The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility management practices in Zambia
Open accessAbstract
Several agro-ecological practices have been developed to increase the range of soil fertility management options available to farmers, but little information is available on their labour input requirement and profitability relative to conventional practices. This study used a multiple visit cost-route method to estimate labour inputs and financial profitability of agroforestry-based and conventional (with and without fertiliser) soil fertility management practices in eastern Zambia. Results show that aggregated over a five-year cycle, labour inputs used under agroforestry practices were lower than fertilised maize fields but higher than non-fertilised continuous cropped maize. Agroforestry practices were more profitable (NPV ranging between $233 and $327 ha-1) than unfertilised maize fields (NPV of $130 ha-1) but less profitable than fertilised maize fields. The NPV for the latter is $499 ha-1 under a 50% government subsidy on fertiliser but, it fell to $349 ha-1 when the subsidy effect is removed. In terms of return per unit investment cost, agroforestry practices performed better with a benefit to cost ratio ranging between 2.77 to 3.13 in contrast to 2.65 (subsidised fertiliser) and 1.77 (non-subsidised fertiliser). The returns to labour per person day was $2.56 in (non-subsidised) fertilised maize field, $3.16 in subsidised fertiliser field, $2.63 in Gliricidia fields, $2.41 in Sesbania fields, $1.90 in Tephrosia fields, and $1.10 in non-fertilised maize fields. The results do not support the popular notion that agroforestry practices are more labour intensive. It suggests that in addition to total labour use requirements, the temporal distribution of labour use during the farming season is important. It is concluded that agroforestry practices are profitable, and could contribute to food security.
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, Ajayi et al. (2009) showed that under soil fertility management practices, subsidised fertilised maize was the most financially profitable under a 50% subsidy on fertiliser cost, but without the subsidy, the difference between fertilised maize and agroforestry practices was reduced sharply.”
From The socio-economic performance of agroecology. A review (2024) · cites this paper as Ajayi et al. (2009)
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
Soil Fertility and Hunger in Africa
Sanchez, P. A. (2002) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1065256 · Cited by 1,184
African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
Wilson, H., Mapoma, T., Tenthani, C., Tsakama, M., Bobby, I., & Kosamu, M. (2026) · African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.5897/ajest · Cited by 1,095
Popular myths around soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa
Vanlauwe, B., & Giller, K. E. (2006) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.016 · Cited by 391
Appropriate technologies to replenish soil fertility in southern Africa
Mafongoya, P., Bationo, A., Kihara, J., & Waswa, B. (2006) · Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10705-006-9049-3 · Cited by 233
Meta-analysis of maize yield response to woody and herbaceous legumes in sub-Saharan Africa
Sileshi, G. W., Akinnifesi, F. K., Ajayi, O. C., & Place, F. (2008) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9547-y · Cited by 223
Self-citationImproved fallows come of age in the tropics
Sanchez, P. A. (1999) · Agroforestry Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1006287702265 · Cited by 203
Kwesiga, F., Franzel, S., Place, F., et al. (1999) · Agroforestry Systems · doi:10.1023/a:1006256323647 · Cited by 191
The effect of short rotation Sesbania sesban planted fallows on maize yield
Kwesiga, F., & Coe, R. (1994) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/0378-1127(94)90294-1 · Cited by 189
Kwesiga, F., Akinnifesi, F. K., Mafongoya, P., McDermott, M. H., & Agumya, A. (2003) · Agroforestry Systems · doi:10.1023/b:agfo.0000005222.68054.38 · Cited by 170
Self-citationAjayi, O. C., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G. W., & Chakeredza, S. (2007) · Natural Resources Forum · doi:10.1111/j.1477-8947.2007.00163.x · Cited by 160
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Ajayi O C, 2000, Farmers and scientists in a changing environment: assessing research in West Africa
- Akinnifesi F K, 2008, Agricultural Journal, 3, 58
- Ayuk E T, 2002, Proceedings of the 14th Southern African Regional Review and Planning Workshop, 28
- Haggblade H, 2004, Michigan State University Food Security Research Project Working Paper no. 9
- Kwesiga F, 2005, Successes in African agriculture: case study of improved fallows in Eastern Zambia
- 2003, Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme [Online]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barrios, E., Gemmill-Herren, B., Bicksler, A., Siliprandi, E., Brathwaite, R., Moller, S., Batello, C., & Tittonell, P. (2020) · Ecosystems and People · doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1808705 · Cited by 293
The socio-economic performance of agroecology. A review
Mouratiadou, I., Wezel, A., Kamilia, K., Marchetti, A., Paracchini, M. L., & Bàrberi, P. (2024) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-024-00945-9 · Cited by 96
“For example, Ajayi et al. (2009) showed that under soil fertility management practices, subsidised fertilised maize was the most financially profitable under a 50% subsidy on fertiliser cost, but without the subsidy, the difference between fertilised maize and agroforestry practices was reduced…”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Ajayi, O. C., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., & Kanjipite, W.
- Affiliations
- World Agroforestry Centre (KE)
- Catholic Relief Services (US)
- Venue
- Agrekon
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 276-292
- ISSN
- 0303-1853 (ISSN-L)
- 2078-0400
- OpenAlex
- W2076465544
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 12.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ageconsearch.umn.edu
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Agrekon (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- AgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)
- Funders
- Rockefeller Foundation
- American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
- European Commission
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › African Botany and Ecology Studies
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agroforestry and silvopastoral systems
- Keywords
- agroforestry, soil fertility management, labor input, profitability, maize, fertilizer subsidies, Gliricidia, Sesbania, Tephrosia, net present value, benefit-cost ratio, food security, Zambia
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: Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility management practices in Zambia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03031853.2009.9523827
- The paper
- Ajayi, O. C., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G., & Kanjipite, W. (2009). Labour inputs and financial profitability of conventional and agroforestry-based soil fertility management practices in Zambia. Agrekon. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.2009.9523827
