Conservation agriculture, conservation farming and conventional tillage adoption, efficiency and economic benefits in semi-arid Zimbabwe

Abstract

Conservation practices can be of great importance in semi-arid regions for obtaining high crop yields and income, but adoption of the conservation practices, economic efficiencies and benefits remain unknown by most smallholders. The paper presents an overview of the adoption of conservation agriculture (CA), conservation farming (CF) and conventional tillage (ConvT), their technical efficiency and economic benefits. The study was carried out in Wards 4 and 17, Chimanimani District, Zimbabwe using a cross-sectional survey of 179 farmers involving participatory was used. A Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) was used to determine relative technical efficiencies between CA, CF and ConvT farmers. Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) technique was used to estimate Cobb-Douglas frontier production function. Gross margin (GM) analysis was employed to determine economic benefits by farmer category. Results showed that adoption was 59% for CF 20% for CA techniques and 69% for ConvT. SFA in R revealed that CF, CA and ConvT farmers were 87, 81 and and 64% technically efficient respectively. GM analysis showed that CF had the highest GM/ha of $99.88 and 196.20 with and without family labor cost respectively. This was followed by CA with GM/ha of $63.82 and 158.60.ConvT farmers had the least GM of -$25.16 and 65.20 with and without family labor cost. Most communal farmers considered ConvT to be a traditional practice; this could have been responsible for high adoption of the practice. Farmers showed a negative attitude towards CA despite the high labor requirements for CF. It is recommended that, of all the three practices in semi-arid regions, farmers use CF practice as it gives highest technical efficiency and GM.

Sustainability of food production support services offered by Sustainable Agriculture Trust to subsistence farmers in Bikita District, Zimbabwe

“…To avoid conceptual discord these farming systems are clarified. Conservation agriculture is defined by Mvumi, Ndoro and Manyiwo (2017) as:…”

“…Less soil tillage is central to CA (Harford et al 2009:3). In contrast, Mvumi et al (2017:1630) define CF ‘as digging planting basins using hoes, following principles like mulching and crop rotation’. Conservation farming primarily uses hand-hoe basins, which explains why it is popularly called the ‘planting basin technique’ in Zimbabwe (Harford et al 2009:3).…”

“…Conventional Tillage, on the other hand, uses the ‘[ m ]old-plough in land preparation for the whole area to be planted and then planting is done following behind the plough’ (Mvumi et al 2017:1630). Conventional Tillage uses a moldboard ox-drawn plough for ploughing.…”

“…Ironically, a study by Mvumi et al (2017:1634) on farming practices in Zimbabwe showed ConvT as the top prioritised farming practice of the three. According to them, ConvT is adopted because most farmers inherited this farming system from their forefathers, which explains why it is called the ‘traditional farming system’.…”

“…The second best is CF, which is a transformed version of CA (Harford et al 2009:3). Thomlow (2007) cited in Mvumi et al (2017:1630) and Harford et al (2009:3) contended that in post-independence Zimbabwe, CF was adopted and integrated into the ConvT system. Mvumi et al (2017:1634) cited the lack of mechanised equipment by subsistence farmers as the major impetus behind the adoption of CF.…”