Performance of organic and natural farming in okra-cowpea intercropping: Productivity, profitability and sustainability

Introduction

Organic farming and natural farming represent sustainable production systems that enhance soil health, resource-use efficiency, and ecological stability while minimizing dependence on chemical inputs. The use of organic manures, on-farm bio-inputs, and non-chemical formulations improves soil structure, nutrient availability, and soil moisture retention, thereby promoting better crop establishment, biomass accumulation, and overall plant vigour. These improvements are reflected in key growth parameters such as plant height, canopy development, and dry matter production (Mahajan et al., 2008) [4] . Vegetable-based intercropping systems, particularly those involving leguminous crops, further strengthen system productivity by improving nitrogen availability, complementary resource use, and crop interactions. Intercropping enhances microclimatic regulation, suppresses weeds, reduces nutrient losses, and improves growth uniformity, leading to more stable and resilient production systems (Francis, 1986; Singh et al., 2016) [1,8] . Low Cost Natural Farming (LCNF), based on on-farm non-chemical inputs, has been widely promoted across India as a low-input alternative for sustainable agriculture. However, comparative scientific evidence on the performance of natural farming vis-à-vis organic, integrated, and conventional systems in vegetable intercropping, particularly in relation to crop growth responses, remains limited (Kumar, 2012) [2] . Therefore, systematic evaluation of these farming systems is essential for developing evidence-based recommendations for sustainable vegetable intercropping systems and improved crop growth performance.

Materials and Methods

The field experiment was conducted at the Horticulture Research Farm, College of Horticulture, Anand Agricultural University (AAU), Anand, Gujarat, India, during the Kharif season in 2020. The study was laid out using the Large Plot Technique to evaluate vegetable-based intercropping systems under field conditions. Intercropping system was evaluated: okra + cowpea. Crops were established at recommended spacing: 45 × 30 cm for okra and cowpea. Seed rates were 6-8 kg ha⁻¹ (okra), 12-15 kg ha⁻¹ (cowpea). Fertilizers were applied as per treatment using recommended doses: 100-50-50 kg N-P₂O₅-K₂O ha⁻¹ for okra, 20-40-0 kg for cowpea. All other agronomic practices were uniformly followed according to AAU recommendations throughout the study period.

Treatment Details T1 -Low Cost Natural Farming (LCNF) Intercropping was followed in both seasons: okra + cowpea (2:1) during kharif and cabbage + fenugreek (1:2) during rabi. Seeds were treated with Bijamrut. GhanJivamrut (250 kg/ha) along with FYM (250 kg/ha) was applied at sowing. Jivamrut (500 L/ha) was applied through irrigation at sowing and at monthly intervals thereafter. Wheat straw mulch was applied @ 5 t/ha. Plant protection, when required, was carried out using Agniastra, Brahmastra, and Neemastra.

T2 -Organic Farming (OF)

The same intercropping systems were adopted as in T1.

Seeds of cowpea and fenugreek were treated with

Trichoderma. Nutrient management consisted of 50% recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN) through vermicompost and 50% RDN through FYM. Biofertilizer (Bio NPK) was applied as seed treatment (5 mL/kg seed) and soil drenching (1 L/ha) at 30 DAS. Biological plant protection agents such as Beauveria, Metarhizium, and NPV were used as required.

T3 -Conventional Farming (CF)

Intercropping was maintained as in other treatments. Seeds were treated with recommended fungicides. Nutrient management included FYM @ 10 t/ha applied during kharif season only, along with the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF). Plant protection measures included recommended fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, applied as required.

T4 -Integrated Crop Management (ICM)

The same intercropping pattern was followed. Seeds were treated with Trichoderma. Nutrient management comprised 50% RDF supplemented with 25% nitrogen through FYM at sowing. Bio NPK was applied @ 1 L/ha through irrigation at sowing and at 30 DAS. Integrated plant protection measures included pheromone traps and biological agents such as Trichoderma, Beauveria, Metarhizium, and NPV, applied as needed.

Result and Discussion

Results and Discussion

Growth Parameters of Okra and Cowpea

The different farming modules did not exert statistically significant effects on plant stand and plant height of okra and cowpea at 30 DAS, 60 DAS, and at harvest, as indicated by non-significant CD values (Tables 1 and2). However, numerical variations in growth performance were evident among the treatments. In okra, Module-III and Module-IV recorded comparatively higher plant height at harvest (142.85 and 140.05 cm, respectively), indicating better vegetative vigour and biomass accumulation. A similar trend was observed in cowpea, where Module-III and Module-IV showed relatively higher plant height at harvest, reflecting improved crop establishment and growth dynamics. Although differences were statistically non-significant, the consistent numerical superiority of diversified management modules suggests improved nutrient availability, better soil physical environment, and enhanced resource-use efficiency under integrated and improved farming practices. Similar trends have been reported in vegetable intercropping systems, where diversified nutrient management and improved cropping systems enhance crop growth through better nutrient synchronization and soil-plant interactions (Singh et al., 2021; Yadav et al., 2022) [9,10] .

Yield and Yield Attributes

Yield attributes of okra and cowpea were also not significantly influenced by the different modules (Tables 3 and4). Nevertheless, Module-IV recorded the highest okra fruit yield (61.98 t ha⁻¹), followed by Module-III (60.58 t ha⁻¹). In cowpea, higher pod yield was observed under Module-IV (32.88 t ha⁻¹) and Module-III (31.42 t ha⁻¹), with corresponding higher okra equivalent yield (50.72 and 49.39 t ha⁻¹, respectively). These trends indicate superior system productivity under these modules. The improved system performance under Module-III and Module-IV may be attributed to better crop interactions, complementary resource use, and efficient nutrient partitioning in the intercropping system. Recent studies have also reported that integrated and diversified management practices enhance system productivity and stability in vegetable-based intercropping systems by improving crop complementarities and ecological efficiency (Meena et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2023) [5,3] .

Economics

Economic analysis revealed that Module-II recorded the highest benefit-cost ratio (11.79), primarily due to lower treatment cost and higher net realization (Table 5), making it the most economically efficient module. In contrast, Module-III and Module-IV achieved higher biological productivity and system yield, indicating better production sustainability, though with relatively higher cultivation costs. These findings highlight the trade-off between biological productivity and economic efficiency, which is commonly observed in sustainable farming systems. Similar observations have been reported by recent studies emphasizing that low-input organic and natural farming systems often ensure higher profitability due to reduced input costs, while integrated systems maximize biological productivity (Patil et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2022) [6,7] .

Overall Interpretation

Although statistical differences were non-significant for most growth and yield parameters, Module-III and Module-IV consistently exhibited superior biological performance in terms of crop growth, yield, and system productivity, whereas Module-II proved most profitable economically. This demonstrates that integrated evaluation of productivity and profitability is essential for selecting appropriate management modules in vegetable-based intercropping systems. The results clearly indicate that diversified farming modules can enhance system resilience, productivity, and economic returns without compromising crop growth performance, supporting their role in sustainable vegetable production systems.

References

1. Francis CA. Multiple cropping systems. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1986.
2. Kumar BS. Zero budget natural farming: a holistic approach for sustainable agriculture. J Nat Farming Syst. 2012;1(1):1-8.
3. Kumar R, Singh VK, Meena RS, Yadav GS. Integrated farming systems for enhancing productivity, profitability and sustainability of smallholder agriculture. Indian J Agric Sci. 2023;93(4):345-352.
4. Mahajan A, Gupta RD, Sharma R. Organic farming: a holistic approach towards sustainable agriculture. J Agron Crop Sci. 2008;194:65-75.
5. Meena RS, Kumar S, Yadav GS, Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration in crop-based farming systems: a review. Soil Tillage Res. 2020;197:104531.
6. Patil SG, Halepyati AS, Koppalkar BG. Economics and productivity of organic and integrated farming systems in diversified cropping. Indian J Agron. 2021;66(3):312-318.
7. Sharma A, Singh R, Kaur J, Kumar V. Comparative performance of organic, natural and conventional farming systems on crop productivity and profitability. J Sustain Agric Environ. 2022;1(2):85-95.
8. Singh RJ, Kundu DK, Bandyopadhyay KK. Intercropping systems for enhancing productivity and sustainability in vegetable production. Indian J Agron. 2016;61(4):379-387.
9. Singh RJ, Kundu DK, Bandyopadhyay KK. Intercropping systems for sustainable intensification of vegetable production systems. Indian J Agron. 2021;66(4):421-429.
10. Yadav GS, Das A, Lal R, Meena RS. Diversified cropping systems for sustainable intensification and climate resilience. Agron J. 2022;114(3):1421-1434.