Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 ISSN: 2073-9524 eISSN: 2310-8746 87 Status of Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices in Kwara State, Nigeria John O. Ifabiyi 1 , G. Opeyemi 2 , Ibrahim K. Banjoko 3 1 University of Ilorin, Nigeria. 2 Kogi State University, Nigeria. 3 Kwara State Polytechnic, Nigeria . 1 Corresponding author: oluwaseunifabiyi@gmail.com Article history: Received: 14 September 2022 Accepted: 24 October 2022 Published: 30 December 2022 Abstract This study examined the status of climate smart small ruminant production practices in Kwara State, Nigeria. About 105 small ruminant breeders were selected for the study. The data were analysed the use of frequency count, percentage, mean score, Binary Logistic Regression and Pearson product moment correlation. The result revealed that about 60% of the breeders were females and the mean years of experience in small ruminant production was 7 years. The result of most of the frequently used climate smart small ruminant production practices of the respondents showed that provision of medication to sick animals and cultivation of crops along with rearing of animals (90.5%), feeding with supplementary feeds, isolation of sick animals and vaccination of animals (92.4%); provision of shade through Planting of trees to reduce heat stress (93.3%); feeding with crop residues and building and maintenance of pens (96.2%) and grazing on pasture/grassland (97.1%). About 90.5% of the breeders have high status on the use of climate smart small ruminant production practices. Disease outbreak and high mortality (mean=2.07) was the highest ranked factors affecting the small ruminant breeders. The result of Binary Logistic Regression showed that educational level (B=3.985), membership of social group (B=6.083), access to extension services (B= 13.941) and years of experience (B= -0.544) were the determinant factors of the use of climate smart small ruminants production practices. This study therefore recommends that breeders should be provided with veterinary services and extension services. Keywords: Status, Climate Smart, Small Ruminant Farmers, Goats, Sheep https://dx.doi.org/10.52951/dasj.22140209 This article is open-access under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Introduction Climate change is emerging chal¬lenge limiting food security and sustainable development (Allen et al., 2014). The continuous change in climatic conditions and unsustainable use of natural resources has adversely affected livelihoods of people all over the universe. The change in climatic conditions has led to changes in rainfall patterns, excessive flooding and landslides (IPCC, 2007). Climate change has resulted in overall decrease in small ruminant production and increased the risk of famine (FAO, 2008). Climate change refers to alteration in the incidence of extremes of climate over a long period of time (IPCC, 2001). It includes long- standing events such as variations in temperature and precipitation patterns (Boko et al., 2007). The small ruminant production is an important source of food and income for many rural people in West Africa (Kristjanson, et al., 2014 and Nyberg et al., 2015). The Small ruminant production contributes to food security and livelihoods in developing countries like Nigeria (FAO, 2019, Duku et al., 2011). According to Otaru and Iyiola-Tunji, (2014) small ruminant animals such as sheep and goats belong to the genus, Ovis and Capra respectively and have four chambered stomachs. Small ruminants are like cattle because they chew the cud or regurgitate and ruminate. The population of mailto:oluwaseunifabiyi@gmail.com http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3130-7123 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8275-8370 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1685-2243 Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 88 goat and sheep in Nigeria was estimated to be 76 million goats and 43.4 million sheep (FMARD, 2017). The products of goat and sheep are meat and milk for consumption, and hides for leather industry. Considering the significance of the small ruminants to food security and in order to reduce the climatic risks and threats affecting small ruminant production, it is imperative to come up with strategies to reduce the effects on small ruminants’ production. Also, to ensure that small ruminants’ production practice is sustainable. Therefore, it is vital to utilize the Climate Smart Strategy which is obtainable in Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices. Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices are aimed to support food security taking into account the need for adaptation and the potential for mitigation. Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production approach involve the use of practices which increases resilience and stability in small ruminant production thereby helping farmers adapt to climate change risks (Oladele, 2015). Climate smart small ruminant production practices refers to agricultural approach that sustainably increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gases emission (mitigation), and enhances achievement of national food security and development goals (FAO, 2010). Climate smart small ruminant production approach serve as a guide to the needed changes of agricultural systems, given the necessity to jointly address food security and climate change (Long et al., 2016). The climate smart small ruminant production practices are expected to boost adaptive capacity, food security, and contribute to climate change mitigation in resource-poor smallholder farming systems like Nigeria. The increasing focus on the adaptation of small ruminant farming to climate change indicates the need for climate smart small ruminant production practices which could help build resilience and see to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and their negative effects. Climate Smart Small ruminant production practices would address the challenges of building synergies between the related objectives of climate change mitigation, adaptation and productivity and income increase, and minimizing their potential negative trade- offs (Onada and Ogunola, 2016). The widespread changes in climatic conditions threaten food production and livelihoods of many people in agriculture. There is increased exposure of people dependent on small ruminant production to hunger and poverty. There is need to examine the status of climate smart practices among the breeders as the adoption of potentially beneficial practices had been described to be low (Arslan et al., 2013). Application of climate smart small ruminant production practices could increase the farmers’ output and income, and enhance resilience and mitigation to climate change. Based on the changing environmental and socio-economic factors, there is need to carryout systematic research on small ruminants’ production practices (Kosgey and Okeyo, 2007; Rege et al., 2011). There seems to be paucity of information on the use of climate smart small ruminant production practices in the Kwara State, Nigeria. This creates a great lacuna in knowledge and this is the gap this study seeks to fill. Therefore, there is a need to examine the status of climate smart small ruminant production practices in Kwara State, Nigeria. The specific Objectives were to: 1) Identify the socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents in the study area. Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 89 2) Investigate the climate smart small ruminant production practices used by the respondents. 3) Assess the factors affecting small ruminant production in the study Area. Hypotheses of the study: Hypothesis 1 (HO1)-There is no significant relationship between some selected socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and the climate smart small ruminant production practices. Hypothesis 2 (HO2)-There is no significant relationship between the factors affecting small ruminant production practices and the climate smart small ruminant production practices. Methodology The study was conducted in Ilorin East local government Area of Kwara State, Nigeria Which is one of the sixteen (16) Local government Areas in the State and is one of the local government Areas that constitute Ilorin metropolis. The total numbers of the respondents for the study consist of 105 breeders which were randomly selected from seven communities in Kwara State. Nigeria. The climate smart small ruminant production practice was measured on a scale of Yes and No where: Yes = 1 and No = 0. In order to determine the respondents’ Status/Level of use of climate smart small ruminants’ production practices, any respondents that utilized at least 18 of the climate smart small ruminants production practices (represents more than 50 %) of the practices is considered as High Status while any respondent that used less than 18 of the climate smart small ruminants production practices (represents less than 50 %) is considered as Low Status. For Binary Logistic regression analysis, any respondent that utilized at least 18 (represents 50 % and above) of the climate smart small ruminant production practices was assigned a qualitative value of 1 and any respondent that utilized less than 18 of the practices (represents less than 50 %) was assigned a qualitative value of 0. The factors were measured using three-point Likert type scale of Not a Factor = 1, Less Severe = 2, Highly Severe = 3. Descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentage and means were used to analyse the finding of the study. The Binary logistic regression and Pearson product moment correlation (PPMC) was used for the inferential statistics. Results and Discussion The Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents The result in Table 1 showed that 60% of the breeders were females. This implies that small ruminant production is dominated by females in the study area. This result is in contrast with the findings of Banjoko, et al., (2021) who reported that about 57.5 % of the breeders in Moro LGA of Kwara State, Nigeria were males. The result also showed that the mean age of the breeders was 35.3 years. This implies that the small ruminant breeders were relatively young and agile. The result in table 1 showed that most (75.2%) of the respondents were married. About 47.6% had secondary education and about 28.6% had tertiary education. This implies that majority of the respondents were expected to be able to use the climate smart practices that require some level of literacy. Islam as indicated by 73.3% of the respondents as the dominant religion in the study area. The mean years of experience in small ruminants’ breeding practices were 7 years. The mean annual income of the respondents was N67, 272.38. This implies that small ruminant production is an important source of income for the breeders which could be combining with other supportive occupations. This result is in agreement with the findings of Banjoko, Ifabiyi, Komolafe and Opeyemi (2021) who reported that the mean annual income of Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 90 goat breeders was N65, 447.62. Slightly above half (58.1%) of the respondents do not belong to any social group/cooperative society. The main supportive occupation was trading (51.4%) and crop farming (18.1%). The result in Table 1 also showed that 81% of the respondents’ rear both sheep and goat while few only rear sheep (4.8%) and goat (14.3%). This means that most of the small ruminant breeders in the study area mainly rear both sheep and goat together. The mean number of small ruminants reared was 29 goats and 27 sheep. This shows that the breeders were smallholders. Furthermore, the main rearing system was semi-intensive system (64.8%). This may be attributed to the small number animal reared by respondents. Previous study in North central zone of Nigeria by Onuwa, Sunday, Ademiluyi and Chizoba (2020) reported that semi-intensive system of rearing small ruminant animal was the main system of rearing small ruminants among the smallholder farmers. The breeders’ main motive for production were for financial purpose (42.9%), consumption (17.1%) and for both financial and consumption purposes (40%). This implies that some of the small ruminant farmers in the study area had entrepreneurial mindset in engaging in the production for sales/commercial purpose. The main source of credit/finance was through personal savings (81.9%). About 67.6% of the breeders had no access to agricultural extension services in the study area. The implication of this is that breeders have inadequate access to extension services as the extension service delivery on small ruminants is inadequate in the study area. Poor extension contact was also reported by Onuwa, Sunday, Ademiluyi, and Chizoba (2020) as the major constraint to adoption of climate smart agriculture for goat production in Plateau State. Table 1. The Socio-economic Characteristics of the Respondents Variables Frequency (n=105) Percentage Mean (SD) I. Gender Male 42 40.0 Female 63 60.0 II. Age (years) 35.3 Years (7.858) 30 and below 25 23.8 31 – 40 62 59.0 41 – 50 14 13.3 51 – 60 3 2.9 61 and above 1 1.0 III. Marital Status Single 25 23.8 Married 79 75.2 Separated 0 0.0 Widowed 1 1.0 Divorced 0 0.0 IV. Educational Level No formal 11 10.5 Primary 14 13.3 Secondary 50 47.6 Tertiary 30 28.6 Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 91 V. Religion affiliation Christianity 28 26.7 Islam 77 73.3 VI. Annual Income from rearing of ruminant 67,272.38 (12,926.971) ≤ 100,000 94 89.5 100,001 - 300,000 6 5.7 300,001 – 600,000 4 3.8 ≥ 600,001 1 1.0 VII. Years of Breeding Experience 7 Years (5.311) ≤ 3 31 29.5 4 – 6 39 37.1 7 – 9 2 1.9 ≥ 10 33 31.4 VIII. Household Size 6 Persons (2.296) ≤ 3 16 15.2 4 – 6 72 68.6 7 – 9 14 13.3 ≥ 10 3 2.9 VIX. Membership of social group/cooperatives Yes 44 41.9 No 61 58.1 X. Other supportive occupation Cultivation of Crop 19 18.1 Trading 54 51.4 Civil servant 14 13.3 Artisan 17 16.2 None 1 1.0 XI. Small Ruminant type Sheep 5 4.8 Goat 15 14.3 Sheet and Goat 85 81.0 XII. Herd size Number of Goat: 29 (43.721) ≤ 50 97 92.4 51 – 100 4 3.8 Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 92 101 – 150 0 0.0 ≥ 150 4 3.8 Number of Sheep: 27(82.099) ≤ 50 98 93.3 51 – 100 1 1.0 101 – 150 1 1.0 ≥ 150 5 4.8 Total herd size ≤ 50 95 90.5 51 – 100 1 1.0 101 – 150 2 1.9 ≥ 150 7 6.7 XIII. Breeding system Intensive system 18 17.1 Semi-intensive system 68 64.8 Extensive system 19 18.1 XIV. Main Motive for Breeding Financial 45 42.9 Family consumption 18 17.1 Financial and family consumption 42 40.0 XV. Sources of credits Personal Savings 86 81.9 Family/neighbor 4 3.8 Friends 2 1.9 Cooperative society 9 8.6 Bank 4 3.8 XVI. Access to extension services Yes 34 32.4 No 71 67.6 Source: Field survey (2021). Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices The results in Table 2 showed that about 90% of the respondents were used provision of medication to sick animals, cultivation of crops along with rearing of animals (90.5%), feeding with supplementary feeds, isolation of sick animals and vaccination of animals (92.4%), provision of shade through Planting of trees to reduce heat stress (93.3%), use of crop residues as feeds and, building and maintenance of pens (96.2%) and grazing on pasture/grassland (97.1%). This implies that small ruminant farmers in study have accepted the reality of climate change and its adverse effects on small ruminant production. This assertion is in accordance with Ojo and Baiyegunhi, (2020) and Onuwa et al. (2020) who support the use of climate smart practices Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 93 because climate change has led to the reduction in flock performance through high infestation of pest and diseases, drought and scarcity of grazing land. Table 2. Climate smart small ruminant production practices used among respondents Climate Smart Practices Yes Frequency Percentage Production Practices  Rears high quality breed 81 77.1  Feeding with supplementary feeds 97 92.4  Grazing on pasture/grassland 102 97.1  Provision of salt lick 53 50.5  Hay production 51 48.6  Silage production 80 76.2  Care and management for new born animals 90 85.7  Deworming 93 88.6  Vaccination 97 92.4  Provision of medication to sick animals 95 90.5  Feeding with crop residues 101 96.2  Building and maintenance of pens 101 96.2  Provision of clean water 69 65.7  Regular cleaning of pen/house 58 55.2  Record keeping 52 49.5  Daily cleaning of all feeding and drinking equipment 80 76.2  Rotational grazing 94 89.5  Dipping/spraying to control tick, flies, mites and lice 90 85.7  Isolation of sick animals 97 92.4  Castration of animals 90 85.7  Milk extraction and processing 37 35.2 Adaption/Resilience Practices  Provision of shade through Planting of trees to reduce heat stress 98 93.3  Use of weather forecasting information 28 26.7  De-stocking during dry season 94 89.5  Storage of grass for the dry-season 91 86.7  Rears more than one species 92 87.6  Diversify livelihoods/supportive occupations 93 88.6  Stocks tolerant species 91 86.7  Farm insurance 73 69.5  Cultivation of crops along with rearing of animals 95 90.5  Membership of association/social group/cooperative societies 44 41.9 Mitigation/greenhouse gas reduction Practices Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 94  Regular compositing of dropping to prevent release of greenhouse gases 53 50.5  Feeding the animals with grains and concentrates 56 53.3  Daily removal of droppings from pens 87 82.9  Regular disinfection/fumigation of pens 87 82.9  Bury dead animals immediately 89 84.8 Source: Field survey (2021) Status of Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices The result in Figure 1 showed that about 90.5% of the breeders used the climate smart small ruminant production practices to adapt and mitigate the effect of climate change on their production in the study area. This might be attributed to the fact that majority of the respondents have high literacy level. However, similar study by Onuwa et al. (2020) reported low adoption of climate smart practices among farmers rearing goat in Plateau State, Nigeria. Tiamiyu et al., (2017) also reported low rate of utilization of climate smart agricultural techmiques. Figure 1. Status/Level of Use of Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices among Respondents Factors affecting Small Ruminant Production The results in Table 3 showed that outbreak of disease and high mortality (mean=2.07) was ranked first, inadequate information/extension services (mean=2.05) was ranked second, lack of access to high quality breeds (mean=1.91) was ranked third, lack of grass during the dry season (mean=1.92), unavailability of modern equipment (mean=1.82), theft (mean=1.81), lack of start-up capital (mean=1.76), continuous occurrence of drought (mean=1.65), marketing problems (mean=1.53), low demand for the meat (mean=1.52), High cost of production (mean=1.50), inadequate technical know- how (mean=1.44). This result implies that outbreak of disease and high mortality and lack of adequate information/extension services the main factors affecting the breeders. 9.5 90.5 Percentage Low High Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 95 Table 3. Factors affecting Small Ruminant Production among Respondents Factors Not a Factor Less Severe Highly Severe Freq.(%) Freq.(%) Freq.(%) Mean(SD) Rank I. Lack of capital 29(27.6) 72(68.6) 4(3.8) 1.76(0.51) 7th II. Lack of access of high-quality breeds 19(18.1) 76(72.4) 10(9.5) 1.91(0.52) 3rd III. Unavailability of modern equipment 37(35.2) 50(47.6) 18(17.1) 1.82(0.70) 5th IV. Theft 26(24.8) 73(69.5) 6(5.7) 1.81(0.52) 6th V. Inadequate technical know how 66(62.9) 32(30.5) 7(6.7) 1.44(0.61) 12th VI. Low demand for the meat 60(57.1) 35(33.3) 10(9.5) 1.52(0.67) 10th VII. Lack of grass during the dry season 21(20.0) 71(67.6) 13(12.4) 1.92(0.57) 4th VIII. Inadequate information/extension services 16(15.2) 68(64.8) 21(20.0) 2.05(0.59) 2nd IX. Incessant occurrence of drought during dry season 50(47.6) 42(40.0) 13(12.4) 1.65(0.69) 8th X. High cost of production 65(61.9) 27(25.7) 13(12.4) 1.50(0.71) 11th XI. Marketing problems 61(58.1) 32(30.5) 12(11.4) 1.53(0.69) 9th XII. Disease outbreak and high mortality 10(9.5) 78(74.3) 17(16.2) 2.07(0.51) 1st Source: Field survey (2021). Test of Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There is no significant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of respondents and climate smart small ruminant production practices The results of Binary Logistic Regression in Table 4 showed that educational level (B=3.985), membership of social group (B=6.083) and access to extension services (B= 13.941) had positive significant relationship with the use of climate smart small ruminant practices among the respondents while years of experience (B= - 0.544) indicated inverse relationship with the use of climate smart small ruminant practices among respondents at p≤0.05 level of significance. The result indicates that higher the respondents’ level of education, participation in group/cooperative society and access to extension to extension services, the more the respondents were expected to use of climate smart practices. The result further showed that the longer the respondents’ years of experience, the lesser the use of climate smart. Table 4. The Result of Binary Logistic Regression of the relationship between Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents and Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices Variables B S.E. Wald Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for EXP(B) Lower Upper Constant 15.013 7.297 4.233 0.040 0.000 Gender -0.971 1.127 0.743 0.389 0.379 0.042 3.446 Age 0.137 0.144 0.910 0.340 1.147 0.865 1.520 Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 96 Marital Status 1.284 1.797 0.510 0.475 3.611 0.107 122.293 Educational level 3.985 1.507 6.993 0.008* 53.808 2.806 1032.009 Religion 1.850 1.655 1.250 0.264 6.360 0.248 162.928 Income 0.000 0.000 3.598 0.058 1.000 1.000 1.000 Experience -0.544 0.175 9.622 0.002* 0.580 0.411 0.818 Household size -0.380 0.534 0.507 0.477 0.684 0.240 1.948 Membership of social group 6.083 2.110 8.311 0.004* 438.363 7.011 27410.238 Supportive occupation -0.845 0.652 1.680 0.195 0.429 0.120 1.542 Ruminant type -0.569 1.201 0.224 0.636 0.566 0.054 5.956 Rearing System 1.118 0.911 1.505 0.220 3.058 0.513 18.237 Main motive -1.267 0.917 1.912 0.167 0.282 0.047 1.698 Source of credit 0.054 0.463 0.014 0.907 1.056 0.426 2.616 Access to extension 13.941 7.032 3.931 0.047* 0.000 0.000 8.368 *Significant at p ≤ 0.05. Hypothesis 2: there is no significant relationship between the factors to small ruminant production and the usage of climate smart small ruminant production practices The result of PPMC analysis in Table 5 showed that unavailability of modern equipment (r=0.522), inadequate technical know-how (r=0.367), low demand for the meat (r=0.435), high cost of production (r=0.295) and marketing problems (r=0.406) had positive and significant relationship with the use of climate smart practices while factors such as scarcity of grass during the dry season (r= -0.262) and lack of adequate information/extension services (r= -0.297) indicated inverse relationship with the climate smart practices at p≤0.05 level of significance. This infers that factors such as unavailability of modern equipment, inadequate technical know-how, and low demand for the meat, marketing problems and high cost of production were the push factors for increased use of climate smart small ruminant production practices in the study area. The results further showed that adequate availability of grass during the dry season and provision of information/extension services will enhance the use of climate smart practices. Table 5. The Result of PPMC Analysis of the relationship between factors Affecting Small Ruminant Production and the Climate Smart Small Ruminant Production Practices Factors R Value P Value Remarks I. Lack of start-up capital -0.134 0.173 Not Significant II. Lack of access to high-quality breeds -0.083 0.400 Not Significant III. Unavailability of modern equipment 0.522 ** 0.000 Significant IV. Theft 0.014 0.886 Not Significant V. Inadequate technical know how 0.367 ** 0.000 Significant VI. Low demand for the meat 0.435 ** 0.000 Significant VII. Lack of grass during the dry season -0.262 * 0.007 Significant VIII. Inadequate information/extension services -0.297 ** 0.002 Significant IX. Incessant occurrence of drought 0.126 0.200 Not Significant Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 97 during dry season X. High cost of production 0.295 ** 0.002 Significant XI. Marketing problems 0.406** 0.000 Significant XII. Disease outbreak and high mortality 0.003 0.979 Not Significant **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Conclusion Small ruminant production in the study area is dominated by females. The mean age of the breeders was 35.3 years. Majority of the breeders have formal education. The mean years of experience in breeding were 7 years. The mean annual income of the breeders was N67, 272.38. Slightly above half of the respondents do not belong to any social group/cooperative society. The main supportive occupation of the respondents was trading and crop farming. There is high status on use of climate smart small practices. Outbreak of diseases and high mortality, inadequate information/extension services and lack of high-quality breeds were the main factors limiting the breeders. The determinants of use of the climate smart small ruminant production practices among the breeders were level of education, participation in group/cooperative society activities, access to extension services and years of breeding experience. The factors such as unavailability of modern equipment, inadequate technical know-how, low demand for the meat, marketing problems and high cost of production were the push factors for increased use of climate smart practices in the study area. The author recommends; 1. Government should enhance the breeders’ access to agricultural extension services. 2. Breeders should be continuously exposed to climate smart technologies so as to effectively adapt to climate change. 3. There is need for provisions of veterinary services, credit facilities and inputs so as reduce the constraints affecting small ruminant famers. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Acknowledgements We thank everyone who cooperated with us in completing the research. References Allen, M.R., Barros, V.R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., Church, J.A., Clarke, L., Dahe, Q., Dasgupta, Pand Dubash, N.K. (2014). IPCC fifth assessment synthesis report-climate change 2014 synthesis report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., and Cattaneo, A. (2014). Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agriculture, ecosystems and environment, 187, 72-86. Banjoko, I. K., Ifabiyi, J. O., Lawal, S. W., Ahmed, S. A., Isiaka, M. A., and Komolafe, S. E. (2021). Small Ruminant Farmers' Perception of Climate Change in Moro Local Government Area, Kwara State, Nigeria. Nigeria Agricultural Journal, 52(2), 289-296. Banjoko I.K., Ifabiyi J.O., Komolafe, S.E and Opeyemi G. (2021). Goats Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies to Climate Change in Ilorin East Local Government Area of Kwara State, Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 98 Nigeria. Journal of Research in Forestry, Wildlife and Environment. 13 (4), 36-44. Boko, M., Niang, I., Nyong, A., Vogel, C., Githeko, A., Medany, M., Osman- Elasha, B., Tabo, R. and Yanda, P. (2007), “Africa. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability”, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in Parry, M L, Canziani, O F, Palutikof, J P., van der Linden, P J and Hanson, C E (Eds), Cambridge University Press.Cambridge, pp. 433 - 467. Duku, S., Price, L. L., van der Zijpp, A. J., and Tobi, H. (2011). Influence of male or female headship on the keeping and care of small ruminants: the case of the transitional zone of Ghana. Livestock research for rural development, 23(1), 1-10. FAO, (2008). Climate Change and Food Security: A Framework Document, FAO-UN, Rome. FAO, (2010). The State of Food Insecurity in the World Addressing food insecurity in protracted crises 2010 Key messages. Available from http://www.fao.org FAO, (2019). The future of livestock in Nigeria. Opportunities and challenges in the face of uncertainty, Rome. Field Survey. (2021). Survey on Climate Smart Small Ruminants Production in Kwara State, Nigeria. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources [FMARD], (2017). Animal population data. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. IPCC. (2007). Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Kosgey, I. S., and Okeyo, A. M. (2007). Genetic improvement of small ruminants in low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural issues. Small Ruminant Research, 70(1), 76-88. Kristjanson, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I. and MacMillan, S. (2014). Livestock and women’s livelihoods. In Gender in agriculture (pp. 209-233). Springer, Dordrecht. Long, T. B., Blok, V., and Coninx, I. (2016). Barriers to the adoption and diffusion of technological innovations for climate-smart agriculture in Europe: evidence from the Netherlands, France, Switzerland and Italy. Journal of cleaner production, 112, 9-21. Nyberg, G., Knutsson, P., Ostwald, M., Öborn, I., Wredle, E., Otieno, D. J. and Malmer, A. (2015). Enclosures in West Pokot, Kenya: Transforming land, livestock and livelihoods in drylands. Pastoralism, 5(1), 1-12. Ojo, T. O., and Baiyegunhi, L. J. S. (2020). Determinants of climate change adaptation strategies and its impact on the net farm income of rice farmers in south-west Nigeria. Land Use Policy, 95, 103946. Oladele, O. I. (2011). Knowledge levels and perceived effect of climate change on extension delivery in North West province, South Africa. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information, 12(1), 91-101. Onuwa, G.C., Sunday, M.S, Ademiluyi, I.O. and Chizea I. Chizoba, C.I. (2020). Climate Change Perceptions and Smart Agricultural Practices among Goat Farmers in Bassa, Plateau State, http://www.fao.org/ Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 87-99 99 Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) IV, Issue IX, Page 299-302. Otaru, S.M. and Iyiola-Tunji, A.O. (2014). Paper presented at National Workshop on “Strategies for improving livestock and fisheries extension service delivery for sustainable productivity’’ which was held at National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria from 26th – 28th August, 2014. Rege, J. E. O., Marshall, K., Notenbaert, A., Ojango, J. M., and Okeyo, A. M. (2011). Pro-poor animal improvement and breeding—What can science do?. Livestock science, 136(1), 15-28. Tiamiyu, S.A., Ugalahi, U.B., Fabunmi, T., Sanusi, R.O., Fapojuwo, E.O., and Shittu, A.M. (2017). Analysis of Farmers’ Adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices in Northern Nigeria. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Agriculture and Forestry, 3, 19-26.