Wheat (Triticum ssp.) is a cereal, which origins from botanical family of grass (Poaceae) and represent the main dietary field crop. The production can be conventional or ecological. The main difference between these two ways of production is the use of protective means and technology of production. The differences in technology of wheat production are based on the standards of ecological farming and ban of use synthetic mineral fertilizers and phytopharmaceutical products by law. In our research we compared two ecological farms with two farms with conventional production. We concluded that there was less integration of Leguminosae (Fabaceae) in crop rotations in those farms with conventional production. As ecological and conventional production use different technological approaches there are also different expenses and incomes that come with it. To the income we also added indirect payments and payments from the local development program. Results show that the expanses are higher by the conventional way of production for 167 €/ha (19 %) compared to the ecological way of production. The cover of the expanses with the harvest represents 126 €/ha (12 %) in the conventional production and 69 €/ha (8,8 %) in ecological production. With incomes from the indirect payments and payments from the local development program the income represents 749 €/ha in conventional production and 967 €/ha in ecological production. There is the same amount of working hours in both ways of production. Farms with harder conditions of work with conventional production have 29 €/ha (3,2 %) larger expanses than farms with lighter conditions of work. The same goes for ecological farms only the difference there is higher for 300 €/ha (34 %). One of the reasons is a different way of fertilizing. The income of farms with conventional production of wheat with lighter conditions of work is 791 €/ha, in farms with harder conditions of work the income reaches 707 €/ha. The difference is 10,5 % (84 €/ha). In comparison of two ecological farms we can conclude that those with lighter conditions of work reach 1 % (10 €/ha) higher income than those who face harder conditions of work.