Author
Abstract
This study analyzed the economic performance and productivity differentials among organic, inorganic, and integrated maize farming systems in Enugu State, Nigeria. Primary data were collected from 360 maize farmers using a multi-stage sampling technique. Analytical tools included Total Factor Productivity, farm budgeting, Return on Investment (ROI), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Multinomial Logit model. Results show that inorganic farming recorded the highest mean productivity (3.9), followed by integrated (3.4) and organic system (2.4). However, integrated farming achieved the highest economic performance with net farm income of ₦204,700/ha, compared to ₦149,200/ha for inorganic and ₦139,500/ha for organic systems. Profitability indicators show that integrated farming had the highest BCR (2.32) and ROI (1.32), followed by organic (BCR = 2.16; ROI = 1.16), while inorganic farming had the lowest ROI (0.76) despite relatively high revenue. ANOVA results indicate a significant difference in mean net farm income across the systems. Tukey HSD test further confirms that integrated farming is significantly more profitable than both organic and inorganic systems. The multinomial logit results show that education, farm size, extension contact, and access to credit significantly influence farmers’ choice of farming system. The study concludes that integrated maize farming offers the best combination of productivity and profitability, making it the most economically viable and sustainable system for smallholder farmers in the study area. The study therefore recommends that farmers in Enugu State should adopt integrated maize farming systems to maximize both productivity and profitability
Suggested Citation
Nwankwo, T.N. & Ike, P.C., 2025.
"Productivity And Economic Performance Differentials Among Organic, Inorganic, And Integrated Maize Farming Systems In Enugu State, Nigeria,"
Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 15(1), October.
Handle:
RePEc:ags:naaenj:413197
DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.413197
Download full text from publisher
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:naaenj:413197. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/naaeeea.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.