This study examines the impact of New Integrated Management Package (IMP) adoption on income and poverty among fodder farming household in Sahl El-Tina. The IMP such as Rate, time, and methods of nitrogen fertilization and other fertilization, Leaching requirements for some crops, Intercropping system, Use of suitable crop genotype/variety, Use of modern irrigation systems or modified systems to save water, date, rate and method of planting. The study aims mainly to improve the lives of small farmers through the level of dissemination and application of cultivation techniques forage crops tolerant to salinity through develop and disseminate technologies packages of forage production. And reducing their probability of falling below the poverty line. Therefore suggest that intensification of the investment on IMP dissemination is a reasonable policy instrument to raise incomes and reduce poverty among fodder farming household. It used instrumental variables (IV)-based estimator to estimate the Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) of adoption of IMP on income and poverty reduction, using cross-sectional data of 200 farmers from Shal El-Tina. The findings reveal a robust positive and significant impact of IMP adoption on farm household income and welfare measured by per capita expenditure and poverty reduction. Specifically, the empirical results suggest that adoption of IMP raises household per capita expenditure and income by an average of 529.27$ and 1371$ in Shal El-Tina per cropping season respectively, thereby reducing their probability of falling below the poverty line. Therefore suggest that intensification of the investment on IMP dissemination is a reasonable policy instrument to raise incomes and reduce poverty among fodder farming household, although complementary measures are also needed. The incidence of poverty was higher among non-IMP adopters (55.2%) than IMP adopters (49.5%). In addition, both the depth and severity of poverty were also higher (20.85% and 15.42%) among non-adopters than the adopters (18.48% and 9.88%). All three poverty measures indicate that poverty was more prevalent and severe among non-adopters compared to adopters.