Next Article in Journal
Combined Application of Biochar and Calcium Superphosphate Can Effectively Immobilize Cadmium and Reduce Its Uptake by Cabbage
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Vermicompost Application on the Soil Microbial Community Structure and Fruit Quality in Melon (Cucumis melo)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/agronomy14112537
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing Organic Farming Adoption in Selected Districts of Tamil Nadu: Challenges, Practices, and Pathways for Growth

by
Estone Jiji Habanyati
1,
Sivaraj Paramasivam
2,
Parthasarathy Seethapathy
2 and
Sudheesh Manalil
2,3,*
1
Amrita School for Sustainable Futures, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri 690525, India
2
Amrita School of Agricultural Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Coimbatore 642109, India
3
UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth 6009, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(11), 2537; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14112537
Submission received: 8 October 2024 / Revised: 24 October 2024 / Accepted: 25 October 2024 / Published: 28 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Farming Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigates the specific challenges and opportunities faced by organic farmers in Tamil Nadu, focusing on how region-specific practices influence the adoption and success of organic farming. It draws insights from a survey of 300 organic growers across five districts: Coimbatore, Dindigul, Erode, Tirupur, and Villupuram. This study is particularly relevant because there is a lack of comprehensive research on the specific challenges and opportunities faced by organic farmers in Tamil Nadu, with limited data on the long-term impact of government initiatives and region-specific management options, especially for smallholder farmers. Additionally, gaps exist in understanding the economic viability, market demand, and farmer perceptions of organic farming together with challenges like knowledge gaps, pest control, managing risks, and lower initial yields during the transition from conventional farming to organic farming. The research evaluated the factors affecting organic farming, including crop yield, the use of different organic formulations, the role of different information services, opportunities and challenges, and the impact on the perceived effectiveness of various agricultural outcomes. Various statistical analyses were performed, including K-means clustering, Poisson regression, and chi-square test. The results revealed significant variations in the adoption of various organic inputs and regionally practiced organic formulations. Crop residues (82.67%), Jeevamrith (78.33%), Amudhakaraisal (77.00%), and 3G-Extracts (74.00%) have high adoption rates, reflecting their perceived effectiveness and accessibility among farmers. However, the adoption of microbial bio-inputs such as Trichoderma viride (1.00%), Acetobacter spp. (19.00%), Azophos (consortium of phosphorus fixing microbes) (26.33%), and Azospirillum spp. (28.67%) was notably poor despite their known benefits for soil health and crop yield. The chi-square test also highlighted key challenges faced by farmers in adopting organic farming practices. The Poisson regression analysis showed significant positive impacts on crop growth and yield, disease resistance, insect control, overall plant health, and input efficiency due to organic farming. The study’s insights are essential for developing targeted strategies to overcome barriers, supporting the growth and sustainability of organic farming. Addressing these challenges and promoting effective information channels will better equip stakeholders to support organic growers, contributing to more resilient and productive agricultural systems in the region.

1. Introduction

The Government of India’s National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP) provides a comprehensive framework for promoting [1] and regulating organic farming with standards recognized by various countries and agencies [2,3]. In addition to the NPOP, the Government of India has implemented initiatives such as the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) and Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) to further promote organic farming nationwide [4]. However, despite these numerous programs, only a small percentage of growers in India have adopted organic farming practices [5,6,7]. This limited adoption highlights the necessity to assess the long-term impacts of government initiatives, particularly on smallholder organic farmers. It is crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of prevailing strategies and make recommendations to enhance the adoption of organic farming practices, contributing to sustainable agricultural development in India.
In Tamil Nadu, a state in India, organic farming plays a critical role toward advancing sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) through the integration of locally available resources and ensuring the production of safe and healthy foods [8,9]. Tamil Nadu currently ranks 15th among the Indian states in organic farming with 42,758 ha dedicated to organic farming [10]. During 2021–22 period, Tamil Nadu produced 29,994 metric tons of organic food, with 4223 tons were exported, generating revenue of approximately USD 12.86 million [11]. Although Tamil Nadu is making progress in organic farming [12], its production is nominal compared to India’s total certified organic production of 3.6 million metric tons (2023–24) [10]. Moreover, the current adoption rate of organic farming in Tamil Nadu represents only a small fraction of the state’s total agricultural area, highlighting the significant potential for expansion [13,14]. Identifying and addressing the factors driving this potential is essential for further promoting organic farming in the state.
There are numerous challenges that impact the expansion of organic farming. For instance, organic farming may initially result in lower crop yields compared to conventional methods [15,16], especially during the transition period when soil fertility and ecosystem balance are still being restored [17]. This lower yield is often attributed to the slower release of nutrients from organic fertilizers, which can cause nutrient deficiencies during critical growth stages if not properly managed [18]. Additionally, organic farming systems often encounter greater challenges in pest and disease management during the initial stages [19] due to their dependence on natural predators and biocontrol agents, which may take time to establish and become effective [20]. However, over the long term, organic farming can lead to more stable yields [21]. Many of these benefits may only become evident years after adoption [17,22,23], and not all of them are fully recognized by the growers [24].
Government agencies and officers are responsible for training growers in best practices, including organic farming, and encouraging them to maximize the use of locally available biological materials in their farming systems [25,26]. However, in developing countries like India, these agencies and officers are often entrusted with multiple responsibilities, which hinder the focused development of the organic farming sector [27]. Furthermore, many organic formulations including regional specific preparations and practices vary widely across the regions, and many lack scientific validation or uniformity across the regions [28,29,30]. This lack of validated information presents challenges for growers, as much of the advice provided is not based on rigorously tested results [31,32]. To address these challenges, it is crucial to assess the adoption rates of different organic formulations and their impact on crop yields. Scientific scrutiny and validation of these practices can help with promoting more effective organic farming practices. Efforts to promote organic farming should take current adoption levels of various preparations into account, offering valuable insights for policymakers and agricultural stakeholders to create more targeted and scientifically proven products and strategies that lead to increased adoption [33,34].
Due to the high population density and limited land availability in India, most farmers are smallholders (less than 2 ha). This situation necessitates the integration of organic farming practices as much as possible: pesticides and agro-chemicals, if not used judiciously, can contaminate water bodies and the environment [35,36]. Many farmers are increasingly aware of the risks associated with conventional farming, leading to a growing trust in organic practices [26,37]. In regions like Tamil Nadu, where traditional farming practices remain widespread, some farmers are more oriented to adopt organic practices, viewing them as a return to natural and sustainable practices [8,38]. They recognize the potential of organic farming to enhance long-term soil health, reduce dependence on chemical inputs, and produce healthier food [17,39,40]. However, organic farming presents several challenges, including higher labor demands, lower yields at the initial phases, and the need for greater knowledge and skill to manage organic systems effectively [19]. Furthermore, farmers may be cautious due to concerns about market demand for organic produce, the availability of organic inputs, the high incidence of pests and diseases, and the costs associated with transitioning from conventional to organic farming [8]. Although only a small percentage of growers and agricultural land in Tamil Nadu have adopted organic practices, there is significant potential for expansion [13].
Despite the growing interest in organic farming across India, several research gaps remain, particularly in Tamil Nadu. Comprehensive studies examining the specific challenges and opportunities faced by organic farmers in the regions are limited. While various government initiatives have been implemented to promote organic farming [41], there are insufficient data assessing their impact, especially on smallholder farmers. Additionally, the organic formulations used across the regions vary widely [42], and many lack scientific validation, creating uncertainty for farmers regarding their effectiveness. The transition from conventional to organic farming is another area where challenges remain underexplored, particularly in terms of managing lower initial yields, labor intensity, and pest and disease control [43,44]. Furthermore, research on market demand and the economic viability of organic farming in Tamil Nadu is not sufficient, leaving gaps in understanding the economic incentives and barriers that farmers face. Moreover, there is a notable lack of studies examining farmer perceptions and the knowledge gaps they encounter when adopting organic systems, which is crucial for informing training and extension programs.
Based on the existing research gaps, this study hypothesizes that the limited adoption of organic farming in Tamil Nadu is driven by the high costs and labor demands associated with transitioning from conventional farming. While government support positively influences adoption rates, the lack of scientific validation of region-specific management options hampers widespread adoption. It is also hypothesized that while many farmers perceive organic farming as a return to traditional practices, uncertainties regarding market demand and challenges in pest management limit its expansion. Additionally, smallholder farmers may not immediately recognize the long-term benefits of organic farming [45], such as improved soil health and stable yields, which affects their willingness to adopt these practices [23]. Finally, the study hypothesizes that region-specific organic farming practices are adopted unevenly with many promising practices not being widely popularized among growers. This study aims to fill this gap by providing detailed insights into the organic farming practices in Coimbatore, Dindigul, Erode, Tirupur, and Villupuram regions. This study focuses on Tamil Nadu, a leading agricultural state with diverse farming systems, to explore the specific constraints and opportunities for organic farming, recognizing that region-specific approaches are essential for adapting organic practices to local conditions such as soil, climate, and crop types. By analyzing data collected from 300 organic growers, the study seeks to identify the challenges and opportunities of organic farming and contribute to the existing body of knowledge by offering region-specific insights for targeted interventions and policy measures that can support the growth of organic farming.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study

Study area: The study was conducted in five selected districts of Tamil Nadu, India, focusing on key organic farming regions: Coimbatore, Dindigul, Erode, Tirupur, and Villupuram. The major crops cultivated in these districts include rice, sugarcane, mango, cotton, millets, pulses, and oilseeds [46]. The selection criteria for these districts are based on the maximum number of certified organic growers in Tamil Nadu. Data for this study were collected through surveys of participants engaged in organic farming practices.
Sampling and data collection: A total of 300 smallholder organic farmers were randomly selected from lists provided by local advisors and interviewed across the districts including Coimbatore (72), Dindigul (54), Erode (60), Tirupur (63), and Villupuram (51). Stratified random sampling methods were used for the chosen sample size from each selected district [47].
Data were collected between July 2023 and November 2023. A well-structured interview schedule was meticulously prepared, taking into account the study’s objectives and variables. The key areas addressed in the study included (1) classification of crops based on their yield response to organic farming; (2) use of various services in promoting organic farming; (3) adoption of different organic formulations; (4) major challenges faced by organic growers; and (5) perceptions on various major agricultural outcomes. Before finalizing the interview schedule, it was pre-tested in a non-sample area. After pre-testing, any inconsistencies were corrected and used for data collection. The following inferences were derived through various statistical tests.

2.2. Clustering Analysis of Crop Yield Patterns

The K-means clustering was employed to group crops based on their perceived yield enhancement percentages over conventional farming. K-means clustering was selected for grouping crops yields, as it is particularly suitable for handling large datasets with varying performance metrics [48,49]. This method allows for the clear identification of crop groups with similar yield responses, which is crucial for analyzing the impact of organic farming practices. For the yield data analysis, growers’ perceptions of crop yield enhancement compared to conventional farming (control) were assessed. The crops include rice, coconut, banana, sugarcane, mango, vegetables, flowers, grains, citrus, pulses, spices, and sesame. The growers were categorized into three yield groups based on perceived yield increases: up to 10%, 10% to 20%, and greater than 20%. These groups were used for K-means clustering analysis.

2.3. Impact of Different Services on the Promotion of Organic Farming

Data for this analysis were collected through surveys targeting the use of various agricultural information sources. The response variable is count, which represents the usage of each information source. The predictor variable, service, includes information sources such as educational events, role of extension officers, fellow farmers, magazines, newspapers, government departments, radio, social media and television in promoting organic farming. A Poisson regression model was utilized to analyze the frequency of service usage in promoting organic farming. This model was selected due to its robustness in handling count data, making it an appropriate choice for our dataset, where the outcome variable reflects the number of times specific services were used [50].

2.4. Adoption of Organic Formulations

Data were collected on the adoption of various organic farming practices among the farmers. The treatments included crop residues and farm yard manure (FYM) that are commonly used in farming along with jeevamrith, vermicompost, organic cake, green manure, green leaf manure, Azophos biofertilizer, Azospirillum spp., Acetobacter spp., Panchagavya, Beejamurutha, Amudhakaraisal, butter milk, coconut milk, fish amino acid, fermented fruit mixture, effective microorganism, intercropping system, trap cropping, Trichoderma viride, Neemastra, Agniasthira, Brahmastra, ginger garlic paste, 3G-Extracts, and spraying of oil mixture. As many of these formulations are regional specific, the compositions of organic formulations are listed in Table 1. Adoption was categorized into ‘yes’ and ‘no’, and respective counts were recorded. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was conducted for each treatment to determine whether the observed frequencies of adoption significantly differed from expected frequencies. The chi-square test provides a robust tool for analyzing categorical survey data, assessing relationships, and determining the independence of variables, which directly aligns with study’s objectives of comparing practices and perceptions across different control groups. Since the data collected are categorical, the chi-square test is an appropriate method for analyzing these variables [51,52].

2.5. Major Challenges

Data were collected from respondents through a structured questionnaire focusing on ten specific challenges: labor intensiveness, lack of manure, certification difficulties, manure transport issues, market issues, training issues, infrequent visits from extension officers, high costs to practice organic farming, long time required to experience the benefits and weed management issues. Responses were categorized into ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ based on whether the identified challenges are significant. A Chi-square goodness-of-fit test was performed to determine the statistical significance of responses to different challenges. The count data corresponding to ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ responses were subjected to the chi-square analysis.

2.6. Farmers’ Perceptions Toward Various Outcomes/Factors

Data were collected to assess farmers’ perceptions of various agricultural outcomes/services and their impacts on yield, disease control, insect control, growth of crops, crop health, inputs availability, labor intensiveness, and manure availability. Poisson regression analysis was employed, where the independent variables were regressed on the counts of responses at different levels of agreement: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses performed in this study include K-means clustering, Poisson regression, and chi-square analysis. These analyses were conducted using the R statistical package (version 4.1.2) [53]. Detailed descriptions of the specific statistical methods applied to each dataset are provided in the Methods section.

3. Results

3.1. Clustering Analysis of Crop Yield Percentages

The K-means clustering algorithm grouped the crops into three distinct clusters based on percentage of growers falling in each yield groups (Table 2). Cluster 1 includes crops such as rice, coconut, banana, sugarcane, and mango. These crops exhibit a grower percentage of 34% to 59% for yield group 1 (up to 10% yield increase), 19% to 44% for yield group 2 (10 to 20% yield increase), and 11% to 33% for yield group 3 (greater than 20% yield increase). Cluster 2 comprises vegetables, flowers, grains, citrus, pulses, and spices. The grower percentages for these crops show 0 to 33% with yield group 1, from 48% to 100% for yield group 2, and 0 to 50% for yield group 3. Cluster 3 consists solely of sesamum and was characterized by a 100% response for yield group 1.

3.2. The Impact of Different Services on the Promotion of Organic Farming

The Poisson regression analysis reveals significant differences in the effectiveness of various information services in promoting organic farming (Table 3). Magazines, government departments, fellow farmers, newspapers, and social media were identified as the most influential communication channels, each showing highly significant positive impacts on the adoption of organic farming practices. Fellow farmers and social media were the channels with significant positive influences, also showing a strong impact and highlighting the increasing importance of digital platforms in spreading information. Radio and television, while still showing significant positive effects, had a lesser impact compared to many other options. In contrast, the non-significant negative impact of extension officers suggests potential issues in their current methods or approaches.

3.3. Adoption Level of Organic Practices by Growers

The data indicate that certain organic formulations, such as crop residues (82.67%), Jeevamrith (78.33%), Amudhakaraisal (77.00%), and 3G-Extracts (74.00%), have high adoption rates, reflecting their perceived effectiveness and popularity among farmers (Table 4). Panchagavya (72.00%) and green leaf manure (70.67%) are also widely used, reinforcing the trend toward traditional organic methods. Formulations like FYM (68.33%), spraying oil mixture (65.00%), and fish amino acid (64.33%) show moderate levels of adoption. However, the adoption of microbial bio-inputs such as Trichoderma viride (1.00%), Acetobacter spp. (19.00%), Azophos biofertilizer (26.33%), and Azospirillum spp. (28.67%) is notably poor despite their known benefits for soil health and crop yield enhancement. Some of the regional-specific treatments, such as neemstra, agniasthira, brahmastra, ginger garlic paste, fermented fruit mixture, and effective microorganisms, did not show significant adoption rates.

3.4. Chi-Squared Analysis of Challenges in Organic Farming

The chi-square test results highlight several key insights into the challenges faced by farmers in adopting organic farming practices (Table 5). A minimal number of farmers indicated that lack of manure (6.33%), difficulties in certification (6.67%), and issues with manure transportation (3.33%) were their challenges. Similarly, the costliness of organic farming for smallholder farmers was flagged by only 8% of respondents, indicating that financial barriers are not as prevalent as might be expected. Conversely, other challenges were reported by a significant portion of farmers. Market issues were highlighted by 77.67% of respondents, indicating a major obstacle in finding reliable and profitable markets for organic produce. Additionally, 93.67% of farmers cited the long time required to see benefits from organic farming as a significant challenge, indicating the need for more immediate incentives to maintain their interest especially for beginners. The prevalence of weeds was also a significant concern with 77.33% of farmers indicating this as a major challenge, suggesting the need for effective organic weed control methods. The lack of visits from extension officers was a problem for 15.33% of farmers. Labor intensiveness and training challenges were reported by 56.67% and 44.67% of farmers, respectively, highlighting that these factors still play a considerable role in the adoption of organic farming practices. These results show that while some logistical and financial issues are not widespread, market access, the time required for benefits to manifest, weed management, and adequate support services are critical areas that need to be addressed to promote the adoption of organic farming.

3.5. Farmers’ Perceptions on Various Outcomes/Factors

The results of the Poisson regression analysis across various agricultural outcomes (yield, disease incidence, insect attack, crop growth, crop health, low input usage, less labor intensive, and easy manure availability) indicate a strong relationship between farmers’ agreement with various outcomes (Table 6). The analysis reveals that “Agree” consistently shows strong positive associations with all outcomes, with significant coefficients ranging from 4.11 to 5.61, demonstrating that farmers are more likely to experience favorable results, such as high yields, better disease resistance, improved insect control, good growth, crop health, efficient input usage, less labor, and manure availability. Conversely, the “Disagree” category is associated with significant negative impacts on most outcomes, except for labor, where a slight positive but marginally significant association was observed. In summary, the positive association for “Agree” is consistently stronger compared to other responses in general.

4. Discussion

The survey results demonstrate that all the surveyed growers experienced an increase in yield, indicating that organic management is effective in enhancing crop productivity and growers succeeded in channelizing locally available resources in farming. Growers reported that yield increases were particularly significant across various crop groups. Generally, during the initial phases, organic farming often results in lower yields compared to conventional farming [5,17,19]. This finding aligns with previous studies that have documented the potential for yield improvement in organic systems over time. Similarly, organic farming can produce comparable or even higher yields than conventional methods due to there being a progressive improvement in soil fertility [54,55]. While conventional farming usually results in higher yields, organic farming offers distinct advantages, including improved soil health, increased biodiversity, and reduced environmental impact [56,57,58]. Over time, as soil fertility and ecosystem balance improve within the organic systems, the yield gaps between organic and conventional methods can narrow. In fact, some studies suggest that organic farming practices may eventually produce comparable or even higher yields than conventional approaches [59,60]. This highlights the potential long-term benefits of organic farming in achieving sustainable agricultural productivity. The findings of this study also reveal that farmers are beginning to realize these benefits, as they have started experiencing higher yields due to the adoption of organic farming practices.
The analysis highlights significant differences in the effectiveness of various information channels in promoting organic farming. Traditional media such as magazines and newspaper reports still play a crucial role in providing detailed information and practical advice, which helps to guide farmers toward organic practices. This is in conformity with other studies that magazines and newspapers play as trusted sources that enhance farmers’ understanding and commitment to organic farming [25,61]. Fellow farmers also showed a strong positive influence, highlighting the importance of peer recommendations and shared personal experiences among the rural and farming communities [62]. This peer influence is vital in these communities, where trust and firsthand knowledge are key factors in adopting new practices [63,64]. The results align with previous studies, which found that fellow farmers exert a strong positive influence on decision making with trust and first-hand experience being key factors in this process [65]. This study identified social media as a highly impactful tool due to its interactive nature and ability to facilitate real-time communication, differing from earlier studies that found digital platforms to have less influence in rural farming contexts [66,67]. Social media’s strong impact further emphasizes the growing role of digital platforms in spreading information and resources, making it an effective tool for promoting organic farming [68]. On the other hand, while radio and television also showed significant positive effects, their impact was less pronounced compared to the other media. Their one-way communication style may limit the effectiveness in facilitating the transition to organic practices [69,70]. This contrasts with previous studies that found these channels to be more effective in reaching farmers [71]. The non-significant negative impact of extension officers indicates potential issues with their current methods or approaches [72]. Despite their traditional role in educating farmers, the strategies employed by extension officers may not be effective [69,73]. This finding highlights the need for a review and redesign of extension services to better connect with farmers and improve their effectiveness in promoting organic farming [69,74]. Similar findings were highlighted by earlier studies on the performance of extension systems [75,76,77]. Public extension systems are often ineffective due to the multitasking demands placed on extension personnel, preventing them from focusing specifically on promoting organic farming, which has contributed to the low adoption rates in the study area. To address these issues and improve the effectiveness of extension services, dedicated manpower should be assigned specifically for organic farming promotion and adoption efforts within the farming community [62,78,79]. Additionally, agriculture departments need to provide specialized training on organic farming, updated research, and access to resources such as organic inputs and materials for extension personnel [79]. Moreover, recent advancements in the digital world, such as location-specific social networking, portals, and mobile applications for organic farming, could further enhance the delivery of the extension services [80]. In conclusion, the analysis points to the importance of a multi-channel approach in promoting organic farming. Enhancing the role of extension officers through improved strategies and training could also significantly support the spread of organic farming [25,81].
The adoption rates of various organic formulations, such as crop residues, Jeevamrith, Amudhakaraisal, and 3G-extracts, highlight their importance in SAPs. These inputs are clearly valued by farmers for their ability to enhance soil fertility, improve crop yields, and provide long-term agricultural sustainability. Earlier studies have reported similar trends in the adoption of organic inputs that enhance soil fertility within organic farming systems [82,83]. Crop residues, the most widely adopted at 82.67%, play a critical role in maintaining soil organic matter and providing essential nutrients as they decompose. Similarly, Jeevamrith and Amudhakaraisal, both traditional organic mixtures, are widely used due to their effectiveness in boosting soil microbial activity, which is essential for nutrient cycling and plant health. Panchagavya, is another popular input known for its role in enhancing plant growth and increasing resistance to pests and diseases. These formulations are deeply rooted in traditional knowledge and continue to be integral to organic farming systems, reflecting their proven benefits in promoting soil health and sustainable agriculture.
Despite the widespread use of many organic formulations, there is a concerning trend in the low adoption rates of microbial bio-inputs, such as Trichoderma viride, Azospirillum spp., and Acetobacter spp., which are crucial for promoting plant growth and enhancing soil health through biological nitrogen fixation and pathogen suppression. This finding contrasts with studies that report higher adoption rates of these bio-inputs in regions with stronger extension services and more comprehensive farmer training programs [84,85]. The poor adoption of these microbial bio-inputs reveal a significant gap in knowledge dissemination and accessibility. Interventions are needed to improve the awareness and usage of these beneficial inputs. Such interventions could include more robust extension programs, financial incentives for microbial bio-inputs adoption, and the development of local production facilities to reduce costs and increase availability. By addressing these challenges, there is potential to greatly enhance the sustainability and productivity of organic farming systems, supporting broader agricultural goals. Strengthening extension services and providing training on the effective use of these organic formulations and microbial bio-inputs preparations could further boost their adoption, leading to more resilient and productive farming systems. The results shed light on the varied challenges farmers face in adopting organic farming practices. While logistical and financial barriers, such as manure availability, certification difficulties, and costs impact a smaller segment of farmers [86,87,88], more prevalent challenges require attention. Market access is a major obstacle, and the finding aligns with other studies that identified market access as a key constraint [89]. Despite being of higher quality and having a longer shelf life compared to conventional farming produce, organic products face challenges in reaching broader markets [90]. This underlines the need for stronger market linkages and support systems. The long time required to experience the benefits from organic farming also poses a significant challenge, highlighting the necessity for short-term incentives and support to maintain farmer interest during the transition [91,92]. Weed management is another key concern, indicating the need for effective and sustainable organic weed control methods [93]. In summary, while some logistical issues are less widespread, the challenges related to market access, time to benefit realization, weed management, and support services are critical. Addressing these areas will be essential for promoting the broader adoption of organic farming and supporting the transition to more SAPs.
The organic farmers’ perceptions toward various agricultural treatments reveal how these views significantly influence agricultural outcomes. Farmers who agreed with the effectiveness of organic treatments reported positive impacts on various factors, including yield, disease resistance, insect control, growth, crop health, input efficiency, labor efficiency, and manure availability. These findings are consistent with results from several other studies [94,95,96,97]. Overall, these findings underline the importance of farmers’ perceptions in shaping organic agriculture success.

5. Conclusions

The comprehensive analysis reveals the complex dynamics that influence the adoption and effectiveness of organic farming practices, addressing key research gaps related to region-specific challenges in Tamil Nadu. This study fills an important gap by exploring the factors that impact farmers’ decisions, such as crop yield, information channels, and agricultural inputs, which have been insufficiently studied in the context of Tamil Nadu. It highlights how the adoption of certain organic inputs is driven by their perceived effectiveness and availability while identifying persistent challenges such as market access, time required to experience benefits, weed management, and the possible improvements needed for the extension services. By focusing on these challenges, the study offers valuable insights into the barriers that hinder the widespread adoption of organic farming. It highlights the need for enhancing the quality of extension services, strengthening market linkages, and providing targeted education on less adopted inputs. The analysis also reveals significant variations in the adoption of organic inputs with practices like using crop residues, Jeevamrith, Amudhakaraisal, and 3G-Extracts being widely adopted due to their effectiveness, while microbial bio-inputs such as Trichoderma viride, Acetobacter spp., Azophos, and Azospirillum spp. remain underutilized. This underutilization points to a need for increased awareness and access to these inputs, which can significantly benefit soil health and crop yield. The study further highlights lower adoption rates of region-specific treatments like Neemstra, Agniasthira, Brahmastra, ginger garlic paste, and fermented fruit mixtures, indicating the need for scientific validation and efforts to promote their use if proven effective. The societal impact of this research lies in its potential to inform policy and interventions that support organic farming, foster trust in organic practices, and address practical challenges faced by the farmers. By doing so, the study contributes to the broader goals of sustainable agricultural development, improved livelihoods for smallholder farmers, and enhanced environmental health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.M., S.P. and E.J.H.; Methodology: S.M., S.P. and E.J.H.; Data Collection: E.J.H. and S.P.; Formal analysis and investigation: S.M., P.S. and E.J.H.; Writing—original draft preparation: E.J.H., S.M., S.P. and P.S.; Writing—review and editing: E.J.H., S.P., P.S. and S.M.; Funding acquisition: E.J.H. and S.M.; Resources: S.P.; Supervision: S.M. and S.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the E4LIFE International Ph.D. Fellowship Program, provided by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham. Special thanks to the Amrita Live-in-Labs® academic program for their assistance throughout this project.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed in the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the certified organic growers of Tamil Nadu for their participation and response of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Krishnaprabu, S. Organic Farming in India: Concept, Applications and Perspectives. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1362, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Raut, V.D.; Raut, D.D.; Deshpande, S.K. A Boost of Organic Farming to Farmers. Gujarat J. Ext. Educ. 2018, 29, 159–162. [Google Scholar]
  3. Thakur, N.; Nigam, M.; Tewary, R.; Rajvanshi, K.; Kumar, M.; Shukla, S.K.; Mahmoud, G.A.-E.; Gupta, S. Drivers for the Behavioural Receptiveness and Non-Receptiveness of Farmers towards Organic Cultivation System. J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2022, 34, 102107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Priyadarshini, P.; Abhilash, P.C. Policy Recommendations for Enabling Transition towards Sustainable Agriculture in India. Land. Use Policy 2020, 96, 104718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Seufert, V.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Comparing the Yields of Organic and Conventional Agriculture. Nature 2012, 485, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ravisankar, N.; Panwar, A.S.; Prasad, K.; Kumar, V.; Bhaskar, S. Organic Farming (Crop Production Guide) Network Project on Organic Farming; ICAR: Meerut, India, 2017; Volume 1, ISBN 9788192899336. [Google Scholar]
  7. Das, S.; Chatterjee, A.; Pal, T.K. Organic Farming in India: A Vision towards a Healthy Nation. Food Qual. Saf. 2020, 4, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Paramasivam, S.; Henry, P.; Seethapathy, P.; Rajamohan, T. A Strategic Model for Empowering Farmers by Improving Livelihood Security through Organic Farming Practices in Tamil Nadu, India. J. Agric. Sci. Sri Lanka 2022, 17, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Somasundaram, E.; Ganesan, K.; Ravisankar, N.; Panwar, A.S. Integrated Organic Farming System Approach to Sustain Productivity, Income and Employment of Marginal Farm Holdings of Southern India. Indian. J. Agron. 2021, 66, 286–294. [Google Scholar]
  10. APEDA Organic Products in India 2023–2024. Available online: https://apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/organic/Organic_Products.htm (accessed on 23 February 2024).
  11. Department of Agriculture Policy Note Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Tamil Nadu. Available online: https://www.tn.gov.in/documents/dept/2 (accessed on 31 May 2024).
  12. Yadava, A.K.; Komaraiah, J.B. Benchmarking the Performance of Organic Farming in India. J. Public. Aff. 2021, 21, e2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Logesh, V.; Ramasubramanian, M.; Vennila, M.A.; Karthikeyan, C.; Prahadeeswaran, M. An Analysis of Constraints Faced by Organic Farmers in the Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu, India. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 888–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Paramasivam, S. Training Needs Analysis for Certified Organic Growers in Tamil Nadu on Organic Agricultural Practices. Int. J. Agric. Stat. Sci. 2022, 18, 575–582. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tscharntke, T.; Grass, I.; Wanger, T.C.; Westphal, C.; Batáry, P. Beyond Organic Farming—Harnessing Biodiversity-Friendly Landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 919–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Łuczka, W.; Kalinowski, S. Barriers to the Development of Organic Farming: A Polish Case Study. Agriculture 2020, 10, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gamage, A.; Gangahagedara, R.; Gamage, J.; Jayasinghe, N.; Kodikara, N.; Suraweera, P.; Merah, O. Role of Organic Farming for Achieving Sustainability in Agriculture. Farming Syst. 2023, 1, 100005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Panday, D.; Bhusal, N.; Das, S.; Ghalehgolabbehbahani, A. Rooted in Nature: The Rise, Challenges, and Potential of Organic Farming and Fertilizers in Agroecosystems. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Durham, T.C.; Mizik, T. Comparative Economics of Conventional, Organic, and Alternative Agricultural Production Systems. Economies 2021, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Baker, B.P.; Green, T.A.; Loker, A.J. Biological Control and Integrated Pest Management in Organic and Conventional Systems. Biol. Control 2020, 140, 104095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, M.; Peterson, C.A.; Tautges, N.E.; Scow, K.M.; Gaudin, A.C.M. Yields and Resilience Outcomes of Organic, Cover Crop, and Conventional Practices in a Mediterranean Climate. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fess, T.; Benedito, V. Organic versus Conventional Cropping Sustainability: A Comparative System Analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rani, M.; Kaushik, P.; Bhayana, S.; Kapoor, S. Impact of Organic Farming on Soil Health and Nutritional Quality of Crops. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2023, 22, 560–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, A. Understanding the Perception, Constraints and Reasons for the Adoption of Organic Farming. Indian. Res. J. Ext. Educ. 2022, 22, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alotaibi, B.A.; Yoder, E.; Kassem, H.S. Extension Agents’ Perceptions of the Role of Extension Services in Organic Agriculture: A Case Study from Saudi Arabia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sapbamrer, R.; Thammachai, A. A Systematic Review of Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Organic Farming. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Parajuli, S.; Shrestha, J.; Ghimire, S. Organic Farming in Nepal: A Viable Option for Food Security and Agricultural Sustainability. Arch. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2020, 5, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gomiero, T.; Pimentel, D.; Paoletti, M.G. Environmental Impact of Different Agricultural Management Practices: Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 95–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lotter, D.W. Organic Agriculture. J. Sustain. Agric. 2003, 21, 59–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Murphy, B.; Martini, M.; Fedi, A.; Loera, B.L.; Elliott, C.T.; Dean, M. Consumer Trust in Organic Food and Organic Certifications in Four European Countries. Food Control 2022, 133, 108484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Pretty, J. Agricultural Sustainability: Concepts, Principles and Evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology: Challenges and Opportunities for Farming in the Anthropocene. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour. 2020, 47, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Brown, K.A.; Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy, N.; Law, C.; Harris, F.; Kadiyala, S.; Shankar, B.; Mohan, S.; Prabhakaran, D.; Knai, C. Moving towards Sustainable Food Systems: A Review of Indian Food Policy Budgets. Glob. Food Sec. 2021, 28, 100462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Huber, R.; Bartkowski, B.; Brown, C.; El Benni, N.; Feil, J.-H.; Grohmann, P.; Joormann, I.; Leonhardt, H.; Mitter, H.; Müller, B. Farm Typologies for Understanding Farm Systems and Improving Agricultural Policy. Agric. Syst. 2024, 213, 103800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ramakrishnan, B.; Maddela, N.R.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Organic Farming: Does It Contribute to Contaminant-Free Produce and Ensure Food Safety? Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 769, 145079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Tudi, M.; Daniel Ruan, H.; Wang, L.; Lyu, J.; Sadler, R.; Connell, D.; Chu, C.; Phung, D.T. Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Malhan, P.; Ram, T. Farmers’ Perception Towards the Benefits of Organic Farming in Haryana. Asia-Pac. J. Manag. Res. Innov. 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Panneerselvam, P.; Hermansen, J.E.; Halberg, N.; Arthanari, P.M. Impact of Large-Scale Organic Conversion on Food Production and Food Security in Two Indian States, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2015, 30, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rempelos, L.; Baranski, M.; Wang, J.; Adams, T.N.; Adebusuyi, K.; Beckman, J.J.; Brockbank, C.J.; Douglas, B.S.; Feng, T.; Greenway, J.D.; et al. Integrated Soil and Crop Management in Organic Agriculture: A Logical Framework to Ensure Food Quality and Human Health? Agronomy 2021, 11, 2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Aulakh, C.S.; Sharma, S.; Thakur, M.; Kaur, P. A Review of the Influences of Organic Farming on Soil Quality, Crop Productivity and Produce Quality. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 45, 1884–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bharucha, Z.P.; Mitjans, S.B.; Pretty, J. Towards Redesign at Scale through Zero Budget Natural Farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2020, 18, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Durán-Lara, E.F.; Valderrama, A.; Marican, A. Natural Organic Compounds for Application in Organic Farming. Agriculture 2020, 10, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sacco, D.; Moretti, B.; Monaco, S.; Grignani, C. Six-Year Transition from Conventional to Organic Farming: Effects on Crop Production and Soil Quality. Eur. J. Agron. 2015, 69, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zinati, G.M. Transition from Conventional to Organic Farming Systems: I. Challenges, Recommendations, and Guidelines for Pest Management. Horttechnology 2002, 12, 606–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ume, C.O.; Onah, O.G.; Okpukpara, B.C.; Chukwuma-Ume, N.; Charles, U.I.; Omeje, E.E.; Chiemela, C.J.; Chituru, I.J.; Orazulike, O. Factors Influencing Smallholder Adoption of Organic Agriculture in Southeast Geopolitical Region of Nigeria. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1173043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Varadan, R.J.; Kumar, P. Mapping Agricultural Vulnerability of Tamil Nadu, India to Climate Change: A Dynamic Approach to Take Forward the Vulnerability Assessment Methodology. Clim. Chang. 2015, 129, 159–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ataei, P.; Karimi, H.; Klöckner, C.A.; Es’haghi, S.R.; Zarei, R. The Promotion of Biofertilizer Application on Farms: Farmers’ Intentional Processes. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2022, 28, 102722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Reza, M.N.; Na, I.S.; Baek, S.W.; Lee, K.-H. Rice Yield Estimation Based on K-Means Clustering with Graph-Cut Segmentation Using Low-Altitude UAV Images. Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 177, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. De Oliveira, M.A.; Varone, F.A.; Fraisse, C.W.; Araújo, R.M.; Cavalheiro, G.G.H. Clustering of Meteorological Data to Improve Agricultural Decisions: A Case Study with SIMAGRO-RS. In Proceedings of the 20th Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems, Juiz de Fora, Brazil, 20–23 May 2024; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  50. Nzuma, J.M.; Mzera, U.I. Evaluating Aflatoxin Contamination Control Practices among Smallholder Maize Farmers in Kilifi County, Kenya: A Poisson Regression Analysis. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 26, 10029–10041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rai, A.; Srivastava, A.K.; Gupta, H.C. Small Sample Comparison of Modified Chi-Square Test Statistics for Survey Data. Biom. J. 2001, 43, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Duzdemir, O.; Akca, H.; Sayili, M. Factors Affecting Fertiliser Use in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) Growing: A Case from Turkey. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2008, 36, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Team R Core. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.R-project.org (accessed on 21 June 2024).
  54. de Ponti, T.; Rijk, B.; van Ittersum, M.K. The Crop Yield Gap between Organic and Conventional Agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jouzi, Z.; Azadi, H.; Taheri, F.; Zarafshani, K.; Gebrehiwot, K.; Van Passel, S.; Lebailly, P. Organic Farming and Small-Scale Farmers: Main Opportunities and Challenges. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lori, M.; Symnaczik, S.; Mäder, P.; De Deyn, G.; Gattinger, A. Organic Farming Enhances Soil Microbial Abundance and Activity—A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Azam, M.S.; Shaheen, M. Decisional Factors Driving Farmers to Adopt Organic Farming in India: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2019, 46, 562–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rizzo, G.; Migliore, G.; Schifani, G.; Vecchio, R. Key Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Sustainable Innovations: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Org. Agric. 2024, 14, 57–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Smith, O.M.; Cohen, A.L.; Rieser, C.J.; Davis, A.G.; Taylor, J.M.; Adesanya, A.W.; Jones, M.S.; Meier, A.R.; Reganold, J.P.; Orpet, R.J.; et al. Organic Farming Provides Reliable Environmental Benefits but Increases Variability in Crop Yields: A Global Meta-Analysis. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Läpple, D.; Rensburg, T. Van Adoption of Organic Farming: Are There Differences between Early and Late Adoption? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fan, L.; Ge, Y.; Niu, H. Effects of Agricultural Extension System on Promoting Conservation Agriculture in Shaanxi Plain, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 134896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, T.; Bruins, R.; Heberling, M. Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Šūmane, S.; Kunda, I.; Knickel, K.; Strauss, A.; Tisenkopfs, T.; Rios, I.d.I.; Rivera, M.; Chebach, T.; Ashkenazy, A. Local and Farmers’ Knowledge Matters! How Integrating Informal and Formal Knowledge Enhances Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture. J. Rural. Stud. 2018, 59, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Noy, S.; Jabbour, R. Decision-Making in Local Context: Expertise, Experience, and the Importance of Neighbours in Farmers’ Insect Pest Management. Sociol. Rural. 2020, 60, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Klerkx, L.; Jakku, E.; Labarthe, P. A Review of Social Science on Digital Agriculture, Smart Farming and Agriculture 4.0: New Contributions and a Future Research Agenda. NJAS: Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fabregas, R.; Kremer, M.; Schilbach, F. Realizing the Potential of Digital Development: The Case of Agricultural Advice. Science (1979) 2019, 366, eaay3038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R. Enhancing Smart Farming through the Applications of Agriculture 4.0 Technologies. Int. J. Intell. Netw. 2022, 3, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sewell, A.M.; Hartnett, M.K.; Gray, D.I.; Blair, H.T.; Kemp, P.D.; Kenyon, P.R.; Morris, S.T.; Wood, B.A. Using Educational Theory and Research to Refine Agricultural Extension: Affordances and Barriers for Farmers’ Learning and Practice Change. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2017, 23, 313–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pagliarino, E.; Rolfo, S. Examining Researchers’ Attitudes, Barriers, and Opportunities for Participatory Research: The Case of the Riso-Biosystems Project on Organic Rice. Agriculture 2021, 11, 376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Danaher, P.J.; Dagger, T.S. Comparing the Relative Effectiveness of Advertising Channels: A Case Study of a Multimedia Blitz Campaign. J. Mark. Res. 2013, 50, 517–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Xu, Z.; Li, J.; Ma, J. Impacts of Extension Contact on the Adoption of Formulated Fertilizers and Farm Performance among Large-Scale Farms in Rural China. Land 2022, 11, 1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bressler, A.; Plumhoff, M.; Hoey, L.; Blesh, J. Cover Crop Champions: Linking Strategic Communication Approaches with Farmer Networks to Support Cover Crop Adoption. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2021, 34, 1602–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lamine, C. Transition Pathways towards a Robust Ecologization of Agriculture and the Need for System Redesign. Cases from Organic Farming and IPM. J. Rural. Stud. 2011, 27, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Antwi-Agyei, P.; Stringer, L.C. Improving the Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension Services in Supporting Farmers to Adapt to Climate Change: Insights from Northeastern Ghana. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gikunda, R.M.; Lawver, D.E.; Baker, M.; Boren-Alpizar, A.E.; Guo, W. Extension Education Needs for Improved Adoption of Sustainable Organic Agriculture in Central Kenya. Am. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst. 2021, 10, 61–71. [Google Scholar]
  77. Taylor, M.; Bhasme, S. Model Farmers, Extension Networks and the Politics of Agricultural Knowledge Transfer. J. Rural. Stud. 2018, 64, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kumar, N.; Mazhar, S.H.; Kumar, A. The Role of Agricultural Extension in Disseminating the Technology of Organic Farming among Greenhouse Farmer’s in India. Int. J. Agric. Ext. Social. Dev. 2023, 6, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Emeana, E.M.; Trenchard, L.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Shaikh, S. Evaluating the Role of Public Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services in Promoting Agro-Ecology Transition in Southeast Nigeria. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 43, 123–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sivakumar, S.; Bijoshkumar, G.; Rajasekharan, A.; Panicker, V.; Paramasivam, S.; Manivasagam, V.S.; Manalil, S. Evaluating the Expediency of Smartphone Applications for Indian Farmers and Other Stakeholders. AgriEngineering 2022, 4, 656–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shirur, M.; Sharath, H.N.; Tewari, G.; Gummagolmath, K.C. Implementing Indian Innovations through Trained Extension Functionaries for Improving the Agriculture in Africa and Asia. Indian. J. Ext. Educ. 2022, 58, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Stockdale, E.A.; Shepherd, M.A.; Fortune, S.; Cuttle, S.P. Soil Fertility in Organic Farming Systems—Fundamentally Different? Soil. Use Manag. 2002, 18, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Place, F.; Barrett, C.B.; Freeman, H.A.; Ramisch, J.J.; Vanlauwe, B. Prospects for Integrated Soil Fertility Management Using Organic and Inorganic Inputs: Evidence from Smallholder African Agricultural Systems. Food Policy 2003, 28, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hartman, W.H.; Richardson, C.J. Differential Nutrient Limitation of Soil Microbial Biomass and Metabolic Quotients (QCO2): Is There a Biological Stoichiometry of Soil Microbes? PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e57127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Priya, B.V.; Sriram, N.; Kumar, M.S.; Saravanakumar, V.; Ganapati, P.S. Rooting for Change: Unveiling Farmers’ Bio-Input Awareness and Knowledge Across Tamil Nadu’s Agro-Climatic Zones. J. Sci. Res. Rep. 2024, 30, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Gabriel, D.; Sait, S.M.; Hodgson, J.A.; Schmutz, U.; Kunin, W.E.; Benton, T.G. Scale Matters: The Impact of Organic Farming on Biodiversity at Different Spatial Scales. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 858–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Koesling, M.; Løes, A.-K.; Flaten, O.; Kristensen, N.H.; Hansen, M.W. Farmers’ Reasons for Deregistering from Organic Farming. Org. Agric. 2012, 2, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gómez Tovar, L.; Martin, L.; Gómez Cruz, M.A.; Mutersbaugh, T. Certified Organic Agriculture in Mexico: Market Connections and Certification Practices in Large and Small Producers. J. Rural Stud. 2005, 21, 461–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ferreira, S.; Oliveira, F.; Gomes da Silva, F.; Teixeira, M.; Gonçalves, M.; Eugénio, R.; Damásio, H.; Gonçalves, J.M. Assessment of Factors Constraining Organic Farming Expansion in Lis Valley, Portugal. AgriEngineering 2020, 2, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Leduc, G.; Billaudet, L.; Engström, E.; Hansson, H.; Ryan, M. Farmers’ Perceived Values in Conventional and Organic Farming: A Comparison between French, Irish and Swedish Farmers Using the Means-End Chain Approach. Ecol. Econ. 2023, 207, 107767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Röös, E.; Mie, A.; Wivstad, M.; Salomon, E.; Johansson, B.; Gunnarsson, S.; Wallenbeck, A.; Hoffmann, R.; Nilsson, U.; Sundberg, C.; et al. Risks and Opportunities of Increasing Yields in Organic Farming. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Canwat, V.; Onakuse, S. Organic Agriculture: A Fountain of Alternative Innovations for Social, Economic, and Environmental Challenges of Conventional Agriculture in a Developing Country Context. Clean. Circ. Bioecon. 2022, 3, 100025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Nath, C.P.; Singh, R.G.; Choudhary, V.K.; Datta, D.; Nandan, R.; Singh, S.S. Challenges and Alternatives of Herbicide-Based Weed Management. Agronomy 2024, 14, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Brzozowski, L.; Mazourek, M. A Sustainable Agricultural Future Relies on the Transition to Organic Agroecological Pest Management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Janjhua, Y.; Chaudhary, R.; Mehta, P.; Kumar, K. Determinants of Farmer’s Attitude toward Organic Agriculture and Barriers for Converting to Organic Farming Systems: Research Insights. Int. J. Econ. Plants 2019, 6, 097–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kalogiannidis, S.; Kalfas, D.; Chatzitheodoridis, F.; Papaevangelou, O. Role of Crop-Protection Technologies in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity and Management. Land 2022, 11, 1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sujianto; Gunawan, E.; Saptana; Syahyuti; Darwis, V.; Ashari; Syukur, M.; Ariningsih, E.; Saliem, H.P.; Mardianto, S.; et al. Farmers’ Perception, Awareness, and Constraints of Organic Rice Farming in Indonesia. Open Agric. 2022, 7, 284–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Preparatory organic formulations used in the study area.
Table 1. Preparatory organic formulations used in the study area.
Organic FormulationsCompositions
JeevamrithA mix of fresh cow dung and cow urine from inigenous cow (Bos indicus L.) *, brown sugar made from Saccharum officinarum, and pulse flour of Vigna radiata L., or Cicer arietinum L., or Vigna mungo L.
Organic cakeA mixture of oil cakes of Azadirachta indica A.Juss, Pongamia pinnata L., and Arachis hypogaea L.
Green manure (crop is grown in the field and incorporated)Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L., Vigna unguiculata L., Vigna trilobata L., Sesbania bispinosa Jacq., Sesbania rostrata Bremek. & Oberm., and Crotalaria juncea L.
Green leaf manure (collected and incorporated)Gliricidia maculata Kunth, Delonix regia Raf., Azadirachta indica A.Juss, Peltophorum pterocarpum DC., and Pongamia pinnata L.
Azophos biofertilizerA mixture of Azospirillum spp. and Phosphobacteria bioagents
PanchagavyaCow milk, cow urine, cow dung, ghee, and curd from local breed of cow (Bos indicus L.,).
BeejamuruthaA mixture of cow dung, cow urine, lime and a handful of soil and water
AmudhakaraisalA mixture of cow dung, cow urine, sugar made from sugarcane and water
Fish amino acidA mixture of Labeo catla F., Hamilton fish waste, sugar made from sugarcane and water
NeemastraA mixture of Azadirachta indica A.Juss leaf, cow dung, cow urine and water
AgniasthiraA mixture of Allium sativum L., Capsicum annuum L., Zingiber officinale Roscoe, Allium cepa L., cow urine, Nicotiana tabacum L., Azadirachta indica A.Juss leaves and water
BrahmastraA mix of Azadirachta indica A.Juss leaves in cow urine and crushed leaves of Annona squamosa L., Carica papaya L., Punica granatum L., and Psidium guajava L. were added with water.
3G-ExtractsA mix of grinded Capsicum annuum L., Zingiber officinale Roscoe, and Allium sativum L., in water
* All the products from cow origin are from the local breed of cow (Bos indicus L.).
Table 2. Clustering of yield percentages in major crops.
Table 2. Clustering of yield percentages in major crops.
CropsYield Group 1 (Up to 10%)Yield Group 2 (10 to 20% Increase)Yield Group 3 (>20% Increase)Cluster
Rice4444111
Coconut3444221
Banana4819331
Sugarcane5038131
Mango5929121
Vegetables2248302
Flowers050502
Grains1767172
Citrus010002
Pulses336702
Spices2354232
Sesame100003
Table 3. Impact of available services for promoting organic farming.
Table 3. Impact of available services for promoting organic farming.
PredictorEstimateStd. Errorz Value
Educational events (Intercept)1.79 *0.414.39
Extension officers−1.791.08−1.66
Fellow farmers3.23 *0.427.75
Magazines3.38 *0.428.14
Newspapers3.09 *0.427.41
Government departments3.25 *0.427.82
Radio1.34 *0.462.93
Social media3.08 *0.427.37
Television1.73 *0.443.92
* p < 0.05 (significant at the 5% level).
Table 4. Adoption of different organic formulations at the field level.
Table 4. Adoption of different organic formulations at the field level.
TreatmentChi-Squared (X2)Yes Percentage
Crop residues128.05 *82.67%
FYM40.33 *68.33%
Vermicompost0.6552.33%
Organic cake13.65 *39.33%
Green manure15.41 *38.67%
Green leaf manure51.25 *70.67%
Azophos biofertilizer67.21 *26.33%
Azospirillum spp.54.61 *28.67%
Acetobacter spp.115.32 *19.00%
Beejamurutha20.28 *37.00%
Panchagavya58.08 *72.00%
Jeevamrith96.33 *78.33%
Amudhakaraisal87.48 *77.00%
Butter milk11.21 *59.67%
Coconut milk4.32 *56.00%
Fish amino acid24.65 *64.33%
Fermented fruit mixture2.2554.33%
Effective microorganism3.0 *55.00%
Intercropping system5.33 *56.67%
Trap cropping14.52 *61.00%
Trichoderma viride288.12 *1.00%
Neemstra1.3353.33%
Agniasthira0.3351.67%
Brahmastra1.9254.00%
Ginger garlic paste1.0853.00%
3G-Extracts69.12 *74.00%
Spraying oil mixture27.0 *65.00%
* p < 0.05 (significant at the 5% level).
Table 5. Chi-square test results for challenges in adopting organic farming practices and their adoption rates.
Table 5. Chi-square test results for challenges in adopting organic farming practices and their adoption rates.
TreatmentChi-Squared (X2)Yes %
Labour intensiveness5.33 *56.67
Lack of manure228.81 *6.33
Difficulty in certification225.33 *6.67
Issues with transport of manure261.33 *3.33
Market issues91.85 *77.67
Training issues3.4144.67
Lack of extension officers visit144.21 *15.33
Costly for small farmers211.68 *8.00
Long time for benefits228.81 *93.67
Lot of weeds89.65 *77.33
* p < 0.05 (significant at the 5% level).
Table 6. Farmers’ perceptions on various agricultural treatments and their impacts on agricultural outcomes.
Table 6. Farmers’ perceptions on various agricultural treatments and their impacts on agricultural outcomes.
TreatmentsHigh YieldLess DiseaseLess InsectGood GrowthCrop HealthLess InputsLess LaborEasy Manure Availability
Agree (Intercept)4.94 *5.36 *5.26 *4.11 *5.61 *5.50 *4.37 *5.55 *
Disagree−3.84 *−4.26 *−2.77 *−3.01 *−27.92−3.71 *0.38 *−3.36 *
Neutral0.03−1.03 *−0.78 *1.32 *−4.52 *−1.69 *0.25−2.26 *
Strongly Agree−3.00 *−3.57 *−3.47 *−2.32 *−2.57 *−4.40 *−4.37 *−4.45 *
Strongly Disagree−3.15 *−4.67 *−4.56 *−3.42 *−4.92 *−4.80 *−2.76 *−4.45 *
AIC3432343227323432
* p < 0.05 (Significant at the 5% level).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Habanyati, E.J.; Paramasivam, S.; Seethapathy, P.; Manalil, S. Assessing Organic Farming Adoption in Selected Districts of Tamil Nadu: Challenges, Practices, and Pathways for Growth. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14112537

AMA Style

Habanyati EJ, Paramasivam S, Seethapathy P, Manalil S. Assessing Organic Farming Adoption in Selected Districts of Tamil Nadu: Challenges, Practices, and Pathways for Growth. Agronomy. 2024; 14(11):2537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14112537

Chicago/Turabian Style

Habanyati, Estone Jiji, Sivaraj Paramasivam, Parthasarathy Seethapathy, and Sudheesh Manalil. 2024. "Assessing Organic Farming Adoption in Selected Districts of Tamil Nadu: Challenges, Practices, and Pathways for Growth" Agronomy 14, no. 11: 2537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14112537

APA Style

Habanyati, E. J., Paramasivam, S., Seethapathy, P., & Manalil, S. (2024). Assessing Organic Farming Adoption in Selected Districts of Tamil Nadu: Challenges, Practices, and Pathways for Growth. Agronomy, 14(11), 2537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14112537

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop