IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rajsxx/v9y2017i1p85-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions on organic farming and selected organic fertilizers by subsistence farmers in Ga-Rankuwa, Pretoria, South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • L. L. Mugivhisa
  • J. O. Olowoyo
  • D. Mzimba

Abstract

Organic farming, which is a form of alternative or sustainable agriculture, makes a major contribution to the improvement of food security globally through recycling of natural resources. This study assessed 60 subsistence farmers’ perceptions of organic farming. Descriptive statistical analyses of randomly selected subsistence farmers indicated that the majority of respondents (80.0%) had previous knowledge of organic farming but had failed to practise it because they could not afford it. In addition, they thought organic fertilizers, such as dry sewage, human faeces and human urine were unacceptable because of their smell, their unhygienic nature and the respondents’ fear of disease epidemics. The female respondents’ order of decreasing preference for organic fertilizers was animal droppings > animal urine > human faeces > sewage > human urine, whereas for males it was chicken droppings > cow dung > animal urine > sewage and human urine > human faeces. Respondents with no high school education regarded chicken droppings most positively as an organic fertilizer (93.2%), followed by cow dung (84.1%), animal urine (66.0%) and human urine (27.3%), whereas the majority of respondents with tertiary education preferred sewage and human faeces as organic fertilizers. Fifty per cent of the respondents showed a willingness to convert to organic farming, dependent on the availability of information and education.

Suggested Citation

  • L. L. Mugivhisa & J. O. Olowoyo & D. Mzimba, 2017. "Perceptions on organic farming and selected organic fertilizers by subsistence farmers in Ga-Rankuwa, Pretoria, South Africa," African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 85-91, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rajsxx:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:85-91
    DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2016.1269459
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/20421338.2016.1269459
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/20421338.2016.1269459?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    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:taf:rajsxx:v:9:y:2017:i:1:p:85-91. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rajs .

    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.