IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ijaeri/344381.html

Comparative analysis of agroforestry and monocropping farming practices in Afijio Local Government Area, Oyo State

Author

Listed:
  • Durojaiye, Adenike M.
  • Oyedare, Olumide O.
  • Ogunjinmi, Olusola O.

Abstract

Agroforestry has been recognized for its positive environmental impact including soil health improvement, water conservation and carbon sequestration whereas, Monocropping, the practice of cultivating a single crop species in the same area repeatedly, can offer short-term gains but poses long-term risks to soil fertility, biodiversity, and environmental health due to its reliance on synthetic inputs and increased vulnerability to pests and diseases. Therefore, this study aimed at comparing agroforestry with Mono-cropping system. Structured questionnaire were used to obtain primary data from the respondents which were sampled based on multistage sampling procedures. Both descriptive and inferential analytical tools such as frequency, percentages, mean and regression were used to analyze data collected from 60 farmers (30 farmers each of monocropping and agroforestry) in Afijio Local Government Area, Oyo State, Nigeria. Results from the study revealed that both monocropping and agroforestry are male dominated ventures with a modal age of 21–40 years and household size of 4–6members. Cashew and maize was the dominated crop used for both monocropping and agroforestry. Monocropping farmers earn a revenue of N348640.00 and make N131,008.35 as net profit annually while agroforestry farmers earn a revenue of N398,206.66 and make N200,415.14 as net profit annually. Source of finance and labour type had statistically significant effect on profitability in monocropping system. Likewise, age has a significant effect on the profitability of agroforestry. Limited supply of inputs, inadequate capital, limited use of machineries, unavailability of labour, land tenure problem, poor access to extension services were the major constraints faced by the respondents in the study area. In conclusion, the study revealed that agroforestry is highly profitable than monocropping in the study area. It is therefore recommended that solutions should be proffered to the constraints to agroforestry by concerned authorities to make the venture sustainable in meeting food demands all year round.

Suggested Citation

  • Durojaiye, Adenike M. & Oyedare, Olumide O. & Ogunjinmi, Olusola O., 2024. "Comparative analysis of agroforestry and monocropping farming practices in Afijio Local Government Area, Oyo State," International Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Research, Malwa International Journals Publication, vol. 10(02), April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ijaeri:344381
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.344381
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/344381/files/ijaer_10__21.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.344381?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Dercon & Pramila Krishnan, 2000. "In Sickness and in Health: Risk Sharing within Households in Rural Ethiopia," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(4), pages 688-727, August.
    2. Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 712-724, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marcos Vera-Hernández & Aida Galiano Martínez, 2008. "Health shocks, household consumption, and child nutrition," Working Papers. Serie EC 2008-14, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    2. Asfaw, Abay & von Braun, Joachim, 2004. "Is Consumption Insured against Illness? Evidence on Vulnerability of Households to Health Shocks in Rural Ethiopia," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(1), pages 115-129, October.
    3. Akresh, Richard & Lucchetti, Leonardo & Thirumurthy, Harsha, 2012. "Wars and child health: Evidence from the Eritrean–Ethiopian conflict," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 330-340.
    4. Edwin Muchapondwa & Jesper Stage & Eric Mungatana & Pushpam Kumar, 2018. "Lessons from Applying Market-Based Incentives in Watershed Management," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-41, July.
    5. van de Walle, Dominique, 2011. "Lasting welfare effects of widowhood in a poor country," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5734, The World Bank.
    6. Patrick Guillaumont, 2011. "Aid effectiveness for poverty reduction:macroeconomic overview and emerging issues," CERDI Working papers halshs-00554285, HAL.
    7. Lazzaroni, Sara & Wagner, Natascha, 2016. "Misfortunes never come singly: Structural change, multiple shocks and child malnutrition in rural Senegal," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 246-262.
    8. Stefano Pagiola & Jordi Honey-Rosés & Jaume Freire-González, 2016. "Evaluation of the Permanence of Land Use Change Induced by Payments for Environmental Services in Quindío, Colombia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    10. Alex Sienaert, 2007. "Migration, Remittances and Public Transfers: Evidence from South Africa," Economics Series Working Papers 351, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    11. Rojas, Cristian & Cinner, Joshua, 2020. "Do market and trust contexts spillover into public goods contributions? Evidence from experimental games in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    12. Bratti, Massimiliano & Mendola, Mariapia, 2014. "Parental health and child schooling," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 94-108.
    13. Achyuta Adhvaryu & Anant Nyshadham, 2011. "Labor Complementarities and Health in the Agricultural Household," Working Papers 996, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    14. Vilém Jarský & Petra Palátová & Marcel Riedl & Daniel Zahradník & Radek Rinn & Miroslava Hochmalová, 2022. "Forest Attendance in the Times of COVID-19—A Case Study on the Example of the Czech Republic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-15, February.
    15. Strobbe, Francesco & Miller, Candace, 2011. "Cash transfers in an epidemic context : the interaction of formal and informal support in rural Malawi," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5824, The World Bank.
    16. Raghbendra Jha & Hari K. Nagarajan & Woojin Kang & Kailash C. Pradhan, 2014. "Panchayats and Household Vulnerability in Rural India," ASARC Working Papers 2014-08, The Australian National University, Australia South Asia Research Centre.
    17. Richard Dunn, 2015. "Labor supply and household meal production among working adults in the Health and Retirement Survey," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 437-457, June.
    18. Chen, Natalie & Conconi, Paola & Perroni, Carlo, 2007. "Women’s Earning Power and the “Double Burden” of Market and Household Work," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 800, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    19. Selma Telalagic, 2014. "Kinship and Consumption: The Effect of Spouses' Outside Options on Household Productivity," Economics Series Working Papers 720, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Lee, Jungmin, 2004. "Observable and Unobservable Household Sharing Rules: Evidence from Young Couples' Pocket Money," IZA Discussion Papers 1250, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ijaeri:344381. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://ijaer.in/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.