COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EFFICIENCY OF ORGANIC FARMING

VERSUS INORGANIC FARMING- A CASE STUDY IN KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT OF

ANDHRA PRADESH

R.V.Sujatha, Y.Eswara Prasad and K.Suhasini

India is a country with a huge number of small farmers who still follow the traditional

methods and do farming with few agricultural inputs. The Green revolution technologies involving

greater use of synthetic agrochemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides with adoption of nutrient-

responsive, high- yielding varieties of crops have boosted the production output per hectare in

most of the cases. However, this increase in production has slowed down and in some cases there

are indications of decline in growth of productivity and production. Environmental and health

problems associated with agriculture have been increasingly well documented, but it is only

recently that the scale of the costs has attracted the attention of planners and scientists.

Organic farming is not new to Indian farming community. Several forms of organic

farming are being successfully practiced in diverse climate, particularly in rain-fed, tribal,

mountains and hill areas of the country

Among all farming systems, organic farming is gaining wide attention among farmers,

entrepreneurs, policy makers and agricultural scientists for varied reasons such as it minimizes the

dependence on chemical inputs (fertilizers; pesticides; herbicides and other agro-chemicals) thus

safeguards/ improves quality of resources, and environment. It is labour intensive and provides an

opportunity to increase rural employment and achieve long term improvements in the quality of

resource base.Organic farming has received considerable attention in India in the recent past.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Research Associate 2. Professor & Univ.Head and 3 Associate Professor, WTO Cell, Dept. of
Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30

1
 In India, the per cent area under organic farming is only 0.03 per cent of the total area

under agriculture when compared to Austria (11.30%), Switzerland (9.70%) and Italy (7.94%)

according to SOEL Survey, February 2003. By February 2002, around 1426 farms in India were

certified as organic farms with an area of around 2775 hectares which contributes to a very

negligible percentage i.e only 0.0015% of the total cultivable land in India. The Indian government

has recognized the potential of organic agriculture and started the process of strengthening the

sector through legal frame work which includes creation of national organic standards and the

possibility of accrediting inspection with in the country and also certification bodies. Some of the

major organically produced agricultural crops in India include crops like plantation, spices, pulses,

fruits, vegetables and oil seeds etc (Table 1).

Organic agricultural export market is one of the major drivers of greening of agriculture in

India. Major export market for Indian producers are Australia, Belgium, Canada, France,

Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Singapore, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, UAE, UK,

and USA.

Table 1: Major products produced in India by Organic farming

Type of Products
Product
Commodity Tea, Coffee, Rice, Wheat
Spices Cardamom, Black pepper, white pepper, Ginger, Turmeric, Vanilla,
Tamarind, Clove, Cinnamon, Nutmeg, Mace, Chili
Pulses Red gram, Black gram
Fruits Mango, Banana, Pineapple, Passion fruit, Sugarcane, Orange,
Cashew nut, Walnut
Vegetables Okra, Brinjal, Garlic, Onion, Tomato, Potato
Oil seeds Mustard, Sesame, Castor, Sunflower
Others Cotton, Herbal extracts
(Source: Org-Marg 2002)

Estimated quantity of various products that are exported from India in 2002 is shown in

Table 5.This shows that around 3000 tons of tea was exported and in quantity term it was the

highest, next major exports are rice (2500 tons), fruits & vegetables (1800 tons), cotton (1200 tons)

and wheat (1150 tons).

2
 Export of organic products is allowed only if they are produced, processed or packed under

the approved production programme and certified by an accredited certifying agency. The Indian

government has recognized the export potential of organic agriculture and is in the process of

strengthening the sector by putting a legal frame work in place. This includes creating national

organic standards and the possibility of accrediting in-country inspection and certification bodies.

Table 2. Major organic products exported from India

Product Sales (Tons)

Tea 3000
Coffee 550
Spices 700
Rice 2500
Wheat 1150
Pulses 300
Oil Seeds 100
Fruits & Vegetables 1800
Cashew Nut 375
Cotton 1200
Herbal Products 250
Total 11,925
Source: Org-Marg, 2002

The world demand for organically produced foods is growing rapidly in developed

countries like Europe, USA, Japan and Australia. The current estimated share of organic foods in

these countries is approximately 1 to 1.5 per cent. Worldwide, food trends are changing with a

marked health orientation. Since organic foods are free from chemical contaminants, the demand

for these products should steadily increase in the new millennium. According to the ITC,

UNCTAD/GAT, more than 130 countries produce certified organic foods. 100 of them are from

Asia and Africa.

Certification plays an important role in marketing of organic products especially to the

export markets. In India, the accreditation agencies approved by the Ministry of Commerce, GOI

are Agricultural and Processed Food Products export development authority (APEDA), Coffee

Board, Spices Board, Tea Board, Coconut Development Board and Cocoa &Cashew Nut Board. In

3
December 2002, the certification bodies fully accredited under the Indian National Programme for

organic production are

ECOCERT International (Based in France and Germany; Branch office in Aurangabad)

• IMO India Pvt. Ltd.-Institute for Market ecology ( Based in Switzerland; Branch office in

Bangalore)

• INDOCERT (Based in India; Branch office at Aluva, Kerala)

• LACON Gmbh (Based in Germany, Office in Aluva, Kerala)

• SGS India Pvt. Ltd.( Based in Switzerland; Branch office in Delhi and other cities)

• SKAL International(Based in Netherlands and office in Mumbai)

Organic farming is ideal for Andhra Pradesh especially for debt-ridden farmers as most of the

farmers in Andhra Pradesh are falling in the trap of debts due to unscrupulous use of pesticides and

fertilizers. Hence, agriculture of Andhra Pradesh requires new dimensions to raise the socio-

economic status of the peasants. This can be achieved by adopting natural farming and

diversifying agriculture. In the present paper, therefore, an attempt has been made to study the

comparative analysis of organic and inorganic farming in Andhra Pradesh. The present study also

undertakes brief account of the concept of “Organic Farming” and its prospective in Andhra

Pradesh vis-à-vis limitations of the organic farming.

Methodology:

A multi-stage random sampling was adopted in selection of sample size. Three mandals were

selected from Karimnagar district and from each mandal, two villages were selected. From each

village, five organic farmers and five inorganic farmers were selected randomly constituting a

sample size of 30 organic farmers and 30 inorganic farmers. Primary data were collected from the

selected farmers using a pre-tested schedule for the period 2006-07.

4
 Various cost concepts and income measures were used to analyse the economic efficiency of

the organic versus inorganic cultivation. To analyse the technical efficiency of both organic and

inorganic farming situations stochastic frontier production function was used.

Stochastic Frontier Model: In this, the error term is composed of two parts; one symmetric and

the other one sided. The symmetric component permits random variation of the frontier across the

firms and captures the effects of measurement error, other statistical noise and random shocks

outside the firm’s control. The one-sided component captures the effects of inefficiency relative to

stochastic frontier. By estimating the frontier it will be possible to find out whether the farmer’s

deviation of yield from the frontier may be because of less efficient management practices used or

may be because of external factors.

The model:

The stochastic model recognizes inefficiency as deviations from the production frontier and

also assumes all the deviations from the frontier are not due to the inefficiency alone. In this way it

decomposes the deviations from the production frontier in terms of technical inefficiency and

random effects.

The original specifications involved a production function specified for cross-sectional data

which had an error term with two components, one to account for random effects and another to

account for technical efficiency. The following functional form of Stochastic Frontier model was

applied to determine the output maximizing combination of existing resources with available

technology.

Yi=β 1+β 1logX1i+β 2log X2i +β 3logX3i+β 4logX4i+Vi-Ui

where, Yi = The production of the ith firm

i= no. of farmers,

Xi1=extent of land owned

Xi2=human labour used

Xi3=seed, fertilizers, plant protection chemicals, irrigation

5
 Xi4=credit taken from the bank

β = vector of unknown parameters

Vi=random error assumed to be identically and independently distributed N (o, σ 2v)

Ui=firm-specific inefficiency effect assumed to follow at ‘0’ ,Normal distribution(ui,σ 2U)

and m are the factors affecting technical inefficiency .

The frontier output (Yi) was represented by f (xi,β ) exp (vi-ui). Aigner et al (1977) suggested

that maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters can be obtained in terms of parameterization.

Then the technical efficiency of the ith farm was the ratio of the observed output to the

corresponding frontier output as

TEi = Yi/Yi* = exp (-Ui)

In this study, the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) method has been used for

estimation .After estimating the estimates; an analysis was made to compute the allocative

efficiency of production. Allocative efficiency determines whether a farmer allocating resources in

consistent with the prices of input and output. The economic and allocative scores are derived

using the duality theory in which the cost frontier is derived algebraically from the estimated

stochastic frontier assuming that the production function is self-dual (i.e Cobb-Douglas)The ratio

of economic, to the technical efficiency provides a measure of allocative efficiency.

Results: To analyse the economic efficiency of organic farming over inorganic farming, various

cost components were used on per hectare basis separately and presented below.

Rice:

Both operational and fixed costs were analyzed for both organic and inorganic rice farming

and presented in table 3. The results indicate that operational costs were higher than fixed costs in

both the cases. Among the operational costs, Human labour occupies major share of 22.90 per cent

of total cost followed by tractor power (13.21), manures and fertilizers (10.34). Among fixed costs,

rental value of owned land was high (26.81%).

6
 In case of inorganic rice cultivation, operational costs occupied the lion’s share of 67.85

per cent among which the manures and fertilizers cost was highest (19.98%) followed by human

labour (16.54%), tractor power(10.32%) and plant protection chemicals(9.13%). Among fixed

costs, rental value of owned land was found to be high (23.39%) similar to organic farming. From

the results, it was found that the cost of cultivation in rice was higher in inorganic cultivation

(Rs.22960.04) than organic cultivation (Rs.18595.08) which might be due to higher cost incurred

towards manures and fertilizers and plant protection chemicals in inorganic rice cultivation.

Table 3. Item wise Cost of Cultivation of Rice (Rs./qtl.)

Organic Inorganic
S.No. Operational Costs farming farming
4258.69 3798.5
1 Human Labour (22.90) (16.54)
2456.78 2368.45
2 Tractor power (13.21) (10.32)
1056.42 998.36
3 Seed (5.68) (4.35)
1923.3 4586.46
4 Manures & Fertilizers (10.34) (19.98)
458.52 2095.25
5 Plant Protection Chemicals (2.47) (9.13)
469.25 489.16
6 Irrigation (2.52) (2.13)
658.46 769.96
7 Miscellaneous Expenditure (3.54) (3.35)
353.09 472.82
8 Interest on Working Capital (1.90) (2.06)
11634.51 15578.96
Sub-Total (62.57) (67.85)
Fixed Costs
486.55 499.69
1 Depreciation on implements & farm buildings (2.62) (2.18)
186.5 189.74
2 Land Revenue (1.00) (0.83)
589.25 567.97
3 Rent paid for leased-in land (3.17) (2.47)
4985.82 5369.25
4 Rental value of owned land (26.81) (23.39)
712.45 754.43
5 Interest on owned fixed capital (3.83) (3.29)
6960.57 7381.08
Sub-Total (37.43) (32.15)
18595.08 22960.04
Total (100.00) (100.00)
Cotton:

7
 The item wise cost of organic and inorganic cotton were analyzed and presented in table 4.

From table 4, it was clear that the operational costs were mare than fixed costs in organic as well

as inorganic farming situations of cotton.

Table 4. Item wise Cost of Cultivation of Cotton (Rs./qtl.)

Organic Inorganic
S.No. Operational Costs farming farming
9042.3 7098.88
1 Human Labour (21.96) (13.29)
5469.35 5268.14
2 Tractor power (13.28) (9.86)
1789.56 1853.35
3 Seed (4.35) (3.47)
5102.34 9115.55
4 Manures & Fertilizers (12.39) (17.06)
4954.28 13585.45
5 Plant Protection Chemicals (12.03) (25.43)
724.91 592.24
6 Irrigation (1.76) (1.11)
852.49 913.99
7 Miscellaneous Expenditure (2.07) (1.71)
874.37 1265.38
8 Interest on Working Capital (2.12) (2.37)
28809.6 39692.98
Sub-Total (69.96) (74.29)
Fixed Costs
1349.25 1325.48
1 Depreciation on implements & farm buildings (3.28) (2.48)
183.72 184.79
2 Land Revenue (0.45) (0.35)
1258.11 1059.54
3 Rent paid for leased-in land (3.06) (1.98)
8219.49 9897.63
4 Rental value of owned land (19.96) (18.52)
1357.75 1298.21
5 Interest on owned fixed capital (3.30) (2.43)
12368.32 13765.65
Sub-Total (30.04) (25.76)
41177.92 53433
Total (100.00 (100.00)

Among the operational costs, human labour occupied major portion (21.96%) followed by

tractor power (13.28%). Among fixed costs, rental value of owned land was high for both organic

and inorganic farming (19.96% and 18.52% respectively).Thus, it was clear from above tables that

the human labour cost was higher in organic cultivation of rice and also cotton as organic farming

8
system is labour intensive, where as in inorganic farming, the cost of manures, fertilizers and

pesticides were high compared to other costs.

Cost concepts and income measures:

The cost concepts and income measures of rice and cotton cultivation were worked out to

know the economic efficiency of organic vis-à-vis inorganic farming systems and results are

presented in table 5 and 6.

From table 5, it can be concluded that all the cost concepts were found to be high in

inorganic cultivation compared to organic cultivation. Initially, the difference between both the

systems was attributed to expenditure towards fertilizers, plant protection chemicals and the rental

value of owned land creating a wide gap of both type of farms accounting for Rs.21536.5 and Rs.

26306.18 respectively

Table 5. Comparison of Cost Concepts and Income Measures in Rice

Organic Inorganic
S.No. Item Farming Farming
A
1 Cost A1 12307.56 16268.39
2 Cost A2 12896.81 16836.36
3 Cost B1 13020.01 17022.82
4 Cost B2 18595.08 22960.04
5 Cost C1 14003.57 17977.49
6 Cost C2 19578.64 23914.71
7 Cost C3 21536.5 26306.18
B Income Measures
1 Yield (q/ha) 49.87 55.48
2 Gross Income 39347.43 43773.72
3 Net Income 17810.93 17467.54
4 Family Labour Income 20752.35 20813.68
5 Farm Business income 26450.62 26937.36
Farm investment
6 income 25467.06 25982.69
7 B-C Ratio 0.83 0.66
When the income measures were considered, higher gross returns of Rs.43773.72 were

obtained in inorganic cultivation of rice as the yield of inorganic system was higher than the

organic cultivation. But, the levels of yields were commensurate with low cost of cultivation in

organic method. Nevertheless, the net returns were slightly higher in organic cultivation than

9
inorganic. A higher B-C ratio was obtained in organic cultivation (0.83) compared to inorganic

cultivation (0.66) which may be due to low cost of cultivation.

The cost of cultivation based on cost concepts and income measures in cotton was analyzed

and presented in table 6.

Table 6. Comparison of Cost Concepts and Income Measures in cotton

S.No. Item Organic Farming Inorganic Farming
A
1 Cost A1 30342.57 41203.25
2 Cost A2 31600.68 42262.79
3 Cost B1 31700.32 42501.46
4 Cost B2 40897.63 53158.36
5 Cost C1 32989.45 43757.82
6 Cost C2 42186.76 54414.72
7 Cost C3 46405.43 59856.192
B Income Measures
1 Yield (q/ha) 26.92 30.89
2 Gross Income 58254.88 66845.96
3 Net Income 11849.45 6989.77
4 Family Labour Income 17357.25 13687.6
5 Farm Business income 26654.20 24583.17
6 Farm investment income 25365.07 23326.81
7 B-C Ratio 0.26 0.11
It can be observed that the total cost was high in inorganic farming due to high use of manures,

fertilizers and pesticides. The gross income was also high in case of inorganic farming (Rs.

66845.96) due to high yields compared to organic farming (Rs. 53926.88).In contrast, the net

returns were high in organic farming (Rs. 7521.45) compared to inorganic farming (Rs.

6989.77).The benefit cost ratio was also high in organic farming(0.26) compared to inorganic

system(0.11)

Finally, it can be concluded that the net returns were higher in organic farming in both the

crops compared to inorganic farming though the cost of cultivation was more in inorganic

cultivation. The net returns were marginally high in organic farming which may be due to the fact

that organic cultivation has started gaining momentum in the recent past and it will take some time

to stabilize the yields and to get the marked net returns.

10
Technical Efficiency: The technical efficiency of rice and cotton production in the study area was

analyzed using Stochastic frontier production function. Production frontiers were estimated

separately for both organic and inorganic farming in rice as well as which are discussed here

under.

Technical Efficiency in Rice:

Table 7 reveals the maximum likelihood estimates of the stochastic frontiers for both

organic and inorganic farming. In case of organic rice cultivation, all the independent variables

included in the model had positive coefficients. The variables operational area, seed, plant

protection chemicals and labour were found to be significant at five per cent level of probability

where as irrigation, manures and fertilizers were not significant even at 10 per cent level of

probability.

Table 7. Maximum likelihood estimates of Stochastic Frontier model for Rice

S.No. Variable Coefficients

Organic Inorganic
1 Constant 4.3985** 3.8956**
2 Operational area 0.3216** 0.2989*
3 Seed 0.3519** 0.3328**
4 Manure and fertilizers 0.1151 0.0923
5 Plant protection chemicals 0.07196** 0.05824**
6 Irrigation 0.03649 0.03244
7 Labour 0.7865** 0.7421**
8 D2 0.5989 0.5464
9 γ 0.9263** 0.8954**
Note :
** - Significant at five percent level of probability
* - Significant at 10 percent level of probability
The variance ratio (γ) was 0.9263 was significant at five per cent level of probability

indicating that the total variation in output from the frontier is attributable to technical inefficiency.

This means that about 93 per cent of the differences between the observed and the maximum

production frontier outputs were due to difference in levels of technical efficiencies of the farmers

and not related to random error.

11
 In case of inorganic, the coefficients of all the independent variables included in the model

were positive. The variables seed, plant protection chemicals and labour were found out to be

significant at five per cent level of probability, where as operational area was significant at 10 per

cent level of probability. The variance ratio (γ) was 0.8954 indicating that the inefficiency effect

over the random error. The results thus indicate that there is lot of scope for escalating the

production through increasing the level of these inputs..

Technical Efficiency in Cotton:

The maximum likelihood estimates of the parameters of stochastic frontiers for both

organic and inorganic cotton cultivation are presented in table 8.

Table 8. Maximum likelihood estimates of Stochastic Frontier model for Cotton

S.No. Variable Coefficients

Organic Inorganic
1 Constant 2.9969** 3.0195**
2 Operational area 0.2423** 0.0975*
3 Seed 0.2351** 0.1133**
4 Manure and fertilizers 0.2961* 0.2665*
5 Plant protection chemicals 0.0966** 0.0118**
6 Irrigation 0.1336 0.0932
7 Labour cost 0.7865** 0.7421**
8 D2 0.2599 0.1554
9 γ 0.8993** 0.7895**
Note :
** - Significant at five percent level of probability
* - Significant at 10 percent level of probability
In organic cotton cultivation, all the independent variables exhibited positive coefficients in

both systems of farming. Among them, operational area, seed, plant protection chemicals and

labour were found to be significant at five per cent level of significance where as, manures and

fertilizers were significant at one per cent level of significance. The variance ratio (γ) was 0.8993

indicating that the farm specific variability contributed more to the variation in yield among the

rice farmers i.e. the total variation in output from the frontier is attributed to technical inefficiency.

This shows that about 89 per cent of the differences between the observed and frontier outputs

were due to differences in farmers’ level of technical efficiency and not related to random

12
variability. These factors were under the control of the farm and the influence of which can be

reduced to enhance technical efficiency of farmers.

In inorganic cotton cultivation, the independent variables viz., seed, plant protection

chemicals and labor were found to be significant at five per cent level of probability where as the

operational area was found to be significant at one per cent level of significance. The non-

significant variable in both types of farming is irrigation. . The variance ratio (γ) which was 0.7895

indicates that about 79 per cent of the differences between observed output and frontier outputs

were due to differences in farmers’ levels of technical efficiency and not due to random variability.

The positive coefficients of all the independent variables in both the situations indicate that there is

further scope for increasing production of cotton by increasing the levels of these inputs.

The farm specific technical efficiencies were estimated for rice and cotton in both organic

and inorganic situations and presented below.

From table 9, it can be concluded that in case of organic rice cultivation, more than half of

the farmers i.e. 53.33 per cent of the farmers are operating with the technical efficiency of 81-90

per cent followed by 71-80 per cent (20.00). In case of inorganic farming of rice, most of the

farmers are operating with the technical efficiency of 71-80 per cent (46.67%). In both the cases,

none of the farmers are operating with the technical efficiency of less than 50 per cent. In organic

and inorganic farming, only 16.67 and 10.00 per cent of farmers respectively are operating with at

a technical efficiency of 91-100 per cent.

Table 9. Distribution of farmers based on the technical efficiency of Rice Production

N=30 N=30
Technical Efficiency Organic farmers Inorganic farmers
< 50 0(0.00) 0(0.00)
51-60 1(3.33) 2(6.67)
61-70 2(6.67) 6(20.00)
71-80 6(20.0) 14(46.67)

13
 81-90 16(53.33) 5(16.67)
91-100 5(16.67) 3(10.00)

Table 10.Distribution of farmers based on the technical efficiency of Cotton Production

N=30 N=30
Technical Efficiency Organic farmers Inorganic farmers
< 50 0(0.00) 3(10.00)
51-60 4(13.33) 11(36.67)
61-70 6(20.00) 9(30.00)
71-80 7(23.33) 4(13.33)
81-90 10(33.33) 3(10.00)
91-100 3(10.00) 0(0.00)
The table 10 reveals that one-third of the farmers(33.33%) are operating at the technical

efficiency of 81-90 per cent in case of organic cotton production followed by the farmers with

technical efficiency of 71-80 per cent (23.33%) and 61-70 per cent(20.00). On contrast, none of

the farmers fall under the technical efficiency of less than 50 per cent. In case of inorganic cotton

cultivation, most of the farmers fall under the efficiency range of 51-60 per cent (36.67%)

followed by 61-70 per cent (30.00%0 and 71-80 per cent (13.33%). It is interesting to note that

none of the farmers fall under the technical efficiency of 91-100 per cent.

The results clearly indicate that more number of organic farmers in both rice and cotton

were operating at high level of technical efficiency compared to inorganic farmers. This also

indicates that there is ample scope for increasing the efficiency of production through better

utilization of the available resources from the existing level of technology.

Constraints: Some of the constraints identified for promoting organic agriculture in India are

• Lack of proper knowledge about the organic farming among the farming communities.

• Lack of market information about the domestic as well international market opportunities

of organically produced commodities

• Small farmers can not afford the expensive procedure for certification of their farms as

organic (nearly Rs.30,000 per certification)

• Poor marketing infrastructure for organic products.

14
 • Conversion of farms from conventional to organic is time consuming and cost-effective

which hinders the interest of farmers

• Lack of subsidies on bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides

Policy Suggestions:

• Introduction of contract farming inorganic agriculture

• Provision of insurance to the organic farms to reduce the risk in case of crop failure

• Developing awareness and health consciousness of organic products among consumers

• Provision of infrastructural facilities for post-harvest management as well as marketing

• Providing financial assistance to the farmers for converting their traditional farms in to

organic farms and intending support to meet certification fees especially for the small and

marginal farmers etc.

References:
James J. Ferguson. 2004. World Markets for Organic Fruits and Vegetables. Publication of
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida. Publication
Organic and Biodynamic farming.2001.Government of India. Planning Commission report.
September 2001
Balachandran V. 2004.Future in the Past: A study on the status of organic farming in Kerala.
Discussion Paper No. 82 Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development
Centre for Development Studies. Thiruvananthapuram
Down To Earth (2001) Organic Farming - Untapped Potential, 10(8): 34-41.
S Rajendran.2003. Environment and Economic Dimensions of Organic Rice Cultivation in South
India. Publication of DOS in Economics and Cooperation, University of Mysore

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF EFFICIENCY OF ORGANIC FARMING VERSUS INORGANIC

FARMING- A CASE STUDY IN KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R.V.Sujatha, Y.Eswara Prasad and K.Suhasini
ABSTRACT
15
 Organic farming is not new to Indian farming community. Several forms of organic farming
are being successfully practiced in rain-fed, tribal, mountains and hill areas of the country. How
ever, in India, the per cent area under organic farming is only 0.03 per cent of the total area under
agriculture when compared to other counties. Organic farming is ideal for Andhra Pradesh
especially for debt-ridden farmers as most of the farmers in Andhra Pradesh are falling in the trap
of debts due to unscrupulous use of pesticides and fertilizers. In the present paper, therefore, an
attempt has been made to study the comparative analysis of organic and inorganic farming of rice
and cotton in Andhra Pradesh
A multi-stage random sampling was adopted in selection of sample size. Primary data were
collected from the farmers using a pre-tested schedule. To analyse the technical efficiency of both
organic and inorganic farming situations stochastic frontier production function was used. It was
found from the results that the human labour cost was higher in organic cultivation of rice and also
cotton as organic farming system is labour intensive, where as in inorganic farming, the cost of
manures, fertilizers and pesticides were high compared to other costs. The net returns were higher
in organic farming in both the crops compared to inorganic farming though the cost of cultivation
was more in inorganic cultivation.
The results clearly indicated that more number of organic farmers in both rice and cotton
were operating at high level of technical efficiency compared to inorganic farmers. This also
indicates that there is ample scope for increasing the efficiency of production through better
utilization of the available resources from the existing level of technology. Some of the constraints
identified for promoting organic agriculture in India are lack of market information about the
market opportunities of organic products, expensive procedure for certification of the organic
farms, poor marketing infrastructure etc. Hence, the strategies to be followed are introduction of
contract farming inorganic agriculture, provision of insurance to the organic farms to reduce the
risk in case of crop failure, provision of infrastructural facilities and intending support to meet
certification fees especially for the small and marginal farmers etc.
KEY WORDS: Organic farming, Inorganic farming, Karimnagar district, Stochastic
Frontier Model, Rice, Cotton
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Research Associate 2. Professor & Univ.Head and 3. Associate Professor, WTO Cell, Dept. of
Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-30

16