International Journal of Horticulture, 2025, Vol.15, No.6, 299-311 http://hortherbpublisher.com/index.php/ijh 307 Lastly, the BC ratio had an overall average of 2.77 (SD=0.88), with small producers at 2.40 (SD=0.87) and large producers at 3.15 (SD=0.75), showing significant difference. In summary, mixed potato production, potato returns, mixed total costs, and the BC ratio showed significant differences at 1%, while maize production, mixed maize returns, and mixed benefits did not. 3.6 Benefits of mixed agricultural practices The ranking illustrated a detailed analysis of the benefits associated with mixed agricultural practices (Table 7). The highest severity benefit was the reduction in the risk of crop failure, which was deemed critically important. Its significance was underscored by a high index value of 0.99, indicating that it was the most impact benefit in the analysis. Table 7 Benefits of mixed agricultural practices Benefit Importance rating scale Weightage Score Index Rank 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 1 2 3 4 5 Reduce risk of crop failure 89 1 0 0 0 90 89.8 0.99 I Utilizing space 1 75 14 0 0 90 69.4 0.77 II Increase soil moisture content 0 14 35 29 12 90 46.2 0.51 III Decrease runoff 0 0 41 35 14 90 41.4 0.46 IV Reducing PTM 0 0 0 26 64 90 23.2 0.25 V In second place, the effective utilization of space was recognized as a valuable contributor, though it ranked lower in severity compared to crop failure risk. It had a moderate index of 0.77, showing that while it was important, it did not carry the same weight as the top-ranked benefit. The third-ranked benefit was the increase in soil moisture content, which had a lower severity. The varied scoring distribution suggested that its impact, while relevant, was less pronounced compared to the top two benefits, reflected in an index of 0.51. Fourth in severity was the decrease in runoff, which, despite being beneficial, exhibited only a modest contribution to agricultural sustainability, as indicated by an index of 0.46. Lastly, reducing pest and disease management (PTM) ranked last in terms of severity. Its low impact was evident, as it had the weakest index value of 0.25, revealing that it was the least significant benefit among those assessed. Overall, the analysis demonstrated a clear hierarchy of impacts, emphasizing the need to prioritize strategies that effectively mitigate crop failure risk and enhance space utilization in agricultural practices. 3.7 Ranking of mixed agricultural drawback The ranking for mixed agricultural drawbacks provided a thorough examination of various challenges, highlighting their severity (Table 8). The most severe drawback identified was "exhaustive nutrient", which represented a critical concern in mixed farming systems, reflected by a high index of 0.90. The "shading effect" followed closely, recognized as a significant challenge that could hinder crop performance, particularly for sunlight-dependent plants, and was slightly less severe than nutrient depletion. The third drawback, "pest and disease", while noteworthy, was deemed less impactful than the top two issues, indicating it disrupted agricultural productivity but was not as urgent as nutrient exhaustion or shading. "Water resource stress" ranked next, representing a notable concern regarding water availability for crops but lacking the severity of the previously mentioned drawbacks. Lastly, "more labour requirement for harvesting" emerged as the least severe challenge, suggesting that while labor intensity was a factor, it posed minimal impact compared to the other issues. Overall, the analysis emphasized the critical need to address nutrient management and shading effects, while recognizing the lesser challenges associated with pests, water stress, and labor requirements in mixed agriculture.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==