Research article Special Issues

Factors fostering and hindering farmers' intention to adopt organic agriculture in the Pesaro-Urbino province (Italy)

  • Current global problems such as the loss of soil fertility and biodiversity and the growth of the world's population for which health and food sovereignty must be guaranteed, make it clear that it will be essential to spread innovations to increase not only productivity but also the quality of production in order to meet these challenges. However, this will not be enough if profound changes are not made in all systems and more sustainable food systems are not built. Organic agriculture is widely considered a more sustainable production system. However, despite the growing attention of consumers towards organic products and the increase in the area devoted to organic farming in recent years, its growth is not homogeneous among and within countries. Therefore, in this work, we investigate the main drivers and barriers to adopting organic farming, first analysing the literature and then administering a questionnaire to a sample of 202 conventional farmers in the Pesaro-Urbino province (Italy). The survey data show that the adoption of organic farming is fostered by the farmer's attitude towards this production method's social and environmental sustainability. The main hindering factors are the farmer's personal characteristics, such as old age, lower education level, perception of bureaucracy, and the farm's inadequacy of technical structures.

    Citation: Maurizio Canavari, Federico Gori, Selene Righi, Elena Viganò. Factors fostering and hindering farmers' intention to adopt organic agriculture in the Pesaro-Urbino province (Italy)[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(1): 108-129. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022008

    Related Papers:

    [1] Yunxiang Zhang, Lvcheng Jin, Bo Wang, Dehong Hu, Leqiang Wang, Pan Li, Junling Zhang, Kai Han, Geng Tian, Dawei Yuan, Jialiang Yang, Wei Tan, Xiaoming Xing, Jidong Lang . DL-CNV: A deep learning method for identifying copy number variations based on next generation target sequencing. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(1): 202-215. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020011
    [2] Yong Zhou, Minrui Guo . Isolation in the control of epidemic. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 10846-10863. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022507
    [3] Luju Liu, Jianhong Wu, Xiao-Qiang Zhao . The impact of migrant workers on the tuberculosis transmission: General models and a case study for China. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2012, 9(4): 785-807. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2012.9.785
    [4] Zakarya Noffel, Hana M. Dobrovolny . Quantifying the effect of defective viral genomes in respiratory syncytial virus infections. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 12666-12681. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023564
    [5] Yi Liu, Long Cheng, Xiangyang Song, Chao Li, Jiantao Zhang, Lei Wang . A TP53-associated immune prognostic signature for the prediction of the overall survival and therapeutic responses in pancreatic cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(1): 191-208. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022010
    [6] Peter Hinow, Edward A. Rietman, Sara Ibrahim Omar, Jack A. Tuszyński . Algebraic and topological indices of molecular pathway networks in human cancers. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2015, 12(6): 1289-1302. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.1289
    [7] Xiaodong Xia, Manman Wang, Jiao Li, Qiang Chen, Heng Jin, Xue Liang, Lijun Wang . Identification of potential genes associated with immune cell infiltration in atherosclerosis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(3): 2230-2242. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021112
    [8] Mohammadjavad Hosseinpoor, Hamid Parvin, Samad Nejatian, Vahideh Rezaie, Karamollah Bagherifard, Abdollah Dehzangi, Amin Beheshti, Hamid Alinejad-Rokny . Proposing a novel community detection approach to identify cointeracting genomic regions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2193-2217. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020117
    [9] Fen-fen Zhang, Zhen Jin . Effect of travel restrictions, contact tracing and vaccination on control of emerging infectious diseases: transmission of COVID-19 as a case study. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 3177-3201. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022147
    [10] Durward Cator, Qimin Huang, Anirban Mondal, Martial Ndeffo-Mbah, David Gurarie . Individual-based modeling of COVID-19 transmission in college communities. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 13861-13877. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022646
  • Current global problems such as the loss of soil fertility and biodiversity and the growth of the world's population for which health and food sovereignty must be guaranteed, make it clear that it will be essential to spread innovations to increase not only productivity but also the quality of production in order to meet these challenges. However, this will not be enough if profound changes are not made in all systems and more sustainable food systems are not built. Organic agriculture is widely considered a more sustainable production system. However, despite the growing attention of consumers towards organic products and the increase in the area devoted to organic farming in recent years, its growth is not homogeneous among and within countries. Therefore, in this work, we investigate the main drivers and barriers to adopting organic farming, first analysing the literature and then administering a questionnaire to a sample of 202 conventional farmers in the Pesaro-Urbino province (Italy). The survey data show that the adoption of organic farming is fostered by the farmer's attitude towards this production method's social and environmental sustainability. The main hindering factors are the farmer's personal characteristics, such as old age, lower education level, perception of bureaucracy, and the farm's inadequacy of technical structures.



    Raw Moutan Cortex (RMC) is the dry root bark of Paeonia suffruticosa Andr [1]. It was first published in shennong herbs classic [2,3]. It is a traditional medicine commonly used in China. It tastes bitter, spicy and slightly cold, and has the effect of clearing heat and cooling blood, promoting blood circulation and removing stasis. Moutan Cortex charcoal is the processed product of RMC. It has the function of cooling blood and stopping bleeding. In the actual processing process of MCC, due to the different production conditions, equipment and people's subjective judgment and other reasons, the processing results are often too excessive or not reach the standard, so as to obtain the different processed product, such as light MCC (LMCC), standard MCC (MCC), and heavy MCC (HMCC). Underprocessing or overprocessing will affect the effectiveness of drugs, and then affect the clinical efficacy.

    At present, the quality control of MCC mainly adopts the traditional quality evaluation method-feature recognition, namely [4] "Quality evaluation based on feature recognition". Chinese Pharmacopoeia and local Chinese medicine treatment specifications [5] describe MCC as "dark brown on the outer surface, brown on the inner surface, with a burnt aroma, slightly bitter and astringent taste". However, feature recognition often depends on the experience of practitioners and people's sensory judgment, which is often easily affected by subjective feelings. The final evaluation may cause inevitable error and poor repeatability, and the processed products with different processing degrees in actual production. Now, many research have studied about the Chemical changes in RMC and its different products, these results showed that most compounds were decreased with the deepening of processing degree and the increase of temperature, such as catechin, paeonol, quercetin, Kaempferide, isorhamnetin and tannin, While the content of gallic acid and 5-HMF were firstly increased with the extension of processing time and then began to decline [6,7,8]. And at the same time the pharmacodynamics studied showed that tannins such as catechin have astringent and hemostatic effects [9,10,11]. Paeonol had the effect of promoting blood circulation and removing blood stasis [12,13]. 5-HMF was an aldehyde produced by dehydration of glucose and other monosaccharide compounds under high temperature or weak acid conditions. As the temperature continues to rise, 5-HMF is easily decomposed into levulinic acid and formic acid, which was a marker of heating process [14,15]. Chemical components are the material basis of pharmacodynamic effects. Different chemical components in different processing degrees will certainly cause the change of effects, and then affect the clinical efficacy. Now, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) [16], thin layer chromatography (TLC) and other analytical methods [17,18] have also used for quantitative quality identification of MCC. Although these methods have great advantages in detection accuracy, they also have some disadvantages, such as sample destruction, large amount of chemical reagents consumption, long analysis time, and difficulty in obtaining sample quality evaluation results quickly in the production process. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a fast, nondestructive and sensitive method to evaluate and control the quality of RMC and MCC.

    Electronic nose is an electronic sensing instrument. It simulates human's sense of smell to obtain sample odor data, and performs objective digital processing of odor [19,20]. It is mainly composed of gas sensor array, signal processing unit and pattern recognition [21]. It has the advantages of simple sample pretreatment, convenient operation and fast reaction speed. The quality, authenticity and processing degree of Traditional Chinese medicine determine the characteristics and intensity of odor to a certain extent. On the other hand, the odor of traditional Chinese medicine is directly related to its internal chemical composition, which can reflect the internal nature and become the correlation point between external quality performance and internal material basis. For example, MOS Type Sensor-Array and machine learning were used to classify and identify the Potato Cultivars [22]. MAU-9 electronic-nose MOS sensor array components and ANN classification were used to discriminate the herb and fruit essential oils [23]. Opto-electronic nose coupled to a Silicon Micro Pre-Concentrator Device were used to select sensing of flavored waters [24].

    In this study, electronic nose and machine learning were used to discriminate and quantitative analysis chemical composition of RMC and MCC. Firstly, HPLC was used to determine the contents of gallic acid, 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, paeoniflorin and paeonol in different processing levels of MCC. Secondly, Electronic nose was used to determine the smell information of different processing degrees of MCC. Then PCA, SVM and other methods were used for qualitative identification. Finally, the PLSR and SVR quantitative models were compared and analysis the content of galic acid, 5-hydroxymethylfurfural, paeoniflorin and paeonol in RMC and MCC. It provided a rapid, simple and non-invasive monitoring method to quality evaluation the RMC and MCC.

    27 batches of RMC pieces were collected and purchased from the pharmaceutical companies all over the country. It was identified by Associate Professor Liu Jizhu, School of traditional Chinese medicine, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University. Voucher specimens were deposited at the Herbarium Centre, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University. Part of each batch was processed at 180℃ for 3-5, 6-8 and 9-11 min respectively, and different processing degrees products were achieved, including Light Carbon (LMCC), Standard Carbon (SMCC) and Heavy Carbon (HMCC).[6]. All samples were crushed by a high-speed multifunctional grinder (JP-150A, Jiupin Industry and Trade Co., LTD., Yongkang, China) and then passed through an 80-mesh sieve, and then dried at 45℃ and sealed for preservation. All the samples were 108 batches and were summarized in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Sample information of RMC and MCC.
    Sample number batch number producing areas
    RMC1 LMCC1 SMCC1 HMCC1 YPA9A0001 Anhui
    RMC2 LMCC2 SMCC2 HMCC2 YPA8J0001 Anhui
    RMC3 LMCC3 SMCC3 HMCC3 YPA7H0001 Sichuan
    RMC4 LMCC4 SMCC4 HMCC4 YPA8H0001 Sichuan
    RMC5 LMCC5 SMCC5 HMCC5 YPA9C0001 Hebei
    RMC6 LMCC6 SMCC6 HMCC6 181100019 Anhui
    RMC7 LMCC7 SMCC7 HMCC7 170901 Anhui
    RMC8 LMCC8 SMCC8 HMCC8 181201 Anhui
    RMC9 LMCC9 SMCC9 HMCC9 190101 Anhui
    RMC10 LMCC10 SMCC10 HMCC10 180600159 Anhui
    RMC11 LMCC11 SMCC11 HMCC11 20190515 Anhui
    RMC12 LMCC12 SMCC12 HMCC12 180600029 Anhui
    RMC13 LMCC13 SMCC13 HMCC13 1990101 Anhui
    RMC14 LMCC14 SMCC14 HMCC14 181201 Sichuan
    RMC15 LMCC15 SMCC15 HMCC15 190401 Anhui
    RMC16 LMCC16 SMCC16 HMCC16 20180701 Anhui
    RMC17 LMCC17 SMCC17 HMCC17 190409 Anhui
    RMC18 LMCC18 SMCC18 HMCC18 190303 Anhui
    RMC19 LMCC19 SMCC19 HMCC19 190415 Anhui
    RMC20 LMCC20 SMCC20 HMCC20 190235 Anhui
    RMC21 LMCC21 SMCC21 HMCC21 180811 Anhui
    RMC22 LMCC22 SMCC22 HMCC22 180928 Anhui
    RMC23 LMCC23 SMCC23 HMCC23 181117 Anhui
    RMC24 LMCC24 SMCC24 HMCC24 HX19K01 Anhui
    RMC25 LMCC25 SMCC25 HMCC25 190439 Anhui
    RMC26 LMCC26 SMCC26 HMCC26 184902 Anhui
    RMC27 LMCC27 SMCC27 HMCC27 201904 Hebei

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The reference standards Gallic acid (Batch No: CHB180114), 5-HMF (Batch No: CHB180118) and Paeoniflorin (Batch No: CHB190124) (purity≥98% for each) were purchased from Chengdu Chroma-Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Sichuan, China). Chromatographic grade methanol was from Oceanpak Alexative Chemical., Ltd. (Sweden). Ultrapure water was used in the whole experiment (Watson, China).

    The contents of gallic acid, 5-HMF, paeoniflorin and paeonol in RMC and different processed MCC were determined by HPLC. The instruments used include: Shimadzu high performance liquid chromatograph, equipped with LC-20AT binary pump, SPD-M20A detector, SIL-20A injector (Shimadzu, Japan), 1/100000 electronic balance (sartorius, Germany), KQ-300DE ultrasonic cleaning instrument (Shanghai Lingke).

    Samples were detected by portable e-nose PEN3 (Airsense Analytics, Schwerin, Germany), which, with the built-in sensor array, sampling and cleaning channels, and data acquisition system, is characterized by its automatic adjustment, calibration, and system enrichment functions [25].

    The sensor array is composed of ten MOS sensors sensitive to different compounds, the sensitive characteristics of each sensor was listed in Table 2. The sensor response value was relative resistivity G / G0 (G represented the resistance of the sensor after the action of volatile gas in the sample to be tested, G0 represented the resistance of the sensor after the action of reference gas filtered by standard active carbon). The electronic nose device is shown in Figure 1.

    Figure 1.  Experimental instrument of PEN-3.
    Table 2.  Gas sensor array of PEN-3.
    Number Name of sensor Detection of chemical components
    S1 W1C Aromatic
    S2 W5S Nitrogen Oxides
    S3 W3C Ammonia, aromatic
    S4 W6S hydrogen
    S5 W5C Alkanes, aromatic ingredients
    S6 W1S Methane
    S7 W1W Sulfide
    S8 W2S Ethanol
    S9 W2W Aromatic ingredients, organic sulfur compounds
    S10 W3S Alkanes

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Accurately weigh 0.5 g of RMC and MCC with different processing degrees (passing 80 mesh sieve), place it in a conical flask with a stopper, accurately add 25 mL of 50% methanol, weigh and extract with ultrasound (power 100W) for 30 min, cool to room temperature, weigh, then make up the weight loss with 50% methanol, filter, and take the continuous filtrate as the test solution.

    The standard substances of gallic acid, 5-HMF, paeoniflorin and paeonol were accurately weighed and dissolved with 50% methanol to obtain the stock solutions at the concentrations of 0.7000, 1.000 and 2.000 mg/mL respectively. The working standard solutions, after prepared by mixing and diluting the stock solutions with methanol, were filtered through a 0.22 μm PTEE filter. The stock solutions and working solutions were stored at 4 ℃ for further use.

    The separation was performed on an Ultimate TM XB-C 18 analytical column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) at 30 ℃. The mobile phase consisted of a mixture of 0.1% phosphoric acid in water (A)- acetonitrile (B). A gradient program was set as follows: 0-15 min, 5-10% B; 15-25 min, 10-24% B; 25-50 min, 24-39% B; 50-65 min, 39-50% B; 65-90 min, 50-53% B; 90-95 min, 53-95% B. The flow rate was 1.0 mL/min and the detection wavelength was 230 nm, 10 μL of the working solution or the sample solution was injected for HPLC analysis.

    The linearity of the HPLC method for each analyte was evaluated by calibration curves. Each analyte at a series of different concentrations was analyzed in triplicates. The linearity of the calibration curve was constructed by plotting the peak area ratios vs. the concentration of four components. The precision of the HPLC method was determined by intraday and interday measurements. The working standard solution was analyzed in six replicates on the same day to obtain the intraday precision while the interday precision was obtained by analyzing the working standard solution daily (six replicates) for three successive days. Meanwhile, the stability was assessed by analyzing the same sample solution (LMCC4) at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24 h, respectively. Besides, recovery tests (LMCC4) were performed according to Chinese pharmacopeia to investigate the accuracy of the developed HPLC method. Mixed standard solutions at the uniform concentration level (100%) were added into 0.5 g of the known real samples, and each solution was done three copies in parallel according to the proposed HPLC method. The results were expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD %) of the measurements.

    The different batch of RMC and MCC were firstly put them in the quartz container separately, and then sealed the quartz container with double-layer fresh-keeping film. Before each test, let the samples stand for 30 min to fill the whole quartz container with volatile smell; Warmed up the machine and flushed the metal sensor of electronic nose for 300 s before detection.

    The electronic nose was connected to the computer, and the corresponding curve of the sample sensor was obtained in real time by Winmaster workstation. After the sample standed for 30 min, insert the injection needle of the electronic nose was inserted into the fresh-keeping film and fixed it, and inhaled the sample gas to be tested at a flow rate of 150 mL/min. The intake air was passing through activated carbon. Each sampling time is 120 s, the sampling interval is 1 s, and the sensor cleaning time is 120 s. when measuring the sample, the ambient temperature and humidity are controlled at about 25℃ and 30% respectively. Each batch of samples were measured three times in parallel, and the average response curve was taken as the test data of the samples, and the odor response value matrix of 108 batches of samples was obtained.

    Precision of the method was determined by intraday and interday measurements. The sample Powder (LMCC14) was analyzed in six replicates on the same day to obtain intraday precision, and they were analyzed daily (six replicates) for three successive days to obtain the interday results. The stability was assessed by analyzing the same sample powder (LMCC14) at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 h, respectively.

    Data analysis was completed in the MATLAB 2020 environment, qualitative analysis using Classification toolbox 5.2. PCA was performed with SIMCA-P + 12.0 software. The significance test was carried out by two-tailed test in this paper.

    The results of the methodology validation for HPLC analysis were shown in Table 3 and Figure 2. The calibration curves of each analyte displayed good linearity over the range (R2 > 0.9997) of different concentrations. The RSD values of the precision test were 0.10-2.74% for intraday assays and 0.52-1.64% for interday assays. The RSD values of stability tests were 0.14-2.79%. The recoveries of the HPLC method were above 96.94%, and the RSD values were less than 3.0%. The results demonstrated that the developed HPLC method was capable of accurately determining the contents of the twelve chemical ingredients in different RMC and MCC samples.

    The developed HPLC method was applied to simultaneously determine the contents of the chemical ingredients in RMC and MCC. The results were shown in Table 4. There was a significant difference in the contents of the four chemical ingredients between RMC and different products of MCC. The contents of paeoniflorin and paeonol in RMC were higher than the different degree process product of MCC. And their contents were declined with the extension of processing time. While the content of gallic acid and 5-HMF were the highest among the RMC and MCC, at the same time they were firstly increased and then declined with the processing time. This results was consisted with previous studies [6].

    Figure 2.  HPLC chromatogram.
    *Note: a. HPLC Chromatogram of reference substance; b. HPLC Chromatogram of samples;
    1. gallic acid; 2. 5-HMF; 3. paeoniflorin; 4. paeonol; A. RMC; B. LMCC; C. SMCC; D. HMCC
    Table 3.  The results of methodology validation for HPLC analysis.
    composition regression equation/
    R2
    linear rang
    (μg/mL)
    Recovery (%) Precision/ RSD (%) Repeatability RSD (%)
    mean RSD Intra-day Inter-day
    gallic acid Y = 26797X + 40702
    R2=0.9999
    1.75~134.75 96.94 0.02 2.20 2.22 2.19
    5-HMF Y = 11417X + 6233.3
    R2=0.9999
    3.00~125.00 100.55 0.55 0.36 1.04 2.22
    paeoniflorin Y = 13372X - 20305
    R2=0.9997
    0.50~190.5 0 100.47 1.15 2.74 2.79 0.52
    paeonol Y = 31918X - 49375
    R2=0.9999
    20.00~400.00 98.83 1.85 0.10 0.14 1.59

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The RSD values of precision test were 0.44-2.51% for intraday assays and 1.84-3.14% for interday assays. The RSD values of stability test were 0.68-4.21% (Table 5). The system was considered suitable for analysis of RMC and MCC.

    Table 4.  Average content of chemical components in RMC and MCC (N = 27).
    gallic acid (mg/g) 5-HMF (mg/g) paeoniflorin (mg/g) Paeonol (mg/g)
    RMC 2.13 ± 0.48 0 8.31 ± 1.28 12.09 ± 3.28
    LMCC 4.41 ± 0.78 3.86 ± 1.00 2.78 ± 0.97 9.26 ± 1.51
    SMCC 2.60 ± 0.89 2.97 ± 1.10 0.55 ± 0.36 6.75 ± 1.39
    HMCC 0.29 ± 0.19 0.38 ± 0.18 0.16 ± 0.02 2.78 ± 0.71

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  Investigation on the precision of electronic nose sensor.
    sensor RSD (%) sensor Stability RSD (%) RSD (%) Stability RSD (%)
    Intraday (n = 6) Interday (n = 6) Intraday (n = 6) Interday (n = 6)
    W1C 0.84 2.13 W1S 0.96 2.34 2.13 4.21
    W5S 1.11 3.14 W1W 3.42 0.46 2.01 3.18
    W3C 1.06 1.98 W2S 0.83 2.51 2.09 4.01
    W6S 0.44 1.84 W2W 0.68 0.67 1.87 4.18
    W5C 0.67 2.76 W3S 0.81 1.09 2.01 0.93

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 3.  Response curve of electronic nose sensor.

    Figure 3 showed the odor response curve of 10 sensors, using electronic nose on one sample within 120 seconds. It could be seen from the figure that the change of the sensor response value increased gradually and then tended to be gentle. This was because during headspace injection, the concentration of volatile substances in the sample entering the sensor channel increases continuously and finally reaches dynamic equilibrium.

    The radar diagram of the sample odor sensor using the response value of each sensor were construct when it reached equilibrium (Figure 4). From the radar diagram, it could be seen that the strongest sensor of RMC was W5S (nitrogen oxide), followed by W1S (methyl) and W2W (organic sulfide), indicating that the volatile gas substances of RMC were mainly nitrogen oxide, methyl and organic sulfide.

    The response values of sensors W1C (aromatic components), W3C (ammonia) and W5C (aromatic alkanes) changed little, while the response values of sensors W5S (nitrogen oxides), W1S (methyl), W1W (sulfide), W2S (alcohols) and W2W (organic sulfide) changed greatly, which revealed that nitrogen oxides, methyl, sulfide, alcohols and organic sulfide were the differential compounds of odor between RMC and MCC. On the whole, the difference of sensor response values between carbon products with different processing degrees was small. It was difficult to distinguish carbon products with different degrees by radar map alone, and other discrimination methods needed to be used for further analysis.

    Figure 4.  Radar diagram of odor sensor of RMC and MCC.

    The sensitivity of sensors to gas was partially crossed and relatively nonspecific, so collinearity and other problems may occur between some sensors. In order to reduce the miscellaneous information between sensor arrays and the complexity of high-dimensional data on the model, Pearson correlation analysis was used to calculate the correlation coefficient between the two gas sensors by taking the response values of 10 sensors as variables. When the correlation coefficient value of the two sensors was larger, it proved that the correlation of the two sensors was better, and the consistency of the information obtained was closer. So, the two sensors could replace each other, and one of them could be considered to eliminated.

    Table 6.  Correlation analysis results of electronic nose sensors in RMC and MCC.
    W1C W5S W3C W6S W5C W1S W1W W2S W2W W3S
    W1C 1 -0.842 0.984 -0.827 0.934 -0.921 -0.900 -0.924 -0.919 -0.805
    W5S 1 -0.822 0.752 -0.786 0.855 0.898 0.875 0.887 0.801
    W3C 1 -0.782 0.971 -0.867 -0.892 -0.884 -0.91 -0.734
    W6S 1 -0.702 0.851 0.800 0.842 0.830 0.904
    W5C 1 -0.776 -0.886 -0.816 -0.899 -0.621
    W1S 1 0.810 0.980 0.830 0.884
    W1W 1 0.813 0.995 0.762
    W2S 1 0.833 0.875
    W2W 1 0.780
    W3S 1

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 6, it could be seen that the correlation coefficient of W1C and W3C, W3C and W5C, W1S and W2S, W1W and W2W were large, namely 0.984, 0.971, 0.980 and 0.995 respectively. Therefore, W1W, W5C, W1W and W2S sensors were eliminated in the subsequent analysis.

    Figure 5.  Load analysis diagram of electronic nose odor sensor.

    Load analysis diagram of electronic nose odor sensor in RMC and MCC was listed in Figure 5. It could be seen that the variance contribution rates of the 10 sensors on the first principal component were basically the same, and the factor loads of sensors W1S and W2S, W1W and W2W were very close, which indicated that sensors W1S and W2S, W1W and W2W were similar to each other, and one of them can be eliminated to optimize the sensor array. In the second principal component, the contribution rate of W5S was the smallest, so the W5S sensor was removed. According to the results of correlation analysis and load analysis, sensors W3C, W6S, W1S, W2W and W3S were selected to form a new sensor array for subsequent analysis.

    In this experiment, the sample odor response value was used as the input variable, and the unsupervised identification of RMC and MCC samples was carried out by principal component analysis (PCA) [26]. The effects of sensor array optimization of the models were compared (Figure 6). before the sensor array optimized, the cumulative interpretation of nine principal component reached 99.98% (Figure 6a), among of the first two principal components reached 92.85% (PC1 = 86.61%, PC2 = 6.24%). After optimized, the accumulation interpretation of six principal components reached 100% (Figure 6b), and the cumulative interpretation of the first 2 principal component score reaches 92.76% (PC1 = 87.17%, PC2 = 5.59%). The results indicated that the first two principal components can represent above 92% of all odor information characteristics of the sample, and the extracted information was well representative.

    Figure 6.  The Sensor array optimization results of PCA model explanatory variables and cumulative explanatory variable. (a) before optimization (b) after optimization.

    The scores of the first two principal components of the PCA model before and after the optimization of the sensor array were shown in Figure 7. It could be seen from the figure that the RMC had a large spatial distribution range, indicating that there were large differences in odor information among raw products, which may be related to the origin and production date of them, but there was no spatial overlap between raw products and carbon products, indicating that the odor of MCC samples has changed significantly after processed. The smell information of MCC with different processing degrees overlaps seriously in space. At the same time, after the optimization of sensor array, the spatial distribution range of MCC smell information was further reduced, and the clustering effect of the same category was better. So, the unsupervised recognition method of PCA could not effectively distinguish MCC with different processing degrees, the supervised pattern recognition method with better training effect needs to be adopted.

    Figure 7.  Scores of the PCA model before (a) and after the optimization of the sensor array model (b).

    In this experiment, taking the collected sample odor quantitative data as the independent variable and the sample category as the dependent variable, the discriminant models of RMC and MCC samples with different processing degrees were established by using linear discriminant (LDA) [27], partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) [28,29] and support vector machine (SVM) [30,31]. The performance of the model was evaluated by 10-fold cross validation and external validation. The samples were divided into training set and verification set according to the ratio of 2:1, which included 72 batches of training set and 36 batches of verification set. The training set was used to train the model and optimize the best parameters of the model; The validation set was used to test the application effect of the model. The identification results of LDA, PLS-DA and SVM discrimination models based on the response value of electronic nose odor sensor were shown in Table 7. Comparing the results of the three models, it could be seen that the positive judgment rates of cross validation and external validation of SVM models were higher than 90.00%, indicating that this method could accurately complete the rapid discrimination of RMC raw products and MCC with different processing degrees.

    Table 7.  Supervised pattern recognition results.
    Model Parameter Training set Validation set
    RMC LMC SMC HMC Correct-judgment RMC LMC SMC HMC Correct-judgment
    LDA - 18/18 16/18 13/18 12/18 81.94% 9/9 9/9 6/9 6/9 83.33%
    PLS-DA Components = 3 12/18 9/18 6/18 11/18 50.00% 6/9 4/9 2/9 1/9 36.11%
    SVM RBF kernel function
    C = 2, g = 0.0052
    18/18 17/18 17/18 14/18 91.67% 9/9 9/9 7/9 8/9 91.67%

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In this experiment, the odor quantitative data of RMC and MCC were correlated with the content of internal components, and the Pearson correlation analysis was carried out by SPSS 23.0 software. The Pearson correlation analysis results were shown in Table 8. From the correlation coefficient, it could be seen that the correlation between gallic acid content and each sensor was low, and the correlation coefficients are lower than 0.3; The contents of 5-HMF, paeoniflorin and paeonol were significantly correlated with the sensors W3C, W6S, W1S, W2W and W3S (significance less than 0.01). The contents of 5-HMF were positively correlated with the sensors W3C and negatively correlated with W6S, W1S, W2W and W3S, while the contents of paeoniflorin and paeonol were negatively correlated with the sensors W3C and positively correlated with W6S, W1S, W2W and W3S. To a certain extent, the higher the W3C response value of the sensor, the lower the W6S, W1S, W2W and W3S of the sensor, the higher the content of 5-HMF, and the opposite was true for paeoniflorin and paeonol.

    Table 8.  Correlation analysis results between odor characteristics and internal component content of RMC and MCC (number of cases = 108).
    W3C W6S W1S W2W W3S
    gallic acid Pearson correlation -0.183 0.143 -0.045 0.238* -0.061
    Significance (2-tailed) 0.057 0.141 0.644 0.013 0.530
    5-HMF Pearson correlation 0.265** -0.362*** -0.488*** -0.268** -0.527***
    Significance (2-tailed) 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000
    paeoniflorin Pearson correlation -0.761*** 0.889*** 0.777*** 0.890*** 0.831***
    Significance (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
    paeonol Pearson correlation -0.662*** 0.682*** 0.564*** 0.784*** 0.557***
    Significance (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
    Note: *: Significance (2-tailed) < 0.05; **: Significance (2-tailed) < 0.01; ***: Significance (2-tailed) < 0.001.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    According to the results of "3.4.1" correlation analysis, the content of gallic acid, 5-HMF, paeoniflorin and paeonol had a certain correlation with their odor characteristics. In this experiment, the quantitative data of odor were taken as independent variables, gallic acid, 5-HMF, paeoniflorin and paeonol were taken as dependent variables, and partial least squares regression (PLSR) and support vector machine regression (SVR) were used to establish the component content regression model. The performance of the model was evaluated by 10-fold cross validation and external validation. The determination coefficient (R2), root mean square error (RMSE) and relative analysis error (RPD) were used as the evaluation indexes of the regression model.

    Table 9.  Results of chemical composition quantitative model based on odor response value of electronic nose.
    Model Parameter R2c RMSEc R2p RMSEp RPD
    gallic acid PLSR PCs = 5 0.3773 1.2839 0.2848 1.3492 1.1992
    SVR c = 8
    g = 8
    0.8251 0.6600 0.8509 0.6161 2.6259
    5-HMF PLSR PCs = 4 0.5339 1.1621 0.4579 1.2702 1.3840
    SVR c = 724.0773
    g = 0.7071
    0.7457 0.7364 0.6605 0.8705 2.0194
    paeoniflorin PLSR PCs = 3 0.8757 1.1215 0.8970 1.1792 3.1600
    SVR c = 32
    g = 1.4142
    0.9585 0.6477 0.9229 1.0205 3.6510
    paeonol PLSR PCs = 5 0.6242 2.2585 0.7175 2.3485 1.9082
    SVR c = 2
    g = 9.7656e-04
    0.8182 1.5706 0.8019 1.9669 2.2784

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The results of the quantitative model of compounds content of RMC and MCC based on odor quantitative data were shown in Table 9. According to the model evaluation indexes in the table, the fitting effect of the regression model established by SVM was better than that of PLSR model, the model correlation coefficients R2c and R2p were significantly improved, and RMSEc and RMSEp were smaller, such as gallic acid quantitative model, R2c and R2p increased from 0.3773 and 0.2848 to 0.8251 and 0.8509 respectively, RMSEc and RMSEp decreased from 1.2839 and 1.3492 to 0.6600 and 0.6161 respectively, and RPD increased from 1.1992 to 2.6259, indicating that SVM had high prediction effect in dealing with the quantitative problem of component content with low correlation with odor characteristics. This may be related to its working principle in dealing with nonlinear problems. The correlation results between the measured values and predicted values of each component were shown in Figure 8. It could be observed that the predicted results of 5-HMF were scattered on the regression line, and the correlation coefficient of the quantitative model was lower than 0.75, indicating that the performance of the model may be improved. The other compounds gallic acid, paeoniflorin, paeonol were concentrated on the regression line. From the above results revealed that SVM was able to identify the electronic nose relevant to the target compounds and accurately predict the contents of these compounds except for 5-HMF. At the same time with a good prediction, which enabled electronic nose to accurately analyze the influence of processed on MCC quality.

    In fact, it is a very popular work to detect samples by electronic nose to obtain the effect of different other conditions on samples. For example, Sana Tatli et al. used electronic nose to detect the response difference of volatile organic compound emission in cucumber to track the effect of different urea fertilizers [32]; Robert Rusinek et al. analyzed the effects of fiber additives on vocs in bread using electronic nose technology [33]. Faraneh Khodamoradi et al. investigated the effects of different nitrogen fertilizer amounts on basil [34]. However, all of these studies were based on qualitative analysis, and this study combined qualitative and quantitative analysis to provide a more accurate monitoring of the degree of carbon frying in moutan cortex.

    Figure 8.  Predicted values and measured values of chemical composition.
    (a)—gallic acid; (b)—5-HMF; (c)—paeoniflorin; (d)—paeonol

    The electronic nose combined with chemometrics was introduced to digitize the smell of RMC and MCC. The discrimination model and chemical composition quantitative model of RMC and MCC with different processing degrees were constructed. The experimental results showed that:

    1) After the RMC was stir-fried, there was little difference in the odor response of MCC with different processing degrees, indicating that the volatile components did not change significantly with the deepening of processing degree; Combined with supervised SVM model, MCC with different processing degrees could be identified and predicted accurately, and the correct rate of sample discrimination was 91.67%.

    2) Based on the odor digitization of RMC and MCC, combined with PLSR and SVM, the quantitative models of gallic acid, 5-HMF, paeoniflorin and paeonol in RMC and MCC were established. Except for 5-HMF, the determination coefficients (R2) of the quantitative models of gallic acid, paeoniflorin and paeonol were higher than 0.8. The results showed that the quantitative data of RMC and MCC odor could be used to predict the contents of three chemical components; The fitting effect of 5-HMF quantitative model based on odor response value was general, and the model could be optimized and improved by fusing the eigenvalues of other sensors.

    In addition, this study established a reliable quantitative model, which is not available in most of the latest studies mentioned above. Quantitative research not only gives more accurate interpretation of samples, but also can be used to control the degree of processing more accurately, which is a more comprehensive perspective of analysis.

    This work was financially supported by the Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82173973, 81473352) and Key projects of Guangdong Provincial Department of Education (No. 2018KZDXM040). We are also grateful to many of our colleagues for supporting this work.

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] European Parliament (2016) Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/581922/EPRS_STU(2016)581922_EN.pdf.
    [2] Barberi P, Canali S, Ciaccia C, et al. (2017) Agroecologia e agricoltura biologica. In: Abitabile C, Marras F, Viganò L, Bioreport 2016. L'agricoltura biologica in Italia, Eds. Roma: Rete Rurale Nazionale, 101–113. Available from: https://www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/16935
    [3] Bengtsson J, Ahnstrom J, Weibull AC (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 42: 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x
    [4] Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, et al. (2014) Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 51: 746–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12219
    [5] Bavec M, Bavec F (2015) Impact of Organic Farming on Biodiversity. In: Lo YH, Blanco JA, Roy Roy S(Eds.), Biodiversity in Ecosystems–Linking Structure and Function, London: IntechOpen. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5772/58974.
    [6] Rahmann G (2011) Biodiversity and Organic farming: What do we know? Landbauforsch Volkenrode 61: 189–208.
    [7] Marriott EE, Wander MM (2006) Total and labile soil organic matter in organic and conventional farming systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70: 950–959. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0241 doi: 10.2136/sssaj2005.0241
    [8] Santos VB, Araújo ASF, Leite LFC, et al. (2012) Soil microbial biomass and organic matter fractions during transition from conventional to organic farming systems. Geoderma 170: 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.11.007 doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.11.007
    [9] Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, et al. (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?—A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manage 112: 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018
    [10] Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG (2011) Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: Conventional vs. Organic agriculture. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 30: 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.554355 doi: 10.1080/07352689.2011.554355
    [11] Gattinger A, Muller A, Haeni M, et al. (2012) Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109: 18226–18231. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209429109 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209429109
    [12] Squalli J, Adamkiewicz G (2018) Organic farming and greenhouse gas emissions: A longitudinal U.S. state-level study. J Clean Prod 192: 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.160 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.160
    [13] Skinner C, Gattinger A, Krauss M, et al. (2019) The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Sci Rep 9: 0–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38207-w doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-38207-w
    [14] Baudry J, Assmann KE, Touvier M, et al. (2018) Association of frequency of organic food consumption with cancer risk: Findings from the NutriNet-Santé Prospective Cohort Study. JAMA Intern Med 178: 1597–1606. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4357 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4357
    [15] Erisman JW, van Eekeren N, de Wit J, et al. (2016) Agriculture and biodiversity: A better balance benefits both. AIMS Agric Food 1: 157–174. https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.157 doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.157
    [16] Picchi MS, Bocci G, Entling MH, et al. (2016) Effects of local and landscape factors on spiders and olive fruit flies. Agric Ecosyst Environ 222: 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.045 doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.045
    [17] Sturla A, Viganò E, Viganò L (2019) The organic districts in Italy. An interpretative hypothesis in the light of the common pool resources theory. Econ Agro-Alimentare 21: 429–458. https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2019-002013 doi: 10.3280/ECAG2019-002013
    [18] Agovino M, Crociata A, Quaglione D, et al. (2017) Good taste tastes good. Cultural capital as a determinant of organic food purchase by Italian consumers: Evidence and policy implications. Ecol Econ 141: 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.029 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.029
    [19] Viganò E, Antonelli G, Bischi GI, et al. (2015) Consumo e consumatori di prodotti alimentari nella società postmoderna. Econ Agro-Alimentare 1: 59–80. https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2015-001004 doi: 10.3280/ECAG2015-001004
    [20] Willer H, Schlatter B, Trávnícek J, et al. (2020) The World Of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends 2020. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & IFOAM-Organic International. Available from: https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1150-organic-world-2021.pdf.
    [21] Creemers S, Passel S, Vigani M, et al. (2019) Relationship between farmers' perception of sustainability and future farming strategies: A commodity-level comparison. AIMS Agric Food 4: 613–642. https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.613 doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.613
    [22] European Commission (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions—A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system, Brussels. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en.
    [23] Organic Processing and Trade Association Europe (2020) Farm to Fork: Action Plan, 1–15. Available from: https://opta.bio/2020/09/11/farm-to-fork-action-plan/.
    [24] Sapbamrer R, Thammachai A (2021) A systematic review of factors influencing farmers' adoption of organic farming. Sustainability 13: 3842. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073842 doi: 10.3390/su13073842
    [25] Ferreira S, Oliveira F, Gomes da Silva F, et al. (2020) Assessment of Factors Constraining Organic Farming Expansion in Lis Valley, Portugal. Agri Eng 2: 111–127. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering2010008 doi: 10.3390/agriengineering2010008
    [26] Lee S, Nguyen TT, Poppenborg P, et al. (2016) Conventional, partially converted and environmentally friendly farming in South Korea: Profitability and factors affecting farmers' choice. Sustainability 8: 704. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8080704 doi: 10.3390/su8080704
    [27] Bouttes M, Darnhofer I, Martin G (2019) Converting to organic farming as a way to enhance adaptive capacity. Org Agric 9: 235–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-018-0225-y doi: 10.1007/s13165-018-0225-y
    [28] Dalmiyatun T, Eddy BT, Sumekar W, et al. (2018) Motivation of farmers to cultivate organic rice in Central Java, IOP Conference 102: 12043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/102/1/012043 doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/102/1/012043
    [29] Genova A, Palazzo F (Eds.) (2008) Il welfare nelle Marche. Attori, strumenti, problemi. Roma: Carocci Editore.
    [30] MiPAAF (2011) Progetto BIOREG. Individuazione e sviluppo dei distretti biologici: casi applicativi della metodologia BIODISTRICT alla realtà italiana. Available from: http://www.sinab.it/ricerca/bioreg-individuazione-e-sviluppo-dei-distretti-biologici-casi-applicativi-della-metodologia.
    [31] Viganò E (2018) L'agricoltura biologica nella provincia di Pesaro e Urbino: dalla tradizione all'innovazione. In: Travaglini G (Ed.), Lavoro e sviluppo nella provincia di Pesaro e Urbino. Roma: Futura Editrice, 345–359.
    [32] Issa I, Hamm U (2017) Adoption of organic farming as an opportunity for Syrian farmers of fresh fruit and vegetables: An application of the theory of planned behaviour and structural equation modelling. Sustainability 9: 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112024 doi: 10.3390/su9112024
    [33] Eurostat (2020) Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics: 2020 edition. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-statistical-books/-/ks-fk-20-001.
    [34] Hermansen J, Knudsen MT, Schader C (2012) Globalization of organic food chains and the environmental impacts. In: Halberg N, Muller A, Organic Agriculture for Sustainable Livelihood, London: Routledge, 55–73.
    [35] Liu X, Pattanaik N, Nelson M, et al. (2019) The choice to go organic: Evidence from small US farms. Agric Sci 10: 1566–1580. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2019.1012115 doi: 10.4236/as.2019.1012115
    [36] Gracia A, De Magistris T (2007) Organic food product purchase behaviour: A pilot study for urban consumers in the South of Italy. Spanish J Agric Res 5: 439–451. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2007054-5356 doi: 10.5424/sjar/2007054-5356
    [37] Aertsens J, Verbeke W, Mondelaers K, et al. (2009) Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review. Br Food J 111: 1140–1167. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992961 doi: 10.1108/00070700910992961
    [38] Shashi, Kottala SY, Singh R (2015) A review of sustainability, deterrents, personal values, attitudes and purchase intentions in the organic food supply chain. Pacific Sci Rev B Humanit Soc Sci 1: 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.003
    [39] Riar A, Mandloi LS, Poswal RS, et al. (2017) A diagnosis of biophysical and socio-economic factors influencing farmers' choice to adopt organic or conventional farming systems for cotton Production. Front Plant Sci 8: 1289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01289 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01289
    [40] Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, et al. (2003) Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J Bus Res 56: 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7 doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00241-7
    [41] Malá Z, Malý M (2013) The determinants of adopting organic farming practices: A case study in the Czech Republic. Agric Econ (Czech Republic) 59: 19–28. https://doi.org/10.17221/10/2012-AGRICECON doi: 10.17221/10/2012-AGRICECON
    [42] Métouolé Méda YJ, Egyir IS, Zahonogo P, et al. (2018) Institutional factors and farmers' adoption of conventional, organic and genetically modified cotton in Burkina Faso. Int J Agric Sustain 16: 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1429523 doi: 10.1080/14735903.2018.1429523
    [43] Burton M, Rigby D, Young T (2003) Modelling the adoption of organic horticultural technology in the UK using duration analysis. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 47: 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.00202 doi: 10.1111/1467-8489.00202
    [44] Azam S, Banumathi M (2015) The role of demographic factors in adopting organic farming: A logistic model approach. Int J Adv Res 3: 713–720.
    [45] Karki L, Schleenbecker R, Hamm U (2011) Factors influencing a conversion to organic farming in Nepalese tea farms. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 112: 113–123.
    [46] Soltani S, Azadi H, Mahmoudi H, et al. (2014) Organic agriculture in Iran: Farmers' barriers to and factors influencing adoption. Renew Agric Food Syst 29: 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170513000069 doi: 10.1017/S1742170513000069
    [47] Xie Y, Zhao H, Pawlak K, et al. (2015) The development of organic agriculture in China and the factors affecting organic farming. J Agribus Rural Dev 36: 353–361. https://doi.org/10.17306/JARD.2015.38 doi: 10.17306/JARD.2015.38
    [48] Herath CS, Wijekoon R (2013) Estudio sobre la actitud y percepción hacia el cultivo orgánico en los productores de coco orgánico y no orgánico. Idesia 31: 5–14.
    [49] Läpple D, Kelley H (2013) Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers. Ecol Econ 88: 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.025 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.025
    [50] Alavoine-Mornas F, Madelrieux S (2014) Passages à l'agriculture biologique. Une diversité de processus. Économie Rural 65–79. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.4235 doi: 10.4000/economierurale.4235
    [51] Menozzi D, Fioravanzi M, Donati M (2015) Farmer's motivation to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Bio-based Appl Econ 4: 125–147.
    [52] Dettori G, Gosamo E, Sanna A (2010) Filiera corta e produzioni biologiche: un'indagine sulle imprese della Sardegna. Agriregionieuropa 6. Available from: https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/article/31/21/filiera-corta-e-produzioni-biologiche-unindagine-sulle-imprese-della-sardegna.
    [53] Bos JFFP, Smit AL, Schröder JJ (2013) Is agricultural intensification in the Netherlands running up to its limits? NJAS-Wageningen J Life Sci 66: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.06.001 doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2013.06.001
    [54] Groeneveld A, Peerlings J, Bakker M, et al. (2016) The effect of milk quota abolishment on farm intensity: Shifts and stability. NJAS-Wageningen J Life Sci 77: 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.003
    [55] Xu Q, Huet S, Perret E, et al. (2020) Do farm characteristics or social dynamics explain the conversion of dairy farmers to organic farming? An agent-based model of dairy farming in 27 French cantons. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 23: 4. https://www.jasss.org/23/2/4.html.
    [56] Lohr L, Salomonsson L (2000) Conversion subsidies for organic production: Results from Sweden and lessons for the United States. Agric Econ 22: 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2000.tb00013.x doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2000.tb00013.x
    [57] Rana S, Parvathi P, Waibel H (2012) Factors affecting the adoption of organic pepper farming in India. In: Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development, Göttingen. Available from: http://www.tropentag.de/2012/abstracts/full/691.pdf.
    [58] Gardebroek C (2006) Comparing risk attitudes of organic and non-organic farmers with a Bayesian random coefficient model. Eur Rev Agric Econ 33: 485–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbl029 doi: 10.1093/erae/jbl029
    [59] Rodriguez J, Molnar J, Fazio R, et al. (2009) Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Change agent perspectives. Renew Agric Food Syst 24: 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170508002421 doi: 10.1017/S1742170508002421
    [60] Corsi A (2008) L'agricoltura biologica: problemi e prospettive. Agriregionieuropa 4. Available from: https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/it/content/article/31/14/lagricoltura-biologica-problemi-e-prospettive
    [61] Suwanmaneepong S, Kerdsriserm C, Lepcha N, et al. (2020) Cost and return analysis of organic and conventional rice production in Chachoengsao Province, Thailand. Org Agric 10: 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00280-9 doi: 10.1007/s13165-020-00280-9
    [62] Moumouni I, Baco MN, Tovignan S, et al. (2013) What happens between technico-institutional support and adoption of organic farming? A case study from Benin. Org Agric 3: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-013-0039-x doi: 10.1007/s13165-013-0039-x
    [63] Canavari M, Lombardi P, Cantore N (2008) Factors explaining farmers' behaviours and intentions about agricultural methods of production: Organic vs. conventional comparison. 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, 1–5. Available from: http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.html.
    [64] Dono G, Buttinelli R, Cortignani R (2021) Financial sustainability in Italian farms: an analysis of the FADN sample. Agric Financ Rev 81: 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1108/AFR-07-2020-0107 doi: 10.1108/AFR-07-2020-0107
    [65] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate data analysis. A global perspective. 7th Ed., Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.
    [66] R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/index.html.
    [67] Fox J (2019) Polycor: Polychoric and Polyserial Correlations. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=polycor.
    [68] Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics. New York: Springer New York LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
    [69] Wickham H (2019) Readxl: Read Excel Files. 1–9. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=readxl.
    [70] Package 'psych' (2021) Procedures for Psychological and Personality Research. Available from: https://personality-project.org/r/psych-manual.pdf.
    [71] John H (2015) Catspec: Special models for categorical variables. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=catspec.
    [72] Istat (2018) L'andamento dell'economia agricola. Available from: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2019/05/Andamento-economia-agricola-2018.pdf.
    [73] Cristina Da Rold (2018) Agricoltura, un mercato europeo a due velocità, e con pochi giovani. Available from: https://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2018/07/31/agricoltura-un-mercato-europeo-due-velocita-giovani/.
    [74] Brown TA (2015) Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2 ed., New York: Guilford publications.
    [75] Eyinade GA, Mushunje A, Yusuf SFG (2020) A systematic synthesis on the context reliant performance of organic farming. AIMS Agric Food 6: 142–158. https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2021009 doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021009
    [76] Oronzio MAD, De Vivo C (2020) Organic and conventional farms in the Basilicata region : A comparison of structural and economic variables using FADN data. Economia Agro-Alimentare/Food Econ 23: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2021oa12775 doi: 10.3280/ecag2021oa12775
    [77] Rodale Institute (2011) The Farming Systems Trial Celebrating 30 years. Available from: https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/fst-30-year-report.pdf.
    [78] Reganold JP, Wachter JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat Plants 2: 15221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221 doi: 10.1038/nplants.2015.221
    [79] Viganò E, Maccaroni M, Righi S (2022) Finding the right price: supply chain contracts as a tool to guarantee sustainable economic viability of organic farms. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev 2022: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2021.0103 doi: 10.22434/IFAMR2021.0103
    [80] Dessart FJ, Barreiro-Hurlé J, van Bavel R (2019) Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review. Eur Rev Agric Econ 46: 417–471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019 doi: 10.1093/erae/jbz019
    [81] Blasi G, Caruso A, Viganò E (2016) Participatory design of a sustainable school canteen through the development of a Business Model Canvas. Econ Agro-Alimentare 18: 319–344. https://doi.org/10.3280/ECAG2016-003005 doi: 10.3280/ECAG2016-003005
    [82] Mariani A, Viganò E (2013) Il Commercio Equo: un modello replicabile per lo sviluppo sostenibile. Riv di Stud sulla Sostenibilità 3: 149–161. https://doi.org/10.3280/RISS2013-001012 doi: 10.3280/RISS2013-001012
    [83] Zhllima E, Shahu E, Xhoxhi O, et al. (2021) Understanding Farmers' Intentions to Adopt Organic Farming in Albania. New Medit 20: 97–110. https://doi.org/10.30682/nm2105g doi: 10.30682/nm2105g
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Wen-li Zeng, Shi-kun Yang, Na Song, Fen-fen Chu, The impact of angiotensin converting enzyme insertion/deletion gene polymorphism on diabetic kidney disease: A debatable issue, 2022, 42, 02116995, 415, 10.1016/j.nefro.2021.07.008
    2. Wen-li Zeng, Shi-kun Yang, Na Song, Fen-fen Chu, The impact of angiotensin converting enzyme insertion/deletion gene polymorphism on diabetic kidney disease: A debatable issue, 2022, 42, 20132514, 415, 10.1016/j.nefroe.2022.09.004
    3. Awad Elsid Osman, Sahar Alharbi, Atif Ali Ahmed, Asim Ali Elbagir, Single nucleotide polymorphism within chromosome 8q24 is associated with prostate cancer development in Saudi Arabia, 2022, 22143882, 10.1016/j.ajur.2022.03.012
    4. Hendri SUSILO, Budi S. PIKIR, Nathanael J. TJIPTA, Mochamad Y. ALSAGAFF, Mochammad THAHA, Satriyo D. SURYANTORO, Citrawati D.K. WUNGU, Mochamad AMIN, Derren D. RAMPENGAN, Roy N. RAMADHAN, Platon PAPAGEORGIOU, Ryan GAUCI, Rebeka TÓTHOVÁ, Analysis of angiotensin II type 1 receptor and osteoprotegerin gene polymorphism on the risk of cardiovascular mortality risk and progressivity of chronic kidney disease, 2024, 115, 00264806, 10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09435-7
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(11792) PDF downloads(679) Cited by(7)

Figures and Tables

Figures(3)  /  Tables(8)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog