Conservation Agriculture as a Pathway to Climate and Economic Resilience for Farmers in the Republic of Moldova

Abstract

Field crop cultivation in the Republic of Moldova faces significant challenges due to climate variability, market volatility, and rising input costs. Under these conditions, transitioning from conventional to conservation agriculture (CA) represents a strategic solution for improving farm resilience and competitiveness. This study evaluates the economic efficiency of the main field crops—wheat, barley, maize, rapeseed, and sunflower—by comparing income and expenditure budgets for conventional and conservation systems. The results highlight significant advantages for conservation agriculture, both in terms of profitability and the sustainable use of natural resources (water, soil, and biodiversity). The analysis, based on data from 25 representative farms collected between 2020 and 2024, shows that CA improves profitability by 15–35%, reduces fuel use by 35–40%, and decreases mechanized operations by 30–45%. These benefits result in lower production costs and greater yield stability in drought conditions. The research conclusions confirm that the implementation of conservation agriculture can contribute to the efficient adaptation of farmers to climate risks and to the consolidation of the sustainable development of the agricultural sector in the Republic of Moldova.

1. Introduction

Agriculture plays a central role in the Moldovan economy, contributing 10–15% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and providing employment for much of the rural population [1]. Despite its strong agro-ecological potential—particularly fertile chernozem soils and favorable climatic conditions—agriculture remains largely traditional and extensive. Frequent droughts, uneven rainfall, and fragmented land ownership continue to constrain productivity and adaptation capacity.

Over the last decade, modernization and diversification efforts have intensified, focusing on value-chain development, export competitiveness, and sustainable management of natural resources [1,2,3,4]:

• Majority orientation towards vegetable crops—viticulture, fruit growing and cereal crops (wheat, corn, barley, sunflower, rapeseed). Vines and orchards are identity crops, with an important role in export.
• Dependence on climatic conditions—frequent droughts and uneven distribution of rainfall significantly influence production; irrigation is limited and underused in many areas.
• Fragmented land structure—after privatization in the 1990s, agricultural lands are dispersed and small, which limits the application of modern technologies. At the same time, in the last 25 years, farmers have invested considerable money in land consolidation (especially their acquisition), which has meant minimizing costs for technology and competitiveness, and this phenomenon has influenced the vulnerability of farms in the short term.
• Relatively low productivity compared to the pedoclimatic potential—chernozem soils are highly fertile, but the technological level, mechanization, and access to modern inputs remain the main problems.
• Major role of agriculture in the economy and employment—agriculture contributes to GDP and employs a significant part of the rural population.
• Agricultural dualism—small subsistence farms (with production intended for self-consumption or local markets) and medium/large commercial farms, oriented towards export, coexist.
• Recent trends—there is an increase in interest in organic farming and conservation-sustainable systems (minimization of soil work, crop rotation, precision agriculture), as well as for integration into value chains.

Moldovan agriculture is in transition—it has a very favorable natural base (chernozems, a favorable climate for vineyards and orchards) [5], but still suffers from fragmentation, weather dependence, soil degradation, lack of conservation technologies, and insufficient infrastructure.

Conventional agriculture with tillage and maintaining bare soil by incorporating plant residues is still the dominant system in the Republic of Moldova, especially due to tradition, existing infrastructure, and the mentality of farmers and agronomists [6,7,8,9].

According to FAO and national reports, minimum-tillage or no-tillage technologies are applied on only 3–8% of total arable land [7,8,9]. Yet these practices have shown clear benefits in soil health, water conservation, and long-term profitability in comparable Eastern European contexts [10,11,12,13,14,15].

The hypothesis underlying this study is that:

H1: 

Implementing conservation agriculture—based on minimal soil disturbance, permanent organic cover, and crop diversification—enhances farmers’ ability to adapt to climate risks while maintaining or improving resource conservation.

H2: 

Conservation agriculture reduces working time, mechanization costs, and fuel consumption by at least 30% compared to conventional systems.

In this context, the aim of the study is to comparatively assess the economic efficiency of the main field crops grown in conventional and conservation systems in the Republic of Moldova and to determine the extent to which conservation agriculture contributes to the climate and economic resilience of farmers.

The objectives are to: i. analyze the current state of field-crop production and the challenges induced by climate change; ii. develop and compare income-and-expenditure budgets for major crops under both systems; iii. assess competitiveness and profitability differences; iv. identify advantages and limitations of conservation agriculture; v. formulate practical recommendations for policymakers and farmers.

2. Materials and Methods

The research was conducted within the institutional program “Development and Implementation of Good Practices in Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Resilience (GREEN no. 020407)”, implemented at the Research and Extension Center for Agriculture, Biodiversity and Rural Development “GreenTech”. The research was also supported by the European Union, grant number 101218949, project “TRAILS4SOIL”: “Transformative Living Labs for Soil Health: Advancing Regenerative and Conservation Agriculture Across Europe”.

The climate of the Republic of Moldova is moderately continental, with average annual temperatures ranging from 8.5 to 11 °C, hot summers (often exceeding 35–40 °C in the south), and cold winters (occasionally dropping below –20 °C). Annual precipitation varies between 450 and 650 mm, decreasing from the northwest to the southeast, with droughts occurring every 2–3 years. In recent years, there has been a warming trend and increased variability in rainfall—for example, in Hîncești, precipitation amounted to 490 mm in 2021, 332 mm in 2022, 268 mm in 2023, and 640 mm in 2024. This climatic instability heightens the risk of water stress and significantly affects agricultural productivity.

2.1. Study Framework and Data Sources

The study used farm-level economic data collected from producers participating in the GreenTech research network and from official statistics provided by the National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova [16]. Data cover the period 2020–2024, averaged over five years to reduce annual volatility.

Budgetary calculations were based on:

✓

Actual yield and cost data reported by 25 representative farms (10 conventional and 15 conservation farms) cultivating wheat, barley, maize, rapeseed, and sunflower;

✓

Market price averages derived from regional trade statistics;

✓

Input costs (fuel, seeds, fertilizers, rent, and mechanized services) obtained from local cooperatives and supplier records.

The 25 farms analyzed were selected from three major agroclimatic zones. The average size of the farms in the sample (250–800 ha) is similar to that of large commercial farms in national statistics, which allows for generalization of the results.

2.2. Methodological Approach

Two production systems were analyzed:

• Conventional agriculture (CAc)—characterized by deep tillage, residue removal, and intensive mechanical operations;
• Conservation agriculture (CA)—a system applied by a small but growing group of farmers practicing minimal soil disturbance, residue retention, and crop rotation.

The economic indicators used were as follows [17,18,19,20,21,22]:

Revenue (€/ha) = production (t/ha) × average price (€/t).

Gross profit (€/ha) = revenue − total costs.

Profitability (%) = (gross profit/total costs) × 100.

Total costs (€/ha) = input costs + mechanized services + labor + land rent + miscellaneous expenses. Subsidies are not included in the profit calculations to ensure comparability between farms.

For each crop, an income and expenditure budget was constructed, including production revenue (yield × price per ton), variable costs, gross profit and economic profitability (%). For each system, the economic indicators were calculated on a per-hectare basis (€/ha). Cost components included seeds and planting material, fertilizers and crop protection products, fuel and energy, machinery operation and maintenance, labor and land rent, depreciation and overheads. In cases where data were incomplete, model-based estimates were constructed from national statistical averages and expert interviews, ensuring methodological consistency.

Assumptions include stable crop prices across systems, identical soil and climatic conditions for both system types, equivalent management skill level. The 25-farm sample, while not statistically random, reflects the diversity of Moldovan field-crop systems and serves as a valid empirical base for comparative analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Crop Structure in the Republic of Moldova

The competitiveness of agriculture in the Republic of Moldova is a rather complex term and difficult to ensure, especially in the conditions of climate resilience and increased external risks (war in Ukraine, rising energy resources, increased logistics and inputs, etc.), because from budget planning to technology implementation, there are extremely many factors that influence direct costs and unit costs (ultimately competitiveness) [15].

Field crop cultivation and area dynamics (

Table 1. Dynamics of areas sown with agricultural crops by household categories in the Republic of Moldova, 2020–2024.

Specification	2020				2021				2022				2023				2024
	Households of All Categories	Agricultural Enterprises	Peasant Households (Farmer	Individual Households	Households of All Categories	Agricultural Enterprises	Peasant Households (farmers)	Individual Households	Households of All Categories	Agricultural Enterprises	Peasant Households (Farmers)	Individual Households	Households of All Categories	Agricultural Enterprises	Peasant Households (Farmers)	Individual Households	Households of All Categories	Agricultural Enterprises	Peasant (Farm) Households	Individual Households
Surfaces—total, thousand ha	1537.6	827.2	418.1	292.3	1557.5	846.7	418.2	292.6	1580.5	864.4	427.9	288.2	1596	879.6	422.6	293.8	1569.1	889.1	387.1	292.8
Cereal and legume crops	957.1	480.2	269.1	207.8	971.1	495.8	262	213.3	953	481	262.7	209.3	969.7	496.5	260.6	212.6	946.1	507.2	225.7	213.2
Wheat	311.4	229.2	80.2	2	341.7	257	82.8	1.9	332.0	250.5	80.6	0.9	377.0	284.6	91.1	1.3	369.2	284.5	83.2	1.5
Barley	54.3	39.4	13	1.9	65.5	48	15.7	1.8	54.8	41.3	12.4	1.1	60.2	46.2	12.8	1.2	64.6	47.9	14.9	1.8
Corn kernels	546.4	192	168.2	186.2	522.3	174.1	155.9	192.3	526	174.9	161.8	189.3	489.1	149.2	148.3	191.6	463	150.8	120.3	191.9
Legumes, grains	32	8.4	6.2	17.4	31.1	8.1	6.2	16.8	32.6	8	6.8	17.8	36	10.5	7.1	18.4	38.4	15.9	5.2	17.3
Sorghum grains	10.1	9.5	0.6	-	6.3	5.8	0.5	-	5.3	4.9	0.4	-	4.7	3.9	0.8	-	6.5	5.6	0.9	-
Technical crops	462.1	328.8	121.6	11.7	474.5	336.0	129.3	9.2	521.4	368.3	144.0	9.1	521.8	368.1	143.1	10.6	518	364.4	141.5	12.1
Sugar beet	13.5	11.8	1.4	0.3	15.9	14.3	1.4	0.2	11.7	10.7	1.0	-	10.7	9.9	0.8	-	14.8	13.6	0.7	0.5
Sunflower	387.3	271.4	104.8	11.1	392.1	271.2	112.1	8.8	440.2	304.2	127.0	9.0	391.9	262.4	119	10.5	420	285.9	123.9	10.2
Soybean	29	16.6	12.3	0.1	22.8	11.7	11	0.1	25.3	14.2	11.1	-	25	14	11	-	26.9	16.2	9.8	0.9
Rape	24.4	22	2.4	-	33.8	29.8	4	-	34.5	30.6	3.9	-	82.8	71.5	11.3	-	43.2	37.6	5.6	-
Oilseed crops	5.2	5.1	0.1	-	5.2	4.8	0.4	-	4.8	4.7	0.1	-	5.3	5.2	0.1	-	5.5	5.3	0.2	-
Potatoes, vegetables and pumpkins	69.4	4.6	8.8	56	67.1	4.8	8.3	54	69	3.6	8.5	56.9	70.1	4.2	8.6	57.3	69.5	4.1	10.4	55
Potatoes	22.9	1.1	1.4	20.4	22.3	1.1	1.4	19.8	22.9	0.8	1.2	20.9	22.9	0.7	1.1	21.1	22.5	0.9	1.1	20.5
Vegetables in the open field	39.7	3.1	4.2	32.4	38	3.2	3.8	31	38.2	2.5	3.9	31.8	39.3	3	4.2	32.1	38.3	2.6	5.6	30.1
Gourd crops	6.1	0.3	3.1	2.7	6.2	0.3	3	2.9	7	0.2	3.3	3.4	6.5	0.3	3.0	3.2	7.2	0.5	3.4	3.3
Forage plants	48.9	13.5	18.6	16.8	44.8	10.1	18.5	16.2	37.1	11.4	12.8	12.9	34.3	10.8	10.2	13.3	35.6	13.4	9.6	12.6

Source: Statistical Data Bank, National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova [16].

) are among the important directions of agriculture in the Republic of Moldova to be analyzed, having considerable potential for export. This sector requires the identification of operational and application solutions to respond to the challenges of recent years and ensure sustainable development. Another important analysis for the efficiency of technologies is the average data on the areas cultivated with agricultural crops in the Republic of Moldova for the years 2020–2024 by household categories (

Table 2. Analysis of areas sown with agricultural crops by household categories in the Republic of Moldova, average for the years 2020–2024.

Specification	Period 2020–2024 (Thousand ha)				Structure of Cultivated Areas (%)
	Households of All Categories	Agricultural Enterprises	Peasant Households (Farmers)	Individual Households
Surfaces—total	1568.1	861.4	414.8	291.9	100
Cereal and legume crops	959.4	492.1	256	211.2	61.2
Wheat	346.3	261.2	83.6	1.5	22.1
Barley	59.9	44.6	13.8	1.6	3.8
Corn kernels	509.4	168.2	150.9	190.3	32.5
Legumes, grains	34	10.2	6.3	17.5	2.2
Sorghum grains	6.6	5.9	0.6	-	0.4
Technical crops	499.6	353.1	135.9	10.5	31.9
Sugar beet	13.3	12.1	1.1	0.2	0.8
Sunflower	406.3	279	117.4	9.9	25.9
Soybean	25.8	14.5	11	0.2	1.6
Rape	43.7	38.3	5.4	-	2.8
Oilseed crops	5.2	5	0.2	-	0.3
Potatoes, vegetables and pumpkins	69	4.3	8.9	55.8	4.4
Potatoes	22.7	0.9	1.2	20.5	1.4
Vegetables in the open field	38.7	2.9	4.3	31.5	2.5
Gourd crops	6.6	0.3	3.2	3.1	0.4
Forage plants	40.1	11.8	13.9	14.4	2.6

Source: Statistical Data Bank, National Bureau of Statistics of the Republic of Moldova [16].

). Field crop cultivation (large-scale agriculture) is a basic activity in the agriculture of the Republic of Moldova, where out of the total sown areas of 1568.1 thousand ha, on average, for the period 2020–2024, approximately 93% (1450 thousand ha) are cultivated with field crops. Field crop cultivation is divided into two large groups: (i) cereal crops and legumes for grains 61.2% (959.4 thousand ha), and (ii) technical crops 31.9% (499.6 thousand ha) [16].

3.2. Comparative Performance of Conventional and Conservation Systems

In the Republic of Moldova, the term “conservation agriculture” is associated with the technology of cultivation through minimum tillage practices, which is a completely wrong approach. This erroneous concept of “conservation agriculture for the Republic of Moldova” has expanded into practices that have limited impact on climate change adaptation and mitigation. In practice, however, it allows farmers to save small amounts of fuel by reducing the depth of soil cultivation. Some equipment available on the market also offers combined operations, which include loosening the soil with disk harrows (<20 cm) by harrowing and surface preparation, reducing soil preparation to a single intervention. Soil cultivation practices, which are included in “conservation agriculture” in the Republic of Moldova, have been in contradiction with the principles of conservation agriculture in recent years.

The general principles of conservation agriculture are as follows [17]:

• Minimal Soil Disturbance. Cultivation should be performed through direct seeding or similar methods that minimize mechanical interference with the soil structure. The disturbed area must not exceed 15 cm in width or 25% of the total cropped surface.
• Permanent Organic Soil Cover. Maintaining continuous soil cover through crop residues, cover crops, or other organic materials is essential for protecting the soil from erosion, regulating temperature and moisture, and sustaining biological activity. Technologies that ensure less than 30% soil coverage do not qualify as conservation agriculture.
• Crop and Species Diversification. Crop rotation should involve at least three different species, including cereals, legumes, and oilseeds, to improve soil fertility, reduce pest and disease pressure, and stabilize yields over time.

A central condition for the transition of agriculture to a sustainable system that adapts to and mitigates climate change is to minimize tillage and soil disturbance by implementing conservation agriculture.

According to reports on the implementation of the National Strategy for Agricultural and Rural Development for 2014–2020 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI), the area of agricultural land cultivated with no-tillage/minimum tillage technologies varied between 51 and 133.5 thousand hectares per year during the period 2013–2019. This was achieved mainly due to subsidies allocated to agricultural machinery purchased by farmers through AIPA, IFAD, MAC-P, and 2KR investment projects [17,18,19].

The existing legal framework in the Republic of Moldova provides limited support for the expansion and institutionalization of conservation agriculture practices. Although a dedicated governmental subdivision for “Conservation Agriculture” has been formally established, it currently lacks operational capacity due to the absence of specialized staff and resources. The main policy instrument promoting CA-related practices is Government Decision No. 464/2023, which regulates the system of agricultural subsidies. This decision encourages investment in reduced tillage technologies through financial support for the acquisition of tractors and machinery specifically designed for conservation agriculture. However, these measures remain insufficient. The promotion and adoption of CA are hindered by the absence of systematic applied research, long-term field trials, and dynamic analyses that could provide empirical evidence and best-practice models for effective implementation.

The income and expenditure budget is a financial tool for operational planning and monitoring, where the farmer estimates the resources and costs over a certain period of time when cultivating field crops. In

Table 3. Budgeting of revenues and sales costs when cultivating the main field crops with the application of different agricultural systems in the Republic of Moldova.

No.	Crop Specification	Yield Per Hectare, t/ha	Sales Revenue, Euro/ha	Cost of Sales,						Profit, Euro/ha
				Total	Euro/ha
					Means of Production	Mechanized Services	Manual Operations	Other Costs (Rent Payment)	Unforeseen Expenses
Analysis of income and expenditure budgets of conventional farming system
1	Winter wheat	5.6	989.9	780.4	417.5	157.9	10.7	157.1	37.2	209.5
2	Winter barley	6.2	876.8	787.9	411.9	171.5	9.9	157.1	37.5	88.9
3	Maize	6.5	1050.5	666	257.2	208.7	11.3	157.1	31.7	384.5
4	Rape	3.5	1502.5	1060.6	645	198.1	9.9	157.1	50.5	441.9
5	Sunflower	3.2	1325.3	696.1	291.3	208.3	6.2	157.1	33.1	629.2
Analysis of income and expenditure budgets conservation agriculture system
1	Winter wheat	6	1060.6	791	464.4	120.3	11.2	157.1	37.6	270
2	Winter barley	6.5	919.2	776	449.4	122.7	10.2	157.1	37.0	142.8
3	Maize	7	1131.3	622	306.6	116.8	11.9	157.1	29.6	509.4
4	Rape	3.7	1588.4	1047	687.3	142.3	10.3	157.1	49.9	541.5
5	Sunflower	3.5	1449.5	642	328.8	119.2	6.6	157.1	30.6	807.3
Comparison of revenue and expenditure budgets for the conventional system compared to the conservation one
1	Winter wheat	−0.4	−70.71	−10.19	−46.94	37.64	−0.4	-	−0.49	−60.52
2	Winter barley	−0.3	−42.42	11.49	−37.5	48.75	−0.3	-	0.55	−53.92
3	Maize	−0.5	−80.81	44.04	−49.41	91.92	−0.57	-	2.1	−124.85
4	Rape	−0.2	−85.86	13.76	−42.28	55.79	−0.4	-	0.66	−99.62
5	Sunflower	−0.4	−70.71	−10.19	−46.94	37.64	−0.4	-	−0.49	−60.52

Source: prepared based on references [20,21,22,23,24,25].

, the calculations of income and expenditure budgets when cultivating agricultural crops with the application of conventional and conservation agriculture per unit area are systematized.

Based on the analyses conducted and discussions with agricultural entrepreneurs, several key conclusions emerge regarding the state of conservation agriculture (CA) in the Republic of Moldova:

• Insufficient Applied Research and Implementation. Applied research on conservation agriculture remains limited and insufficiently integrated into national agricultural practices. This gap is particularly concerning given the intensifying effects of climate change and the continuing degradation of soil quality.
• Lack of Comparative Scientific Evidence. There is a notable absence of long-term, evidence-based studies comparing conservation and conventional farming systems, particularly in relation to agrotechnical and soil quality indicators. Current promotion of CA relies predominantly on farmers’ empirical experiences and field observations rather than on rigorous scientific validation.
• Growing Interest among Farmers. Farmers’ interest in CA has increased in response to recurrent droughts (notably during 2022–2025) and the economic pressures generated by high input costs and reduced market prices linked to the war in Ukraine. Farmers practicing no-tillage methods report more stable yields under drought conditions compared to conventional producers.
• Limited Adoption and Farm Scale. Approximately 50–70 farmers—typically those managing over 300 hectares—are currently applying or transitioning to CA practices. Only about half of them fully adhere to the three core CA principles: direct seeding, permanent soil cover through cover crops, and diversified crop rotations (e.g., wheat, maize, sunflower, and legumes).
• Economic Incentives and Carbon Market Participation. Around 50% of successful CA adopters have accessed payments from carbon sequestration schemes, averaging €32/ha. In some cases, these funds, supplemented by national subsidies (MAFI/AIPA), covered the initial investment costs for specialized equipment.
• Widespread Minimum Tillage Practices. Minimum tillage systems are widely practiced, particularly for winter cereals such as wheat and barley, with adoption rates of 70–80%. This has stimulated a local market for minimum tillage equipment supplied by agricultural machinery dealers.
• Economic Motivation and Agronomic Reluctance. The transition to CA is largely economically driven, aimed at increasing farm competitiveness. Interestingly, some large farms have reported dismissing conventional agronomists due to resistance toward conservation practices rooted in traditional university training.
• Informal Knowledge Networks. Social media platforms (Telegram, Viber, and YouTube) serve as the primary channels for technical knowledge exchange on CA, with Ukrainian farmer communities being the most influential sources of information. A Community of Practice supported by FAO has been established in Moldova, though farmer engagement remains modest but increasing.
• Educational and Institutional Gaps. Agricultural education and research institutions continue to emphasize conventional tillage systems. Universities and research centers generally lack the necessary direct seeding equipment to test, demonstrate, and promote CA technologies.

3.3. Cost Structure Analysis

The analysis of the economic efficiency of income and expenditure budgets for growing agricultural crops in conventional and conservation systems is presented in

Table 4. Analysis of economic efficiency in cultivating the main field crops with the application of different agricultural systems in the Republic of Moldova.

No.	Crop Specification	Yield Per Hectare, t/ha	Economic Profitability, %	Economic Calculations for 1 kg of Production, Euro/t			Annual Cash Flow Available, Euro/ha
				Average Selling Price, Euro/t	Unit Cost, Euro/t	Gross Margin (Commercial Markup), Euro/t
Analysis of income and expenditure budgets of conventional farming system
1	Winter wheat	5.6	26.8	176.8	139.4	37.4	209.5
2	Winter barley	6.2	11.3	141.4	127.1	14.3	78.5
3	Maize	6.5	57.7	161.6	102.5	59.2	384.5
4	Rape	3.5	41.7	429.3	303	126.3	441.9
5	Sunflower	3.2	90.4	414.1	217.5	196.6	642.4
Analysis of income and expenditure budgets conservation agriculture system
1	Winter wheat	6	34.2	176.8	131.8	45	270
2	Winter barley	6.5	18.4	141.4	119.4	22	142.8
3	Maize	7	81.9	161.6	88.8	72.8	509.4
4	Rape	3.7	51.7	429.3	282.9	146.4	541.5
5	Sunflower	3.5	125.7	414.1	183.5	230.6	820.5
Comparison of revenue and expenditure budgets for the conventional system compared to the conservation one
1	Winter wheat	−0.4	−7.3	-	7.59	−7.59	−60.52
2	Winter barley	−0.3	−7.1	-	7.63	−7.63	−64.28
3	Maize	−0.5	−24.2	-	13.61	−13.61	−124.85
4	Rape	−0.2	−10.1	-	20.1	−20.1	−99.62
5	Sunflower	−0.3	−35.3	-	34.03	−34.03	−178.08

Source: prepared based on references [20,21,22,23,24,25].

.

The comparative analysis of economic efficiency indicates that conservation agriculture (CA) systems offer significant advantages for farmers operating under climate-resilient conditions. The improved economic outcomes are primarily attributed to better water conservation, enhanced biodiversity, and overall sustainability compared to conventional agricultural systems.

1. 

Agrotechnical Considerations in Conservation Agriculture

Contrary to the prevailing view among local experts that CA does not yield favorable results during the first five years, field observations and successful case studies demonstrate that positive outcomes can be achieved from the first year, provided that the transition is well planned and implemented. Several key factors contribute to early success:

• Field Leveling: Proper land leveling is essential before introducing CA, especially when using large direct seeders.
• Weed Control: Effective pre-implementation weed management is crucial. Perennial weeds must be eliminated before transitioning to CA. Weed control remains intensive during the first three years, after which pressure decreases as permanent soil cover becomes established. Glyphosate-based herbicides are commonly used before or at sowing time.
• Fertilization: Moldovan farmers generally maintain similar or slightly lower fertilizer inputs under CA compared to conventional systems.

2. 

Seasonal Crop Management

• Spring Crops:
  No-tillage implementation is generally easier in spring (April–May) due to higher soil moisture levels from winter precipitation, facilitating precise seed placement. However, the presence of surface mulch can delay germination and early growth, particularly for maize, sorghum, sunflower, and soybean. This delay results from lower soil temperatures beneath the organic cover, especially pronounced in dark Moldovan chernozems. To mitigate this effect, successful farmers:

  ✓

  Delay sowing until optimal soil temperatures (≥9 °C for maize) are reached;

  ✓

  Choose hybrids with shorter growing cycles to avoid late-season drought stress;

  ✓

  Accept minor delays in physiological maturity and grain drying compared to conventional systems.

• Winter Crops:
  For winter wheat, barley, rapeseed, and peas, sowing occurs in drier, harder soils (September–October), requiring robust and well-adapted direct seeders—often larger than conventional ones. Nonetheless, winter cereals provide abundant vegetative residues, forming a protective mulch after the first crop cycle, which accelerates the establishment of CA benefits.

3. 

Crop Performance Over Time

• Year 1–2:
  Many successful CA farmers maintain or even increase production levels within the first two years, particularly in dry seasons, while substantially reducing input and operational costs.

• Year 3—Managing Soil Compaction:
  Soil compaction emerges as a critical challenge during the third year of transition, primarily due to the passage of heavy machinery (e.g., sprayers and combines). The following strategies are essential for prevention and mitigation:

  ✓

  Adherence to direct seeding only, avoiding minimum tillage, which disrupts the mulch layer and resets the biological soil processes;

  ✓

  Use of cover crops (even in drier southern regions), leveraging residual soil moisture to enhance organic matter and biological activity;

  ✓

  Integration of leguminous species and Daikon radish as biological soil conditioners that improve structure, enhance drainage, recycle nutrients, and add up to 20 kg N/ha;

  ✓

  Adoption of technological innovations, such as drones for targeted pesticide applications, and dual tractor wheels to reduce soil pressure and compaction.

4. 

Emerging Challenges

While conservation agriculture delivers clear agronomic and economic benefits—reduced input costs, improved drought resilience, and enhanced yields—new ecological and management challenges must also be addressed:

• Rodent Infestation: The permanent organic cover fosters favorable habitats for rodents. Local mitigation strategies include enhancing natural predator populations through agroforestry and the strategic placement of bone residues to attract raptors.
• Livestock Interference: Grazing by sheep and goats on residue-covered fields can locally compact soil, hindering the performance of direct seeders and affecting early crop development.

The structure of direct costs for cultivating field crops in conventional and conservation systems under the conditions of the Republic of Moldova is presented in

Table 5. Comparison of the structure of direct costs in cultivating field crops in conventional and conservation agricultural systems under the conditions of the Republic of Moldova.

No.	Plum Variety Specification and Cultivation Technology	Cost of Sales Structure, %
		Total	Means of Production	Mechanized Services	Manual Operations	Other Costs (Including Rent Payment)	Unforeseen Expenses
Structure of sales costs, conventional system
1	Winter wheat	100	53.5	20.2	1.4	20.1	4.8
2	Winter barley	100	52.3	21.8	1.3	19.9	4.8
3	Maize	100	38.6	31.3	1.7	23.6	4.8
4	Rape	100	60.8	18.7	0.9	14.8	4.8
5	Sunflower	100	41.9	29.9	0.9	22.6	4.8
Cost of sales structure, conservation system
1	Winter wheat	100	58.7	15.2	1.4	19.9	4.8
2	Winter barley	100	57.9	15.8	1.3	20.2	4.8
3	Maize	100	49.3	18.8	1.9	25.3	4.8
4	Rape	100	65.7	13.6	1.0	15.0	4.8
5	Sunflower	100	51.2	18.6	1.0	24.5	4.8
Comparison of deviations for the conventional system compared to the conservation system
1	Winter wheat	-	5.2	−5	-	−0.3	-
2	Winter barley	-	5.6	−6	0.1	0.3	-
3	Maize	-	10.7	−12.6	0.2	1.7	-
4	Rape	-	4.8	−5.1	0.1	0.2	-
5	Sunflower	-	9.3	−11.4	0.1	1.9	-

Source: prepared based on references [20,21,22,23,24,25].

.

Farmers have doubts about cultivating field crops at present, but in the case of applying conservation agriculture, there are some positive aspects for preserving moisture/biodiversity in the increasingly harsh climate conditions regarding frequent droughts during the months of July–September, and improving soil quality.

It is important to note that in recent years the rental payment of agricultural land has increased considerably and has an increasing share in the cost structure, which varies from 15 to 25% of the total, depending on the crop. The conservation farming system requires more circulating means for additional herbicide application to combat weeds, and, at the same time, requires fewer costs for mechanized agricultural operations due to their reduced number of tillage operations.

The comparative analysis of the gross profit obtained from cultivating field crops with the application of the conventional and conservation systems in the Republic of Moldova is presented in Figure 1. Based on the economic calculations presented in comparison with cultivating field crops in the conventional and conservation systems, farmers are recommended to implement the conservation agricultural system, as it allows better adaptation of the cultivation of agricultural crops to climatic risks, a factor that guarantees the competitiveness of production and the registration of the best final economic results.

Importantly, the promotion and application of conservation technology for cultivating field crops requires practical and applied research for farmers to successfully implement this important goal for the agriculture of the Republic of Moldova.

On average, farms applying CA achieved a 15–35% higher profit, particularly for corn, rapeseed, and sunflower. Mechanization costs were 30–45% lower, and fuel consumption decreased by 35–40%, confirming hypothesis H2. A direct comparison of the two systems shows that yields were slightly higher in CA (+0.2–0.5 t/ha), but the major differences stem from cost reductions.

4. Discussion

4.1. Profitability Trends and Barriers to Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in the Republic of Moldova

The main barriers to farmers adopting conservation agriculture, in order of importance, are as follows:

1. Profitability and Farm Size. Economic data indicate that the profitability of conservation agriculture varies with farm size, yet overall trends show higher economic efficiency and resilience under climate stress conditions compared to conventional farming. Larger farms benefit more significantly from economies of scale, better access to specialized equipment, and greater capacity to manage transition costs. Nevertheless, smaller and medium-sized farms also demonstrate increasing interest in adopting CA practices, driven primarily by the prospects of long-term sustainability and reduced input costs.

2. Main Barriers to Adoption. The transition to conservation agriculture in Moldova is constrained by several key barriers, ranked by their importance:

(a) Limited Access to Direct Seeding Equipment. The lack of availability and affordability of direct seeders is the primary obstacle for most farmers. Renting such machinery is uncommon, and initial testing on-farm is difficult. Early adopters often borrowed no-till drills from neighboring farmers before purchasing their own. Larger agricultural enterprises generally invest directly in equipment before testing, while smaller farms face greater financial barriers. Despite this, the demand for testing no-tillage practices remains high due to their potential for reducing production costs and improving water retention.

(b) Soil Compaction and Insufficient Knowledge on Mulching. Many unsuccessful CA trials have failed because of inadequate management of soil compaction and the inability to maintain permanent organic soil cover. Successful farmers demonstrate a deeper understanding of the interaction between no-tillage, soil biology, and organic mulching. This knowledge enables them to sustain soil structure and improve productivity through enhanced soil biotic activity, better moisture retention, reduced erosion, and increased nutrient availability.

(c) Knowledge and Skills Gap. The effective application of CA requires farmers to possess advanced practical skills in agronomy, soil ecology, and machinery operation. Competence in maintaining biological soil health, optimizing nutrient and water cycles, and understanding carbon sequestration processes is crucial for success.

(d) Inadequate Subsidy Schemes. Current government subsidies are insufficiently adapted to the gradual nature of CA benefits. Short-term performance expectations discourage adoption. The subsidy system does not adequately recognize the delayed but substantial ecological and economic gains of conservation agriculture.

(e) Institutional and Educational Inflexibility. Resistance from traditionally trained agronomists and limited institutional experience hinder the wider dissemination of CA practices. In the short term, agricultural research institutions require equipping with direct seeding technology to enable experimentation and demonstration. In the long term, the curricula of agricultural universities must be reoriented toward competency-based training in sustainable and conservation-oriented practices.

3. Technical Specifications for Direct Seeders under Moldovan Conditions

(a) For Large-Scale Farmers. Successful large-scale CA operations require direct seeders with specific design characteristics suited to Moldova’s soil and climatic conditions:

• Sufficient Down Pressure: Minimum 200 kg per opener (250 kg for double-disk openers) to ensure uniform seeding depth and proper fertilizer incorporation under no-tillage conditions.
• Flexible Seeding Units: Openers mounted on trapezoidal supports with shock absorbers allowing at least 20 cm vertical movement to follow surface irregularities and maintain consistent soil contact.
• Residue-Cutting Capability: Large coulter disks to efficiently slice through crop residues and ensure precise seed placement.
• Single-Disk Coulters: Preferred for minimal soil disturbance and superior residue management compared to double-disk systems.
• Versatility for Multiple Crops: Seed drills are adaptable for small (alfalfa, vetch, rapeseed), medium (wheat, barley), and large seeds (corn, sunflower, soybeans). Adjustments can be made by disabling rows or modifying spacing (e.g., 70 cm for large-seed crops).
• Simultaneous Cover Crop Sowing: The capacity to sow cover crop mixes or intercrop legumes with main crops to enhance soil fertility.
• GPS Precision Guidance: Ensures accurate row alignment, minimizes overlaps, and reduces post-harvest losses.

The cost of such equipment ranges between USD 50,000 and 200,000 for 21-row models. Oversizing the machine is recommended to complete sowing within optimal time windows, which are particularly short in spring.

(b) For Small and Medium Farmers. Smallholders—typically livestock farmers managing 10–50 ha—can adopt simpler, low-cost direct seeders compatible with 80–100 HP tractors. Suitable features include:

• 4- to 6-row double-disk drills priced between USD 20,000 and 35,000;
• Adjustable row spacing (40–70 cm) for diverse crops (alfalfa, cereals, maize, sunflower);
• Essential focus on adequate opener weight and vertical flexibility to ensure uniform sowing depth under varying soil conditions.

These simpler systems enable smaller farms to implement key CA principles—no-tillage and crop residue retention—without substantial financial burden.

4. Policy Implications. Facilitating wider adoption of conservation agriculture in Moldova requires:

• Expanding access to affordable no-tillage equipment through cooperative ownership or rental schemes;
• Strengthening extension services and practical farmer training;
• Adapting national subsidy frameworks to reward long-term soil health outcomes;
• Integrating CA competencies into agronomic education and research programs.

4.2. Comparison with International Evidence

Following analyses and discussions with practitioners in the conservation agriculture system, there is an increased interest in the current climate resilience conditions, where all risks and technological problems are assumed only by farmers, including most of the research and experiences that are implemented by the interested farmers themselves [26,27]. There is a lack of a practical and applicable information system/platform in the field of conservation agriculture for farmers, a lack of knowledge transfers, and a lack of practical research over time for the complex analysis of all changes (soil structure, composition, compaction, etc.).

The specific conclusions, similar to many other countries [28,29,30], can be identified as follows:

• The conservation agriculture system is seen as a strategic one by the Government of the Republic of Moldova and the relevant ministries, but there is a practical lack of instruments, a complex legal framework for facilitation, research and innovation, and adequate promotion for its practical implementation, with the exception of improving the subsidy system in agriculture, which is delayed until 2023.
• Conservation agriculture in the Republic of Moldova is implemented by people who practice agricultural activities without agricultural education (it is a paradox and a reality that is difficult to explain). Agriculture is a rather complex business, and state programs and subsidies must be oriented towards farmers who have at least three years of agricultural education in order to face all the challenges and accommodations to current and future climate changes. Agronomists are much more conservative and reluctant to adopt conservation agriculture because they were trained and applied only conventional agriculture and practically do not want to change the existing “comfort”.
• The agricultural education system is crucial for the correct training of specialists in the field of conservation agriculture. Importantly, the complexity and effectiveness of correct/efficient/practical training (demonstrative with demonstration plots/teaching stations) is necessary to create, because it is missing, and this fact causes all the remaining uncertainties/problems in large-scale culture.
• Direct costs in conservation agriculture (especially diesel consumption of 32–40 L/ha by reducing the number of mechanical operations and soil cultivation) is optimized, reduced, and in the fight against weed management, more total herbicides are used at the beginning.
• The development of conservation agriculture is based on the enthusiasm of the farmer who decided to implement no-tillage, but there is an acute lack of all components that must facilitate and inform beneficiaries: practical/applicative information, lack of state projects and complex research in the field of conservation agriculture, lack of practicing specialists in the field, dispersion and limitation of extension and knowledge transfer services.
• Farmers who switched to conservation agriculture in the first years of the transaction do not have lower results (crop yields) than in conventional agriculture, but they are the same and even sometimes higher, which excludes the perception that low results are recorded in the first 5 years of conversion, which was promoted by the academic environment, and recommends the gradual transition to conservation agriculture by farmers (which is not correct).
• Sowing of spring crops in conservation agriculture is a little later; the start of plant development is much slower from the beginning compared to conventional agriculture, but in the period of July–August, development is much more uniform (without stressing the plant), and finally the vegetation is longer, which ensures guaranteed harvests (in conventional agriculture it can be totally compromised). The harvesting process is much later, and this can be a risk in case of autumn rains (but this phenomenon is increasingly rare, and we practically have dry autumns under climate change conditions).
• The lack of efficient and systematic dialog between all actors who could facilitate and promote the development of the conservation agriculture system, and this causes all the incompetence and risks in this sector.

The results confirm that conservation agriculture (CA) offers tangible economic benefits for Moldovan farmers through both cost reduction and yield stabilization. Average profitability increased by 15–35%, while mechanization and fuel costs decreased by 30–40%. These results are consistent with findings reported by Chețan et al. (2022) in Romania [30] and Tóth et al. (2025) in Hungary [31], where similar savings were observed during the transition to CA systems. The combination of lower operating costs and improved resource-use efficiency explains the superior performance of CA. Fuel consumption per hectare, for instance, was reduced by 40%, primarily due to the elimination of repeated tillage and plowing. This supports previous evidence that no-till systems can reduce on-farm energy use by 30–50% [32,33]. While yield differences were moderate (+5–10%), they played a secondary but stabilizing role in overall profitability—particularly under drought conditions typical for southern Moldova. Similar patterns have been documented in Ukraine and Bulgaria, where CA improved yield reliability in years of climatic stress [34,35,36,37]. However, the adoption of CA remains limited by the low availability of direct seeders and the ability to maintain permanent organic cover [38,39,40].

4.3. Institutional and Behavioral Barriers

To facilitate the transition of the Republic of Moldova towards a more sustainable agricultural system, it is necessary to implement integrated measures aimed at training farmers, supporting infrastructure, adapting the legislative framework, and promoting the benefits of conservation agriculture [41,42], so that it becomes a viable and attractive practice in the long term:

• Creating a network of practical consultants (ToT) in the field of conservation agriculture to reconcile, promote, and consult on the conservation agriculture system and correctly inform interested farmers [43].
• Creation and development of tools/platforms and thematic events for practical discussion of the conservation agriculture system and intensification of dialog to identify operational development solutions [44].
• Conducting an economic study of practicing conservation agriculture compared to conventional agriculture to properly inform all the positive and negative aspects and facilitate reasoned decisions for undecided farmers or those practicing to adjust their business [45].
• It is necessary to create field schools (practical demonstration plots) for farmers based on model enterprises (perhaps initially three schools, at least in the central, northern, and southern areas), where complex and adjusted training with results/information over time can be organized for a production cycle and for training over time [46].
• Applying conservation agriculture on small areas is more expensive; it is very difficult to procure small-capacity conservation agricultural equipment (especially for 80–100 horsepower tractors that small farmers are equipped with); and the cooperation of small farmers to benefit from mechanized services at optimal costs would be a sustainable solution [47].
• The administration/donors would do well to identify and equip agro-industrial colleges and the Technical University to equip teaching stations with direct seeders (correctly selected and no-tillage), which will apply conservation agriculture, research, and educate/train the final beneficiaries (quite an important aspect) [48]. Creating farmer groups and equipping them with direct seeders will not have the expected effect of replication and education of farmers.
• Improving the legal framework that would facilitate the development of the conservation agriculture system with a clear stipulation of the soil management method, due to which until now sustainable soil cultivation has been neglected by most farmers, although they all benefit from subsidies, and the quality of the soil as a national wealth degrades from year to year as a result of the conventional agricultural system.
• The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry and donors interested in the promotion and development of conservation agriculture must join efforts to facilitate the unified and complex development of this way of conservation agricultural development; the implementation of separate projects will not cause the expected effects.
• Improving agricultural education—agronomic education for the field of no-tillage, as it is focused only on theory and less on practical and applied aspects [49]. Explore the possibility of supporting agricultural technical institutes and universities in developing informative materials on how no-till generates benefits, from an agronomic perspective, and study programs for agricultural technical institutes and universities.
• Exploring the opportunity to provide strategic support for the development of a national program to expand conservation agriculture within the framework of the government’s program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 (carbon sequestration) [50].
• Explore the opportunity of offering direct seeding services for farmers interested in setting up an experiment in conservation agriculture (perhaps through agricultural machinery suppliers). Provide small equipment that allows comparative measurements of farm results, which would allow building new arguments and convincing farmers.

5. Conclusions

In the Republic of Moldova, the concept of conservation agriculture has been adapted in a manner that diverges from internationally recognized standards. Local practices often equate CA with “minimum tillage”, particularly disc harrowing, which fails to achieve the intended objectives of climate change adaptation, mitigation, and soil protection. This conceptual confusion has generated inconsistent interpretations among stakeholders and hindered the effective implementation of genuine CA principles.

Despite these challenges, notable progress has been observed in recent years, with certain districts reporting conversion rates of up to 70% towards minimum tillage, driven largely by favorable government subsidies. Farmers adopting such practices have benefited from reduced fuel consumption and fewer machinery passes, depending on the type of equipment used. Nevertheless, many Moldovan farmers remain skeptical regarding the applicability of true conservation agriculture under local soil conditions.

The study shows that conservation agriculture can increase the profitability of farms in the Republic of Moldova by 15–35% and reduce mechanization costs by 30–40% compared to conventional systems. In addition, CA contributes to stabilizing production in drought conditions, confirming hypothesis H1.

Empirical evidence highlights several key barriers to the wider adoption of CA:

• Limited availability of direct seeding equipment, which constrains farmers’ ability to experiment with no-tillage systems;
• Insufficient capacity to maintain permanent organic soil cover, crucial for preventing soil compaction;
• An inadequate subsidy framework, which does not sufficiently incentivize long-term sustainable practices;
• Institutional rigidity among agronomists and conventional tillage advocates, impeding innovation and knowledge transfer.

Addressing these structural constraints through targeted public interventions could yield rapid and measurable progress in scaling up conservation agriculture at the national level. The potential benefits extend beyond improved agricultural productivity and sustainability, offering opportunities for the Republic of Moldova to access the carbon sequestration market and strengthen its contribution to climate resilience.

The scientific contribution of the study consists of presenting a comparative economic analysis at the farm level, based on empirical data collected in the field over a five-year period. Limitations include sample size and the lack of long data series for soil indicators.