INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3236
www.rsisinternational.org
Influence of Technology Adaptation on Backyard Poultry Farming
Production in Embakasi East Constituency, Nairobi County, Kenya
Rosemary Gakii Javan*, Jacob Jeketule Soko, and Zipporah Muiruri
Institute of Social Transformation, Tangaza University, Kenya
*Corresponding Author
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000262
Received: 10 October 2025; Accepted: 16 October 2025; Published: 10 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Backyard poultry farming remains an essential livelihood and food security strategy in Kenya’s urban and peri-
urban settings. However, productivity is constrained by limited access to modern technologies, inadequate
knowledge, and weak market linkages. This study investigated the influence of technology adaptation on
backyard poultry production in Embakasi East Constituency, Nairobi County. Using a descriptive mixed-method
design, data were collected from 90 poultry farmers selected through purposive and cluster sampling.
Quantitative data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), while qualitative data
were thematically analysed. Results revealed low levels of technology adoption, with respondents citing limited
access to digital tools, inadequate training, and high costs of inputs. Farmers who had received basic
technological training reported relatively higher productivity and improved disease control. The study concludes
that access to relevant technology, training, and veterinary support significantly influences production efficiency
in backyard poultry systems. It recommends integrated policy interventions, capacity building, and affordable
innovations that are tailored to urban poultry farmers. Strengthening extension services and fostering digital
inclusion could enhance both productivity and sustainability of backyard poultry farming in Kenya’s urban
economy.
Keywords: Backyard poultry, technology adaptation, productivity, urban farming, Embakasi East, Kenya.
INTRODUCTION
Backyard poultry farming plays a pivotal role in food security, income diversification, and women’s
empowerment across many developing economies. Globally, poultry keeping provides a reliable source of
protein through meat and eggs and contributes to household nutrition, poverty reduction, and community
resilience (FAO, 2014; Kumar et al., 2021). Small flocks of indigenous birds significantly enhance dietary
diversity and generate supplementary household income (Epprecht et al., 2007; Bujarbaruah & Gupta, 2005).
The low entry cost, adaptability to local conditions, and capacity to recycle household waste into valuable protein
make backyard poultry particularly attractive to urban and peri-urban dwellers (Chakrabarti et al., 2014).
Compared to commercial intensive systems, backyard poultry systems also exhibit lower environmental impact
while creating employment opportunities for youth and women in both production and marketing (Aklilu et al.,
2008; Conan et al., 2012).
Despite these advantages, the sector still exhibits stark disparities between industrialized and smallholder
systems. While developed countries rely on mechanized housing, improved breeds, and automated feeding
technologies, many developing nations continue to depend on traditional husbandry practices with minimal
technological input (Alders et al., 2010). In sub-Saharan Africa, smallholder poultry systems supply
approximately 70% of poultry meat and eggs, yet productivity remains low due to inadequate veterinary services,
high disease prevalence, and limited access to quality inputs (Kitalyi, 1998; Gueye, 2000). Studies in Zimbabwe,
Nigeria, and Uganda report mortality rates exceeding 60% in small flocks, primarily due to poor vaccination
coverage and weak extension services (Dzogbema et al., 2021; Otiang et al., 2021). Consequently, technology
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3237
www.rsisinternational.org
adaptation, encompassing improved inputs, housing designs, vaccination protocols, and digital innovations, has
become an essential pathway to overcoming these barriers (Nkukwana, 2018).
This study is grounded in Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory (2003), which explains how new
ideas, practices, or technologies spread within a social system over time. The theory identifies five stages of
adoption, that is, knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation; and emphasizes that
adoption behavior is shaped by factors such as perceived relative advantage, compatibility, complexity,
trialability, and observability. In the context of backyard poultry farming, farmers’ willingness to adopt
innovations such as improved breeds, vaccination programs, and digital management tools depends largely on
their awareness, perceived benefits, socio-economic status, and institutional support. The theory thus provides a
valuable analytical lens for understanding the low adoption rates observed in Embakasi East Constituency and
for examining the interplay between education, training, and environmental constraints. Comparable
applications of this framework in Ghana (Akudugu, 2012), Tanzania (Lwoga et al., 2017), and India (Rajkumar
et al., 2021) reinforce its relevance to agricultural innovation studies.
Empirical evidence from Asia and Latin America demonstrates that targeted technology-transfer initiatives can
significantly enhance flock productivity, reduce disease incidence, and strengthen market integration (Kuhlmann
et al., 2018; Lwoga et al., 2017). Education, training, and access to extension services remain critical
determinants of farmers’ willingness and ability to embrace innovation (Akudugu, 2012; Goswami, 2016).
Studies further reveal that farmers with higher education and exposure to agricultural information are more likely
to apply improved breeds, biosecurity measures, and balanced feeding techniques (Everlyne, 2013; Singha,
2012), while low literacy, conservative attitudes, and risk aversion tend to constrain adoption, especially among
older farmers (Tamir et al., 2015).
In Kenya, poultry production contributes nearly 30% of agricultural GDP within the livestock subsector,
providing both income and nutrition to millions of households (KNBS, 2021; Ministry of Agriculture, 2022).
Yet, urban backyard poultry farmers operate in complex environments marked by space constraints, fluctuating
feed prices, and limited institutional support. High production costs, particularly for compounded feeds and
vaccines, have eroded profitability, while inadequate biosecurity measures heighten disease risks (Wambua et
al., 2022). Rising input prices have driven many small producers out of business, thereby widening the supply
gap between local poultry production and national demand (Fairbairn, 2017).
Nevertheless, urban and peri-urban poultry production continues to be an important livelihood activity. In
Embakasi East Constituency, an expanding suburb of Nairobi, many families engage in small-scale poultry
keeping for both nutrition and income generation. However, the potential of this sector remains limited by low
technological adoption, insufficient training, and weak market linkages. Existing research indicates that
technology uptake among Kenyan smallholders is influenced by age, education level, and access to extension
services (Muthee & Mburu, 2016; Kariuki, 2010).
Given these realities, understanding how technology adaptation enhances backyard poultry productivity is
essential for promoting sustainable urban agriculture and poverty reduction. This study therefore investigates
the influence of technology adaptation on backyard poultry production in Embakasi East Constituency, Nairobi
County. Specifically, it seeks to determine the extent of technology use, identify barriers to access and utilization,
and analyze the relationship between technology adaptation and production outcomes. By bridging empirical
evidence and practice, the study aims to inform interventions that strengthen innovation adoption, enhance food
security, and improve the resilience of urban poultry farmers in Kenya.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A. Study Design and Setting
The study employed a descriptive cross-sectional mixed-methods design to examine the influence of technology
adaptation on backyard poultry production. This approach integrated quantitative and qualitative techniques to
provide a holistic understanding of the production realities and technology use among urban poultry farmers.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3238
www.rsisinternational.org
The research was conducted in Embakasi East Constituency, Nairobi County, Kenya—an area characterized by
rapid urbanization, limited land availability, and high engagement in informal agribusiness activities. The
constituency covers approximately 64.7 km² and has a population of about 420,788 people (Kenya Population
Census, 2019). Backyard poultry farming in this area is primarily small-scale, depending on family labour,
recycled feed, and locally improvised housing structures.
B. Target Population and Sampling
The study targeted an estimated 300 backyard poultry farmers registered under the Nairobi County
Government’s Livestock Development Program. A combination of proportional allocation and purposive
sampling was used to ensure representativeness across the five administrative wards: Upper Savannah, Lower
Savannah, Mihango, Embakasi, and Utawala.
A sample size of 90 farmers, representing 30% of the registered population, was drawn proportionally from each
ward based on the number of farmers registered therein. Within each ward, farmers with active poultry operations
and some degree of technological interaction—such as the use of improved breeds, feed formulation, or
vaccination routines—were purposively selected. This strategy ensured inclusion of participants with practical
experience relevant to the study objectives.
The distribution of respondents across the five wards is presented in the table 1 below, showing both the number
of registered farmers and the proportion included in the study sample.
Table 1
Ward
Registered Farmers
Sample Size (n)
Upper Savannah
75
23
Utawala
90
27
Mihango
54
16
Embakasi
48
14
Lower Savannah
33
10
Total
300
90
C. Data Collection Instruments
Data were gathered using two complementary instruments: a structured questionnaire and a key informant
interview guide. The structured questionnaire targeted individual poultry farmers and included both closed-
ended items that was rated on a five-point Likert scale, and open-ended questions designed to elicit detailed
responses. The interview guide was administered to selected experienced farmers, local extension officers, and
input suppliers to gain deeper qualitative insights and corroborate quantitative findings. The questionnaire
covered the following six thematic areas:
1. Socio-economic characteristics of respondents.
2. Access to and use of technological innovations.
3. Availability and utilization of farm inputs.
4. Access to veterinary and extension services.
5. Market information and access.
6. Perceived impact of technology on production performance.
This multi-instrument approach allowed for data triangulation, thereby enhancing the validity and reliability of
the findings.
D. Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analysed in SPSS (version 25) using descriptive and correlation analyses. Qualitative data
underwent thematic analysis to identify recurring themes, triangulating findings across data sources.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3239
www.rsisinternational.org
E. Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from Tangaza University. Informed consent was sought, participation was
voluntary, and data were anonymized.
F. Operational Definition of Key Terms
For clarity and consistency, the following terms are defined operationally as used in this study:
1. Backyard Poultry Farming: Small-scale poultry production that is conducted within household premises
using family labour and locally available resources.
2. Technology Adaptation: The extent to which backyard poultry farmers modify, adopt, or integrate
improved inputs, management practices, and digital tools to enhance productivity.
3. Productivity: The measurable output of poultry farming in terms of flock size, egg production, and
survival rates within a given production cycle.
4. Adoption Behaviour: The decision-making and behavioral process through which farmers accept and
utilize technological innovations.
5. Gender Empowerment: The level of women’s participation in poultry-related decision-making, control
over income, and access to productive assets and training opportunities.
RESULTS
A. Response Rate and Demographics
Out of the 90 questionnaires distributed to backyard poultry farmers across the five wards of Embakasi East
Constituency, 83 were completed and returned, representing a response rate of 92%. This high response rate was
largely attributed to the researcher’s close collaboration with local agricultural officers who facilitated direct
engagement with farmers during data collection.
The demographic composition revealed that the majority of respondents were women aged above 40 years
(68.7%), followed by those between 31-40 years (30.1%), while only 1.2% were below 30 years of age. This
distribution suggests that backyard poultry farming in Embakasi East is dominated by middle-aged and older
individuals, reflecting broader national trends where women and older household members manage small
livestock enterprises for household subsistence and income supplementation. The predominance of women
highlights the sector’s role in promoting women’s economic participation and household nutrition.
Regarding education, 80.7% of respondents had attained formal education, while 19.3% had completed only
primary schooling. The relatively high literacy levels imply that most farmers possess the basic capacity to
comprehend and apply agricultural information when effectively communicated. However, interviews revealed
that despite literacy, farmers still lacked technical know-how and hands-on training necessary for efficient
adoption of modern poultry technologies. This points to a gap between theoretical awareness and practical
application, underscoring the need for more targeted capacity-building initiatives.
B. Technology Adoption Patterns
The study assessed respondents’ access to and use of key technological innovations in backyard poultry
management, including equipment use, vaccination practices, feed formulation, and training participation.
Overall, findings indicated low levels of technology adoption, with mean scores for most indicators falling below
1.5 on a five-point scale.
Farmers reported that searching for new technologies and obtaining reliable information were difficult (Mean =
1.29, SD = 0.71). Similarly, the perceived role of digital tools in improving farm efficiency and information
accessibility scored low (Mean = 1.29 and 1.39 respectively), reflecting limited digital engagement. The highest
mean score (1.67) related to access to training on poultry technologies, suggesting that while some training
opportunities exist, mostly through county extension programs or private suppliers, they remain sporadic and
insufficient in both scope and depth.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3240
www.rsisinternational.org
These findings imply that knowledge gaps, limited affordability, and inadequate extension support continue to
constrain technology uptake. Interviews with key informants confirmed that most farmers relied on traditional
rearing systems, with limited exposure to innovations such as improved breeds, incubators, automated drinkers,
or digital farm management applications. This pattern is consistent with earlier studies in Kenya and Tanzania,
which reported that smallholder farmers often face barriers such as high input costs, limited credit access, and
insufficient demonstrations (Muthee & Mburu, 2016; Lwoga et al., 2017).
C. Relationship Between Technology and Productivity
Statistical analysis established a positive but modest correlation (r = 0.36, p < 0.05) between farmers’ access to
training and their reported levels of productivity, measured in terms of egg yield, mortality rates, and flock
expansion. This indicates that training contributes meaningfully to better production outcomes, though it alone
is insufficient to guarantee sustained productivity improvements.
Respondents who had attended at least one formal or informal training session on poultry management reported
higher survival rates of chicks and improved disease control compared to those without training. However, many
emphasized that the benefits of training were undermined by inconsistent access to affordable feed, vaccines,
and veterinary services. Moreover, farmers highlighted that training programs often lacked follow-up support,
limiting the retention and practical implementation of new knowledge.
These findings suggest that technology adaptation and productivity are interdependent processes requiring both
knowledge enhancement and structural support. Training interventions should therefore be integrated with
access to affordable inputs and continuous technical guidance to translate knowledge gains into measurable
productivity outcomes.
D. Qualitative Insights
Qualitative data from key informant interviews and open-ended responses reinforced the quantitative findings
and revealed deeper contextual barriers affecting technology uptake and productivity. The following four
dominant themes emerged:
1. High input costs: most farmers cited the escalating cost of feed and vaccines as a primary constraint.
These expenses reduced profit margins and discouraged continued investment in improved technologies.
2. Inadequate training and extension services: farmers reported irregular visits by extension officers and
limited access to demonstration farms or farmer field schools. This gap led to reliance on informal
information networks, which often perpetuated outdated practices.
3. Market access and pricing challenges: limited access to reliable market information and overdependence
on middlemen resulted in low farm-gate prices, weakening incentives to expand production.
4. Infrastructure and space constraints: given the urban context of Embakasi East, many farmers operated
in congested residential spaces without proper housing, ventilation, or waste management facilities,
increasing disease vulnerability and limiting flock size.
These qualitative insights reveal that backyard poultry farmers in Embakasi East face multidimensional and
interlinked challenges ranging from economic, institutional, and infrastructural, that collectively constrain
technology adoption and production efficiency. Addressing these barriers requires an integrated approach
involving policy support, affordable innovations, and sustained capacity building to enhance the resilience and
sustainability of urban poultry farming.
DISCUSSION
A. Technological Adoption and Barriers
The low levels of technology adoption observed among backyard poultry farmers in Embakasi East Constituency
are consistent with findings from similar studies in sub-Saharan Africa, where the diffusion of agricultural
innovations remains limited by economic, infrastructural, and institutional barriers. Farmers cited high costs of
inputs, unreliable information flow, and inadequate extension services as major constraints. These findings align
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3241
www.rsisinternational.org
with Alders et al. (2010) and Lwoga et al. (2017), who observed that limited access to information, fragmented
input supply chains, and insufficient government support hinder technology diffusion among smallholder
producers.
In addition, urban poultry farmers face unique challenges that compound these constraints. As Njiru and Letema
(2018) noted, urban farming in Kenya is largely marginalized in city planning and land-use policies, leaving
farmers with restricted space, limited access to clean water, and inadequate waste management systems. Such
conditions make it difficult to implement improved housing, biosecurity, or digital innovations.
To address these structural constraints, stronger public-private partnerships are necessary. Collaboration between
county governments, research institutions, and private agritech firms can facilitate the establishment of
innovation hubs and demonstration centers that promote affordable technologies tailored to small-scale urban
contexts (Kuhlmann et al., 2018). Integrating these efforts with digital platforms for input access, record keeping,
and market information could accelerate adoption and enhance overall production efficiency.
B. Education and Training Influence
Education plays a vital role in shaping farmers’ openness to innovation and their ability to interpret and apply
new knowledge. The relatively high literacy levels among farmers in Embakasi East indicate potential readiness
to adopt modern technologies. However, as this study reveals, education alone does not guarantee adoption
unless accompanied by continuous training and practical support mechanisms.
This finding echoes Akudugu (2012) and Kalro et al. (2020), who emphasize that while education enhances
awareness, the persistence of traditional practices reflects a lack of sustained extension engagement and limited
access to demonstration farms. Respondents in this study reported sporadic training opportunities, which are
mostly delivered as one-time workshops without adequate follow-up support. Consequently, knowledge
retention and practical application remain limited.
For sustainable adoption, farmers require hands-on training that is integrated with mentorship and resource
access rather than isolated information sessions. Such participatory approaches not only build technical
competence but also strengthen trust between farmers and extension agents. Extension services must therefore
evolve from a purely instructional model to one that supports co-learning and innovation adaptation among
smallholder poultry producers.
C. Production Efficiency
The results demonstrate a clear link between technology adoption and enhanced production efficiency, consistent
with global literature on smallholder poultry systems. Farmers who had participated in training programs or
adopted improved practices reported lower mortality rates, higher egg yields, and better disease control,
confirming observations by Pym and Alders (2012) and Kumar et al. (2021). However, these efficiency gains
are constrained by economic barriers, particularly the high cost of feed, which accounts for 60–70% of total
production expenses (FAO, 2014). Many farmers resort to using household food waste and scavenged materials
as feed substitutes, practices that compromise flock nutrition and productivity. Similar cost-related adaptations
have been reported in Uganda and Malawi, where smallholders rely on scavenging systems to minimize costs
(Otiang et al., 2021).
Therefore, while improved technology has proven potential to boost production, its full impact cannot be realized
without addressing feed affordability and input accessibility. Policies promoting localized feed formulation,
cooperative purchasing systems, and value chain integration can help in mitigating cost burdens and enhance
production sustainability.
D. Structural and Market Constraints
Beyond individual knowledge and resources, broader structural and market-related factors significantly shape
the success of technology adoption in backyard poultry farming. Weak infrastructure, especially poor housing,
unreliable water supply, and inadequate waste management, limits the implementation of improved systems. As
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3242
www.rsisinternational.org
Alders and Pym (2009) note, sustainable poultry production requires an enabling environment that includes basic
physical and institutional infrastructure.
Additionally, market inefficiencies remain a major deterrent to expansion. Farmers in Embakasi East reported
dependence on informal markets and middlemen who dictate prices, eroding profit margins and discouraging
investment in improved technologies. These findings are consistent with Ochieng et al. (2020), who emphasized
that disorganized urban market structures constrain profitability and innovation uptake.
To counter these challenges, the establishment of cooperative marketing systems and digital market platforms
could enhance collective bargaining power, improve price transparency, and facilitate better integration into
value chains. When supported by policy frameworks recognizing urban agriculture as a legitimate livelihood
activity, such initiatives can significantly strengthen both economic and social sustainability in the sector.
E. Policy Implications
Experiences from countries such as India and Bangladesh provide valuable lessons for Kenya’s poultry sector.
Targeted government programs in these regions have demonstrated that coordinated efforts in breed
improvement, training, and input support can transform backyard poultry into a commercially viable enterprise
(Kumar et al., 2021; Bhattarai et al., 2020).
In Kenya, similar results can be achieved through the creation of County-level poultry innovation centres that
combine technology incubation, capacity building, and research dissemination. Such centres can enhance
experimentation with context-specific solutions such as solar-powered incubators, mobile veterinary services,
and low-cost housing designs that are tailored to the realities of urban smallholders.
Additionally, the integration of urban poultry farming into national and county agricultural policies could
legitimize the practice, ensuring access to infrastructure, biosecurity resources, and market support. Public-
private partnerships should also be leveraged to subsidize essential inputs, promote digital extension services,
and link smallholders to reliable markets.
Deliberately embedding backyard poultry farming within broader frameworks of urban food security, gender
inclusion, and sustainable livelihoods in Kenya can strengthen its agricultural resilience and empower
marginalized urban households.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conclusion
This study examined the influence of technology adaptation on backyard poultry production in Embakasi East
Constituency, Nairobi County, with a focus on understanding adoption patterns, identifying barriers, and
assessing their implications for productivity. The findings reveal that while most farmers are aware of modern
technologies, their actual uptake and utilization remain low, mainly due to financial, structural, and institutional
constraints.
Education and training were found to play a positive yet insufficient role in fostering adoption. Farmers who had
received basic technological training recorded better flock management and productivity outcomes; however,
such gains were undermined by high input costs, limited access to quality feed and vaccines, and inconsistent
extension support. These results reaffirm that technology adoption in smallholder systems is not a purely
technical decision but a multidimensional process shaped by economic capacity, institutional trust, and
environmental conditions.
The study contributes to growing evidence that the transformation of urban and peri-urban poultry farming in
Kenya requires an integrated approach that combines innovation diffusion, financial inclusion, and targeted
policy interventions. Effective technology adaptation can significantly enhance not only productivity but also
food security, gender empowerment, and household resilience within Kenya’s evolving urban economy.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3243
www.rsisinternational.org
B. Recommendations
In order to translate this studies’ insights into actionable outcomes, the following recommendations are made:
Strengthen extension and training systems: county governments, research institutions, and private sector actors
should collaborate to institutionalize regular, hands-on farmer training focused on modern poultry technologies.
Establishing farmer field schools and digital learning platforms can bridge information gaps and promote
sustained learning beyond one-off workshops.
Enhance access to affordable inputs and financing: since access to key inputs, especially feed, vaccines, and
improved breeds, remains a major barrier, the government should facilitate input subsidies and promote
microfinance or cooperative credit schemes that enable smallholders to invest in productive technologies. Public-
private partnerships could also help develop affordable supply chains for essential inputs.
Promote research-innovation linkages: universities and agricultural research agencies should work closely with
local authorities to pilot low-cost, context-appropriate technologies, such as solar-powered incubators, eco-
friendly housing models, and mobile veterinary services. Such innovations should be tested under real urban
conditions to ensure adaptability and sustainability.
Support cooperative and digital market systems: organizing farmers into marketing cooperatives and linking
them to digital market platforms can reduce their dependence on intermediaries, improve price transparency, and
enhance collective bargaining power. Strengthening value chain coordination will also encourage reinvestment
in technology and quality improvement.
Integrate urban poultry into policy frameworks: National and County agricultural policies should formally
recognize urban and peri-urban poultry farming as a legitimate livelihood sector. This inclusion could help justify
resource allocation for infrastructure like waste management, clean water, housing; and facilitate integration into
urban planning and food security programs.
C. Areas for Further Research
While this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between technology adaptation and productivity,
further research could extend its scope in several directions. Longitudinal studies tracking technology diffusion
and performance outcomes over time would help clarify causal relationships and assess sustainability impacts.
Comparative studies between urban and rural poultry systems could further illuminate how spatial and socio-
economic contexts influence adoption behaviour. Future research should also employ inferential analysis to
statistically test the hypotheses, particularly when comparative methods are used.
Moreover, gender-focused investigations are needed to explore how women’s decision-making power, time
allocation, and access to productive resources influence innovation uptake and household welfare. Such research
would deepen the understanding of how inclusive and context-sensitive technological interventions can
transform smallholder poultry production into a commercially viable and socially empowering enterprise in
Kenya and beyond.
REFERENCES
1. Ahlers, C., Alders, R., Bagnol, B., Cambaza, A. B., Harun, M., Mgomezulu, R., & Young, M. (2009).
Improving village chicken production: A manual for field workers and trainers. Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research.
2. Akudugu, M. A. (2012). Estimation of the determinants of credit demand by farmers and supply by rural
banks in Ghana’s Upper East Region. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2(2), 189–
200.
3. Aklilu, H. A., Almekinders, C. J. M., & Udo, H. M. J. (2008). Village poultry consumption and marketing
in relation to gender, religious festivals and market access. Livestock Research for Rural Development,
20(10), 155.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3244
www.rsisinternational.org
4. Alders, R. G., & Pym, R. A. E. (2009). Village poultry: Still important to millions, eight thousand years
after domestication. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 65(2), 181–190.
5. Alders, R. G., Spradbrow, P. B., & Young, M. (2010). Village poultry: Health and production in
developing countries. ACIAR.
6. Bhattarai, D., Kaphle, K., & Khanal, D. R. (2020). Backyard poultry farming in Nepal: Opportunities
and constraints. International Journal of Livestock Research, 10(2), 45–53.
7. Bujarbaruah, K. M., & Gupta, J. J. (2005). Impact of backyard poultry farming on rural economy in
northeastern India. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 75(3), 337–341.
8. Chakrabarti, A., Nandi, S., & Mondal, A. (2014). Role of backyard poultry in enhancing rural livelihood.
Journal of Animal Research, 4(2), 243–248.
9. Conan, A., Goutard, F. L., Sorn, S., & Vong, S. (2012). Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in
developing countries: A systematic review. BMC Veterinary Research, 8(1), 240.
10. Dzogbema, A., Osei-Amponsah, R., & Osei, E. (2021). Constraints to local chicken production in sub-
Saharan Africa. Poultry Science Journal, 9(1), 31–41.
11. Epprecht, M., Minot, N., Dewina, R., Messerli, P., & Heinimann, A. (2007). The geography of poverty
and inequality in the Lao PDR. Swiss National Centre of Competence.
12. FAO. (2014). Small-scale poultry production: Technical guide. Rome: Food and Agriculture
Organization.
13. Goswami, R. (2016). Role of extension services in technology adoption among farmers. Journal of
Extension Education, 28(2), 56–63.
14. Guèye, E. F. (2000). The role of family poultry in poverty alleviation, food security and the promotion
of gender equality in rural Africa. Outlook on Agriculture, 29(2), 129–136.
15. Kalro, A. H., Mutisya, M., & Odhiambo, W. (2020). Farmer-led innovation and technology diffusion in
Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 12(3), 275–283.
16. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS). (2021). Economic survey 2021. Nairobi: KNBS.
17. Kitalyi, A. J. (1998). Village chicken production systems in rural Africa. FAO.
18. Kuhlmann, K., Zhou, Y., & Wang, Z. (2018). Agricultural innovation and smallholder inclusion. Global
Food Security, 16(1), 10–20.
19. Kumar, V., Singh, Y., & Sahoo, S. K. (2021). Backyard poultry farming in India: A tool for nutritional
security and women empowerment. Biological Rhythm Research, 52(1), 90–103.
20. Lwoga, E. T., Stilwell, C., & Ngulube, P. (2017). Access and use of agricultural information for
technology adoption among smallholder farmers in Tanzania. Information Development, 33(2), 167–
181.
21. Mapiye, C., Sibanda, S., & Kusina, J. (2008). Village chicken production practices in Zimbabwe.
Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20(11), 181.
22. Ministry of Agriculture. (2022). Annual agricultural performance report 2022. Nairobi: Government of
Kenya.
23. Muthee, A., & Mburu, J. (2016). Determinants of adoption of agricultural technologies among
smallholder farmers in Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 11(30), 2737–2749.
24. Nkukwana, T. T. (2018). Global poultry production: Current impact and future outlook on sustainable
animal protein supply. South African Journal of Animal Science, 48(5), 869–884.
25. Njiru, S. N., & Letema, S. (2018). Integrating urban agriculture into city planning: A Kenyan case study.
Urban Agriculture & Regional Food Systems, 3(1), 180–191.
26. Ochieng, J., Afari-Sefa, V., & Bekunda, M. (2020). Strengthening urban food systems through
smallholder engagement. Food Policy, 91, 101824.
27. Otiang, E., Ogada, S., & Ochieng, J. (2021). Poultry production systems and constraints in East Africa:
A review. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53(3), 1–13.
28. Pym, R. A. E., & Alders, R. G. (2012). Poultry and development: The role of poultry in poverty
alleviation. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 68(1), 5–15.
29. Rajkumar, U., Haunshi, S., & Reddy, B. L. (2021). Technology interventions for sustainable backyard
poultry production. Poultry Science Journal, 9(2), 75–84.
30. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
31. Sonaiya, E. B. (2007). Family poultry, food security and the impact of HPAI. World’s Poultry Science
Journal, 63(1), 132–138.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 3245
www.rsisinternational.org
32. Sorensen, P. (2010). Smallholder poultry production—Livelihoods, food security and sociocultural
significance. FAO Smallholder Poultry Production Paper No. 4. Rome: FAO.
33. Tamir, T., Ayalew, W., & Dessie, T. (2015). Adoption of improved poultry technologies and its impact
on productivity. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production, 15(2), 1–13.
34. Wambua, S., Kiarie, J., & Mwangi, D. (2022). Feed costs and market dynamics in Kenya’s poultry sector.
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 11(2), 22–31.
