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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

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?

No

Comments:

The technology has not adversely affected the farms of farmers who have implemented the technology.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Push-pull technology is a strategy that controls pests, improves the productivity of cereal crops and fodder, and controls soil erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Push–pull technology was developed by the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) in collaboration with Rothamsted Research, (UK) in Kenya in the 1990s for the control of stemborer and striga weed in resource-poor maize farming systems. It is a strategy for controlling pests by using plants that repel them i.e., “push” crops and plants that trap pests i.e., “pull” crops. In Kakamega, Siaya, and Bungoma counties of western Kenya (i.e., the ProSoil project areas), the production of maize, millet, and sorghum has greatly been affected by poor soil fertility; insect pests, especially stemborer; and a parasitic weed called striga. Under the ProSoil project, Desmodium intortum is the main repellent “push” crop while napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), brachiaria (Brachiaria decumbens), and mulatto (Brachiaria ruziziensis) are the main “pull” or trap plants.

In a typical push-pull system, the attractant “pull” plant is planted as a border around the field where the main crop e.g., maize, millet, or sorghum has been intercropped with the “push” crop. Desmodium produces repellent volatile chemicals that push away stemborer moths from the main field towards the edge where there is the “pull” or trap crop. The attractant trap plant emits volatile compounds which serve as a haven for the stemborers. As the stemborer moths lay eggs on the pull/ trap plant (in this case bracharia) and the eggs hatch and develop into larvae or caterpillar stage, a sticky substance like glue secreted by the bracharia physically traps the larvae; hence, inhibiting further development. In addition, desmodium stimulates the germination of striga and then effectively inhibits its growth through its roots' exudates.

“Push-pull” technology improves the productivity of cereal crops, controls soil erosion, and contributes to conservation agriculture (minimum tillage). Desmodium and bracharia are both high-quality animal fodder plants and because of their perennial nature, they maintain ground cover. Bracharia is rich in crude protein. Desmodium is a leguminous green manure cover crop and, therefore, it fixes nitrogen in the soil and improves soil organic matter. Desmodium does not suppress the main crop since it is not a climber.

One acre (0.4 ha) of land (in a push-pull system) requires about 0.75 kg of desmodium seeds and about 0.5 kg of brachiaria seeds. Desmodium is planted at a spacing of 75 cm between rows and 60 cm between plants in the same row. The cereal crop is established in rows parallel to the desmodium crop rows (e.g., 75 cm from row to row and 30 cm from plant to plant in the same row for maize). Brachiaria is planted in two shallow trenches (50 cm apart) and because the seeds are very tiny, they are sown on the surface of the trenches and covered with a very thin layer of soil to keep them in place, in darkness, until they sprout. They are later thinned to give a spacing of 25 cm between plants.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

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

Country:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Kakamega County in western Kenya

Further specification of location:

Khalaba Ward, Matungu Sub-county, in Kakamega County

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)

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

Comments:

There are no protected areas in the areas covered by this assessment. The stated area is the total area of the two fields where the information that was used in this documentation was collected from. Only one field (Andrew's) was used for most of the documentation e.g., field measurements and costs estimation. Nice photos of the technology were taken in the other field (Patrick's).

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2019

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Technology introduced by the ProSoil project.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
• mitigate climate change and its impacts
• create beneficial economic impact

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Agro-silvopastoralism

Cropland

• Annual cropping
• Perennial (non-woody) cropping
• Tree and shrub cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• fodder crops - grasses
• fodder crops - clover
• cereals - maize
• cereals - sorghum
• vegetables - other
• legumes and pulses - beans

Annual cropping system:

Maize/sorghum/millet intercropped with legume

Perennial (non-woody) cropping - Specify crops:

• banana/plantain/abaca
• sugar cane
• fodder crops - grasses
• fodder crops - legumes, clover

Tree and shrub cropping - Specify crops:

• fodder trees (Calliandra, Leucaena leucocephala, Prosopis, etc.)
• avocado
• fruits, other
• mango, mangosteen, guava
• papaya

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Specify:

Crops are grown during the long and short rain seasons.

Is intercropping practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify which crops are intercropped:

Cereal and legumes.

Is crop rotation practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

The push-pull plot is left fallow with only the repellant and attractant crops.

Grazing land

Intensive grazing/ fodder production:

• Cut-and-carry/ zero grazing
• Improved pastures

Animal type:

• cattle - dairy
• goats
• poultry

Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Desmodium and napier grass are fodder crops - fed to livestock. Manure from the animals is applied on the cereal crops.

Products and services:

• economic security, investment prestige
• milk
• manure as fertilizer/ energy production
• eggs
• meat

Species:

cattle - dairy

Count:

3

Species:

poultry

Count:

55

Species:

goats

Count:

4

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

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

• rainfed

Comments:

Crop establishment is dependent on availability of rainfall.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• rotational systems (crop rotation, fallows, shifting cultivation)
• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A1: Vegetation/ soil cover
• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
• A3: Soil surface treatment

vegetative measures

• V2: Grasses and perennial herbaceous plants

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

soil erosion by water

• Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion

soil erosion by wind

• Et: loss of topsoil

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

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

• prevent land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

KES

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

124.21

4.3 Establishment activities

Comments:

Land should be ploughed only when there are stubborn weeds.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

ProSoil project through Welthungerhilfe.

Comments:

The ProSoil project through Welthungerhilfe provided slashers, African swords, and jab planters to the farmers through their groups. The costs of these implements are KES 350/- for a slasher, KES 400/- for a panga (machete), and KES 5,000/- for a jab planter. It is assumed that the farmer will be able to use these implements over a period of 5 years before these implements will have depreciated to a point where they will not be useable. The cost is thus spread over the years when the farmer will be able to use the implement.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

ProSoil project through Welthungerhilfe.

Comments:

The ProSoil project through Welthungerhilfe provided Shallow weeders, pangas (machete), and chaka hoes to the farmers through their groups. The costs of these implements are KES 400/- for a slasher, KES 400/- for an African sword, and KES 650/- for a jab planter. It is assumed that the farmer will be able to use these implements over a period of 5 years before these implements will have depreciated to a point where they will not be useable. The cost is thus spread over the years when the farmer will be able to use the implement.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Rate of man-days vary from one place to another, farmer to farmer, and with type of work.

Exchange rate for February 2023, source: European Commission/ InfoEuro online at https://commission.europa.eu/funding-tenders/procedures-guidelines-tenders/information-contractors-and-beneficiaries/exchange-rate-inforeuro_en

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

Soil pH was 4.8 before push-pull was implented.

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

There are several boreholes in the area and according to interviews with some borehole owners, the depths are not more than 50 metres.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Most farms are under crops and trees therefore the agrobiodiversity is high.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

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

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

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled
• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Comments:

The farmer has a title for his piece of land. He also leases other people's pieces of land for farming. Water in the streams and springs is freely accessed with restrictions.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

The above rating varies from one village to the other.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

No recorded data is available for reference. All are estimates based on the farmer's explanation or as given by him.

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

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

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Biological disasters

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

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

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

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 1-10%

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

• 91-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Soil cover

Available from where? Costs?

Free download at http://www.act-africa.org/image/05SOIL~1.PDF

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Push-Pull Technology

URL:

http://www.icipe.org/impacts/demonstration-research-impacts-communities/push-pull-technology#:~:text=Cereals%2C%20which%20include%20maize%2C%20sorghum,sub%20Saharan%20Africa%20(SSA).

7.4 General comments

1. Provide a function to be able to link the documented SLM to similar work that has been documented in other databases e.g., LandPortal, UNCCD, etc.
2. Some of the impacts (section 6) cannot be quantified.