Researchers in Burkina Faso tested whether teaching families how to raise chickens and improve nutrition could help children eat more eggs. They worked with 260 households over nine months, giving some families chickens and nutrition training, others just training, and some no help at all. Families who received both chickens and training produced 2.5 times more eggs than families who got nothing. Interestingly, when families received training alone, how many eggs their children ate depended on how many eggs they produced. But when families got both chickens and training, children ate about the same amount of eggs no matter how many their family produced—showing that teaching families about good nutrition was just as important as giving them chickens.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether teaching families about raising chickens and good nutrition, combined with giving them chickens, would help children eat more eggs
  • Who participated: 260 households in Burkina Faso (a country in West Africa) with children, divided into three groups: one that got chickens plus training, one that got only training, and one that got nothing
  • Key finding: Families that received both chickens and nutrition training produced 2.5 times more eggs than families that received nothing. More importantly, children in the training-plus-chickens group ate a consistent amount of eggs regardless of production, while children in the training-only group ate more eggs when their families produced more
  • What it means for you: Teaching families about nutrition and giving them resources to produce food may be more effective than just providing resources alone. This suggests that education and cultural engagement are crucial for improving what children actually eat, not just what families can produce. Results apply primarily to similar communities in developing countries.

The Research Details

This was a randomized controlled trial, which is considered one of the strongest types of research studies. Researchers randomly assigned 18 villages in Burkina Faso to three different groups to ensure fair comparison. The Full intervention group received four chickens per household and families attended monthly training sessions about raising chickens and nutrition. The Partial group attended the same training sessions but didn’t receive chickens. The Control group received neither chickens nor training. Researchers followed 260 households for nine months (July 2018 through April 2019), tracking how many eggs families produced and how many eggs children actually ate.

The researchers used a statistical method called Generalized Linear Mixed Effect Models to analyze their data. This method allowed them to account for the fact that households in the same village might be similar to each other, and to understand how egg production influenced egg consumption. They measured egg production by counting eggs, and egg consumption by asking families how many eggs their children ate.

This research design is important because it allows researchers to determine cause and effect. By randomly assigning villages to different groups, the researchers could be more confident that differences in egg production and consumption were actually caused by the interventions (chickens and training) rather than by other factors. The nine-month timeframe was long enough to see real changes in behavior and production patterns.

This study has several strengths: it was a randomized controlled trial with three comparison groups, which is a rigorous design; it followed real families over nine months in actual communities; and it measured both production (how many eggs families made) and consumption (how many eggs children ate), which shows whether increased production actually led to better nutrition. The study was published in The Journal of Nutrition, a respected scientific journal. One limitation is that the study was conducted in Burkina Faso, so results may not apply exactly the same way in other countries or cultures. The study also didn’t report some details about how many households completed the full study or whether there were differences between groups at the start.

What the Results Show

Families in the Full intervention group (chickens plus training) produced 2.53 times more eggs than the Control group—meaning if a control family produced 10 eggs, a Full intervention family produced about 25 eggs. This difference was statistically significant, meaning researchers are confident it wasn’t due to chance. The Partial group (training only) produced 1.42 times more eggs than Control families, which was also statistically significant but less than the Full group.

The most interesting finding was about actual egg consumption by children. In the Partial group (training only), children’s egg consumption increased as their families produced more eggs—the more eggs available, the more children ate. However, in the Full group (chickens plus training), children had about a 90% probability of consuming four eggs per week, regardless of whether their family produced many eggs or few eggs. This means that in the Full group, children ate roughly the same amount of eggs whether their family produced 10 eggs or 50 eggs per week.

This difference between the two intervention groups reveals something important: the training and community engagement component appeared to influence families’ decisions about feeding children eggs, independent of how many eggs they actually produced. In other words, teaching families about nutrition seemed to change their behavior in ways that went beyond just having more eggs available.

The study shows that simply providing livestock (chickens) without education may not be enough to improve child nutrition. The Partial group had training but no chickens, yet their children’s egg consumption was still linked to production levels. This suggests that when families don’t have abundant eggs, they may be less likely to feed eggs to children, even if they understand the nutritional benefits. The Full group’s consistent egg consumption pattern suggests that the combination of resources and education creates a stronger commitment to child nutrition practices.

Previous research has shown that nutrition-sensitive agriculture (combining farming improvements with nutrition education) can help improve child nutrition. This study adds important new information by showing that education and behavior change communication may be just as important as—or even more important than—simply providing agricultural resources. The finding aligns with other research showing that cultural beliefs and family practices strongly influence what children eat, even when nutritious foods are available.

The study was conducted only in Burkina Faso, so results may not apply the same way in other countries with different cultures and food systems. The study didn’t report detailed information about how many families completed the entire nine-month period or dropped out. The study measured egg consumption by asking families about it rather than directly observing what children ate, which could introduce some inaccuracy. The study also didn’t examine whether the benefits lasted beyond the nine-month study period. Additionally, the study didn’t measure other important outcomes like children’s overall nutrition status or health, only egg consumption.

The Bottom Line

For communities similar to those in Burkina Faso: Programs that combine providing livestock (like chickens) with nutrition education and community engagement appear to be more effective than either approach alone (moderate confidence). Nutrition education and behavior change communication should be considered essential components of agricultural development programs aimed at improving child nutrition (moderate to high confidence). Communities should tailor interventions to local cultures and beliefs about feeding children (moderate confidence).

This research is most relevant to families and communities in developing countries where malnutrition is a concern and where raising small livestock like chickens is feasible. It’s particularly relevant to public health workers, agricultural development organizations, and government programs working to improve child nutrition in low-income countries. Parents and caregivers in these communities may benefit from understanding that both resources and education matter for improving children’s diets. This research is less directly applicable to wealthy countries where eggs are already widely available and consumed.

Based on this study, families who received both chickens and training showed increased egg production within the nine-month study period. However, the study didn’t track what happened after nine months, so it’s unclear whether these benefits lasted long-term. Realistic expectations would be to see changes in egg production within 3-6 months and changes in consumption patterns within 6-9 months, but longer-term follow-up would be needed to confirm lasting benefits.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • Users in relevant communities could track weekly egg consumption for their children (target: 3-4 eggs per week) and household egg production (number of eggs produced per week). This dual tracking would help users see whether increased production is translating to increased consumption and identify barriers if it’s not.
  • Users could set a weekly goal for child egg consumption and receive reminders about the nutritional benefits of eggs for children’s growth and development. The app could provide simple, culturally-appropriate recipes using eggs and tips for incorporating eggs into family meals. Users could also track attendance at nutrition education sessions or community training programs.
  • Long-term tracking should include: weekly egg production numbers, weekly egg consumption by children, barriers to consumption (cost, cultural preferences, storage issues), and participation in nutrition education activities. Users should review progress monthly to identify patterns and adjust strategies. The app could send monthly summaries showing trends and celebrating progress toward consumption goals.

This research was conducted in Burkina Faso and may not apply equally to all communities or countries. The study measured egg consumption through family reports rather than direct observation, which may affect accuracy. Results show associations and trends but don’t prove that nutrition training alone causes changes in eating habits—other factors may also play a role. Before making significant changes to your family’s diet or starting a chicken-raising project, consult with local health workers or nutritionists who understand your community’s specific situation. This information is for educational purposes and should not replace professional medical or nutritional advice.