From Familiar Fertilizers to Biochar: Pathways to Adoption to Smallholder Farmers in Kenya

4 Views

Biochar is commended as a multifunctional carbon-removal technology: it stabilizes carbon stored in biomass, helping mitigate adverse climate effects, and it also serves as a soil amender, a fertilizer, and even a water filter. From an agricultural standpoint, biochar seems like the ultimate salvation, especially for African smallholder farmers, who experience low productivity partly because of soil deterioration and still make up the majority of the region’s producers. Smallholder farmers have limited resources, making access to adequate farm inputs complicated. This limited access is reflected in the well-below-average application of fertilizer nutrients in soils within Sub-Saharan Africa.

Why Kenyan farmers favour inorganic fertilizers

Within this low level of application, most Kenyan farmers favour inorganic fertilizers. Most Kenyan producers are smallholder farmers, which means their livelihoods depend on their land’s productivity.

The culture of using inorganic inputs was introduced to Kenyan agriculture during the colonial period, a practice that was later inherited by local farmers after independence.
The wider acceptance of inorganic fertilizer, though originally fostered by the colonial government, was furthered by the Kenyan government by enabling access through continuous supply and subsidies.
Existing local systems continue to keep farmers informed about the use and availability of these inputs through government-based extension officers and uninterrupted supply via local agrovets.

Inorganic vs. organic fertilizers

In addition to institutional support, compositional differences between inorganic and organic fertilizers further shape how producers use them.

Inorganic fertilizers tend to have an immediate effect on the soil, as they release nutrients quickly with promptly observable results.

Organic fertilizers are slow releasers, so positive results appear much later and, in some cases, not in the immediate season.

However, there is repeated evidence that inorganic fertilizers release greenhouse gases and cause extensive soil deterioration when inadequately used, as is seen among Kenyan farmers. But inorganic fertilizers seem to be cheaper and more accessible, and they increase yield in a shorter period of time compared to organic fertilizers. For a smallholder farmer dependent on rainfed production, a cheaper and immediate alternative is the more obvious choice, though soil deterioration is a long-term consequence.

The biochar adoption gap

Biochar-based fertilizer offers a range of soil benefits, including increased nutrients and microorganisms, improved water retention, and overall fertility. However, biochar adoption among farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, like that of other organic fertilizers, remains substantially low despite its known and proven efficiency. The challenges of adopting organic fertilizers become clearer through some of the biochar-producing enterprises Nuvoni visited during its fieldwork. To be clear, the enterprises examined were strictly startups, organizations whose focus is to scale up and make a lasting impact.

How startups use existing systems

The startups visited make use of pre-existing systems to encourage farmer biochar adoption. From an institutional perspective, startups use networks and systems established through extension workers and local agrovets. True to form, the officers and agrovets are heavily relied on for information on inputs and eventual supply, especially in rural areas. They are well trusted and offer products that are generally available.

Blending as a first step

From an application standpoint, the local support system does not emphasize the advantage of carbon removal or climate mitigation. As first-time adopters, farmers are encouraged to blend the inorganic and organic fertilizers during application and note the difference in yield.

Farmers care more about what biochar can do for them than what it does for the environment. Blending also overcomes the slow release of nutrients into the soil by the organic biochar while still realizing benefits such as soil-based water retention, larger-sized yields, and darker (greener) produce.

A pragmatic path forward

Ideally, adoption would mean completely abandoning inorganic inputs, with proper consideration of environmental consequences and a commitment to reversing soil deterioration. However, farmers are people of habit, keeping to practices they have inherited and seen work. Thus, encouraging adoption through familiar networks and inputs may not be ideal, but it is an alternative method of achieving the end goal.