Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility management practices in Zambia

Abstract

Several agro-ecological practices have been developed to increase the range of soil fertility management options available to farmers, but little information is available on their labour input requirement and profitability relative to conventional practices. This study used a multiple visit cost-route method to estimate labour inputs and financial profitability of agroforestry-based and conventional (with and without fertiliser) soil fertility management practices in eastern Zambia. Results show that aggregated over a five-year cycle, labour inputs used under agroforestry practices were lower than fertilised maize fields but higher than non-fertilised continuous cropped maize. Agroforestry practices were more profitable (NPV ranging between $233 and $327 ha -1 ) than unfertilised maize fields (NPV of $130 ha -1 ) but less profitable than fertilised maize fields. The NPV for the latter is $499 ha -1 under a 50% government subsidy on fertiliser but, it fell to $349 ha -1 when the subsidy effect is removed. In terms of return per unit investment cost, agroforestry practices performed better with a benefit to cost ratio ranging between 2.77 to 3.13 in contrast to 2.65 (subsidised fertiliser) and 1.77 (non-subsidised fertiliser). The returns to labour per person day was $2.56 in (non-subsidised) fertilised maize field, $3.16 in subsidised fertiliser field, $2.63 in Gliricidia fields, $2.41 in Sesbania fields, $1.90 in Tephrosia fields, and $1.10 in non-fertilised maize fields. The results do not support the popular notion that agroforestry practices are more labour intensive. It suggests that in addition to total labour use requirements, the temporal distribution of labour use during the farming season is important. It is concluded that agroforestry practices are profitable, and could contribute to food security.

Agricultural success from Africa: the case of fertilizer tree systems in southern Africa (Malawi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe)

“…Over a five-year cycle, the net profit from unfertilized maize was US$130 per hectare compared to US$269 and US$309 for maize grown with Gliricidia or Sesbania, respectively. With respect to returns per investment, FTS performed better with a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging between 2.77 and 3.13 in contrast to 2.65 in (subsidized) fertilizer fields, 1.77 in (nonsubsidized) fertilizer fields and 2.01 in non-fertilized fields (Ajayi et al, 2009).…”

“…Details are presented in Table 3. In terms of economic performance, field studies performed in Zambia show that FTS perform much better than continuous maize production without fertilizer (Franzel et al, 2002;Franzel, 2004;Ajayi et al, 2007Ajayi et al, , 2009). Over a five-year cycle, the net profit from unfertilized maize was US$130 per hectare compared to US$269 and US$309 for maize grown with Gliricidia or Sesbania, respectively.…”

The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa

“…Agroforestry has been demonstrated to offer a wide range of benefits to farmers including the positive effect on their livelihoods through increasing crop yield and increased food security (Sileshi et al 2008a, Akinnifesi et al 2010, Garrity et al 2010) and income (Ajayi et al 2009), as well as improving farmers' ability to deal with the effects of climate change through improved rain use efficiency and yield stability under rain-fed agriculture (Verchot et al 2007. In addition, agroforestry is known for providing benefits to the environment by providing various ecosystem services (Sileshi et al 2007, Bhagwat et al 2008, Jose 2009, Nair et al 2009).…”

Unlocking the potential of vulnerable communities for sustainable development through conservation agriculture practices in homa bay county, in kenya

“…At the same time, such practices may reduce carbon losses that occur with ploughing, and also further sequester carbon via residue incorporation and reduced erosion (Lal 1987)). Trees and bushes may also yield products that can either be used for food consumption (fruits), fodder, fuel, building materials, firewood, or sold for cash, leading to greater average household income, and contributing to household risk management via reduced income variability (Ajayi et al 2009;Franzel et al 2004). Planting trees and bushes also increases carbon sequestered both above and below ground, thereby contributing to Green House Gas mitigation (Verchot et al 2007).…”