IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Research article
erd

Can Organic Farming Be an Alternative to ImproveWell-Being of Smallholder Farmers in Disadvantaged Areas?
A Case Study of Morogoro Region, Tanzania
CHIE MIYASHITA*
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro Tanzania,
Email: chie_626@yahoo.co.jp; chie.miyajp@gmail.com

KIM ABEL KAYUNZE
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania
Received 17 November 2015

Accepted 29 April 2016(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This study assessed the contribution of organic farming to improvements in the wellbeing of smallholder farmers as measured by crop productivity, profit, and food security amongsmallholder farmers in Morogoro Region, Tanzania. The results showed that organic farmers
had diversified crops and availability of water for irrigation, and they had better selling
situation of their crop products. It also showed significant differences in profit and food security
between organic and conventional/traditional farmers. Profit among organic farmers was
revealed to be more than ten times of profit among conventional/traditional farmers, with lessexpenditure for farm activity and higher income from their crops. Food security was analysedusing food consumption score and dietary energy comsumed, and showed significantly better
results among organic farmers. The factors that significantly influenced productivity included
sex of the household head, number of household member, access to constant markets, andlivestock keeping. The number of years of practising organic farming showed a significant
association with profit, and livestock keeping and age of the household head had significant
impacts on food security. It was revealed that there are challenges to organic farming, including
difficulty of land preparation, access to markets, getting premium price for organic products,
and contamination from other non-organic farms. In conclusion, organic farming has thepotential to improve the well-being of smallholder farmers in disadvantaged areas, especiallywith regard to profit and food security. Therefore, it is recommended that more emphasisshould be placed on the promotion of organic farming by agricultural stakeholders.
Keywords organic farming, smallholder farmers, disadvantaged area, alternative development

INTRODUCTION
As countries develop, there are always people in the shade of that development who do not benefit, andare the ones who should actually be targeted. A country’s development sometimes skips people atlower levels, allowing them to remain in poverty. There are approximately 2 billion smallholder
farmers worldwide who depend on themselves for their livelihood. Rural poverty is a problem that has
been discussed for decades (IFAD, 2011), and it is generally said that peasants have not benefitted
from development efforts thrust upon them by governments, multinational corporations, andinternational agencies (Leonard, 2006). In terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Tanzania is
steadily developing by more than 7% as of 2014 (WB, 2015). However, this economic development
does not appear to affect rural citizens, and they have not seen improvement in their lives with regard
to economy and food security (NBS, 2014). Due to limited opportunities for agricultural modernizationⒸ ISERD

160

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

and inactive public support, organic farming has been suggested as a possible alternative development
method to improve smallholder farmers’ well-being in agriculture-based countries.
Organic farming is defined as a system that relies on ecosystem management rather than external
agricultural inputs (FAO, 2014). Although organic farming has the potential to help smallholder
farmers improve their well-being, it has been minimally practised by smallholder farmers in
disadvantaged areas in Tanzania (UN, 2008; Aher et al., 2012; Anderssonet al., 2012). Therefore, thegoal of this study was to assess the contribution of organic farming to improvements in the well-being,
as measured by crop productivity, profitability, and food security, of smallholder farmers in
disadvantaged areas. Specifically, we wanted to assess this in a non-conducive environment where
farmers are geographically, politically and relationally limited to external advantages such as goodmarkets, financial services and export contracts.
Specific objectives of this study were to examine how farmers implement farming practices andsell their products; compare productivity, profit, and food security between conventional/traditional
farmers and organic farmers; determine factors affecting productivity, profit, and food security; andidentify challenges of organic farming.
METHODOLOGYThis study was conducted from September 2014 up to January 15 in Morogoro Region, Tanzania. The
Morogoro Municipality, Morogoro Rural District and Mvomero District were purposively selected forthe study as all have small-scale organic farmers conducting multi-crop organic farming for their local
consumption. For quantitative data, a total of 324 farmers including 160 organic farmers and 164
conventional/traditional farmers were selected, and a face-to-face structured questionnaire survey was
conducted. To collect qualitative data, 24 organic farmers from three villages with different
environmental conditions were chosen purposively to participate in focus group discussions.
Frequencies and percentages were used to summarise farming practices and products selling.
Productivity, profit and food security were compared between organic farmers andconventional/traditional farmers by using independent samples T test. Food security was analysed withindicators of food consumption score and dietary energy consumed, and compared between two
farming groups by using independent samples T test. Each respondent was asked about food items
consumed at home over a period of previous 7 days. Multiple linear regression was used to determine
impacts of some variables on productivity, profit and food security. Content analysis was used toanalyse the challenges of organic farming
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Implemented Farming Practices and Selling Situation
The average number of different crops grown by organic farmers was 8.54 while that of crops grownby conventional/traditional farmers was 4.70. More than 70% of organic farmers had water available
for their farms because many were living in mountainous areas with rivers, whereas, more than 80% ofconventional/traditional farmers depended on rain. Mountainous areas are disadvantaged with regard totransportation and marketing. However, the geographic situation provided the benefit of water
availability for irrigation in organic farming. Out of a total number of conventional/traditional farmers,
21.3% used chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The low percentage of farmers using agrochemicals
showed that there were many traditional farmers who did not utilize synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
For this reason farmers were categorized into organic farmers and “conventional/traditional farmers” inthis study.
Ⓒ ISERD

161

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Constant markets were more available to organic farmers. More than two-fifths (43.1%) oforganic farmers had constant markets, compared to only 8.5% of conventional/traditional farmers. Thissituation may result from a trend in crops grown and the farmers’ motivation to sell crop products.
Specifically, because conventional/traditional farmers grow fewer crops in comparison with organic
farmers, they do not have much crop variety available to sell. Furthermore, since starting organic
farming, organic farmers seemed to be more motivated to sell their crop products specifically asorganic products. Of the organic farmers, 38.1% sold at least some of their crop products as organic
products, and other organic farmers sold their crop products without mentioning that they are organic.
Among those who sold their crop products as organic, 18.1% sold their crop products, or at least a
portion of them, for a higher, premium price. This implies difficulty in gaining customer attention withregard to crop status, and connecting that attention to a premium price.
Comparison of Productivity, Profit and Food Security between Organic Farmers andConventional/Traditional Farmers
Maize, cow peas, and pumpkins were the most grown crops in both farming groups. These crops
showed higher levels of productivity among organic farmers, but the differences between organic
farmers and conventional/traditional farmers' outputs were not significant, as shown in Table 1 (p >0.05). Significant differences were seen in some other crops such as tomato, Chinese cabbage, andamaranth, but these crops did not have enough samples. Those three crops are often said that they canshow immediate changes along with organic farming practice such as organic fertilizers and pesticides,
and they are often used in organic farming training sessions (University of Kentucky, 2007). Therefore,
those results imply that crops that farmers are taught on how to grow more likely show higher
productivity. There are two possible reasons for the higher productivity of organic farms. First, organic
farming practices promote high productivity by creating a richer environment for crops. Second,
farming techniques learned in organic farming training, such as how to arrange crops in a farm promotehigh productivity. One farmer in Bamba explained that they did not know how to arrange crops in a
farm, and used to plant crops very roughly. After training on organic farming, they got to know thenecessary length between crops in a seed bed, and many of them had feelings that productivity had
increased.
Table 1 Crop yields’ mean productivity per ha
Crops
Maize
Cow peas
Pumpkins

Farming style
Organic
Conventional/traditional
Organic
Conventional/traditional
Organic
Conventional/traditional

n
141
162
80
92
95
81

Mean (kg)1156.30
1039.44207.77186.31
409.62261.83

F

Sig.

1.251

0.264

0.250

0.875

2.436

0.120

The mean profit among organic farmers was significantly higher than that among
conventional/traditional farmers, with a smaller minimum amount and larger maximum amount asshown in Table 2 (F = 13.652, p ≤ 0.001). In 2013, the mean profit of conventional/traditional farmers
was less than one-tenth that of organic farmers. This large difference was due to a large proportion of
conventional/traditional farmers experiencing an income deficit. Among conventional/traditional
farmers, 44.5% had no income from their crop production, and 58.5% had a deficit. By contrast, only
13.1% of organic farmers had a deficit, because organic farmers can lower farm by taking advantagesof hand-made organic fertilizers and pesticides, and can bring higher income by making farmersⒸ ISERD

162

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

connected to markets with more crop varieties. The mean income among organic farmers was morethan four times that of conventional/traditional farmers. This combination of lower expenditures andhigher income for organic farming is supported by several studies that showed a reduction in input
costs and an increase in income in organic systems (Peramaiyan et al., 2009).
Table 2 Profit (Tanzanian Shillings*) among farmers
Farming group

n

Min

Max

Mean

Organic farmers

160-391,000

5,4736,000

1,636,608.14

Conventional/traditional farmers

164-1,879,000

16,625,500

146,970.55

F

Sig.

13.6520.000* US $ 1.00 = Tanzanian Shillings (TZS) 2,165.02 in September, 2015

The mean food consumption score of organic farmers was 51.17, higher than that ofconventional/traditional farmers (49.45). Scores were calculated for three categories: poor (1),borderline (2), and acceptable (3). Scores were compared between the two farming groups, and thecomparison showed higher means among organic farmers with a significant difference (F = 6.514, p <0.05). With regard to dietary energy consumed, households of organic farmers had a higher mean for
dietary energy consumed (2,976.53 kCal per adult equivalent per day) than the households ofconventional/traditional farmers (2,912.25 kCal per adult equivalent per day). Households wereclassified as food-insecure and food-secure based on a cut-point of 2,200 kCal, the national caloric
poverty line per adult equivalent per day in Tanzania (NBS, 2014). Among households ofconventional/traditional farmers, 24.4% were below the cut-point, whereas only 19.4% of thehouseholds of organic farmers fell below the cut-point. The score of the food-insecure group, which
consumed below 2,200 kCal (1), and the score of the food-secure group, which consumed more than
2,200 kCal (2) were compared, and the difference between organic farmers andconventional/traditional farmers was significant (F = 4.793, p ≤ 0.05). From a food security perspective,
organic farmers had better scores. Therefore, it could be said that organic farming contributes to foodsecurity at the household level. There are two possible reasons for this better household food security.
First, increased quantities of crops in organic farms provided increased access to food. Second, thehigher income of organic farmers increased their purchasing power.
Table 3 Independent sample T test comparing food security
Variable compared

n

Mean

Food consumption score of organic farmers

160

2.77

Food consumption score of conventional/traditional farmers

164

2.70

Scores of dietary energy consumed of organic farmers

160

1.81

Scores of dietary energy consumed of conventional/traditional farmers

164

1.76

F

Sig.

6.514

0.011

4.793

0.029

Factors Influencing Crop Productivity, Profit and Food Security
Multiple linear regression was performed to determine impacts of several independent variables oncrop productivity, profit, and food security (Table 4). For maize, results showed that female-led
households had higher maize productivity. This is in contrast to a number of previous studies (Koru
and Holden, 2010). These results imply that female-led households no longer suffer from thetraditional disadvantages that have previously led to lower productivity than male-led households. This
could be explained by women’s high commitment to maize production activities. Results also showedⒸ ISERD

163

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

that those households with more household members had higher maize productivity. We suggest that alarge number of household members leads to a bigger labour force. Results also indicate that having a
constant market leads to higher maize productivity. Households with constant markets may have more
motivation to sell and therefore care more about their farms.
For pumpkins, the results revealed that livestock owners tended to have higher productivity. Total
income from livestock keeping was found to have a significant impact on productivity of maize inregression (p ≤ 0.05). The income from livestock may help farmers purchase farm inputs andequipment and allow them to prepare a separate farm for pumpkins. Many households did not have aseparate farm of pumpkins, because maize, cow pea and pumpkins are the crops used most forintercropping. It may cause lower productivity of pumpkins in this study, since the study did notconsider whether they intercropped or not when calculating productivity. In addition, farm yard manurefrom the livestock could be utilized to help the pumpkin crop thrive.
Profit was influenced by the number of years practising organic farming. This implies that moreexperienced organic farmers tend to have higher profits. One possible reason for this is thatexperienced organic farmers easily take advantage of organic fertilizers and pesticides by utilizing
local materials instead of purchasing them, whereas some new organic farmers have not yet found areasonably priced source of animal manure. Moreover, experienced organic farmers could achieve
higher incomes by establishing markets to sell their crop products.
Factors affecting food security were analysed using aspects of the food consumption score anddietary energy consumed. Multiple linear regression of food consumption scores showed that scores
were affected by whether the farmer owned livestock and age of the household head. Specifically,
households with livestock had a higher food consumption score, as did households headed by an elder.
The higher food consumptions scores for households with livestock could be related to additional
income associated with livestock ownership. In 2013, about half of the livestock keepers received
income from selling their livestock or livestock products such as eggs and milk. The additional
earnings from crop production may have improved the economic situation of those households and led
to better food security. The age of the household head may have a positive effect on food security
because of their richer experiences. Multiple linear regression did not show a significant effect of anyof the variables with regard to dietary energy consumed.
Table 4 Impact of some of the independent variables to productivity, profit, and food security
Dependent variable
Productivity of maize

Independent variablen

B Coefficients

Beta

T

Sig.

Sex of a household head*324-0.337-0.296-3.1050.002

Number of people in a household

324

0.061

0.248

2.599

0.011

Whether they had a constant market

324-0.203-0.216-2.2870.024

Productivity of pumpkins

Whether they owned livestock

324-0.937-0.380-3.3840.001

ProfitYears of practising organic farming

324

337206.131

0.375

3.839

0.000

Food consumption score

Whether they owned livestock324-6.377-0.244-2.831

0.005

Age of a household head

324

0.169

0.226

2.622

0.010

* This table only shows the independent variables which showed significant impacts on the dependent variable

Challenges of Organic Farming
Challenges of organic farming were grouped into categories using content analysis (See Box 1).

Ⓒ ISERD

164

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

Box 1: Difficulties of conducting organic farming
Below are some quotations from farmers with regard to difficulties in conducting organic farming.
1. Difficulty of farm land preparation“If you have a farm of 1.5 ha, you cannot make terraces by yourself. Hiring a temporary worker for making one
terrace costs TZS 5,000*. It is expensive.” (Old woman in Ruvuma)
2. No market place“There is nowhere to sell the products. Sometimes amaranths stay at farm until they get rotten.” (Young girl in
Kireka)3. Difficulty of selling for a premium price“Prices of our organic products should be the same as those of neighbours.” (Old woman in Kauzeni)“People know organic farming, but they do not know values of health. You can tell a customer that your one
bunch of carrots is for TZS 1,500. She/he goes for carrots of TZS 600 which are grown with agrochemicals.”(Old man in Ruvuma)
4. Contamination of soil by conventional farmers“Some neighbours are using chemicals. Our crops get contaminated on farm.” (Old woman in Kauzeni)
5. Water requirements“When you grow vegetables, it is necessary to have water.” (Old woman in Ruvuma)* US $ 1.00 = Tanzanian Shillings (TZS) 2,165.02 in September, 2015

It was revealed that land preparation was a big burden on organic farmers. With regard to themarket place, there were organic farming groups which could access the organic shop for selling andsome which could not. In addition to this accessibility issue, meagre scale of the organic shop was alsoa constraint. One farmer mentioned that, “If you order for only five crop products, others get rotten in a
big farm”. The issue of premium price is important to consider when promoting organic farming. One
farmer in Ruvuma explained that when they promote organic farming to other farmers, some farmers
are not attracted because the selling price is the same. Contamination of soil by nearby conventional
farmers is a difficult issue. Even though there were not many conventional farmers using agrochemicals during the time of this research, according to the country’s trend, the number of users ofagro-chemicals will increase in the future. Especially in mountainous areas where no efficient coping
strategies against soil erosion are used, soil is likely to suffer serious damage. The availability of water
is important. Organic farming organizations provided hose pipes or sprinklers to farmers when
beginning organic farming training. One traditional farmer in Lukobe mentioned, “If I buy water for
TZS 200 per bucket for growing vegetables and sell one bunch of them for TZS 200, can I really get
profit?” This water issue is an essential concern for conventional/traditional farmers considering
beginning organic farming.
CONCLUSION
This study found that organic farmers take advantage of organic farming practices including cropvarieties and water availability. Organic farmers had a more beneficial market situation for their crop
products, but there were still difficulties in being able to sell their crop products as organic and receivea premium price due to low awareness of the value of organic products. Therefore, increased awarenessof organic branding is a key to the practice of organic farming. It was also revealed that organic
farming may be an avenue for higher profit by balancing expenditure and income, and also an avenue
to better food security in terms of food consumption scores and dietary energy consumed. As access toa constant market significantly influenced productivity of maize, construction of additional market
places would help smallholder farmers achieve higher crop productivity. The number of years
practising organic farming showed significant association to profits and supported the contribution ofⒸ ISERD

165

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2016) 7-1

organic farming to profitability. Because food consumption scores showed that livestock keeping was asignificant determinant of food security, livestock keeping is an important factor to be taught in farm
training for improvement in socio-economic well-being. For smallholder farmers to conduct organic
farming smoothly, solutions for challenges of land preparation in mountainous areas that need terraces
are required. Moreover, further support is required to address the soil contamination problem.
This research demonstrates that organic farming can be an alternative to improving the well-beingof smallholder farmers with respect to profit and food security. It could be said that organic farming,
which is enhanced by accessible local resources, can replace former development efforts as asustainable rural development approach.
REFERENCES
Aher, S., Swami, B. and Sengupta, B. 2012. Organic agriculture: Way towards sustainable development.
International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 209-216.
Andersson, G., Rundlof, M. and Smith, H. 2012. Organic farming improves pollination success in strawberries.
PLoS ONE, 7 (2), 12-20.
FAO. 2014. Organic agriculture. [http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq1/en/] site visited on 8/2/2014.
IFAD. 2011. Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty in the United Republic of Tanzania. International
Fund for Agricultural Development, Rome, Italy.
Koru, B. and Holden, S. 2010. Difference in maize productivity between male- and female-headed households in
Uganda. Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Leonard, T. (Ed). 2006. Impact of economic development on peasants. Encyclopedia of the Developing World 3,1256-1258, Routledge, New York.
NBS. 2014. Household budget survey main report, 2011/12. National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania.
Peramaiyan, P., Halberg, N. and Hermansen, E. 2009. Organic agriculture in relation to food security ofdeveloping.VaxtEko, Aarhus.
UN. 2008. Organic agriculture and food security in Africa. United Nations, New York and Geneva.
University of Kentucky. 2007. Organic farming in Kentucky-A survey poll ranks crops from easiest to hardest to
grow organically. [http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CCD/introsheets/organicsurvey.pdf] site visited on 23/3/2015.
WB (World Bank). 2015. Tanzania-Overview. [http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/tanzania/overview] site
visited on 11/11/2015.

Ⓒ ISERD

166