IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/340741.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparative Analysis Of Organic And Conventional Horticultural Farming In The Getasan District, Semarang Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Asfawi, S
  • Utomo, D
  • Isworo, S

Abstract

The organic horticultural farming system is a horticultural farming technique that relies on natural materials in its production and is a sustainable agriculture, in contrast to the conventional horticultural farming system which still relies on chemicals in its production process. The purpose of this research was to compare organic and conventional horticultural farming systems in Getasan district, Semarang. This study is a crosssectional descriptive-analytical study that employed survey methodologies. This study was conducted from July to December 2019 using a sample of 314 respondents, 90 organic horticulture farmers and 224 conventional horticulture farmers as research subjects. Research results showed that the average total additional cost of restoring soil nutrients in 100 m2 / year for organic horticulture farming was IDR. 69,958.33 less than the cost for conventional farming systems, which was IDR. 79,550.00 per 100 m2 per year, with a p-value of 0.032*. The cost of purchasing fertilizer in year / 100m2 on a conventional horticultural farm was IDR. 90,575.78, greater than the cost of organic horticulture farming which was only IDR. 73,170.38 with a p-value< 0,001*. The average yield of organic horticulture farms was somewhat higher than that of conventional farms during each growing season. The average annual income from yields in 100 m2/year for organic horticulture production was IDR 2,449,246.32, while conventional IDR. 2,369,641.10 with p-value of 0.441 although not statistically significant. The average profit per 100 m2 / year for an organic horticultural farming system was IRD. 1,549,303.42, which is greater than the profit value for a conventional horticultural farming system, which was IDR. 1,450,109.82, 959,289.06, although statistically not significant, with p-value = 0.228. The total annual production cost for the organic horticulture farming system was less than the conventional system, which was IDR 901,346.78 for the organic horticulture farming system and IDR. 921,084.17 for conventional, for every 100 m2 / year with p-value = 0.383, even though not statistically significant. Statistically, there was no significant difference in labor costs between the two agricultural systems, p-value 0.702, but descriptive analysis shows that the average labor cost per 100 m2/year for organic horticulture farming was IDR. 588,859.57, which is less than IDR. 591,760.50 for conventional horticulture farming. Based on the parameters analyzed, the outcome of this study demonstrates that the organic horticulture farming system is superior to the conventional horticultural farming system.

Suggested Citation

  • Asfawi, S & Utomo, D & Isworo, S, 2023. "A Comparative Analysis Of Organic And Conventional Horticultural Farming In The Getasan District, Semarang Indonesia," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 23(8), August.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:340741
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.340741
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/340741/files/Isworo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.340741?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. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, May.
    2. Timothy C. Durham & Tamás Mizik, 2021. "Comparative Economics of Conventional, Organic, and Alternative Agricultural Production Systems," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Deng, Jianqiang & Zhang, Zhixin & Liang, Zhiting & Li, Zhou & Yang, Xianlong & Wang, Zikui & Coulter, Jeffrey A. & Shen, Yuying, 2020. "Replacing summer fallow with annual forage improves crude protein productivity and water use efficiency of the summer fallow-winter wheat cropping system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    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. Clarisse Mendoza Gonzalvo & Wilson Jr. Florendo Aala & Keshav Lall Maharjan, 2021. "Farmer Decision-Making on the Concept of Coexistence: A Comparative Analysis between Organic and Biotech Farmers in the Philippines," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Bang, Rasmus & Hansen, Bjørn Gunnar & Guajardo, Mario & Sommerseth, Jon Kristian & Flaten, Ola & Asheim, Leif Jarle, 2024. "Conventional or organic cattle farming? Trade-offs between crop yield, livestock capacity, organic premiums, and government payments," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    3. Leonardo Cei & Gianluca Stefani & Luca Rossetto, 2024. "Twenty Years of Socio-Economic Research on Organic Agriculture Across the World: Looking at the Past to Be Ready for the Future," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Gebhardt, Beate & Hellstern, Laura, 2024. "Nachhaltigkeitsexzellenz in der Landwirtschaft: Mehr Sichtbarkeit für die versteckten Leuchttürme der Alltagspraxis," Working Papers 346815, Universitaet Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Markets.
    5. Anglade, J. & Billen, G. & Garnier, J. & Makridis, T. & Puech, T. & Tittel, C., 2015. "Nitrogen soil surface balance of organic vs conventional cash crop farming in the Seine watershed," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 82-92.
    6. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. John M. Wallace & Alwyn Williams & Jeffrey A. Liebert & Victoria J. Ackroyd & Rachel A. Vann & William S. Curran & Clair L. Keene & Mark J. VanGessel & Matthew R. Ryan & Steven B. Mirsky, 2017. "Cover Crop-Based, Organic Rotational No-Till Corn and Soybean Production Systems in the Mid-Atlantic United States," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-21, April.
    8. Movedi, Ermes & Valiante, Daniele & Colosio, Alessandro & Corengia, Luca & Cossa, Stefano & Confalonieri, Roberto, 2022. "A new approach for modeling crop-weed interaction targeting management support in operational contexts: A case study on the rice weeds barnyardgrass and red rice," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 463(C).
    9. Wang, Linlin & Li, Qiang & Coulter, Jeffrey A. & Xie, Junhong & Luo, Zhuzhu & Zhang, Renzhi & Deng, Xiping & Li, Linglin, 2020. "Winter wheat yield and water use efficiency response to organic fertilization in northern China: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    10. Yue Zhang & Yaqiang Dai & Yuanyuan Chen & Xinli Ke, 2022. "Coupling Coordination Development of New-Type Urbanization and Cultivated Land Low-Carbon Utilization in the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, June.
    11. Lucia Mancini, 2013. "Conventional, Organic and Polycultural Farming Practices: Material Intensity of Italian Crops and Foodstuffs," Resources, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, December.
    12. Daniel P. Roberts & Autar K. Mattoo, 2018. "Sustainable Agriculture—Enhancing Environmental Benefits, Food Nutritional Quality and Building Crop Resilience to Abiotic and Biotic Stresses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-24, January.
    13. Nematollahi, Mohammadreza & Tajbakhsh, Alireza & Mosadegh Sedghy, Bahareh, 2021. "The reflection of competition and coordination on organic agribusiness supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    14. Atanu Mukherjee & Emmanuel C. Omondi & Paul R. Hepperly & Rita Seidel & Wade P. Heller, 2020. "Impacts of Organic and Conventional Management on the Nutritional Level of Vegetables," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    15. Sarah Rotz & Evan Fraser, 2015. "Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 459-473, September.
    16. Olson, Erik L., 2022. "‘Sustainable’ marketing mixes and the paradoxical consequences of good intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 389-398.
    17. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.
    18. Schindele, Stephan & Trommsdorff, Maximilian & Schlaak, Albert & Obergfell, Tabea & Bopp, Georg & Reise, Christian & Braun, Christian & Weselek, Axel & Bauerle, Andrea & Högy, Petra & Goetzberger, Ado, 2020. "Implementation of agrophotovoltaics: Techno-economic analysis of the price-performance ratio and its policy implications," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    19. Karol Kociszewski & Andrzej Graczyk & Krystyna Mazurek-Łopacinska & Magdalena Sobocińska, 2020. "Social Values in Stimulating Organic Production Involvement in Farming—The Case of Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-21, July.
    20. Sadowski, Arkadiusz & Wojcieszak-Zbierska, Monika Małgorzata & Zmyślona, Jagoda, 2024. "Agricultural production in the least developed countries and its impact on emission of greenhouse gases – An energy approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).

    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:ajfand:340741. 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: https://www.ajfand.net/ .

    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.