Risk and Maize-Based Cropping Systems for Smallholder Malawi Farmers Using Conservation Agriculture Technologies

Abstract

SUMMARYAgricultural production in southern Africa is constrained by numerous factors, including low soil fertility, frequent droughts and flooding, limited access to fertilizers and the use of unsustainable management techniques that increase soil erosion rates. Conservation agriculture (CA) is based on the principles of minimum soil disturbance, crop residue retention and crop rotations. CA systems have been proposed to alleviate the negative externalities associated with conventional crop management systems. This study was conducted to examine the riskiness of economic returns of CA technologies based on maize grain yield evaluated in 12 target communities in Malawi from 2005–2011. On average, maize grain yields on both CA treatments exceeded the conventional control treatment by 22.1–23.6%, with differences more distinct in low altitude areas with low rainfall and frequent seasonal dry spells. Stochastic dominance analysis suggest that CA technologies would be preferred by risk-averse farmers, with corresponding differences in risk premiums (compared to conventional maize production systems) ranging between US$40 and US$105. However, these rankings are sensitive to the agroecological zones where the experiments were conducted. The risk premiums associated with the CA technologies in low elevation regions are unambiguous. Risk-averse farmers in higher elevations may need substantial incentives to adopt some CA technologies.

Conservation agriculture in Southern Africa: Advances in knowledge

“…Thus, it is necessary to consider site-specific conditions in determining the financial attractiveness of CA. Even where the financial incentives may appear attractive, a consideration of non-financial factors (e.g., risk of crop failure) is required to understand the actual and potential adoption of CA 112 . …”

“…However, these past researches were largely conducted within experimental stations and did not take into account socio-economic constraints in real farm situations that could hinder the widespread adoption of CA. Recently, more studies reporting results from onfarm and on-station trials have been published concentrating on some of the above-mentioned challenges and constraints 28,37,68,73,86,94,96,97,99,101,102,104,[113][114][115][116] .…”

Conservation Agriculture and Household Wellbeing: A Non-Causal Comparison among Smallholder Farmers in Mozambique

“…Ngwira, Thierfelder, Eash, and Lambert (2013) found that profits for maize produced under CA systems were 61% to 116% higher than profits produced by conventional tillage practices ($344 ha -1 ). Mazvimavi and Twomlow (2009) and Guto, Pypers, Vanlauwe, de Ridder and Giller (2011) found that profit margins for crops produced with minimum tillage technologies were superior to net returns produced under conventional systems.…”

“…Mazvimavi and Twomlow (2009) and Guto, Pypers, Vanlauwe, de Ridder and Giller (2011) found that profit margins for crops produced with minimum tillage technologies were superior to net returns produced under conventional systems. Ngwira et al (2013) found that risk-averse farmers preferred CA systems compared to conventional tillage systems, with risk premiums for conservation agriculture systems (relative to conventional farming methods) ranging between $40 and $105 US dollars. Most of these studies compared the profitability of CA systems with conventional farming practices using partial budget analysis (e.g., Boehlje & Eidman, 1984).…”

Smallholder Farmer Innovation and Contexts in Maize-Based Conservation Agriculture Systems in Central Malawi

“…Comparing CA maize systems with conventional tillage systems, studies conducted across the country reported that the former has less labour costs, has higher gross margins and lowers risk of crop failure (Ngwira et al, 2011;Ngwira et al 2012a;Ngwira et al, 2013;Wall et al, 2013;Ngwira et al, 2014a;Thierfelder et al, 2016).…”