research papers on agriculture in india

Indian Agricultural Research Journals

The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences

A journal devoted to experimental agriculture and abstracted by all the major abstracting services. It includes articles on cytology, genetics, breeding, agronomy, soil science, horticulture, water use, microbiology, plant diseases and pest, agricultural engineering, economics and statistics with emphasis on original articles, from India and countries having similar agricultural conditions. NAAS Rating (2024): 6.4

Indexed in Elsevier Scopus, Clarivate Analytics ESCI, SJIF, DOAJ, Google Scholar and Crossref EDITORIAL BOARD Subscription Information for Print Version

• View Journal
• Current Issue

The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences

This journal caters to a wide clientele comprising veterinarians, researchers and students. Articles are included on animal breeding and genetics, immunology, biotechnology, diseases, medicine and pharmacology, anatomy and histology, surgery, pathology, physiology, nutrition, milk, meat and other animal products, housing and fisheries from India and internationally. NAAS Rating (2024): 6.4

Indexed in Elsevier Scopus, Clarivate Analytics ESCI, SJIF, DOAJ, Google Scholar and Crossref 

EDITORIAL BOARD Subscription Information for Print Version

Indian Journal of Fisheries

The Indian Journal of Fisheries is published quarterly by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Original contributions in the field of fish and fisheries science will be considered for publication in the Journal. The material submitted must be unpublished and not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Papers based on research which kills or damages any species, regarded as threatened/ endangered as per IUCN criteria or is as such listed in the Red Data Book appropriate to the geographic area concerned, will not be accepted by the Journal, unless the work has clear conservation objectives

Editorial Board

Fishery Technology

The journal publishes original peer reviewed research papers and reviews on fishery technology and peripheral areas. It is managed and published by Society of Fisheries Technologists (India) located at Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Matsyapuri P.O., Cochin-682 029, Kerala, India. The Society of Fisheries Technologists (India) has instituted the Best Paper Award for the best scientific paper appearing in the journal every year. The Award carries a citation and a cash component of Rs. 5000/-

Subscription Details (Print Journal)

Journal of Soil Salinity and Water Quality

The Journal (JSSWQ) was started in 2009 and since then biannual issues are being published regularly, June and December issues containing approximately 300 printed and online pages.

Cotton Research Journal

The inaugural issue of the ISCI Journal was published in January 1976 , since then the periodical has witnessed increasing patronage from cotton scientists from all over India and abroad. By 1990s, the 6- monthly journal had transformed into a quarterly publication to accommodate the rising number of articles originating from ICAR institutes and agricultural universities in which government funded research programmes were on the increase.

Potato Journal

Potato Journal;  formerly (till year 2003) known as “Journal of the Indian Potato Association”, is official journal of the Indian Potato Association (IPA).The  IPA was established in 1974 and registered under the “Indian Societies Registration Act XXI” of 1860 (registration No. 206/74; dated 15th June 1974). The journal covers all areas of potato research including Genetics, Breeding, Biotechnology, Agronomy, Soil Science, Seed Technology, Plant Pathology, Entomology, Storage, Physiology, Biochemistry, Post Harvest Technology, Agricultural Economics, Marketing, Statistics, Extension and Farm Machinery. The journal is published in two issues to form one volume per year. Information for authors can be found at the end of each issue. Acknowledgments to reviewers are published in the December issue. The IPA was founded with the objectives to advance the cause of potato research and development. Besides publishing Potato Journal (Formerly Journal of Indian Potato Association), the IPA also holds conferences, symposia and workshops to provide opportunities for personal contacts among potato workers to promote and exchange scientific and other information and to develop means of interaction among potato researchers, industry, farmers and consumers.

          Potato Journal publishes reviews, full length papers, short notes and book reviews on basic and applied research on potato.  Potato Journal   does not charge any Article Processing Charges (APCs). The authors should be members of the IPA (foreign authors are exempted). Instruction related to acquiring IPA membership is provided under “Subscription Information” Section.

Indian Journal of Extension Education

The Indian Journal of Extension Education (ISSN 0537-1996, eISSN 2454-552X) is the peer-reviewed, official publication of the Indian Society of Extension Education,  (ISEE) New Delhi publishing original research papers/ research notes/ research tools in the field of extension education and allied fields since 1965 . The Indian Society of Extension Education, Division of Agricultural Extension, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi is a registered professional society under the societies registration act XXI of 1860  (Punjab Amendment) Act 1957 as extended to Union Territory of Delhi under registration number S-2504 dated 22.06.1964 .  

The Indian Journal of Extension Education is UGC CARE listed (since January 2023), published quarterly, indexed in SCOPUS, CABI, Index Copernicus International Journal Masterlist, Google Scholar, Scilit, Semantic Scholar, AGRIS, BASE, WorldCat, EBSCO, Crossref, PlumX, Mendeley, etc.

NAAS rating: 5.95 ( Since January 2020-23) NAAS rating January 2024: 4.58

NAAS Journal ID: I063 ( Effective from January 2024)

Indian Farming

This magazine is for people interested-in-farming. The aim is to present scientific information in a popular style to the progressive farmers and people interested in application of science to day-to-day problems to Indian farming. It has articles, book reviews, photo features, interviews, success stories and an editorial page. Two special issues are also brought every year. One in October on World Food Day and another on any special occasion; accent issues are also brought out on subject of topical issues. It is most authoritative and popular farming magazine in India published since 1940.

Subscription Information for Print Version

Indian Horticulture

A semi technical magazine devoted to publishing articles on new techniques of raising vegetables, fruits and flowers from India and countries having similar agricultural conditions. Special issues are also brought out on topical issues. It is bimonthly.

Open Access Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants

Welcome to Open Access Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants ( OAJMAP ) the only Open Access journal dedicated to the field of medicinal and aromatic plants. It is managed and published by the Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Association of India ( MAPAI ) hosted by the Directorate of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Research ( DMAPR ), formerly, National Research Centre for Medicinal and Aromatic Plants , Boriavi, Anand 387310, Gujarat, India. This Journal is indexed and abstracted by Bielefeld Academic Search Engine ( BASE ), CABI , Chemical Abstracts Service ( CAS ), DOAJ , Google Scholar , Open J-Gate , Scopus , Scirus and SCImago Journal Rank ( SJR ). And is a proud partner of the CIARD RING and GODAN . EDITORIAL BOARD

Journal of Oilseeds Research

Indian Society of Oilseeds Research (ISOR) began to publish biannual scientific Journal Journal of Oilseeds Research from 1984, which is a unique Journal in the country publishing scientific papers/reviews on all aspects of annual & perennial oilseed crops. This is the only Journal that is dedicated to the oilseed research, catering to the needs of researchers, students, academicians and policy makers, by supplying updated information on various aspects of oilseeds research. So far, in the past 37 years, the journal is being published every year without any break. Based on the increase in the number of manuscripts received as well as the increased members of the society, the journal is being published quarterly (March, June, September, and December of every year) since 2016. Also with the constant guidance of honorary members of ISOR, and unstinted efforts of the editorial boards of the journal, not only did the pattern as well as the quality of the Journal improved but also the NAAS rating of the journal: 3.97 to 5.02. It is being consistently maintained at this level since the last three years.

Journal of Agricultural Engineering

The Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India) is a peer-reviewed Journal and publishes interdisciplinary basic and applied research manuscripts of engineering and technology to address the problems of agricultural, food, and biological systems. The journal publishes papers of both theoretical and applied nature, with a special focus on experimental research, new design criteria, mathematical modelling and innovative approaches relating to all fields of agricultural engineering and technology.  This journal uses double-blind review process .

The Journal of Agricultural Engineering (India) is not an open-access journal, but a subscription based journal.  Journal doesn't charge article processing charges (APC), article submission fees, or surcharges based on the length of an article, colour illustrations, or supplementary data.  To attract and publish many high-quality papers, the Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers instituted the  Best Paper Award  and the  Best Reviewer Award . These awards are announced annually in the Annual Convention of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers.

The Journal of Research ANGRAU

The Journal of Research ANGRAU is the University Publication (quarterly) of Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University ( ANGRAU ) and has been published since 1973. This journal is celebrating its 50 th volume in the year 2022 and has started only online issue since 2022.

The Journal is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that seeks to encourage research in agriculture, horticulture, agricultural engineering, community science/home science and social sciences (agricultural extension and agricultural economics). The JOR ANGRAU provides a platform to publish original research work in all agricultural and allied sciences.

JOR ANGRAU supports research articles which explore innovative experimental approaches and empirical studies. The Journal recognizes works across the above disciplines and therefore especially values meta-disciplinary analyses that will provide a foundation for communication across these academic fields and disciplines.

  The journal has a NAAS rating of 4.27 (2024) and is a UGC-CARE-approved journal. The Journal is Indexed by CAB International (CABI), AGRIS (FAO) and Indian Citation Index (ICI). Journal has a presence in Google Scholar. The Journal publishes quality research papers in Agriculture and allied sciences after meticulous double-blind peer review process.

EDITORIAL BOARD

Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science

Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science is the periodical brought out quarterly since 1953 (March, June, September and December) and it covers all aspects of soil study.

The Society organizes seminars, symposia, conferences, meeting etc. enables members of ISSS and others to interact and disseminate knowledge on soil and land.

Annual Convention of the Society is held regularly. This Society has celebrated its Golden Jubilee in 1984, Diamond Jubilee in 1994 and Platinum Jubilee in 2009.

Indian Journal of Veterinary Anatomy

Indian journal of dairy science.

Indian Journal of Dairy Science is a scientific journal of Indian Dairy Association. The objective of the Association shall be the advancement of dairy science and industry, farming, animal husbandry, animal sciences and its branches including dairy farming & research on breeding, and management of dairy livestock.

Annals of Agricultural Research

A Journal published by Indian Society of Agricultural Sciences, IARI, New Delhi an umbrella society for Agricultural sciences.

NAAS Rating: 4.62

Indian Journal of Veterinary Medicine

Indian Journal of veterinary journal publishes review article(invited), original /applied research, clinical reports short communications on all area of animal health including diagnosis treatment and control.

Editorial Board Subscription Details

Journal of Cereal Research

Journal of Cereal Research (JCR ISSN: 2582-2675), formerly known as Wheat and Barley Research / Journal of Wheat Research (erstwhile ISSN: 2249-4065), serves as an official organ of Society for Advancement of Wheat and Barley Research (SAWBAR) for the peer-reviewed Publication of reviews, research papers, short communications as per Article 14.1 of the constitution and by-laws of the society. The Journal is sent free to its members.

NAAS Rating (2021): 4.57

No. of Issues: Thrice in a Year (Peer-Reviewed)

Journal of Cotton Research and Development

Indian Journal of Hill Farming

AGROPEDOLOGY

The Agropedology is a scientific journal of The Indian Society of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (ISSLUP) launched in the year 1991. The journal is published six monthly (two issues per volume, June & December). Original contributions covering research articles, review articles and short communications in the field of soil sciences, agronomy, engineering, agriculture economics, and physical geography will be considered for publication.

NAAS Rating: 4.63

Indian Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Research

TANUVAS has been publishing the Indian Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Research (IJVASR) since 1972, for providing a platform to exchange Veterinary research updates in India.

IJVASR was first released, named after the father of the Art of Veterinary Medicine as The Cheiron, to be a platform for peer reviewed veterinary research in India. The journal was then renamed as Tamil Nadu Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences in 2005. The Journals current name was adopted in 2014, to focus its relevance on the national scenario and also to improve its visibility. In its current format, in addition to the peer reviewed research papers, the journal also throws spotlight on technology development in veterinary, animal and fishery sciences. IJVASR is now indexed in CAB International, Zoological abstracts of web of knowledge published by Thomson Reuters and the Indian Science Abstracts published by NISCAIR, India.

Mushroom Research

Mushroom Research, the official publication of the Mushroom Society of India is a bi-annual journal. It publishes full papers and short communications reporting original research, basic and applied, which contribute significantly to the knowledge of the mushroom science and industry. Mini-reviews (with prior consent or invitation only) and articles of practical/technical importance will be published. News and views, and book reviews will also be considered. The author (s) should be the members of the Society. Till date 32 volumes, each having two issues have been published.

It is peer reviewed Journal and has NAAS rating of  5.33 (2024) . S.No 2126. JrnID  M120  ISSN 0972-4885. Journal is registered by  DOI systems . It is listed in Indian citation Index and UGC care list. The Journal is indexed in UGC care List 2023 at Sr. No. 18026 and journal no. is 37111. The journal is also indexed in CABI, Google scholar, International Society for Research Activity (ISRA), Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) (USA), Agricola (USA).

Journal of the Inland Fisheries Society of India

T he Society regularly brings out a Journal named "The Inland Fisheries Society of India". The 1 st  Volume was published in December, 1969 and since then made a place among the top fishery journals in the country. The Journal publishes original research works, monographs, invited review articles and books on specialized subjects for exchange and dissemination of information in the country and abroad.

 The journal of Inland Fisheries Society of India welcomes original research contributions broadly in the field of inland fisheries science. The scope of the journal includes fisheries research on aspects related to inland waters-rivers, reservoirs, floodplain wetlands, estuaries and other brackish waters.

Journal of Indian Fisheries Association

The Journal is published QUARTERLY, in March, June, September and December every year, by the Indian Fisheries Association hosted at ICAR-CIFE, Mumbai. The first issue was published in the year 1971. This NAAS rated and widely circulated Journal contains original contribution from eminent scholars in the field of fisheries, aquaculture and related subjects. Now, JIFA has a new Editorial Board and sports a fresh design and layout, delivers more and better content, and assures enhanced author and reader experience. 

Journal of Ornamental Horticulture

The  Journal of Ornamental Horticulture (ISSN 0972-0499, eISSN 2249-880X) is the peer-reviewed, official publication of the Indian Society of Ornamental Horticulture,  (ISOH) New Delhi publishing original research papers/ research notes/ research tools in the field of Ornamental Horticulture and allied fields since 2011. The Indian Society of Ornamental Horticulture, Division of Floriculture & Landscaping, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi is a registered professional society under the Society Registration Act XXI of 1860 Act 1957 as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi .   

NAAS rating (2024): 4.63

NAAS Journal ID (2024): J433

The Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding

Indian Journal of Animal Production and Management

The journal is the official research journal of the Indian Society of Animal Production and Management. It was started in the year 1986 to publish original research work in the area of livestock production management. The first issue was published in the year 1986 by the Department of Livestock Production and Management, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana. Current frequency of the journal is Quarterly (4 issues per year). The Journal office is presently functioning from the Department of Livestock Production Management, Veterinary College, Bengaluru, Karnataka.

Annals of Arid Zone

The Journal of Research, PJTSAU

Formerly The Journal of Research, ANGRAU The Journal of Research, PJTSAU is being published in place of Journal of Research, ANGRAU since July, 2014 and the publication of The Journal of Research, PJTSAU is mere continuation of the earlier Journal.

ORYZA-An International Journal of Rice

ARRW publishes peer reviewed original research articles, short communications and review articles on all aspects of rice research, covering basic and applied work on crop improvement, crop management, crop protection and environmental security.

Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition

Journal of Sugarcane Research

Journal of the Indian Society of Coastal Agricultural Research

The Indian Society of Coastal Agricultural Research (ISCAR) was established in the year 1982 and registered under the Certificate of Registration of Societies Act XXVI of 1961 with the registration no. S/40093 of 1982-83 dated 20.02.1983. Since 1983, the society has been publishing two issues of The Journal of the Indian Society of Coastal Agricultural Research in a year, first issue in June and second issue in December. The journal has a current NAAS rating of 5.45 (2024) .

Year of start: 1983 (Print version)

2018 onwards - Both Print and Online

Print ISSN: 0972-1584

Online ISSN: 2584-0320

Indian Journal of Agroforestry

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

The Journal regularly publishes refereed research articles, reviews, research notes and short communications of high impact in basic and applied research, development and management issues on soil and water conservation as well as watershed management and policy aspects of agriculture and rural development. Comprehensive review articles in the area of soil and water conservation and management, case studies and success stories are also published in the Journal.

International Journal of Seed Spices

The International Journal of Seed Spices is published by the Indian Society for Seed Spices half yearly basis with the aim to provide an appropriate platform presenting well considered, meaningful, constructively thought provoking, non-political and non-controversial but critically analyzing and synthesizing present and future aspects of research on seed Spices and related commodity reference to our country and rest world. The contributors are expected to highlight various issues of irrigation, management, soil, agronomic practices, precision agriculture, breeding, post harvest, IPM, climate change along with meaningful suggestions for solution, refinement and innovations.

Journal of Farm Sciences

The Andhra Agricultural Journal

The Andhra Agricultural Union was started in 1954 at Agricultural College, Bapatla.  A scientific Journal “ The Andhra Agricultural Journal ” is published by the Union since its inception to educate and encourage the agricultural science fraternity. It publishes original scientific work related to strategic and applied studies in all aspects of agricultural and allied sciences, as well as reviews of scientific topics of current agricultural relevance. In the beginning, it was a bimonthly journal and it was transformed into a Quarterly Journal from 1982 onwards and registered with the Registrar of News Papers of India as Quarterly under The Press and Registration of Books Act, 1860 with Registration No. 5751/57. The present NAAS rating of the Journal is 3.61 .

The Indian Veterinary Journal

The Indian Veterinary Journal, popularly known as IVJ among veterinarians is a monthly periodical of international status devoted to the cause of updating knowledge of the of veterinarians with it’s research and clinical articles. It is a monthly journal with twelve issues in a year with ISSN (Print): 0019-6479; ISSN (online): 0974-9365. Website of this journal is http://www.ivj.co.in   & https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IVJ . The Journal publishes original work in veterinary medicine, animal health production, veterinary clinical subjects and allied disciplines such as Dairy development, livestock and poultry husbandry etc., The Journal is of particular importance to field veterinarians, veterinary faculty, veterinary practitioners, researchers, veterinarians from industry and Under graduate, Post graduate and doctoral students from universities of Veterinary & Animal Sciences.

NAAS Rating (2024): 4.99

Indian Journal of Plant Protection

The Plant Protection Association of India (PPAI)  publishes the Indian Journal of Plant Protection (IJPP). Four issues of the journal are published every year in March, June, September and December. The journal indexed / abstracted in Indian Citation Index, Bioscience, Chemical abstracts, Review of Applied Entomology, Review of Plant Pathology and other CAB abstracts and Agrindex of FAO. 

Indian Phytopathology

Indian Phytopathology a leading plant pathology research journal deals with the disciplines of Mycology, Fungal Pathology, Bacteriology, Virology, Phytopathology and Nematology. The journal is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December. The society has published the journal for over 69 years. The journal has national as well as global reach.

ISSN : 0367-973X (Print version)

ISSN : 2248-9800 (Electronic version )

Abstracting/Indexed in:

CAB Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, RUNNERS, Indian Citation Index (ICI), Google Scholar, AGRIS (International Information System for the Agricultural Sciences and Technology),Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), AGRICOLA, Directory of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), WorldCat, PASCAL database, RefDoc

Indian Phytopathology offers online first publication upon acceptance

Indian Phytopathology has instituted a feature called Online First Look. Within a few days of acceptance, papers by authors who choose to participate will be posted online. The papers have been peer reviewed and then revised as necessary by the authors but have not been copyedited, formatted, or assigned to an issue.

The date on which each paper is posted is considered the publication date. This paper has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication but has not yet been copyedited or proofread. The final published version may differ

Journal of the Andaman Science Association

Andaman Science Association has been publishing a journal called the Journal of the Andaman Science Association from 1985. It was also conducting national and international symposium at Port Blair. So far we have published 17 volumes with two issues during the period 1985 to 2000. In 2012 remaining volumes 18 to 20 with two issues were published. There is great demand of the journal in national and international institutions and is addressing particular niches were of island ecology and island agriculture having a multidisciplinary approach.

Agricultural Economics Research Review

Annals of Plant Protection Sciences

Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics

The Society publishes an International Peer Reviewed Journal called Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics with ISSN 0019-6363. Three issues of the Journal (April, August and December) are published annually. The first volume of the Journal was released in 1948. The Journal devoted to the publication of original research papers on all aspects of Statistics and Computer Applications preferably with innovative applications in Agricultural Sciences or that have a potential application in Agricultural Sciences. The review articles of the topics of current interest are welcome. The Journal also accepts books, monographs and periodicals for review. Special issues on thematic areas of both national and international importance are also brought out.

Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development

Tobacco Research

The Tobacco Research journal publishes papers concerned with the advancement of research in tobacco throughout the world. It publishes original scientific work related to strategic and applied studies in all aspects of tobacco as well as reviews of scientific topics of current tobacco relevance.

ISVIB Journal Veterinary Immunology & Biotechnology

Journal of Agricultural Extension Management

The Journal of Agricultural Extension Management (JAEM) disseminates information relating to extension systems and practices, research on extension, efficient organization of technology transfer and other socio-economic issues concerning agriculture and allied areas. Papers on original research in the field of agricultural extension and allied sectors, covering new developments, concepts and their application in effective extension work are accepted for publication.

Current Horticulture

Since its establishment in 2013, 'Current Horticulture ' has been a cornerstone publication in the field of horticultural science. Published by the Society for Horticultural Research and Development, the journal has played a pivotal role in advancing knowledge and fostering collaboration within the horticultural community. With its inaugural issue marking the beginning of a journey towards excellence, 'Current Horticulture' has consistently upheld a commitment to quality and innovation. Over the years, the journal has evolved into a platform where researchers, scientists, academicians, and stakeholders converge to share their latest findings, insights, and advancements in various facets of horticulture. From plant cultivation techniques to breeding methodologies, from genetics to pest management strategies, each issue of 'Current Horticulture' showcases a diverse array of articles that 

contribute to the collective understanding of horticultural practices. Its publication schedule, releasing three issues annually in April, August, and December, ensures a steady flow of cutting-edge research to the global horticultural community. Through its dedication to excellence, 'Current Horticulture' has earned recognition as a leading publication in the field, driving innovations and shaping the future of horticultural research and development.

The journey of 'Current Horticulture ' since its inception in 2013 exemplifies a commitment to scholarly excellence and advancement in horticultural science. As a publication of the Society for Horticultural Research and Development, the journal has served as a beacon of knowledge dissemination, providing a platform for researchers and practitioners to share their insights and discoveries. With its inaugural issue, the journal embarked on a mission to elevate the discourse surrounding horticulture, covering a wide range of topics including plant cultivation, breeding, genetics, pest management, and post-harvest technology. The triannual publication schedule, releasing issues in April, August, and December, ensures a regular influx of cutting-edge research from around the globe. 'Current Horticulture ' has become synonymous with quality and rigor, attracting submissions from esteemed scholars and experts in the field.

Project Director

Director:  Dr Rajarshi Roy Burman Email: [email protected] Address: ICAR-DKMA, KAB-1, Pusa, New Delhi, India

Technical Support

Name: Shantanu Kumar Singh Email: [email protected] Address: ICAR-DKMA, KAB-1, Pusa, New Delhi, India-->

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom

Roles Methodology

Affiliation Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, India

Roles Data curation

Roles Conceptualization

Affiliation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, India

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

• Lindsay M. Jaacks, 
• Niti Gupta, 
• Jagjit Plage, 
• Ashish Awasthi, 
• Divya Veluguri, 
• Sanjay Rastogi, 
• Elena Dall’Agnese, 
• GV Ramanjaneyulu, 
• Abhishek Jain

• Published: August 18, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

21 Oct 2022: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, et al. (2022) Correction: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agriculture in India: Cross-Sectional Results from a Nationally Representative Survey. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 1(10): e0000033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000033 View correction

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted agriculture in India in many ways, yet no nationally representative survey has been conducted to quantify these impacts. The three objectives of this study were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and input use, (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices, and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. Phone surveys were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with farmers who had previously participated in a nationally representative survey. Values are reported as weighted percent (95% confidence interval). A total of 3,637 farmers completed the survey; 59% (56–61%) were small/marginal farmers; 72% (69–74%) were male; and 52% (49–55%) had a below poverty line ration card. A majority of farmers (84% [82–86%]) reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020. Farmers who reported a change in their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (p = 0.001) and soybean (p<0.001) and less likely to be cultivating rice (p<0.001). Concerning inputs, 66% (63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor. More than half of farmers (62% [59–65%]) were interested in trying sustainable farming, primarily because of government schemes or because their peers were practicing it. About one-fifth (18% [15–21%]) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% (28–47%) reported it affected their ability to work. In conclusion, COVID-19 infections had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continued to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning more about practicing sustainable farming. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Author summary

Nearly half of the Indian population is employed in agriculture, yet no nationally representative survey has explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on farmers. We leveraged a pre-existing nationally representative sample of 20 states/union territories to conduct surveys via phone interview between December 2020 and January 2021 with 3,637 farmers. This period coincided with the end of the first wave of COVID-19 (which peaked in mid-September 2020) and the end of the Kharif (monsoon) season–the major agricultural season when rice is primarily cultivated. Our three objectives were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and the use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and labor; (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices such as organic farming; and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. We found that symptoms associated with COVID-19 had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continue to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning about sustainable farming practices. Among the farmers who did change their cropping pattern, they were more likely to be growing nutrient-dense crops (vegetables) instead of rice. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Citation: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, Rastogi S, et al. (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey. PLOS Sustain Transform 1(8): e0000026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026

Editor: Prajal Pradhan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), GERMANY

Received: February 4, 2022; Accepted: July 9, 2022; Published: August 18, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Jaacks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: De-identified participant data is available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YOOU7C .

Funding: Funding to support data collection was provided by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (AJ), The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government (LMJ), discretionary faculty research funds from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (LMJ), and Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation (LMJ). ED received salary support from the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government for this work. LMJ received salary support from Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation for this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Since its initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed more than 6 million people globally [ 1 ]. In addition, more than 100 million people are estimated to have ‘long COVID’ globally, with the highest rates of long COVID reported in Asia [ 2 ]. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic will have long-lasting effects on population health and wellbeing. In addition, supply chain disruptions arising from government responses to control the pandemic, i.e. lockdowns and border closures, have led to a re-emergence of debates on the vulnerabilities of globalized value chains [ 3 ]. Finally, the pandemic and pandemic response led to the largest global economic crisis in more than a century with the world economy shrinking by approximately 3% and global poverty increasing for the first time in a generation [ 4 ]. Given that agriculture is the largest employer in most developing economies [ 5 ] and the important role agriculture plays in food security, an in-depth evaluation of this particular sector is warranted.

India’s agricultural system is largely based on input-intensive monocropping of staple crops. Two-thirds of irrigated land and one-third of unirrigated land is cultivated with paddy and wheat [ 6 ]. With regards to inputs, 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides [ 6 ]. While there has been an increase in organic farming and other sustainable approaches such as natural farming in recent years, it still makes up less than 2% of all cultivated land [ 7 , 8 ]. The cost of cultivation has been increasing [ 9 ] and yields of rice and wheat have been stagnating [ 10 ], resulting in more than half of agricultural households being in debt [ 11 ]. Thus, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a crisis among Indian farmers.

In 2020, as a result of public health interventions to prevent the spread of COVID-19, there were major disruptions to India’s agri-supply chains. A phone survey of a convenience sample of Indian farmers across 12 states conducted in May 2020–during the first lockdown–found that farmers struggled to sell their produce because the market price was too low or they could not access the markets due to travel restrictions [ 12 ]. Moreover, about half of farmers reported the lockdown had affected their ability to sow for the upcoming season due to labor not being available and not being able to access or afford inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides [ 12 ]. One might expect that the high cost of these products and disruption to accessing them during the pandemic may have led some farmers to consider agricultural practices that do not rely on external inputs, such as organic farming, natural farming, and other sustainable agricultural practices. At the same time, from the demand-side, the pandemic and increasing health-consciousness among consumers in India has stimulated growth of the organic market [ 13 ].

To address the aforementioned disruptions to the agriculture sector, the Finance Minister announced a COVID-19 economic package worth 1.5 trillion Indian Rupees (INR) (~20 billion US Dollars [USD]) aimed at strengthening infrastructure, logistics, and capacity building [ 14 ]. A majority of the funds went to setting up an “Agri Infrastructure Fund” to finance projects at the farm gate and aggregation points [ 14 ]. Other aspects of the package included the promotion of herb/medicinal plant cultivation and the extension of “Operation Greens” from tomato, onion, and potato to all fruits and vegetables [ 14 ]. These new initiatives may also shift agricultural practices, particularly cropping patterns. One previous survey found that more than 90% of farmers who were monocroppers in Kharif 2019 were monocroppers in Kharif 2020–and primarily cultivating rice–suggesting there has not been a major shift in cropping patterns as a result of the pandemic [ 15 ], but further research is needed to confirm this observation.

To date, no nationally representative study has been conducted among Indian farmers nor has any study explored whether the pandemic has shifted farmers’ crop choices, input use, and willingness to adopt more sustainable practices. Moreover, early in the pandemic–i.e., in May 2020–individuals living in urban slums were nearly twice as likely to have been infected with COVID-19 (Immunoglobulin G antibody positive in a national seroprevalence study) as compared to individuals in rural areas [ 16 ]. However, by mid-September 2020, when India’s first wave of COVID-19 peaked, rural areas had also experienced a rise in cases [ 17 ]. Whether or not this affected farmers’ ability to work has not been explored. Given that different crops have different labor requirements [ 18 ] and sustainable agricultural practices tend to be more labor-intensive [ 19 ], one might expect COVID-19 infection to affect a farmer’s decision to cultivate a certain crop or adopt chemical-free practices.

There are multiple pathways through which agriculture impacts food and nutrition security [ 20 ]. Agricultural production is a direct source of food for farmers and a source of income that can be used to purchase food. Agriculture also has indirect effects on nutrition security through influencing expenditures on health care, education, and improved water and sanitation as well as women’s empowerment and caring practices. Farming systems that promote crop diversity, such as agroecology, may have an even greater positive effect on nutrition security [ 21 ]. Indeed, during the first COVID-19 lockdown in India, it was observed that farmers who cultivated two or more crops were less likely to experience a decline in dietary diversity than farmers who cultivated one crop (i.e., monocroppers) [ 15 ]. Thus, any impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture may have downstream effects on food and nutrition security.

There were three primary objectives of this study. First, to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced cropping patterns and the use of inputs by Indian farmers. Second, to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced their willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Third, to monitor if Indian farmers are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 that disrupt their work activities. In addition, a secondary objective was to evaluate food insecurity and diet quality in the most vulnerable group of farmers, namely, agricultural laborers. Together, findings from these objectives deepen our understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on national food security and future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Characteristics of study sample

Of the 5,200 participants called, 4,099 (79%) answered the call and 3,637 (89%) of those who answered consented to participate ( Fig 1 ). Of the total consented participants, 3,266 were farmers and the remaining 371 were agricultural laborers. Not having time was the most common reason reported for not participating (40%). Twenty states/union territories (herein ‘states’) were represented in the sample ( S1 Table ). State-wise sample sizes ranged from 2 (Delhi and Uttarakhand) to 419 (Uttar Pradesh). The sample size was particularly small for Delhi (n = 2), Haryana (n = 16), and Punjab (n = 19), partly because farmer protests were going on at the time of the survey.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g001

The weighted mean farm size was 2.11 ha, ranging from 0.004 to 23.8 ha; 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56–61%) of participants were small/marginal farmers. A majority of participants were male and middle-aged; about one-third lived in households with 6 or more people; and 17% (15–19%) were illiterate ( Table 1 ). About one-third reported belonging to Other Backward Caste (OBC) and half reported having a Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card. Landless and small/marginal farmers had smaller household sizes (p = 0.005) and were more likely to have a BPL ration card (p = 0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t001

Change in cropping patterns and input use during the COVID-19 pandemic

A majority of participants cultivated in both 2019 and 2020 (83% [95% CI, 80–85%], data not shown). Among these participants, 76% (73–79%) reported no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ( Table 2 ). The remaining 21% (18–24%) reported an increase in cultivated land and 3% (2–4%) a decrease in cultivated land. At the state level, the percent reporting no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ranged from 41% (28–56%) in Assam to 94% (89–96%) in Gujarat ( S2 Table ). In Assam and Odisha, a much larger proportion of farmers reported an increase in the amount of land cultivated: 57% (42–71%) and 50% (39–60%), respectively ( S2 Table ). The most commonly reported reason for a change in the extent of land cultivated was a financial loss during the lockdown, which was reported by 53% (46–60%) of farmers ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t002

With regards to cropping pattern, 84% (95% CI, 82–86%) of farmers reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020 ( Table 2 ). Among those who reported a change in the type of crop, 41% (34–49%) said it was a temporary change, but 32% (25–39%) said they were considering a permanent change. The reporting pattern was similar across all states, except Assam and Karnataka, where 36% (22–53%) and 48% (41–55%), respectively, reported a change in their cropping pattern ( S2 Table ). Rice and wheat were the most commonly cultivated crops in both Kharif 2019 and 2020 followed by pulses, vegetables, and mustard ( Fig 3 ). Vegetables were the most commonly cultivated crops in kitchen gardens with other crops (including fruit) rarely cultivated in kitchen gardens.

‘Rice’ includes basmati and other. ‘Pulses’ includes tur, urad, gram, moong, and other. Crops were presented if they were reported by >5% of participants. Rapeseed, other oilseeds, fruit, coconut, jute, and spices were reported by <5% of participants and were therefore not presented.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g003

Farmers who changed their cropping patterns were less likely to be cultivating rice (27% versus 41% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001) and wheat (27% versus 36% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.05). Those who changed their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (26% versus 15% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.001) and soybean (7% versus 3% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001).

The most commonly reported reason for continuing to cultivate the same crop was that it was profitable ( Fig 4 ). Not having a specific reason to shift and not having the knowledge to change crops were also commonly reported. Among farmers who changed crops, the most commonly reported reason was weather followed by market price.

Abbreviations: MSP, minimum support price.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g004

Concerning inputs, 66% (95% CI, 63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor ( Table 2 ). Medium and large farmers were more likely to report no change in fertilizer use compared to small/marginal farmers (p = 0.01). Participants were more likely to report a decrease in labor availability (24% [22–26%]) than an increase in availability (17% [15–19%]). In terms of state-wise differences, farmers from Andhra Pradesh (25% [16–37%]), Chhattisgarh (31% [19–46%]), Odisha (22% [16–29%]), and West Bengal (39% [33–46%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of fertilizers ( S2 Table ). Farmers from Andhra Pradesh (34% [23–46%]), Gujarat (36% [27–45%]), and West Bengal (36% [30–43%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of pesticides. Farmers were most likely to report a decrease in labor availability in Andhra Pradesh (37% [25–50%]), Assam (35% [21–53%]), Madhya Pradesh (49% [42–57%]), and Odisha (45% [35–56%]). Poor soil quality and too expensive were the top two reasons for reporting a change in fertilizer use ( Fig 5 ). More pests was the number one reason for reporting a change in pesticide use.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g005

Coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices

About 1 in 5 farmers (21% [95% CI, 18–23%]) had a problem in accessing bank credit during the Kharif season, with loan sanction delays identified as the main problem by half of participants ( Table 3 ). Across states, farmers in Madhya Pradesh had the greatest difficulty in accessing bank credit: 56% (48–63%) of farmers reported having a problem in this state ( S3 Table ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t003

In terms of coping strategies to help mitigate the impact of COVID-19, one-third of participants had a kitchen garden for home consumption–small/marginal farmers were more likely to have kitchen gardens than medium and large farmers (p<0.001)–and 50% reported eating their own production ( Table 3 ). More than 50% of farmers in Assam, Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal had kitchen gardens ( S3 Table ). Other commonly reported coping strategies included reducing the price of produce (31% [95% CI, 29–34%] of farmers), finding new markets (21% [19–24%]), and storing more of their produce (17% [15–20%]) ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal and medium farmers were more likely to store their produce than larger farmers (p = 0.03).

About half of farmers (52% [95% CI, 49–55%]) reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent and 62% (59–65%) were interested in trying these practices, primarily because of government schemes encouraging such approaches or because their peers were practicing it ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal farmers were more likely to report government schemes and peers, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs (all p<0.001). In four states–Assam (74% [59–85%]), Chhattisgarh (67% [55–78%]), Madhya Pradesh (76% [69–82%]), and Tamil Nadu (84% [75–90%]), the vast majority of farmers reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent ( S3 Table ). The lowest rates of interest in agroecology practices were in Karnataka (21% [15–27%] expressing an interest) and Gujarat (19% [14–26%] expressing an interest). Government schemes were most frequently cited as a reason in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. COVID-19-related reasons were most frequently cited in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu, and rarely reported in other states.

COVID-19 symptoms and impact on work

With regards to COVID-19 symptoms in the past month, 8% (95% CI, 6–9%) of farmers had a cough, 12% (9–15%) had a fever, 5% (4–7%) had shortness of breath, and 18% (15–21%) had any one of these three symptoms ( Table 4 ). Among those who had COVID-19 symptoms, 22% (14–32%) said it impacted their ability to work for several days in the past month; 10% (6–17%) said it impacted their ability to work for more than half the days in the past month; and 5% (1–18%) said it impacted their ability to work nearly every day in the past month. Landless and small/marginal farmers were most likely to report COVID-19 symptoms had an impact on their work (p = 0.03).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t004

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find an association between COVID-19 symptoms and changes in crop cultivation patterns or interest in trying agroecological practices. Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 13% reported changing the type of crop they are cultivating compared to 16% among those without symptoms (p = 0.20). Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% reported an interest in trying agroecological practices compared to 61% among those without symptoms (p = 0.17). Results were similarly non-significant for COVID-19 symptoms affecting their work: symptoms versus no symptoms, 14% versus 13%, respectively (p = 0.91), for changing the type of crop they are cultivating, and 63% versus 70%, respectively (p = 0.49), for interest in trying agroecological practices.

Food security and diet quality among agricultural laborers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Among agricultural laborers, 43% (95% CI, 35–51%) were not able to find work in the current Kharif season. Among those who were able to find work, it was mostly as agricultural laborers (82% [72–80%]), though 5% (3–8%) had work through the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA) ( Table 5 ). About one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed (34% [25–44%]) and 17% (11–25%) a decrease in wage rate. In terms of support received in the past 3 months, 75% (67–81%) had received rations. One in five had not received any support during this period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t005

A total of 44% (95% CI, 7–52%) of agricultural laborers reported having a kitchen garden for home consumption ( Table 5 ). In terms of food insecurity, 43% (36–51%) were worried about food in the past month and 21% (16–28%) ate less than usual. More severe forms of food insecurity–skipping a meal in the past month and going without eating for a whole day in the past month–were less common. Diet quality was very poor: the weighted mean dietary diversity score was 1.28 (out of a maximum of 8) and 94% (91–97%) of participants had low dietary diversity. The most commonly consumed food groups were grains (59% [50–67%] consuming daily), vegetables (24% [19–31%] consuming daily), potatoes (18% [14–23%] consuming daily), dairy (15% [9–25%] consuming daily), and pulses (14% [10–18%] consuming daily). All other food groups were consumed by <10% of the sample daily (fruit, nuts, eggs, fish, poultry, and meat).

Despite disruptions to agri-supply chains and labor mobility due to the pandemic [ 12 ], and major new policy initiatives to support development of the agriculture sector [ 14 ], we found that most farmers in a nationally representative sample did not report a change in either their cropping pattern or input use between 2019 and 2020. Among the 16% of farmers who did report cultivating a different crop in 2020 as compared to 2019, many had transitioned from growing rice to growing higher-value, nutrient-dense crops (vegetables), citing weather and the market price as underlying reasons. It was promising to find that 62% of farmers were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices. Given the recent emphasis on natural farming by the highest levels of government–including the Prime Minister of India [ 8 , 22 ]–this willingness among farmers to try sustainable farming practices is especially encouraging for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 2 target, “to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices” [ 23 ].

Lack of knowledge was the most frequently reported barrier to shifting cropping patterns. Farmers have consistently reported lack of knowledge and information as a key barrier to diversification towards high-value crops [ 24 ]. Access to knowledge and information is also an important factor in determining adaptation behaviors of farmers in response to climate-related risks [ 25 ]. Non-farm level factors such as access to inputs, credit, local markets, and road networks are also significantly related to crop choice and farm-level diversification [ 24 , 26 – 28 ]. Thus, external support, particularly in the form of farmer training and extension services, is necessary to enable farmers to make changes to their crop cultivation patterns.

This was among the first studies to evaluate the spread of COVID-19 to rural agricultural communities in India and the impact of infection on farmers’ productivity. About one-fifth (18%) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% reported it affected their ability to work. This is likely to be an underestimate of the impact of the first wave on farmers’ productivity given that the survey asked farmers to recall symptoms in the past month, which would have referred to November-December 2020, after the first wave peaked in mid-September 2020. The second wave, which started in March 2021, was much more severe, and continued into the Kharif season of 2021. Continued monitoring of the impact of the spread of COVID-19 in rural communities is required, particularly considering the average age of farmers in India is 50 years and 18% of farmers are over 61 years old [ 29 ]–with age being the biggest single risk factor for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Half of farmers in this national sample reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown. This was surprising given that 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer in India and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides according to a national census of farmers conducted in 2016–2017, before the pandemic [ 6 ]. The lockdown affected farmers’ ability to access and afford inputs including fertilizer and pesticides [ 12 ], and this may explain why a large proportion of farmers in this sample reported avoiding their use to some extent. Moreover, this may reflect the avoidance of fertilizers and pesticides on plots used for home consumption rather than commercial plots–our survey did not differentiate between the two when asking this question. Given that only 16–17% of farmers reported a decrease in fertilizers and pesticides during the COVID-19 pandemic, further exploration of trends in the use of inputs on agricultural land–both commercial and non-commercial–is warranted.

Another key finding of this survey is the substantial interest in agroecological practices among farmers. More than half (62%) of farmers reported that they were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices such as reducing their use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and the proportion was similar across farm sizes. However, the underlying drivers reported differed across farm sizes with small/marginal farmers more likely to report government schemes and the fact that their peers are practicing it, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs as the reason. These findings can inform programmatic approaches to increasing adoption of these practices across India. Of note, there was variability in the proportion of farmers expressing an interest in agroecological practices across states with Gujarat and Karnataka having the lowest proportions. In contrast, in six states, more than 80% of farmers reported that they were interested in trying these practices, including Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Recently, several state governments have taken up policy initiatives to promote sustainable agriculture in India and the central government is providing fiscal and policy support for these initiatives [ 8 ]. For example, Odisha introduced a state organic farming policy in 2018 and has undertaken various initiatives such as an organic millet mission to link farmers to the public distribution system [ 30 ].

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, uptake of sustainable farming practices in India was low; less than 2% of all cultivated land was under organic farming [ 7 , 8 ]. A recent systematic review identified several factors influencing uptake of these practices by farmers [ 31 ]. For example, older farmers who typically have lower education levels than younger farmers are less likely to adopt sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. Considering the average age of Indian farmers is 50.5 years according to the latest Input Survey (2016–17) [ 6 ], this may partially explain low uptake of sustainable farming practices in India. In addition, institutional factors, particularly visits from agriculture extension services, participation in training programs, and organizational membership are important determinants of uptake of sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. We recently confirmed this in Andhra Pradesh, where meeting with government or non-governmental organization (NGO) extension agents was significantly positively associated with practicing zero-budget natural farming [ 32 ]. Farmers’ perceptions as relate to sustainable farming can also influence adoption. Farmers who perceive that sustainable farming is beneficial for environmental and human health or that it is more profitable because it reduces cultivation costs, are more likely to adopt this alternative approach [ 31 ]. Unfortunately, however, access to extension agents in India, particularly for women, sharply declined during the pandemic and farmers increasingly relied on social networks for information [ 33 ]. The lack of access to extension agents may hinder adoption of sustainable farming practices even if farmers express an interest in trying them.

This study also uncovered the most common coping strategies to manage their produce implemented by farmers during the first wave: (1) eating their own production (50%), (2) reducing the price of their agricultural products (31%), (3) finding new markets (21%), and (4) storing more (17%). A previous survey conducted in four states (Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Karnataka) in May 2020–approximately 8–9 months before our survey–found that 52% coped by finding new markets, 25% by reducing their price, 18% by consuming their own production, and just 5% by storing more [ 34 ]. The discrepancy between studies could suggest that in a nationally representative sample, farmers have less access to new markets but more access to storage facilities than that previous sample of World Vegetable Center program participants [ 34 ].

Among agricultural laborers, 43% were not able to find work during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown and about one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed. The loss of wage income as a result of the pandemic was also reported in a previous survey of farmers across 12 states that found from June to July/August 2020, 38% of agricultural households no longer earned an income from wages [ 35 ]. Together, these findings are especially worrying because an estimated one-third of agricultural household income comes from wages in India [ 36 ].

Related to this, we also evaluated food insecurity and dietary diversity in agricultural laborers. We found a high proportion were worried about food in the past month (43%), and a notable proportion ate less than usual (21%), skipped a meal (15%), and went without eating for a whole day (6%). These proportions are only slightly lower than reported in a survey across 12 states conducted in May 2020 that found 52% of agricultural laborers worried about food in the past month, 18% skipped a meal, and 7% went without eating for a whole day [ 12 ]. This suggests that food insecurity remains a critical issue. It is promising that 75% of agricultural laborers reported receiving food rations and 44% had a kitchen garden as these may protect them from more severe food insecurity [ 15 ]. This finding is consistent with a previous study of smallholder farmers in two states (Haryana and Odisha), which found that a well-functioning Public Distribution System (PDS) for food rations and homestead gardening protected households from worsening food insecurity during the pandemic [ 37 ]. A survey of rural areas across nine states similarly found that receipt of food rations was high during the initial lockdown period: 52% of households had received free food rations multiple times [ 38 ]. Interestingly, that survey also found the same percent of respondents did not have a ration for the day of the survey (6%) [ 38 ]. Finally, a large-scale survey across 15 states also found that PDS had met the grain needs for the vast majority of households, but distribution of nutrient-dense foods such as pulses lagged behind [ 39 ].

Nonetheless, diet quality was poor–the diets of agricultural laborers in our sample largely consisted of grains, only one-fourth consumed vegetables daily, and less than one-fifth consumed high-protein foods such as pulses and eggs daily. Thus, while these agricultural laborers may have staved off hunger to some extent, they did not have nutritional security. The importance of nutritional security has been recognized in food security studies for over two decades. In fact as Hwalla et. al (2016) propose, there can be no food security without nutritional security and vice versa [ 40 ]. Our findings are similar to the existing literature which shows that households that are food insecure sacrifice the quality of food and food variety “in favor of food quantity, in order to avoid a state of absolute hunger” [ 40 ]. Moreover, a balanced diet plays a key role in building immunity against diseases such as COVID-19 [ 41 ]. Much more work is needed to improve diet quality for these vulnerable groups in India.

This study is not without limitations. The overall response rate was high (89%), however, response rates were differential by state with lower response rates in Haryana, Punjab, and NCR Delhi due to widespread farmer protests in these states at that time. Given that Haryana and Punjab are major agricultural states in India–they are often referred to as the “bread basket” of India–the lack of representation from these states is a major limitation of this study. Moreover, the average farm size in this sample was much larger than that reported in the latest Agriculture Census for India, conducted in 2015–2016, of 1.08 ha [ 29 ]. This study was also cross-sectional, conducted after the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020, which was less severe than the second wave in 2021. Nonetheless, as it is to the best of our knowledge the only nationally representative survey of farmers to be conducted during the pandemic, the findings are valuable for understanding farmers’ response to prepare for such disruptions in the future. Finally, a phone interview relying on self-report may result in biased responses. For example, farmers may over-report practicing sustainable farming practices because it is perceived of as the socially desirable response.

Indian agriculture and its farmers have proven to be resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Indian economy declined in the first quarter of 2020 by 15%, agriculture remained the only sector to grow–by 3.4% [ 42 ]–largely due to a good harvest with favorable monsoons and the exemption of agricultural activities during the lockdown. However, the sector is not without major challenges. Diet quality remains poor, soils are degraded, groundwater levels continue to drop, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase [ 43 ].

With these growing concerns, India must look at a paradigm shift in producing and consuming food. This study found that despite the severe agri-supply chain constraints stemming from the pandemic, farmers did not find it feasible or were not motivated to change their cropping patterns or input-intensive practices, though about half of farmers reported already trying to avoid the use of chemicals to some extent. The policy structure in India continues to favor intensification of a limited number of staple crops–especially rice and wheat. An encouraging finding was the substantial interest in sustainable agricultural practices among farmers, which, if scaled, have the potential to improve farmers’ livelihood, reduce environmental externalities, and increase resilience.

Materials and methods

Sampling strategy.

The sampling frame used for this survey was a sub-set of a nationally representative survey–the Indian Residential Energy Survey (IRES)–conducted by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water between November 2019 and March 2020 [ 44 ]. The original IRES study was conducted to describe the state of energy access and energy-use patterns across Indian households.

IRES surveyed 14,850 households across 152 districts in the 21 most-populous states of India, which account for 97% of the Indian population. The study used stratified multi-stage probability sampling. The primary sampling units (PSU) were villages in rural areas and wards in urban areas, according to the 2011 Census. Within each state, a select number of districts (d) were sampled randomly from d/2 number of strata. Within each of the sampled districts, two basic strata were formed: (i) rural strata comprised of all rural areas of the district and (ii) urban strata comprised of all urban areas of the district. In each district, a total of 12 PSUs were sampled from the urban and rural sampling frames, proportional to the urban and rural population in the district. From each PSU, eight households were randomly surveyed. An equal number of households were sampled from each of the sampled districts.

The IRES survey collected details on the primary source of income for the household. Those reporting agriculture and agricultural labor were contacted for this follow-up survey. There are primarily two cropping seasons in India: Kharif, which runs from May to mid-October, and Rabi, which runs from mid-October to mid-April. Our survey focused on the Kharif season. Participants who matched the IRES database and cultivated land or worked as agricultural laborers in the 2020–2021 Kharif season were included. Those who owned land, but leased it out to someone else during the 2020–2021 Kharif season were excluded.

Data collection

Surveys were conducted via phone interview between 1 December 2020 and 10 January 2021 using SurveyToGo (Dooblo Ltd, Kefar Sava, Israel). The same survey agency that conducted the original IRES survey was contracted to collect the data (Market Xcel Data Matrix Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India). The survey took, on average, about 20 minutes to complete.

The survey is provided in the Supporting Information ( S1 Text ). Briefly, the survey had four sections. The first section included questions on landholding amount, amount of land cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in amount of land cultivated (if applicable), what crops were cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in type of crop cultivated and whether the participant thought it was a permanent change (if applicable), reason for sticking with the same type of crop (if applicable), whether there was a change in fertilizer or pesticide use between the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in fertilizer or pesticide use (if applicable), whether there was a change in labor availability between the current and last Kharif season, whether the participant had a kitchen garden for home consumption, what is grown in the kitchen garden (if applicable), and problems accessing bank credit. The second section included questions on coping strategies, agroecological practices, interest in trying agroecological practices, and reason for interest (if applicable). The third section included questions for agricultural laborers on receipt of support, finding work, changes in number of days of work and wage rate between the current and last Kharif season, food insecurity, and dietary intake. The fourth section included questions on COVID-19 symptoms and whether the symptoms had affected the participant’s ability to work.

Questions on agricultural practices were adapted from Government of India surveys [ 45 , 46 ]. Land values were reported in local units and converted into hectares ( S4 Table ). Four farm size categories were defined according to land ownership as landless (0 ha), small/marginal farms (0.01–2.00 ha), medium farms (2.01–4.00 ha), and large farms (>4.00 ha) [ 29 ]. The questions on practice and interest in agroecological practices was framed as: ‘Do you follow any practices in agriculture where you avoid using chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides, like organic farming?’

Food security was assessed using three questions from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ 47 , 48 ]: in the past month, was there a time when you or others in your household (1) worried you would run out of food, (2) skipped a meal, or (3) went without eating for a whole day. Only three of the eight FIES questions were asked based on previous experiences administering these questions to farmers in India [ 12 ] that suggested they are very sensitive questions and cause participant discomfort. Questions on food consumption were adapted from the FAO’s Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD) [ 49 ]. Eight of the ten MDD food groups were included: (1) starchy staples (rice, wheat, and potatoes), (2) pulses, (3) nuts, (4) vegetables, (5) fruits, (6) dairy, (7) eggs, and (8) fleshy foods (meat, poultry, and fish). Those who consumed a food group every day in the past week were assigned a value of “1” and those who did not were assigned a value of “0.” Values were then summed across the eight food groups such that the dietary diversity score ranged from 0 to 8 with 8 representing maximum dietary diversity. Low dietary diversity was defined as a dietary diversity score less than 4.

Household demographic data were from the baseline IRES survey and included rural versus urban residence; age and gender of the participant; educational attainment of the primary income earner of the household; caste; household size; and whether or not they had a BPL or Antyodaya ration card.

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Centre for Media Studies (Protocol #: IRB00006230). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using Stata Statistical Software, Release 16.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA). Less than 5% of data were missing for all variables ( S5 Table ). State-wise analyses excluded states with sample sizes <100, including Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Delhi, Punjab, and Uttarakhand ( S1 Table ). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic characteristics, agricultural practices, food insecurity, dietary diversity, and COVID-19 symptoms, overall and by farm size and state. Values were reported as a weighted percent (95% CI). The weighted percents were calculated as weighted means of indicator variables (e.g., proportions) using Stata’s estimation commands for survey data (e.g., svy ). The 95% CIs were logit-transformed CIs derived from the standard errors of those means. Details of the IRES sampling weight derivation are described elsewhere [ 44 ]. Briefly, a sampling weight was derived for each participating household. The sampling weight equals the number of households in the population that the household represents, estimated as the reciprocal of the probability of selecting that household for the IRES sample. The IRES sampling weights were then adjusted for non-response to the COVID-19 survey using inverse propensity scores derived from a binary logistic regression model based on background characteristics of the participants [ 50 ]. We tested for differences in characteristics according to farm size using Pearson’s chi-squared tests, which are corrected for the survey design [ 51 , 52 ]. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Supporting information

S1 table. state-wise sample sizes..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s001

S2 Table. State-wise agricultural practices during the Kharif season in 2020 and 2019 among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s002

S3 Table. State-wise coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and interest in agroecology among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s003

S4 Table. Land conversion factors from hextobinary.com (accessed 17 February and 11 May 2021).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s004

S5 Table. Summary of missing data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s005

S1 Text. Survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s006

Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank the many farmers and agricultural laborers who responded to our survey. We would also like to express our thanks to the enumerators, without whom this study would not have been possible.

• 1. Our World in Data. Daily new confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people Oxford: University of Oxford; 2022 [cited 2022 May 17]. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~OWID_WRL .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 4. World Bank. World Development Report 2022: Finance for an Equitable Recovery. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2022.
• 5. World Bank. Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) Washington, DC: World Bank; 2019 [cited 2021 June 16]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS .
• 6. Agriculture Census Division. All India Report on Input Survey 2016–17. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2021.
• 7. Gupta N, Pradhan S, Jain A, Patel N. Sustainable Agriculture in India 2021: What We Know and How to Scale Up. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water, 2021.
• 8. NITI Aayog. Natural farming New Delhi: NITI Aayog,; 2021 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://naturalfarming.niti.gov.in/ .
• 11. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. India—Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, January—December 2013, NSS 70th Round New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,; 2019 [cited 2021 February 8]. Available from: http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/133 .
• 13. USDA. India—Organic Industry Market Report—2021. New Delhi,: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2021 Contract No.: IN2021-0095.
• 14. Ministry of Finance. Finance Minister announces measures to strengthen Agriculture Infrastructure Logistics, Capacity Building, Governance and Administrative Reforms for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Processing Sectors New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2020 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1624153 .
• 17. Mohanan M, Malani A, Krishnan K, Acharya A. Prevalence of COVID-19 in rural versus urban areas in a low-income country: findings from a State-Wide study in Karnataka, India. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper. 2021;(2021–92).
• 18. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI). Labour in Indian Agriculture: A Growing Challenge. New Delhi: FICCI, 2015.
• 22. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, editor Prime Minister’s Address (Virtual). National Conclave on Natural Farming; 2021 December 16; Anand, Gujarat, India.
• 23. United Nations. Goal 2: Zero Hunger. Goal 2 Targets. New York: United Nations,; 2022 [cited 2022 January 23]. Available from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ .
• 24. Haque TB M; Sinha G; Kalra P; Thomas S;. Constraints and Potentials of Diversified Agricultural Development in Eastern India. New Delhi: Council for Social Development, 2010.
• 25. Bahinipati CS, Patnaik U. What Motivates Farm Level Adaptation in India? A Systematic Review. In: Haque E, editor. Climate change and community resilience Insights from South Asia: Springer; 2021.
• 29. Department of Agriculture C, and Farmers Welfare;. All India Report on Agriculture Census 2015–16. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2020.
• 36. NABARD. NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey 2016–17. Mumbai: National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD), 2018.
• 38. Rapid Community Response to COVID-19 (RCRC). Resilient Communities. RCRC Centre for Monitoring Rural India during COVID-19 Times. RCRC Hosehold Survey. May 2020. New Delhi: RCRC, 2020.
• 39. Dalberg. Efficacy of government entitlements for low income families during Covid 19. Mumbai: Dalberg, 2020.
• 42. Ministry of Finance. Indian Agriculture contributes to green shoots of the Indian Economy with a Growth Rate of 3.4 Per Cent Despite COVID-19 Pandemic New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2021 [cited 2022 January 24]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1693205 .
• 44. Agrawal SM, Sunil Jain, Abhishek Ganesan, Karthik Urpelainen, Johannes India Residential Energy Survey (IRES) 2020. Design and data quality. New Delhi Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), 2020.
• 45. Ministry of Agriculture GoI. Agriculture Census 2015–16: Manual of Schedules and Instructions for Data Collection. New Delhi, India: Government of India, 2015.
• 46. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. National Sample Survey (NSS), 70th round. New Delhi: Government of India; 2013.
• 47. Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C. The food insecurity experience scale: development of a global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization 2013.
• 49. FAO. Minimum dietary diversity for women: a guide for measurement. Rome: FAO, 2016.
• 50. Potter F, Grau E, Williams S, Diaz-Tena N, Carlson BL, editors. An application of propensity modeling: Comparing unweighted and weighted logistic regression models for nonresponse adjustments. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section American Statistical Association; 2006.

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Self-Archiving Policy
• About Food Quality and Safety
• About Zhejiang University Press
• Editorial Board
• Outstanding Reviewers
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, organic farming process, benefits of organic farming, organic agriculture and sustainable development, status of organic farming in india: production, popularity, and economic growth, future prospects of organic farming in india, conclusions, conflict of interest.

• < Previous

Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Suryatapa Das, Annalakshmi Chatterjee, Tapan Kumar Pal, Organic farming in India: a vision towards a healthy nation, Food Quality and Safety , Volume 4, Issue 2, May 2020, Pages 69–76, https://doi.org/10.1093/fqsafe/fyaa018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Food quality and safety are the two important factors that have gained ever-increasing attention in general consumers. Conventionally grown foods have immense adverse health effects due to the presence of higher pesticide residue, more nitrate, heavy metals, hormones, antibiotic residue, and also genetically modified organisms. Moreover, conventionally grown foods are less nutritious and contain lesser amounts of protective antioxidants. In the quest for safer food, the demand for organically grown foods has increased during the last decades due to their probable health benefits and food safety concerns. Organic food production is defined as cultivation without the application of chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides or genetically modified organisms, growth hormones, and antibiotics. The popularity of organically grown foods is increasing day by day owing to their nutritional and health benefits. Organic farming also protects the environment and has a greater socio-economic impact on a nation. India is a country that is bestowed with indigenous skills and potentiality for growth in organic agriculture. Although India was far behind in the adoption of organic farming due to several reasons, presently it has achieved rapid growth in organic agriculture and now becomes one of the largest organic producers in the world. Therefore, organic farming has a great impact on the health of a nation like India by ensuring sustainable development.

Food quality and safety are two vital factors that have attained constant attention in common people. Growing environmental awareness and several food hazards (e.g. dioxins, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and bacterial contamination) have substantially decreased the consumer’s trust towards food quality in the last decades. Intensive conventional farming can add contamination to the food chain. For these reasons, consumers are quested for safer and better foods that are produced through more ecologically and authentically by local systems. Organically grown food and food products are believed to meet these demands ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

In recent years, organic farming as a cultivation process is gaining increasing popularity ( Dangour et al. , 2010 ). Organically grown foods have become one of the best choices for both consumers and farmers. Organically grown foods are part of go green lifestyle. But the question is that what is meant by organic farming? ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The term ‘organic’ was first coined by Northbourne, in 1940, in his book entitled ‘Look to the Land’.

Northbourne stated that ‘the farm itself should have biological completeness; it must be a living entity; it must be a unit which has within itself a balanced organic life’( Nourthbourne, 2003 ). Northbourne also defined organic farming as ‘an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity’. According to Winter and Davis (2006) , ‘it is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony’.

They mentioned that organic produce is not grown with synthetic pesticides, antibiotics, growth hormones, application of genetic modification techniques (such as genetically modified crops), sewage sludge, or chemical fertilizers.

Whereas, conventional farming is the cultivation process where synthetic pesticide and chemical fertilizers are applied to gain higher crop yield and profit. In conventional farming, synthetic pesticides and chemicals are able to eliminate insects, weeds, and pests and growth factors such as synthetic hormones and fertilizers increase growth rate ( Worthington, 2001 ).

As synthetically produced pesticides and chemical fertilizers are utilized in conventional farming, consumption of conventionally grown foods is discouraged, and for these reasons, the popularity of organic farming is increasing gradually.

Organic farming and food processing practices are wide-ranging and necessitate the development of socially, ecologically, and economically sustainable food production system. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has suggested the basic four principles of organic farming, i.e. the principle of health, ecology, fairness, and care ( Figure 1 ). The main principles and practices of organic food production are to inspire and enhance biological cycles in the farming system, keep and enhance deep-rooted soil fertility, reduce all types of pollution, evade the application of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, conserve genetic diversity in food, consider the vast socio-ecological impact of food production, and produce high-quality food in sufficient quantity ( IFOAM, 1998 ).

Principles of organic farming (adapted from IFOAM, 1998 ).

According to the National Organic Programme implemented by USDA Organic Food Production Act (OFPA, 1990), agriculture needs specific prerequisites for both crop cultivation and animal husbandry. To be acceptable as organic, crops should be cultivated in lands without any synthetic pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and herbicides for 3 years before harvesting with enough buffer zone to lower contamination from the adjacent farms. Genetically engineered products, sewage sludge, and ionizing radiation are strictly prohibited. Fertility and nutrient content of soil are managed primarily by farming practices, with crop rotation, and using cover crops that are boosted with animal and plant waste manures. Pests, diseases, and weeds are mainly controlled with the adaptation of physical and biological control systems without using herbicides and synthetic pesticides. Organic livestock should be reared devoid of scheduled application of growth hormones or antibiotics and they should be provided with enough access to the outdoor. Preventive health practices such as routine vaccination, vitamins and minerals supplementation are also needed (OFPA, 1990).

Nutritional benefits and health safety

Magnusson et al. (2003) and Brandt and MØlgaord (2001) mentioned that the growing demand for organically farmed fresh products has created an interest in both consumer and producer regarding the nutritional value of organically and conventionally grown foods. According to a study conducted by AFSSA (2003) , organically grown foods, especially leafy vegetables and tubers, have higher dry matter as compared to conventionally grown foods. Woëse et al. (1997) and Bourn and Prescott (2002) also found similar results. Although organic cereals and their products contain lesser protein than conventional cereals, they have higher quality proteins with better amino acid scores. Lysine content in organic wheat has been reported to be 25%–30% more than conventional wheat ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ; Brandt et al. , 2000 ).

Organically grazed cows and sheep contain less fat and more lean meat as compared to conventional counterparts ( Hansson et al. , 2000 ). In a study conducted by Nürnberg et al. (2002) , organically fed cow’s muscle contains fourfold more linolenic acid, which is a recommended cardio-protective ω-3 fatty acid, with accompanying decrease in oleic acid and linoleic acid. Pastushenko et al. (2000) found that meat from an organically grazed cow contains high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids. The milk produced from the organic farm contains higher polyunsaturated fatty acids and vitamin E ( Lund, 1991 ). Vitamin E and carotenoids are found in a nutritionally desirable amount in organic milk ( Nürnberg et al. , 2002 ). Higher oleic acid has been found in organic virgin olive oil ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). Organic plants contain significantly more magnesium, iron, and phosphorous. They also contain more calcium, sodium, and potassium as major elements and manganese, iodine, chromium, molybdenum, selenium, boron, copper, vanadium, and zinc as trace elements ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ).

According to a review of Lairon (2010) which was based on the French Agency for food safety (AFSSA) report, organic products contain more dry matter, minerals, and antioxidants such as polyphenols and salicylic acid. Organic foods (94%–100%) contain no pesticide residues in comparison to conventionally grown foods.

Fruits and vegetables contain a wide variety of phytochemicals such as polyphenols, resveratrol, and pro-vitamin C and carotenoids which are generally secondary metabolites of plants. In a study of Lairon (2010) , organic fruits and vegetables contain 27% more vitamin C than conventional fruits and vegetables. These secondary metabolites have substantial regulatory effects at cellular levels and hence found to be protective against certain diseases such as cancers, chronic inflammations, and other diseases ( Lairon, 2010 ).

According to a Food Marketing Institute (2008) , some organic foods such as corn, strawberries, and marionberries have greater than 30% of cancer-fighting antioxidants. The phenols and polyphenolic antioxidants are in higher level in organic fruits and vegetables. It has been estimated that organic plants contain double the amount of phenolic compounds than conventional ones ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ). Organic wine has been reported to contain a higher level of resveratrol ( Levite et al. , 2000 ).

Rossi et al. (2008) stated that organically grown tomatoes contain more salicylic acid than conventional counterparts. Salicylic acid is a naturally occurring phytochemical having anti-inflammatory and anti-stress effects and prevents hardening of arteries and bowel cancer ( Rembialkowska, 2007 ; Butler et al. , 2008 ).

Total sugar content is more in organic fruits because of which they taste better to consumers. Bread made from organically grown grain was found to have better flavour and also had better crumb elasticity ( BjØrn and Fruekidle, 2003 ). Organically grown fruits and vegetables have been proved to taste better and smell good ( Rembialkowska, 2000 ).

Organic vegetables normally have far less nitrate content than conventional vegetables ( Woëse et al. , 1997 ). Nitrates are used in farming as soil fertilizer but they can be easily transformed into nitrites, a matter of public health concern. Nitrites are highly reactive nitrogen species that are capable of competing with oxygen in the blood to bind with haemoglobin, thus leading to methemoglobinemia. It also binds to the secondary amine to generate nitrosamine which is a potent carcinogen ( Lairon, 2010 ).

As organically grown foods are cultivated without the use of pesticides and sewage sludge, they are less contaminated with pesticide residue and pathogenic organisms such as Listeria monocytogenes or Salmonella sp. or Escherichia coli ( Van Renterghem et al. , 1991 ; Lung et al. , 2001 ; Warnick et al. , 2001 ).

Therefore, organic foods ensure better nutritional benefits and health safety.

Environmental impact

Organic farming has a protective role in environmental conservation. The effect of organic and conventional agriculture on the environment has been extensively studied. It is believed that organic farming is less harmful to the environment as it does not allow synthetic pesticides, most of which are potentially harmful to water, soil, and local terrestrial and aquatic wildlife ( Oquist et al. , 2007 ). In addition, organic farms are better than conventional farms at sustaining biodiversity, due to practices of crop rotation. Organic farming improves physico-biological properties of soil consisting of more organic matter, biomass, higher enzyme, better soil stability, enhanced water percolation, holding capacities, lesser water, and wind erosion compared to conventionally farming soil ( Fliessbach & Mäder, 2000 ; Edwards, 2007 ; Fileβbach et al. , 2007 ). Organic farming uses lesser energy and produces less waste per unit area or per unit yield ( Stolze et al. , 2000 ; Hansen et al. , 2001 ). In addition, organically managed soils are of greater quality and water retention capacity, resulting in higher yield in organic farms even during the drought years ( Pimentel et al. , 2005 ).

Socioeconomic impact

Organic cultivation requires a higher level of labour, hence produces more income-generating jobs per farm ( Halberg, 2008 ). According to Winter and Davis (2006), an organic product typically costs 10%–40% more than the similar conventionally crops and it depends on multiple factors both in the input and the output arms. On the input side, factors that enhance the price of organic foods include the high cost of obtaining the organic certification, the high cost of manpower in the field, lack of subsidies on organics in India, unlike chemical inputs. But consumers are willing to pay a high price as there is increasing health awareness. Some organic products also have short supply against high demand with a resultant increase in cost ( Mukherjee et al. , 2018 ).

Biofertilizers and pesticides can be produced locally, so yearly inputs invested by the farmers are also low ( Lobley et al. , 2005 ). As the labours working in organic farms are less likely to be exposed to agricultural chemicals, their occupational health is improved ( Thompson and Kidwell, 1998 ). Organic food has a longer shelf life than conventional foods due to lesser nitrates and greater antioxidants. Nitrates hasten food spoilage, whereas antioxidants help to enhance the shelf life of foods ( Shreck et al. , 2006 ). Organic farming is now an expanding economic sector as a result of the profit incurred by organic produce and thereby leading to a growing inclination towards organic agriculture by the farmers.

The concept of sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals—environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. The concept of sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The very basic approach to organic farming for the sustainable environment includes the following ( Yadav, 2017 ):

Improvement and maintenance of the natural landscape and agro-ecosystem.

Avoidance of overexploitation and pollution of natural resources.

Minimization of the consumption of non-renewable energy resources.

Exploitation synergies that exist in a natural ecosystem.

Maintenance and improve soil health by stimulating activity or soil organic manures and avoid harming them with pesticides.

Optimum economic returns, with a safe, secure, and healthy working environment.

Acknowledgement of the virtues of indigenous know-how and traditional farming system.

Long-term economic viability can only be possible by organic farming and because of its premium price in the market, organic farming is more profitable. The increase in the cost of production by the use of pesticides and fertilizers in conventional farming and its negative impact on farmer’s health affect economic balance in a community and benefits only go to the manufacturer of these pesticides. Continuous degradation of soil fertility by chemical fertilizers leads to production loss and hence increases the cost of production which makes the farming economically unsustainable. Implementation of a strategy encompassing food security, generation of rural employment, poverty alleviation, conservation of the natural resource, adoption of an export-oriented production system, sound infrastructure, active participation of government, and private-public sector will be helpful to make revamp economic sustainability in agriculture ( Soumya, 2015 ).

Social sustainability

It is defined as a process or framework that promotes the wellbeing of members of an organization while supporting the ability of future generations to maintain a healthy community. Social sustainability can be improved by enabling rural poor to get benefit from agricultural development, giving respect to indigenous knowledge and practices along with modern technologies, promoting gender equality in labour, full participation of vibrant rural communities to enhance their confidence and mental health, and thus decreasing suicidal rates among the farmers. Organic farming appears to generate 30% more employment in rural areas and labour achieves higher returns per unit of labour input ( Pandey and Singh, 2012 ).

Organic food and farming have continued to grow across the world. Since 1985, the total area of farmland under organic production has been increased steadily over the last three decades ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). By 2017, there was a total of 69.8 million hectares of organically managed land recorded globally which represents a 20% growth or 11.7 million hectares of land in comparison to the year 2016. This is the largest growth ever recorded in organic farming ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ). The countries with the largest areas of organic agricultural land recorded in the year 2017 are given in Figure 2 . Australia has the largest organic lands with an area of 35.65 million hectares and India acquired the eighth position with a total organic agriculture area of 1.78 million hectares ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Country-wise areas of organic agriculture land, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

In 2017, it was also reported that day to day the number of organic produces increases considerably all over the world. Asia contributes to the largest percentage (40%) of organic production in the world and India contributes to be largest number of organic producer (835 000) ( Figures 3 and 4 ).

Organic producers by region, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Largest organic producers in the world, 2017 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The growth of organic farming in India was quite dawdling with only 41 000 hectares of organic land comprising merely 0.03% of the total cultivated area. In India during 2002, the production of organic farming was about 14 000 tonnes of which 85% of it was exported ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ). The most important barrier considered in the progress of organic agriculture in India was the lacunae in the government policies of making a firm decision to promote organic agriculture. Moreover, there were several major drawbacks in the growth of organic farming in India which include lack of awareness, lack of good marketing policies, shortage of biomass, inadequate farming infrastructure, high input cost of farming, inappropriate marketing of organic input, inefficient agricultural policies, lack of financial support, incapability of meeting export demand, lack of quality manure, and low yield ( Figure 5 ; Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Constraints of organic farming in India in the past ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ).

Recently, the Government of India has implemented a number of programs and schemes for boosting organic farming in the country. Among these the most important include (1) The Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana, (2) Organic Value Chain Development in North Eastern Region Scheme, (3) Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, (4) The mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (a. National Horticulture Mission, b. Horticulture Mission for North East and Himalayan states, c. National Bamboo Mission, d. National Horticulture Board, e. Coconut Development Board, d. Central Institute for Horticulture, Nagaland), (5) National Programme for Organic Production, (6) National Project on Organic Farming, and (7) National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture ( Yadav, 2017 ).

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a method of farming where the cost of growing and harvesting plants is zero as it reduces costs through eliminating external inputs and using local resources to rejuvenate soils and restore ecosystem health through diverse, multi-layered cropping systems. It requires only 10% of water and 10% electricity less than chemical and organic farming. The micro-organisms of Cow dung (300–500 crores of beneficial micro-organisms per one gram cow dung) decompose the dried biomass on the soil and convert it into ready-to-use nutrients for plants. Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana since 2015–16 and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana are the schemes taken by the Government of India under the ZBNF policy ( Sobhana et al. , 2019 ). According to Kumar (2020) , in the union budget 2020–21, Rs 687.5 crore has been allocated for the organic and natural farming sector which was Rs 461.36 crore in the previous year.

Indian Competence Centre for Organic Agriculture cited that the global market for organically grown foods is USD 26 billion which will be increased to the amount of USD 102 billion by 2020 ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ).

The major states involved in organic agriculture in India are Gujarat, Kerala, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, Sikkim, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh ( Chandrashekar, 2010 ).

India ranked 8th with respect to the land of organic agriculture and 88th in the ratio of organic crops to agricultural land as per Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority and report of Research Institute of Organic Agriculture ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ). But a significant growth in the organic sector in India has been observed ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ) in the last decades.

There have been about a threefold increase from 528 171 ha in 2007–08 to 1.2 million ha of cultivable land in 2014–15. As per the study conducted by Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry in India, the organic food turnover is increasing at about 25% annually and thereby will be expected to reach USD 1.36 billion in 2020 from USD 0.36 billion in 2014 ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 ).

The consumption and popularity of organic foods are increasing day by day throughout the world. In 2008, more than two-thirds of US consumers purchased organic food, and more than one fourth purchased them weekly. The consumption of organic crops has doubled in the USA since 1997. A consumer prefers organic foods in the concept that organic foods have more nutritional values, have lesser or no additive contaminants, and sustainably grown. The families with younger consumers, in general, prefer organic fruits and vegetables than consumers of any other age group ( Thompson et al. , 1998 ; Loureino et al. , 2001 ; Magnusson et al. , 2003 ). The popularity of organic foods is due to its nutritional and health benefits and positive impact on environmental and socioeconomic status ( Chopra et al. , 2013 ) and by a survey conducted by the UN Environment Programme, organic farming methods give small yields (on average 20% lower) as compared to conventional farming ( Gutierrez et al. , 1999 ). As the yields of organically grown foods are low, the costs of them are higher. The higher prices made a barrier for many consumers to buy organic foods ( Lairon, 2010 ). Organic farming needs far more lands to generate the same amount of organic food produce as conventional farming does, as chemical fertilizers are not used here, which conventionally produces higher yield. Organic agriculture hardly contributes to addressing the issue of global climate change. During the last decades, the consumption of organic foods has been increasing gradually, particularly in western countries ( Meiner-Ploeger, 2005 ).

Organic foods have become one of the rapidly growing food markets with revenue increasing by nearly 20% each year since 1990 ( Winter and Davis, 2006 ). The global organic food market has been reached USD 81.6 billion in 2015 from USD 17.9 billion during the year 2000 ( Figure 6 ) and most of which showed double-digit growth rates ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Worldwide growth in organic food sales ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

India is an agriculture-based country with 67% of its population and 55% of manpower depending on farming and related activities. Agriculture fulfils the basic needs of India’s fastest-growing population accounted for 30% of total income. Organic farming has been found to be an indigenous practice of India that practised in countless rural and farming communities over the millennium. The arrival of modern techniques and increased burden of population led to a propensity towards conventional farming that involves the use of synthetic fertilizer, chemical pesticides, application of genetic modification techniques, etc.

Even in developing countries like India, the demand for organically grown produce is more as people are more aware now about the safety and quality of food, and the organic process has a massive influence on soil health, which devoid of chemical pesticides. Organic cultivation has an immense prospect of income generation too ( Bhardwaj and Dhiman, 2019 ). The soil in India is bestowed with various types of naturally available organic nutrient resources that aid in organic farming ( Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Reddy, 2010 ; Deshmukh and Babar, 2015 ).

India is a country with a concrete traditional farming system, ingenious farmers, extensive drylands, and nominal use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Moreover, adequate rainfall in north-east hilly regions of the country where few negligible chemicals are employed for a long period of time, come to fruition as naturally organic lands ( Gour, 2016 ).

Indian traditional farmers possess a deep insight based on their knowledge, extensive observation, perseverance and practices for maintaining soil fertility, and pest management which are found effective in strengthening organic production and subsequent economic growth in India. The progress in organic agriculture is quite commendable. Currently, India has become the largest organic producer in the globe ( Willer and Lernoud, 2017 , 2019 ) and ranked eighth having 1.78 million ha of organic agriculture land in the world in 2017 ( Sharma and Goyal, 2000 ; Adolph and Butterworth, 2002 ; Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ).

Various newer technologies have been invented in the field of organic farming such as integration of mycorrhizal fungi and nano-biostimulants (to increase the agricultural productivity in an environmentally friendly manner), mapping cultivation areas more consciously through sensor technology and spatial geodata, 3D printers (to help the country’s smallholder), production from side streams and waste along with main commodities, promotion and improvement of sustainable agriculture through innovation in drip irrigation, precision agriculture, and agro-ecological practices. Another advancement in the development of organic farming is BeeScanning App, through which beekeepers can fight the Varroa destructor parasite mite and also forms a basis for population modelling and breeding programmes ( Nova-Institut GmbH, 2018 ).

Inhana Rational Farming Technology developed on the principle ‘Element Energy Activation’ is a comprehensive organic method for ensuring ecologically and economically sustainable crop production and it is based on ancient Indian philosophy and modern scientific knowledge.

The technology works towards (1) energization of soil system: reactivation of soil-plant-microflora dynamics by restoration of the population and efficiency of the native soil microflora and (2) energization of plant system: restoration of the two defence mechanisms of the plant kingdom that are nutrient use efficiency and superior plant immunity against pest/disease infection ( Barik and Sarkar, 2017 ).

Organic farming yields more nutritious and safe food. The popularity of organic food is growing dramatically as consumer seeks the organic foods that are thought to be healthier and safer. Thus, organic food perhaps ensures food safety from farm to plate. The organic farming process is more eco-friendly than conventional farming. Organic farming keeps soil healthy and maintains environment integrity thereby, promoting the health of consumers. Moreover, the organic produce market is now the fastest growing market all over the world including India. Organic agriculture promotes the health of consumers of a nation, the ecological health of a nation, and the economic growth of a nation by income generation holistically. India, at present, is the world’s largest organic producers ( Willer and Lernoud, 2019 ) and with this vision, we can conclude that encouraging organic farming in India can build a nutritionally, ecologically, and economically healthy nation in near future.

This review work was funded by the University Grants Commission, Government of India.

None declared.

Adolph , B. , Butterworth , J . ( 2002 ). Soil fertility management in semi-arid India: its role in agricultural systems and the livelihoods of poor people . Natural Resources Institute , UK .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

AFSSA. ( 2003 ). Report on Evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic foods (Evaluation nutritionnelle et sanitaire des aliments issus de l’agriculturebiologique, in French), AFSSA, 164 . http://www.afssa.fr . Accessed 3 August 2018 .

Barik , A. , Sarkar , N . ( 2017 , November 8-11). Organic Farming in India: Present Status, Challenges and Technological Break Through . In: 3rd International Conference on Bio-resource and Stress Management, Jaipur, India.

Bhardwaj , M. , Dhiman , M . ( 2019 ). Growth and performance of organic farming in India: what could be the future prospects? Journal of Current Science , 20 : 1 – 8 .

BjØrn , G. , Fruekidle , A. M . ( 2003 ). Cepa onions ( Allium cepa L) grown conventionally . Green Viden , 153 : 1 – 6 .

Bourn , D. , Prescott , J . ( 2002 ). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods . Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition , 42 : 1 – 34 .

Brandt , D.A. , Brand , T.S. , Cruywagen , C.W . ( 2000 ). The use of crude protein content to predict concentrations of lysine and methionine in grain harvested from selected cultivars of wheat, barley and triticale grown in Western Cape region of South Africa . South African Journal of Animal Science , 30 : 22 – 259 .

Brandt , K. , MØlgaord , J.P . ( 2001 ). Organic agriculture: does it enhance or reduce the nutritional value of plant foods? Journal of Science of Food Agriculture , 81 : 924 – 931 .

Butler , G. et al.  ( 2008 ). Fatty acid and fat-soluble antioxidant concentrations in milk from high- and low-input conventional and organic systems: seasonal variation . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 88 : 1431 – 1441 .

Chandrashekar , H.M . ( 2010 ). Changing Scenario of organic farming in India: an overview . International NGO Journal , 5 : 34 – 39 .

Chopra , A. , Rao , N.C. , Gupta , N. , Vashisth , S . ( 2013 ). Come sunshine or rain; organic foods always on tract: a futuristic perspective . International Journal of Nutrition, Pharmacology Neurological Diseases , 3 : 202 – 205 .

Dangour , A.D. , Allen , E. , Lock , K. , Uauy , R . ( 2010 ). Nutritional composition & health benefits of organic foods-using systematic reviews to question the available evidence . Indian Journal of Medical Research , 131 : 478 – 480 .

Deshmukh , M.S. , Babar , N . ( 2015 ). Present status and prospects of organic farming in India . European Academic Research , 3 : 4271 – 4287 .

Edwards , S . ( 2007 ). The impact of compost use on crop yields in Tigray, Ethiopia . In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security . 2–5 May 2007, FAO , Rome [cited on 2013 March 20], pp. 1 – 42 . http://www.ftp.fao.org/paia/organica/ofs/02-Edwards.pdf .

Fileβbach , A. , Oberholzer , H.R. , Gunst , L. , Mäder , P . ( 2007 ). Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 118 : 273 – 284 .

Fliessbach , A. , Mäder , P . ( 2000 ). Microbial biomass and size—density fractions differ between soils of organic and conventional agricultural system . Soil Biology and Biochemistry , 32 : 757 – 768 .

Food Marketing Institute (FMI) . ( 2008 ). Natural and organic foods . http://www.fmi.org/docs/media-backgrounder/natural_organicfoods.pdf?sfvrsn=2 . Accessed 10 March 2019 .

Gour , M . ( 2016 ). Organic farming in India: status, issues and prospects . SOPAAN-II , 1 : 26 – 36 .

Gutierrez , F. , Arnaud , T. , Albi , M.A . ( 1999 ). Influence of ecologic cultivation on virgin olive oil quality . Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society , 76 : 617 – 621 .

Halberg , N . ( 2008 ). Energy use and green house gas emission in organic agriculture. In: Proceedings of International Conference Organic Agriculture and Climate Change . 17–18 April 2008, ENITA of Clermont , France , pp. 1 – 6 .

Hansen , B. , Alroe , H.J. , Kristensen , E.S. ( 2001 ). Approaches to assess the environmental impact of organic farming with particular regard to Denmark . Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment , 83 : 11 – 26 .

Hansson , I. , Hamilton , C. , Ekman , T. , Forslund , K . ( 2000 ). Carcass quality in certified organic production compared with conventional livestock production . Journal of Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health , 47 : 111 – 120 .

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) . ( 1998 ). The IFOAM basic standards for organic production and processing . General Assembly , Argentina, November, IFOAM, Germany . Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (U.S.C) s. 2103.

Kumar , V. ( 2020 , February 03). Union Budget 2020– 21 : Big talk on natural farming but no support [Web log post] . https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/agriculture/union-budget-2020-21-big-talk-on-natural-farming-but-no-support-69131 . on 28.04.2020

Lairon , D. ( 2010 ). Nutritional quality and safety of organic food. A review . Agronomy for Sustainable Development , 30 : 33 – 41 .

Levite , D. , Adrian , M. , Tamm , L. ( 2000 ). Preliminary results of resveratrol in wine of organic and conventional vineyards, In: Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on Organic Viticulture , 25–26 August 2000, Basel, Switzerland , pp. 256 – 257 .

Lobley , M. , Reed , M. , Butler , A. , Courtney , P. , Warren , M . ( 2005 ). Impact of Organic Farming on the Rural Economy in England . Exeter: Centre for Rural Research, Laffrowda House, University of Exeter , Exeter, UK .

Loureino , L.L. , McCluskey , J.J. , Mittelhammer , R.C . ( 2001 ). Preferences for organic, eco-labeled, or regular apples . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 26 : 404 – 416 .

Lund , P . ( 1991 ). Characterization of alternatively produced milk . Milchwissenschaft—Milk Science International , 46 : 166 – 169 .

Lung , A.J. , Lin , C.M. , Kim , J.M . ( 2001 ). Destruction of Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella enteritidis in cow manure composting . Journal of Food Protection , 64 : 1309 – 1314 .

Magnusson , M. K. , Arvola , A. , Hursti , U. K. , Aberg , L. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2003 ). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour . Appetite , 40 : 109 – 117 .

Meiner-Ploeger , K . ( 2005 ). Organic farming food quality and human health. In: NJF Seminar , 15 June 2005, Alnarp, Sweden .

Mukherjee , A. , Kapoor , A. , Dutta , S . ( 2018 ). Organic food business in India: a survey of companies . Research in Economics and Management , 3 : 72 . doi: 10.22158/rem.v3n2P72 .

Nourthbourne , C.J. , 5th Lord. ( 2003 ). Look to the Land , 2nd Rev Spec edn. Sophia Perennis , Hillsdale, NY ; First Ed. 1940. J.M. Dent & Sons.

Nova-Institut GmbH . ( 2018 , July 2). High-tech strategies for small farmers and organic farming [press release] . http://news.bio-based.eu/high-tech-strategies-for-small-farmers-and-organic-farming/ . Accessed 28 April 2020 .

Nürnberg , K. et al.  ( 2002 ). N-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acids of longissimus muscle in beef cattle . European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology , 104 : 463 – 471 .

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–624, §§ 2101- 2123, 104 Stat. 3935 (codified at 7 U.S.C.6501–6522).

Oquist , K. A. , Strock , J. S. , Mulla , D. J . ( 2007 ). Influence of alternative and conventional farming practices on subsurface drainage and water quality . Journal of Environmental Quality , 36 : 1194 – 1204 .

Padiya , J. , Vala , N . ( 2012 ). Profiling of organic food buyers in Ahmadabad city: an empirical study . Pacific Business Review International , 5 : 19 – 26 .

Pandey , J. , Singh , A . ( 2012 ): Opportunities and constraints in organic farming: an Indian perspective . Journal of Scientific Research , 56 : 47 – 72 , ISSN: 0447-9483.

Pastushenko , V. , Matthes , H.D. , Hein , T. , Holzer , Z . ( 2000 ). Impact of cattle grazing on meat fatty acid composition in relation to human nutrition. In: Proceedings 13th IFOAM Scientific Conference . pp. 293 – 296 .

Pimentel , D. , Hepperly , P. , Hanson , J. , Douds , D. , Seidel , R . ( 2005 ). Environmental, energetic and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems . Bioscience , 55 : 573 – 582 .

Reddy S.B . ( 2010 ). Organic farming: status, issues and prospects—a review . Agricultural Economics Research Review , 23 : 343 – 358 .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2000 ). Wholesomeness and Sensory Quality of Potatoes and Selected Vegetables from the organic Farms . Fundacja Rozwoj SGGW , Warszawa .

Rembialkowska , E . ( 2007 ). Quality of plant products from organic agriculture . Journal Science of Food and Agriculture , 87 : 2757 – 2762 .

Rossi , F. , Godani , F. , Bertuzzi , T. , Trevisan , M. , Ferrari , F. , Gatti , S . ( 2008 ). Health-promoting substances and heavy metal content in tomatoes grown with different farming techniques . European Journal of Nutrition , 47 : 266 – 272 .

Sharma A. K , Goyal R. K. ( 2000 ). Addition in tradition on agroforestry in arid zone . LEISA-INDIA , 2 : 19 – 20 .

Shepherd , R. , Magnusson , M. , Sjödén , P. O . ( 2005 ). Determinants of consumer behavior related to organic foods . Ambio , 34 : 352 – 359 .

Shreck , A. , Getz , C. , Feenstra , G. ( 2006 ). Social sustainability, farm labor, and organic agriculture: findings from an exploratory analysis . Agriculture and Human Values , 23 : 439 – 449 .

Sobhana , E. , Chitraputhira Pillai , S. , Swaminathan , V. , Pandian , K. , Sankarapandian , S . ( 2019 ). Zero Budget Natural Farming. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17084.46727.

Soumya , K. M . ( 2015 ). Organic farming: an effective way to promote sustainable agriculture development in India . IOSR Journal Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) , 20 : 31 – 36 , e-ISSN: 2279-0837, p-ISSN: 2279-0845. www.iosrjournals.org .

Stolze , M. , Piorr , A. , Haring , A.M. , Dabbert , S. ( 2000 ). Environmental impacts of organic farming in Europe . Organic Farming in Europe: Economics and Policy . vol. 6 . University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany . Retrieved on 15 May 2011. http://orgprints.org/8400/1/Organic_Farming_in_Europe_Volume06_The_Environmental_Impacts_of_Organic_Farming_in_Europe.pdf .

Thompson , G.D. , Kidwell , J . ( 1998 ). Explaining the choice of organic procedure: cosmetic defects, prices, and consumer preferences . American Journal of Agricultural Economics , 80 : 277 – 287 .

Van Renterghem , B. , Huysman , F. , Rygole , R. , Verstraete , W . ( 1991 ). Detection and prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in the agricultural ecosystem . Journal of Applied Bacteriology , 71 : 211 – 217 .

Warnick , L. D. , Crofton , L. M. , Pelzer , K. D. , Hawkins , M. J . ( 2001 ). Risk factors for clinical salmonellosis in Virginia, USA cattle herd . Preventive Veterinary Medicine , 49 : 259 – 275 .

Willer , H. , Lernoud , J ., eds. ( 2017 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . FiBL & IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn.

Willer , H . Lernoud J , eds. ( 2019 ). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends . Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick and IFOAM—Organics International , Bonn . https://www.organicworld.net/yearbook/yearbook-2019.html .

Winter , C.K. , Davis , S.F . ( 2006 ). Organic food . Journal of Food Science , 71 : 117 – 124 .

Woëse , K. , Lange , D. , Boess , C. , Bögl , K.W . ( 1997 ). A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods—results of a review of the relevant literature . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture , 74 : 281 – 293 .

Worthington , V . ( 2001 ). Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains . Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine , 7 : 161 – 173 .

Yadav , M . ( 2017 ). Towards a healthier nation: organic farming and government policies in India . International Journal of Advance Research and Development , 2 : 153 – 159 .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2399-1402
• Print ISSN 2399-1399
• Copyright © 2024 Zhejiang University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

AGRICULTURE SECTOR AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

The present research paper has focused on the role of the agriculture sector in rural development of India. The secondary data were used and it was obtained from various sources like annual reports of agriculture and farmers welfare department, ministry of rural development, census reports, and NSSO data. Agriculture sector significantly contributes to the positive improvement of the economy generally and rural development particularly. India is an agricultural country with 195 million hectares is gross cropped area, 141 million hectares of land as net sown area, the highest percentage of land under cultivation in the world. The country accounts for 17.7 percent of the world's population and ranks in the second largest populated country. The country has about 68.8 percent of the population living in its rural areas and the only source of their livelihood is agriculture and allied activities. The total production of food grains was increased from 259.29 million tonnes in 2011-12 to 284.95 million tonnes in 2018-19. The contribution of agriculture in gross value added at basic prices has continuously fallen in India from 17.72 percent in 2012-13 to 14.09 percent in 2019-20. The share of agriculture in employment declined from about 69.7 percent in 1951 to about 54.6 percent by 2011. The amount of agricultural credits are very much insufficient and the private non-institutional sources still remained a significant contribution in supplying credit to the farmers and rural peoples. To achieve sustainable rural International Research Journal of Human Resource and Social Sciences ISSN(O): (2349-4085) ISSN(P): (2394-4218) Impact Factor 5. development through agricultural practices, it needed the more than four percent growth rate in agriculture, provision of quality and adequate quantum of inputs such as quality seeds, fertilisers, and their timely supply besides electricity, socioeconomic inclusion policy and participation of the rural people in development strategies are the key concerns of the policy.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Skip to main content

• SAS Viya Platform
• Learn About SAS Viya
• Try It and Buy It
• Move to SAS Viya
• Risk Management
• All Products & Solutions
• Public Sector
• Life Sciences
• Retail & Consumer Goods
• All Industries
• Contracting with SAS
• Customer Stories

Why Learn SAS?

Demand for SAS skills is growing. Advance your career and train your team in sought after skills

• Train My Team
• Course Catalog
• Free Training
• My Training
• Academic Programs
• Faculty Development Program
• Center of Excellence
• Academic Software Licensing
• Certification
• Choose a Credential
• Why get certified?
• Exam Preparation
• My Certification
• Communities
• Ask the Expert
• All Webinars
• Video Tutorials
• YouTube Channel
• SAS Programming
• Statistical Procedures
• New SAS Users
• Administrators
• All Communities
• Documentation
• Installation & Configuration
• SAS Viya Administration
• SAS Viya Programming
• System Requirements
• All Documentation
• Support & Services
• Knowledge Base
• Starter Kit
• Support by Product
• Support Services
• All Support & Services
• User Groups
• Partner Program
• Find a Partner
• Sign Into PartnerNet

Learn why SAS is the world's most trusted analytics platform, and why analysts, customers and industry experts love SAS.

Learn more about SAS

• Annual Report
• Vision & Mission
• Office Locations
• Internships
• Search Jobs
• News & Events
• Newsletters
• Trust Center
• support.sas.com
• documentation.sas.com
• blogs.sas.com
• communities.sas.com
• developer.sas.com

Select your region

Middle East & Africa

Asia Pacific

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Bosnia & Herz.
• Česká Republika
• Deutschland
• Magyarország
• North Macedonia
• Schweiz (Deutsch)
• Suisse (Français)
• United Kingdom
• Middle East
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• Indonesia (Bahasa)
• Indonesia (English)
• New Zealand
• Philippines
• Thailand (English)
• ประเทศไทย (ภาษาไทย)
• Worldwide Sites

Create Profile

Get access to My SAS, trials, communities and more.

Edit Profile

• SAS Newsroom
• Press Releases

SAS, NC A&T and NC State to offer analytics-driven agricultural research to state’s farmers and growers

University researchers and extension services to bring farms insights on crops, climate and more.

A partnership between North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina State University, and data and AI leader SAS is set to advance agricultural research at the state’s land-grant universities. Using the state’s proven university extension programs, farmers and growers will reap the benefits of an agricultural research collaboration that takes research insights from the lab to the field.

Farmers, ranchers, growers and producers will have access to insights powered by SAS via extension and related programs at both universities. With 101 centers, more than 1,100 experts and a network of partnerships throughout the state, the extension programs help citizens transform science into everyday solutions that improve lives and grow the state. The SAS partnership aims to enrich research initiatives, particularly in precision agriculture, enabling continuous improvement in plant sciences, animal husbandry, crop yields, land management, and supporting profitable and sustainable practices.

"As the nation's largest land-grant HBCU, we are excited to use this platform to deliver 'Ag 5.0'  –  research-based, data-driven agricultural know-how – to all communities, including the small, limited-resource and minority farmers that constitute so much of our state's agriculture sector, and to provide it in ways that everyone can easily understand," said Shirley Hymon-Parker, Interim Dean of the College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at NC A&T. "We look forward to bringing research out of the lab faster and more effectively, and into the communities that are eager to use it."

“This partnership between SAS and the two NC land grant universities will energize and accelerate discoveries and delivery of solutions and opportunities to our agriculture sector,” said Steven A. Lommel, Director of the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service and Associate Dean for Research at NC State’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS). “Like all fields, agriculture is data driven. Analytics-based solutions accelerated by this partnership will increase yields, efficiency, resiliency and sustainability while reducing inputs and costs.”

Growing from a fruitful partnership

The collaboration builds on the success of previous work between SAS and NC State’s Plant Sciences Initiative (PSI), In 2020, SAS partnered with the PSI to pilot a data and analytics platform that empowers research for multidisciplinary projects that have included using data and in-field sensors to detect plant diseases and improve the sustainability of agricultural systems, and using computer-vision software to boost the profitability of sweet potatoes.

NC State and NC A&T will deploy SAS ® Viya ® , an end-to-end analytics and AI platform, to enhance research, accelerate innovation and support future grant opportunities. Both universities anticipate that the platform-powered collaboration will aid in the capture of highly competitive research and grant funding, amplifying their research outputs. The research insights of SAS Viya will help university researchers:

• More efficiently orchestrate the entire research life cycle.
• Integrate disparate data from across academic, government and industry sources.
• Work in open source or SAS to amplify analytical outputs and impact.
• Centrally manage complex data security, integrity, governance and continuity.

Investing in a legacy of agricultural leadership

The collaboration is supported by state funding for NC A&T and NC State to enhance the state's agricultural sector, which generates an economic impact of more than $100 billion annually.

“We see this public-private partnership as an opportunity to serve agriculture in an innovative way – unlocking information, insights and new approaches to benefit our state’s growers, producers and researchers," said state Sen. Brent Jackson, who is Chairman of the agriculture and appropriations committees in the chamber. "These collaborative efforts from two great universities are vital to the ongoing effort around continued advancement in agriculture.”

“We wanted to empower work that aims to unlock research insights for farmers and others who work in and support food production,” said state Rep. Jimmy Dixon, who serves as Senior Chairman of two committees in the state House focused on agriculture. “Our two land-grant institutions are important pieces of the agricultural landscape in our state. With this ongoing project, we aim to leverage the deep expertise in analytics power and brainpower to support a critical part of our economy.”

In addition to supporting the commodity producers of the state with insights and transfer of university research from the lab to the field, the research platform will help NC State and NC A&T:

• Foster and enable capture of research grants and other revenue streams.
• Attract student and faculty talent.
• Develop workforce and farmer-of-the-future capacities and capabilities.

“The SAS platform is robust and configured precisely for this type of deployment to support advanced analytics in agriculture,” said Leah Burton, SAS Principal Industry Consultant, Higher Education. “We have already seen great examples of new research come from our collaboration with NC State, and we’re excited about the possibilities fostered by the strength of these partnerships.”

About the NC A&T College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

With a rich history of innovation, application of cutting-edge technology, and delivery of educational programs for students and North Carolina communities, we engage in practical research that enriches the lives, the land and the economy of our state and nation and helps to meet the food challenges of a hungry planet.

About the NC State University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS)

The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at North Carolina State University lives the land-grant mission through our 12 academic departments, research and extension services. What we think and do helps transform challenges into opportunities that create economic, intellectual and societal prosperity across the state and around the world.

SAS is a global leader in data and AI. With SAS software and industry-specific solutions, organizations transform data into trusted decisions. SAS gives you THE POWER TO KNOW ® .

Editorial contacts:

• SAS Corporate HQ Trent Smith (919) 531-4726

The SAS, NC A&T and NC State collaboration will enrich research initiatives, particularly in precision agriculture, enabling continuous improvement in plant sciences, animal husbandry, crop yields, land management, and supporting profitable and sustainable practices.

Agricultural Research

• The official publication of the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), India
• Focuses on new and emerging fields and concepts in agricultural sciences.
• Provides a forum for Agricultural Scientists to deliberate on important issues.
• Aims to catalyze policy development on issues impacting rational agricultural growth and development globally.
• Recognizes and encourages cutting-edge research in various fields of agricultural sciences.
• Anupam Varma

Latest issue

Volume 13, Issue 1

Latest articles

Epidemics of begomoviruse s transmitted by bemisia tabaci in habanero peppers and the efficacy of botanical insecticides.

• Ana L. Ruiz-Jiménez
• Yomara J. Chan-May
• Jacques Fils Pierre

Climate-Driven Dynamics of Grain Production in Russia in XX–XXI Centuries: A Review of Statistical Models in Historical Studies

• Nikolai Dronin
• Andrey Kirilenko

The Influence of Temperature on Pollen Germination and Pollen Tube Growth in Eight Date Palm Cultivars

• Mohammed Mesnoua
• Farid Mezerdi
• Abdelmoneim Tarek Ouamane

Response of Cassava Root Manihot esculenta to Potassium-Rich Biostimulants Manufactured from Red Seaweed Gracilaria salicornia Under Semi-Arid Condition

• Shanmugam Munisamy
• Gopi Krishna Ramamoorthy

Factors Influencing Ranging Behavior of Different Strains of Hens

• Brian Tainika
• Ahmet Şekeroğlu
• Samet Hasan Abacı

Journal information

• CAB Abstracts
• Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS)
• EI Compendex
• Emerging Sources Citation Index
• Engineering Village – GEOBASE
• Google Scholar
• IFIS Publishing
• INIS Atomindex
• Japanese Science and Technology Agency (JST)
• OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service
• TD Net Discovery Service
• UGC-CARE List (India)

Rights and permissions

Springer policies

© National Academy of Agricultural Sciences

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

USDA Announces May 2024 Lending Rates for Agricultural Producers

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2024 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced loan interest rates for May 2024, which are effective May 1, 2024. USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) loans provide important access to capital to help agricultural producers start or expand their farming operation, purchase equipment and storage structures or meet cash flow needs.         

“I encourage our lenders and borrowers alike to work with our local offices and our cooperators to capitalize fully on the existing flexibilities in these important programs,” said FSA Administrator Zach Ducheneaux.         

Operating, Ownership and Emergency Loans         FSA offers farm ownership, operating and emergency loans with favorable interest rates and terms to help eligible agricultural producers, whether multi-generational, long-time, or new to the industry, obtain financing needed to start, expand or maintain a family agricultural operation. For many loan options, FSA sets aside funding for underserved producers, including, beginning, women, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and Hispanic farmers and ranchers.      

Interest rates for Operating and Ownership loans for May 2024 are as follows:       

• Farm Operating Loans (Direct): 5.250%  
• Farm Ownership Loans (Direct): 5.500%    
• Farm Ownership Loans (Direct, Joint Financing): 3.500%   
• Farm Ownership Loans (Down Payment): 1.500%
• Emergency Loan (Amount of Actual Loss): 3.750%     

FSA also offers guaranteed loans through commercial lenders at rates set by those lenders.       

To access an interactive online, step-by-step guide through the farm loan process, visit the  Loan Assistance Tool  on farmers.gov.       

Commodity and Storage Facility Loans       Additionally, FSA provides low-interest financing to producers to build or upgrade on-farm storage facilities and purchase handling equipment and loans that provide interim financing to help producers meet cash flow needs without having to sell their commodities when market prices are low.  Funds for these loans are provided through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and are administered by FSA.   

• Commodity Loans (less than one year disbursed): 6.125%.     
• Three-year loan terms: 4.625% 
• Five-year loan terms: 4.375%    
• Seven-year loan terms: 4.375%    
• Ten-year loan terms: 4.375%    
• Twelve-year loan terms: 4.500%   
• Sugar Storage Facility Loans (15 years): 4.625%        

Farm Loan Program Process Improvement    FSA has a significant initiative underway to streamline and automate the Farm Loan Program customer-facing business process. For the over 26,000 producers who submit a direct loan application annually, FSA has made various improvements, including:         

• The  Online Loan Application , an interactive, guided application that is paperless and provides helpful features, including an electronic signature option, the ability to attach supporting documents, such as tax returns, complete a balance sheet and build a farm operating plan.  
• The  Loan Assistance Tool  that provides customers with an interactive online, step-by-step guide to identifying the direct loan products that may be a fit for their business needs and to understanding the application process. 
• An online direct loan repayment feature that relieves borrowers from the necessity of calling, mailing, or visiting a local Service Center to pay a loan installment. 
• A simplified direct loan paper application , reduced from 29 pages to 13 pages. 

To learn more about FSA programs, producers can contact their local USDA Service Center. Producers can also prepare maps for acreage reporting as well as manage farm loans and view other farm records data and customer information by logging into their farmers.gov account. If you don’t have an account, sign up today.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. Under the Biden-Harris administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit usda.gov .

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

Placeholder

Recent news, usda announces 2024 wool and mohair marketing assistance loan rates.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27, 2023 – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation today announced Marketing Assistance Loan rates for 2024-crop graded wool by micron class. Loan rates for ungraded wool and mohair are unchanged and remained the same from the prior crop year.

USDA Appoints New Members to the Federal Advisory Committee for Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production

Agriculture risk coverage and price loss coverage programs receive 2018 farm bill one year extension, farmers can now enroll for the 2024 crop year.