Socio-economic status of tomato growers in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu

Introduction

Vegetables have always held an important place in the Indian diet because of the vitamins, minerals and other protective nutrients they provide. Even though India grows more than a hundred different kinds of vegetables and ranks among the leading producers in the world, the average Indian still eats far less than the recommended quantity and this gap is made worse by post-harvest losses of nearly 30 to 40 per cent (Rashmi, 2018) [12] . Among the vegetables grown widely across the country, tomato occupies a special place because it gives good returns within a short crop duration and adapts well to a wide range of soil and climate conditions (Pandey et al., 2020) [11] . Tomato is botanically a fruit but is treated as a vegetable in almost every kitchen. It is often called the "King of Vegetables" and also the "Poor Man's Orange", owing to its affordability and rich nutritional value (Rashmi, 2018) [12] . Besides being consumed fresh, a considerable share of the tomato produced goes into ketchup, sauces, purees and other processed items, which keeps the food processing sector dependent on a steady raw material supply. India is presently the second largest producer of tomato in the world after China, contributing about 11 to 12 per cent of global production from roughly 0.79 million hectares (Government of India, 2024) [7] . Even so, less than one per cent of the tomato grown in the country is processed, leaving considerable scope to reduce post-harvest losses and improve value addition. Within Tamil Nadu, tomato is cultivated across several districts, and Madurai is counted among the important ones. During 2023-24, Tamil Nadu produced about 1,169.23 thousand tonnes of tomato from 38,850 hectares, contributing nearly 5.4 per cent of the country's total production, with Madurai figuring among the leading tomato-growing districts of the state along with Krishnagiri, Namakkal, Dharmapuri, Dindigul, Theni and Tiruppur (Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Tamil Nadu, 2024) [5] . Agriculture continues to be the backbone of the rural economy in Madurai www.extensionjournal.com district, and tomato cultivation contributes meaningfully to household income here. A farmer's ability to manage his crop, adopt improved practices or take sound decisions about marketing is closely tied to his socio-economic background, that is, his age, education, occupation, landholding, income and the extent of contact he maintains with extension personnel and other sources of information. Unless this background is properly understood, it becomes difficult for extension agencies to design programmes that genuinely work for farmers on the ground. Similar socio-economic assessments among vegetable and tomato growers have been reported earlier by Sangavi et al. (2020) [13] in Madurai district itself, and by Gayathri and Sahana (2022) [6] , Khan et al. (2020) [8] and Sherpa et al. (2023) [14] in other parts of the country, all of which point to the value of studying the farmer's profile before planning any extension intervention. Keeping this in view, the present study was carried out with the objective of assessing the socio-economic status of tomato growers in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu.

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu, which was purposively selected because of its considerable area under tomato cultivation and a sizeable population of tomato growers. Out of the thirteen blocks in the district, Thirupparankundram and Chellampatti blocks were purposively selected as they have a larger area under tomato and comparatively higher productivity than other blocks. Three villages were then selected from each block, taking the total to six villages, namely Vadapalanji, Thenpalanji and Karadipatti from Thirupparankundram block, and Kannanur, Panniyan and Karumathur from Chellampatti block. A list of tomato growers was prepared for each of the six villages with the help of local horticultural officials, village representatives and progressive farmers. From this list, 15 growers were selected at random from each village, giving a total sample size of 90 respondents for the study. Since the study aimed to examine the existing situation of farmers without manipulating any variable, an ex-post facto research design was adopted. Data were gathered through personal interviews with the help of a structured interview schedule, which was pre-tested and finalised after a pilot study and consultation with subject matter experts. Eleven socio-economic characteristics of the respondents were considered for the study, namely age, education, occupation, farming experience, experience in tomato cultivation, landholding, extension contact, social participation, farm equipment possession, mass media exposure, market orientation and annual income. Standard scales developed by earlier researchers, such as Supe (2007) for education, Nirban (2004, 2007) for mass media exposure and extension contact, Pandya (2010) for social participation and annual income, and Samanta (1977) for market orientation, were used with suitable modification, along with the landholding classification given by the Government of India (2011). The data collected were analysed using frequency, percentage, arithmetic mean and standard deviation. Based on the mean and standard deviation of the total score obtained by each respondent, the growers were classified into low, medium and high categories of overall socio-economic status.

Results and Discussion

The socio-economic profile of the tomato growers was studied because it has a direct bearing on their farming decisions, adoption behaviour and marketing pattern. The profile covers personal, social and economic characteristics such as age, education, occupation, landholding and income. The findings relating to each of these characteristics are presented and discussed below. [13] among tomato growers of Madurai district and by Maurya et al. (2017) [10] among vegetable growers of western Uttar Pradesh. Table 2 shows that a majority of the respondents was fairly spread across categories, with 23.33 per cent having completed secondary education, followed closely by 22.22 per cent with primary level education. About 21.11 per cent of the growers were illiterate, while 18.89 per cent had studied up to graduation and above. This mixed educational background suggests that while a sizeable section of growers can read and understand written material on improved practices, a considerable proportion still depends on oral communication and personal contact with extension staff for new information. Similar findings were reported by Khan et al. (2020) [8] and Gayathri and Sahana (2022) [6] among vegetable growers. [2] among tomato farmers in Ghana. Table 4,5 shows that more than half of the respondents (53.33%) had a medium level of overall farming experience of 21 to 40 years, and a similar trend was seen for experience specifically in tomato cultivation, where 50.00 per cent fell in the medium category. Long years of practice in farming and in tomato cultivation in particular allow growers to build up practical knowledge about pest and disease management, timing of operations and handling of price fluctuations, which is reflected in their steady involvement with the crop over the years. [16] among vegetable growers in western Uttar Pradesh. Figure 1 shows that among the sources of extension contact, the Horticultural Officer was the source most regularly contacted (41.11%), followed by the Assistant Director of Horticulture (38.89%) and Assistant Horticultural Officer (37.78%). On the other hand, a majority of respondents had never contacted input dealers (55.56%) or KVK scientists (44.44%) for technical guidance. This shows that the growers rely mainly on line department officials for regular technical support, while contact with research institutions and input dealers remains limited, an area that extension planners could look into for strengthening farmer outreach. Table 7 shows that majority of the respondents (71.11%) fell under the poor social participation category, being a member of only one organisation, generally a cooperative society or farmers' association, while another 24.44 per cent had no social participation at all. Very few growers held any leadership position. This low level of participation in social and farmer organisations may limit their exposure to collective bargaining, group marketing and shared learning opportunities that active organisational membership usually provides. Table 8 shows that the basic tools such as hand tools (100.00%), harvesting crates (97.78%) and sprayers (96.67%) were possessed by nearly all the respondents, and most also had an irrigation pump set (86.67%). However, ownership of higher-end equipment such as drip irrigation (2.22%) and mulching equipment (1.11%) was extremely limited. This clearly points to a low level of mechanisation and modern input use among tomato growers in the study area, which is understandable given that a majority of them are small and marginal farmers with limited investment capacity. www.extensionjournal.com Table 9 shows that television was regularly used source of information (85.56%), followed by newspapers (50.00%). Among the newer digital sources, YouTube was used regularly by 24.44 per cent of the respondents, while radio was almost unused (1.11%). Television and newspapers continue to be the mainstay of information flow to tomato growers in the district, though the moderate uptake of YouTube and internet suggests that digital platforms are gradually finding a place among the younger and more educated sections of the farming community. Uses mobile/WhatsApp/media for price information (Agree) 54 60.00

Age

Education

Occupational status www.extensionjournal.com

Farming experience and experience in tomato cultivation

Landholding

Extension contact www.extensionjournal.com

Social participation

Farm equipment possession

Mass media exposure

Market orientation

Table 10 shows that almost all the respondents (98.89%) strongly agreed that they grow tomato mainly for market sale, and 90.00 per cent strongly agreed that they collect price information before selling. A large share also agreed that profit motive (86.67%) and prevailing market prices (75.56%) influence their cultivation and harvesting decisions. Interestingly, only 36.67 per cent agreed that they actually prefer to sell wherever a better price is offered, suggesting that despite being market-oriented in outlook, many growers continue to sell at the nearest or most convenient market rather than actively searching for better prices, possibly due to the perishable nature of the crop and limited transport options. Figure 2 shows that little over a second of the respondents (37.78%) reported an annual income between ₹1,00,001 and ₹2,00,000, closely followed by (35.56%) earning between ₹2,00,001 and ₹3,00,000. Only 4.44 per cent of the growers earned above ₹4,00,000 annually. Given that most respondents are small and marginal farmers, these income levels are broadly consistent with the landholding pattern observed earlier and reflect the modest but steady earning capacity that tomato cultivation provides to households in the district. Taking all the socio-economic characteristics together, twothirds of the respondents (66.67%) fell under the medium socio-economic status category, while low and high categories accounted for 16.67 per cent each. With a mean score of 87.61 and a standard deviation of 8.317, the results indicate that tomato growers in Madurai district generally occupy a moderate socio-economic position, shaped by their small landholdings, mixed educational background and dependence on farming combined with livestock rearing. This finding is in line with Sangavi et al. (2020) [13] , who reported a similar medium socio-economic status among tomato growers of the same district, and with Basyal et al. (2019) [3] and Makka et al. (2023) [9] , who observed comparable trends among tomato farmers elsewhere.

Annual income

Overall socio-economic status

Conclusion

The present study on the socio-economic status of tomato growers in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu shows that most of the growers are middle-aged, moderately educated and combine tomato cultivation with livestock rearing as a subsidiary occupation. Small and marginal landholdings dominate the area, and while growers show a clear marketoriented outlook, their participation in farmer organisations www.extensionjournal.com and use of modern equipment such as drip irrigation remain limited. Television and personal contact with horticulture officials continue to be the main channels of information for these farmers. With two-thirds of the growers falling in the medium socio-economic status category, there is a need for extension agencies to strengthen farmer group activities, promote wider adoption of water-saving and labour-saving equipment, and improve access to timely market information, particularly through mobile-based platforms. Such targeted interventions can help raise the socio-economic status of tomato growers and improve the overall efficiency of tomato cultivation and marketing in the district.

References

1. Amar AK, Padhy C, Prusty AK, Reddy IC, Kumari A. A study on socio-economic and personal characteristics of tomato growers in South Odisha. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2024;7(6):118-121.
2. Anokye-Alexander D, Adjei E, Poku IA, Kennedy K, Debrah S, Mensah FE, et al. Socio-economic determinants of productivity in tomato farming: a case study of gender dynamics, age, education, household characteristics, and land ownership in Berekum West and Tano North Districts, Ghana. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences. 2025;13(4):45-63.
3. Basyal K, Khanal K, Dhakal S. Socio-economic study of tomato producing farmers in Lamahi, Dang. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research. 2019;20(5):15441-15443.
4. Bhowmik D, Kumar KS, Paswan S, Srivastava S. Tomato -a natural medicine and its health benefits. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2012;1(1):33-43.
5. Department of Horticulture and Plantation Crops, Tamil Nadu. Season and crop report 2023-24. Tamil Nadu: Government of Tamil Nadu; 2024.
6. Gayathri GN, Sahana S. Socio-economic profile of fruits and vegetable growers: an after the fact research. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2022;40(11):175-184.
7. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Horticultural statistics at a glance 2024. New Delhi: Government of India; 2024.
8. Khan MI, Bisen S, Mahajan G. Socio-economic profile of vegetable growers under horticulture based module of Farmer FIRST Project in Balaghat (M.P.), India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(3):3252-3257.
9. Makka TB, Murtala N, Sani MH, Haruna U. Socioeconomic characteristics of irrigated upland tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) farmers in Gombe State, Nigeria. Journal of Agripreneurship and Sustainable Development. 2023;6(2):140-161.
10. Maurya AS, Yadav RN, Singh DK, Singh D, Singh VK, Kaushal P, et al. Socio-economic status of brinjal growers in Bulandshahr district of Western Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(8):361-365.
11. Pandey A, Verma A, Gupta A, Ahmad MR, Gautam A, Tripathi S. Knowledge level of farmers regarding recommended wheat production technologies in central plains of Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2026;32(1):635-641.
12. Rashmi N. A study on knowledge, adoption and marketing behaviour of tomato growers in Chickaballapur district of Karnataka [MSc (Agri) thesis]. Bangalore: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2018.
13. Sangavi M, Janaki Rani A, Pushpa J, Prabakaran K. Socio-economic status of tomato growers in Madurai district of Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Biosciences. 2020;8(6):511-514.
14. Sherpa TP, Kumar V, Sharma R. Socio-economic profile of vegetable growers in Himachal Pradesh, India. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2023;41(3):45-54.
15. Singh S, Kumar A, Singh DK, Yadav RN, Singh LB, Singh D, et al. Analysis of the socio-economic status of flower growers in Western Uttar Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(10):1944-1948.
16. Verma AK, Singh D, Singh DK, Singh MK, Singh G. Socio-economic profile of vegetable growers in Western Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(1):1508-1511.