A COMPARATIVE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF

CONVENTIONAL VERSUS CONSERVATION

AGRICULTURE TILLAGE PRACTICES
AMONG SMALL SCALE FARMERS IN WAYA
AGRICULTURAL CAMP OF KABWE
DISTRICT.

A RESEARCH PRESENTATION BY
MWABA MULEBA
201404225

MAY, 2018.
OUTLINE
• INTRODUCTION
• PROBLEM STATEMENT
• STUDY QUESTION
• OBJECTIVES
• HYPOTHESIS
• METHODS
• RESULTS
• DISCUSSION
• CONCLUSION
• RECOMMENDATIONS & CHALLENGES
• REFRENCES
Introduction
• The SNDP emphasises sustaining agricultural production and growth in order to achieve sustainable economic
growth and poverty reduction in the country.

• conservation agriculture is a system under which climate change adaption and mitigation are facilitated while
also enhancing yields on a sustainable basis without the need for practitioners to acquire costly equipment.

• Conservation agriculture is a way of practicing agriculture in a way that does not damage the environment.
Conservation agriculture (CA) is an approach to managing agro-ecosystems for improved and sustained
productivity.

• Conventional tillage is the traditional method of farming in which soil is prepared for planting by completely
inverting it.

• The degree of soil disturbance depends on the type of implement used, the number of passes, soil and intended
crop type.
Problem statement
• Conservation agriculture is an important farming practice which aims at conserving and making
more efficient use of natural resources through integrated management of soil, water and
biological resources combined with external inputs (Erwin, 2007).

• Scholars have different views and arguments concerning conservation agriculture as compared to
conventional agriculture which is the traditional way of crop production.

• In some studies it has been found that there is no economic difference between conservation
and conventional agriculture, therefore there is no economic incentive to switch technologies
(Janosky et al 2002).

• While some studies suggest that yields from conservation agriculture may be as high, if not higher,
than conventional or traditional agriculture practices (Govaerts et al 2006).
Cont.
• In considering these views and arguments still there is a debate on whether CA
or Non CA is economically performing well and is beneficial to the farmers’
livelihood. The existence of the debate creates an information gap on the
economic performance and incentives of conservation agriculture as compared
to conventional agriculture that need to be filled.

• This study therefore seeks to compare conservation agriculture and conventional

agriculture tillage practices in terms of profitability, efficiency and productivity.
Study questions

• Are there any differences in farmer profitability between conservation and

conventional agriculture in the study area?

• Is there any difference in productivity between conservation and

conventional agriculture in the study area?
Objectives

• To determine the differences in farmers profitability between conventional

verses conservation agricultural practices.

• To compare the farmers productivity between conventional versus

conventional agriculture practices.
Hypotheses
Null hypothesis

• There is no significant difference in profitability between conventional and conservational tillage

practices.

• There is no significant difference in productivity between conventional and conservational tillage

practices.

Alternative hypothesis

• There is a significant difference in profitability between conventional and conservational tillage practices.

• There is a significant difference in productivity between conventional and conservational tillage

practices.
Methods

• The Cross section design was employed where farmers with and without
conservation agricultural practices were used to compare the performance of
the convention and conservation agricultural practices.

• Structured questionnaires were used as a main tool for data collection.

• The data analysis focused on two domains namely, productivity and profitability
of the two tillage systems.

• The independent-Samples t -Test was used to compare productivity and

profitability of the two tillage systems using SPSS.
Results
The differences in profitability between conventional verses conservation
agricultural tillage practices.
CA Mean= 4576
Non CA Mean= 2122

  Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t Df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances
1.465 .230 1.362 78 .177 2453.2450 1801.459 -1133.1844 6039.6744
assumed
Profit    
Equal variances
1.362 66.54 .178 2453.245 1801.459 -1142.9358 6049.4258
not assumed
Comparing farmers productivity between conventional versus conventional agriculture tillage
practices.
1) Total productivity
CA Mean= 148.38
Non CA Mean= 101.30

  Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval

Difference Difference of the Difference

Lower Upper

Equal variances
3.510 .065 1.225 78 .224 47.075 38.426 -29.426 123.576
assumed
Productivity    
Equal variances
1.225 60.037 .225 47.075 38.426 -29.788 123.938
not assumed
2) Specific productivity, per ha basis
CA Mean= 1524.41
Non CA Mean= 1589.35
Mean difference= 65

1600.00

1580.00

1560.00
kg per ha

1540.00

1520.00

1500.00

1480.00
CA Non CA

Practice
Discussion
• Productivity and profitability persist to be the two most important indicators in assessing the success or
failure of crop production.

• Despite the difference in profitability not being significant the mean difference of K2453 cannot be
ignored. Farmers practicing CA had more profit compared to those practicing Non CA.

• When we compare the means in terms of general total output, conservations agriculture had a greater
output than conventional agriculture by a difference of 2350 Kgs.

• Haggblade etal (2011) found that CA enables even the smallest, most cash-constrained Zambian farm
households to achieve yield gains of about 40% over Non CA.

• Higher output under conservations agriculture can be attributed to them having cultivated or owned
more land compared to those practicing conventional agriculture.
CONT.
• Under Non CA, farmers wait for the first rains to prepare their fields. As a result, they must complete their
heavy land preparation as well as their first weeding during the first month after the planting rains.

• Early season labor constraints, particularly during the first weeding, set a limit on the cropped area a family
can manage using household labor. The average farm household in Waya camp with seven family members
practicing conventional hand-hoe tillage, limits the area they can cultivate to about one or two hectares.

• In contrast, CA households prepare their fields during the dry season, because they move only a small
fraction of their topsoil. Given dry season land preparation, CA farmers are able to manage larger areas
than they could under Non CA by planting.

• Labor productivity increases under CF because it enables farm families to achieve higher yields and
cultivate greater areas with available household labor.
• This explains why conservations agriculture had a higher total productivity and conventional agriculture
had a lower total productivity, while in terms of efficiency on per ha basis conventional agriculture was
higher than that of conservations agriculture.

• Non CA had a higher production per ha compared to conservations agriculture although this difference is
not statistically significant as indicated by the t test with a p value that is larger than 0.05.

• These findings of CA having lower outputs is similar to a research carried out by Ezumah (1990) who
reported that tillage did not affect yields in the first year, but in the later years significant differences were
obtained in the yield, no-till and minimum tillage yielded 40 and 23% more yield than conventional tillage.

• The findings of this research indicate that conventional agriculture was more efficient than conservations
agriculture in terms of productivity on per ha basis.
 Conclusion
• It was evident from the study that conventional agriculture is more efficient than
conservation agriculture. Although efficiency does not mean sustainable.

• For conservation agriculture to be efficient, there is need to pay careful attention

on residue, pest and weed managements and follow the main principles of
conservations agriculture, and then expected results can be achieved. If practiced
well conservation agriculture has the potential to increase productivity and
improve livelihoods of farmers.
Recommendations

• Conservation agriculture should be promoted vigorously throughout the entire

country and there is need to enhance extension services for effective information
dissemination.

• Further studies should focus on assessing soil fertility, variety of seed, fertilizer
application to compare productivity of conservation and conventional practices
and Identify regions where it can be readily adapted.
 References
Erwin, N. (2007). The Effects of conservation farming on soil properties and
farmers situations in Paraná, Brazil. Wageningen University, Netherlands pp 58.
Govaerts, B., Mezzalama, M., Sayre, K. D., Crossa, J., Nicol, J. M. and Deckers, J.
(2006). Long-term consequences of tillage, residue management, and crop rotation
on maize/wheat root rot and nematode populations in subtropical
highlands.Applied Soil Ecology32: 305–315.
Janosky,J.S. Douglas, L.Y. and William, F.S. (2002). Tillage. Agronomy Journal. 94:
527 531.