The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers
Open accessAbstract
The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture (zero tillage, mulching and crop rotation)are described, reviewed and modelled. The economics are defined broadly to include not just shortterm financial benefits and costs, but also the whole-farm management context, constraints on key resources such as labour and capital, risk and uncertainty, interactions between enterprises, and time-related factors, such as interest rates and the urgency of providing for the farm family. A wealth of evidence shows that these economic factors and variables related to them have significant influences on farmers’ decisions about adoption of conservation agriculture. Literature on the farmlevel economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers is reviewed. There is not a large body of high-quality relevant studies. Those that have been published highlight that the economics are highly heterogeneous and need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Their results tend to indicate that it would be profitable to adopt conservation agriculture or components of it (although not in all cases). This contrasts with disappointing adoption in many of the regions of interest. Potential reasons for this disparity are discussed. A general model of the farm-level economics of conservation agriculture and its components is presented, and used to illustrate influences on the overall economic attractiveness of conservation agriculture. Key factors that would tend to discourage adoption in situations that otherwise look favourable include: the opportunity cost of crop residues for feed rather than mulch, the short-term reduction in yields under zero tillage plus mulching in some cases, combined with short planning horizons and/or high discount rates of farmers, farmer aversion to uncertainty, and constraints on the availability of land, labour and capital at key times of year. Good quality economic analysis should be used more extensively to guide research and extension in this area, particularly in relation to the targeting of effort, and adaptation of the system to suit local conditions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey
Feder, G., Just, R. E., & Zilberman, D. (1985) · Economic Development and Cultural Change · doi:10.1086/451461 · Cited by 3,482
Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research
Knowler, D., & Bradshaw, B. (2007) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003 · Cited by 1,839
Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa : the heretics ’ view
Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2009.06.017 · Cited by 1,499
Self-citationUnderstanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders
Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, R. (2006) · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture · doi:10.1071/ea05037 · Cited by 1,464
Self-citationCoping with risk in agriculture
(2004) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9780851998312.0000 · Cited by 1,362
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.1.557 · Cited by 1,026
The spread of Conservation Agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F., & Pretty, J. (2009) · International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability · doi:10.3763/ijas.2009.0477 · Cited by 866
Agricultural Decision Analysis
Anderson, J. R., Dillon, J. L., Hardaker, B., Anderson, J. R., Dillon, J. L., & Hardaker, B. (1977) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.288652 · Cited by 812
Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam
Tanaka, T., Camerer, C. F., & Nguyen, Q. (2016) · Behavioral Economics of Preferences, Choices, and Happiness · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55402-8_1 · Cited by 731
Asfaw, S., Shiferaw, B., Simtowe, F., & Lipper, L. (2012) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.013 · Cited by 700
Cited by
Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation
Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B. G., Palm, C. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Cassman, K. G. (2014) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2292 · Cited by 901
Adoption by adaptation: moving from Conservation Agriculture to conservation practices
Rodenburg, J., Büchi, L., & Haggar, J. (2021) · International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability · doi:10.1080/14735903.2020.1785734 · Cited by 85
TerAvest, D., Wandschneider, P. R., Thierfelder, C., & Reganold, J. P. (2019) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.004 · Cited by 39
Agroecological transition: A viability model to assess soil restoration
Durand, M., Désilles, A., Saint‐Pierre, P., Angeon, V., & Ozier‐Lafontaine, H. (2017) · Natural Resource Modeling · doi:10.1111/nrm.12134 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Pannell, D. J., Llewellyn, R. S., & Corbeels, M.
- Venue
- Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 187
- Pages
- 52-64
- ISSN
- 0167-8809 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2017139510
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 46.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.014
- The paper
- Pannell, D. J., Llewellyn, R. S., & Corbeels, M. (2014). The farm-level economics of conservation agriculture for resource-poor farmers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.