Socio-economic and psychological profile of farmer producer organisation members in Kashmir valley

Introduction

Agriculture remains the cornerstone of India's economy, engaging approximately 42 per cent of the nation's workforce and contributing around 18 per cent to the country's Gross Domestic Product (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, 2023). The sector, however, is characterized by fragmented landholdings, with over 86 per cent of farmers classified as small and marginal, operating on less than two hectares of land (Agricultural Census, 2015-16) [1] . These structural constraints expose smallholder farmers to significant vulnerabilities, including limited bargaining power, high transaction costs, inadequate access to quality inputs, exploitation by market intermediaries, and restricted market linkages (Kumar et al., 2020; Singh and Hansra, 2021) [14,35] . In recognition of these challenges, the Government of India launched the Central Sector Scheme for the "Formation and Promotion of Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs)" in 2020, with a committed budgetary outlay of ₹6,865 crores to establish 10,000 new FPOs by 2027 (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, 2020). FPOs are envisaged as collective institutional mechanisms that enable farmers to achieve economies of scale in input procurement, production, processing, and marketing, thereby enhancing their income and livelihood security (Mukherjee et al., 2018; Nikam et al., 2019) [23,26] . The effectiveness of FPOs as vehicles for agricultural transformation is contingent upon the human capital endowments of their members. Understanding the socioeconomic characteristics, psychological attributes, and communication behaviour of FPO members is essential for designing targeted capacity-building interventions and strengthening institutional support systems (Mahesh Babu et al., 2021; Arvind et al., 2025) [19,2] . Member profiling provides a critical baseline for assessing the readiness of www.extensionjournal.com farmers to engage with FPO activities, adopt innovative practices, and participate in value chain governance. Several studies have examined the profile characteristics of FPO members across different regions of India. Mahesh Babu et al. (2021) [19] profiled members in the Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh, reporting middle-aged farmers with high school education and small landholdings as the dominant profile. Revanth and Kote (2024) [32] examined members in Kurnool district, finding moderate levels across most personal, socio-economic, and behavioural characteristics. Arvind et al. (2025) [2] conducted a comparative analysis in Karnataka, revealing inter-district variations in education, landholding, and extension contact. Banik et al. (2024) [3] investigated members in northern Bihar, highlighting the predominance of small and marginal farmers with diverse educational backgrounds. Dhayal et al. (2023) [7] studied stakeholders in Rajasthan, identifying income enhancement and input cost reduction as primary motivations for membership. Kolekar et al. (2024) [13] extended the profiling framework to examine the effect of socio-economic characteristics on pomegranate productivity among FPO members in Maharashtra. Against this backdrop, the present study was undertaken to examine the socio-economic and psychological profile of FPO members in Kashmir Valley. The specific objective of the study is to analyse the distribution of respondents according to their age, education, family size, landholding, annual income, farming experience, membership duration, occupation, sources of information, innovativeness, economic motivation, training received, and decisionmaking ability.

Materials and Methods

Selection of FPOs and Respondents

Kashmir Valley had 51 registered FPOs across 10 districts as of 2023, of which 34 were actively functional. For the present study, 13 FPOs having a membership of at least 200 were purposively selected from these 34 functional FPOs, comprising 5 fruit-based, 4 vegetable-based, 2 honey-based, 1 paddy (Mushqbudji)-based, and 1 saffron-based FPO. The total population in the 13 selected FPOs was 4,038 members. The sample size was determined at 10 per cent of the population (n = 404). The number of respondents from each FPO was allocated using the proportionate allocation method, and individual members were selected through simple random sampling from each FPO.

Measurement of Variables

The variables selected for the study included age, education, family size, landholding, annual income, farming experience, membership duration, occupation, sources of information, innovativeness, economic motivation, training received, and decision-making ability. Innovativeness, economic motivation, and decision-making ability were measured using established scales of Moulik (1965) [22] , Supe (1969) [37] and Nandapurkar (1981) [25] respectively. Categorization of respondents into low, medium, and high groups was done using the cumulative square root frequency method (Dalenius and Hodges, 1957) [6] . This method is used to derive objective class intervals based on the distribution of scores. The procedure involves the following steps: 1. Construction of frequency distribution of observed scores 2. Calculation of square root of each class frequency, i.e. √f 3. Computation of cumulative square root frequencies 4. Division of the total cumulative square root frequency into three equal parts Identification of cut-off points corresponding to these cumulative values to form low, medium and high categories

Results and Discussion

Age

The results showed that the respondents were distributed across three age categories (Table 1 and Fig. 1). [33] .

Education

The educational profile of the respondents (Table 2 and Fig. 2) revealed considerable variation in literacy and formal education levels among FPO members. The highest proportion of respondents were illiterate (cannot read and write) (23.00%), followed closely by those educated up to high school level (22.00%). A notable proportion of respondents were graduates (17.80%) and higher secondary educated (14.90%), while a smaller share had middle school education (10.10%). Only 7.90 per cent could read and write without formal schooling, and the least proportion of respondents were postgraduates (4.20%). Overall, the findings indicated a heterogeneous educational background among FPO members in the Kashmir Valley, with a substantial proportion still lacking formal education beyond basic literacy. However, the presence of a considerable number of graduates and higher secondary educated farmers suggests a growing acceptance of formal knowledge systems within FPO structures. The findings are consistent with earlier studies reporting that FPOs attract members from diverse educational backgrounds, although better-educated farmers are generally more likely to participate actively in such organizations. Previous research also emphasizes that education enhances farmers' ability to access market information, adopt innovations, and engage effectively in institutional processes (Jaacks et al., 2025; Kumar et al., 2023) [11,15] .

Family size

The distribution of respondents according to family size (Table 3 and Fig. 3) revealed that nearly half of the FPO members (49.00%) belonged to small families comprising 2-5 members. This was followed by 40.09 per cent of respondents having medium-sized families (6-8 members), while only a small proportion (10.91%) belonged to large families (9-20 members). [29,31,10] .

Land holding:

The data on land holding (Table 4 and Fig. 4) showed that half of the respondents (50.40%) possessed small land holdings ranging from 2-7 kanals. This was followed by 32.00 percent of respondents with medium land holdings (8-19 kanals), while only 17.60 per cent had relatively larger land holdings (20-60 kanals). The results clearly indicate that the majority of FPO members were small and marginal landholders. This pattern highlights the strong presence of smallholder farmers within FPO structures in the Kashmir Valley, reinforcing the role of FPOs as inclusive institutions catering primarily to resource-constrained farmers. The predominance of small landholdings also suggests that collective action through FPOs may be particularly important for achieving economies of scale, improving market access, and enhancing bargaining power among these farmers. The findings are consistent with earlier studies reporting that fragmented and small landholdings often encourage farmers to participate in collective institutions such as FPOs to overcome production and marketing constraints (Latif, 2020) [18] .

Annual income

The distribution of respondents according to annual income (Table 5 and Fig. 5) revealed that nearly half of the FPO members (46.50%) belonged to the lowest income category (below ₹1,84,000). This was followed by 36.10 per cent of respondents falling in the middle-income group (₹1,84,000-₹3,38,000), while only 17.40 per cent of respondents reported annual income above ₹3,38,000. [34,17,28] .

Farming experience

The data on farming experience (Table 6 and Fig. 6) showed that 37.90 per cent of respondents had up to 18 years of farming experience, closely followed by 37.10 per cent having 19-34 years of experience. A smaller proportion of respondents (25.00%) reported more than 34 years of farming experience. [5,34] .

Membership duration

The distribution of respondents according to membership duration (Table 7 and Fig. 7) revealed that a majority of the respondents (52.70%) had been associated with their respective FPOs for up to 4 years, whereas 47.30 per cent had membership duration of more than 4 years. The findings indicated that most respondents were relatively recent members of FPOs, although a considerable proportion had longer association with these organizations. This trend may reflect the recent expansion and increasing acceptance of FPOs in the Kashmir Valley. The higher proportion of newer members suggests growing awareness among farmers regarding the benefits of collective action, market access, and institutional support offered through FPOs. At the same time, the substantial presence of longterm members may contribute to organizational stability, continuity in functioning, and peer learning within FPOs. Experienced members can play an important role in strengthening group cohesion, facilitating knowledge sharing, and encouraging the participation of newly enrolled farmers.

These findings are consistent with earlier studies reporting rapid growth in FPO membership in recent years due to increasing policy support, market-oriented interventions, and farmers' recognition of the economic advantages of collective organizations. Previous research also highlights that longer membership duration often strengthens trust, participation, and commitment among members, thereby improving the overall functioning and sustainability of FPOs (Trebbin, 2014; Singh & Vatta, 2019) [38,34] .

Occupation

The occupational profile of respondents (Table 8 and Fig. 8) showed that the vast majority of respondents (80.19%) depended solely on agriculture for their livelihood. In contrast, 11.15 per cent combined agriculture with servicerelated activities, while 8.66 per cent were engaged in agriculture along with business activities. [38,15] .

Sources of information

The distribution of respondents according to their sources of information (Table 9 and Fig. 9) revealed that the highest proportion of respondents (43.30%) possessed a medium level of information source utilization. This was followed by 32.20 per cent of respondents having low utilization of information sources, whereas only 25.50 per cent fell under the high category. Overall, the findings indicated that most FPO members had moderate exposure to communication channels, extension personnel, and information networks related to agriculture and FPO activities. [38,9,4] .

Innovativeness

The distribution of respondents according to innovativeness (Table 10 and Fig. 10) showed that nearly half of the respondents (47.30%) possessed a medium level of innovativeness. This was followed by 27.00 per cent of respondents with high innovativeness, while 25.70 per cent exhibited low innovativeness. The results indicated that the majority of FPO members demonstrated a moderate tendency toward accepting and trying new agricultural ideas and practices. This pattern suggests that FPO members in the Kashmir Valley were moderately receptive to change and innovation in farming practices. The presence of a considerable proportion of highly innovative respondents is encouraging for the diffusion of improved technologies and market-oriented practices through FPOs. However, the existence of respondents with low innovativeness indicates that certain farmers may still be hesitant toward adopting new approaches, thereby emphasizing the need for regular demonstrations, training programs, and exposure visits to build confidence and encourage innovation adoption. [8,24] .

Economic motivation

The distribution of respondents according to economic motivation (Table 11 and Fig. 11) revealed that more than half of the respondents (54.70%) possessed a medium level of economic motivation. This was followed by 27.20 per cent of respondents having low economic motivation, while only 18.10 per cent exhibited a high level of economic motivation. [27,5,12] .

Training received by respondents

The distribution of respondents according to training received (Table 12 and Fig. 12) showed that a majority of respondents (65.60%) had received training as members of FPOs, whereas 34.40 per cent had not received any training. [39,15] . Further, recent literature highlights that capacity-building support, including training on governance, marketing, and value-chain development, is one of the critical success factors influencing FPO sustainability and member engagement in India (Singh et al., 2026) [36] .

Decision-making ability

The distribution of respondents according to decisionmaking ability (Table 13 and Fig. 13) revealed that the highest proportion of respondents (45.30%) possessed a medium level of decision-making ability. Equal proportions of respondents fell under the low (27.70%) and high (27.00%) categories. [5,30] .

Conclusion

The study highlights that Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) in the Kashmir Valley are largely composed of small and marginal farmers who rely heavily on agriculture for their livelihoods and demonstrate moderate levels of awareness, motivation, and participation in institutional activities. The findings reflect the growing acceptance of FPOs among farming communities as collective platforms for improving economic opportunities, strengthening market participation, and enhancing access to information and support services. At the same time, the study indicates that there remains considerable scope for improving the overall capacity and effectiveness of FPO members through continuous training, stronger extension support, better information dissemination, and promotion of entrepreneurial orientation. Strengthening these aspects can enhance farmers' confidence, participation, and ability to benefit from collective action. Overall, the study underscores the significant role of FPOs in promoting inclusive agricultural development and improving the socio-economic well-being of farming communities in the Kashmir Valley.

References

1. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Government of India. All India report on agricultural census 2015-16. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare; 2018.
2. Arvind GK, Belli RB, Karuna KM. Socio-economic profile of Farmer Producer Organization members in North Karnataka: An empirical study. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2025;31(9):463-472.
3. Banik T, Prakash S, Lal SP, Narendra VN. Socioeconomic appraisal of Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs): Empirical insights from Northern Bihar. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2024;7(6):434-448.
4. Chandrakumar A, Mohana GS, Adiga JD, Raviprasad TN, Manjesh GN. Analysis of information needs and search behaviour of cashew farmers in non-traditional areas of India: A pilot study. Information Development. 2023;41(4):493-510.
5. Chowdhury SR, Ghosh D, Rao TJ. Sentiment and success potential of farmers' producer organizations: A systematic literature review. Local Economy: The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit. 2024;39(12):92-104.
6. Dalenius T, Hodges JL. The choice of stratification points. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal. 1957;1957(34):198-203.
7. Dhayal V, Lal B, Deepshikha KM, Kalla PN. Reasons for joining Farmer Producer Organization by the stakeholders of Nagaur district of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Extension Education and Rural Development. 2023;31:128-132.
8. Gao T, Lu Q, Zhang Y, Feng H. Does farmers' cognition enhance their enthusiasm for adopting sustainable digital agricultural extension services? Evidence from rural China. Sustainability. 2024;16(10):3972.
9. Glendenning CJ, Babu SC, Asenso-Okyere K. Information search behaviors of Indian farmers: Implications for extension services. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2012;18(5):493507.
10. Gurung R, Choubey M. Determinants of agricultural households to join farmer producer organisations (FPOs) in Northeast India: evidence from Sikkim. International Journal of Social Economics. 2022;50(4):465-477.
11. Jaacks LM, Singh N, Veluguri D, Connors K, Sooraj A, Kalra A, et al. Association of membership in a farmer producer organization with crop diversity, household income, diet diversity, and women's empowerment in Uttar Pradesh, India. PLoS ONE. 2025;20(3):e0319704.
12. Jose AE, Jayalekshmi G, Lade H, Karde R. Entrepreneurial behaviour of farmer producer organization members: An empirical investigation. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2023;41(9):175-189.
13. Kolekar P, Chavan RV, Bharati SV. Effect of socioeconomic characteristics on pomegranate productivity of Farmer Producer Organizations member farmers. International Journal of Environmental and Climate Change. 2024;14(1):83-90.
14. Kumar S, Rao DUM, Thombare P, Kale P. Small and marginal farmers of Indian agriculture: Prospects and extension strategies. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2020;20(1):35-41.
15. Kumar KNR, Reddy MJM, Shafiwu AB, Reddy AA. Impact of farmer producer organizations on price and poverty alleviation of smallholder dry chillies farmers in India. Research on World Agricultural Economy. 2023;4(3):46-62.
16. Kumar S, Kumar R, Meena PC, Kumar A. Determinants of performance and constraints faced by farmer producer organizations (FPOs) in India. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2023;59(2):1-5.
17. Lalitha N, Viswanathan PK, Vinayan S. Institutional Strengthening of Farmer Producer Organizations and www.extensionjournal.com Empowerment of Small Farmers in India: Evidence from a Case Study in Maharashtra. Millennial Asia. 2024;15(2):278-299.
18. Latif L. Farmer Producer Organization (FPO) as farmer collectives: A case study from Kashmir Valley [Master's thesis]. Jammu and Kashmir: Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Kashmir; 2020.
19. Mahesh Babu T, Lakshmi T, Prasad SV, Sumathi V, Ramana Murthy B. Profile of farmer producer organization (FPO) members in Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(4):501-505.
20. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Government of India. The central sector scheme on formation and promotion of 10,000 Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs): Operational guidelines. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare; 2020.
21. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare, Government of India. Annual report 2022-23. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers' Welfare; 2023.
22. Moulik TK. A study of productive values of some factors of adoption of nitrogenous fertilizers and the influence of sources of information on adoption behaviour [PhD thesis]. New Delhi: Indian Agricultural Research Institute; 1965.
23. Mukherjee A, Singh P, Ray M, Satyapriya, Burman RR. Enhancing farmers' income through farmers producer companies in India: Status and roadmap. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2018;88(8):1151-1161.
24. Nagar A, Nauriyal DK, Singh S. Factors influencing adoption of technical advice from agricultural extension services: Evidence from Western Uttar Pradesh, India. The Indian Economic Journal. 2024;72(5):741-754.
25. Nandapurkar GG. Small farmers: A study on their entrepreneurial behaviour. New Delhi: Metropolitan Book Co. Pvt. Ltd.; 1981.
26. Nikam V, Singh P, Arathy A, Kumar S. Farmer producer organisations: Innovative institutions for upliftment of small farmers. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2019;89(5):1383-1392.
27. Pabba AS, Ponnusamy K, Sankhala G, Niranjan DA. Modeling the behavioural intentions of farmers towards active participation in Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs): An extended Theory of Planned Behaviour. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2026;13:384.
28. Pasupuleti S, Nikam V, Veesam H, Praveen KV. Farmer producer organization-based value chain to leverage the income of small farmers: An empirical evidence from India. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 2025;60(1-4):30-33.
29. Patil S, Mehta M, Pancholi G, Saxena A. Unveiling the dynamics of farmer producer organizations in India: a systematic review of status, challenges, and future directions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2025;12(1):15-28.
30. Prabhavathi Y, Krishna Kishore NT, Siddayya, Ramachandra CT. Managerial competencies and business performance of Farmer Producer Organizations in India. Millennial Asia. 2023;14(1):8091.
31. Purushothaman S. Family farms in India and their future. Small Farm Dynamics. https://smallfarmdynamics.wordpress.com/2023/12/17/f amily-farms-in-india-and-their-future/
32. Revanth, Kote P. Profile characteristics of members of farmer producer organizations (FPOs) in Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Agricultural Journal. 2024;71(1):120-124.
33. Saikia P, Das P, Deka P. Impact of farmer producer organizations on boosting economic empowerment of farmers. Gujarat Journal of Extension Education. 2024;38(2):24-31.
34. Singh G, Vatta K. Assessing the economic impacts of farmer producer organizations: A case study in Gujarat, India. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2019;32:139-148.
35. Singh S, Hansra BS. Study on profile characteristics of Self-help Group members in Himachal Pradesh. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. 2021;14(2):223-228.
36. Singh S, Sharma A, Singh A, Praveen K, Singh H, Kumawat PK, et al. What makes Farmer Producer Organizations work? A multi-level analysis of performance determinants in India. Journal of Rural Studies. 2026;123:104014.
37. Supe SV. Factors related to different degrees of rationality in decision making among farmers [PhD thesis]. New Delhi: Indian Agricultural Research Institute; 1969.
38. Trebbin A. Linking small farmers to modern retail through producer organizations -Experiences with producer companies in India. Food Policy. 2014;45:3544.
39. Venkatesan P, Sontakki BS, Shenoy S, Sivaramane N. Impact of Farmer Producer Organizations in fostering community entrepreneurship. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2020;56(2):111-117.