Avian influenza is widely known as a disease that can devastate poultry businesses, but a new study in southwestern Nigeria suggests that many farmers still do not fully understand its danger as a human infection. Researchers surveying 102 poultry farmers and farm managers across six states found generally strong knowledge, supportive attitudes toward prevention, and high awareness of the disease’s wider consequences. Yet the results also exposed a potentially dangerous mismatch: 88.2 percent of respondents said an outbreak would cause serious financial losses, while only 60.8 percent believed they themselves were at risk of contracting avian influenza from their birds. The findings indicate that farmers may view bird flu primarily as an agricultural and economic crisis rather than as a zoonotic disease capable of threatening workers and their families.

The study, conducted between March and May 2026, covered Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo states, a region that contains major poultry-producing areas and important live-bird trading networks. Nigeria has experienced repeated outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza, including the country’s first confirmed H5N1 outbreak in Kaduna State in 2006. That episode led to the death or culling of approximately 1.5 million birds and was followed by a human fatality in Lagos the next year. Although the virus is primarily an animal pathogen, some strains can cross the species barrier when people have close contact with infected birds, their secretions, feces, or contaminated equipment. Such exposure makes farmers, farm workers, market traders, and household members living near poultry operations important targets for disease surveillance and prevention.

To assess how farmers understood the threat, the researchers used a structured questionnaire divided into three domains: knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. The study deliberately excluded direct measurement of on-farm practices because no active outbreak was occurring in the study area, making behavior difficult to observe and potentially unreliable to measure through self-report. Each domain contained seven items. Knowledge questions were scored as correct or incorrect, while attitude and perception questions used five-point scales ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement. A score of at least 60 percent was defined as satisfactory: at least five of seven correct answers for knowledge, or at least 21 out of 35 points for attitudes and perceptions.

At first glance, the results appeared reassuring. Overall, 84.3 percent of participants achieved satisfactory knowledge scores, 94.1 percent had satisfactory attitudes, and 92.2 percent had satisfactory perceptions. Most respondents had heard of avian influenza, correctly identified it as a viral disease, and understood that direct contact with infected birds or their droppings could spread infection among poultry. About 80.4 percent recognized that wild birds can transmit the disease to domestic flocks, while 83.3 percent selected the appropriate response to a suspected outbreak. These results suggest that years of public health messaging and experience with previous outbreaks have created broad awareness of bird flu in the region.

The detailed answers, however, revealed why overall scores can conceal important weaknesses. Only 67.6 percent of respondents correctly stated that avian influenza can infect humans. The most striking gap concerned food safety: just 49 percent knew that thoroughly cooking poultry meat and eggs helps prevent human transmission. Another 34.3 percent answered incorrectly, while 15.7 percent said they did not know. Cooking destroys infectious virus in poultry products, although handling sick or contaminated birds before cooking remains a separate occupational hazard. The low score on this question is therefore significant because it points to a missing link between general awareness and practical understanding of how infection can reach people.

The farmers’ attitudes toward control measures were considerably more positive than their specific knowledge. More than 87 percent agreed that avian influenza poses a serious threat to their businesses and that biosecurity can help prevent infection. Biosecurity includes measures such as restricting access to poultry houses, separating new or sick birds, cleaning and disinfecting equipment, controlling contact with wild birds, and using protective clothing. About 84.3 percent supported quarantining newly acquired birds and recognized the importance of personal protective equipment when handling poultry. Nearly three-quarters viewed vaccination as an important intervention, and 83.3 percent said they would be willing to report suspected cases to veterinary authorities.

Support for reporting did not necessarily mean that farmers trusted the systems receiving those reports. In the perception survey, 67.6 percent of participants judged the government response to avian influenza outbreaks to be poor, and 52.9 percent considered veterinary services inadequate in their areas. More than 70 percent said that public awareness and farmers’ access to information were insufficient. These views matter because disease control depends on early reporting. When farmers fear that authorities will respond slowly, impose costly culling, or fail to compensate them for destroyed birds, they may delay notifying officials. That delay can allow infected poultry to move through farms, markets, and households before an outbreak is detected.

The study also found that economic concerns were more powerful than personal health concerns. Although 88.2 percent expected a major financial loss during an outbreak, only 60.8 percent agreed that they personally might become infected. This difference may influence decisions about protective equipment, handling dead birds, seeking medical attention, or reporting illness. Farmers who see the virus as a threat to production but not to themselves may be less likely to wear gloves, masks, or dedicated clothing consistently. They may also underestimate the importance of avoiding contact with sick birds or contaminated manure. The researchers argue that health campaigns should therefore frame avian influenza simultaneously as a livestock disease, a food-safety issue, and an occupational zoonosis.

Training appeared to be one possible route for closing the knowledge gap. Participants who had received formal poultry-management training were more likely to have satisfactory knowledge than those without training: 90.4 percent compared with 69.0 percent. Age and education were also associated with knowledge in the initial analysis. Farmers aged 31 to 40 had the highest rate of satisfactory knowledge, at 93.9 percent, while the rate among respondents older than 60 was 40 percent. After statistical adjustment for age, education, and training, respondents aged 31 to 40 had an estimated 54-fold higher odds of satisfactory knowledge than those older than 60. But the estimate was accompanied by an exceptionally wide confidence interval, from 2.73 to 1083.72, reflecting the very small number of older participants and the instability of the model. Formal training showed an adjusted odds ratio of 3.89, but its confidence interval included no association and its p-value of 0.058 narrowly missed the conventional threshold for statistical significance.

Those statistical cautions are central to interpreting the research. The investigators originally calculated that at least 384 participants would be needed for a representative survey, but they recruited only 102 through farmers’ associations, agricultural extension networks, and direct farm visits. This convenience sample may have overrepresented farmers who were more educated, better connected, or already more interested in health information. Lagos, despite being a major poultry and live-bird trading hub, accounted for only 7.8 percent of respondents, while Oyo accounted for 35.3 percent. The sample was also 76.5 percent male and 82.4 percent tertiary educated, characteristics that may not reflect the wider farming population. Because the study was cross-sectional, it cannot establish that training caused better knowledge, and because it measured stated attitudes rather than observed behavior, favorable responses cannot be assumed to translate into consistent biosecurity.

Even with these limitations, the findings identify several practical pressure points for controlling avian influenza in southwestern Nigeria. Training programs could emphasize the zoonotic nature of the virus, the importance of thorough cooking, and the protective value of personal equipment rather than focusing only on flock mortality and financial losses. Veterinary agencies could improve reporting by communicating clearly about outbreak investigations, compensation, and the fate of culled birds. Transparent compensation mechanisms may be particularly important for smallholder farmers, for whom a flock represents both income and accumulated capital. Larger probability-based studies, together with direct observation of farm practices and interviews about trust and reporting, will be needed to determine whether the patterns seen in this exploratory survey hold across the region. The broader lesson is clear: knowing that bird flu exists is not enough. Effective prevention requires accurate knowledge, realistic personal risk perception, trustworthy institutions, and the resources needed to act on all three.