Inside ARUVIN’s maiden national conference and the push to move ruminant veterinary practice from treating individual animals to managing productivity, economics and resilience

Nigeria’s livestock conversation has often been framed around numbers: how many cattle, how many sheep, how many goats, how much milk, how much meat.

But at the maiden National Conference of the Association of Ruminant Veterinarians in Nigeria (ARUVIN), held in Abuja from 14 to 17 September, the conversation was framed differently.

The question was not simply how many animals Nigeria has.

It was what those animals are producing, what is being lost to disease and poor management, how much farmers are spending to keep them productive, how climate and markets are changing the production environment, and what role veterinarians should play in closing those gaps.

Under the theme “Enhancing Ruminant Productivity: Health, Market Systems and Climate Resilience,” the conference brought together veterinarians, government officials, academics, industry players and other livestock stakeholders at the Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI), Abuja.

The programme moved deliberately between animal health, production systems, economics, technology, markets and climate resilience.

That breadth was significant.

It reflected a growing recognition within the profession that a veterinarian working with ruminants cannot afford to look at disease in isolation from the system in which that disease occurs.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗔𝗥𝗨𝗩𝗜𝗡, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄?

For ARUVIN President, Dr Adah Ogwuche, the conference represented the culmination of an idea that began in 2019.

The association initially emerged as the Buiatrics and Small Ruminant Association of Nigeria (BASRAN) before evolving into ARUVIN following consultations with stakeholders.

What began as an idea among a small group of veterinarians gradually developed into a professional platform seeking to connect practitioners working across cattle, sheep and goat production with academia, government and industry.

At the opening of the conference, Ogwuche described the livestock animals under veterinary care in broader terms than simply patients.

Cattle, sheep and goats, she argued, are sources of food, income and economic value for Nigerian households. The diseases affecting them, therefore, have consequences beyond the individual animal.

That thinking shaped the conference programme.

Rather than concentrating exclusively on diagnosis and treatment, the sessions examined PPR, calf mortality, mastitis, herd management, dairy production, veterinary economics, technology adoption, livestock value chains and climate resilience.

The association’s connection with the international buiatrics community also gives the platform a broader ambition. ARUVIN is affiliated with the World Association for Buiatrics (WAB) as an observer and has represented Nigeria at international professional gatherings, including the 2024 World Buiatrics Congress in Cancun.

The association is working toward deeper international participation, including its ambition to progress toward full WAB membership and engage with the planned African Buiatrics Conference in Namibia in 2027.

𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗸 𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺

The scale of the sector explains why the conversation matters.

Nigeria’s 2023 agricultural survey estimated the country’s livestock population at 273.8 million animals, including approximately 54.81 million cattle, 64.93 million sheep and 138.95 million goats.

FAO similarly identifies Nigeria’s livestock resources as substantial, while noting persistent constraints involving genetics, feeding, animal health, infrastructure, water, marketing and institutional coordination.

So the challenge is not simply building a larger livestock population.

It is getting more output, income and resilience from the animals already within the system.

That distinction was central to the conference.

Nigeria can have millions of cattle, sheep and goats and still struggle with inadequate milk production, high mortality, preventable disease losses, low reproductive performance, poor feed conversion, weak market linkages and limited value addition.

For veterinarians, that creates a different professional question:

What happens when animal health is measured not only by whether an animal survives, but by whether it remains productive?

That is where the concept of production medicine becomes important.

𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝘄𝘀. 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗱𝘀.

One of the conference sessions captured this shift directly:

“Stop treating cows, start managing herds: production medicine.”

The message is not that individual animal treatment has become less important.

It is that treatment alone cannot deliver sustainable productivity.

A veterinarian who treats one sick cow successfully may save that animal.

A veterinarian who identifies why several cows are becoming sick, why conception rates are falling, why calves are dying or why milk production is below potential can potentially change the performance of the entire herd.

That requires a different set of questions.

How often are animals becoming sick?

At what stage of production?

What is the mortality rate?

How much milk is being lost?

What is the reproductive performance?

What is the cost of each intervention?

Which problems are preventable?

And perhaps most importantly:

Is the intervention producing enough economic value to justify what the farmer is spending?

That is the territory production medicine seeks to occupy.

It also explains why the conference included a session titled “The 5-naira decision: costing every intervention.”

The title may have been deliberately provocative, but the underlying issue is serious.

Veterinary recommendations ultimately affect someone’s production economics.

A treatment, diagnostic test, vaccination programme, nutritional intervention or biosecurity measure has a cost. The veterinarian therefore needs to understand not only whether an intervention can work biologically, but whether it makes sense within the farmer’s production system.

𝗔 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗹𝘆 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹

This distinction is particularly important in dairy production.

An animal may survive while producing below its genetic or nutritional potential.

A cow may remain in a herd while suffering from recurring mastitis.

A calf may survive a difficult neonatal period but grow more slowly than expected.

A herd may maintain its population while quietly losing income through poor fertility, low milk yield or repeated disease.

That is why the conference’s sessions on calf mortality and mastitis were more than clinical discussions.

They were productivity discussions.

Mastitis, for example, can generate costs through treatment, veterinary services, discarded milk, reduced milk production, culling and reproductive consequences.

A 2026 study applying the Animal Health Loss Envelope framework to a commercial dairy system in Zambia illustrates how these costs can accumulate. Researchers estimated annual losses associated with mastitis at more than ZMW6.78 million, combining direct management costs with productivity losses, discarded milk and reproductive effects.

The exact economics differ between production systems and countries.

The principle does not.

Disease is often more expensive than the treatment bill suggests.

𝗣𝗣𝗥 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺.

Few diseases demonstrate this better than Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR).

The conference devoted attention to the disease through sessions including “Five Decades of PPR in Nigeria” and “When PPR Hits the Flock: Field Case Studies.”

The timing is significant.

Nigeria is pursuing a national target of eliminating PPR by 2030, even though the global eradication timeline has since been extended to 2040. The Federal Government has maintained its commitment to the earlier national target and has been strengthening surveillance, including serosurveillance and sero-monitoring.

Earlier this year, the Federal Ministry of Livestock Development also convened a Global Burden of Animal Diseases meeting focused on quantifying the burden of PPR and other livestock diseases. Officials said better estimates of disease losses would help determine where interventions should be prioritised.

That evidence-building matters because PPR losses are not limited to mortality.

A sheep or goat that dies represents lost capital.

A surviving animal that grows poorly represents reduced value.

A sick breeding animal can mean fewer offspring.

A disease outbreak can affect household income, food availability and local livestock trade.

A 10-year retrospective study of reported PPR cases in Nigeria from 2015 to 2024 recorded 70,827 cases, with Bauchi accounting for 27.6% of the reported national disease load in the study. The researchers estimated an average case-fatality rate of 14.1% and forecast continued disease burden without stronger control measures.

The exact burden remains difficult to capture because surveillance data are not a perfect representation of every infection occurring in the country.

But the direction is clear.

PPR control is not simply about eliminating a virus. It is about protecting the productive capacity of millions of small ruminants and the people who depend on them.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

One of the strengths of ARUVIN’s conference theme was that it did not treat climate resilience as a separate environmental topic.

It placed climate alongside health and markets.

That reflects what is happening at farm level.

Heat affects animal performance.

Changing rainfall affects pasture availability.

Drought affects water.

Flooding can damage grazing areas and infrastructure.

Feed shortages can weaken animals and increase their vulnerability to disease.

Disease can then reduce productivity further.

Nigeria’s Livestock Productivity and Resilience Support Project (L-PRES) estimates that livestock systems can lose substantial output through heat stress, drought-flood cycles, pasture loss and rising disease risks. The project is designed to improve productivity and resilience across 21 states, with an intended reach of more than 1.43 million people and 45 million animals.

This is why the CVO’s message at the conference was broader than disease control.

Dr Samuel Anzaku argued that animal health, nutrition, production, markets, environmental sustainability and climate resilience need to be addressed together. He also highlighted shortages of feed and water, weak preventive services, poor production practices and limited access to veterinary care as interconnected constraints.

The implication for veterinary practice is significant.

The veterinarian of a climate-stressed livestock system cannot operate entirely from the treatment room.

They need to understand the production environment around the animal.

𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻.

Another important point from the conference was the growing role of technology in livestock health.

Nigeria is already working to automate the National Animal Disease Information System (NADIS) to improve disease reporting and support faster, data-driven decisions.

But Anzaku made an important qualification: technology cannot replace the veterinarian working in the field.

The person who notices an unusual mortality pattern, recognises a change in a herd, understands the farmer’s production system and reports a suspected outbreak remains critical to the surveillance chain.

That is an important distinction at a time when digital agriculture is often presented as though better software alone can solve weak information systems.

It cannot.

A digital platform is only as useful as the quality, timeliness and coverage of the information entering it.

For Nigeria, that means investing simultaneously in technology and the veterinary workforce capable of generating reliable field data.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲

Perhaps the most important shift represented by the conference is the movement from asking:

“Did the animal recover?”

to asking:

“Did the intervention improve the farmer’s production system?”

That is a different standard.

It requires veterinarians to understand costs, returns, herd performance, market opportunities and risk.

It also requires better relationships between veterinary professionals and livestock owners.

The CVO encouraged veterinarians to become trusted partners in improving farm productivity rather than professionals who are called only when animals fall sick.

That model could change how veterinary services are valued.

If the veterinarian is only associated with treatment, the farmer may see veterinary expenditure as a cost incurred after something has gone wrong.

If the veterinarian is involved in disease prevention, herd monitoring, reproductive management, nutrition, biosecurity and production planning, veterinary care becomes part of the farmer’s investment in productivity.

That is a very different proposition.

𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗶𝗻

ARUVIN also deliberately looked beyond the farm.

The session “Beyond the Clinic: Ruminant Value Chain as Income Stream” reflected another reality: there are opportunities for veterinarians beyond conventional clinical practice.

Nigeria’s livestock sector includes farmers, aggregators, traders, processors, feed businesses, dairy companies, pharmaceutical and animal-health companies, breeding operations, laboratories, consultants and technology providers.

Veterinarians sit across many of these points.

Understanding the value chain therefore gives professionals another way to contribute.

It also opens opportunities for veterinary businesses.

FAO’s current overview of Nigeria’s livestock sector identifies weak market infrastructure, inadequate cold chains, limited processing capacity, poor connectivity, informal marketing systems and limited traceability among the constraints preventing the sector from capturing more value.

Improving animal health without improving the systems through which healthy animals become profitable products leaves part of the problem untouched.

That is why the conference theme’s three major economic dimensions — health, markets and resilience — fit together.

𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘃𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽

The conference brought together the Chief Veterinary Officer, the Veterinary Council of Nigeria, the Nigerian Veterinary Medical Association, government representatives, industry and development partners.

That mix matters.

Ruminant productivity is too complex to be solved by veterinarians alone.

The public sector controls important parts of disease surveillance, regulation and policy.

Veterinary professionals provide technical expertise and field services.

Industry provides products, technology, investment and market linkages.

Academia generates evidence and trains the next generation.

Development partners can provide financing, technical support and programme infrastructure.

Farmers ultimately determine whether many interventions work at production level.

ARUVIN’s proposed role sits somewhere across this network.

At the conference, its leadership positioned the association as a bridge between academia, industry, government and field practice, rather than simply another professional body.

For a sector facing simultaneous disease, climate, productivity and market challenges, that coordinating function could prove increasingly important.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗔𝗥𝗨𝗩𝗜𝗡

The maiden conference arrived at a moment when Nigeria is already attempting to reshape its livestock sector.

The Federal Government has committed to PPR eradication, is strengthening animal disease surveillance, is investing in veterinary services and vaccine production, and is implementing programmes aimed at increasing livestock productivity and climate resilience.

But policy ambition eventually has to reach the animal.

It has to reach the calf that dies before maturity.

The ewe or doe lost to PPR.

The cow whose milk yield remains below potential.

The herd repeatedly affected by preventable disease.

The farmer spending money on interventions without knowing which ones generate returns.

And the veterinarian working in a production system where the disease, climate, market and livelihood problems are all happening at once.

That is where ARUVIN’s message becomes relevant.

The association’s first national conference was not simply an announcement that a new professional platform exists.

It was a statement about what ruminant veterinary practice could become.

𝗔 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻

ARUVIN’s journey began in 2019.

Seven years later, that idea has become a national professional association capable of convening government, academia, industry and veterinary practitioners around the future of ruminant production.

But the more difficult work begins after the conference.

The challenge is turning presentations into field practice.

Turning surveillance data into faster response.

Turning disease-control targets into measurable reductions in losses.

Turning veterinary recommendations into interventions farmers can afford.

Turning technology into information that actually reaches decision-makers.

And turning healthier animals into more productive and profitable livestock enterprises.

Nigeria already has the animals.

The country has millions of cattle, sheep and goats and a large network of professionals working around them.

The question is whether the country can build the systems capable of converting that biological resource into sustained productivity, food, income and economic value.

That is ultimately what the ARUVIN conference placed on the table.

The future of ruminant veterinary medicine in Nigeria may depend less on how many animals veterinarians can treat, and more on how effectively they can help entire production systems become healthier, more productive, economically viable and resilient.

And for ARUVIN, the maiden conference appears to have been exactly what its organisers intended it to be:

a beginning, not a destination.