Presentation by Owiro, N.O., Ochuodho, J.O., Rachuonyo, H.A., Gohole, L.S., Tarus, J.K., Ooko, L.A., Okello, E.O., Munyasi, J. W. & Omega, J.A. The Fifth African Higher Education Week & RUFORUM Biennial Conference Venue: Century City Conference Centre, Cape Town South Africa | Dates: 17th – 22nd October, 2016

1. Mycotoxigenic Fungi Contamination and
Aflatoxin Awareness in Plant-based Chicken
Feeds: A Case Study of Western Kenya
Owiro, N.O., Ochuodho, J.O., Rachuonyo, H.A., Gohole, L.S.,
Tarus, J.K., Ooko, L.A., Okello, E.O., Munyasi, J. W. &
Omega, J.A.
Corresponding author: nickkowiro@yahoo.com
The Fifth African Higher Education Week & RUFORUM Biennial Conference
Venue: Century City Conference Centre, Cape Town South Africa | Dates: 17th – 22nd October, 2016
“Partnerships to unlock the Potential of Agricultural Development in Africa”

2. INTRODUCTION
 PROBLEM: Clean plant–based chicken feed & plant
products free from aflatoxin is desired = Depends largely
on HANDLING & STORAGE (Okutoi, 2007)–Major
challenge especially in Western Kenya
 GAPS: Poor quality feeds (King’ori et al., 2010)=
inadequate knowledge on feed handling and storage
techniques in relation to mycotoxigenic fungi and
mycotoxins contamination
 RESEARCH FOCUS: Generate knowledge on proper
handling and storage of plant-based feed– To ensure
quality & safe feeds for indigenous chicken farmers in
Western Kenya.

3. OBJECTIVES
• To identify types of plant-based indigenous chicken
feeds
• To assess handling and storage methods of plant-
based indigenous chicken feeds
• To assess farmers’ knowledge on feed safety and
aflatoxin contamination
• To identify of mycotoxigenic fungi in indigenous
chicken feeds

4. METHODOLOGY
• Survey =Western Kenya (Siaya, Busia and Kakamega Counties)
• Multi stage sampling = Counties (3), sub-counties (9), famer groups (4)
• Purposively sampled = youth and women groups
• Data collection; structured questionnaires; 180 indigenous chicken
farmer on:
- feed types
- handling and storage practices
- aflatoxins awareness
• Samples collection (n=261)
• Fungal isolation & identification =DFBM
• Data analysis=descriptive statistical analysis; SPSS and Excel computer
programs

5. 96%
44% 42% 40%
18%
95%
10%
17% 14%
23%
42%
(%)FARMERS
FEED TYPES
Fig 1: Types of feeds
RESULTS

6. Fig 2: Maize grain conditions
59%
41%
clean rotten/broken/insect infested/unsorted
RESULTS

7. Fig 3: Storage methods
• 91% of the farmers used gunny
bags (house)
• 2% = Bucket/ House
• Traditional granary,
polythene(house) Modern stores
and No packaging = 1%
respectively
RESULTS

8. Fig 4: Drying of feeds
• 97% = sun dried feeds
mat/polythene
• 3% = sun dry feeds on bare ground
RESULTS

9. Fig 5: Level of farmers awareness on aflatoxins
56
71
42 43
61
Aware of feed
safety
Heard of
aflatoxins
Aware aflatoxins Aware of
afflatoxins effects
Aware of
aflatoxins
management
practices
(%)FARMERS
AWARENESS
RESULTS

10. Table 6: Incidence of mycotoxigenic fungi in counties
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Aspergillus
Fusarium
Penicillium
Aspergillus
Fusarium
Penicillium
Aspergillus
Fusarium
Penicillium
Siaya Busia Kakamega
(%)Fungalincidence
County/Fungi
RESULTS

11. Table 7: Incidence of mycotoxigenic fungi in Feeds
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(%)FungalIncidence
Feeds/ Fungi
Aspergillus Fusarium Penicillium
RESULTS

12. RESULTS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
(%)Fungalincidence
Storage method
Aspergillus spp Fusarium spp Penicillium spp
Table 8: Incidences of mycotoxigenic fungi with
regard to storage methods

13.  Most farmers sun dry their unshelled maize on bare
ground prior to shelling = high incidence of
mycotoxigenic fungi in maize feeds (Mo).
 Traditional granary has high amount of Aspergillus
spp. This may be due to inadequate cleaning prior
to introduction of new harvest and open air location
 Low levels of mycotoxin (aflatoxin) awareness=
Most farmers are unaware of aflatoxins effects, and
this is further confirmed by use of unhealthy grains
as feeds (Nyangaga, 2014 thesis)
DISCUSSIONS

14. - Handling and storage practices in Western Kenya
expose feeds to mycotoxigenic fungi contamination.
- There is limited awareness on aflatoxins effects and
sources of contamination (42%).
- There was incidences of mycotoxigenic fungi in all
the three counties of Western Kenya.
CONCLUSSIONS

15. • Molecular identification of mycotoxigenic
fungi
• Mycotoxins analysis
• Feed back to the farmers on Mycotoxins
(aflatoxins)
ACTIVITIES REMAINING

16. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building
in Agriculture (RUFORUM)
• University of Eldoret (UoE)
• Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Production
(KALRO)
• Frontline extension officers in the study area

17. Thank you for listening.
THE END