DISCUSSION
In this rural setting in Bangladesh, household ownership of poultry and dairy‐ and meat‐producing animals was associated with higher intakes of eggs, dairy and meat among infants 6–12 months of age, respectively; there was not a clear relationship between ownership of fishponds and fish intake. Our results did not suggest that maternal decision‐making power related to nutrition and health inputs was a modifier in the relationship between animal/fishpond ownership and infant consumption of animal products. Despite observing significant associations between household animal ownership and infant intake of animal products, consumption of eggs, dairy products, meat and fish was low. This illustrates the need for programmes to identify the specific constraints to both production and consumption of animal products when designing agricultural‐based interventions aiming to improve early nutrition in South Asia.Our finding that poultry ownership was positively associated with infants' egg intake is informative given mixed findings from other studies. Small‐scale poultry production is commonly practiced in low‐resource settings because it requires low amounts of inputs and provides potential for income generation and access to ASF (de Bruyn et al., Overall, our findings on poultry ownership are reflective of the Bangladeshi context, where poultry raising is a common practice typically managed by women. Programmes supporting small‐scale production have been implemented for decades, and previous studies have shown most households raising poultry set aside eggs for both consumption and sale, with one study estimating that annual median family consumption of eggs was one‐fifth of total eggs produced (Nielsen et al., There is evidence from observational studies and programmatic interventions that ownership of dairy‐producing animals is associated with children's dairy intake, which is consistent with our findings. However, most studies have been undertaken in East Africa where ownership of cattle and goats is relatively common (Ayele & Peacock, The association between ownership of animals typically raised for their meat and infants' meat intake was surprising. Considering the low number of animals owned, it would appear unlikely that a household would slaughter poultry or livestock that can be used as a source of eggs or milk or kept as an asset. However, the rate we observed was small and only at a level of high ownership, which is consistent with these practices. Programmes aiming to increase infants' meat consumption would likely need to target income generation and market access (Broaddus‐Shea et al., Fish was the most commonly consumed ASF among infants in our study, which was expected given that numerous national surveys have reported fish to be frequently consumed by households in Bangladesh across social strata (Toufique & Belton, Additionally, fishponds were primarily owned by men in our study. It is possible that animal production managed by women, rather than men, is more likely to be utilised for the benefit of infant and child nutrition. This may provide additional insight into why we observed egg intake to be associated with poultry ownership, which is primarily managed by women, and dairy and meat intake to be associated with ownership of dairy‐ and meat‐producing animals, which include goats that women manage alone or with men. Studies have shown that women are more likely to invest in food and nutrition for children and the family (Handa, Although our findings did not suggest that maternal decision‐making power modified the relationship between small‐scale animal production and infant diet, it is possible that other components of women's empowerment play roles in this setting. Measuring dimensions of empowerment separately is necessary to better understand which dimensions affect which nutrition outcomes and how these relationships differ by sociocultural context (Ruel et al., Our study had a number of strengths and limitations. As an observational study, there was potential for unmeasured confounding, and it was not possible to determine a causal relationship between animal/fishpond ownership and ASF consumption. The next step would be a randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of an agricultural intervention on infant and child diet in this setting to determine causality. Dietary intake was not directly observed. The nutrition education provided included messaging on feeding ASF to infants, which may have influenced caregivers to over‐report consumption frequency. However, our interviewers were highly trained and had prior experience objectively assessing infant diet using 7‐day food frequency questionnaires (Na et al., In this rural setting in Bangladesh, strategies intervening in the production of poultry and dairy‐ and meat‐producing animals may increase intake of eggs, dairy and meat during the early complementary feeding period. It is critical that programmes consider the context‐specific barriers to ASF consumption. These often include limited availability and access, which can be addressed through agricultural or income‐based strategies. They may also include social norms and perceptions about the appropriateness of ASF for infants and children, such as concerns about ingesting meat with a harder texture or fish with bones, which would require behaviour‐focused approaches (Pachón et al., 