107 projects had at least one year of having been implemented and they were the ones that the first survey was applied to in December 2010. In this first sample, 39 UAPFs were found with 18 months of operation and 68 others with 30 months.

With the aim of following up on these UAPFs, in June 2012 a second questionnaire was applied to 51 units located in the localities and regions with highest number of poultry production projects from the original sample. Ten projects were found that had 36 months of operation and 41 with 48 months. The structure of the questionnaires applied is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Structure of the questionnaires used to collect information. 

Source: authors’ elaboration with elements from the surveys applied.

The availability of the grain was calculated as the percentage of requirements of the UAPF that could be supplied with the grain production by the family; therefore, it is zero for those who do not produce grain and depend totally on the purchase and 100 % for those who are self-sufficient throughout the year.

The qualitative variables were categorized with values of 0 and 1, forming two groups; group 1 for the UAPFs that presented the attribute of interest and 0 when it was another option.

Analysis of information

The UAPFs were grouped according to their statuses, which were defined by considering the percentage change of the initial flock (sum of the existing flock before PESA, plus the birds granted by the program) compared to the moment of application of the second survey (Table 2). In some analysis, the two first statuses were grouped as UAPFs with “undesirable” status, while the two remaining ones were grouped as UAPFs with “desirable” status.

Table 2 Criteria used for the definition of statuses of the poultry production projects. 

For the comparative analysis of seasonal changes, statistical descriptors were used with the quantitative variables of study, while for the impact of each one of the variables on the status of the UAPFs, a variance analysis (VA) was performed, and later Scheffé tests for means comparison. The information of economic character was transformed into US Dollars, considering the average exchange rate during the period of execution of the projects (1 USD was equal to 12.06 Mexican pesos). SAS was used for the analysis (^{SAS, 2004}).

Profile of the families who operate the UAPFs

The families which participate in the program are made up of four members, whose head of household is 45 years old in average, 20 % of whom are younger than 30 years and 14 % older than 60. The average schooling is four years of effective study. Their predominant activity is agriculture and livestock production in 46 % of the cases. In the second place, there are families whose main source of income is workdays, representing 19 %.

Before the intervention by PESA, poultry production was an activity practiced by 89 % of the families, with an average of 13 Creole birds, but with broad variation, since 46 % had 10 or less and only 17 % had a flock of 25 or more birds. The production was directed fundamentally at auto-consumption and occasionally the excess was sold. Management of the birds was done under a traditional system with Creole birds, in the household’s courtyard and outdoors, which exposed the flock to predators. The diet was based on kitchen scraps, a situation similar to what was reported by ^{Reist et al. (2007)}; also vegetables and insects that the birds collected on the field, without sanitary control, but without relevant problems of disease due to the resistance and adaptation of the birds to the local conditions.

A production system of these characteristics does not demand much time and work from the family, or significant monetary disbursements, since it is developed with materials and inputs available in the locality, taking advantage of the work of women and children. Bird breeding was performed with the aim of obtaining eggs to be incubated, for consumption and occasionally for their sale.

This production system is common in marginalized rural regions of the world, where family poultry production also does not represent an important source of income. The broad diffusion of the system is due to its low cost and small demands in management, its low contribution to the income is the result of not having important scales of production, for in general the families have less than 20 birds, which does not allow having production excesses to allocate to the market (^{Khieu, 1999}; ^{Kyvsgaard et al., 1999}; ^{Dolberg, 2003}). In addition, limited productive parameters are achieved, such as periods of 180 to 210 days to begin egg-laying (^{Castañeda Naranjo, 2000}; ^{Centeno et al., 2007}) and short productive cycles that barely allow obtaining between 60 and 65 eggs per year (^{Castañeda Naranjo, 2000}; ^{Mengesha, 2013}).

The intervention approach by PESA

PESA public subsidies in Guerrero consisted in the delivery of materials for the construction of a gallery or henhouse made of sheet, mesh, concrete and cement blocks, as well as improved-breed birds for the production of egg and meat. The families contributed local materials for the construction and workforce. In contrast with other programs, the correct application and use of these resources is supervised in PESA by the ADRs. The intention was to significantly transform the production system, increasing its scale and improving the intensity. The program fixed the incentive of granting annual supports for poultry production or a different productive activity for the families that could maintain the projects in operation for three years, situation that was also supervised by the ADRs, but once the period concluded the supports would be stopped and the technical-operative accompaniment by the agencies interrupted.

This intervention is different from other international experiences, where the promotion of backyard poultry production rests in the provision of technical services, micro-financing, accessibility to medicine and vaccines, and only exceptionally, improved-breed birds are delivered to the families (^{Huq and Mallik, 1999}; ^{Kumtakar, 1999}).

Supplying the birds was carried out by two companies, which, at the time of the delivery, did not have the sufficient production capacity and delivered birds that were even only one week old, when the age agreed upon and recommended to reduce risks of mortality was at least six weeks of age. This caused for families to have to wait up to seven months for the birds to begin laying eggs, which translated into a reduction of the original size of the flock from mortality and from difficulties to feed them with the resources available.

In the first survey, at least 40 % of the families reported having received sick birds, although the delivery of vaccinated birds was stipulated to prevent the most common diseases such as Newcastle and avian flu. This problem was also detected by ^{Yúnez Naude and Taylor (2009)}, who in the results from their evaluation mention that in some localities the households received animals in bad conditions which died before providing any benefit to the families.

In addition, uneven flocks were delivered in terms of the male/female rate⁴, situation that could only be verified once the birds grew, since at the time of receiving them they were too young and it was not possible to differentiate them based on sex.

The average investment in the first year for each UAPF was 699.90 USD, of which 583.70 USD were allotted for infrastructure and 116.20 USD to acquire birds. Some families received subsidies for the same project in a second and up to a third year as long as they participated in the program, so the total amounts of government support could be higher. Each UAPF received 32 birds in average, although there was variation depending on the region of study; for example, in the Mountain the average flock was 20 birds, while in the Costa Chica the average was 45.

Evolution of the status of UAPFs

Figure 1 shows that the “undesirable” status of the UAPFs registered a growing trend from the very moment when the intervention begins. However, most of the projects stayed in operation during the first 30 months in face of the incentive of receiving more subsidies, but once the three years of support have been accumulated, the status of “not operating” shows a drastic increase in face of the certainty that there will be no more subsidies. Only those UAPFs which are truly attractive from the economic point of view, and which provide relevant benefits to the families “remain” and “grow”.

Source: authors’ elaboration from data collected on the field in 2010 and 2012.

Figure 1 Change in status of the UAPFs with operation time. 

This situation was also analyzed by ^{Martínez-González et al. (2013)} in goat production units, and they found that facing the incentive of receiving infrastructure or animals anew, the families kept the goat flocks stable or slowly decreasing, despite operating with little or no economic benefit.

Explicative factors of the change in status of the UAPFs

In addition to external factors, such as the environmental conditions in each region, the intervention strategy by PESA and the quality of the supply of goods and services, there are internal factors in the UAPFs that also explain the statuses (Table 3). In this sense, the age and schooling of the head of the household, the number of family members and the size of the flock present before the intervention were not determinant of the status, while the grain availability and the percentage of production allotted to sales do explain the differences in statuses; this does not agree with ^{Emaikwu et al. (2011)}, who reported that in Kaduna, Nigeria, variables such as experience and schooling are related directly with the size of the flock, while variables like age of the producers and size of the family were inversely related. Previously, ^{Adebayo and Adeola (2005)} had found that access to financing and level of schooling had a positive relation with poultry production, and that access to extension services was a limiting factor of production.

Table 3 Characteristics of the UAPFs and their relation with the status of poultry production projects in 2012. 

Source: authors’ elaboration with field information 2012.

Sig*: Level of significance according to Scheffé’s test; NS: Non-significant at < 0.05 of probability.

For example, the “not operating” status presents average grain availability below 20 % of the annual requirements by the UAPFs, while the statuses “desirable” (“remains” and “grows”) have average grain availability above 60 %. This evidence suggests that in order to achieve satisfactory results in a strategy of promotion of family poultry production, it is essential to guarantee the grain availability above 60 % of the flock’s requirements, since when there is a reliance on purchasing food, it is unviable and unsustainable to produce egg and meat under backyard conditions, which agrees with other findings reported in various studies (^{Centeno et al., 2007}; ^{Morales, 2010}; ^{Zaragoza et al., 2011}; ^{Oladunni and Fatuase, 2014}); also, they are more vulnerable when there is an increase in food prices (^{Dorward, 2013}; ^{Levin and Vimefall, 2015}).

On the other hand, although in the PESA strategy poultry production claims to contribute to family self-sufficiency, the results suggest that the “desirable” statuses are associated to UAPFs that assign greater volumes of their production to selling. That is, the incentive of generating income is fundamental for the family for the projects to remain.

A third factor associated to this that influences the statuses in a determinant manner is the demand for liquid money to sustain the expenses for medicines and in particularly for bird food, in the case of not producing enough maize. Thus, the UAPFs with status “remain” demand in average 39.60 USD per month and this amount increases in those with “growing” status up to 54.30 USD, which explains the relevance of selling a part of the production.

It is at this level where families face the dilemma of guaranteeing the birds’ diet, allotting part of their meagre income in cash, or channeling the income available to support the family. Facing this dilemma, they generally opt for the second and attention towards the birds decreases or the project is abandoned because of the high cost of opportunity. In this regard ^{Khieu (1999)}, estimates that providing balanced meals to a flock of between 10 and 15 birds per year could be equivalent to feeding a person for six months. This only considers the costs of feeding a flock, without including the possible benefits that could be obtained from producing meat and eggs to feed the family.

Effectivity of the intervention by PESA

To estimate the effectiveness of the intervention, Table 4 shows the dynamics of the average flock for all the UAPFS and for the different statuses. The results obtained reveal that the average size of the existing flock at 48 months after the beginning of the PESA intervention was 108 % higher than the one without PESA. This suggests that it is possible to duplicate the productive capacity in eggs and poultry meat after four years of intervention in poor families, through a strategy of investment that considers the delivery of improved-breed birds, infrastructure for lodging and training.

Table 4 Dynamics of the average flock for the different statuses at 48 months since their implementation. 

Source: authors’ elaboration with field information 2012.

However, when analyzing the dynamics of the flock taking into consideration the four statuses formed for this study, it is observed that this growth above 100 % from the original flock is shown by only 29 % of the families supported by the program, since the remaining 71 % of the UAPFs show a decrease in the flock with a clear tendency to disappear or else it had already disappeared completely 48 months after the PESA intervention began.

These findings suggest that an approach of massive promotion is not justified, and that better focalization of the intervention is needed, taking as priority those families that fulfill a profile that transcends simple eligibility criteria as families: “those who want”, which are in conditions of poverty, or which already have birds. The minimum desirable profile that families must fulfill to guarantee the effectiveness of a strategy for promotion of backyard poultry production would be: 1) to produce at least 60 % of the annual grain needs of the flock; 2) to have family support consisting in workforce and at least 40 USD per month for the purchase of inputs; and 3) have possibilities for the sale of part of the production, which implies producing above the requirements for auto-consumption and having conditions for access to local markets.

In addition to the waste of public resources, the lack of focalization translates into an even greater impoverishment of the families in terms of income, for they incur in higher production costs than the net benefits obtained or of the prices at which the same product could be purchased in the open market. This implies that when a public policy is directed at the poor, the issue of production should be considered, in addition to taking seriously into account the operative restrictions that families face to produce their own foods, and not only valuation criteria linked to the deficit in foods, patterns of food consumption, or the prior existence of some birds in the backyard. Failing to consider these types of findings contravenes the objective by which small-scale livestock production has been widely used, for as has been indicated (^{FAO, 2011}; ^{FAO 2013}), these projects represent an option to reach food security.

In this regard, ^{De Janvry and Sadoulet (2000)} point out that, among the pathways to overcome rural poverty, agricultural and livestock production have viability only for those who have enough natural capital, and under market, institutional and policy contexts that allow the profitable use of this productive asset. On the other hand, ^{Ashley and Carney (1999)} mention that according to the experience generated by programs of productive promotion in Kenya, it is necessary to involve only the families interested and that have the necessary resource endowment for the projects and not all the families in conditions of poverty. Likewise, according to the South Asia Pro Poor Livestock Policy Programme, delivering improved-breed birds to families that live in marginalized zones is a good decision if what is sought is to increase the egg and meat production in a short time, but this pathway is not an option for most of the small-scale producers, when what is sought is to foster self-sustainable poultry production systems (^{SAPPLPP, 2010}). That is, in order to be successful in the promotion of backyard poultry production projects; social, commercial, credit, and cultural factors should be considered, and naturally also technical aspects (^{Riise et al., 2005}).

These recommendations and the findings of this study contrast with the conclusions from various evaluations practiced on PESA in Guerrero. In fact, ^{Yúnez and Taylor (2009)} point out that the population supported by PESA had a mean production, sale and auto-consumption of eggs higher than the families that were not supported by the program, and that the most consistent positive impact of PESA was the one that corresponds to the diet from consumption of poultry meat. In turn, ^{Serna Hidalgo and Ordaz (2011)} reported that the program increased the income of families supported by 14 % compared to those that were not beneficiaries of the program. On the other hand, ^{Pastrana Peláez (2011)} mentioned that around 42 % of the production units with operating projects manifested improvements in their food situation, in addition to receiving income from the sale of excess product.

What these evaluations overlook is that, although families supported by PESA could have registered higher production and income than the families that are not beneficiaries, this situation is only present in a third of the families, since in the rest the bird flock completely disappears or decreases drastically after 48 months of the intervention. Likewise, given that the prior evaluations were practiced at a time when the families were still in their first and second year of backing, of the three years considered, they had incentives to maintain the operation of the projects even when they were not sustainable.

In addition to this, ^{Banerjee et al. (2015)} conclude that it is possible to improve the income and welfare of poor families in a sustainable manner by using a multifaceted intervention approach. The authors systematize evidences from projects implemented in 10 495 households in six countries, where before the families received the support assets they had training and practice in technical (management, nutrition and health of the livestock) and administrative (business management) matters. In addition to the assets (primarily goats, chickens and sheep), they also received assistance in savings and credit schemes, as well as public health services for members of the family.