Advertisement

Yield and Profitability of Cotton Grown Under Smallholder Organic and Conventional Cotton Farming Systems in Meatu District, Tanzania

  • T. N. Bwana
  • Nyambilila A. AmuriEmail author
  • E. Semu
  • J. E. Olesen
  • A. Henningsen
  • M. R. Baha
  • J. Hella
Chapter
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

Agronomic practices have a large effect on the yield and profitability of low-input smallholder cotton farming in Africa. A two-season field experiment was conducted in a semi-arid cotton growing area in Meatu District, Tanzania, to compare the yield and profitability of various conventional and organic cotton production practices. Besides the currently applied low-input conventional and organic cotton production practices, higher-input and innovative farming practices as well as control treatments (without fertiliser or pesticides) were tested. While season 1 had weather conditions that were very suitable for cotton production, much less rainfall in season 2 severely reduced the yield and land rent in both conventional and organic cotton production. In general, conventional and organic practices have similar cotton yields, but organic practices often generate higher land rents than conventional practices due to a higher price for organic cotton and lower production costs. In both seasons, the innovative organic practice generated the highest land rent of all conventional and organic practices, and it is statistically significantly higher than the land rents of all conventional farming practices.

Keywords

Organic cotton Conventional cotton Yield Economic performance Green gram Smallholder farmers Land rent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge financial support by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark (Grant: 14-02KU) and the Government of the United Republic of Tanzania. The authors are grateful to BioRe Tanzania for availing the research site, to Bo Markussen for advice on the statistical analyses, and to the technical staff at Aarhus University, Denmark, and the Soil Science lab, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, for their technical assistance.

References

  1. Anwar-ul-Haq M, Akhtar J, Saqib M, Hussain A, Hussain T (2014) Integrated use of farm manure and mineral fertilizers to maintain soil quality for better cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production. Pak J Agric Sci 51(2):413–420Google Scholar
  2. Bell PF, Boquet DJ, Millhollon E, Moore S, Ebelhar W, Mitchell CC, Varco J, Funderburg ER, Kennedy C, Breitenbeck GA, Craig C (2003) Relationships between leaf-blade nitrogen and relative seed cotton yields. Crop Sci 43(4):1367–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blake GR, Hartge KH (1986) Bulk density. In: Klute A (ed). Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd edn. SSSA Book Ser. 5.1. SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI. pp 363–375Google Scholar
  4. Borlaug NE (2000) Ending world hunger. The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiol 124:487–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brady NC, Weil R (2014) The nature and properties of soils, 14th edn. Pearson Education Limited. Essex. 1046pp.Google Scholar
  6. Bwana TN (2019) Assessment of environmental performance of smallholder organic and conventional cotton production systems in Meatu, Tanzania. PhD Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, TanzaniaGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadena J, Cothren JT (1995) Yield response of cotton to nitrogen, irrigation, and PGR-IV regimes. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX. 4–7 Jan 1995. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, pp 1142–1150Google Scholar
  8. Cavigelli MA, Hima BL, Hanson JC, Teasdale JR, Conklin AE, Lu YC (2009) Long-term economic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Renew Agr Food Syst 24:102–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Ponti T, Rijk B, van Ittersum MK (2012) The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric Syst 108:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Day PR (1965) Particle fractionation and particle size analysis. In: Black CA, Evans DD, White JL, Ensminger LE, Clark FE (eds) Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, pp 545–566Google Scholar
  11. FAO (1998) Evaluating the potential contribution of organic agriculture to sustainability goals. FAO’s technical contribution to IFOAM’s Scientific Conference, Mar del Plata, Argentina, 16–19 Nov 1998. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ac116e/ac116e02.htm
  12. Forster D, Andres C, Verma R, Zundel C, Messmer MM, Mäder P (2013) Yield and economic performance of organic and conventional cotton-based farming systems–results from a field trial in India. PLoS ONE 8(12):e81039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gahukar RT (2013) Cow urine: a potential biopesticide. Indian J Entomol 75(3):212–216Google Scholar
  14. Gold MV (2007) Organic production and organic food: information access tools. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. USDA National Agricultural Library (2007) Available in: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml. 18 May 2015
  15. Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG (2011) Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: conventional vs. organic agriculture. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30(1–2):95–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gujar GT (1992) Neem (Azadirachta indica A Juss) a natural insecticide: status and need for bioassay standards. Pestic Res J 4(2):69–79Google Scholar
  17. Gupta MP (2005) Efficacy of neem in combination with cow urine against mustard aphid and its effect on coccinellid predators. Nat Prod Rad 4(2):102–106Google Scholar
  18. Hallikeri SS, Aladakatti YR, Patil BC, Patil SS (2007) Intercropping of cotton with vegetables as the profitable cropping system under rainfed conditions of north Karnataka. University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, KarnatakaGoogle Scholar
  19. Hengsdijk H, Langeveld JWA (2009) Yield trends and yield gap analysis of major crops in the world. Wageningen University, the Netherlands, p 170Google Scholar
  20. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50(3):346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hulihalli UK, Patil VC (2008) Yield and fiber quality of cotton as influenced by fertilizer levels and organic manure. Ann Arid Zone 47(2):201–204Google Scholar
  22. IFDC (2014) Report on consumption of fertilizers and fertilizer use by crop in Tanzania. International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC), 23ppGoogle Scholar
  23. IFOAM (2014) The potential contribution of organic agriculture to the realization of the objectives of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) – a guide for stakeholders. IFOAM, Bonn, Germany. 60 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. IUSS Working Group WRB (2015) World Reference Base for soil resources 2014. International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. Update 2015. World Soil Resources Report 106. FAO, Rome: 188 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Jayakumar M, Surendran U (2017) Intercropping and balanced nutrient management for sustainable cotton production. J Plant Nutr 40(5):632–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kabote SJ, Mamiro D, Synnevåg G, Urassa JK, Mattee AZ, Mbwambo JS, Nombo CI, Masolwa LW, Chingonikaya EE (2013) Inter-annual anomaly and seasonal variability of rainfall and temperature in selected semi-arid areas of Tanzania. J Contin Educ Ext 4(2):295–317Google Scholar
  27. Khaliq A, Abbasi MK, Hussain T (2006) Effects of integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources with effective microorganisms (EM) on seed cotton yield in Pakistan. Bioresour Technol 97(8):967–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Khan MB, Khaliq A (2004) Study of mungbean intercropping in cotton planted with different techniques. J Res (Sci) 15(1):23–31Google Scholar
  29. Khargkharate VK, Kadam GL, Pandagale AD, Awasarmal VB, Rathod SS (2014) Studies on kharif legume intercropping with Bt cotton under rainfed conditions. J Cotton Res Dev 28(2):243–246Google Scholar
  30. Kniss AR, Savage SD, Jabbour R (2016) Commercial crop yields reveal strengths and weaknesses for organic agriculture in the United States. PloS ONE 11(8):e0161673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumari AL, Veeraiah K, Kumari SR (2010) Long term effects of manures and fertilizers on productivity of rainfed cotton and soil fertility in Vertisols. J Cotton Res Dev 24(2):200–204Google Scholar
  32. Lee J, Hwang S, Ha I, Min B, Hwang H, Lee S (2015) Comparison of bulb and leaf quality, and antioxidant compounds of intermediate-day onion from organic and conventional systems. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 56(4):427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lenth R (2019) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.3.5.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
  34. Lorenz K, Lal R (2016) Environmental impact of organic agriculture. Adv Agron 139:99–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lukonge EP, Maryke L, Liezel H (2007) Combining ability for yield and fibre characteristics in Tanzanian cotton germplasm. Euphytica 161:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Makita R (2012) Fair Trade and organic initiatives confronted with Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh, India: A paradox. Geoforum 43:1232–1241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mankar DD, Nawlakhe SM (2009) Yield attributes and yield of cotton (main crop) and greengram (intercrop) and quality of cotton as influenced by INM under cotton+ greengram intercropping. J Soils Crops 19(2):315–319Google Scholar
  38. Moe K, Mg KW, Win KK, Yamakawa T (2017) Combined effect of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on the growth and yield of hybrid rice (Palethwe-1). Am J Plant Sci 8:1022–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Motsara MR, Roy RN (2008) Guide to laboratory establishment for plant nutrient analysis. FAO fertilizer and plant nutrition bulletin 19Google Scholar
  40. Mowo JG, Floor J, Kaihura FBS, Magoggo JP (1993) Review of fertilizer recommendations in Tanzania: Part 2, Revised fertilizer recommendations for Tanzania. Soil Fertility Report No. 6. National Soil Service, ARI–Mlingano, Tanga, TanzaniaGoogle Scholar
  41. Nandini S, Chellamuthu V (2004) Relative performance of cotton cultivars under sole and intercropping situations in the coastal region of Karaikal. In: Proceeding of International Symposium on Strategies for Sustainable Cotton Production-A Global Vision 2. Universty of Agricultural Sciences, Karnataka, India. pp 235–237Google Scholar
  42. Nelson L, Giles J, MacIlwain C, Gewin V (2004) Organic frequently asked questions (FAQs). Nature 428:796–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR, Baker DE, Roscoe E, Ellis J, Rhodes JD (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd edn. Agronomy Monograph 9.2. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. pp 539–581Google Scholar
  44. OECD (2008) Consensus Document on the Biology of Cotton (Gossypium spp.). OECD Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology Paris, OECD. ENV/JM/MONO(2008)38 No. 45: 64Google Scholar
  45. Okalebo JR, Gathua KW, Woomer PL (2002) Laboratory methods of soil and plant analysis a working manual, 2nd edn. TSBF-CIAT and SACRED Africa, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  46. Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorous. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR, Baker DE, Roscoe E, Ellis J, Rhodes JD (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd edn. Agronomy Monograph 9.2. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. pp 403–430Google Scholar
  47. Piepho H-P (2004) An algorithm for a letter-based representation of all-pairwise comparisons. J Comput Graph Stat 13(2):456–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D, Seidel R (2005) Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. AIBS Bull 55(7):573–582Google Scholar
  49. Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Mace KC, Palomino J, de Valpine P, Kremen C (2015) Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc R Soc B 282(1799):20141396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prasad M, Siddique MRB (2004) Effect of nitrogen and mepiquat chloride on yield and quality of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Indian J Agric Sci 74:560–562Google Scholar
  51. R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
  52. Rao PJ, Prasad PRK, Kumari AL, Rani PP, Rao CP (2017) Long-term effect of manures and fertilizers on nutrient status under cotton mono-cropping in vertisol. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 6(7):2084–2094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reddy KR, Wetzel RG, Kadlec RH (2005) Biogeochemistry of phosphorus in wetlands. In: Sims JT, Sharpley AN (eds) Phosphorus: agriculture and the environment. Agron. Monogr. 46. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp 263–316Google Scholar
  54. Reddy PRR, Shaik M (2009) Evaluation of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)-based intercropping system through different approaches under rainfed conditions. Indian J of Agric Sci 79(3):210-214Google Scholar
  55. Richards M, Metzel R, Chirinda N, Ly P, Nyamadzawo G, Vu QD, De Neergaard A, Oelofse M, Wollenberg E, Keller E, Malin D (2016) Limits of agricultural greenhouse gas calculators to predict soil N2O and CH4 fluxes in tropical agriculture. Sci Rep 6:26279.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenstock TS, Rufino MC, Wollenberg E (2013) Toward a protocol for quantifying the greenhouse gas balance and identifying mitigation options in smallholder farming systems. Environ Res Lett 8:021003.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/021003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sankaranarayanan K, Nalayini P, Praharaj CS (2012) Multi-tier cropping system to enhance resource utilization, profitability and sustainability of Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) production system. Indian J Agric Sci 82(12):1044–1050Google Scholar
  58. Searle SR, Speed FM, Milliken GA (1980) Population marginal means in the linear model: an alternative to least squares means. Am Stat 34(4):216–221Google Scholar
  59. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485(7393):229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Singh G, Choudhary P, Saini D, Lal Jat B (2017) Effects of legume intercrops on growth, yield and economics of hybrid american cotton under controlled condition. Glob J Bio Sci Biotechnol 6(1):61–82Google Scholar
  61. Soil Survey Staff (2014) Keys to soil taxonomy, 12th edn. United States Department of Agriculture. NRCS, Washington DC, p 360Google Scholar
  62. Subbalakshmi L, Mhukrishnanan P, Jeyaraman S (2012) Neem products and their agricultural applications. J Biopest 5:72–76Google Scholar
  63. Suja G, Byju G, Jyothi AN, Veena SS, Sreekumar J (2017) Yield, quality and soil health under organic vs conventional farming in taro. Sci Hortic 218:334–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. TCB (2010) The cotton industry implementation plan, CIIP: 2010–2015. Tanzania Cotton Board, Dar es SalaamGoogle Scholar
  65. TCB (2016) Corporate strategic plan 2016/17–2020/2021. Tanzania Cotton Board, Dar es SalaamGoogle Scholar
  66. TCB (2019) Area under cotton and seed cotton production statistics for 2009/10–2018/19. Document sent by the Tanzania Cotton Board to Michael R. Baha on 7 Aug 2019Google Scholar
  67. Textile exchange (2018) Organic cotton market report 2018. https://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-Organic-Cotton-Market-Report.pdf. Site visited on 24 July 2019
  68. Thilakarathna MS, McElroy MS, Chapagain T, Papadopoulos YA, Raizada MN (2016) Belowground nitrogen transfer from legumes to non-legumes under managed herbaceous cropping systems. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 36:58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thomas GW (1982) Exchangeable cations. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR, Baker DE, Roscoe E, Ellis J, Rhodes JD (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd edn. Agronomy Monograph 9.2. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. pp 159–166Google Scholar
  70. Trewavas AJ (2001) The population/biodiversity paradox. Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness. Plant Physiol 125:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? – a meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manag 112:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. URT (2017) Simiyu investment guide. United Republic of Tanzania (URT). Retrieved from http://esrf.or.tz/docs/guide-simiyu.pdf on 11 Aug 2019
  73. Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. N. Bwana
    • 1
  • Nyambilila A. Amuri
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. Semu
    • 1
  • J. E. Olesen
    • 2
  • A. Henningsen
    • 3
  • M. R. Baha
    • 3
    • 4
  • J. Hella
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Soil and Geological SciencesSokoine University of AgricultureMorogoroTanzania
  2. 2.Department of AgroecologyAarhus UniversityTjeleDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Food and Resource EconomicsSokoine University of AgricultureMorogoroTanzania

Personalised recommendations