SEMI-ARID AGRICULTURE AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS OF … · 2015-07-28 · Agriculture is the principal source of livelihood for the majority of households living in the semi-arid areas

INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT TO ATTAIN SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES IN EAST AFRICAN FARMING SYSTEMS

EAST AFRICA LEI

SEMI-ARID AGRICULTURE AND RURAL LIVELIHOODS

OF EASTERN KENYA

Report of a Baseline Survey carried out in Gacavini Village of Gachoka Division, Mbeere District

L.N.Gachimbi, Onduru D.D, de Jager, Maina F. and Muchena F.N.

INMASP Report No. Ke 11 5th November 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................iv 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1. Study Site .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Farm Selection....................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................................. 3 3. DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSEHOLDS ................................................... 4 3.1. Age Structure of the Sample ................................................................................................. 4 3.2. Household Size ..................................................................................................................... 5 3.3. Occupation of Household Members ...................................................................................... 5 4. FARM PRODUCTION RESOURCES ................................................................................... 7 4.1. Land Production Characteristics............................................................................................ 7 4.2. Labour Production Characteristics ........................................................................................ 7 4.3. Volume of Capital for Production........................................................................................... 7 5. CROP PRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8 5.1. Trends of Major Food Crops.................................................................................................. 8 5.2. Trends of Major Cash Crops ............................................................................................... 10 5.3. General Labour for Cropping Activities ............................................................................... 11 5.4. Current Land Use ................................................................................................................ 11 6. SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT....................................................................................... 13 6.1. Farmer Perceptions on Soil Fertility Status ......................................................................... 13 6.2. Use of Organic Resources .................................................................................................. 13 6.2.1. Use of farm yard manure and compost ............................................................................... 14 6.2.2. Use of Crop Residues.......................................................................................................... 14 6.2.3. Level of integration of trees into the farming system........................................................... 15 6.2.4. Use of mineral fertilizers ...................................................................................................... 16 6.2.5. Other soil fertility maintenance practices............................................................................. 16 6.2.6. Soil and water harvesting and conservation practices ........................................................ 17 7. GENERAL LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 18 7.1. Financial Capital at Farm Level ........................................................................................... 18 7.1.1. Sources, level of earnings and control of income................................................................ 18 7.1.2. Sources and management of credit..................................................................................... 18 7.2. Human Capital at Farm Level.............................................................................................. 19 7.2.1. Access to agricultural extension services............................................................................ 19 7.2.3. Accessibility to health services ............................................................................................ 19 7.2.4. Accessibility to formal education (schools).......................................................................... 20 7.3. Natural Capital (natural resource stocks) ............................................................................ 20 7.3.1. Water sources and availability ............................................................................................. 20 7.3.2. Seasonal food availability .................................................................................................... 22 7.4. Social Capital (social resources) ......................................................................................... 22 8. LIVESTOCK CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................... 24 8.1. Livestock Production ........................................................................................................... 24 8.1.1. Livestock ownership ............................................................................................................ 24 8.1.2. Farmers perceived role of livestock in the farming system ................................................. 24 8.1.3. Systems of livestock production .......................................................................................... 25 8.1.4. Livestock housing ................................................................................................................ 25 8.2. Manure Management and Quality ....................................................................................... 26 8.2.1. Livestock housing characteristics and manure quality ......................................................... 26 8.2.2. Manure collection and storage ............................................................................................ 27 8.2.3. Manure heap management.................................................................................................. 27 8.2.4. Farmers' perceptions on manure value of different livestock categories ............................ 28 8.3. Livestock Feeding and Nutrition .......................................................................................... 29 8.4. Labour Demand for Livestock.............................................................................................. 29 9. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 31 10. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 33

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Total land area, cultivated area, fallow area and average slope………….7

Table 2 Production capital………………………………………………………………8

Table 3 Crops grown when farmers first settled on their farms……………………..8

Table 4 New crop grown that were not grown when farmers first settled……….…9

Table 5 Reasons for growing new crops………………………………………………9

Table 6 The main problems of food production in the area…………………………10

Table 7 The main problems of cash crop production in the area………………… 11

Table 8 Farmers indicators that explain the trend in soil fertility status of the

farm…………………………………………………………………………….. 13

Table 9 Trees and shrubs species planted on the farm …………………………….15

Table 10 Perceived benefits and important constraints in the use of mineral

fertilizers………………………………………………………………………..16

Table 11 Average scores for the main source of income………………………… …18

Table 12 Source of water for livestock during rainy season………………………….21

Table 13 Distances to water points during dry and rainy season……………………21

Table 14 Reasons for food shortage……………………………………………………22

Table 15 List of social networks where farmers are members……………………….23

Table 16 Tropical livestock unit (TLU) ownership……………………………………..24

Table 17 Farmers practical different livestock management systems………………25

Table 18 Manure heap management methods………………………………………...28

Table 19 How farmers judge the value of the manure from animals………………...28

INMASP Report No. Ke 11: ETC-East Africa, KARI (NARL) and LEI-DLO ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Map of Kenya showing selected sites……………………………………….3

Figure 2 Gender dissagration of the sample ………………….……………………….4

Figure 3 Percent household age for the categories…………………………………...4

Figure 4 Household sizes and percent for the various categories ……………..…...5

Figure 5 Percent occupation of household members…………………………………5

Figure 6 Percent level of education for the household members…………………….6

Figure 7 Percent maize intercrops with bean, cowpeas or pigeon peas in

Gachoka Division Mbeere District………………………………...………….12

Figure 8 Percent level of education for the household members……………………20

Figure 9 Percent livestock bomas which were roofed or not roofed per

livestock type……………………………………………………………………26

Figure 10 Livestock activities that experience labour shortage……………………… 30

Figure 11 Livestock management according to gender (men managed/

Female managed)……………………………. ……………………………….30

INMASP Report No. Ke 11: ETC-East Africa, KARI (NARL) and LEI-DLO iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ASAL Arid and Semi Arid Lands CBO Community Based Organizations DALEO District Agriculture and Livestock Extension Officer FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFS Farmer Field Schools ILCA International Livestock Centre for Africa K-Rep Kenya Rural Enterprise Programme MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MoENR Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources NGO Non Governmental Organizations SHG Self Help Group SWC Soil and Water Conservation TLU Tropical Livestock Units INMASP Report No. Ke 11: ETC-East Africa, KARI (NARL) and LEI-DLO iv

INMASP Report No 11: ETC-East Africa, KARI (NARL) and LEI-DLO 1

1. INTRODUCTION Agriculture is the principal source of livelihood for the majority of households living in the semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya. The semi-arid areas support approximately 20% of Kenya's population. However, per capita production in the semi-arid lands have been on the decline and the farming households in these regions are faced with continous food deficits, which in most cases can only be remedied through the short-term interventions of the costly famine relief food operations. Improving soil fertility has been identified as an essential micro-level strategy for increasing and sustaining food production in these predominantly small-holder cropping systems (Sanchez et al., 1996). Other reports also indicate that there is also a need to create an enabling environment and to intensify and diversify land use with high-value products in order to reverse the declining agricultural production in these areas (Sanchez and Leakey, 1997). Traditional approaches to soil fertility management in the semi-arid areas range from recurring and occasional use of sub-optimal mineral fertilizer rates to applications of low external input agriculture based on organic sources of nutrients. The appropriateness and efficacy of these monolithic methods is a subject of an on-going debate. Many reports are now increasingly showing that a combined and judicious use of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients holds the key to further soil fertility interventions for increased farm productivity (Palm et al., 1997; Nandwa and Bekunda, 1998). It is also becoming clear that development of soil fertility initiatives also needs to take farmer's perspectives and their Indigenous Technical Knowledge into account. In the past, many farm interventions have tended to ignore farmer's indigenous wisdom and to follow prescriptive methods of technology development and transfer on the assumption that farmers are ignorant and that they only need to be told what to do. This has quite often led to selective adoption, modification, socially discriminatory uptake, early abandonment or plain rejection of technologies on offer and even management methods associated with such technologies. A divergence between farmers and scientists perceptions of what can be achieved with technologies quite often arise due to different prioritization of needs, different methods of evaluating outputs and perceptions on labour availability. It also arises from unintended and unforeseen side effects of technologies and different time discounting rates (Mortimore et al., 2000). This report presents the results of a baseline survey carried out in the semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya (Gachoka Division of Mbeere District) prior to engaging farmers in a learning process aimed at improving soil fertility using principles and concepts of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) approach. The purpose of the survey was to diagnose and describe the current farming system practices, constraints and opportunities. The survey was also meant to create an understanding of farmer's soil fertility management practices, challenges and possibilities in addition to providing a basis for monitoring and evaluation of the performance and impact of the intervention of using FFS as a platform for improving soil fertility management. The survey was also meant to capture farmer's dynamics of farm management as an input to building bridges between farmers' and scientists' knowledge gaps and strengths in soil fertility and adoption and diffusion of the associated technologies.


2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Study Site The baseline survey was conducted in Mbeere District of Eastern Kenya (Figure 1). Most of the production technologies, enterprise combinations and rainfall patterns in the area are representative of semi-arid agriculture in Kenya (Rukandema, 1984). Mbeere District covers an area of 2093 Km2 and is sparsely populated with a population density of 82 persons per square kilometre (CBS, 2001). The altitude ranges rom 500-1200 metres above sea level and has a strong influence on rainfall and temperature patterns. Rainfall received within the district has a bimodal pattern and the average varies from 500-1100 mm depending on location and altitude. However, most parts of the District receive less than 750 mm of rainfall annually. The district has two growing periods per year with a total length of 90-119 days (Kassam et al., 1991). Rainfall is unreliable and unpredictable, thus it is a big impediment to agricultural production. Temperature ranges from 20oC to 30oC depending on location and altitude. The soils in the district are variable and are generally low in fertility. Soils in the middle of the district are well drained, very deep to dark red with friable clay (nito-rhodic Ferralsols, rhodic Ferralsols). A major part of the district is covered by well drained, shallow to very deep, dark reddish brown to yellowish brown, loose to friable, loamy sand to sandy clay loam, in places rocky and stony (ferralic Arenosols; with orthic Ferralsols and Acrisols), (Van de Weg and Mbuvi, 1975; Sketchley et al., 1978; Sombroek et al., 1982; Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1982). The lower parts of the district, Mwea plains, are covered with black cotton soils of low to moderate fertility (pellic Vertisols). Majority of the farmers in Mbeere District, practice farming at subsistence level and devote most of their land to food crops and are mainly pre-occupied with satisfying their subsistence food requirements and basic necessities. Food crops grown include maize, millet, sorghum, beans, cowpeas, green grams, cassava and bananas. Livestock species kept in the district are mainly indigenous breeds, which are adapted to the marginal conditions. Livestock are mainly reared under extensive systems of production (free-range system) and include cattle, sheep, goats and poultry. Land in the study site is held under free-hold tenure system.

2.2. Farm selection Farm selection was done within a representative catchment in the selected administrative unit of Gachoka Division, Mbeere District. This ensured that the farms selected were representative of the farming systems being studied, have limited variability and more or less face the same production potentials and constraints. A total of 30 farmers were selected for the study. The selection process began with a community meeting (Baraza) attended by community members and agricultural extension staff. The purpose of the meeting was to gain rapport and collaboration with farmers on the study. Farms were finally included in the study only after a farm visit by the facilitating staff and further discussions with the farm household members verifying the selection criteria and motivation for participation. Farm selection criteria used include willingness to participate in the study and to share information with others, location of the farm in the representative catchment under consideration, market orientation and size of production resources (land holdings, labour resources and number of livestock). In addition, the participants were also required to be full time farmers.


Figure 1: Map of Kenya showing selected sites

RIFTVALLEY

EASTERN

N.EASTERNWESTERN

NYANZA CENTRAL

NAIROBI

C0AST

Provincial boundaryKiambaaDivision (KiambuDistrict)

Gachoka Division(Mbeere District)SiakagoDivision (MbeereDistrict)GithuguriDivision (KiambuDistrict)

KEY

N

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis Data were gathered using structured questionnaires. Two types of questionnaires were combined into one for the purposes of data collection: NUTMON inventory questionnaire as described by Vlaming et al, (2001) and a formulated baseline questionnaire (acronym, INMASP baseline questionnaire). The NUTMON inventory questionnaire was meant to capture demographic structure of the farming households, agricultural implements and related constructions, dependency on off-farm income, farm sectional unit attributes and land size, slope length and different attributes of the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Farm Section Units (FSU) are continuous fields within the farm that are assumed to have relatively homogeneous soil properties, slope, and flooding regime and land tenure. The NUTMON inventory questionnaire also captured data on primary production units (crops), secondary production units (livestock) and nutrient redistribution units in addition to farmer's local soil classification units. INMASP baseline questionnaire captured information on crop productivity including a temporal dimension, soil fertility management practices, general livelihood sources, livestock production and manure management. Using the two combined questionnaires above, data were collected from individual participating farmers through a one time-recall interview. The interview was combined with various measurements as stipulated in the NUTMON inventory questionnaire. The collected data were sorted, edited and triangulated before analysis. Data processing and analysis were done using combinations of NUTMON tool software, Excel (from Microsoft cooperation) and Statistical Programme for Social Scientists (SPSS) from SPSS Inc.


3. DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSEHOLDS

3.1. Age Structure of the Sample Gender disaggregation of the sample by age category is presented in Figure 2 and 3. The studied sample was a youthful one with the youth below 30 years accounting for 72% of the sample size. Children and teenagers falling in the age group 0-20 years comprised about 48% of the total sample size, further confirming that the youth were the majority. The age bracket 11-20 years had the largest concentration of persons followed by the age bracket 21-30. Persons who were 51 years and above, represented 6% of the total sample. The potential labour force (age bracket 11-60) accounted for 77% of the total sample while the elderly (61 years and above) represented 6% of the sample. Household composition had 53% male and 47% female. Figure 2: Gender dissagregation of the sample

Male53%

Female47%

Figure 3: Percent household age for the categories

0102030405060708090

100

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 >71

Age category (years)

Perc

ent


3.2. Household Size The household size was variable (Figure 4). About 60% of the households had membership sizes ranging from 6-10 persons. The average household size in the sample was 7 persons. All the household heads were married and the survey did not capture any household head living in marital separation.

Figure 4: Household sizes and percent for the various categories.

0-536%

6-1060%

>104%

3.3. Occupation of Household Members The household members were engaged in various activities (Figure 5). These activities included farming family fields, off-farm employment, school attendance and other undefined engagements and others including employment within neighbours farms. Majority of the household members (46%) were engaged in farming family fields while 36% were attending school.

Figure 5:Percent occupation of household members

Farming family fields46%

Attending school36%

Off-farm employment

8%

Others (general)10%


3.4. Level of education of household members The majority (Figure 6) of the household heads (86.7%) had gone up to post primary education while 19% had attended a secondary school or had had post secondary.

Figure 6: Percent level of education for the household members

020

4060

80100

Non-ed

ucate

d

Primary

Post p

rimary

Secon

dary

Post s

econ

dary

Others

Perc

ent

This shows that 81% of the household members had attained primary or elementary education and thus were literate. The non-educated and those not yet going to school (others) accounted for 19% of the sample size while those who had received post primary training represented 40% of the sample.


4. FARM PRODUCTION RESOURCES

4.1. Land Production Characteristics The survey investigated farm production resources and their values. These included land, labour and capital. The average total land holding size was 2.4 hectares ranging from 0.22 to 16.2 ha. The average cultivated land area was 2.1 hectares (SD, 3.18). Very little land is fallow (0.25 ha) (Table 1). Table 1: Total land area, cultivated area, fallow area and average slope.

MeanStd Deviation Minimum Maximum

Total farm area (ha) 2.35 3.19 .22 16.19

Cultivated area (in ha) 2.10 3.18 .22 16.13

Fallow area (in ha) .25 .55 -.47 2.23

Average slope (%) 17 8 6.00 40

Erosion (in tons) 613 1117 5 5568

Slope percentage and slope lengths are essential factors influencing soil loss. As slope gradient increases, the velocity of run-off water increases, which in turn increases its erosive power. Majority of the farms had 17% slope with slope range of 8 to 40%. Soil loss was 613 ton/ha/yr with large vartiations.

4.2. Labour Production Characteristics Total household labour units (adult equivalent units, aeu) were calculated based on derived weighted factor (which is dependent on age and sex), time that the household members are in the household and the number of household members. Total consumer units were calculated based on derived consumer weighted factor (dependant on age and sex), time that the household members are in the household and the number of household members (Vlaming et al., 2001). The average labour unit was 1.62 with a range of 0.9 to 2.9.

4.3. Volume of Capital for Production Total production capital considered includes values of equipment, livestock and land in addition to number of tropical livestock units (Table 2). The value of land was the largest contributor to the volume of capital at farm level followed by livestock equipment and in that order. There was no significant correlation between total capital and dependency on off-farm income and number of household members.

Table 2: Production capital (n=30) Value of

equipment (Ksh)

Value of livestock

(Ksh)

Value of land (Ksh)

Total capital (Ksh)

Mean 4,095 7,364 79,909.0 109,065 Std. Deviation 2,310 8,394 98,361 91,368 1 US $ = Ksh78


5. CROP PRODUCTION

5.1. Trends of Major Food Crops Farming is a dynamic practice and the type of crops that farmers grow or introduce into their farming system is a reflection of prevailing biophysical characteristics, current farmers' food and cash needs as well as socio-cultural fulfilment. In the study area, 79% of the respondents reported that they have cultivated their farms for over five years. At least three of the farmers in the sample have had between one and two years of farming experience. Maize and beans (13%) were the major food crops farmers were growing when they first settled on their farms (Table 3). Farmers regard maize, beans and cowpeas as their main crops (Sutherland et al., 1994; Anon, 1981). Table 3: Crops grown when farmers first settled on their farms (N=30)

Crop PercentMaize 18.3Beans 11.5Dolichos lab lab 11.5Millet 10.1Cowpeas 9.2Green grams 6.0Pigeon peas 6.0Mangoes 4.6Paw paw 4.6Sweet potatoes 4.1Cassava 3.7Passion fruits 3.2Pumpkins 1.8Guavas 1.8Longuats 1.4Bananas 0.9Cotton 0.5Oranges 0.5Castor oil 0.5Total 100.0 Farmers started their farming practices with crops such as maize, cowpeas, green grams, beans etc. However, other crops have been introduced into the farming systems. Khat (Catha edulis) rank high among the crops that have been introduced into the farming system (Table 4).


Table 4: New crops grown that were not grown when farmers first settled (N=30)

Crop Percent

Miraa 17Pawpaw 8Avocados 7Mangoes 7Bananas 7Pumpkins 7Kales 6Beans 5Green grams 5Irish potatoes 5Pigeon peas 4Passion fruit 3Maize 3Cassava 3Cowpeas 3Tomatoes 1Guavas 1Water melon 1Sugarcane 1Sorghum 1Calliandra 1Millet 1Sukumawiki 1Total 100 Reasons why farmers change their cropping practices over time are many and diverse (Table 5 ). In the study area, farmers reported that they have introduced new crops into their farming systems so as to generate more income and food security (67%). The other reasons, in order of priority, include diversification of food sources (diet), Vegetables supply and try to be self-reliance. Table 5: Reasons for growing new crops (N= 30)

Reason PercentIncrease family income and food security 67Diversity diet 18Break from traditional group 3Satisfied with the one he has 3Good taste (of beans) 3To provide vegetable 3Trying sustainability 3Total 100


In the study, farmer's perceptions on status of yields of food crops were estimated using maize crop as a reference point. This was mainly due to the fact that maize is the main staple food crop in the study area and at national level in Kenya. The status of maize yields was perceived to be increasing over the last one decade as reported by 67% of the farmers while 30% reported that the yields have been decreasing. The rest of the farmers (3%) reported that the yields have been stagnating. Farmers perceived that lack of inputs (24%) and pests and diseases are the major reasons explaining declining trends of maize yields (Table 6). The declining maize yields have been corroborated by reports of Gitari et al, (1996). Table 6: The main problems of food production in the area (N =30) Problem PercentLack of inputs (lack of capital) Pests/ diseases 27Poor rainfall 11Poor soil fertility 10Labour (poor) 5High rainfall (leaching nutrients) 3Dependancy in cash crop 2Size of farm (small) 2Low soil fertility 2Poor germination/poor seeds 2Total 100 Those who reported that maize yields have been increasing attributed their perception to increased knowledge on soil and water conservation and good farming practices despite farm inputs constraints. Inadequate rainfall, poor crop husbandly, dependency on cash crop (miraa), small farm sizes and decreased soil fertility were the major constraints to food production in the study area, but poor quality seeds, high cost of mineral fertilizers, use of inappropriate seed varieties, high cost of oxen ploughing and labour shortage during peak cropping periods were also important (Table 6).

5.2. Trends of Major Cash Crops The study area has potential for growing coffee and tobacco, as a cash crop. However, the yields of coffee have been on the decrease as reported by 70% of the farmers. While tobacco production has been on the increase (100%) of the respondents. The decline in yields was attributed (Table 7) to poor management practices, lack of soil and water conservation measures and poor coffee prices. Reasons given to explain increase in tobacco were good management practices use (78% of respondents) and organized market by the British American Tobacco (BAT).


Table 7: The main problems for cash crop production in the area Problem PercentPest/disease infestation 52Poor infrastructure (roads) 12High labour demand 10Moisture stress 7Poor marketing strategy 7Inadequate rainfall 7Lack of inputs 7Total 100 The main constraints to growing cash crops in the study area are consigned in Table 8. Many of the constraints are similar to the ones advanced by farmers to explain the declining yield trends of coffee. However, other constraints to cash crop production were mentioned as poor road infrastructure, poor market prices of agricultural produce, high labour demands for picking tobacco leaves and curing them and inadequate fertilizer credit especially for coffee.

5.3. General Labour for Cropping Activities Labour shortage was reported by 82.8% of the farmers in the study sample. Peak periods for labour demand were April and October, which coincides with the beginning of long and short rains respectively when farmers are required to weed. Cropping activities experiment labour shortage were mentioned by farmers to be weeding, land preparation and transplanting of tobacco seedlings in that order mentioned cropping activities experiencing labour shortage.

5.4. Current Land Use The total land area owned by the studied households was about 69 ha. The largest land area was dedicated to maize and beans (47%) and cowpeas (72%) of cultivated area, (Table 8). Homestead took 23% of the total land area. Although, farmers grow crops under intercropping system, the most important crop cultivated in each plot was used to estimate the cropping patterns and land use. In most of the cases as indicated, maize was intercropped with beans, cowpeas, beans, cassava or even miraa (Catha edulis). About 11% of the land area was dedicated to bush, fallow or pasture and is used as grazing land.


Figure 7: Percent Maize intercrops with beans, cowpeas or pigeon peas in Gachoka Division Mbeere District.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Maize/Beans Maize/Cow peas Maize/Pigeon peas

Per

cent


6. SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT

6.1. Farmer Perceptions on Soil Fertility Status Studies are increasingly showing that farmers clearly perceive and articulate differences in the levels of fertility of their farms and farm plots (Brouwers, 1993; Onduru et al., 1998; Kanté and Defoer, 1994). This study investigated farmer's perceptions on soil fertility status and indicators of change since they first settled on their farms. Majority of the farmers (70%) reported that soil fertility has been declining on their farms and listed a number of indicators explaining this phenomenon (Table 8). The study shows that farmers judge their soils and soil fertility through crop growth and yield trends, crop health, appearance of plant species thriving under low soil fertility and soil related properties such as colour and presence of chaffer grubs, compaction and moisture retention. Table 8: Farmers indicators that explain the trend in soil fertility status of the farm since settlement in the farm. (N= 30) Indicator Percent

Poor crop vigour and production 34Lower yields 16Erosion status 15Poor or better yields 10Addition of fertilizer 10Stunted growth 5Colour of soil (brownish) 5Presence of soil and water conservation structures 2Chaffer grubs (diseases/pests) 2Total 100 Working in Tigray, Ethiopia, Corbeels et al., (2000) reported similar findings in which farmers identified indicators such as reduced yield, weed infestation, rock outcrops, and early wilting of crops to justify that soil fertility is declining. Farmers were also reported to be using soil colour, texture, and certain physical characteristics to identify different soil types. Thus it appears that farmers' and scientists' perceptions on the decline in soil fertility may be congruous.

6.2. Use of Organic Resources The effects of organic materials on nutrient availability and acquisition has been underscored by Palm et al., 1997. Organic inputs influence nutrient availability (i) by the total nutrients added, (ii) by controlling the net mineralization-immobilization patterns, (iii) as precursors to soil organic matter fractions, and (v) through interactions with the mineral soil in complexing toxic cations and reducing phosphorus sorption capacity of the soil. In this study, the use of manure, crop residues and inventory of trees (estimate of potential biomass) available within the farm was undertaken.


6.2.1. Use of farm yard manure and compost Manure is one of the traditional methods of maintaining soil fertility in semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya (Omiti, 1998). Manure use provides an avenue for resource poor farmers to improve crop and soil productivity (Kihanda and Gichuru, 1999). The results of this study on manure quality and management have been presented in section 8 of this report. In the sample studied, 83% of the farmers reported using manure. This high response indicates that manure is important for crop production in the study site. Similar observations were also reported by Warren et al., (1996) in the semi-arid areas of Mbeere and Tharaka-Nithi Districts of Kenya. Those who were not using manure for crop production, at the time of the survey, expressed that they did not have cattle and goats, and adequate finances to purchase manure. Manure is applied in the study area inn two ways. Majority of the farmers (86%) apply manure in planting sites inside furrows made by oxen ploughs and cover with soil. The covering of manure with soil has been adopted by many farmers in the study site. The other farmers (14%) broadcast and then mix manure with the soil during planting time. Farmers in the study area reported that manure was not available in adequate quantities to apply in the whole farm in a single cropping season. Due to low quantities of manure at farm level, 89.5% of the farmers using manure in the study area reported using manure to fertilize portions of the farm on a rotational basis according to perceived spatial and temporal variability in fertility. Seventy two percent of the farmers buy manure to supplement on-farm available manure. About 53% of the farmers use of crop residues especially maize stover as animal beddings for increased manure production. The overriding constraint in the use of manure was mentioned as inadequate availability by 27 out of 30 respondents. Other constraints mentioned were incidence of chaffer grubs and worms and the high labour required for transporting manure and to apply it. The chaffer grubs were believed to be negatively affecting young crop seedlings. The farmer’s perception on labour on applying manure was in conformity with reports of Ruhigwa et al., (1995) who reported that applying organic inputs require additionally high labour for transporting and incorporating the materials into the soil. However, Onduru et al., (2002) have reported that the family labour for applying organic materials such as compost manure's realize a significant high rate of return than the opportunity cost of labour in the semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya. The family labour is perceived by farmers to be cheap because its does not involve direct cash outlay. Composting of manure, crop residues and other organic inputs was done by 54% in the area. The other farmers do not prepare compost. Composting allows for further microbial decomposition of organic residues, kills weeds and other pathogens, and increases quality of organic materials. By composting in this case means farm yard manure put in a pit.

6.2.2. Use of crop residues Crop residues available at farm level that could potentially be used as soil amendment were reported by farmers to be maize stovers and beans residues (65%). Other crop residues reported include sorghum and cowpeas residues (cited by 7% of the farmers), and millet residues (7%), which was mentioned by 20% of the farmers. Farmers in the study area use crop residues for various purposes. These include feeding livestock, incorporating them into the soil, mulching, burning to clear them off the land, fuel for cooking, selling to neighbours, and constructing trashlines as well as using them as livestock beddings (17%).


6.2.3. Level of integration of trees into the farming system Inventory of trees was done due to their potential role in biomass production and in nutrient pumping and recycling. The number of trees in the farming system has also been postulated as a measure of biodiversity and thus sustainability of the farming systems (Onduru et al., 2001). Trees have the potential to supply farm households with a wide range of products for domestic use or sale, including food, medicine, livestock feed and timber. Trees, on-farm, also provide a range of environmental and social services including soil fertility and moisture conservation as well as providing boundary markers, windbreaks, soil erosion barriers, beauty, and shade (Franzel et al, 1998; Sanchez, 1996). The survey found that all farmers had integrated trees into the current farming system. However, the numbers and species diversity of the trees and shrubs varied from farm to farm (Table 9). The available species are presented in Table 24. Majority of the farmers had tree stands of Grevillea robusta, Casia sp., mangoes and Acacia sp. Firewood is the major use of trees in the semi-arid areas, but charcoal burning, fencing, fruits, medicinal products and greenmanures are also important (de Jager et al., 2001). Table 9: Trees and shrub species planted on the farm (N=30) Trees/shrubs (Local name) Botanical Name PercentGraverria Gravillea robusta 21.8Melea Melia azadirach 13.6Mangoes Mangifera Indica 11.8Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosifolia 8.2Casia Casia sp 6.3Mubeci 2.7Mururuku 2.7Mukuu 2.7Avocando Persea americana 2.7Mucugucugu Indogoferea arrecta 1.8Mutoo 1.8Paw paw Carica papaya 1.8Mukuyu Ficus sycomorus 1.8Muhiriti 1.8Muraba 1.8Mutereki 1.8Calliandra Calliandra sp. 1.8Guava Psidium guajava 1.8Mukwego 1.8Mukura Combretum molle 1.8Croton Croton megalocapis 0.9Mutweso 0.9Kitharara 0.9Longuat Eriobotrya japonica 0.9Muthigiriri 0.9Mubura Rhamnus staddo 0.9Fig tree Ficus Sp. 0.9Mubage Caesalpinia decapetala 0.9Total 100.0


6.2.4. Use of mineral fertilizers There is ample evidence that judicious use of mineral fertilizers can bring about substantial crop yield increases (FURP, 1994; Mokwunye and Vlek, 1986). However, fertilizer consumption on food crops in Kenya, as do other developing countries, is the lowest in the World with not more than 5 kg ha-1 of nutrients (Quinones et al., 1997). The survey revealed that 97% of the respondents use mineral fertilizers. This figure was higher than that reported by Omiti (1998) who estimated that 38% of farmers were using mineral fertilizers for crop production in the marginal areas of Eastern Kenya. In this study, the rates of application and frequency of using fertilizers were not studied. However, previous studies in the semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya have shown that mineral fertilizer application rates are low, variable and inconsistent and that majority of occasional fertilizer users are in the marginal areas (Omiti, 1998; Strasberg et al 1999). Those who reported the use of mineral fertilizers were in this category of occasional fertilizer users who apply mineral fertilizers mainly to tobacco when fertilizer credit is availed by tobacco companies. Benefits of using mineral fertilizers were reported to be that of quickening crop growth by 90% of the farmers while 93% reported that fertilizers increases yields. Constraints to the use of mineral fertilizers as reported by farmers are consigned in Table 10. The overriding constraints to the use of mineral fertilizers were the perceived high costs (46.3%) and lack of knowledge on use of fertilizer. Similar observations were reported by Hilhorst and Muchena, 2000 who traced the decrease in mineral fertilizer use to structural adjustment policies of 1980s and liberalization policies of 1990s. Table 10: Perceived benefits and important constraints in the use of mineral

fertilizers Benefits/constraints Percent High costs 46.3 Improve crop yield 30.4 Good growth 11.6 Burns crops when used 5.8 Lack of knowledge on type and use 2.8 Distance to the nearest stockist 1.4 Improved fertility 1.4 Total 100

6.2.5. Other soil fertility maintenance practices Other soil fertility maintenance practices in the study area include crop rotation (40% of all households), which was practiced by all farmers. Crop rotation entails the growing of different crops in sequence, which vary in their nutrient demands, susceptibility to pest and diseases and ability to control erosion. Crop rotation is a traditional practice in the study area, but has not been well planned to capitalize on the aforementioned attributes. Thomas et al., (1997) has stated that good crop rotation facilitates the conservation and addition of humus, restoration of soil structure and fertility, control of erosion and reduction of pests and diseases.


Growing of grain legumes intercropped with cereals is a common practice in the study site. Cowpeas (Vigna unnguiculata L.), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and in some cases pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) are usually intercropped with cereals such as maize and sorghum. When the soil conditions are favourable, the grain legumes have a potential to fix nitrogen or improve on fertility through root and leaf fall, mainly for the benefit of subsequent crops (Giller et al., 1991; Ledgard and Giller, 1995). Fallowing is also practiced (60%). Short periods of fallow were reported by a few farmers. Such length of fallow periods can no longer restore soil fertility. However, some attempts have been made to develop improved fallows by using legumes and shrubs such as Sesbania sesban, tephrosia and tithonia among others with demonstrable success in Western Kenya, Zimbabwe and Zambia among other countries (Rattray and Ellis, 1952; Sanchez et al., 1997). 6.2.6. Soil and water harvesting and conservation practices Soil fertility management cannot be effective without accompanying practices for preventing the loss of nutrients in the topsoil via soil erosion. Furthermore in the semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya, judicious water harvesting practices are pertinent to improved crop production. The results of the study show that various soil and water conservation practices have been adopted to conserve the fragile soils. Popular soil and water harvesting and conservation practices implemented in the study area included fanya juu and trashlines, which were implemented by 86% and 13% of the farmers respectively. The terraces were well maintained. Soil and water conservation practices are most likely to be adopted when farmers see the benefits in terms of increased production and incomes (Thomas et al., 1997). Farmers reported that the benefits they are reaping from implementing soil and water conservation practices include soil conservation (reported by 46%) and moisture retention (reported by 41.3% of respondents). Other benefits include fodder growth, (increased yields) and soil fertility in that order. The major constraint to adoption of soil and water conservation practices was reported as labour input required to make terraces (62%). Many projects in the semi-arid areas of Kenya have tried to solve this labour problem by introducing food for work or cash payments as an incentive to carry-out conservation activities (Tiffen et al., 1994). However, such initiatives have failed once the incentives have been withdrawn and it is now increasingly being realized that farmers attitude towards conservation measures can only change if such labour demanding technologies bring in compensatory yields or production in the short and in the long run. Other constraints include lack of tools (30.8%), lack of knowledge (2.6%), small land sizes (2.6%) and competition with other farm activities (2.6%). It appears from the survey that issues of tenure may not be a critical factor in adopting conservation practices, as it was not reported. However, other reports have indicated that insecure land tenure is a critical factor in determining adoption of conservation of practices and that tenure security, and not the title deed, is the fundamental issue determining investment in land (Migot-Adholla et al., 1991; Kinyanjui et al. 2001).


7. GENERAL LIVELIHOOD ANALYSIS

7.1. Financial Capital at Farm Level

7.1.1. Sources, level of earnings and control of income Sources of income for the households investigated in this study were agriculture, livestock, wages from hired agricultural labour and casual labour in addition to cash remittances and local small scale business. To obtain an idea of the main source of income, farmers distributed 10 points among the five sources of income using stones. Farmers carried out the scoring according to the perceived importance of a given source of income and the results are presented in Table 11. From the table, agriculture is considered the main source of income followed by livestock while a minority of the households was engaged in local small-scale business.

Table 11: Average scores for main source of income (N=30)

Source of income Mean Agriculture 3.27 Livestock 2.30 Wages from hired agricultural Labour, local casual labour

1.80

Cash remittances from Relatives in urban areas

1.42

Local small scale business 0.34 Asked whether they obtain enough income to sustain their families, 57% of the farmers indicated that their incomes were not enough while 37% mentioned that their incomes were barely enough. Only 7% of the farmers get enough income. This perception is conformed by the report of Ministry of Planning and National Development, MoPND (1997) who reported that majority of people living in the arid areas of Kenya (Eastern Province) live below poverty line and are not able to get sufficient income to sustain their families all year round.

7.1.2. Sources and management of credit Inadequacy of credit, among other factors, influences the pace of agricultural development and soil fertility management (Hilhorst et al, 2000). The results of this study show that 48% of the farmers were accessing credit through micro-finance offered by structured community groups and a few companies. The former are small-scale micro-finance systems carried out through merry-go-round activities and may not impact greatly on soil fertility management. The structured groupings that offer these micro-finance activities to their members include Kamugi Self Help Group (33%). It was noted that none of the respondents had accessed any credit from commercial banks or non bank financial institutions such as Kenya Rural Enterprise Programme (K-rep) and The Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation among others operating in the neighbouring Embu District. A few companies who offered in-kind micro finance credit to the groups in the study area were mainly tobacco companies (British American Tobacco and Master Mind companies).


Farmers who had no access to credit reported that they have not been able to marshal the required collateral to secure credit from finance institutions and that finance institutions are not readily accessible. This latter view has been supported by the reports of Ministry of Planning and National Development, (MoPND, 1997a), who reported that there are no established commercial banks in Mbeere district except for the periodic mobile banking services provided by the Kenya Commercial Bank.

7.2. Human Capital at Farm Level Human capital is the status of individuals, and comprises the stock of health, nutrition, education, skills and knowledge of individuals; access to services that provide these, such as schools, medical services, adult training; the ways individuals and their knowledge interact with productive technologies; and the leadership quality of individuals (Pretty, 1998). Having an understanding of the capacity that individuals have at the household level and community level that will either facilitate or constrain technology adoption decisions can assist in development and dissemination of agricultural technologies. In this study access to services and facilities such as agricultural extension, schools, health and water was investigated.

7.2.1. Access to agricultural extension services The major sources of new information on agricultural practices and technologies in the study area were from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Church organizations, NGOs and neighbours from where 69%, 15%, 9% and 6% of the respondents accessed agricultural information. Majority of the farmers (76%) reported that agricultural extension services have improved in the last decade and only 13% felt to the contrary. The rest did not respond. The increase in accessing agricultural extension services was attributed to the increasing number of extension service providers frequenting the area and farmers interest in accessing new information. The focal area approach promoted by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD) was also reported to have made it easier for farmers to get extension services.

7.2.3. Accessibility to health services When asked about where they go for treatment when they fall sick, 82% of the farmers reported that they attend Government health centres and hospitals while 14% attend private clinic and hospitals. The others go to traditional healers. Those going to private clinics reported that they were doing so due to inadequate drugs in government hospitals. The level of attendance of private hospitals was low due to high fees charged. The choice of health service provider depended on its proximity, affordability and quality of services offered. Among the reasons considered for choice of health provider, 3% of the farmers considered affordability and quality of service as the most important reasons proximity was rated highly with a response of 7%. Majority of the farmers were covering a distance of more than 8 km before reaching the closest health facility (85%). The proportion of farmers covering less than 4 km was 15%. In general, it is reported that the study area and the district as a whole is under-served by health facilities and patient doctor ratio stands at 1: 87,000 (MoPND, 1997). The farmers were asked about the trends in availability of health services and according to responses received, 94% confirmed that health services have been improving. This was attributed to increasing government and NGOs intervention by 32% of the respondents. Those who reported that availability of health services was declining (3%) attributed it to inadequate drugs in government hospitals due to poor economic situation, population increase and high costs of drugs compared to previous decades.


7.2.4. Accessibility to formal education (schools) In the sample, 22% of the household members had children attending primary school while 18% of the children attending secondary school (Figure 8). 40% of the farmers had post primary education while only 14% were not educated. The low level attendance of secondary school was attributed to high costs by 27% of the households. The respondents reported that their children were not attending tertiary training institutions because of high costs. A part from the high cost, lack of interest was also mentioned by 9% of the respondents as hindering children from attending secondary schools. However, majority of the households (97%) had children who had not started going to school due to underage. This suggests, ceteris paribus, that school facilities might be constrained in the future as children scramble for the limited number of schools in the study site.

Figure 8: Percent level of education for the household members

Non-educated14%

Primary22%

Post primary40%

Secondary18%

Post secondary1%

Others5%

7.3. Natural Capital (Natural Resource Stocks) Natural resource stocks are nature's economic and cultural goods and services and comprise food (farmed and harvested from the wild), water regulation and supply, nutrient cycling and fixation, soil formation among others. In this survey food availability and water availability were investigated.

7.3.1. Water sources and availability In the study area (Table 12), sources of water include seasonal streams, dams, rock catchment, shallow wells and roof catchments. Roof catchment is the major source of water for domestic use in the rainy period providing water for 69% of the respondents. This was followed by shallow wells from where 25% of the respondents sourced their water. The latter water source was made possible through intervention by an NGO (Foster Parents PLAN International), which had earlier operated in the area. During the dry season, the major source of domestic water was the manually dug and communally owned shallow wells and dams. During the rainy period 68% and 16% of the households depend on rivers and streams and water collected from the roof catchment for watering their livestock. This in addition to wells and rock catchment. During the dry period the major source of water for watering livestock was manually dug wells, deeply dug wells ("bore holes") and springs. In households with large numbers of livestock, livestock were usually watered from nearby streams or livestock were made to walk long distances to the nearest river when streams dry up.


Table 12: Source of water for livestock during rainy season Water source Rainy season Dry season Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Rivers and streams 20 68.0 3 10.0 Wells 3 11.0 25 86.0 Springs 1 3.0 2 5.0 Roof catchments 5 16.0 0 0.0 Rock catchments 2 5.0 0 0.0 Total 30 100.0 30 100.0 Distances walked to the nearest water point were found to take less than 4 and 16 kilometres for 75% and 25% of the households during the rainy and dry seasons respectively (Table 13). However, during the dry periods about 38% of the households were travelling between 4 and 8 kilometres to draw water.

Table 13: Distances to water points during dry and rainy seasons Water source Dry season Rainy season Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage < 4 km 16 54.2 22 75 >4 km but < 8 km 11 37.5 8 25 >8 km but < 16km 3 8.3 0 0


7.3.2. Seasonal food availability The survey showed that 93% of the household had experienced food shortage over the last ten years. This view has been confirmed by Tiffen et al (1994) who reported that food shortage in the semi-arid areas of eastern Kenya is common due to variable and fluctuating rainfall. On an annual basis, 53% of the households experience food shortage between October and December while 47% reported experiencing food shortage between July and September. About 28% of the respondents experience food shortage between January and June. During the last two decades, 83% of the respondents mentioned 1984 as one of the years with acute food shortage. The other calendar years when participants experienced food shortage are presented in Figure 9. When asked about the reasons for food shortages, 36% of the respondents attributed it to low and fluctuating rainfall while 24% reported that it was due to low soil fertility. However, 22 % and 8% of the respondents felt it was due to poor and inadequate cash respectively among other reasons (Table 14). Table 14: Reasons for food shortage Reason Frequency PercentInadequate rainfall 11 36Low soil fertility 6 24

Poor farm management 2 22Poor seed 1 8No capital (money) for inputs 1 4Small farm 1 2Wild animals 1 2Small farm sizes 1 2

Total 100

7.4. Social Capital (Social Resources) Social resources are the cohesiveness of people and comprise relations of trust that lubricate co-operation; the bundles of common rules, norms and sanctions of behaviour; reciprocity and exchange's; connectedness (vertical and horizontal linkages) and social institutions. Social capital is a fundamental basis for sustainable agriculture as it lowers the cost of working together and so, facilitates cooperation between people. Hodge et al., (1998) has stated that trust, reciprocity, formal and informal groups, and working together with others to achieve common goals are all part of the social capital that is critical in adoption and diffusion of agricultural technologies. Working in Eastern Burkina Faso Muzzucato and Niemeijer (2000) reported a positive role of social networks in contributing to the adoption of soil and water conservation technologies. Similar observations were also reported in Eastern Kenya with regards to labour work parties (Tiffen et al., 1994; Mbithi and Barnes 1975; Thomas et al., 1996). This study investigated the existence of social institutions at farm level that may contribute to agricultural production by enhancing farmer's ability to cultivate in a sustainable way.

30


The survey revealed that all respondents were members of one or more social networks. Although the survey did not investigate explicitly the detailed activities of these networks, it was observed that the networks were carrying out a number of activities including merry-go-round (micro-finance in kind or in cash), provision of agricultural labour and offering platforms for learning new technologies. The social institutions reported by this survey were carrying out a mix of these activities with varying degrees. By setting a side a day when the groups work together in either a group activity or in members farms, the networks allow the members to have access to technology (experiences from individual members) and or temporary access to labour. The networks that provide micro-finance (in kind or in cash) offer their members opportunity to diversify their livelihood sources. Membership to social institutions was reported by all respondents. The types of social institutions reported and membership to these institutions are presented in Table 15. A part from Kamugi Self Help Group (44%) most of the respondents also belonged to other groups. Overall, only 30% of the members do not belong to any social network.

Table 15: List of social networks where farmers are members Social network PercentKamugi Self Help Group 43.5Merry-go-round 14.5Father and mother union 7.2Community Health Workers Group 5.8PET IGA 4.3Kiamugwe 4.3Gacaviri 2.9Mothers union 1.4Urururu Self Help Group 1.4B.K* 1.4Saving and credit 1.4Family group 1.4Yamucu 1.4Kaburui Self Help Group 1.4Mbita extension 1.4Dadina group 1.4Mwireri kioo 1.4Mwiroro kiio 1.4Katutiri go round 1.4Total 100


8. LIVESTOCK CHARACTERISTICS

8.1. Livestock Production

8.1.1. Livestock ownership Livestock (Table 16) is an important production asset and characteristic of the farming system studied. Livestock kept in the study area include cattle, goats, chicken and rabbits. The livestock breeds kept are predominantly indigenous. About 93% of the studied households own goats while 70% of the households owned chickens while 60% owns cattle.

Table 16: Tropical livestock unit (TLU) ownership (standard deviation in brackets) 1

Livestock type Mean Number of TLU owned Cattle 2.1 (1.36) Goats 0.46 (.33) Chicken 0.09 (0.05) The cattle owned by the households are mainly zebu breeds with low genetic potential. However, the low productivity of the zebu is compromised by its high adaptability to the adverse conditions where it is often found. Okeyo et al (1996) has reported that the zebu cattle being indigenous to the tropics, has undergone many generations of natural selection for fitness and acquired adaptive characteristics to enable them survive under harsh environment. The low number of households owning cattle implies that they may be having manure shortage. Working in the Central Kenya highlands, Lekasi et al (2001a) have postulated that only cattle and goats make a major contribution to manageable manure production at farm level and free-range poultry do not contribute substantially to quantities of manure found at farm level. Livestock densities are quite low and there is still room for increasing livestock numbers in the farming system. These forms of livestock production do not pose many problems unless the land’s carrying capacity is exceeded in the long term (Howell et al., 1986). An average ruminant carrying capacity of 4-9 ha TLU-1 has been reported for different parts of the semi-arid areas of sub-Saharan Africa (Fitzhugh et al., 1978; Jahnke, 1982; Boudet, 1975).

8.1.2. Farmers perceived role of livestock in the farming system As a component of mixed crop-livestock farming system, livestock have a critical place in the development of sustainable and environmentally sound agricultural production system. They offer a means for intensification as well as contribute directly to the sustainability of farming systems by providing manure and cash income. Gittinger et al. (1990) reported that farmers who combine crop and livestock production realize twice as much income as those who only raise subsistence crops. In this study the roles of livestock were investigated for each livestock category in the study domain. Livestock owners reported that livestock plays an important role in provision of manure in addition to being a source of cash when the animal or their products are sold. They are also considered to be an important saving. Zebu cattle were mentioned to be important in providing draft power and for social functions. However, when it comes to socio-cultural roles, then goats and chicken were perceived to be more important than cattle.


The above perceptions have been confirmed by reports of Winrock International, (1992), which reported that livestock contributes substantially to the process of intensification of agriculture through traction, manure and enhanced income per unit land. This view has also been reported by Mellor (1989), who stated that animal agriculture enables smallholder producers to intensify their agricultural efforts, even on low productivity resources and that livestock has a vast potential for providing income and employment to poor farmers. The alternatives to animal manure and traction (fossil fuel, tractors, chemical fertilizers and other inputs) are usually expensive and in most cases are imports. Thus, the provision of manure and draft power are essential roles of livestock. However, ILCA (1987) has reported that only about 10-15% of farmers in sub-Saharan Africa use animal traction despite the fact that animal traction index has been reported to be a useful proxy in estimating productivity than fertilizer use (Mazzucato and Niemeijer, 2001). Only about one-sixth of arable land in Africa is cultivated using animal traction while the rest is under manual cultivation (Rowland, 1993). Thus prospects of intensification using animal traction are still under-exploited. Farmers' perception of livestock as a saving was attributed to domestic animals acting as a reserve, which are readily converted to cash to cushion farm enterprises against changeable climate and unstable commodity prices and to provide cash income in times of need. In addition to sales of livestock, livestock products such as eggs, hides and skins were also perceived to be important for income generation. Products obtained from livestock for home consumption were mentioned as meat, milk and eggs. These perceptions have been corroborated by FAO (1977), who reported that livestock provide a significant source of food to small-scale farmers. They provide high quality protein, minerals, vitamins and micronutrients. Meat, milk and eggs provide 17-18% of the dietary protein in African diets.

8.1.3. Systems of livestock production Systems of production reported include extensive production systems, tethering and semi intensive grazing, (Table 17). Cattle are managed under tethered production system by most respondents. They are grazed in own pastures and open fields during the day and are corralled at night. The free-range chickens are also let to scavenge during the day and are confined at night. The goats are predominantly raised by tethering system of production by 54% of the respondents. However, 46% of the respondents raised the goats under free-range system. Those raising the goats under the free range production system let them browse in the open and local pastures during the day and confine them at night.

Table 17: Farmers (%) practicing different livestock management systems (N=30)

Livestock type

Tethered Free range (extensive production)

Zero-grazed

Cattle 52 38 1 0 Goats 54 46 0 Chicken 1 0 85 5

8.1.4. Livestock housing In this study, livestock housing was investigated with relation to the type of structure and the size of the structure. Housing structures were measured to reveal their sizes. It was found out that all livestock found at farm level had some form of confinement structure at night, described here as a stable (boma). The stable were either roofed or not roofed (Figure 9). Most cattle bomas were not roofed while goat and chicken pens were roofed.


Figure 9: Percent livestock bomas which were roofed or not roofed per livestock type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cattle boma Chicken pen Goat pen

Type of housing

Per

cent

Roofed Not roofed

8.2. Manure Management and Quality

8.2.1. Livestock housing characteristics and manure quality Livestock housing characteristics influence nutrient losses. In this study, housing characteristics investigated include presence of a roof, concrete floor, and slurry drain and whether the animal unit is enclosed. The reported housing characteristics are shown in Figure 9. Presence of a roof and concrete floors in animal housing reduces nitrogen losses through leaching and gaseous losses in addition to potassium leaching (Vlaming et al., 2001). The non use of slurry drain and a separate method of collecting urine from the more solid manure probably represents a major source of nitrogen and potassium loss along the nutrient transfer pathway (Lekasi et al., 2001b). The use of beddings to capture manure and urine reduce manure nitrogen losses by 40-60% in cattle kraals (Saleem, 1998). The usefulness of bedding materials has been further underscored by Nzuma and Murwira (2000), who reported that the use of crop residues as beddings reduce ammonia loss from cattle kraals by 80% at farm level. They further reported that 3 parts straw to 25 parts manure reduces ammonia loss by 85% and 50% from cow dung, and a mixture of cow dung and urine respectively under laboratory conditions. The insignificant use of bedding materials in the study domain also subjects manure to nutrient losses through leaching. Working in the semi-arid areas of Eastern Kenya, Probert et al., (1990) reported leaching losses beneath cattle kraals where they found accumulation of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium up to depths of 0.5 metres and a pHwater range of 8.5-9.5; conditions which are conducive to the losses of nitrogen through ammonia volatilization. The survey further revealed that the housing units for both chickens were all roofed and enclosed. Twenty-four percent and 80% of respondents had roofed housing structures for cattle and goats respectively.


8.2.2. Manure collection and storage Methods of manure collection and storage are important determinants of manure quality. Respondents were asked whether they (i) store manure in the kraal before transporting it to the field directly and also whether they (ii) remove manure from the kraal, store it in a heap before using it in the field. The results of the survey indicate that 92% of the respondents leave manure to accumulate in the kraal and then transport it to the cultivated fields directly. A bout 29% remove manure from the kraal and heap it first before transporting it to the field. These practices of manure collection and storage have got a negative influence on manure quality. This report has indicated earlier that the use of beddings to capture manure and urine and so to improve manure quality is limited in this study domain. Thus it is postulated that the manure transported to the field would have already lost many of its nutrients before use in the cultivated fields. The respondents who heap manure before transporting it to the field practiced "on surface" heaping method and did not use pits to conserve manure quality during storage. Storing manure in deep pits significantly increases its nitrogen content. Musa (1975) reported that manure stored in deep pit results in six times as much nitrogen as that stored above ground after a period of 4 months. Although not explicitly captured in this survey, field observations indicate that the use of additives to the manure heap for improving manure quality was limited. The use of additives to manure during storage and decomposition has been reported to have positive effect in enhancing manure quality and in some cases reducing nutrient losses through volatisation (Muller-Samann and Kotschi, 1994). Additives, which have been used in the past, include rock phosphates, bone meal, mineral fertilizers, livestock urine, green plant materials and crop residues, wood ash and herbal preparations among others. Addition of rock phosphate at a rate of 20 kg tonne-1 of manure has been found to not only improve manure fertilization quality, but also reduce ammonia loss from manure (Jaiswal et al., 1971). Combining rock phosphates with manure and compost has been reported to improve nutrient release (Lompo, 1993; Ikerra et al., 1994). The use of peat and zeolite has been reported to reduce ammonia loss during manure decomposition by 59% and 16% respectively (Witter and Kirchman, 1989). However, Lekasi et al., (2001b) has reported that addition of cattle urine to a mixture of manure and limited organic materials during the decomposition process does not significantly result in conservation of nitrogen and much nitrogen is lost through volatilisation.

8.2.3. Manure heap management

Households were asked whether they cover their manure, put it under shade or compost it as a management strategy. The results of farmer's responses are consigned in Table 18.

Table 18: Manure heap management methods (N=30)

Management method % farmers practicing Manure covered 23.0 Manure stored under shade 27.0 Manure composted before use 24.0 The results of the study indicate that there are poor manure management methods as only 23% and 27% of the respondents reported covering their manure heaps and storing them under shade respectively. Manure, which is uncovered is exposed to wetting and drying conditions and thus predisposed to nutrient losses. Nutrient losses are likely to be high in warm sunny weather, as is the case in the study area. McCalla (1975) found out that 50% nitrogen is lost after 4 days of manure storage without cover.


The survey further reported that about 7% of the studied households compost their manure. This further confirms the earlier observation of poor manure management in the studied site. Composting is an essential strategy in enhancing the quality of manure. Nzuma and Murwira (2000) have reported that total nitrogen concentration of manure stored and composted in pits (anaerobic conditions) increased gradually with time, reaching three times the concentration of manure stored in heaps without added crop residues in a period of 4-6 months.

8.2.4. Farmers' perceptions on manure value of different livestock categories Farmers' reasons and criteria in evaluating the value of manure were reported as giving high maize yields, residual effect of manure, crop health and quantities of manure. The percentage of farmers mentioning a given criteria and reason to explain the above scores are presented in Table 19. Table 19: How farmers judge the value of the manure from animals Reason Percent Availability quantity of manure 53.0 Better crops (crop health) 27.0 Effects of pests (harbor pests) 7.0 All manures the (not used poultry manure) same quality 7.0 High yields 7.0 Total 100 Farmers consider availability of manure and health of the crop as the most important reasons for explaining the quality of manure. Availability was mentioned by 53% while health/ yields of the crops were mentioned by 27% of the respondents respectively.


8.3. Livestock Feeding and Nutrition Feeding and nutrition is an important aspect of promoting the health and productivity of livestock. The study investigated the feed types that farmers produce on the farm for livestock and any sales they make. The study also investigated feed types purchased during the dry and wet periods. On-farm produced feed (nappier) and open pastures formed the most important feed sources for livestock. Livestock were fed on grasses in the open pastures by all farmers and on cereal residues. They are fed on crop residues implying an important linkage between livestock and crop farming. As reported elsewhere 83% of the farmers feed their livestock on crop residues of which 35% is maize stover. Although the quality and availability of the on-farm feeds were not implicitly captured in this study, the most widespread technical constraint of farmers is the inability to feed livestock adequately throughout the year and especially in the dry season (Kangara et al., 1996; DALEO, 2002). In such semi-arid environments, inadequate forage supply is accentuated by more acute seasonal forage shortages and large annual fluctuations. Due to short duration rainfall in these areas, the planted nappier grass does not usually do well and even regeneration after cutting is a problem. The use of sweet potato vines as a livestock feed has been demonstrated by Chem et al., (1980) and it is continuously being promoted in different parts of the country as a livestock feed supplement. Their use and promotion in this study area may provide cheaper means of livestock protein feed supplementation. The purchase of livestock feed to supplement locally produced feeds in the study site is limited, even in the dry period when roughage is unavailable. During the survey, only 66% of the respondents reported purchase of feeds during the dry period. These feeds however were nappier, dairy meal, chick mash and layers mash. During the wet period, feeds purchased were nappier, chick mash and layers mash. The greatest hindrance to the use of feed supplements during wet and dry periods is their high cost. It has been reported that livestock feeds such as concentrates are more expensive in the study site, and generally, in Mbeere District than in neighbouring Embu District (DALEO, 2002). The feed costs are expensive due to underdeveloped infrastructure for transporting, processing and marketing feedstuff in addition to high mark ups in the marketing chain.

8.4. Labour Demand for Livestock Labour supply in agricultural production and livestock activities is usually considered a critical factor in increasing productivity. Scoones and Toulmin (1999), found out that some sites in the Kenyan highlands, which were initially thought to be abundant in labour are now experiencing labour shortage and conclude that continous adequate labour supply is crucial in sustaining agricultural production. This study investigated labour demand and periods of labour shortages for carrying out livestock activities. 63% of the respondents reported experiencing labour shortage during grazing while 18% of the respondents had labour shortage for cutting, feeding and carrying cattle feeds for tethered animals (Figure 10). Labour shortage is experienced in August, September, October and November with peak periods in August and September. The survey did not capture the reasons behind this labour profile, but the labour shortage for livestock seems to coincide with the start of the cropping season (short rains). This suggests that there may be labour competition between crops and livestock activities and or the partitioning of labour between the different gender may be an issue worth exploring further.


Figure 10: Livestock activities that experience labor shortage

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grazing Cutting, feeding andcarrying cattle feeds

Acquiring feed Spraying against ticks

Activity

Per

cent

Gender diseggregation of labour for livestock management at household level is presented Figure 11. Both male and female adults share the responsibilities of managing the livestock. However, there was greater participation of men in managing cattle (73% of the households) and chickens (75% of the households). This contradicts the view expressed by Ndegwa and Kimani (1996) that in most communities in Kenya, women have greater control over chicken.

Figure 11: Livestock management according to gender (men managed/female managed)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Cattle Goat Sheep Chicken

Per

cent

Male managed Female managed


9. CONCLUSIONS From the study it can be concluded that the survey that the sample studied was a youthful one with persons below 30 years accounting for 72% of the sample size while the potential farm productive labour force (age 11-60) represented 77% of the sample. The average household size was 7 and 87% of the household heads were literate with at least primary education. Average land size was 2.4 ha (ranging between 0.22 to 16.2 ha) with an average slope of 17%. The survey also found that land was the largest contributor to production capital followed by livestock and equipment in that order. The study has shown that the farming system is dominated by maize, beans and cowpeas, which is grown as an intercrop. Farmers have changed their cropping practices over time in order to diversify their livelihood sources, take advantage of new opportunities and to avert risks. They have introduced miraa (Catha edulis), mangoes, citrus fruits e.t.c. as cash crops. The yields of major food crops (maize) and cash crops (tobacco) have been on the decline. Farmers attribute the declining yields to declining soil fertility, low and erratic rainfall, inadequate use of agricultural inputs in terms of quantities and quality in addition to damages caused by crop pests and diseases. In soil management, farmer's perceptions on soil fertility status, the use of organic and inorganic resources for maintaining soil fertility, the integration of trees and the adoption of soil and water harvesting and conservation practices were studied. The study has shown that farmers judge their soils and soil fertility using indicators such as crop growth and yield trends, crop health, local indicator plants and soil properties such as colour, compaction and moisture retention. Manure was the predominant method of maintaining soil fertility while mineral fertilizers were occasionally used for growing tobacco when available from tobacco companies. The use of these conventional methods of maintaining soil fertility was augmented by dominant soil and water conservation practices such as fanya juu terraces and trash lines. Various tree species were also found to have been integrated into the farming systems to various degrees. Rural livelihoods are multi-sectoral and multi-dimensional. The main sources of income, in order of priority, were agriculture, livestock, wages (hired labour), small businesses and cash remittances. The household income was inadequate in most parts of the year and the meager income earned from various livelihood sources is spent on food as a priority. Access to services and facilities such as water, schools and health were within 8 km walking distance, but were grossly inadequate. It can also be concluded from this survey that most farmers were investing in creating and maintaining social networks in order to strengthen, improve and diversify their livelihood sources and to insure against risks of droughts or resource degradation that depress agricultural incomes. Livestock are important ingredients of the farming system studied and are viewed by farmers as a means of subsistence and income generation in addition to playing investment, socio-cultural, energy (draft power) and nutrient roles. However, the ruminant density at farm level is low and that livestock kept are of poor genetic potential and are poorly housed. Meeting livestock feed requirements, in terms of quantity and quality, throughout the year and managing manure effectively for crop production are other challenges in the study area in addition to general livestock health management. To overcome the poor quality of forages and that of soils, there is a need to place high priority on soil conservation measures, crop rotations, use of leguminous forages and trees, feed supplements and improved means of storing and managing forages and fodder. Use of a combination of organic and inorganic sources of fertility is seen to be an important element in this strategy. There is also a need to introduce high yielding and adaptable ruminants to improve on milk, meat and manure production.


Labour and gender are pertinent aspects of any production system. The survey did not reveal acute shortages of labour for livestock activities. However, peak labour demand for livestock activities seem to coincide with the beginning of cropping seasons, thus suggesting some degree of labour competition between cropping and livestock activities. Both male and female adults share the responsibilities of managing the bigger ruminants like cattle and goats.


10. REFERENCES Anon, 1981. The sessional Paper No. 4. National Food Policy, Government of Kenya, Nairobi. Boehckle, E.,1985. The role of animals in Biological Farming systems. In: Eden, T. et Boudet, G., 1975. Manual sur les paturages tropicaux et les culture fourageres. Serie mauels et precis d'elevage 4. Institut d'elevage et de Medecine Veterinaire des Pays Tropicaux, Paris. Brokensha, D., and Warren, D. M. and Warner, O., 1980. Indigenous Knowledge systems and development. UN Press of America, Lanlam, USA. Brouwers, J.H.A.M., 1993. Rural peoples response to soil fertility decline. The adja case (Benin). Ph.D Thesis No. 93-94, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands. Carney, D., 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods. Department for International Development, London Carsky, R.J., Hayashi, Y. and Tian, G., 1998. Benefits of mulching in the subhumid savanna one: Research needs and technology testing. Resource and crop management research monograph No. 26. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 2001. The 1999 Population and Housing Census. Vol. I. Ministry of Finance and Planning, Republic of Kenya. Chem, M.C., Yi, J.J. and Hsu, R.C., 1980. The nutritive value of sweet potato vines produced in Taiwan for cattle. 3 and 4. Herb. Abstr. 49 (2): 323. Chuta, E and Liedholm., 1979. Rural non farm employment:a review of the state of the art. African Rural Economy Working Paper No.4. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Corbeels, M., Shiferaw, A., haile, M., 2000. Farmers knowledge of soil fertility and local management strategies in Tigray, Ethiopia. Managing Africa's Soils No. 10. IIED, London. DALEO, 2002. Livestock production annual report for the year 2001. District Agriculture and Livestock Extension Office, Mbeere. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. De Jager, A., Onduru, D., van Wijk, M.S., Vlaming, J. and Gachini, G.N., 2001. Assessing sustainability of low-external-input farm management systems with the nutrient monitoring approach: a case study in Kenya. Agricultural systems 69: 99-118. Fairhead, J., 1992. Indigenous Technical Knowledge and Natural Resources Management in sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review paper, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK. Fitzhugh, H. A., Hodgson, H.J., Scoville, O.J., Nguyen, D.T. and Byerly, T.C., 1978. The role of ruminants in support of man. Winrock International, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA.


Franzel, S., Coe, R., Cooper, P., Place, F. and Scherr, S.J., 1998. Assessing the adoption of agroforestry practices: ICRAF's experiences in sub-Saharan Africa (draft). Paper presented at the 15th International Symposium on Rural Livelihoods, empowerment and the environment, 29th November-4th December 1998, Pretoria, South Africa. Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension. FURP, 1994. Fertilizer use recommendations, vol. 1-23. KARI, Nairobi. Gachene, C.K.K., Palm, C.A. and Mureithi, J.G., 1999. Legume cover crops for soil fertility improvement in the Eastern Africa Region. Report of Africa Highlands Ecoregional Programme Workshop, 18th-19th February 1999. AHI and TSBF, Nairobi. Gichohi, A., 1994. Organic animal husbandry for sustainable livestock production. KIOF, Nairobi. p 1-19. Giller, K., Cadisch, G., Ehaliotis, C. and Adams, E., 1997. Building Soil nitrogen capaital in Africa. In: Buresh, R.J., Sanchez, P.A. and Calhoun, F. (Eds.). Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. SSA N0. 51. ICRAF Giller, K.E. and Wilson, K.J., 1991. Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems. CAB International, Wallingford, England. Gitari, J.N., Kanampiu, F.K. and Murithi, F.M., 1996. Maize yield gap analysis for mid altitude areas of Eastern and Central Kenya region. In: Fungoh, P.O and Mbadi, G.C.O., Focus on Agricultural Research for sustainable development in a changing Economic Environment. Proceedings of the 5th KARI Scientific Conference, 14th -16th October 1996. KARI, pp 216-225. Gittinger, J.P., Chernick, S., Horenstein, N.R and Saito, K., 1990. Household food security and the role of women. Discussion Paper 96. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Harisson, P. (1987). The greening of Africa. International Institute for environment and development. London. Hilhorst, T. Muchena F.N. Defoer .T. Hassink J. de Jager A, Smaling, E. Toulmin, C. 2000. Managing soil fertility in Africa: diverse settings and changing practice. In. Hilhorst, T. and Muchena, F.M (Eds.) 2000. Nutrients On The Move-Soil Fertility Dynamics in African Farming Systems. International Institute for Environment and Development. London. Hodge, S., Flora, C. and Blanche, C.A., 1998. Human ecological approach for integrating agroforestry technology transfer: the influence of social dimensions. Paper presented at 15th International Symposium on Rural Livelihoods, Howell, J., Chrisholm, N. and Barclay, A., 1986. The background: Climate, Demography and Policy. In: L.D. Foster (ed). Agricultural Development in drought prone Africa. ODA/Tropical Agriculture Association, London. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa, 1987. ILCA's strategy and long-term plan. Addis Ababa. Jaetzold, R. and Schimidt, H., 1982. Farm management handbook of Kenya. Volume II. Natural conditions and farm management information. Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya.


Jahnke, H.E., 1982. Livestock production systems and livestock development in tropical Africa. Kiel, Germany: Kieler Wissenschaftsverlag Vauk. Kangara, J.N.N., Kariuki, I.W., Mbaka, J., Muthanga, G.W., 1996. Forage production of different varieties of Kenaf in marginal and low potential areas. In: Fungoh, P.O and Mbadi, G.C.O., Focus on Agricultural Research for sustainable development in a changing Economic Environment. Proceedings of the 5th KARI Scientific Conference, 14th -16th October 1996. KARI, pp 528-532. Kanté, S. and Defoer, T . 1994. How farmers classify and manage their land: Implications for research and development activities. Drylands Networks programme. Issue paper no. 51.IIED, London. Kassam, A.H., Velthuizen, H.T., Fischer, G.W. and Shah, M.M., 1991. Agro-ecological land resources assessment for agricultural development planning. A case study of Kenya. Resources database and land productivity, Technical Annex 1, land resources, Land and Water development Division, FAO and IIASA. Kihanda, F.M. and Gichuru, M., 1999. Manure management for soil fertility improvement. KARI and TSBF, Nairobi. Kinyanjui,H.C.K., Obanyi, S,N., Onduru, D.D., Gachimbi L.N and Nandwa S.M., 2000. Stakeholder Perceptions of Agriculture policies in Kenya. International Institute for Environmental and Development Studies. Ledgard, S.J. and Giller, K.E., 1995. Atmospheric nitrogen fixation as an alternative nitrogen resource. In: Bacon, P (Ed.), Nitrogen fertilization and the environment. Marcel Dekker, New York. Lekasi, J.K., Tanner, J.C., Kimani, S.K. and Harris, P.J.C., 2001. Manure management in the Kenyan Highlands: Practices and Potential. Henry Double Day Research Association (HDRA), Ryton-on Dunsmore. Mbithi P.M. and Barnes, C. 1975. The Spontaneous Settlement in Kenya. East Africa Literature Bureau, Nairobi. Mellor, J.W., 1989. The political and economic context for development of animal agriculture in developing countries. In: Agency for International Development, Summary report of the animal agriculture symposium: Development priorities toward the year 2000. Agency for International Development, Washington D.C. Migot-Adholla, S., Hazell, P., Benoit, B. and Place, F., 1991. Indigenous land rights systems in sub-Saharan Africa: A constraint on productivity? World Bank Economic Review, 5:155-175. Mokwunye, A.U and Vlek, P.L.G. (Eds.). 1986. Management of Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers in sub-Saharan Africa. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, Netherlands. MoPND, 1997. Mbeere District Development Plan, 1997-2001. Office of the Vice President and Ministry of Planning and National Development, Government of Kenya, Nairobi. Mortimore, M., Adams, B., Harris, F., 2000. Poverty and systems research in the drylands. Gatekeeper Series No. 94. International Institute for Environment and Development.


Müller-Sämann, K.M. and Kotschi, J., 1994. Sustaining growth - soil fertility management in tropical smallholdings. CTA - GTZ, Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim, Germany, 486 pp. Muzzacato, V., Niemeijer, D., 2001. Overestimating land degradation, underestimating farmers in the Sahel. Issue Paper No. 101.International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. Nandwa, S.M. and Bekunda, M.A., 1998. Research on nutrient flows and balances in East and Southern Africa: State-of-the art. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 71:5-18. Nandwa, S.M., 1995. Synchronization of nitrogen mineralization with N uptake through maize stover placements and nitrogen fertilization under continuous maize monocropping systems in Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Exeter, Exeter, England. Ndegwa, J.M. and Kimani, C.W., 1996. Rural poultry production in Kenya: Research and development strategies. In: Fungoh, P.O and Mbadi, G.C.O., Focus on Agricultural Research for sustainable development in a changing Economic Environment. Proceedings of the 5th KARI Scientific Conference, 14th -16th October 1996. KARI, pp 511-516. Nzuma, J.K. and Murwira, H.K., 2000. Improving the management of manure in Zimbabwe. Managing Africa’s soils No 15, International Institute for Environment and Development, Drylands programme (IIED), London. Ofori, C.S., 1980. The use of organic materials in increasing crop production in Africa. Paper 7. In: FAO, Organic recycling in Africa. Papers presented at the FAO/SIDA workshop on the use of organic materials as fertilisers in Africa held in Bue, Camerron, 5-14th Dec 1977. FAO soils bulletin No. 43, Rome. Okeyo, A.M., Mosi, R.O., Ahuya, C.O., Rege, J.R.O. and Okomo, M.A., 1996. Phenotype characteristics of the Small East African zebu cattle in the Lake Victoria Basin and Coastal Lowlands of Kenya: morphological and physical characteristics. In: Fungoh, P.O and Mbadi, G.C.O., Focus on Agricultural Research for sustainable development in a changing Economic Environment. Proceedings of the 5th KARI Scientific Conference, 14th -16th October 1996. KARI, pp 252-269. Omiti, J., 1998. Micro level strategies to improve soil fertility in semi and agriculture. Paper presented at 15th Symposium African Farming system-Research Extension, Pretoria, South Africa. AFSRE. Onduru, D.D. and Scialabba, N., 2001. Methodology for comparative studies: organic, conventional and traditional farming systems in low potential areas. Draft report, KIOF and FAO. Onduru, D.D., Diop, J-M., van der Werf, E. and de Jager, A., 2002. Participatory on-farm comparative assessment of organic and conventional farmers' practices in Kenya. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture Journal 19: 295-314. Onduru, D.D., Gachini, G.N. and Nandwa, S.M., 1998. Experiences in participatory diagnosis of soil nutrient management in Kenya. Managing Africa's Soils No. 3. IIED, London.


Palm, C.A. and Rowland, A.P., 1996. A minimum dataset for characterization of plant quality for decomposition. In: Cadisch, G. and Giller, K. (eds.), Driven by nature: Plant litter quality and decomposition. CABI. Paustrian, K., Parton, W.J., Persson, J., 1992. Modeling soil organic matter in inorganic amended and nitrogen-fertilized long-term plots. Soil science Society of America Journal 56: 476-488. Poulain, J.F., 1980. Crop residues in traditional cropping systems of West Africa. Effects on the mineral balance and level of organic matter in soils and proposals for their better management. In: Organic Recycling in Africa, FAO soils Bulletin 43, pp 38-71. Pretty, 1998. Social capital and sustainable livelihoods. Paper presented at 15th International Symposium on Rural Livelihoods, empowerment and the Environment, 29th Nov.-4th Dec. 1998, Pretoria, South Africa. Association for farming systems research and extension. Probert M .E., Okalebo J. R., Simpson J.R and Jones R. K.,1990. The role of boma manure for improving soil fertility. In Probert (eds). Asearch for strategies for Sustainable dryland cropping in semi-arid Eastern Kenya. ACIAR proceedings No. 41. ACIAR. Probert, M.E., Okalebo, J.R. and Jones, R.K., 1995. The use of manure on smallholder farms in semi-arid Eastern Kenya. Experimental Agriculture 31: 371--381. Quinones, M.A., Borlaug, N.E. and Dwswell, C.R., 1997. A fertilizer based Green revolution for Africa. In: Buresh, R.J., Sanchez, P.A. and Calhoun, F. (Eds.) Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America and ICRAF, Special publication 51, Madison. Rattray, A.G.H., and Ellis, B.S., 1952. Maize and green manuring in Southern Rhodesia. Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 49: 188-197. Rees, D., Momanyi, M., Wekundah, J., Ndungu, F., Odondo, J., Oyure, A.O., Andima, D., Kamu, M., Ndubi, J., Musembi, F., Mwaura, L. and Joldersma, R., 2000. Agricultural knowledge and information systems in Kenya-Implications for technology dissemination and development. Agricultural Research and Extension Network. Network paper No. 107. Department for International Development, London. Richards, P., 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution. Hutchinson, London. Rowland, J.R.J. (Ed.), 1993. Dryland Farming in Africa. CTA. Ruhigwa, B.A., Gichuru, M.P., Spencer, D.S.C. and Swennen, R., 1995. Economic analysis of cut-and-carry and alley cropping systems of mulch production for plantations in southeastern Nigeria. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Res: 11:11-14. Rukandema, M., 1984. Farming systems of semi-arid eastern Kenya: A comparison. East African Agriculture and Forestry Journal, 44: 422-435. Saleem, M.M.A., 1998. Nutrient balance patterns in African Livestock systems. Agriculture Ecosystems 71: 241-254.


Sanchez, P.A. and Leaky, R.R.B., 1997. Land use transformation in Africa: three determinants for balancing food security with natural resource utilization. European Journal of Agronomy, 7:1-9. Sanchez, P.A., 1996. Science in Agroforestry. Agroforestry systems 9:259-274. Sanchez, P.A., Izac, A-M., Valencia, I. And Pieri, C., 1996. Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: A concept note. In: Breth (ed.), Proceedings of a workshop on Achieving greater impact from research investments in Africa, 26th-30th September, 1996, Adis Ababa. Sanchez, P.A., Shephered, K.D., Soule, M.J., Place, F.M., Mokwunye, A.U., Buresh, R.J., Kwesiga, F.R., Izac, A-M, N., Ndiritu, C.G. and Woomer, P.L., 1997. Sil fertility replenishment in Africa: an investment in natural resource capital. In: Buresh, R.J., Sanchez, P.A. and Calhoun, F. (Eds.) Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. Soil Science Society of America and ICRAF, Special publication 51, Madison. Scoones, I. And Toulmin, C., 1999. Policies for soil fertility management in Africa. Department for International Development. Sketchley, H.R., Mbuvi, J.P., Wokabi, S.M. and Scilley, F.M., 1978.Reconnaisance Soil Survey of portions of the Machakos-Kitui-Embu Area, Scale 1: 250,000. Kenya Soil Survey, National Agricultural research Laboratories, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya. Sombroek, W.G., Braun, H.M.H and van der Pouw, B.J.A., 1982. Exploratory Soil Map and Agro-climatic zone map of Kenya: scale 1: 1,000,000. Kenya Soil Survey, National Agricultural research Laboratories, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya and German Agricultural Team. Strasberg, P.J., Jayne, T.S., Yamano, T., Nyoro, J., Karanja, D. and Strauss, J., 1999. Effects of agricultural commerciatiolization on food crop input use and productivity in Kenya. MSU working paper No. 71. Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. Sutherland, J.A., Ouma, J.O. and Ndubi, J., 1994. Lower Embu diagnostic survey. Study report No. 5. Thomas, D.B., Erksson, A., Grunder, M and Mburu, J.K., 1997. Soil and water conservation manual for Kenya. Soil and water conservation branch, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock development and marketing, Republic of Kenya. Tiffen, M., Mortimore M. and Gachuki F. (1994). More people less erosion. Environmental recovery in Kenya. ACTS Nairobi, Kenya and ODI, London. University press. Van de Weg, R.F. and Mbuvi, J.P., 1975. Soils of the Kindaruma Area, Scale 1: 100,000. Kenya Soil Survey, National Agricultural research Laboratories, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya. Vlaming, J., van den Bosch, H., van Wijk, M.S., de Jager, A., Bannink, A., van Keulen, 2001. Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in tropical farming systems (NUTMON). Annex II. Alterra, Green World Research and Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Netherlands. Warren, G.P., Muthamia, J. and Irungu, J.W., 1996. Soil fertility improvements under manuring in semi-arid lower Embu and Tharaka-Nithi. In: Fungoh, P.O and Mbadi, G.C.O., Focus on Agricultural Research for sustainable development in a changing


Economic Environment. Proceedings of the 5th KARI Scientific Conference, 14th -16th October 1996. KARI, pp 151-163. Winrock International, 1992. Assessment of animal agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Morrilton, Arkansas, USA. Wouters, A. P.,1986. Zero grazing. Ministry of livestock development, Kenya. National Dairy Developnment Project. E:\My Documents\62681Inmasp\Kenya\INMASP Report No. Ke-11.doc