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 ConferenceVenue: Century City Conference Centre, Cape Town South Africa | Dates: 17th – 22nd October, 2016

“Partnerships to unlock the Potential of Agricultural Development in Africa”

INTRODUCTION

PROBLEM: Clean plant–based chicken feed & plantproducts free from aflatoxin is desired = Depends largelyon HANDLING & STORAGE (Okutoi, 2007)–Majorchallenge especially in Western Kenya

GAPS: Poor quality feeds (King’ori et al., 2010)=inadequate knowledge on feed handling and storagetechniques in relation to mycotoxigenic fungi andmycotoxins 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.

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

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

96%

44% 42% 40%

18%

95%

10%17% 14%

23%

42%

(%)

FA

RM

ER

S

FEED TYPES

Fig 1: Types of feeds

RESULTS

Fig 2: Maize grain conditions

59%

41%

clean rotten/broken/insect infested/unsorted

RESULTS

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

Fig 4: Drying of feeds

• 97% = sun dried feeds

mat/polythene

• 3% = sun dry feeds on bare ground

RESULTS

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

(%)

FA

RM

ER

S

AWARENESS

RESULTS

Table 6: Incidence of mycotoxigenic fungi in counties

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Asp

erg

illu

s

Fu

sari

um

Pen

icil

liu

m

Asp

erg

illu

s

Fu

sari

um

Pen

icil

liu

m

Asp

erg

illu

s

Fu

sari

um

Pen

icil

liu

m

Siaya Busia Kakamega

(%)

Fu

ngal

inci

den

ce

County/Fungi

RESULTS

Table 7: Incidence of mycotoxigenic fungi in Feeds

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(%)

Fungal

Inci

den

ce

Feeds/ Fungi

Aspergillus Fusarium Penicillium

RESULTS

RESULTS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(%)

Fu

ng

al i

nci

den

ce

Storage method

Aspergillus spp Fusarium spp Penicillium spp

Table 8: Incidences of mycotoxigenic fungi with

regard to storage methods

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

- 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

• Molecular identification of mycotoxigenic fungi

• Mycotoxins analysis

• Feed back to the farmers on Mycotoxins (aflatoxins)

ACTIVITIES REMAINING

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

Thank you for listening.

THE END