to study the profile characteristics of IFS farmers in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu

Introduction

Agricultural growth of India since independence has been a testament to the resilience and perseverance of its farmers, who have met the nation's increasing food demand. India has become self-sufficient in the production of food grains since the introduction of semi-dwarf varieties and the Green Revolution in early 1960's. While boosting yields, the Green Revolution also led to the over-exploitation of natural resources which contributed to soil degradation and fragmentation of land holdings thus reducing the overall farm efficiency (Singh and Burark, 2016) [1] . Small land holdings have shrunk year to year and they are expected to keep declining, posing a significant challenge to food production and sustainability (Vinaya et al., 2017) [2] . Only vertical expansion is possible by integrating appropriate farm components that takes up lesser space and time ensuring periodic income to farm families (Gill et al., 2009) [3] . By promoting diversification and resource efficiency, IFS contributes to ecological sustainability and economic resilience among farming communities. The success and sustainability of Integrated Farming Systems do not depend on technological innovations alone but also on the sociopersonal, economic and psychological characteristics of farmers. Socio-economic attributes play a crucial role in shaping farmers production decisions, adoption behaviour and livelihood outcomes. Empirical studies across developing countries consistently show that higher education attainment, better information access and stronger extension linkage enhances livelihood security of farmers by improving food availability and employment generation (Dessart, 2019; Khobragade et al., 2021) [4,5] . Understanding these characteristics is essential for developing effective extension strategies that encourage wider adoption of integrated farming systems. The present study was undertaken with the objective of analysing the profile characteristics of IFS farmers in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu. The findings of the study are expected to provide insights for extension agencies and policy makers for designing targeted interventions to strengthen the adoption and sustainability of Integrated farming systems.

Materials and Methods

In this study, an Ex-post-facto research design was adopted. The study was conducted in the year 2024-25 with the objective of studying profile characteristics of Integrated Farming System farmers in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu. The district comprises of 14 blocks, out of which 7 blocks were selected namely Annagramam, Panruti, Kurinjipadi, Cuddalore, Srimushnam, Keerapalayam, Melbhuvanagiri. They have been selected purposively and a random selection of 5 villages from each block has been taken and ten farmers from each village have been selected using the equal allocation method to get a sample size of 300 farmers. The data from respondents was collected using a pre-tested interview schedule. www.extensionjournal.com [6] . The data presented in the table 2 revealed that majority of the respondents (31%) had primary education while 28% per cent had higher secondary education followed by secondary education (21%) and about (13%) were illiterate and only (7%) of them were graduates. It can be concluded that more than 80% of the respondents were educated to a satisfactory level. The Table 3 reveals that majority of respondents (33.4%) were practising farming and business followed by those practising farming alongside as farm labour (30%). About (23.3%) of them practised farming as sole profession while (13.3%) practised farming along with service activities as their occupation. The Table 4 reveals that majority of the respondents had (69.7%) low farming experience followed by medium level (20%) of farming and (10.3%) of them had high level of farming experience. Low farming experience among farmers indicates the recent adoption of IFS. Therefore, farmers with low farming experience may be receptive to innovative strategies as they are comparatively less accustomed to long standing traditional farm practices. The data presented in table 5 indicates that majority of the respondents (34%) had smaller land holdings. 27% of them had marginal land holdings while 25% of them had medium land holdings followed by 14% of them having large land holdings. The predominance of small and marginal farmers indicated that integration of farming systems is particularly prevalent where land resources are limited which can help farmers increase their productivity and income per unit area. Similar findings were reported by Pradeep et al.; (2025) [7] . The Table 6 reveals that majority of the respondents (38%) had medium level of mass media utilization followed by low level of utilization (32.3%) and high level of utilization (29.7%). Farmers with higher mass media exposure are more likely to access information related to new farming practices, government schemes, and market opportunities. These findings are in conformity with the findings of Madhuprasad et al.; (2024) [8] . www.extensionjournal.com The Table 7 shows that majority of the respondents (46.7%) had high economic motivation followed by (33.3%) of respondents having medium economic motivation and (20%) of them having low economic motivation. Presence of high economic motivation among the respondents suggest a favourable environment for adoption of Integrated Farming System among farmers. These findings align with Vani (2023) [9] and Pradeep et al.; (2025) [7] . Data presented in table 8 shows that almost half of the respondents (50%) had high risk orientation while 27.3% of the respondents had low risk orientation and 22.7% of them had medium level of risk orientation. High risk orientation among farmers indicates their willingness to experiment and take calculated risks to increase their farm production, income and to ensure livelihood security. The Table 9 revealed that majority of the farmers (44.7%) in this study had medium level of extension contact, while 38.3% of respondents had high extension contact followed by 17% with low extension contact. Extension Agency Contact plays a crucial role in guiding farmers through various aspects like enterprise integration, resource recycling, and efficient farm management practices. The findings are supported by Chandana et al., (2021) [10] and Pradeep et al., (2025) [7] . The data presented in table 10 shows that most of the respondents (45%) had medium level of scientific orientation, whereas 30% of them had higher scientific orientation and 25% of them had low scientific orientation respectively. The Table 11 shows that majority of the respondents (46%) had higher risk motivation followed by 30% of them having lower achievement motivation and 24% of the respondents having high level of achievement motivation. Most IFS farmers had medium achievement motivation, being risk takers, ambitious and open to new ideas. This motivation helped them set and achieve gaols aligning with Shwetha (2019) [11] . Table 12 shows that majority of the farmers (47%) had medium level of favourable attitude towards IFS while 26.7% of them high level of attitude and 26.3% had low level of attitude towards IFS. Predominance of medium level of attitude towards IFS among farmers suggests that they recognize the benefits of integrated farming but some may still perceive challenges related to high initial investments which could be addressed through strengthening their attitude towards IFS through more extension demonstrations and exposure visits. The results are in line with the findings of RD Bhoir et al., (2021) [12] . www.extensionjournal.com Data from table 13 reveals that majority of the respondents (43.7%) had medium income security, while 30.6% of them had high income security followed by 25.7% of them having low-income security. IFS reduces farmers dependence on a single enterprise by distributing the economic risks across multiple farm components and this diversification helps farmers to achieve income stability and resilience against crop failures or market fluctuations.

Results and Discussion Age

Educational Status

Occupational Status

Farming Experience

Land Holding

Mass Media Utilization

Economic Motivation

Risk Orientation

Extension Agency Contact

Scientific Orientation

Achievement Motivation

Attitude towards IFS

Income Security

Training Undergone

Conclusion

The present study studied the socio-personal, economic and psychological characteristics of Integrated Farming System (IFS) farmers in Cuddalore district of Tamil Nadu. The findings revealed that majority of them were young and middle-aged farmers with moderate levels of education. The predominance of small and marginal landholdings indicates the suitability of Integrated Farming Systems for improving productivity and income even with limited land resources. The findings further indicated that majority of farmers showed high economic motivation and risk orientation, suggesting their willingness to adopt IFS to enhance their livelihood. Medium levels of scientific orientation, extension contact, mass media utilization and attitude towards IFS indicate a reasonable level of exposure to agricultural innovations and institutional support.

Overall, this study highlights the potential of IFS in improving income stability and livelihood security among farmers. Further strengthening of extension services, expanding training programmes, and promoting awareness about integrated farming practices could further enhance the adoption and sustainability of IFS in the near future.

References

1. Singh H, Burark SS. Constraints faced by the households in existing farming systems in Chittorgarh and Banaswara districts of southern Rajasthan. Advances in Social Research. 2016;2(1):71-76.
2. Vinaya Kumar HM, Shivamurthy M, Govinda Gowda V, Biradar GS. Assessing decision-making and economic performance of farmers to manage climateinduced crisis in Coastal Karnataka (India). Climatic Change. 2017;142(1):143-153. DOI:10.1007/s10584017-1928.
3. Gill M, Desai GR, Manohari PL, Ramana Rao SV. Studies on nitrogen management in low land rice-fishazolla integrated farming system. Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; 2009.
4. Dessart F, Barreiro-Hurle J, Van Bavel R. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 2019;46:417-471. DOI:10.1093/erae/jbz019.
5. Khobragade S, Mohapatra S, Mahananda M, Singh A, Singh A. Integrated farming system (IFS): A review. International Journal of Economic Plants. 2021;8(3):181-187.
6. Khalid UB, Shahbaz P, UlHaq S, Javeed S. Economic analysis of integrated farming systems on farm income: A case study of Sahiwal District, Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Management and Economics. 2017;3(11):1434-1444.
7. Pradeep Kumar TL, Goudappa SB, Shashidhara KK, Sidram BY, Reddy BS, Umesh MR. Personal, socioeconomic and psychological profile of integrated farming system module practicing farmers in northeastern dry zone (Zone-II) of Karnataka, India. Archives of Current Research International. 2025;25(2):181-193. DOI:10.9734/acri/2025/v25i21077.
8. Madhuprasad VL, Ravindra U, Harshitha D. Development of scheduled caste farmers through integrated farming system in Bangalore rural district, India. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2024;14(1):758-767. doi:10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i13894.
9. Vani C. Exploratory analysis of integrated farming systems of Kerala. Karnal (Haryana): National Dairy Research Institute; 2023.
10. Chandana ST, Praveena PLRJ, Lakshmi T, Subramanyam D, Reddy BR. Socio-economic and psychological profile of farmers practicing integrated farming systems in Andhra Pradesh. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology. 2021;39(10):305-316.
11. Shwetha NV. A comparative analysis of livelihood security of farmers practicing different farming systems in southern Karnataka. Bangalore (Karnataka): University of Agricultural Sciences; 2019.
12. Bhoir RD, Kolgane BT, Gurav KV. Attitude of farmers towards different integrated farming system components. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2021;10(1S):31-34.