Final Evaluation of the "Assisting in the
Management of Poultry and Layer Industries
with Feed Improvement and Efficiency
Strategies" (AMPLIFIES) Project
 FINAL REPORT 10-AUG-2020
 PREPARED BY:
1 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer Industries with Feed Improvement and Efficiency
Strategies, or AMPLIFIES, is a project undertaken by the American Soybean Association’s (ASA) World
Initiative for Soy in Human Health (WISHH) Program to revitalize the local poultry industry.
AMPLIFIES has seen much success since its inception five years ago. Poultry farmers, crop farmers, feed
millers, and members of Farmer Based Organizations saw their livelihoods and finances improve because
of AMPLIFIES. These benefits included, but were not limited to, improvements in feed formulation and
feeding and storing techniques and practices, as well as reductions in feed contamination and post￾harvest loss. This helped participants grow larger, healthier poultry birds and optimize outputs, which
translated to significant cost savings. Capacity building trainings on bookkeeping and general financial
management further helped them access loans from credit facilities to support their businesses.
Importantly, AMPLIFIES engaged key stakeholder groups acrossthe entire poultry value chain,successfully
encouraging them to network and collaborate with one another to improve the greater good. Beyond
trainings and services, AMPLIFIES also engaged the public at large through a national awareness raising
campaign that improved negative public perceptions about eating eggs and increased egg consumption
and, thereby, profits for participants.
AMPLIFIES’ participants were, on the whole, satisfied with the program and expressed gratitude. Yet,
many participants still face significant challenges that impede their ability to produce and store their
goods and access loans, all of which make it considerably difficult to maintain their livelihoods.
Participants shared their thoughts about programmatic areas that they felt needed improvement as well
asideasto strengthen the program for future iterations. Despite challenges, AMPLIFIES wasfound to have
increased productivity and profitability along the poultry value chain, in large part achieving its
programmatic goals and objectives.
2 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Khana Group (TKG) extends its sincerest gratitude to the American Soybean Association (ASA) and its
World Initiative for Soy in Human Health (WISHH) Program for having the confidence in our firm to lead
the Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer Industries with Feed Improvement and Efficiency
Strategies (AMPLIFIES) Final Evaluation. We are grateful to ASA/WISHH’s technical team for their
continuous support throughout the different phases of this evaluation, with special recognition to James
Bernhardt, Gena Perry, and Eric DeMerit.
We are also thankful to the AMPLIFIES Monitoring and Evaluation team, comprised of Cephas Agbesi, Lois
Aryee, Philip Annankra, and Danson Alexander Anokye, who provided assistance in training TKG on the
data collection tools created by AMPLIFIES and provided background on AMPLIFIES activities and past
data sources. We appreciate the inputs from all project beneficiaries who contributed to this Final
Evaluation, as well as the Ghana Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) officials who were directly
involved in the project and all Credit Facility Providers who participated in the evaluation.
TKG also credits all researchers and institutions who offered their support in carrying out this study. This
report was prepared by TKG team members Michael Tuffour (PhD), Ifedapo Agbeja, Derrick Alledom
Bakuri, Ani Jilozian, and Olalekan Olagunju. Finally, we extend our appreciation to the United States
Department for Agriculture (USDA) for funding this initiative and to all local and international
stakeholders.
3 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................3
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................10
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 10
1.2 The AMPLIFIES Project....................................................................................................... 11
1.2.1 Baseline Study......................................................................................................... 11
1.2.2 Objectives and Key Activities.................................................................................. 12
1.2.3 Final Evaluation....................................................................................................... 14
1.2.4 About the Consulting Firm...................................................................................... 15
1.2.5 Our Approach.......................................................................................................... 16
METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................18
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Sampling procedure........................................................................................................... 18
2.3 Quantitative data collection and analysis.......................................................................... 19
2.4 Qualitative data collection and analysis............................................................................ 20
2.5 Triangulation of data.......................................................................................................... 21
2.6 Ethical considerations........................................................................................................ 22
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.............................................................24
3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Demographics of respondents........................................................................................... 24
3.3 AMPLIFIES training methods.............................................................................................. 25
3.4 Programs implemented in parallel to AMPLIFIES.............................................................. 25
3.5 Expectations before the implementation of AMPLIFIES ................................................... 25
3.5.1 Application of activity, benefits and impact........................................................... 26
4 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
3.5.2 Impact of AMPLIFIES on the ten main goals........................................................... 51
3.5.3 Areas of improvement for AMPLIFIES .................................................................... 62
3.6 Variables that influenced beneficiary outcomes............................................................... 63
3.7 Strategies for further advancing the poultry value chain and develop recommendations
for future programming............................................................................................................ 64
3.7.1 Assessment of AMPLIFIES ....................................................................................... 64
3.7.2 Outstanding themes ............................................................................................... 65
3.7.3 Overall Assessment................................................................................................. 66
3.7.4 Meeting expectations............................................................................................. 67
3.8 Challenges AMPLIFIES beneficiaries still face.................................................................... 68
3.9 Opportunities for AMPLIFIES beneficiaries........................................................................ 68
3.10 Suggestions for future iterations of AMPLIFIES ......................................................... 69
3.11 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 70
Appendix 1: References............................................................................73
Appendix 2: Data Tables...........................................................................75
Appendix 3: Questionnaires and Interview Guides....................................84
I. Questionnaire for poultry farmers .................................................................................... 84
II. Questionnaire for Feed Millers.......................................................................................... 98
III. Semi- structured questionnaire for Credit Facility Providers.......................................... 106
IV. In-depth interview guide for FBOs/Crop Farmers........................................................... 109
V. Key Informant Interview guide for Government Officials/Policy Stakeholders.............. 111
5 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1: Sample Size...................................................................................................................... 75
Table 2: Criteria for selecting poultry farmers.............................................................................. 75
Table 3: Criteria for selecting crop farmers.................................................................................. 76
Table 4: Criteria for selecting feed processors/millers................................................................. 77
Table 5: Demographics of poultry farmers................................................................................... 77
Table 6: Demographics of feed millers......................................................................................... 78
Table 7: Demographics of FBO members..................................................................................... 79
Table 8: Assessment of 10 major themes..................................................................................... 80
Table 9: Success of loan application after training....................................................................... 80
Table 10: Probit regression explaining most and least successful feed millers’ outcomes ......... 81
Table 11: Probit regression explaining most and least successful poultry farmers’ outcomes... 82
Table 12: Factors explaining improvement in egg output among poultry farmers’ in AMPLIFIES
....................................................................................................................................................... 83
6 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Flowchart showing the triangulation process used in the data analysis....................... 22
Figure 2: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improved poultry feed ............................... 28
Figure 3: Impact of reduction in cost of feed processing ............................................................. 29
Figure 4: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improved quality and consistency of feed
formulations.................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 5: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improvements in the mixing of feed.......... 32
Figure 6: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying techniques to increase feed testing capacity
....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 7: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improvements in the quality of feed ......... 35
Figure 8: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying knowledge to increase efficiency in feed
processing ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 9: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying efficiency in feed production..................... 37
Figure 10: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying increased efficiency in procuring feed
ingredients.................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 11: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying techniques to access loans for investments
in feed processing ......................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 12: Improvement in funding feed operations................................................................... 43
Figure 13: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying knowledge of post-harvest storage and
aggregation of feed inputs............................................................................................................ 44
Figure 14: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying greater linkages with other members of the
poultry feed distribution network ................................................................................................ 46
Figure 15: Improvement in marketing of poultry feed by feed millers........................................ 48
Figure 16: Poultry farmers and feed millers who found the awareness raising campaign
beneficial....................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 17: Improvement in the storage of feed........................................................................... 50
Figure 18: Reported increase in the price of eggs........................................................................ 52
Figure 19: Mean number of crates* of eggs produced from 2016 to 2019................................. 53
Figure 20: Mean Percentage change in egg production............................................................... 54
7 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 21: Mean total sales in egg production ............................................................................. 55
Figure 22: Percentage change in mean egg sales......................................................................... 56
Figure 23: Increase in the output of broilers................................................................................ 57
Figure 24: Increase in the mean price of broilers......................................................................... 58
Figure 25: Mean total broiler production..................................................................................... 59
Figure 26: Percentage change in mean broiler production.......................................................... 60
Figure 27: Mean total sales of broilers......................................................................................... 61
Figure 28: Percentage change in mean broiler sales.................................................................... 62
8 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas
Cooperative Assistance
ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency
AMPLIFIES Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer Industries with Feed Improvement
and Efficiency Strategies
ARS Annual Results Survey
ASA American Soybean Association
ASSESS Analytical Support Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems
CAC Crop Aggregation Centers
CAPI Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing
CATI Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing
CAQDAS Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DSU Delaware State University
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FBO Farmer Based Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussions
FFPr Food for Progress
GNAPF Ghana National Association of Poultry Farmers
GPP Ghana Poultry Project
IDI In-Depth Interviews
KII Key Informant Interview
9 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
KNUST Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
MoH Ministry of Health
MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture
OH Outcome Harvesting
OLS Ordinary Least Squares
PICS Purdue Improved Crop Storage
RFP Request for Proposals
SARI Savana Agriculture Research Institute
SCM Success Case Method
TKG The Khana Group
ToR Terms of Reference
UDS University of Development Studies
URI University of Rhode Island
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VOCA Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance
WFP World Food Programme
WISHH World Initiative for Soy in Human Health
10 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Ghana’s poultry value chain sector serves as a source of employment for many rural and urban dwellers.
It also serves as a vital source of food security for the Ghanaian populace (Aning, 2006, Ministry of Food
and Agriculture, 2010, United States Department of Agriculture, 2016). The sector witnessed a production
boom in the 1950s through the 1980s. By the 1990s, the sector was performing poorly, especially with
regards to production. Despite poor production, demand for poultry products was increasing. By 2005,
Ghana’s domestic poultry production could only meet 34% of its local demand. While poultry production
was generally performing poorly, egg production was doing relatively better (USDA, 2011; Banson et al.,
2015). The generally discouraging performance in poultry production over the years had a negative impact
along the poultry value chain, including feed mills and hatcheries (Aning, 2006). 
The significant decline of the poultry sector can be explained by several factors: the high cost of
production, poor production technologies, lack of reliable credit, the emergence of pests and diseases,
and poor managerial skills of the poultry value chain players. Another key factor that negatively affected
the sector was the high level of competition from imported poultry products that were cheaper and of
higher quality than locally produced ones (Khor, 2006; Birol et al, 2010; Tuffour and Sedegah, 2013;
Sumberg et al., 2013). To a large extent, the aforementioned factors can be attributed to Ghana's
Structural Adjustment Program, which promoted the reduction and later cancellation of crop subsidies to
poultry farmers and also encouraged the high importation of poultry inputs and products with which local
ones could not compete (Khor, 2006; Christian Aid, 2005; Kusi et al., 2015). 
Over the last decades, the Ghanaian government put forth several interventions through the Ministry of
Food and Agriculture (MoFA) to prevent the poultry industry from collapse. One such intervention is
MoFA’s collaboration with local stakeholders and international agencies. Locally, the MoFA has worked
with the Ghana National Association of Poultry Farmers (GNAPF), a key local player, to revamp the poultry
sector, but the results have not been significant. At the international level, the Ghanaian government has
cooperated with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and itslocal collaborative institution
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to undertake the Ghana Poultry Project
(GPP) and other projects to revitalize the local poultry industry (USDA, 2016; Agricultural Cooperative
Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance (ACDI/VOCA), 2020; Khor,
2006; Christian Aid, 2005; Kusi et al., 2015). One of their most recent programs is the Assisting in the
11 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Management of Poultry and Layer Industries with Feed Improvement and Efficiency Strategies
(AMPLIFIES).
1.2 The AMPLIFIES Project
The AMPLIFIES Project was a five-year project mainly undertaken by the USDA in collaboration with
foreign partners, local stakeholders, and academic institutions. Foreign partners include the Adventist
Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), American Soybean Association (ASA), and World Initiative for Soy
in Human Health (WISHH). Local stakeholders include the GNAPF, MoFA, and Ministry of Health (MoH).
Finally, academic institutions were led by Kansas State University (KSU) in collaboration with academic
institutions in Ghana (USDA, 2020). The poultry producing areas in Ghana where the project was
implemented included the Greater Accra, Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, and Northern Regions (USDA, 2016;
USDA, 2019).
1.2.1 Baseline Study
A Baseline Study, conducted in 2015 before AMPLIFIES was implemented, was used to assess the poultry
situation in the country and was intended as a clear basis of comparison for the achievement of
AMPLIFIES’ goals (USDA, 2016). It was led by the USDA in collaboration with the USAID’s West Africa
Analytical Support Services and Evaluations for Sustainable Systems (ASSESS), a partnership that brought
together the University of Rhode Island (URI), Delaware State University (DSU), and Kwame Nkrumah
University of Science and Technology (KNUST).
The Baseline Study aimed at ascertaining the interventions meant to target feed producers and poultry
farmers. It focused on assessing the technical and financial means, as well as the economic viability and
sustainability of the poultry sector along its value chain, to be used as a point of comparison after the
implementation of AMPLIFIES. The study covered the Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, and Greater Accra Regions,
due to their significance in the poultry value chain in Ghana. AMPLIFIES was also conducted with
participants in the Northern Regions, though this was not included in the data analysis. The study
employed poultry farmers and consumers of poultry products as its key respondents (USDA, 2016).
The Baseline Study revealed that poultry production was generally not financially viable, as the market
was poor and there was a lack of proper insurance schemes. Yet, the study showed potential for farmers
in the sector to make a profit. Findings also revealed that the quality of feed farmers produced dictated
the growth and health of their poultry birds. Additionally, it was found that poultry farmers had shifted
from producing meat to producing eggs. This is despite the fact that Ghanaians often adhere to
12 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
misconceptions about egg consumption. Finally, the study found that farmers had poor marketing skills
and that the lack of strong partnerships among stakeholders in the sector resulted in poor collaboration.
Thisinformed a key recommendation of the study: to form a Poultry Development Board that encouraged
a high level of collaboration among key players while also making data readily available for effective
decision making in the poultry sector.
1.2.2 Objectives and Key Activities 
AMPLIFIES was implemented to increase productivity and profitability along the poultry value chain. It
also aimed at strengthening the production, marketing, and financial performance of the poultry sector
value chain by specifically targeting feed producers/production, poultry farmers, and consumers of
poultry products. The program set out to achieve the following three main strategic objectives aimed at
increasing the agricultural productivity of the poultry value chain:
• To increase the quantity and lower the cost of poultry feed through the reduction of post-harvest
loss and procurement inefficiencies of primary feed ingredients;
• To improve poultry feed quality by boosting feed testing capacity and demonstrating the benefits
of quality feed;
• To increase the trade of eggs through awareness campaigns and the trade of commercialized
poultry feed through improved distribution networks and marketing.
To achieve these objectives, the program undertook ten major activities, as outlined below.
1) Improving poultry feed by introducing farmers and feed millers to strategies that would:
a. improve feed components for poultry;
b. lead to a cost saving in production; and
c. encourage a sustainable way of providing feed for poultry farmers in Ghana.
2) Improving the quality and consistency of feed formulations by teaching farmers and commercial
feed millers how to:
a. test for mycotoxin;
b. measure the nutritional content of poultry feed; and
c. formulate the right poultry diets for each breed.
13 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
3) Increasing feed testing capacity using quality assurance manualsthat teach participants how to test
the quality of feed at feed testing facilities and feed mills.
 4) Improving the efficiency of feed processing by training farmers and feed millers on:
a. techniques in mixing feeds to meet the nutritional requirements of the birds; and
b. standardsfor quantifying feed ingredients at feed testing facilities and feed milling services
for other value chain players.
5) Improving efficiency around procuring feed ingredients by building strong linkages between the
various players on the poultry sector value chain, including:
a. crop farmers,
b. poultry farmers,
c. crop aggregators,
d. processors, and
e. GNAPF and government officials (ASA, 2018a, 2019a, 2019b).
6) Building the capacity of farmers to obtain investments in feed processing by teaching them how to:
a. carry out basic bookkeeping and record keeping;
b. prepare income and expenditure accounts;
c. manage stocks;
d. access loan facilities; and
e. efficiently manage given loans.
7) Developing infrastructure for post-harvest storage and the aggregation of feed inputs by:
a. providing farmers with storage facilities for harvested crops needed for poultry feed;
b. constructing crop aggregation centers (CAC) and standalone drying platforms in the
Northern, Brong Ahafo, and Ashanti Regions;
c. training local committees in the beneficiary communities on how to manage the facility,
store produce in the warehouse, manage the produce, and handle post-harvest materials;
14 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
d. providing all local committees with the required tools and manuals, including GrainMate
Moisture Meters, Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags, and CAC operating manuals
to effectively manage the facilities; and
e. Providing select local committees with Flatbed Biomass Assisted Dryers and Cleaners for
crop storage (ASA, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b).
8) Expanding the poultry feed distribution network by increasing the participation of the various
stakeholders and players of the poultry industry value chain in the processing and distribution of
poultry feed and, thereby, creating employment opportunities for them.
9) Organizing a national awareness raising campaign to promote egg consumption by educating the
public on the benefits of eating eggs (ASA, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b).
10) Training farmers in harvesting and post-harvest handling techniques and storing feed inputs,
namely on topics relating to:
a. timely harvesting;
b. strategies to reduce pest and disease in crops; and
c. techniques to mitigate post-harvest loss, which include shelling, winnowing, drying,
proper use of the GrainMate Moisture Meter, bagging, and storage to reduce aflatoxin
infestation and storage losses (ASA, 2018a, 2018b; 2019a, 2019b).
1.2.3 Final Evaluation
The Final Evaluation was carried out to serve the following purposes:
1) To provide a better understanding about the perceived benefits and shortcomings of AMPLIFIES
Ghana.
2) To develop additional knowledge about the confounding variables that influenced beneficiary
outcomes.
3) To identify strategiesforfurther advancing the poultry value chain and develop recommendations
for future programming.
15 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
To do this, a list of recommended next steps for the USDA and the poultry value chain was developed.
Based on the Terms of Reference (ToR), the AMPLIFIES Final Evaluation sought to answer the following
specific research questions:
1) What aspects of the program contributed to the positive or negative outcomes experienced by
the beneficiaries?
2) What external factors contributed to the level of success achieved by beneficiaries?
3) What, if any, recommendations do beneficiaries have for future programs and what other
strategies can be identified to advance the poultry value chain?
With these key research questions in mind, the Final Evaluation specifically set out to assess how USDA
assistance impacted:
a. the number of people who applied new techniques or technologies;
b. the number of individuals who applied improved farm management strategies (i.e.
governance, administration, finance, or financial management);
c. the number of individuals receiving financial services;
d. the number of loans disbursed;
e. the value of loans disbursed;
f. the value of sales by project beneficiaries;
g. the value of commodities sold by individual beneficiaries.
1.2.4 About the Consulting Firm
TKG is a social impact management consulting and research firm working in sub-Saharan Africa focused
on using data and evidence to develop solutions to positively impact and transform communities. The
firm has offices in Ghana, Nigeria, Liberia, and the United States and has worked on over 200 projects in
20 countriesin the past decade. TKG has a strong reputation in the market for delivering rigorousresearch
and evaluations. TKG provides strategies that integrate results measurement and impact evaluation
techniques proven through field experience, grounded in local knowledge, and informed by state-of-the￾art approaches and tools.
16 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
1.2.5 Our Approach
TKG managed this final evaluation combining a team with vast subject matter expertise, technology, and
a participatory approach, engaging key stakeholders at each phase of the project’s implementation. The
final evaluation was designed to have four distinct phases; project inception, data collection, data cleaning
and analysis, and reporting and closure. 
The inception phase commenced with an initial meeting with ASA/WISHH and AMPLIFIES teams to
deliberate on the evaluation approach and timelines and to create that collaborative atmosphere that
would go on to be the major factor for the evaluation’ssuccess. The study wasinitially designed with face￾to-face interviews in mind, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting travel restriction policies of
the Government of Ghana and ASA/WISHH, changes were made to transition from Computer-Assisted
Personal Interviewing (CAPI) to Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). TKG held another
inception meeting with ASA/WISHH to discuss the new strategy.
Afterwards, TKG recruited and trained data collectors with prior experience in CATI and poultry projects.
A four-day online training and 2-day pilot testing exercise was organized for 27 potential enumerators.
Based on previous challenges with online engagements, the enumerators were divided into 3 groups and
3 training sessions were conducted daily to ensure quality. All training sessions were held on Zoom after
participants had been trained on how to effectively use the Zoom application. Based on enumerators’
performance during training, quizzes, and pilot exercise, 21 enumerators were selected for the project,
with the rest serving as backups. The training sessions were attended by the AMPLIFIES Monitoring and
Evaluation staff, who provided tremendous inputs to the achievement of the training goals.
The AMPLIFIES team also led initial introductory calls to inform beneficiaries of the final evaluation. This
process also helped to filter out contacts that were presumed to be invalid from the list of beneficiaries.
The inception phase ended with a desk review of the project’s documents. Based on the outcome of the
desk review, the AMPLIFIES Annual Result Survey (ARS) tools were revised for the final evaluation and
programmed using the KoBoCollectsoftware. The final evaluation tools and interview guides can be found
in the annex section below.
During the data collection phase, enumerators collected both quantitative and qualitative data remotely
from their homes. Four teams were created: three quantitative and one qualitative. Each team was led by
an experienced supervisor who assigned tasks and provided quality control through back-checks and
listen-ins. Each enumerator was assigned ten contacts daily and was expected to complete five. Once an
17 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
enumerator made a call and gained consent, the interview began and responses were inputted on mobile
devices. The outcomes of the calls were tracked on tracking sheets and submitted to supervisors at the
end of each day. Seven attempts were made at different times and days to reach each contact before the
contact was reported as not available.
Successful surveys were submitted to TKG’s Kobo server at the end of each day. Data was checked and
cleaned concurrently with data correction and issues were immediately resolved. For qualitative data,
enumerators sought the consent of respondents to record the calls. Once an interview was completed,
the recording was uploaded to a Dropbox folder before being transcribed verbatim. TKG later hired a team
to review all transcriptions and compare them with corresponding audio recordings before data analysis
was initiated. During data collection, there was constant communication with the ASA/WISHH and
AMPLIFIES teams to discuss progress and mitigate challenges. Data was analyzed using STATA and NVivo
software for quantitative and qualitative data, respectively. 
TKG held an initial finding presentation with the stakeholders where some inputs were added from the
ASA/WISHH team. The final report was then put together by TKG’s technical team.
18 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
METHODOLOGY
2.1 Introduction
TKG and ASA/WISHH agreed on an Outcome Harvesting (OH) approach for this evaluation by collecting
evidence of what changed and then working backwards to determine whether and how the AMPLIFIES
project contributed to these changes. There were two distinct phases of the OH. Phase 1 focused on
conducting a desk review of project documents, annual reports, midterm evaluation reports, and other
relevant documents. A comprehensive report was developed and submitted as part of the evaluation
deliverables. Findings from OH Phase 1 were used to refine the existing AMPLIFIES Annual Result Survey
tools.
Phase 2 of the OH focused on using the refined tools to collect primary data through quantitative and
qualitative methods. Due to the novel COVID-19 pandemic, TKG and ASA/WISHH amended the data
collection protocol to safeguard the evaluation team. Adhering to ASA’s Travel Restriction Policies, TKG
adopted a remote enumerators training and data collection approach, whereby training sessions were
held on Zoom and data was collected using CATI. Empirical data and both subjective and objective
viewpoints of respondents were used to assess the impact of the project. Employing both quantitative
and qualitative components, the study analysis aimed at being well balanced and well founded, with
proper triangulation of findings (Saunders et al., 2009; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010).
2.2 Sampling procedure
The final evaluation used a mixed approach employing both quantitative and qualitative methods.
Quantitative data was collected from the project’s main beneficiaries (poultry and feed millers), whereas
qualitative data was collected from crop farmers via FBOs, government stakeholders, and credit facility
providers. ASA/WISHH pre-determined individuals and FBOs who were included in the Final Evaluation
based on past performance in the program. According to the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by
ASA/WISHH, the study was initially designed to involve in-person interviews with 260 poultry farmers, 78
feed millers, 16 government officials, and 8 credit facility providers. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were
to be conducted with 18-24 FBOs across Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, and Northern regions.
As per the COVID-19 adjustments, TKG and ASA/WISHH agreed to increase the sample size due to the
transition from CAPI to CATI. TKG believed that a larger sample size would give room for a smaller margin
of error and more accurate mean values and increase the likelihood of generalizing the study’s findings.
19 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
The initial sample size for the poultry category was doubled to 518. The census approach was then used
for the remaining categories, as shown in Table 1 below. The 18-24 intended FGDs were also converted
into In-depth Interviews (IDI) with FBOs.
The final evaluation utilized Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method (SCM) to closely study the experience of
individuals and FBOs considered being the project’s most and least successful cases. The list was stratified
to include 50% each of beneficiaries who were most and least successful before handing the sampling
frame to TKG. A complete census of the beneficiaries was conducted. All beneficiaries who could be
reached via phone and provided consent were interviewed. See Annex 3 for more information on sample
size and selection criteria of all beneficiary groups.
In addition to beneficiaries, representatives of government agencies and credit facilities providers who
providing technical support to beneficiaries during AMPLIFIES were selected based on their availability
and ability to provide the required information for the evaluation.
2.3 Quantitative data collection and analysis
The survey initially targeted a total of 593 respondents (518 poultry farmers and 78 feed millers) but due
to challenges with the contact details of beneficiaries, only 470 beneficiaries were contacted. A total 364
surveys were administered, with a response rate of 77.4%. The quantitative data was collected from 326
poultry farmers and 38 feed millers using a structured questionnaire that took into consideration the ten
key goals of the program and key objectives of the study. Kobo Collect was used by field enumerators to
collect findings. Data collected was downloaded daily in order to identify errors made, which helped in
correcting them on time. All corrections to the data were made with the help of the field enumerators.
Data collected wit Kobo Collect was converted to the quantitative analysis software format STATA and
excel to then conduct the quantitative data analysis. This ensured that the original data was maintained.
The data analysis used descriptive statistics, such as tables, graphs, and other useful illustrations, as well
as inferential statistics, such as estimates of means and standard deviations. Multivariate analysis in the
form of probit and ordinary least squares was also employed to categorize respondents (poultry farmers
and feed millers) into two categories (least successful and most successful) and determine the underlying
factors that influence the impact of AMPLIFIES on their businesses (Lind et al., 2012; Aron et al., 2013).
20 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
2.4 Qualitative data collection and analysis
Qualitative data was collected through IDIs and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). During the data collection
period, Ghana was in a partial lockdown and traveling within the country was almost impossible;
therefore, the study opted for telephone interviews. Telephone interviews have several shortcomings,
including reduced exploration during the interview, high refusal rate of respondents, the inability to
observe non-verbal communication of the respondents, and the difficulty in taking extra notes during the
interview (Saunders et al., 2009). However, the field data collectors were well-trained and knowledgeable
about how to circumvent the above-mentioned challenges. On a positive note, the use of the telephone
interviews ensured that the data collection period was adhered to and the study completed on time.
The IDIs and KIIs were taken from three main groups of the AMPLIFIES Project participants who had either
taken part in the AMPLIFIES training or benefitted from it, namely crop farmers/FBOs (22), government
officials (16), and credit facility operators (5). In conducting the IDIs and KIIs, interview guides that were
prepared beforehand were used. After respondents were identified and consented to being interviewed
and having their calls recorded, they were asked questions that directly related to the specific objectives
of the study.
All recorded interviews were directly transcribed and also translated into English when interviews were
conducted in languages other than English, such as Twi and Dagbani. The interviewer was responsible for
the translation and transcription of the interviews they conducted. They used pure verbatim protocol for
transcription to ensure that participants’ utterances and idiosyncratic speech was used for the data
analysis. This approach keeps their original voices and increases the reliability of data analysis (Mayring,
2014). In addition, memos and field interview notes were used for the analysis.
Thematic analysis was employed to interpret qualitative data using NVivo, a computer-assisted qualitative
data analysis software (CAQDAS). In undertaking the thematic analysis, a preliminary code book was
generated for thematic elementsin the data and was adjusted asthe data analysis proceeded. This helped
to ensure a straightforward, quick, and well-structured data analysis(DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011). The data
was then broken down into small units called codes.
Two categories of coding–primary and secondary–were employed in the qualitative data analysis. The
primary codes were the first-level codes created from the direct words of the respondents that were the
foundation for the secondary codes. The primary codes were in NVivo and initial. NVivo codes were
21 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
created with the use of the direct words of the respondents while initial codes were created by putting
the words of the respondentsinto perspectives. Some of the initial codes created the basisforthe creation
of the secondary codes. The types of secondary codes used were focused and pattern. The focused codes
grouped the primary codes that were most frequently used orsignificant thematically to the objectives of
the study. The pattern codes, on the other hand, grouped the codesinto major units of analysesthat were
used to create themes directly relating to objectives of the study (Saldana, 2009; Miles et al., 2013; Gibbs,
2013). 
2.5 Triangulation of data
The quantitative data provides measured values to show how AMPLIFIES impacted respondents. The
qualitative data built off of the quantitative data to provide deeper and more diverse findings. Finally,
triangulation of the data was used to cross-check the qualitative and quantitative data.
Triangulation in the study was possible given the mixed method design used. After separately analyzing
both quantitative and qualitative data, they were combined through triangulation to arrive at a solid and
concrete conclusion. In the process of triangulation, two or more independent sources of data or data
collection procedures (in this case, multiple qualitative and quantitative sources) employed in the study
were used to support each other to ensure the reliability of the findings (Saunders et al., 2009). The data
analyst also employed their intuition and discretion, a common practice in research (Flick, 2019).
In triangulating the data, there were complementary and contrasting findings obtained from the
quantitative and qualitative data. Where the data aligned, the qualitative data provided a solid
explanation to what the quantitative data had shown (Saunders et al., 2009). Contrasting data, on the
other hand, was further investigated to gain a deeper understanding and reach a clear and convincing
conclusion. Triangulating data helped to provide richer information and a more comprehensive
understanding of the impact of the program. Figure 1 below summarizes the triangulation process for this
study.
22 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 1: Flowchart showing the triangulation process used in the data analysis
2.6 Ethical considerations
The study ensured thatrigorous ethicalstandards were kept in all instances. Specifically, in orderto ensure
that the evaluation present a clear and true reflection of how AMPLIFIES was implemented in Ghana, the
following principles were maintained:
a. No harm - Measures were taken when designing and implementing our questionnaire to avoid
causing any emotional, physical or economic harm to participants.
b. Transparency - Participants were clearly informed about the background and objectives of the
study.
Quantitative Data
Collection & Analysis
Qualitative Data
Collection & Analysis
Triangulation process by:
- Comparing the two types of data
- Contrasting the two types of data
- Use of intuition
- Use of further data
- Use of deeper analysis
- Crossing checking
Conclusion:
Solid and concrete
23 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
c. Consent - Participants were informed about topics to be covered, benefits and risks involved,
and how the data will be used. Online consent was sought from each participant before filling
out the survey or participating in an interview.
d. Voluntary participation - Participants were informed that their participation is voluntary and
that they have the right to stop the interview at any time or skip a question.
e. Confidentiality - All information gathered was kept strictly confidential, and no names or other
personal identifiers were recorded.
f. Privacy - Reasonable precautions were taken to reduce the risk of privacy breaches and
safeguard the confidentiality of data shared online.
g. Withdrawal - Participants were informed about their right to withdraw at any point or retract
their data after completing the study.
h. Security - A secure communication platform for data collection was used.
i. No sponsor influence - program sponsors had no influence over study findings (Saunders et al.
2009).
24 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Introduction
Thissection detailsthe demographics ofrespondents who took part in AMPLIFIES, their expectations prior
to the program, and the main findings of the evaluation.
3.2 Demographics of respondents
The three main target groups included poultry farmers, feed millers, and FBO members/crop farmers,
both male and female, of varying ages, based in the Ashanti, Brong Ahafo, Greater Accra, and Northern
regions. See tables 5, 6 and 7 in Appendix 1 for more demographic information about project participants.
As indicated in Table 5 (See Appendix 2) 1, the mean age of the poultry farmers was 46, with the majority
of both male and female farmers between ages 40 and 49. The majority of male farmers (41.7%) were
based in the Ashanti region, while 39.7% lived in the Brong Ahafo region and 18.6% in the Greater Accra
region. Female farmers, on the other hand, were more concentrated in one region, with 48.8% living in
the Brong Ahafo region, and only 26.6% in the Ashanti region and 18.6% in the Greater Accra region. Out
of the 326 poultry farmers interviewed, the majority were owners (80.7%) and the remaining (19.3%)
were farm assistants, caretakers, and farm managers, among others. Overall, most participants were from
Ashanti (39.9%) and Brong Ahafo (40.8%); fewer lived in Greater Accra (19.3%). Among the owners, 81.4%
were male and 75.6% were females. However, females were much less represented overall in the study.
As males dominate poultry production in all the regions where AMPLIFIES Ghana was implemented,
female participants only represented 14.4% of the total number of participants. Studies by Mensah-Bonsu
et al. (2019) and Tuffour and Tenyo (2015) indicate a male domination among poultry farmersin the Brong
Ahafo and Greater Accra regions of Ghana, respectively. 
As indicated in Table 6 (See Appendix 2), the mean age group of feed millers was 49 years. Most of the
feed millers were ages 40-49 years (36.8%) and 50–59 years (26.3%); only 5.3% were ages 20-29 years.
The vast number of participating feed millers were male (94.7%), with only 5.3% female. Most of the feed
millers came from Ashanti (42.1%) and Brong Ahafo (36.8%), while 21.1% were from Greater Accra. Similar
numbers of participating feed millers worked off-farm (44.7%) and on-farm (55.3%). Similar numbers of
feed millers also used facilities that had manual (29.0%), mechanized (39.5%), or a combination both
manual mechanized and manual (31.5%) systems. Most of the feed millers had facilities characterized as
large (52.6%) or medium-sized (39.5%); only 7.9% had facilities characterized as small. This was based on
25 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
the size of their storage facilities and the number of bags they could store. The majority used manual
scales (73.7%), while the remaining 26.3% used automatic scales.
As indicated in Table 7, 81.8% of participating FBOs who benefitted from AMPLIFIES within the five-year
period were composed of mainly males, while only 18.1% had greater female participation. Among FBOs,
81.8% were registered and 18.2% unregistered. Similarly, 90.9% had a documented mandate, while 9.1%
did not. All of the FBOs had executive steering committees for their organizations.
3.3 AMPLIFIES training methods
Within the context of AMPLIFIES, training was provided on the main topics relating to the project’s ten
major goals. The methods used for training were seminars, small group meetings, and a training of
trainers. Practical field demonstrations were also used as a key approach, whereby crop farmers were
physically shown techniques on how to plan and organize their farming activities, including harvesting,
post-harvesting handling, and storage, and poultry farmers and feed millers were shown how to conduct
feed formulation and testing. Finally, durbars were organized to raise awareness about the benefits of
egg consumption. A durbar involves different members of society, such as chiefs, opinion and religious
leaders, students, poultry sector stakeholders, and community members at large, meeting in an open
space. The AMPLIFIES team mainly used informal discussions and drama to educate the public about
consuming eggs.
3.4 Programs implemented in parallel to AMPLIFIES
Crop farmers noted that other organizations carried out ongoing agriculture trainings in parallel to
AMPLIFIES, mainly centered on growing crops. These included the World Food Programme (WFP), Danish
International Development Agency (DANIDA), University of Development Studies (UDS), Savana
Agriculture Research Institute (SARI), The ADVANCE Programme, Techno Serve, and the Animal Research
Institute. The respondents reported that none of the programs were as detailed, focused, and impactful
as AMPLIFIES.
3.5 Expectations before the implementation of AMPLIFIES
Program beneficiaries had several expectations before the program was implemented. Participants from
all three groups expected financial support and production inputs. The crop farmers and FBO members
also expected to see an improvement in the planting, harvesting, and storage of their produce. Moreover,
26 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
the FBO members expected to form stronger ties and become more united as a group.
Case 1: An FBO in the Dormaa Central Municipality
3.6 Perceived benefits and shortcomings of AMPLIFIES Ghana
3.5.1 Application of activity, benefits and impact
Participants assessed each of the 10 major themes as poor, neutral, good, very good, or excellent. With
respect to improved poultry feed, the lowest rating given by respondents was good, at 33.3%, with 58.3%
rating it as very good and 8.3% rating it as excellent. Similarly, improvementsin the quality and consistency
of feed formulations was not rated as poor or neutral. In total, 27.3% of respondents rated it as good,
45.5% as very good, and 27.3% as excellent. With regards to increased feed testing capacity, 23.1%, 46.2%
and 30.7% rated it as neutral, good and very good, respectively, while none rated it as poor or excellent.
For increased efficiency in feed processing, all respondents gave a rating of either good (67.6%) or very
good (33.3%). Increase efficiency in feed procurement of feed ingredients was rated mainly good (40%)
and very good (50%), with 10% of respondents rating it as excellent; none rated it as poor or neutral. With
regards to loans for investments in feed processing, the majority (71.7%) rated it as good, while 14.2%
rated it as poor and another 14.2% rated it as excellent. Post-harvest storage and aggregation of feed
inputs had no ratings of poor or neutral; 30.8%, 46.1% and 23.1% rated it as good, very good, and
excellent, respectively. The majority rated expansion of poultry distribution network good (80%), with
10% rating it as very good and another 10% rating it as excellent; none rated it as poor or neutral.
Organizing a national awareness campaign to promote egg consumption had no ratings of poor, neutral,
The statement below was taken from an FBO of crop farmers located in the Dormaa Central
Municipality in the Brong Ahafo Region that had 40 members in total, 22 of whom are active. It is
a registered association with bank accounts, a well-documented mandate, and an executive steering
committee. The crop farmers mainly produce maize, which is vital for poultry feed. During the
evaluation period, one of its top executives noted that he expected the AMPLIFIES project to provide
him with financial support for farming activities to be used for seeds, fertilizer, chemicals, and other
inputs for their maize production. Even though that expectation was not met, they were satisfied with
the end results of the training. As he put it:
So, our initial expectation was to receive funds to expand our
farms, but when we got the education and training from
AMPLIFIES, we were very happy. So, I will say our
expectations were met; although AMPLIFIES didn’t give us
physical cash, but the training that they gave us augmented our
yield and I am happy with that.
27 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
or good; rather, 50% each rated it very good and excellent. Harvesting, post-harvest handling, and storage
of feed inputs also had no ratings of poor or neutral; 37.5%, 50% and 12.5% rated it as good, very good,
and excellent, respectively. See
in Appendix 1 for details and the following sub-sections for a more detailed analysis of each of the 10
themes.
3.5.1.1 Activity 1: Improved Poultry Feed 
Overall, the reported use of applied knowledge of the AMPLIFIES training was very high among both
poultry farmers and feed millers. Among poultry farmers, 93.8% and 92% of the least and most successful
poultry farmers confirmed that they applied the training on the use of the right feed component, while
100% and 94.4% of the least and most successful feed millers reported the same. As indicated in Figure 2
below, a total of 92.7% and 96.6% of poultry farmers and feed millers, respectively, noted that they put
the training on poultry feed into practice. Similarly, 96.4% and 97.5% of the least and most successful
poultry farmers and 100% of both least and most successful feed millers reported applying the AMPLIFIES
training on cost-effective ways of feeding.
28 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 2: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improved poultry feed
Source: Field Data, 2020
The majority of poultry farmers and feed millers confirmed they benefitted from the training, with less
than one 1% reporting that applying their knowledge did not make much of a difference. Of those who
described positive outputs, beneficiaries noted learning alternative ways of adopting poultry feed and
were more knowledgeable on good feeding practices, which they were able to apply to generally improve
their poultry feeding, prevent contamination of the feed they gave to their poultry birds, and shift to feed
formulation as farmers. One respondent expressed:
It was equally very good because the cost of the locally
formulated feed was low as compared to imported feeds.
 Male, MoFA Staff, Ashaiman Municipality, KII, May, 2020
This theme was good… because during the training
they (AMPLIFIES) gave various alternatives on the
adoption of feeds.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Poultry
Farmer: Using
right feed
component
Poultry
Farmer: Cost
effective
ways of
feeding
Feed Millers:
Using right
feed
component
Feed Millers:
Cost effective
ways of
feeding
Least Successful (%) 93.8 96.4 100 100
Most Successful (%) 92 97.5 94.4 100
Total (%) 92.7 97.1 96.6 100 Percentage
29 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
 Male, MoFA Staff, Ga East Municipality, KII, May 2020
As indicated in Figure 3 below, 62.5% of the least successful respondents said they experienced a very
high reduction in their cost of feed processing, while 37.5% reported a high reduction; none indicated
they had low reduction or no impact at all. Similarly, among the most successful respondents, 57.1%
reported a very high reduction in cost and 42.9% a high reduction, with none reporting a low reduction or
no impact at all. 
Figure 3: Impact of reduction in cost of feed processing
Source: Field Data, 2020
3.5.1.2 Activity 2: Improvements in quality and consistency of feed formulation
Among the least and mostsuccessful poultry farmers, 96.5% and 95.7% reported applying what they were
taught during the training on using the right feed ingredient to ensure quality and consistency of feed
formulations, while 100% of both least and most successful feed millers reported the same, as indicated
in Figure 4 below. 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Very high 62.5 57.1
High 37.5 42.9
Low 0 0
Not at all 0 0
Percentage
30 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 4: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improved quality and consistency of feed formulations
Source: Field Data, 2020
Responses regarding the applied use of the right feed components and feed formulation to improve
poultry feed were similar; almost all the poultry farmers and feed millers reported applying what they
were taught by AMPLIFIES. Moreover, poultry farmers and feed millersshared that the ability to formulate
high quality feed for their birds due to the training helped them to grow their birds better and produce
feed at a very low cost, which ultimately improved their livelihoods and finances. Below are quotes taken
from MoFA officials who participated in the training with the farmers and later monitored their activities:
I will say [the training] was good because they gave the
training on how a farmer can combine various crops of
different corresponding nutrients to get a high quality feed
without going outside to buy. That idea was very good, since
in the poultry sector feed is one of the most expensive
commodities.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Least Successful
(%)
Most Successful
(%)
Total (%)
Poultry Farmer: Using the right feed
ingredients 96.5 95.7 96
Feed Millers: Using the right feed
ingredients 100 100 100 Percentage
31 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
 Male, MoFA Staff, Ga East Municipality KII, May, 2020
And also the growth rate when the birds were fed with the locally
made feed was also good. Example, farmers can sell their birds as
early as six months using the locally formulated feed, which was
almost the same as using the imported feed.
Male, MoFA Staff, Ashaiman Municipality, KII, May, 2020
As indicated in Figure 5, the vast majority of least successful respondents reported that the AMPLIFIES
training had a very high impact (68.8%) or a high impact (25%) on how they mixed the right feed, with
only 6.2% reporting a low impact and none reporting no impact at all. All of the most successful
respondents reported a very high impact (61.9%) or a high impact (38.1%); none reported a low impact
or no impact at all.
32 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 5: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improvements in the mixing of feed
Source: Field Data, 2020
3.5.1.3 Activity 3: Increased feed testing capacity
With regards to feed testing capacity, the study mainly assessed how participants applied what they
learned from feed test demonstrations. Among the poultry farmers and feed millers, 63.2% and 59.9% of
the least and most successful, respectively, and 100% and 78.6% of the least and most successful feed
millers respectively, stated that they applied what they were taught, as indicated in Figure 6.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Very high 68.8 61.9
High 25 38.1
Low 6.2 0
Not at all 0 0
Percentage
33 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 6: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying techniques to increase feed testing capacity
Source: Field Data, 2020
Table 9 in Appendix 2 indicates that, after completing the training, a little over half of poultry farmers
(57.9% of least successful and 55.8% of most successful) were still not testing their feed. Feed millers, on
the other hand, were somewhat more likely to test their feed following the training, with 58.8% of least
successful and 57.1% of most successful engaging in the practice. Even though 42.1% of the poultry
farmers admitted they tested for feed, further analysis of the data indicated that 4.91% always tested for
feed, 12.27% test for feed once a while 26.07% rarely tested for feed. This implies, even though they
tested for feed, the testing rate was low. Data on the regularity of testing by feed millers could not be
obtained.
The qualitative data showed that those who received training felt they had adequate knowledge about
improving the quality of feed they gave to their birds, because they had learned the nutritional component
of the feed. Participants of the training confirmed they were given feed testers as a reliable tool fortesting
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Least Successful
(%)
Most Successful
(%)
Total (%)
Poultry Farmers: Testing
Demonstrations 63.2 59.9 61.2
Feed Millers: Testing
Demonstrations 100 78.6 86.9 Percentage
34 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
the quality of feed given to their birds. A veterinary service division officer expressed how farmers gained
knowledge from the AMPLIFIES training on feed testing capacity:
The man [trainer] showed us that, if you are going to buy
maize or any kind of nutrients that you are going to formulate
to feed your poultry, 1) you have to check the moisture
content, so they showed us how to test the moisture by using
an instrument that you can just dip into the maize to check
the moisture. They gave the farmers testers.
Male, Veterinary Service Division Offical, Afigya Kwabre South, Ashanti
Region, KII, May, 2020
Case 2: A First Account of a MoFA Staff at Berekum West District, Brong Ahafo Region
Notwithstanding the rich knowledge gained from the training by poultry farmers and feed millers, the
issue of availability of feed testing kits was equally a challenge. This is how KII respondents expressed the
challenge with feed testing kit availability: 
Though we were taught at the training but I have not tested
any feed before. This is because there is no simple testing kit
for that.
Male, MoFA Officer, Ga East, Greater Accra Region, KII, May, 2020
AMPLIFIES should develop simple feed testing kit at a
cheaper rate to check basic but important nutrients in feed. It
will be good when this simple test kits are made available at
a cheaper price for farmers.
The staff member featured here joined the AMPLIFIES training program in 2018 and
functioned as a key coordinator between farmers and officials partaking in the program. He
expressed being able to help serve as a link between the farmers and officials during practical
field sessions that he participated in. In doing so, he reported witnessing the benefit of the
program to farmers, asserting:
It [the training] is good. This is because farmers have
gotten to know the need to test their feed, which is
intended to know the nutrient components the feed
comprised of.
35 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Male, MoFA Officer, Berekum West, Brong Ahafo Region, KII, May, 2020
3.5.1.4 Activity 4: Improvement in the quality of feed
Among the least successful respondents, 75.0% and 25.0% confirmed very high and high improvement in
the quality of feed produced, respectively. As indicated in Figure 7, 71.4% of the most successful
respondents indicated that impacts were very high and 28.6% indicated that impacts were high with
regards to producing high quality feed; none reported a low impact or no impact at all. 
Figure 7: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying improvements in the quality of feed
Source: Field Data, 2020
3.5.1.5 Activity 5: Increased efficiency in feed processing
Among poultry farmers, 91.9% and 95.9% of the least and most successful, respectively, stated that they
applied what they were taught about optimizing feed processing. Among feed millers, 100% of both the
least and most successful reported applying their knowledge, as indicated in Figure 8 below.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Very high 75 71.4
High 25 28.6
Low 0 0
Not at all 0 0
Percentage
36 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 8: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying knowledge to increase efficiency in feed processing
Source: Field Data, 2020
Practically all of participants thus reported a gain in knowledge that translated to improved techniques to
optimize feed processing. Moreover, the qualitative data revealed that participants had begun to
strategize how to feed their birds as a result of the training. This was mainly because they gained an
understanding of the importance of feed formulation and how to efficiently feed their birds–techniques
in their farming that were lacking before the AMPLIFIES program was implemented. A MoFA official with
AMPLIFIES reported seeing farmers apply this knowledge and gain positive results:
It is very good. The reason been that farmers are now aware
that is it not all about the feed but how efficient that feed is
been utilized
Male, MoFA Officer, Berekum West District, Brong Ahafo Region, KII,
May, 2020
As indicated in Figure 9, among the least successful respondents, 31.3% and 62.5%, reported a very high
or high impact of the training, respectively, when it came to efficiency in feed production. Only 6.2%
reported a low impact, and none reported no impact. Similarly, a majority of the most successful
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Least
Success
ful (%)
Most
Success
ful (%)
Total
(%)
Poultry Farmers: Optimization of feed 91.9 95.9 94.3
Feed Millers: Optimization of feed 100 100 100 Percentage
37 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
respondents reported the same: 47.6% and 38.1% stated that training had a very high or high impact,
respectively, with only 9.5% reporting a low impact and 4.8% reporting no impact in this area.
Figure 9: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying efficiency in feed production
Source: Field Data, 2020
3.5.1.6 Activity 6: Increased efficiency in the procurement of feed ingredients
As indicated in Figure 10 below, 89.0% and 90.6% of the least and most successful poultry farmers,
respectively, and 100% of least and most successful feed millers, asserted that they reached out to other
players on the poultry feed value chain as a result of AMPLIFIES. This helped them establish links to
efficiently procure feed ingredients. Overall, the number of improved collaborations was seen as a
successful marker of the program.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Very high 31.3 47.6
High 62.5 38.1
Low 6.2 9.5
Not at all 0 4.8
Percentage
38 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 10: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying increased efficiency in procuring feed ingredients
Source: Field Data, 2020
Farmers noted that they procured more feed and improved how they stored feed as a result of being able
to efficiently procure feed ingredients. Both poultry farmers and feed millers reported becoming more
knowledgeable about the right component of feed, adding that they were able to use local raw materials
as componentsin their feed. Participants believed that all these activitiesincreased the rate at which their
poultry birds grew. One respondent expressed:
There has been an increase in procurement because formally
most of the farmers were not paying much attention to the
ingredients that are necessary for good performance in terms
of production but once AMPLIFIES introduced them to the
good ingredients, they try to get them for their formulations.
MoFA Officer, Berekum Municipality, Brong Ahafo Region, KII, May,
2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Least Successful
(%)
Most Successful
(%)
Total (%)
Poultry Farmers : Bringing various feed
value chain players together 89 90.6 89.9
Feed millers : Bringing various feed
value chain players together 100 100 100 Percentage
39 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
They introduced us to people we can purchase the local raw
materials from so I will say it was very good.
Male, MoFA Officer, Ashaiman Municipality, Greater Accra Region, KII,
May, 2020
3.5.1.7 Activity 7: Loans for investments in feed processing
The final evaluation assessed poultry farmers’ and feed millers’ access to loans, financial management,
bookkeeping and record keeping, as these factors play a key role in determining the impact on value chain
actors. Concerning access to loans, 74.5% and 62.4% of the least and most successful poultry farmers,
respectively, and 77.8% and 70% of least and most successful of feed millers, respectively, stated that
they put into practice what they were taught by AMPLIFIES to obtain loans for investments in feed
processing. This is indicated in Figure 11 below.
40 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 11: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying techniques to access loans for investments in feed
processing
Source: Field Data, 2020
In terms of applying knowledge aboutfinancial management learned during the AMPLIFIES training, 94.7%
and 98.7% of the least and most successful poultry farmers, respectively, reported putting into practice
what they learned. Among feed millers, 100% of the least successful and 93.3% of the most successful
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Poultry
Farmers:
Access to
loans
Poultry
Farmers:
Financial
Managemen
t
Poultry
Farmers:
Record
keeping
Feed Millers:
Access to
loans
Feed Millers:
: Financial
Managemen
t
Feed Millers:
Record
keeping
Least Successful (%) 74.5 94.7 92.6 77.8 100 100
Most Successful (%) 62.4 98.7 98.8 70 93.3 100
Total (%) 67.8 96.9 96.2 73.7 96.3 100
Percentage 
41 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
reported doing the same. With regardsto record and bookkeeping, 92.6% and 98.8% of the least and most
successful poultry farmers, respectively, and 92.6% and 100% of the least and mostsuccessful feed millers
reported applying their knowledge.
Among the poultry farmers, 92.4% and 89.0% of least and most successful, respectively, who applied for
loans shared that they had been successful in securing loans after the AMPLIFIES training, while 76.5%
and 95.2% of least and most successful feed millers, respectively, reported successfully securing loans.
The findings indicate a high success rate in loan applications among beneficiaries, in comparison to the
Baseline Study numbers, which indicated that very few farmers could secure loans from credit and
financial institutions prior to AMPLIFIES, especially considering that the money available in the form of
credit for poultry farmers by these credit institutions is very limited.
The qualitative data from participants revealed that stakeholders on the value chain benefitted from
improved knowledge about loans and took advantage of opportunitiesto accessthem. Participantsshared
their improved knowledge of financial management which, in addition to other factors, helped them
improve their financial status. One MoFA staff who took part in the training reflected:
Formerly, people or the farmers, they are afraid and they
don’t know the processes in accessing loans, or getting loan
from the banks but through the training they are now
equipped and they know how to put things in other and
organize themselves very well, especially into groups and
other things, so that they can access the loan facilities.
Though they were not given money during the training, they
have been trained to know how they can go through and
access loans for their project.
Unknown Sex, MoFA Staff, Ga East Municipal Assembly, KII, May, 2020
42 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Case 3: An observation made by a commercial bank officer introduced to AMPLIFIES
As indicated in Figure 12 below, 43.8% of the least successful respondents reported a very high impact in
terms of funding for their feed operations, and an additional 37.5% reported a high impact. Only 18.7%
reported a low impact, and none reported no impact. Of the most successful respondents, a slightly lower
percentage reported positive outcomes: 38.1% reported a very high impact on funding for their feed
operations, 28.6% reported a high impact, and 33.3% reported a low impact; none reported no impact at
all.
The bank described here is among Ghana’s most prominent commercial banks, with branches in
almost every region of the country. Even though the data did not show when its staff learned
about AMPLIFIES, the loan officer stated that he was introduced to AMPLIFIES at a branch in
the Bono Municipality in the Brong Ahafo Region when poultry farmers, feed millers, and crop
farmers needed credit. The loan officer reflected that AMPLIFIES training participants benefited
by learning about bookkeeping, financial management, and strategies to access credit, stating:
Through AMPLIFIES they have also had the opportunity
to expand their businesses and also given a good education
on how to properly prepare books of account and how to
access some credit facilities.
The loan officer further stated that, due to their increased capacity from the AMPLIFIES training,
the bank was prepared to grant players on the value chain continued credit to expand their
businesses.
43 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 12: Improvement in funding feed operations
Source: Field Data, 2020
3.5.1.8 Activity 8: Post-harvest storage and aggregation of feed inputs
With regards to post-harvest storage and aggregation of feed inputs, the key activities assessed included
management of warehouse facilities and produce, reception of produce in warehouses, and handling of
post-harvest materials. As shown in Figure 13 below, 95.9% and 94.4% of the least and most successful
poultry farmers, respectively, and 100% of the least and most successful feed millers reported applying
what they learned about managing warehouse facilities and produce.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Very high 43.8 38.1
High 37.5 28.6
Low 18.7 33.3
Not at all 0 0
Percentage
44 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 13: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying knowledge of post-harvest storage and aggregation of feed
inputs
Source: Field Data, 2020
Among poultry farmers and feed millers, 94.3% and 92.3% of least and most successful, respectively, and
100% of least and most successful confirmed that they learned how to receive produce in warehouses for
feed production. Similarly, 91.1% and 90.2% of least and most successful poultry farmers, respectively,
and 100% of the least and most successful feed millers reported applying the training on post-harvest
material in their farming activities. Crop farmers, another key stakeholder group, also benefitted
immensely from this training. They learned about the dangers of post-harvest contamination of their
produce, and are now aware of the improved storage facilities available to them, due to support from
AMPLIFIES. They expressed that their post-harvest losses had reduced significantly due to the availability
of storage facilities and new knowledge they gained about post-harvest storage. As the data shows, this
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Poultry
Farmers:
Manage
warehous
e facility
and
produce
Poultry
Farmers:A
pplying:
Received
produce
in the
warehous
e
Poultry
Farmers:
Handle
post￾harvest
materials
Feed
millers:
Manage
warehous
e facility
and
produce
Feed
millers:Ap
plying:
Received
produce
in the
warehous
e
Feed
millers::
Handle
post￾harvest
materials
Least Successful (%) 95.9 94.3 91.1 100 100 100
Most Successful (%) 94.4 92.3 90.2 100 100 100
Total (%) 95 93.1 90.6 100 100 100 Percentage
45 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
program initiative was successful; however, storage still remains a challenge, as about 48% of feed millers
said that they still do not have proper facilities to store their feed. Case 4 below describes the impact of
the training on an FBO in the Brong Ahafo Region of Ghana.
Case 4: The impact on an FBO at Dormaa Central in the Brong Ahafo Region
Among poultry farmers and feed millers, 93.0% and 92.1% of the least and most successful, respectively,
and 100% of the least and most successful feed millers noted that they were better linked to the other
players on the feed value chain as a result of AMPLIFIES, as indicated in Figure 13 below. Crop farmers
indicated that they benefitted from the initiative by being connected with poultry farmers and feed
millers. Together, they worked to create strong networks, learn where feed can be easily located and
purchased, and find better deals.
This FBO has 20 members, 18 of whom are men and 2 of whom are women. It is registered, has an
executive steering committee, bank accounts, and a written mandate to regulate its activities. The
major crop its farmers grow is maize and the minor crops include pepper, tomatoes, and garden eggs.
As an FBO, one of its greatest challenges has been storing its maize produce, which is used post-harvest
for the production of poultry feed. They joined AMPLIFIES in 2015, at the program's start. Among the
numeroustraining topics were post-harveststorage and aggregation of training inputs. The FBO attests
to the immense support AMPLIFIES has given them, with one of their top executives describing it as
follows:
The AMPLIFIES project has really helped us because
previously we were losing our maize due to infections.
Through the training, we were taught how to prevent the
maize from aflatoxins which causes poultry birds to die. They
told us to carefully remove the bad maize from the good ones
and also introduced us to PICS bags for storing the maize.
This helped in storing the maize for a very long time without
it going bad. So now, they have seen improvement in our
maize production unlike previously.
The confirmation by this FBO is one among several testimonies that other well-established FBOs also
gave about the benefit of the AMPLIFIES program.
46 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 14: Poultry farmers and feed millers applying greater linkages with other members of the poultry feed
distribution network
Source: Field Data, 2020
Crop farmers, in particular, added that they could sell their produce with ease. Two FBO executives and a
MoFA officer expressed:
Yes, we received training. That’s why we were linked with
the poultry farmers and aggregators during the training. We
took the phone contacts of the poultry farmers and
aggregators and they also took ours. This helped us to market
our produce easily by just calling them. They also called us
whenever they needed the maize so that we can take it to
them to buy.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Least Successful
(%)
Most Successful
(%)
Total (%)
Poultry Farmers : Establishing links
with various feed value chain players 93 92.1 92.5
Feed Millers : Establishing links with
various feed value chain players 100 100 100 Percentage
47 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
FBO Executive, Dormaa Central Municipal Assembly, Brong Ahafo, KII, May,
2020
What I have benefited from them is that, right now I have five
bags of soya beans. If I have five bags of soya beans and if I
call them, they can call the poultry farmers to come and buy
and I will get much money than to send it to the market side
(traditional market).
FBO Executive, Tolon District, Northern Region, KII, May, 2020
It has help them a lot and then their education so now they
are able to locate where they will need the feed and those also
who need the feed. So those who are in need offeed can locate
where they can get and those who are also distributing will
also know where the demand is and they also send it.
Therefore I can say it has helped a lot. The network is now
ok. I will say it is good
Unknown Sex, MoFA Staff, Ga East Municipal Assembly, KII, May, 2020
As indicated in Figure 15 below, among the least successful respondents, 37.4% and 50% confirmed very
high and high improvements in marketing poultry feed, respectively, while 6.3% reported a low
improvement and another 6.3% reported of no improvement. Of the most successful respondents, 52.3%
and 38.1% indicated that impacts were very high and high, respectively, while 4.8% indicated that impacts
were very low; an additional 4.8% reported no impact whatsoever.
48 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 15: Improvement in marketing of poultry feed by feed millers
Source: Field Data, 2020
3.5.1.9 Activity 9: Organizing a national awareness raising campaign to promote egg
consumption
The evaluation focused on assessing the perceptions among poultry farmers and feed millers on the
benefits of the national awareness raising campaign. As shown in Figure 16 below, 90.8% and 89.8% of
least and most successful poultry farmers, respectively, were of the view that their businesses had
benefited from the activity, while 94.1% and 100% of the least and most successful feed millers,
respectively, shared the same view.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Very high 37.4 52.3
High 50 38.1
Low 6.3 4.8
Not at all 6.3 4.8
Percentage
49 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 16: Poultry farmers and feed millers who found the awareness raising campaign beneficial
Source: Field Data, 2020
Respondents expressed that the campaign increased knowledge of the benefits of eating eggs and
boosted egg consumption by improving negative public perceptions around it. As a result, poultry farmers
and feed millers saw increased profits. A MoFA staff member who observed the program expressed: 
I will rate it [the theme] as excellent. Because for some time
now there has been some myth on egg consumption. And
people have the believe that too much eggs consumption is
bad. In that case, farmers were having sums of eggs but cannot
market it but now the consumption of egg has increased
tremendously which was an excellent work they did.
 MoFA Staff, Ashaiman Municipal Assembly, KII, May, 2020 
 
For that I will say it is excellent because AMPLIFIES came on
board and people are now consuming egg in an incredibly
high rate. It has even come to our attention that the demand
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Least
Successful (%)
Most
Successful (%)
Total (%)
Poultry Farmers :Convinced of
Benefitted from Egg Campaign 90.8 89.8 90.2
Feed Millers : Convinced of
Benefitted from Egg Campaign 94.1 100 97.1 Percentage 
50 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
for eggs cannot be met by the poultry farmers in this very
district. AMPLIFIES has contributed massively in regards to
egg consumption.
MoFA Staff, Berekum West District Assembly, KII, May, 2020 
3.5.1.10 Activity 10: Harvesting, Post-harvest Handling and Storage of Feed Inputs
As indicated in Figure 17, 56.3% and 37.5% of the least successful respondents reported a very high and
high impact, respectively, when it came to improvements in storing their feed, while 6.2% reported a low
impact and none reported no impact at all. Of the most successful respondents, 57.1% and 38.1% shared
that impacts were very high and high, respectively, while none reported a very low impact and 4.8%
reported no improvement at all in the storage of their feed.
Figure 17: Improvement in the storage of feed
Source: Field Data, 2020
Crop farmers most impacted by the training on harvesting, post-harvest handling, and storage of feed
inputs stated that AMPLIFIES was beneficial in helping them at every stage. Although AMPLIFIES training
did not focus on crop planting, some FBOs reported to have learned how to plant crops better, as they
became knowledgeable about how to space crops and improve how they apply fertilizers and chemicals.
When it came to harvesting, crop farmers reflected that they learned to harvest strategically and were
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Very high 56.3 57.1
High 37.5 38.1
Low 6.2 0
Not at all 0 4.8
Percentage
51 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
given harvesting sacks and otherresourcesto help in storing their produce. They attributed theirincreases
in yield and improvement in the quality of yield to their newfound knowledge. Two respondents shared
the following:
We received training of how to grow the maize and how to it
so that it doesn’t destroy. At first, the maize was grown in a
haphazard order but AMPLIFIES taught us how to grow the
maize using lines to get more yield. They also, taught us
when to know the maize is dried and ready for harvesting.
And indeed, when we followed the methods, we realized that
the maize wasn’t destroyed again like how it was before.
Had it not been AMPLIFIES, some of us wouldn’t know
certain things in post-harvest. Logistics such as PICS bags
and zero fly bags were introduced by AMPLIFIES. Right
now, as I am talking with you the zero fly bag is in total
shortage because they are always on my neck. They farmers
have now seen the essence of these zero fly bags and there is
a high demand for them. Those who store their grains in
normal sacks, their grains go bad in no time.
Male, MoFA Officer, Dormaa Central Municipality, Brong Ahafo Region,
KII, May, 2020
They also, taught us when to know the maize is dried and
ready for harvesting. And indeed, when we followed the
methods, we realized that the maize wasn’t destroyed again
like how it was before.
Male, FBO Executive, Dormaa Central Municipality, Brong Ahafo
Region, KII, May, 2020
3.5.2 Impact of AMPLIFIES on the ten main goals
The impact of the main activities of the AMPLIFIES program extended to two crucial aspects of poultry
production: egg and broiler production. More specifically, the evaluation looked at the impacts on the
price and output of the production of eggs and broilers. It should be noted, however, that all outcomes
for broiler production shared below are largely attributable to the GPP, who worked with farmers to
produce broilers.
52 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
3.5.2.1 Impact on egg production 
As indicated in Figure 18 below, among the least successful respondents, 48.3% reported a significant
increase and improvement in the price of their eggs, while 29.2% reported a moderate increase and 25.5%
reported no significant increase. Similarly, 55.3% ofthe mostsuccessfulrespondentsreported a significant
increase in the price of their eggs, 22.7% reported a moderate increase, and 22.0% reported no increase.
Figure 18: Reported increase in the price of eggs
Source: Field Data, 2020
The mean number of crates of eggs that were produced during the AMPLIFIES program increased steadily
each year, as indicated in Figure 19 below. Among the least successful respondents, the mean total in
2016 was 12,810. This went up to 14,326 in 2017, 15,784 in 2018, and 19,893 in 2019. The mostsuccessful
respondents recorded a mean number of 48,665 in 2016, 51,865 in 2017, 54,248 in 2018, and 55,537 in
2019.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Much increase and improvement 48.3 55.3
Not much increase and
improvement 26.2 22.7
No increase and improvement 25.5 22
Percentage
53 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 19: Mean number of crates* of eggs produced from 2016 to 2019
Source: Field Data, 2020;
*Note: 1 crate holds 24 eggs
Though total numbers were lower for the least successful respondents, they experienced a greater
percentage change in mean number of crates over the years. More specifically, they saw a 11.83%
increase from 2016 and 2017, 10.18% from 2017 to 2018, and 26.03% from 2018 to 2019. The most
successful respondents, on the other hand, recorded a mean change of 6.58% from 2016 and 2017, 4.59%
from 2017 to 2018, and 2.83% from 2018 to 2019. The data is shown below in Figure 20.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Total production of egg in crate
2016 12810 48665
Total production of egg in crate
2017 14326 51865
Total production of egg in crate
2018 15784 54248
Total production of egg in crate
2019 19893 55537
Percentage
54 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 20: Mean Percentage change in egg production
Source: Field Data, 2020 
As shown in Figure 21, the least successful respondents had 154,546 cedis in mean total sales of eggs in
2016, 170,315 cedis in 2017, 193,411 cedis in 2018, and 255,635 cedis in 2019. The most successful
respondents also had an increase in mean total sales over time, with a great increase from 2018 to 2019.
They received a mean total of 543,165 cedes in 2016, 626,792 cedis in 2017, 695,033 cedes in 2018, and
109,6347 cedis in 2019.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Percentage Change in egg
production in crates (2016 - 2017) 11.83 6.58
Percentage Change in egg
production in crates (2017 - 2018) 10.18 4.59
Percentage Change in egg
production in crates (2018 - 2019) 26.03 2.38
Percentage
55 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 21: Mean total sales in egg production
Source: Field Data, 2020 
In terms of percentage change in mean total egg sales, the least successful respondents saw a 10.20%
increase from 2016 and 2017, 13.56% from 2017 to 2018, and 32.17% from 2018 to 2019. The most
successful respondents experienced a mean change of 15.40% from 2016 to 2017, 10.89% from 2017 to
2018, and 57.74% from 2018 to 2019. See Figure 22 below.
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
Least Successful (¢) Most Successful (¢)
Total annual value sales for egg in
2016 154546 543165
Total annual value sales for egg in
2017 170315 626792
Total annual value sales for egg in
2018 193411 695033
Total annual value sales for egg in
2019 255635 1096347
56 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 22: Percentage change in mean egg sales
Source: Field Data, 2020 
As shown below in Figure 23, 44.2% of the least successful respondents reported a great increase in their
output of broilers after participating in the AMPLIFIES training, and 12.4% reported a low increase; 43.4%
reported no increase in output. Similarly, 50.3% of the most successful respondents reported a great
increase in their output of broilers, with 14.9% reporting a low increase and 34.8% reporting no increase.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Percentage Change in value sales for
egg (2016 - 2017) 10.20 15.40
Percentage Change in value sales for
egg (2017 - 2018) 13.56 10.89
Percentage Change in value sales for
egg (2018 - 2019) 32.17 57.74
Percentage
57 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 23: Increase in the output of broilers
Source: Field Data, 2020
With regards to the price of broilers, 42.8% of the least successful respondents stated a great increase in
the price of broilers after participating in the AMPLIFIES training, and 15.9% stated a low increase; 41.3%
stated no increase in price. Among the most successful respondents, 48.6% saw a great increase in the
price of broilers and 16.6% saw a low increase, while 34.8% saw no increase. See Figure 24 below for more
details.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Much increase and improvement 44.2 50.3
Not much increase and improvement 12.4 14.9
No increase and improvement 43.4 34.8
Percentage
58 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 24: Increase in the mean price of broilers
Source: Field Data, 2020
The mean total number of broilers produced by the least successful respondents rose steadily throughout
the project period. They produced 440 in 2016, 454 in 2017, 533 in 2018, and 547 in 2019. The most
successful respondents, on the other hand, saw their highest mean output of broilers, at 1,488 in 2016.
They went on to produce a mean total of 1,080 in 2017, 1,309 in 2018, and 1,287 in 2019. This data is
shown below in Figure 25.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Much increase and improvement 42.8 48.6
Not much increase and improvement 15.9 16.6
No increase and improvement 41.3 34.8
Percentage
59 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 25: Mean total broiler production
Source: Field Data, 2020
As indicated in Figure 26 below, among the least successful respondents, the percentage change in mean
broiler production was 3.18% from 2016 to 2017, 17.40% from 2017 to 2018, and 2.63% from 2018 to
2019. The most successful respondents recorded a mean change of -27.42% from 2016 to 2017, 21.20%
from 2017 to 2018 and -1.63% from 2018 to 2019. 
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Least Successful Most Successful
Total production of broiler in 2016 440 1488
Total production of broiler in 2017 454 1080
Total production of broiler in 2018 533 1309
Total production of broiler in 2019 547 1287
60 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 26: Percentage change in mean broiler production
Source: Field Data, 2020
As shown in Figure 27 below, the least successful respondents saw a steady rise in their mean total sales
of broilers, from 15,111 cedis in 2016, to 15,285 cedis in 2017, 19,023 cedis in 2018, and 20,328 cedis in
2019. The most successful respondents recorded a mean sales of 40,243 cedis in 2016, 26,593 cedis in
2017, 36,826 cedis in 2018, and 35,986 cedis in 2019.
-30.00
-25.00
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Percentage Changes in broiler
production (2016 - 2017) 3.18 -27.42
Percentage Changes in broiler
production (2017 - 2018) 17.40 21.20
Percentage Changes in broiler
production (2018 - 2019) 2.63 -1.68
Percentage
61 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Source: Field Data, 2020
Examining the percentage change in mean broiler sales, the least successful respondents saw a 1.15%
increase from 2016 to 2017, 24.46% increase from 2017 to 2018, and a 6.86% increase from 2018 to 2019.
The most successful respondents recorded a 33.92% decrease in mean broiler sales from 2016 to 2017,
38.48% increase from 2017 to 2018, and 2.28% decrease from 2018 to 2019. This data is shown in Figure
28 below.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
Least Successful (¢) Most Successful (¢)
Total annual value sales for broiler in
2016 15111 40243
Total annual value sales for broiler in
2017 15285 26593
Total annual value sales for broiler in
2018 19023 36826
Total annual value sales for broiler in
2019 20328 35986
Figure 27: Mean total sales of broilers
62 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Figure 28: Percentage change in mean broiler sales
Source: Field Data, 2020
3.5.3 Areas of improvement for AMPLIFIES
Notwithstanding the successes of the project, participants felt that there were some shortcomings.
Farmers complained about the training schedules and lack of advance notice for trainings, as well as the
decision to hold trainings at plush hotels where they felt uncomfortable. With regardsto the training itself,
participants had expected to be thoroughly trained in all techniques, from planting to harvesting. They
also noted that demonstrations on the farms were inadequate, pointing out the lack of birds available for
practical training. Some farmers also had difficulties with the maize varieties they were introduced to
during the program. In addition, crops farmers especially felt that AMPLIFIES should have provided them
with materials, including yellow corn seeds, farm machinery, fertilizer, and other chemicals for farming.
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
Least Successful (%) Most Successful (%)
Percentage Change in value sales for
broilers (2016 - 2017) 1.15 -33.92
Percentage Change in value sales for
broilers (2017 - 2018) 24.46 38.48
Percentage Change in value sales for
broilers (2018 - 2019) 6.86 -2.28
Percentage
63 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Regarding administrative issues, some respondents felt the program did not collaborate enough with
farmers, FBOs, and MoFA officials. Finally, some respondents noted the challenges involved in helping
farmers secure loans, due to financial difficulties and issues with general management. Commenting on
the difficulty in securing loans, two respondents stated:
Inability in loan assessment especially on beginners. This is
even worse when they have not even completed one cycle of
production.
Poultry, Berekum West Municipal Assembly, Brong Ahafo Region, KII,
May, 2020
In terms of loan assessment is zero because they do not get.
This is a serious challenge.
MoFA Officer, Ashaiman Municipal Assembly, Greater Accra Region,
KII, May, 2020
3.6 Variables that influenced beneficiary outcomes
A probit regression was used to analyze the factors that influenced the most and least successful
beneficiary outcomes. As indicated in Table 9 below, feed millers had a higher probability of being
successful when they were male and living in the Brong Ahafo and Greater Accra regions as compared to
the Ashanti region. The most successful feed millers had a lower installed capacity in metric tonnes but
higher actual capacity compared to the less successful. They were also least likely to exceed installed
capacity compared to the least successful. Off-farm feed millers were more likely to be less successful
than on-farm feed millers. Success was also more likely among those using both mechanized and manual
systems as opposed to either only manual or only mechanized systems. The most successful feed millers
who benefitted most from the training were those working at large facilities and using a manual system
for weighing. Finally, those feed millers who were most successful were more likely to say that their
success was totally, not partially, due to AMPLIFIES than the least successful. See Table 10 in Appendix 1.
Among poultry farmers, success was associated with being female, hailing from the Greater Accra as
opposed to the Ashanti region, and not managing their own farms. They were more likely to be successful
when they employed a greater number of total workers and did not implement layer production but did
implement broiler production before AMPLIFIES. The most successful poultry farmers were less likely to
64 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
purchase white maize from aggregators and farm gate than the open market but were to female farmers
after going through the AMPLIFIES training. Additionally, the farmers who had broilers before the
AMPLIFIES training saw reduced egg production by 8.90 eggs. Farmers who purchased white maize from
aggregators on average produced 45,147 more eggs (1881.13 more crates) than those who bought from
the open market. Similarly, those who purchased white maize from farm gate produced 31,131 more eggs
(1,297.12 more crates) more than farmers who bought from the open market. On the other hand, farmers
who bought yellow maize from aggregators produced 36,799 less eggs (1,533.29 less crates) than farmers
who bought from the open market.
The data implies that male farmers were impacted more positively than female farmers in the AMPLIFIES
program. Also, farmers may have shifted their production resources from broiler to layers after been
introduced to the program, since broiler bird production was, on average, reduced during the three-year
period. Farmers who bought white maize from aggregators and farm gate had an advantage in egg
production over those who bought yellow maize from the open market in terms of egg production.
Farmers who bought yellow maize from the aggregators, on the other hand, saw less egg production than
those who bought from the open market. See Table 12 in Appendix 1.
3.7 Strategies for further advancing the poultry value chain and develop
recommendations for future programming
This section gives a detailed assessment of AMPLIFIES, examines inherent challenges and opportunities
for boosting the poultry sector, and provides well-founded recommendations for future programming.
3.7.1 Assessment of AMPLIFIES
The assessment of AMPLIFIES shared below is separated into four main sections: the training process,
outstanding themes, general themes, and the overall program assessment.
3.7.1.1 Assessment of the training process
The training process was assessed by looking at the methods used for training, the training environment
and atmosphere, and effectiveness of the training. Participants noted a high level of interaction during
the training sessions. They expressed that trainers were patient and also exhibited good rapport with
participants. One participant shared:
The farmers were free to ask questions that baffled their
minds regarding their farming activities. It was an interactive
meeting.
65 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
FBO Executive, Dormaa Central Municipality, Brong Ahafo Region, KII,
May, 2020
Beneficiaries were generally satisfied with the training program. Farmers used language such as
“excellent”, “good", and "very good”, with the majority emphasizing that they were very satisfied with
the training. Similarly, MoFA officials used words such as “excellent" and “perfect" to describe how the
training was organized. Notwithstanding the high level of satisfaction with the AMPLIFIES training,
participants noted the following areas that they felt needed improvement:
• training sessions started late;
• trainings were not scheduled at convenient times;
• training facilitators did not cover all themes as outlined at the beginning of the program;
• they were not given enough advanced notice before trainings;
• training sessions were held outside of their communities; and
• training sessions were held at expensive locations, such as hotels.
3.7.2 Outstanding themes
Two of the ten main initiativesimplemented by AMPLIFIES were thought by various groups ofrespondents
to be outstanding. Crop farmers, FBO members, and MoFA officials alike reported that the greatest gains
from AMPLIFIES was in improving harvesting, post-harvest handling, and storage of feed inputs, as the
knowledge gained was used to significantly increase yields and the distributed storage facilities resulted
in massive improvements in how produce was stored. FBO members described the impact as follows:
For that one, I will give 90% because, if only you followed the
methods, the maize doesn’t get destroyed again. I cannot give
it 100% because nothing is perfect but most of the trainings
under this topic were very helpful and had impact on our
farm operations.
Male, FBO Executive, Dormaa Central Municipality, Brong Ahafo
Region, KII, May, 2020
66 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
For me, the most thing I thought it was very important is the
post-harvest losses. That is the most important thing, because
a farmer will suffer all from the time the rain sets in and then
in the last minute, everything in the farm will go waste. That
is why I think it is the most important for the training.
Male, FBO Member, Yendi Municipality, Northern Region, Personal
Interview, May, 2020
Government officials also highlighted the enormous positive impact the national awareness raising
campaign to promote egg consumption had on the poultry value chain, as it increased the demand for
eggs.
All their programs worked very well, but if I am to choose
one of them then I will say egg campaign was exceptional.
Veterinary Services Division, Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly, Ashanti
Region, KII, May, 2020
All of them work well but the egg campaign was very
perfect.
MoFA Officer, Asokore Mampong Municipal Assembly, Ashanti Region,
KII, May, 2020
3.7.3 Overall Assessment
Training participants highly praised AMPLIFIES. These expressions of appreciation for the program came
from crop farmers, FBO members, poultry farmers, and MoFA officials. They reflected that the program
had positive impacts on the general management of their businesses and marketing of their products.
This, as a result, improved their profitability and financial standing. One of the MoFA officials testified:
Yes [participants] have also benefitted because at first, they
worked individually and how to access loan and other forms
of financial help was also was very difficult. Now that they
have put themselves into groups and due to the training that
they have, they are able to access to access loan facility and
then expand their farming.
67 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
MoFA Officer, Ga East Municipal Assembly, Greater Accra Region, KII, May,
2020
On marketing, it has benefited crop farmers to have readily
available poultry farmers to purchase their produce to
manufacture their own feed.
MoFA Officer, Ga East Municipal Assembly, Greater Accra Region, KII, May,
2020
Some crop farmers expressed that they were satisfied with the program and saw a big difference in their
farming, while others went further to state that they felt real changes to their businesses. When asked to
describe the program, they said it was very helpful, good, and reliable, and that it had a positive
contribution. One crop farmer expressed:
Everything has changed. It has helped us a lot… we are
praying that they should still be on our side.
Crop farmer, Kumbungu, Northern Region, Personal Interview, May,
2020
Most MoFA officials, similarly, emphasized that the program was “excellent” with some describing it as
"very good" and “good". The credit facility providers also indicated that they felt the overall program to
be “very good” and “good”, with most of them sharing their satisfaction with the program. The crop
farmers and FBO members also rated the program as “excellent”, “very good”, and “good”. This is how
one crop farmer put it:
Very good, very very very excellent.
Crop farmer, Kumbungu, Northern Region, Personal Interview, May,
2020
3.7.4 Meeting expectations
Crop farmers, feed millers and poultry farmers largely felt that their expectations were met and that all
ten activities positively impacted their production. Crop farmers and poultry farmers alike noted that their
expectations were exceeded in some cases. Crop farmers were especially pleased with learning
techniques for harvesting and storage of their produce, and poultry farmers with the increase in their egg
sales. One area in which expectations were not met was with regards to accessing loans and available
fundsfortheir businesses. Some participants expected the program to provide them with fundsto support
68 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
their business activities, though they were generally satisfied with the skills training that helped them
manage their finances and access loans from credit facilities.
3.8 Challenges AMPLIFIES beneficiaries still face
Despite the numerous benefits of AMPLIFIES, participants continue to face some significant challenges
with regards to finances, bookkeeping, marketing, and production. Farmers and feed millers often had
poor financial standing and carried out poor bookkeeping as a result of having a low level of education,
which impeded their ability to access credit facilities. The high cost of production and lack of incentives,
such as inputs for production and warehouse for storage, continue to pose as a challenge for participants.
Finally, yields are impacted by climate change, pests and diseases, and other external factors outside of
the beneficiaries’ control. A MoFA officer and crop farmer describe some of these barriers as follows:
How to get money to produce more crops. They find it
difficult in getting loans due to lack of collateral so they
always depend of friends and families.
MoFA Officer, Ga East District, Greater Accra Region, KII, May, 2020
This pest, they disturb a lot across all the crops we are
planting in the community. Especially last two years, this the
fall of army worms is so prevalent and that they were coming
on our farms always.
Crop farmer, Yendi, Northern Region, Personal Interview, May, 2020
3.9 Opportunities for AMPLIFIES beneficiaries
Despite being confronted with challenges in their farming activities, crop farmers, poultry farmers, and
feed millers have numerous opportunities available for them since completing the AMPLIFIES training
program, specifically with regards to general management, financial management, and marketing and
loan assessment. All key stakeholder groups have greater potential to access credit facilitiesfrom financial
institutions, as they can collaborate to keep proper farm records and show reliability in loan repayment
69 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
through the production of more crops, feed, eggs, and birds. Participants are also more equipped to
increase their marketing opportunities by meeting their clients’ demands and expanding their client base.
With access to MoFA officers, farmers who participated in AMPLIFIES have a resource they can turn to if
they need further support for production. Finally, participants can share access to improved warehouses
to properly store their produce and also share ideas from AMPLIFIES with their colleagues when needed. 
3.10 Suggestions for future iterations of AMPLIFIES
Views on suggestion were taken from government officials who took part in all the training sections and
followed up on the farmers after the training. Others also from the FBOs and the poultry farmers.
AMPLIFIES was assessed as highly successful. Future iterations of the program can offer more resources
to ensure continued success. Participants had several suggestions to improve marketing, finances,
production and inputs, training, implementation, and collaboration. They suggested that AMPLIFIES make
more buyers available fortheir produce, add financial aid to the package, assist more with accessing loans,
and help participants collaborate with more financial institutions offering loans. Participants also
suggested that trainers increase the practical training sessions and make inputs such as fertilizer, storage,
farm machinery, and seeds available to farmers. A MoFA staff member offered:
With the program organization, even though there were some
practicals, I think they are not enough. I think there should
be more practical since it is easy to remember than theory.
MoFA Officer, Ga East Municipality, Greater Accra Region, KII, May,
2020
Government officials who took part in the training and followed up with farmers and FBOs felt that
training should be extended to more farmers, communities, and tertiary students. They also felt that
trainingsshould be carried out more frequently, involve MoFA early in the program’straining, and provide
participants with ample advanced notice and certificates of completion. Moreover, respondents felt that
more MoFA field workers should be involved in trainings, with logistics and training manuals available to
MoFA officials and farmers, and more feedback collected. With regards to training topics, participants
thought AMPLIFIES would be strengthened by more training on local varieties in feed formulation. Finally,
more collaboration between MoFA and FBOs was encouraged. Participants felt that the MoFA should be
involved in helping to ensure the sustainability of program outputs and achievements.
The poultry farmers also suggested several ways in which the program can be improved for the future.
70 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
They specifically recommended introducing new technology, helping farmers more in marketing their
produce, and having the MoFA or AMPLIFIES team carry out follow up visits to farms. They emphasized
the importance of helping make loans with reasonable interest available to farmers by credit facility
providers and providing financial assistance to farmers. Moreover, they recommended that feed testing
facilities be available to farmers. Finally, poultry farmers, government officials, and FBOs alike suggested
extending the program to all of Ghana and intensifying the training. See Table 12 below for a breakdown
of suggestions made by farmers with regards to financing, marketing and training.
3.11 Conclusion
AMPLIFIES was implemented to increase productivity and profitability along the various sections of the
poultry value chain. It also aimed at strengthening the production, marketing, and financial aspects of the
value chain by specifically focusing on the feed producers/production, poultry farmers, and the consumers
of poultry products.
The Final Evaluation process used the Outcome Harvesting (OH) approach to determine how the
AMPLIFIES project has impacted on participants within the period of implementation by specifically
analyzing the perceived benefits and shortcomings of AMPLIFIES Ghana, develop an additional knowledge
about the confounding variables that influenced beneficiary outcomes and identify strategies for further
advancing the poultry value chain and develop recommendations for future programming. It started with
a desk review which was later followed with the collection of data. Data collection of took into
consideration the required precautions and protocols due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Following the mixed
method design, the study collected and analyzed quantitative data from the project’s main beneficiaries
(326 poultry farmers and 38 feed millers and qualitative data from 22 crop farmers via FBOs, 16
government stakeholders and 5 credit facility providers in the form of KIIs and IDIs. The qualitative data
was analyzed with thematic and content analysis while the quantitative data was analyzed with
descriptive and inferentialstatistics as well as probit and ordinary leastsquaresregressions. It undertaking
the quantitative analysis, the concept of least and most successful poultry and feed millers were factored
in.
The results show that in terms of applying their knowledge, at least 90% of poultry farmers and feed
millers reported putting into practice what they learned for six of the main goals to improve poultry feed,
improve the quality and consistency of feed formulations, improve the efficiency of feed processing,
improve efficiency in procuring feed ingredients, and expand the poultry feed distribution network.
71 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Around 60% also reported applying what they learned when it came to increasing feed testing capacity
using quality assurance manuals and obtaining investmentsin feed processing through loans. Additionally,
participants reported being impacted by the national awareness raising campaign to promote egg
consumption and harvesting and post-harvest handling techniques and storing feed inputs, though direct
measurements could not be made.
Impacts were felt at all levels of the program. All of the least and most successful respondents reported
high or very high impacts on their poultry feed, with reductions in feed processing. Over 60% reported
high impacts on the quality and consistency of feed formulation, with the remainder reporting some level
of impact. With regards to increased feed testing, at least 40% of all respondents stated they were
practicing the technique after the AMPLIFIES training, and all of them indicated that impactsto the quality
of their feed were high or very high. Around 90% of all respondents confirmed they applied knowledge
and saw benefitsthat led to greater efficiency in feed processing. Roughly 80% of all respondentsreported
high or very high impacts to make their feed production efficient. At least 90% of all respondents
confirmed they were able to procure feed ingredients with greater efficiency. Moreover, at least 90% of
participants stated that they benefitted from the modules on post-harvest storage and aggregation of
feed inputs. Finally, at least 94% of the respondentssaid that impacts on harvesting, post-harvest handling
and storage of feed inputs was high or very high.
Around 62% of all respondents said they applied and benefitted from what they were taught to secure
loans for investments in feed processing. Of those who applied, at least 79% and as many as 95%
confirmed they were successful in securing loans. At least 67% reported high or very high impacts in
funding feed operations.
At least 90% all respondents also reported an impact from efforts to expand the poultry feed distribution
network; of these, nearly all (87%) confirmed that the impact was high or very high on their businesses.
Regarding the organizing a national awareness raising campaign to promote egg consumption, at least
90% believed they were directly impacted by it.
Overall, at least 75% of all poultry farmers saw increases and improvementsin egg production. There was
a positive percentage change in terms of egg production annually for all poultry farmers from 2016 to
2019. While some of the increases were as low at 2%, others were as high as 26%. Similarly, there were
increases in the percentage change in egg sales from 2016 to 2019, with some experiencing egg sales that
were as high as 57% greater over the project period. Moreover, at least 64% of all farmers confirmed they
72 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
experienced an increase in broiler production. There were increases and decreases in mean total broiler
production from 2016 to 2019, though reasons for the decreases were not given. Similarly, there were
increases and decreases in the percentage change in broiler sales from 2016 to 2019.
Success among feed millers was more likely among males living in the Brong Ahafo and Greater Accra
regions. Those who had a lower installed production capacity, larger actual capacity, worked off-farm
rather than on-farm, used both manual and automatic facilities, and used a manual weighing system fared
better. Among all farmers, males were impacted more positively than females and those producing eggs
fared better than those who produced broilers. Among poultry farmers, success was more likely among
females than males and those living in the Greater Accra as opposed to the Ashanti region. Farmers who
had more total workers and a lower number of layers before the implementation of AMPLIFIES were more
likely to see greater benefits. The most successful poultry farmers saw the greatest benefits when they
purchased white maize from the open market and yellow maize from aggregators and farm gate.
Overall, the various initiatives carried out by AMPLIFIES were rated as good, very good, or excellent. An
exception was the initiative focused on helping participants access loans for investments in feed
processing, which was rated as mostly good but had equal responses for poor and excellent. However,
taken as a whole, the ratings were consistently high.
The evaluation study shows that AMPLIFIES has, to a large extent, achieved what it set out to accomplish.
All of the ten key goals were implemented and the results were successful, translating to improvements
in the livelihoods of farmers.
73 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Appendix 1: References
ACDI/VOCA (2020). Increasing the Competitiveness of the Production and Processing of Poultry
Meat and Eggs. USDA Ghana Poultry Project (GPP). Retrieved:
https://www.acdivoca.org/projects/ghana-poultry-project-gpp/. 04/11/2020.
Adei, D., & Asante, B. K. (2012). The challenges and prospects of the poultry industry in Dormaa
District. Journal of Science and Technology (Ghana), 32(1), 104-116
American Soybean Association (ASA). (2018). Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer
Industries with Feed Improvements and Efficiency Strategies (AMPLIFIES). USDA AGREEMENT
NO. FCC- 641-2015/010-00, SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT October 1, 2017 to March 30, 2018.
Retrieved from St Louis, MO.
American Soybean Association (ASA). (2018). Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer
Industries with Feed Improvements and Efficiency Strategies (AMPLIFIES). USDA AGREEMENT
NO. FCC- 641-2015/010-00, SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT April 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018.
Retrieved from St Louis, MO.
American Soybean Association (ASA). (2019). Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer
Industries with Feed Improvements and Efficiency Strategies (AMPLIFIES). USDA AGREEMENT
NO. FCC- 641-2015/010-00, SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT October 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.
Retrieved from St Louis, MO.
American Soybean Association (ASA). (2019). Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer
Industries with Feed Improvements and Efficiency Strategies (AMPLIFIES). USDA AGREEMENT
NO. FCC- 641-2015/010-00, SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT April 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019.
Retrieved from St Louis, MO.
Aning, K. (2006). The structure and importance of the Commercial and village based poultry in
Ghana, Final Review Report. Rome: FAO of UNO.
Banson, K. E., Muthusamy, G., & Kondo, E. (2015). The import substituted poultry industry;
evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 5(2): 166-175
Birol, E.; Asare-Marfo, D.; Ayele, G.; Mensah - Bonsu, A.; Ndirangu, l.; Okpukpara, B.; Roy, D.;
Yakhshilikov, Y. (2010). Investigating the Role of Poultry in Livelihoods and the Impact of Avian
Flu on Livelihoods Outcomes in Africa: Experience from Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria.
IFPRI Discussion Paper 01011. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Christian Aid. (2005). For richer or poorer: Transforming economic partnership agreements
between Europe and Africa. London: Christian Aid.
74 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Flick, U. (2019). From intuition to reflexive construction: Research design and triangulation in
grounded theory research. The SAGE Handbook of Current Developments in Grounded Theory,
125.
Khor, M. (2006). The Impact of Globalization and Liberalization on Agriculture and Small
Farmers in Developing Countries: The Experience of Ghana. Impact of Globalization and Trade
Liberalization on Poor Rural Producers – Evidence from the Field and Recommendations for
Action. Accra: Third World Network.
Kusi, L. Y., Agbeblewu, S., Anim, I. K., & Nyarku, K. M. (2015). The challenges and prospects of
the commercial poultry industry in Ghana: a synthesis of literature. International Journal of
Management Sciences, 5(6), 476-489.
Mensah-Bonsu, A., Lartey, N. N., & Kuwornu, J. K. (2019). Gender-segregated analysis of the
poultry value chain in Ghana. Gender, Technology and Development, 23(2), 130-164.
Tuffour M & Sedegah, D. (2013). What holds us back. Constrains among broiler farmers in
Ghana. Scientific Journal of Animal Science 2(10) 264-272
Tuffour, M., & Tenyo, R. M. (2015). Farmers’appreciation of Poultry Insurance in the Greater
Accra Region of Ghana. Applied Research Journal, 1(2).
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2016). USDA - FFPr GHANA Poultry Value
Chain Projects GPP and Amplifies: Baseline Study (Vol.; Draft Final Report). Washington D.C:
USDA.University of Evans School Policy Analysis and Research (EPAR). Evans School Publ.
Affairs.
USDA (2019). Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer Industries with Feed
Improvement and Efficiency Strategies (AMPLIFIES). Draft Mid-Term Performance Evaluation
Report. USDA. Washington D.C.
USDA (2020). Assisting in the Management of Poultry and Layer Industries with Feed
Improvement and Efficiency Strategies (AMPLIFIES). Request for Proposals (RFP) to Conduct a
Final Evaluation for ASA/WISHH’s Food for Progress (FFPr) Program in Ghana. USDA.
Washington D.C.
75 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Appendix 2: Data Tables
Table 1: Sample Size
Type of Beneficiary Region Number of
Beneficiaries Initial Sample Adjusted
Sample Size
Poultry farmers/Producers
Ashanti 495 100 198
Brong Ahafo 590 118 236
Greater Accra 206 42 84
Feed Processor/Millers
Brong Ahafo 30 30 30
Ashanti 22 22 22
Greater Accra 26 26 26
Government officials
Brong Ahafo 6 6 6
Ashanti 5 5 5
Greater Accra 5 5 5
Credit facility providers
Brong Ahafo 2 2 2
Ashanti 4 4 4
Northern 2 2 2
TOTAL 1,393 362 620
 Table 2: Criteria for selecting poultry farmers
Most Successful Least Successful
Poultry farmers who utilized trainings on improved
poultry feeding and saw positive changes in
productivity and profit from 2015 through 2019
Poultry farmers who utilized trainings and
experienced a lossin productivity and profit orsaw
no positive change from 2015 through 2019
Poultry producers who tested their feed regularly
and saw an increase in productivity
Poultry producers who benefitted from feed
testing trainings but saw no positive change in the
quality of feed
76 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Poultry producers who successfully accessed
loans/credit facilities through the support of
AMPLIFIES
Poultry producers who completed financial
trainings but were unable to access loans from
credit facility providers they were linked to by the
project
Poultry farmers who benefitted from market
linkage meetings and other assistance thatresulted
in increased sales
Poultry farmers who saw no significant increase in
sales in poultry products after receiving technical
assistance from AMPLIFIES
Poultry farmers who saw a significant increase in
productivity through the application of improved
farm management practices
Poultry farmers who saw no significant increase in
productivity through the application of improved
farm management practices
Table 3: Criteria for selecting crop farmers
Most Successful Least Successful
Crop farmers who applied post-harvest loss
techniques and technologies and saw a
significant increase in productivity (volume of
crops) from 2015 through 2019
Crop farmers who applied post-harvest loss
techniques and technologies and had a loss or
no change in productivity (volume of crops)
from 2015 through 2019
Crop farmers who successfully accessed loans
through the support of AMPLIFIES
Crop farmers who were unable to access loans
from credit facility providers they were linked
to by the AMPLIFIES Project
Crop farmers who benefitted from technical
assistance and saw an increase in salesin crops
(maize and soy)
Crop farmers who saw no significant increase
in salesin crops(maize and soy) after receiving
technical assistance from AMPLIFIES
Crop farmers who saw a reduction in post￾harvest loss and increase in volume of crops
due to the use of Crop Aggregation Centers
Crop farmers who benefitted from the use of
Crop Aggregation Centers but saw no
reduction in post-harvest loss
77 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Table 4: Criteria for selecting feed processors/millers
Most Successful Least Successful
Feed processors/millers who conducted feed
testing which resulted in increased
productivity and quality feed
Feed processors/millers who benefitted from
feed testing trainings but saw no positive
change in the quality of feed and productivity
Feed processors /millers who benefitted from
feed formulation training and saw
improvements in the quality of feed
production
Feed processors /millers who benefitted from
feed formulation training but saw no
significant change in the quality of feed
Feed processors /millers who benefitted from
sourcing of quality feed ingredients for feed
production that led to low cost and quality
feed
Feed processors /millers who were linked to
feed ingredient suppliers but saw no
significant change in the quality of feed and no
reduction in the cost of feed production
Table 5: Demographics of poultry farmers
Variable
Male
N=285
Female
N=41
Total
N=326
Age group
20-29 5.6% 4.9% 5.5%
30-39 27.4% 14.6% 25.8%
40-49 29.1% 53.7% 32.2%
50-59 25.6% 19.5% 24.9%
60+ 12.3% 7.3% 11.6%
Mean 45.7 45.5 45.7
Location of respondents
Ashanti 41.7% 26.8% 39.9%
78 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Brong Ahafo 39.7% 48.8% 40.8%
Greater Accra 18.6% 24.4% 19.3%
Position of respondents
Owner 81.4% 75.6% 80.7%
Others 18.6% 24.4% 19.3%
 Source: Field Data, 2020 
Table 6: Demographics of feed millers
Variable Total
N=38
Age group
20-29 5.3%
30-39 13.2%
40-49 36.8%
50-59 26.3%
60+ 18.4%
Mean age 49 years
Gender
Male 94.7%
Female 5.3%
Region
Ashanti 42.1%
Brong Ahafo 36.8%
Greater Accra 21.1%
Category of beneficiaries
Off-farm feed miller 44.7%
On-farm feed miller 55.3%
Type of facility
Manual 29.0%
79 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Mechanized 39.5%
Manual Combined with Mechanized 31.5%
Size of facility
Small 7.9%
Medium 39.5%
Large 52.6%
Weighing system used
Automatic 26.3%
Manual 73.7%
 Source: Field Data, 2020 
Table 7: Demographics of FBO members
Variable Total
N=22
Membership Composition
Majority male 81.8%
Majority female 18.1%
Equal numbers of males and females 0.1%
Registered
Yes 81.8%
No 18.2%
Documented Mandate
Yes 90.9%
No 9.1%
Bank Accounts
Yes 90.9%
No 9.1%
Executive Steering Committee
Yes 100%
80 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
No 0%
 Source: Field Data, 2020
Table 8: Assessment of 10 major themes
Theme
Poor
(%)
Neutral
(%)
Good
(%)
Very
Good
(%)
Excellent
(%)
Improved Poultry Feed 0 0 33.3 58.3 8.3
Improvements in the Quality and
Consistency of Feed Formulations
0 0 27.3 45.5 27.3
Increased Feed Testing Capacity 0 23.1 46.2 30.7 0
Increased Efficiency in Feed Processing 0 0 67.7 33.3 0
Increased Efficiency in the Procurement
of Feed Ingredients
0 0 40 50 10
Loans for Investments in Feed Processing 14.2 0 71.6 0 14.2
Post-harvest Storage and Aggregation of
Feed Inputs
0 0 30.8 46.1 23.1
Expansion of Poultry Distribution
Network
0 0 80 10 10
Organizing a National Awareness
Campaign to Promote Egg Consumption 0 0 0 50 50
Harvesting, Post-harvest Handling and
Storage of Feed Inputs
0 0 37.5 50 12.5
Source: Field Data, 2020
 Table 9: Success of loan application after training
Poultry Farmers Feed Millers
81 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Acceptance of Loan
Application Least Successful Most Successful Least
Successful Most Successful
Yes 92.4% 89.0% 76.5% 95.2%
No 7.6% 11.1% 23.6% 4.8%
Source: Field Data, 2020
Table 10: Probit regression explaining most and least successful feed millers’ outcomes
Independent Variable Marginal Effect Robust Standard Error
Male 0.226** 0.109
Brong Ahafo Region 0.212* 0.117
Greater Accra Region 0.260** 0.108
Installed Production Capacity -0.000** 0.000
Actual Production Capacity 0.000** 0.000
On farm miller -0.641*** 0.075
Only Mechanized -0.019 0.157
Both Manual and Mechanize 0.279** 0.129
Exceeding Installed Capacity -0.288*** 0.108
Medium Capacity -0.026 0.083
Large Capacity -0.297*** 0.089
Manual Weighing System 0.391*** 0.116
Success Partly Attributed to AMPLIFIES -0.292*** 0.100
Observations 38
Probit regression parameters
Wald chi2(13) 51.63
Prob > chi2 0.0000
Log pseudo likelihood -10.5556
82 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Pseudo R2 0.5960
Standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table 11: Probit regression explaining most and least successful poultry farmers’ outcomes
Independent Variable Marginal Effect Robust Standard Error
Female 0.189* 0.108
Owner managed farm -0.174* 0.095
Brong Ahafo Region 0.061 0.0898
Greater Accra Region 0.204* 0.110
Total workers employed 0.051*** 0.015
Type of poultry system 0.066 0.109
Layers capacity before AMPLIFIES program -0.000* 0.000
Broiler capacity before AMPLIFIES program 0.000** 0.000
Size of storage facility -0.000 0.000
Purchase White Maize from Aggregators -0.489*** 0.050
Purchase White Maize from Farmgate -0.393*** 0.094
Purchase Yellow Maize from Aggregators 0.549*** 0.042
Purchase Yellow Maize from Farmgate 0.428*** 0.119
Average monthly white demand for maize 0.001 0.001
Average monthly white demand for maize -0.002 0.001
Observations 151
Probit regression parameters
Wald chi2(16) 537.75
Prob > chi2 0.000
Log pseudo likelihood -87.85
Pseudo R2 0.131
83 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
 Standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Table 12: Factors explaining improvement in egg output among poultry farmers’ in AMPLIFIES
Independent Variable Marginal Effect Robust Standard Error
Most Successful 3,949 7,107
Female -12,839** 6,283
Owner managed farm 8,257 9,968
Brong Ahafo Region -7,269 7,931
Greater Accra Region -12,728 10,092
Total workers employed -2,516 2,473
Type of poultry system -4,300 9,190
Layers capacity before AMPLIFIES program 0.108 0.490
Broiler capacity before AMPLIFIES program -8.908* 5.305
Size of storage facility 5.058 6.413
Purchase White Maize from Aggregators 45,147*** 9,881
Purchase White Maize from Farmgate 31,131* 16,871
Purchase Yellow Maize from Aggregators -36,799*** 7,706
Purchase Yellow Maize from Farmgate -27,329 17,857
Average monthly white demand for maize 4.319 5.180
Average monthly white demand for maize 2.999 14.60
Constant 15,385 13,104
Observations 151
R-squared 0.3543
 Standard errors in parentheses
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
84 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Appendix 3: Questionnaires and Interview Guides
I. Questionnaire for poultry farmers
AMPLIFIES Annual Results Survey Poultry Producers Questionnaire
A. FOR FIELD STAFF
A1. Date:……………………………………..
A2. Enumerator Name:…………………………………………………….
A3. Supervisor Name:………………………………………………………
B. KNOWLEDGE ON AMPLIFIES PROJECT
B1. Do you know about the AMP project? [ ] Yes [ ] No
B2. What do you know about the AMP project? To be
coded
C. CONSENT
85 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Good morning/afternoon. My name is ……………………….I am an interviewer with The Khana
Group. We are helping ASA/WISHH to conduct an evaluation of the Ghana Food for Progress
Program (FFPr) Project. The project is also referred to as AMPLIFIES. The purpose of the
AMPLIFIES project was to revitalize Ghana’s poultry sector and improving food safety through
strengthening the poultry value-chain. This research will help ASA/WISHH and their partners
to understand how the AMPLIFIES project has affected your community and the entire
country. Information collected through this questionnaire will be used only for purposes of
research and thus strictly confidential. Such information will not be used as the basis or
justification of any new obligation on individuals or as evidence in any kind of judicial
investigation. Your name will not appear in any data that is made publicly available. The
information you provide will be used purely for research purposes; your answers will not
affect any benefits orsubsidies you may receive now or in the future. Other colleagues of ours
are also asking other beneficiaries about the same questionsthat I will be asking you. We have
not made provisions for monetary incentives for your participation in this study. This process
will not last beyond 35 minutes. You may withdraw from the study at any time and if there
are questions that you would prefer not to answer then we respect your right not to answer
them.
Do you want to proceed with this interview? [ ] Yes [ ] No 
D. FARMER INFORMATION
86 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
D1. Region ……………………………………………………………………….. 
D2. District…………………………………………………………………………
D3. Community………………………………………………………………….
D4. Farm Name……………………………………………………………….
D5. Respondent Name………………………………………………………..
D6. Position:
D7. Gender:
 [ ] Male [ ] Female
D8. Age in years:_________________________
D9. GPS coordinates
 Longitude……………………… Latitude……………………………
To be
preloaded
E. PARTICIPATION IN AMPLIFIES ACTIVITIES
E1. Have you received any training (be it one-on-one), technical assistance or attended any
AMP event within the past year? [ ] Yes [ ] No
87 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
E2. If yes, which of these were you trained in:
a. Adoption of Improved Poultry Feed [ ] Yes 
[ ] No 
b. Improvements in Quality and Consistency of Feed Formulations [ ]
Yes [ ] No
c. Increased Feed Testing Capacity [ ] Yes 
[ ] No
d. Increased Efficiency in Feed Processing [
] Yes [ ] No
e. Increased Efficiency in the Procurement of Feed Ingredient [ ] Yes 
[ ] No
f. Loans for Investments in Feed Processing [ ] Yes 
[ ] No
g. Post-harvest Storage and Aggregation of Feed Inputs [ ]
Yes [ ] No
h. Expansion of Poultry Feed Distribution Network [ ]
Yes [ ] No
i. Organize National Awareness Campaign to Promote Egg Consumption [ ]
Yes [ ] No
j. Harvesting, Post-harvest Handling and Storage of Feed Inputs [ ]
Yes [ ] No
 
E3. If yes, what new thing did you learn from through AMPLIFIES assistance under the
various sections in D2.
(to be
coded)
E4. Which of these techniques/technologies in D2 learnt have you applied so far in your
poultry business?
1.0 FARM OPERATIONS AND PRODUCTIVITY
88 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
1.1 Is your poultry farming business registered?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
1.2 What type of production system do you employ?
 [ ] Free Range [ ] Semi-Intensive [ ] Deep litter [ ] Battery cage
1.3 What is your current bird capacity?
 Broilers___________ Layers___________ Cockerels____________
1.4 Before your training what was your bird capacity?
 
Broilers___________ Layers___________ Cockerels____________
1.5 Please describe your production cycle for the following (please tick):
 Continuous Seasonal Custom
 (All year round) (Festival & Holidays) (Special occasions)
 Broilers
 Layers
 Cockerels
 
1.6 What is your total production of the following poultry products for the last year
(September ’16 till date)?
 Table Eggs________________ Broiler ________________
1.7 What was your total value of sales for the last year for the following (September ’16 till
date)?
 Table eggs____________ Broiler ____________
89 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
1.8 What is the average eggs do you produce per hen per life cycle? ______________
1.9 In how many weeks does your bird start laying? _______________
1.10 How long does your layer bird lay (in weeks)? ________________
1.11 What is the true cost of producing an egg? (total cost of feed per hen/total eggs
produced per hen) Hint: The cost of the feed taken into the pen/the total number of eggstaken
out _____________
1.12 At what weight/price do you take your broilers to the market (maturity weight in
Kg/price in cedis)? __________
1.13 How long does the bird take to reach the ideal weight/price (maturity time in weeks)?
__________
1.14 What is the usual end market for your products?
 [ ] Open market [ ] Distributors/Wholesalers [ ] Direct retail supply [ ] Export
90 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
2.0 DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES, JOBS CREATED
2.1 How many members are in your household (including children)?
 Male_____
 Female_____
2.2 How many household members actively work on your farm? (do not include
children/only adults above 18 years)
 Male______
 Female_____
2.3 Do you employ additional farm hands? [] Yes [ ] No
2.3.1 If yes, How many?
 Male_______
 Female______
3.0 FEED PROCUREMENT & PROCUREMENT
91 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
3.1 Do you produce your own poultry feed?
 [ ] All the time [ ] Sometimes [ ] Not at all
3.2 What is your source of poultry feed? (select more than one answer if multiple sources)
 [ ] Self-mixing/Concentrates [ ] Commercial feed mills [ ]On-site feed mills/ processing
plant
3.3. Which of these do you use the most [ 1=most of the time , 2 = some of the time, 3= not
frequently]
 [ ] Self-mixing/Concentrates [ ] Commercial feed mills [ ]On-site feed mills/ processing
plant
3.4. If you mix your own feed and don’t purchase commercial feed, is there a reason why?
3.5. What would your usual feed typically consist of? (you can select more than one)
[ ] Maize
[ ] Maize bran
[ ] Wheat bran
[ ] Soybean meal
[ ] Fishmeal
[ ] Concentrates
[ ] Premix
[ ] Oyster shell
[ ] Essential amino acids (lysine, methionine etc.)
3.6 Kindly estimate the percentage composition of each ingredient? (you can select more
than one)
[ ] Maize
[ ] Maize bran
92 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
[ ] Wheat bran
[ ] Soybean meal
[ ] Fishmeal
[ ] Concentrates
[ ] Premix
[ ] Oyster shell
[ ] Essential amino acids (lysine, methionine etc.)
3.7 Where do you procure the following feed ingredients (please tick)
 Open market Aggregators Farm gates Imported
 White Maize
 Yellow Maize
3.7.1. How sure is your source of feed chosen in 3.5?
 Very Sure [ ] Sure [ ] Not Sure [ ] 
3.7.2 If you buy from an aggregator or directly from farmers, can you please name them?
 (Please put the name, a comma, the location, a comma and contact telephone number)
 Name #1 Name #2 Name #3
 White Maize
 Yellow Maize
3.8 How do you procure your soybean-bean based feed ingredients (please tick)
 Local soy processors Imported 
 Soybean meal/cake
 
3.8.1 Is there any particular reason(s) for your choice above in 3.6?
93 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
 [ ] No reason
 [ ] Imported soy ingredients more quality
 [ ] Local soy ingredients cheaper
 [ ] Local soy ingredients is of more quality
 [ ] Imported soy ingredients cheaper
 [ ] Local soy ingredients easily available
 [ ] Imported soy ingredients easily available
3.8.2 If you buy from local soy processors please name them?
(Please put the name, a comma, the location, a comma and contact telephone number)
 Name #1 Name #2 Name #3
 Soybean meal/cake
 
3.9 Can you please estimate your average monthly demand for the following in metric tons
(1000kg=1 Ton):
 White Maize __________
 Yellow Maize __________
 Soybean meal/cake __________
 
3.10 How much do you spend to produce a 50kg bag of the following feed: 
 Chick Mash _________
 Grower Mash _________
 Layer Mash _________
 Broiler (Starter) _________
 Broiler(Grower) _________
94 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
3.11 How regularly do you undertake feed testing/Analysis/Quality control?
 [ ] Every time [ ] Once a while [ ] Not at all
3.12 What type of feed testing do you undertake? Specify:____________________
3.12.1 If you do where do you take it?
 [ ] University of Ghana
 [ ] KNUST
 [ ] Food Research Institute
 [ ] Animal Research Institute
 [ ] Ghana Standards Board
 [ ] Food and Drugs Board
 [ ] Other (Specify)________________________
3.13 How much does it cost for a complete feed analysis per test (in Cedi)? _____________
3.14 What is the average turnaround time for your feed testing results?_______________
95 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
4.0 STORAGE
4.1 Do you have storage facility for your feed ingredients?
 [ ] Yes [ ] No
4.1.1 If yes, what is the size of the storage facility (in meters square or feet) _______?
4.1.2. If not, where do you store your feed?
 [ ] FBO Facility [ ] Private Business Facility [ ] AMPLIFIES Assisted Facility [ ] No proper
facility
5.0 ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES
96 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
5.1 Have you ever received a loan or grant for your farming activities?
 [ ] Yes [ ] No
5.2 If yes, from where?
 [ ] Bank
 [ ] Lending firm
 [ ] Micro Finance Institution
 [ ] Friends/family members
5.3 Which of these is the financial institution is linked to?
 [ ] FBO [ ] AMPLIFIES [ ] Others (Specify)______________ [ ] None of them
5.4 What amount did you receive_________?
5.5 What was it used for?
 [ ]Build infrastructure
 [ ]Procure feed ingredients
 [ ]Buy day old chicks
 [] Purchase plants and equipment
 [] Other (please state)……………
5.6 Have you ever been rejected or denied a loan or grant application?
 [ ] Yes [ ] No
5.6.1 If yes, what was the reason?
 [] No documentation
 [] No collateral
 [] No guarantor
97 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
 [] Other (please state)………………
6.0 PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
98 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
6.1 Have you ever participated in any developmental programs under the AMPLIFIES
program?
 [ ] Yes [ ] No
6.2 If yes, what was the project about?
 
6.3 Are you aware of the national awareness campaign to improve egg consumption?
 [ ] Yes [ ] No
6.4 (If yes) Do you think the awareness campaign improved the nation’s egg consumption?
 [ ] Yes [ ] No
THANK YOU
II. Questionnaire for Feed Millers
CONSENT
99 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Good morning/afternoon. My name is ……………………….I am an
interviewer with The Khana Group. We are helping ASA/WISHH
to conduct an evaluation of the Ghana Food for Progress
Program (FFPr) Project. The project is also referred to as
AMPLIFIES. The purpose of the AMPLIFIES project was to
revitalize Ghana’s poultry sector and improving food safety
through strengthening the poultry value-chain. This research
will help ASA/WISHH and their partners to understand how the
AMPLIFIES project has affected your community and the entire
country. Information collected through this questionnaire will
be used only for purposes of research and thus strictly
confidential. Such information will not be used as the basis or
justification of any new obligation on individuals or as evidence
in any kind of judicial investigation. Your name will not appear
in any data that is made publicly available. The information you
provide will be used purely for research purposes; your answers
will not affect any benefits or subsidies you may receive now or
in the future. Other colleagues of ours are also asking other
beneficiaries about the same questions that I will be asking you.
We have not made provisions for monetary incentives for your
participation in this study. This process will not last beyond 35
minutes. You may withdraw from the study at any time and if
there are questions that you would prefer not to answer then
we respect your right not to answer them.
Do you consent or agree to be part of this study?
100 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
101 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
A GENERAL INFORMATION
A1 Name of facility
A2 Location (town, district, region)
A3 Contact telephone
B FEED PRODUCTION
B1 Type of facility 1.Manual
2.Mechanized
3.Manual+Mechanized
B2 Size of facility A. 1. Length ______
 2.Width ______
B. 1. Small __________
 2.Medium_________
 3.Large___________
B3 What weighing system do you use (e.g. automatic or manual)?
B4 What is your installed versus actual production capacity?
Installed Capacity________
Actual Capacity __________
B5 Do you sometimes exceed your installed capacity? If yes by
how much
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Excess Capacity __________
102 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
B6 What is your pelleting capacity, if possible?
Installed ____________
Actual ____________
B7 What is your production rate (tonne per hour or day)?
B8 Estimate your total monthly production of the following:
Chick Mask
Grower Mash
Layer Mash
Broiler (Starter)
Broiler (Grower)
B9 What is the price per Kg of the following feed in cedis?
Chick Mask
Grower Mash
Layer Mash
Broiler (Starter)
Broiler (Grower)
B10 What is your total volume of sales for the last year in cedis? Broiler feed_________
Layer feed__________
Poultry feed mixes_______
Other poultry feed_______
B11 What is your total value of sales for the last year in cedis? Broiler feed_________
Layer feed__________
Poultry feed mixes________
Other poultry feed_______
D FEED TESTING
103 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
D1 Do you do feed analysis/testing? 1.Yes
2.No
D2 If yes, where? 1.University of Ghana
2.KNUST
3.Food Research Institute
4.Animal Research Institute
5.Ghana Standards Board
6.Food and Drugs Board
7.Onsite
8. Other
E MARKETING & BRANDING
E1 How do you sell your feed? 1.Distributors
2.Directly to poultry farmers
E2 Do you package/brand your feed? 1.Yes
2.No
E3 If yes, does labeling include nutritional content? Please
describe.
E4 Are you aware of the national awareness campaign to improve
egg consumption?
1.Yes
2.No
E5 (If yes) Do you think the awareness campaign improved the
nation’s egg consumption?
1.Yes
2.No
F JOBS/TRAINING
F1 How many people do you employ Male 
Female
104 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
F2 Have you received any training (be it one-on-one), technical
assistance or attended any AMPLIFIES event within the past
year? 
Yes No
F3 What was the training about?
a. Adoption of Improved Poultry Feed
b. Improvements in Quality and Consistency of Feed
Formulations
c. Increased Feed Testing Capacity
d. Increased Efficiency in Feed Processing
e. Increased Efficiency in the Procurement of Feed
Ingredient
f. Loans for Investments in Feed Processing
g. Post-harvest Storage and Aggregation of Feed Inputs
h. Expansion of Poultry Feed Distribution Network
i. Harvesting, Post-harvest Handling and Storage of Feed
Inputs
Yes No
Note: This is for all indicators
F4 Is your facility applying any of the techniques/technologies
learnt from the trainings?
Yes No
F5 Which of the list mentioned in F4 are you applying in terms of
frequency?
Rank
1 = highest
8 = lowest 
F6 Have you observed any improvements in your operations? Yes No
F7 In what form
1. Efficiency in feed production
2. Reduction in cost of feed processing
3. Improvement in marketing of poultry feed
4. Increase in efficiency of feed mill
5. Improvement in the quality of feed
6. Improvement in the mixing of feed
7. Improvement in the storage of feed
8. Improvement in funding feed operations
Very High [ ]
High [ ]
Low [ ]
Not at all [ ]
Note: This is for all indicators
F8 Is it attributable to AMPLIFIES assistance? Yes No
105 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
G LOANS AND GRANTS
G1 Have you ever received a loan or grant for your activities? 1.Yes
2.No
G2 If yes, what was the amount (in cedis)?
G3
If yes, which type of institution?
 [ ] Bank
 [ ] Lending firm
 [ ] Micro Finance Institution
 [ ] Friends/family members
G4 The financial institutions is linked to? [ ] FBO [ ] AMPLIFIES 
[ ] Others (Specify)_____
 [ ] None of them
G5 What specifically did you use it for?
1.Build infrastructure
2.Procure feed ingredients
3.Purchase plants and
equipment
5. Other (please state)……….
G6 Have you ever been rejected or denied a loan or grant
application?
1.Yes
2.No
G7 If yes, what was the reason?
1.No documentation
2.No collateral
3.No guarantor
4. Other (please state)……..
106 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
III. Semi- structured questionnaire for Credit Facility Providers
CREDIT FACILITY PROVIDER - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE
(Semi-Structured Questionnaire)
Name of Credit Facility Provider (CFP):
Community: District: Region:
CFP Contact Person: Position:
Contact Telephone: Email:
1. What type of financial institution are you?
 [ ] Bank
 [ ] Lending firm
 [ ] Micro Finance Institution
 [ ] Friends/family members
2. Have you obtained funds from the AMPLIFIES project to loan to players on the value
chain? [ ] Yes [ ] No
3. If yes in 3, how much have you received in all and at what rate do you loan to the
borrowers?
4. How many firms/people have benefitted from your loan facility through the AMPLIFIES
project and what are the categories?
 Number
a. Crop farmers __________
b. Feed millers __________
107 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
c. Poultry farmers __________
d. FBOs __________
5. Apart from loans that you provide to the players, how do you interact/support them in
terms of: 
a. Training?
b. Advice?
6. How has the AMPLIFIES project in terms of loan provision benefitted the following on
the poultry value chain?
Financial
Standing Productivity Profitability Marketing Management
Crop farmers
Feed millers
Poultry
farmers
FBOs
7. What are some of the major challenges of these players in terms of the following:
Loans
assessment
Financial
management
General
management Marketing
Others
(Specify)
FBOs
Crop farmers
108 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Feed millers
Poultry
farmers
8. What are some of the opportunities of these players in terms of the following?
Loans
assessment
Financial
management
General
management Marketing
Others
(Specify)
FBOs
Crop
farmers
Feed millers
Poultry
farmers
9. What is your overall performance rating with respect to the benefits of the programme
to the players?
10. In what way has the AMPLIFIES programme benefitted your organization ?
11. What do you think the AMPLIFIES program should have done more under these sub
headings:
a. Amount given?
b. Training given to players?
c. Timing of programme implementation?
d. Places of programme implementation?
109 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Thank you
IV. In-depth interview guide for FBOs/Crop Farmers
FBO (CROP FARMER) – IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE
(Semi-Structured Questionnaire)
Name of FBO:
Community: District: Region:
FBO Contact Person/ Farmer: Position:
Contact Telephone: Email:
12. How many members are active in your FBO?
Members Active Inactive
Male
Female
Total
13. Is your FBO registered? 
Yes No
14. Does it have a bank account?
Yes No
15. Do you have a constitution or operations document?
Yes No
16. Do you have a management committee and/or elected leaders? 
110 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Yes No
17. What crop(s) do you or your FBO usually grow?
18. How has your FBO membership helped you to benefit from the AMPLIFIES project?
19. What specific training have you as a farmer or an FBO member received from the
AMPLIFIES project?
a. Crop Production efficiency
b. Financial support in production
c. Storage and harvesting
d. Marketing of crops
20. How was the training programs conducted?
Crop Production
efficiency
Financial support
in production
Storage and
harvesting
Marketing of
crops
Seminars
Inspections
Durbars
Field
Demonstrations
111 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
21. What benefits do you as a farmer or FBO member obtained from the AMPLIFIES project in
terms of the following:
a. Crop Production efficiency
b. Financial support in production
c. Storage and harvesting
d. Marketing of crops
22. What is your overall performance rating with respect to the benefits of the programme?
Excellent Very Good Good Poor
Crop Production efficiency
Financial support in production
Storage and harvesting
Marketing of crops
23. What do you think the AMPLIFIES program should have done more to improve poultry
feed crops in Ghana?
Thank you
V. Key Informant Interview guide for Government Officials/Policy
Stakeholders 
Government Officials/ Policy Stakeholders - KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE
112 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
(Semi Structured Questionnaire)
Organization: District: Region:
Position:
 Contact Telephone: Email:
1. How long have you associated with the AMPLIFIES project?
2. What role have you played on the AMPLIFIES project or programs?
3. How has the project coordinated with as an organization?
4. How frequent do you participate in the AMPLIFIES project and under which programs?
Feed Marketing Financing Networking Management Others
Training
Seminars
Inspections
Durbars
Other
5. How will you assess or rate AMPLIFIES performance in terms of the following over the
years of implementation?
Excellent Very good Good Poor
113 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
Adoption of Improved Poultry Feed
Improvements in Quality and
Consistency of Feed Formulations
Increased Feed Testing Capacity
Increased Efficiency in Feed
Processing
Increased Efficiency in the Procurement
of Feed Ingredient
Loans for Investments in Feed
Processing
Post-harvest Storage and
Aggregation of Feed Inputs
Expansion of Poultry Feed
Distribution Network
Organize National Awareness
Campaign to Promote Egg
Consumption
Harvesting, Post-harvest Handling and
Storage of Feed Inputs
Note: Crops, Farmers, Feed Millers and FBOs involves
6. How has the AMPLIFIES project benefitted the following on the poultry value chain?
Financial
Standing Productivity Profitability Marketing Management
Crop farmers
Feed millers
Poultry
farmers
114 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
FBOs
7. What are some of the major challenges of these players in terms of the following:
Loans
assessment
Financial
management
General
management Marketing
Others
(Specify)
FBOs
Crop farmers
Feed millers
Poultry
farmers
8. What are some of the opportunities of these players in terms of the following?
Loans
assessment
Financial
management
General
management Marketing
Others
(Specify)
FBOs
Crop
farmers
Feed millers
Poultry
farmers
115 | Page
AMPLIFIES – Final Evaluation Report
9. What is your overall performance rating with respect to the benefits of the programme
to the players?
10. In what ways have the AMPLIFIES programme benefitted your organization as a key
stakeholder in the poultry sector?
11. In what ways have the AMPLIFIES project benefitted the agenda of government or
Ghana in the efforts to promote the poultry industry?
12. What do you think the AMPLIFIES program should have done more under these sub
headings:
e. Period and style of Implementation?
f. Programs organized?
g. Places implemented?
h. Relationship with stakeholders?
Thank you