Kiplangat Ngeno

Indigenous chicken genetic resources in Kenya: their unique attributes and conservation options for improved use

The indigenous chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) genetic resources (IC) comprise more than 80% of the overall poultry population in rural villages despite their low productivity. However, a holistic approach that increases productivity without increasing production costs or leading to loss of biodiversity is presently limited. Conversely, in most developing countries, there is almost no organizational structure for breeding programmes for improving and conserving IC. These locally adapted IC can only be conserved in the most rational and sustainable way by ensuring that they are functional part of different production systems. Their conservation should be through utilisation if they are to be of any benefit to the poor rural households. This discussion focuses on five very relevant questions that need to be answered if the conservation of IC is to be effective and sustainable: What, why and how should we conserve, who are the stakeholders and what are their roles in conservation efforts?

Morphological features of indigenous chicken ecotype populations of Kenya

This study characterized indigenous chicken (IC) ecotypes morphologically. Five IC ecotypes studied were Kakamega (KK), Siaya (BN), West Pokot (WP), Narok (NR) and Bomet (BM). Data on morphological features were collected from 1 580 chickens and 151 for zoometric measurements. Descriptive statistics, non-parametric and F tests were used in analysis. A non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis, Binomial test and Mann–Whitney U test was used to evaluate whether the ecotype have effects on the qualitative morphological variables. Zoometric measurements was analysed with the PROC GLM of SAS. Results revealed that, black, black-white striped, brown and red body plumage colours were significantly different (P 0.05). Distribution of body feathers (%), comb types (%) and zoometric measurements were significantly different (P <0.05). Eye colours varied significantly (P <0.001) within the ecotypes unlike between the populations. In conclusion, IC ecotypes studied are heterogeneous population with huge variability in morphological features.