53 / 92
51
May 2015
IMPACT
INCREASED/
IMPROVED DECREASED
CONSTANT
CHI-
SQUARE
VALUE
PROB-
ABILITY
VALUE
COMMENTS REGARDING THE
RESPONSES OF 51 PRODUCERS
# % # % # %
Majority of the producers
reported
CA impact on total
production
41 83,67
1 2,04
7 14,29
56,98
<0,01 Increased total production
Total income per
hectare
44 93,62
1 2,13
2 4,26
76,89
<0,01 Increased total income per hectare
Total income
41 87,23
1 2,13
5 10,64
61,95
<0,01 Increased total income
Non-agricultural
income
10 33,33
1 3,33
19 63,33
16,2 0,0003 Constant non-agricultural income
Labour costs
3 6,52
32 69,57
11 23,91
29,6
<0,01 Decreased labour costs
Planting equipment
price
37 82,22
7 15,56
1 2,22
49,6
<0,01 Increased specialised planning
equipment prices
Equipment costs
24 63,16
4 10,53
10 26,32
16,63 0,0002 Increased equipment costs
Weed control
26 59,09
12 27,27
6 13,64
14,36 0,0008 Increased weed control
Credit costs
6 15,38
16 41,03
17 43,59
5,69
0,058 Constant credit costs
Total labour needed
5 11,36
24 54,55
15 34,09
12,32
0,002 Decreased labour required
Hired labour
12 27,27
16 36,36
16 36,36
0,73
0,695 Tie: Decreased and constant
regarding hired labour
Soil quality
46 95,83
1 2,08
1 2,08
84,38
<0,01 Increased soil quality
Soil moisture
44 93,62
1 2,13
2 4,26
76,89
<0,01 Increased soil moisture
Soil micro-organism 46 95,83
1 2,08
1 2,08
84,38
<0,01 Increased soil micro-organism
Temperature
5 11,63
21 48,84
17 39,53
9,67
0,008 Decreased temperature
Compaction
6 12,50
37 77,08
6 12,05
41,38
<0,01 Decreased compaction level
Human health
21 58,33
5 13,89
10 27,78
11,17
0,001 Increased human health
Fertiliser costs
3 6,67
32 71,11
10 22,22
30,53
<0,01 Decreased fertiliser costs
Pest control costs
20 43,48
13 28,26
13 28,26
2,13
0,345 Increased pest control
Insect/pest attack
16 43,24
13 35,14
8 21,62
2,65
0,266 Increased insect attack
Production disease
costs
3 6,52
37 80,43
6 13,04
46,22
<0,01 Decreased production disease
costs
Crop disease
10 27,78
19 52,78
7 19,44
6,50
0,039 Decreased crop disease
Water quality
26
65
1 2,50
13 32,50
23,45
<0,01 Improved water quality
TABLE 1: WESTERN CAPE WHEAT PRODUCERS’ PERCEPTION OF THE IMPACTS OF CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE.
# Number of respondents
Although the sample size was limiting, it is important to note that
the biggest group, consisting of 49% of the respondents, was prac-
ticing all three components of CA, followed by 29,4% who practice
only minimum tillage. Looking at soil cover, 49% of the produc-
ers interviewed, leave crop residue on the land and 76% indicated
that they used a crop rotation system. Those who did indicate the
crops they used, mentioned lucerne, rye and canola.
As noted earlier, reasons behind participation in the CA farming
system included increased total wheat yield and yield quality and
improved weed management. More than 28% of the respondents
simply argued that it was the “best” farming practice.
The assessments of impacts, including perceived financial, envi-
ronmental, socio-economic and institutional impacts are summa-
rised in
Table 1
, which displays the perceived extent of the impact
that CA has on crop production, the inputs required and the ele-
ments involved. The appraisal by 51 respondents assessed wheth-
er specific criteria had increased or improved, remained constant
or decreased.
The majority of the respondents reported that total income per hec-
tare had increased; non-agricultural income remained constant and
specialised planting equipment prices had increased. Producers
further perceived that labour requirements and labour costs have
decreased; weed control costs increased and credit costs remained
constant.
It was concluded that the uptake of CA technology was significant
in the province. Since the majority of producers had adopted all three
components and it could be inferred that those who have accepted
one component would probably also adopt the other components in
time. In the process of the adoption, producers would
however still need continuous interaction with sup-
port groups and stakeholders.
SA Grain/
Sasol Chemicals (Fertiliser) photo competition