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:

ISFM offers reduced degradation, or even avoided degradation of soils compared to the locally most used alternative maize growing systems, traditional low-input maize production and high input maize production with only mineral N fertilizer. As demonstrated in four long-term trials, both of these systems usually come at the cost of soil fertility loss.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Integrated soil fertility management constitutes a group of management practices aimed at increasing soil fertility and crop productivity with the local context in mind. These practices integrate the use of organic inputs, fertilizers, and better quality seeds with all inputs managed following good farming practices.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) is applied in arable cropping systems. In this example it was rigorously tested in maize cropping systems in Kenya. The main features of ISFM are the integration of organic inputs to increase or maintain soil fertility and provide a background of nutrient release, with mineral fertilizers to meet peak plant demand together with high quality seeds that can utilize the inputs well. The main objectives are to increase crop yield while maintaining or improving soil fertility. This is important because four long-term trials in Kenya have shown that long-term maize yields decline in both low-input systems and systems with high mineral N inputs but without organic inputs. In contrast, systems with farmyard manure application maintained yields over two decades and maintained significantly higher soil fertility. It has also been shown that the input of organic resources with a low C:N ratio, such as farmyard manure, is more effective in maintaining yields and soil fertility than mineral fertilizer inputs. Thus, the main inputs are organic resources with a low C:N ratio (ideally farmyard manure, but green manures such as Tithonia sp. or Calliandra sp. can also be used), while mineral fertilizers and high quality seeds are also needed. A major activity is the incorporation of organic resources before planting, which requires additional labour. ISFM offers significantly higher yields, and yield maintenance over time, while maintaining or increasing soil fertility. However, it is important to note that the advantage of ISFM over mineral fertilizer use becomes apparent only in the long term (e.g., after 5 to 10 years of continuous cropping). This is because mineral fertilizer inputs may initially mask the loss of soil fertility. This long-term perspective has to be kept in mind when considering the main perceived disadvantage of ISFM - that is the need for manure input and labour for its incorporation, which does not immediately result in higher yields compared to mineral fertilizer application alone.

2.3 Photos 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:

Embu County; Siaya County; Busia County

Further specification of location:

Embu city; Mavuria; close to Siaya; close to Busia

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• applied at specific points/ concentrated on a small area

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

No

Comments:

The locations display the position of the long-term trials in which ISFM was tested

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2002

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• adapt to climate change/ extremes 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:

No

Cropland

• Annual cropping

Annual cropping - Specify crops:

• cereals - maize
• cereals - millet
• cereals - sorghum

Annual cropping system:

Continuous maize/sorghum/millet

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

Is intercropping practiced?

No

Is crop rotation practiced?

No

Other

Specify:

Mixed crop-livestock farms

Remarks:

Manure can come from animals that are grazed or from animals kept in a zero-grazing system.

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

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated crop-livestock management
• integrated soil fertility management
• improved plant varieties/ animal breeds

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

agronomic measures

• A2: Organic matter/ soil fertility
• A5: Seed management, improved varieties
• A6: Residue management

A6: Specify residue management:

A 6.2: grazed

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

chemical soil deterioration

• Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion)

biological degradation

• 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
• reduce 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):

KSH

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

135.0

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

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

One or two days of workshop costs. Cost of exchanges with extension agents (mainly time)

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

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

Comments:

Prices of May 2024. The cost of manure is highly variable locally (estimated to be around 2000 KSH per t dry matter in western and up to 9000 KSH per t dry matter in central Kenya; we used the mean value of these). In mixed crop-livestock systems, the manure may be sourced from the own farm, in which case the cost of ISFM may be reduced tremendously.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Local labor prices. Local availability of livestock. Local fertilizer and seed prices.

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.

Detailed descriptions can be found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429022003598
and here: https://soil.copernicus.org/articles/9/301/2023/

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

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:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Soil

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)

Meteorological disasters

Climatological disasters

Comments:

In areas with abundant rainfall (1500 mm per year and more, as in western Kenya) the maize under ISFM did not struggle under increased temperatures. In areas with only 1200 mm (such as in central Kenya) and lower rainfall, the maize suffered severely in drier seasons, even under ISFM.

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

• 11-50%

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

Estimated to be around 20-25% both in Western and central Kenya. Currently increased uptake, mainly due to surges in mineral fertilizer prices.

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

• 51-90%

Comments:

There are no government incentives to apply organic resources to the soil.

6.6 Adaptation

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

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• climatic change/ extremes

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

The trials have been redesigned for intercropping with the MBILI system - results are expected in 2027/8. (Details on MBILI: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429009002809)

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:

Laub, M., Corbeels, M., Mathu Ndungu, S., Mucheru-Muna, M.W., Mugendi, D., Necpalova, M., Van de Broek, M., Waswa, W., Vanlauwe, B., Six, J., 2023. Combining manure with mineral N fertilizer maintains maize yields: Evidence from four long-term experiments in Kenya. Field Crops Research 291, 108788.

Available from where? Costs?

For free at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108788

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Laub, M., Corbeels, M., Couëdel, A., Ndungu, S.M., Mucheru-Muna, M.W., Mugendi, D., Necpalova, M., Waswa, W., Van de Broek, M., Vanlauwe, B., Six, J., 2023. Managing soil organic carbon in tropical agroecosystems: evidence from four long-term experiments in Kenya. SOIL 9, 301–323.

Available from where? Costs?

For free at: https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-301-2023

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mucheru-Muna, M., Pypers, P., Mugendi, D., Kung’u, J., Mugwe, J., Merckx, R., Vanlauwe, B., 2010. A staggered maize–legume intercrop arrangement robustly increases crop yields and economic returns in the highlands of Central Kenya. Field Crops Research 115, 132–139.

Available from where? Costs?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.10.013

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Article on yield development in ISFM

URL:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108788

Title/ description:

Article on soil organic matter development in ISFM

URL:

https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-301-2023

7.4 General comments

Very detailed inputs required. Filled out to the best of my knowledge.
Only qualitative reports about economics at farm level were available. Measurements will be conducted in an upcoming project