Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-rxg44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T05:52:20.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RISK AND MAIZE-BASED CROPPING SYSTEMS FOR SMALLHOLDER MALAWI FARMERS USING CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE TECHNOLOGIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 May 2013

A. R. NGWIRA ,
C. THIERFELDER ,
N. EASH  and
D. M. LAMBERT
A. R. NGWIRA*
Affiliation:
Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 5003, NO-1432 Aas, Norway
C. THIERFELDER
Affiliation:
CIMMYT, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
N. EASH
Affiliation:
Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Science, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, 2506 E. J. Chapman Drive, Knoxville, TN 37996-4518, USA
D. M. LAMBERT
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, 321 Morgan Hall, 2621 Morgan Circle, Knoxville, TN 37996-4518, USA
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: robert.ngwira@umb.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Agricultural 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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 2013 , pp. 483 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1974). Risk efficiency in the interpretation of agricultural production research. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics 42:131–184.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. and Dillon, J. L. (1990). The Analysis of Response in Crop and Livestock Production. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Baerenklau, K. A. (2005). Toward an understanding of technology adoption: risk, learning, and neighborhood effects. Land Economics 81 (1):1–19.Google Scholar
Bekele, W. (2005). Stochastic dominance analysis of soil and water conservation in subsistence crop production in the eastern Ethiopian highlands: the case of the Hunde-Lafto area. Environmental & Resource Economics 32 (4):533–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Young, A. (1966). The Physical Environment of Central Malawi: With Special Reference to Soils and Agriculture. Zomba, Malawi: Government Press.Google Scholar
Cavatassi, R., Lipper, L. and Narloch, U. (2011). Modern variety adoption and risk management in drought prone areas: insights from the sorghum farmers of eastern Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 42 (3):279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, J. W., Elliott, E. T. and Paustian, K. (1998). Soil microbial activity, nitrogen cycling, and long-term changes in organic carbon pools as related to fallow tillage management. Soil & Tillage Research 49 (1–2):3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, F., Kutengule, M. and Nyasulu, A. (2003). Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Malawi. World Development 31 (9):1495–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO. (2002). Conservation Agriculture: Case Studies in Latin America and Africa. FAO Soils Bulletin Nos. 77, 78. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
FAOSTAT. (2010). http://faostat3.fao.org/home/index.html; last accessed 20 July 2010.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M. and Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114 (1):23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowing, J. W. and Palmer, M. (2008). Sustainable agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa: the case for a paradigm shift in land husbandry. Soil Use and Management 24:92–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guto, S. N., Pypers, P., Vanlauwe, B., de Ridder, N. and Giller, K. E. (2011). Tillage and vegetative barrier effects on soil conservation and short-term economic benefits in the Central Kenya highlands. Field Crops Research 122 (2):85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, M., Matsumoto, T. and Quinones, M. A. (2007). Conservation tillage practice in sub-Saharan Africa: the experience of Sasakawa Global 2000. Crop Protection 26:417–423.Google Scholar
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. and Pretty, J. (2009). The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (4):292–320.Google Scholar
Kumwenda, J. D. T., Waddington, S. R., Snapp, S. S., Jones, R. B. and Blackie, M. J. (1997). Soil fertility management in Southern Africa. In Africa's Emerging Maize Revolution, 157–172 (Eds Byerlee, D. and Eicher, C. K.). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, R. (1986). Soil surface management in the tropics for intensive land use and high and sustained production. Advances in Soil Sciences 5:1–109.Google Scholar
Lal, R. (2009). The plow and agricultural sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 33 (1):66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, D. M. and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2003). Economic analysis of row spacing for corn and soybean. Agronomy Journal 95:564–573.Google Scholar
Mando, A., Brussaard, L. and Stroosnijder, L. (1999). Termite- and mulch-mediated rehabilitation of vegetation on crusted soil in West Africa. Restoration Ecology 7 (1):33–41.Google Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D. and Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mazvimavi, K. and Twomlow, S. (2009). Socioeconomic and institutional factors influencing adoption of conservation farming by vulnerable households in Zimbabwe. Agricultural Systems 101 (1–2):20–29.Google Scholar
Mazvimavi, K., Twomlow, S. J., Belder, P. and Howe, L. (2008). An assessment of the sustainable uptake of conservation farming in Zimbabwe. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report, Vol. 39, 66 pp. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
McGarry, D., Bridge, B. J. and Radford, B. J. (2000). Contrasting soil physical properties after zero and traditional tillage of an alluvial soil in the semi-arid subtropics. Soil and Tillage Research 53 (2):105–115.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. (1977). Choice among distributions. Journal of Economic Theory 14:326–336.Google Scholar
MoAFS. (2011). Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security Crop Production Estimates (MoAFS). Lilongwe, Malawi: MoAFS.Google Scholar
Moschini, G. and Hennessy, D. A. (2001). Uncertainty, risk aversion, and risk management for agricultural producers. In Handbook of Agricultural Economics, 88–153 (Eds Gardner, B. L. and Rausser, G. C.). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Moser, C. M. and Barrett, C. B. (2006). The complex dynamics of smallholder technology adoption: the case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Economics 35 (3):373–388.Google Scholar
Ngwira, A. R., Aune, J. B. and Mkwinda, S. (2012). On-farm evaluation of yield and economic benefit of short-term maize legume intercropping systems under conservation agriculture in Malawi. Field Crops Research 132:149–157.Google Scholar
NSO. (2012). Integrated Household Survey 2010–2011 – Household Socioeconomic Characteristics Report. Zomba, Malawi: NSO.Google Scholar
Parr, J. E., Stewart, B. A., Hornick, S. B. and Singh, R. P. (1990). Improving the sustainability of dryland farming systems: a global perspective. In Dryland Agriculture Strategies for Sustainability, Vol. 13, 1–8 (Eds Singh, R. P., Parr, J. F. and Stewart, B. A.). New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. W. (2002). SIMETAR, Simulation Software for Applied Risk Management. College Station, TX: Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. W. and Mapp, H. P. (1976). Use of probabilistic cash flows in analyzing investment under conditions of risk and uncertainty. Journal of Agricultural Economics 8 (2):19–24.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. W., Schumann, K. D. and Feldman, P. A. (2006). Simetar© Simulation for Applied Risk Management. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Rockström, J., Barron, J. and Fox, P. (2002). Rainwater management for increased productivity among smallholder farmers in drought prone environments. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27 (11–22):949–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockström, J., Kaumbutho, P., Mwalley, J., Nzabi, A. W., Temesgen, M., Mawenya, L., Barron, J., Mutua, J. and Damgaard-Larsen, S. (2009). Conservation farming strategies in East and Southern Africa: yields and rain water productivity from on-farm action research. Soil and Tillage Research 103 (1):23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, C. H., Meyer, B., Frede, H. G. and Derpsch, R. (1988). Effect of mulch rates and tillage systems on infiltrability and other soil physical properties of an Oxisol in Paraná, Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research 11 (1):81–91.Google Scholar
Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., Wijk, M., Rufino, M., Nyamangara, J. and Giller, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed conditions. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31 (4):657–673.Google Scholar
Serra, T. (2008). Differential uncertianities and risk attitude between conventional and organic producers: the case of Spanish COP farmers. Paper Presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, July 29–August 1, 2007, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Shively, G. E. (2001). Poverty, consumption risk, and soil conservation. Journal of Development Economics 65 (2):267–290.Google Scholar
Silici, L. (2010). Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Crop Intensification in Lesotho, Integrated Crop Management Series, Vol. 10. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
Smale, M., Kaunda, Z. H. W., Makina, H. L., Mkandawire, M. M. M. K., Msowoya, M. N. S., Mwale, D. J. E. K. and Heisey, P. W. (1991). Chimanga cha makolo, hybrid and composites: an snalysis of farmer's adoption of technology of maize technology in Malawi, 1989–91. CIMMYT Economic Working Paper 91/04, Mexico, DF.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C., Chisui, J. L., Gama, M., Cheesman, S., Jere, Z. D., Trent Bunderson, W., Eash, N. S. and Rusinamhodzi, L. (2013). Maize-based conservation agriculture systems in Malawi: long-term trends in productivity. Field Crops Research 142 (0):47–57.Google Scholar
Thierfelder, C. and Wall, P. C. (2009). Effects of conservation agriculture techniques on infiltration and soil water content in Zambia and Zimbabwe. Soil and Tillage Research 105 (2):217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thierfelder, C. and Wall, P. C. (2010). Rotation in conservation agriculture systems in Zambia: effects on soil quality and water relations. Experimental Agriculture 46 (3):309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhulst, N., Nelissen, V., Jespers, N., Haven, H., Sayre, K. D., Raes, D., Deckers, J. and Govaerts, B. (2011). Soil water content, maize yield and its stability as affected by tillage and crop residue management in rainfed semi-arid highlands. Plant and Soil 344 (1–2):73–85.Google Scholar
Vogel, H. (1993). An evaluation of five tillage systems for smallholder agriculture in Zimbabwe. Der Tropenlandwirt 94:21–36.Google Scholar
Wall, P. (2007). Tailoring conservation agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing countries: an analysis of issues. Journal of Crop Improvement 19:137–155.Google Scholar
Wendland, K. J. and Sills, E. O. (2008). Dissemination of food crops with nutritional benefits: adoption and disadoption of soybeans in Togo and Benin. Natural Resources Forum 32 (1):39–52.Google Scholar
WRB. (1998).World Reference Base for Soil Resources, Vol. 88. Rome, Italy: FAO-ISRIC.Google Scholar