Technologies

Chicken manure in non irrigated arable land [Poland]

Creation: 06/27/2017 12:49 p.m.
Update: 06/14/2019 2:21 p.m.
Compiler: Magdalena Frac
Editor: –
Reviewers: Ursula Gaemperli, Gudrun Schwilch, Alexandra Gavilano

Manuring & composting

technologies_2848 - Poland

View sections

Expand all

Completeness: 80%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Key resource person(s)

land user:

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Magdalena Frac', 'user_id': '3946', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}

Lipiec Jerzy

Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences

Poland

Usowicz Bogusław

Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences

Poland

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1017, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Interactive Soil Quality assessment in Europe and China for Agricultural productivity and Environmental Resilience (EU-iSQAPER)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6100, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'Institute of Agrophysics, Polish Academy of Sciences (IA PAS) - Poland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

2. Description of the SLM Technology

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Manuring and composting - amendment with chicken manure.
Chicken manure as organic matter derived from animal (chicken), which can be used as organic fertilizer in agriculture.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology is used in Trzebieszów (N 51.990203; E 22.59253), in Podlasie Region in Poland under cereals or oil crops. The technology is used on about 2 ha area. The case study is embedded in typical agricultural region on rather fertile soils formed from loess. The altitude in the study site is 153 m.a.s.l., average temperature 7.1°C and precipitation 550 mm. Chicken manure is used for more than 20 years (10 t/ha) on non irrigated arable land. Chickens are hold in Podlasie Region. Land user already hold chickens before the implementation of the Technology. Chicken manure is organic matter derived from animals (chicken), which can be used as organic fertilizer in agriculture. Chicken manure is high in organic matter making it desirable for use as a soil amendment or soil conditioner. It contributes to the fertility of the soil by adding organic matter and is nutritionally rich. It has the highest amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Chicken manure can improve soil structure and impacts microbiological activity and plant growth. The field should be ploughed and harrowed once with a tractor after which a uniform rate of 10 t/ha of chicken manure is applied. One chicken produces about 150g of chicken manure per day. The farmers mix the chicken manure with straw. In majority the use of chicken manure as fertilizer increases the yield of the crops. It is necessary to control a level of nutrients in the soil. A further benefit from the Technology is the reduction of chemical fertilizers which has positive effects concerning the costs. Moreover, if chicken manure comes from the own farm the combination with the Technology closes the nitrogen cycle on the farm.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

Media Gallery

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Poland

Region/ State/ Province:

Podlasie

Further specification of location:

Trzebieszów

Specify the spread of the Technology:

evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

< 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

Comments:

Trzebieszów, Podlasie, Poland. Coordinates: N 51.99020; E 22.59253
Chicken manure production, near the chicken farms.

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

10-50 years ago

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

through land users' innovation

3. Classification of the SLM Technology

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

improve production
reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
preserve/ improve biodiversity
reduce risk of disasters
create beneficial economic impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Cropland

Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

cereals - oats
cereals - other

wheat

Number of growing seasons per year:

Comments:

Main crops (cash and food crops): cereals, especially triticale, oat and wheat

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

integrated soil fertility management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

physical soil deterioration

Pc: compaction
Pk: slaking and crusting

biological degradation

Bq: quantity/ biomass decline
Bl: loss of soil life

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

prevent land degradation

4. Technical specifications, implementation activities, inputs, and costs

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/jpeg', 'preview_image': '/media/8d/4/8d4eff9c-d494-4d4e-ae4f-1c46829c0f7b.jpg', 'key': 'Technical drawing', 'value': '/media/8f/7/8f7a53b9-f284-4acb-91c6-165a25de12a2.jpg', 'template': 'raw'}

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

The utilization of chicken manure as an organic fertilizer is essential to improve the soil productivity and the crop production. The field should be ploughed and harrowed once with a tractor after which a uniform rate of 10 t/ha of chicken manure is applied. One chicken produces about 150g of chicken manure per day. The farmers mix the chicken manure with straw.

Author:

Magdalena Frąc

Date:

29/06/2016

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

per Technology area

Indicate size and area unit:

1 ha

other/ national currency (specify):

PLN

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

0.28

Indicate average wage cost of hired labour per day:

50-100 PLN

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Purchase of polutry	Spring, Summer, Autumn
2.	Chicken coop construction	Spring, Summer, Autumn
3.	Buy of hens and cock	Spring, Summer, Autumn
4.	Construction of manure storage facility	Spring, Summer, Autumn

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of establishing the Technology:

600.0

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Mixing of chicken manure with straw	Autumn
2.	Chicken manure application	Autumn

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

If you are unable to break down the costs in the table above, give an estimation of the total costs of maintaining the Technology:

300.0

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Pesticides, mineral fertilization, seed, fuel

5. Natural and human environment

5.1 Climate

Annual rainfall

< 250 mm
251-500 mm
501-750 mm
751-1,000 mm
1,001-1,500 mm
1,501-2,000 mm
2,001-3,000 mm
3,001-4,000 mm
> 4,000 mm

Agro-climatic zone

sub-humid

5.2 Topography

Slopes on average:

flat (0-2%)
gentle (3-5%)
moderate (6-10%)
rolling (11-15%)
hilly (16-30%)
steep (31-60%)
very steep (>60%)

Landforms:

plateau/plains
ridges
mountain slopes
hill slopes
footslopes
valley floors

Altitudinal zone:

0-100 m a.s.l.
101-500 m a.s.l.
501-1,000 m a.s.l.
1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
> 4,000 m a.s.l.

5.3 Soils

Soil depth on average:

very shallow (0-20 cm)
shallow (21-50 cm)
moderately deep (51-80 cm)
deep (81-120 cm)
very deep (> 120 cm)

Soil texture (topsoil):

coarse/ light (sandy)

Topsoil organic matter:

medium (1-3%)

5.4 Water availability and quality

Ground water table:

5-50 m

Availability of surface water:

poor/ none

Water quality (untreated):

good drinking water

Is water salinity a problem?

Is flooding of the area occurring?

5.5 Biodiversity

Species diversity:

medium

Habitat diversity:

medium

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Sedentary or nomadic:

Sedentary

Market orientation of production system:

commercial/ market

Off-farm income:

less than 10% of all income

Relative level of wealth:

average

Individuals or groups:

individual/ household

Level of mechanization:

mechanized/ motorized

Gender:

women

Age of land users:

middle-aged

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

< 0.5 ha
0.5-1 ha
1-2 ha
2-5 ha
5-15 ha
15-50 ha
50-100 ha
100-500 ha
500-1,000 ha
1,000-10,000 ha
> 10,000 ha

Is this considered small-, medium- or large-scale (referring to local context)?

medium-scale

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

family

Land use rights:

individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

health:

poor
moderate
good

education:

poor
moderate
good

technical assistance:

poor
moderate
good

employment (e.g. off-farm):

poor
moderate
good

markets:

poor
moderate
good

energy:

poor
moderate
good

roads and transport:

poor
moderate
good

drinking water and sanitation:

poor
moderate
good

financial services:

poor
moderate
good

6. Impacts and concluding statements

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

crop production

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

The farmer observed increase of crop productivity in Mg per ha for cereales. Grain yield of wheat under chicken manure application vary from 4.5 to 6.5 t/ha.

crop quality

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

The chicken manuring technology increases crop quality by improving soil water realtions.

risk of production failure

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

The chicken manuring technology decreases the risk of production failure due to greater yield stability.

land management

hindered

simplified

Comments/ specify:

The chicken manuring technology simplifies land management by less intense machinery use.

Income and costs

expenses on agricultural inputs

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

The expenses on agricultural inputs in chicken manuring technology are reduced due to lower mineral fertilizers costs.

Socio-cultural impacts

food security/ self-sufficiency

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

The chicken manuring technology improves the food security by increased yield stability.

SLM/ land degradation knowledge

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

Land degradation knowledge is improved by the promotion of the chicken manuring technology.

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

water quantity

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

The water quantity increases in chicken manuring technology due to less evaporation caused by better water relations after organic matter incorporation into the soil. The technology improves water retention.

harvesting/ collection of water

reduced

improved

Comments/ specify:

The water collection in chicken manuring technology is improved due to better infiltration of rainfall water through earthworms macropores open at the soil surface.

surface runoff

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

The surface runoff in chicken manuring technology decreased due to presence of higher content of organic matter and open earthworms macropores increasing infiltration of rainfall water.

Soil

soil moisture

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

The chicken manuring technology increases soil moisture by reduced evaporation due to increasing soil organic matter content.

soil organic matter/ below ground C

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

The chicken manuring technology increases soil organic matter content due to incorporation of exogenous organic matter into the soil.

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

biomass/ above ground C

decreased

increased

Comments/ specify:

The farmer observed increase of crop productivity.

Climate and disaster risk reduction

drought impacts

increased

decreased

Comments/ specify:

The technology decreases drought impacts by increasing the soil organic matter content.

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Comments:

The technology decreases drought impacts by increasing the soil organic matter content.

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

Short-term returns:

slightly negative

Long-term returns:

positive

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Short-term returns:

positive

Long-term returns:

positive

Comments:

At the beginning the slightly negative cost-benefit is conected with the cost of polutry purchase and the construction of needed facility.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

1-10%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

about 2 ha

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

91-100%

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Positive impact on the level of organic matter in the soil. Saving money because of the lower costs of chicken manure, which is used instead of mineral fertiliser.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Positive impact on the level of organic matter in the soil.
Positive influence on soil quality including structure, porosity and infiltration rate.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
High level of NPK in chicken manure.	Monitoring of NPK in chicken manure and soil.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
High level of NPK in chicken manure.	Monitoring of NPK in chicken manure and soil.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

field visits, field surveys

interviews with land users

compilation from reports and other existing documentation

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

29/06/2016

Links and modules

Expand all