1 Introduction

The global population is expected to reach 11 billion by 2100 [1], increasing the demand for food and stressing soil health [2]. Soil is crucial for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDG2: Zero Hunger, SDG6: Clean Water, SDG13: Climate Action, SDG15: Life on Land) and impacts food production and security. Sustainable soil management practices—such as conservation tillage, organic fertilization, diversified crop rotation, and permanent soil cover—enhance soil fertility, nutrient cycling, and water retention, improving yields and reducing mineral input reliance [3]. Research focuses on practices like cover crops, minimum tillage, and composting to combat soil degradation [4]. These methods help reduce erosion, increase organic matter [5], and improve soil structure and microbial diversity [6].While researchers, farmers and other stakeholders from policy and administration have different perspectives on sustainable soil management, their perceptions on what soil management practices are may also differ.

In Germany, recent stakeholder recommendations identified seven key soil management practices: structural landscape elements, organic fertilization, diversified crop rotation, permanent soil cover, conservation tillage, reduced weight pressure, and optimized wheeling timing [7]. These practices address soil erosion, organic matter decline, compaction, and biodiversity loss [8], and enhance four of the five main soil functions—carbon sequestration, biodiversity habitat, water purification, and nutrient recycling—while having a neutral effect on biomass production [9].

Farmers' choice of soil management practices often depends on economic, technological, and environmental factors [7]. Studies identify key barriers (e.g., lack of information, high costs) and facilitators (e.g., technology, training) that influence the adoption of sustainable practices. Addressing these barriers and leveraging facilitators can promote widespread adoption and support a more resilient farming system [10]. However, perceptions of these barriers may differ between conventional and organic farming systems. Both conventional and organic farming aim for crop production but differ in methods [11].

In conventional farming systems, mineral fertilizers are typically used to provide nutrients to crops through direct dissolving in soil water, while in organic farming systems the use of chemical fertilizers is not allowed. Organic farmers therefore need to include legumes into their crop rotations and/or have access to manure for organic fertilization. The organic fertilizers they use rely on the stimulation of soil health and the soil’s transformation capacities to make nutrients plant-available [12]. This makes it more difficult to time nutrient availability to the respective crops’ requirements. Furthermore, conventional farming systems typically use synthetic pesticides to counteract pests and diseases, while in organic farming systems the use of chemical pesticides is prohibited. Instead, organic farmers choose agronomic measures such as wide crop rotations and promotion of antagonists because no chemical measures are used [13, 14].

Organic farming generally yields less than conventional systems [15]. Despite this, it is valued for its environmental and health benefits due to its reliance on natural methods and avoidance of synthetic inputs. Adoption of organic farming is complex, influenced by economic, social, psychological, and institutional factors [16, 17]. Farmers’ adoption of organic farming is motivated by personal values, economic benefits, environmental concerns, and social norms, and on the other hand may be hindered by challenges regarding market accessibility, information and inputs availability, social tension, and government support [18].

While the benefits of sustainable soil management practices are well recognized, the factors influencing farmers' adoption of these practices are not fully understood [19]. This study aims to assess sustainable soil management practices in both conventional and organic farming systems by exploring farmers' perspectives and decision-making processes. Our goal is to identify key factors driving or hindering implementation and to examine differences between conventional and organic systems regarding perceptions, preferences, and barriers. This study stands as the first of its kind, shedding light on the nuanced differences in how these two systems approach sustainable soil management. Researchers worldwide can benefit from these insights, gaining a deeper understanding of the factors shaping farmers' choices and paving the way for more effective and targeted interventions in diverse agricultural settings.

By drawing attention to economic barriers and proposing solutions such as financial support and tailored interventions for specific farming systems, this research provides essential lessons. Policymakers and researchers can extract actionable insights from our comprehensive study, facilitating the design of strategies and policies that foster sustainable soil management practices on a global scale.

We used the shortlist of seven most consensual soil management practices measures for Germany identified in [7]: I) structural landscape elements, (II) organic fertilization, (III) diversified crop rotation, (IV) permanent soil cover, (V) conservation tillage, (VI) reduced weight pressure, and (VII) optimized timing of wheeling (Fig. 1). These measures were identified through an analysis of recommendations from public governance institutions, non-governmental organizations, agricultural industry, and conventional and organic farmers' associations regarding agricultural soil management in Germany and are supported by all these stakeholder groups. Structural landscape elements reduce soil degradation and erosion by lowering runoff, preserving nutrients, enhancing water infiltration, and supporting biodiversity [20]. Permanent soil cover and conservation tillage also reduce runoff, prevent topsoil loss, and minimize compaction, while promoting soil health and biodiversity [21, 22]. Diversified crop rotation improves pest management, soil structure, and nutrient cycling, and increases organic matter [23]. Organic fertilizers enhance soil structure, fertility, and microbial health, and address issues like nutrient depletion and erosion [12]. Optimizing wheeling timing and reducing weight pressure further minimize compaction, preserve soil structure, and improve water infiltration and nutrient availability [7, 24, 25].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Factors analysed on their supporting or hindering effect on farmers decision to implement sustainable soil management practices in conventional farming systems and organic farming systems. Source: [7] Strauss et al. 2023, modified

Full size image

Farmers' adoption of soil management practices is influenced by their motives, values, and attitudes, which shape their decision-making based on personal experiences [26]. Behavioral approaches view farmers as independent decision-makers in resource management, including sustainable soil practices [27]. These approaches are effective for examining perceptions, values, and attitudes related to soil management and can be standardized for monitoring changes over time. This study uses behavioral theory to assess factors that facilitate or hinder the adoption of sustainable soil management practices in both conventional and organic systems (see Fig. 1).

In line with this context and to understand farmers' decision-making processes, German farmers were surveyed whether they deemed the measure reasonable (yes/no) and what they perceived to be the most important challenge to implementation. The responses to choose from included technology, economic constraints, and lack of knowledge. The answers to these two questions are utilized in the Logit model to figure out how far conventional and organic farming systems differ in their perceptions on preferences and barriers in the sustainable soil management practices (see Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Analytical framework of the study. *See [7] Strauss et al. (2023) for more details

Full size image

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Analytical framework of the study

Figure 2 introduces the analytical framework employed in this study. This framework serves as the foundation for analysing and interpreting the research data, allowing for a comprehensive exploration of the key variables and their interrelationships. By delineating the structure and methodology of our analysis, this framework establishes a clear roadmap for understanding the intricate aspects of the research topic and drawing meaningful conclusions.

2.1.1 Data source and study site

Agriculture in Germany, as a highly industrialized country in the temperate climate zone, is characterized by a high degree of mechanization and low yield gaps [28].

In 2022, almost 90% of the land was farmed conventionally, while the share of land under organic farming was 11.2% [29]. However, a closer look at the data revealed by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture [30] shows that in the ten federal states studied, the percentage of organic farms and organic area is at less than 26% and 17% respectively (Table 1).

Table 1 The share of organic farms and the share of organic area in selected federal states (%)
Full size table

This study analyzes data from an online survey with German farmers using the open-source application Lime Survey® (version 4.3.15, build 200907, Lime Survey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany). The survey was conducted between June and August 2021. Sixteen major agricultural organizations and 62 local farmer associations across Germany had been contacted by email with the request to forward the survey link to their respective members [7]. In total 78 farmers completed the survey. Their farms were located in 10 federal states, namely Baden- Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Brandenburg, Hesse, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony, Schleswig–Holstein, and Thuringia. However, the distribution was very uneven, with a high majority of respondents from the north-east and south-east of Germany. Data of the location of farms was therefore not considered in our analysis. Among the farmers, 61 (78.2%) identified themselves as conventional farmers, 15 (19.2%) as organic farmers, while 2 (2.6%) practiced both conventional and organic farming. As this study assesses differences between conventional and organic farmers, the last group was excluded from the analyses of this study. Further information on the characteristics of the respondents is provided in Strauss et al., 2023.

The data collected from the survey included information on farm types (arable farming, grassland, permanent crops, livestock farming) and farm sizes categorized as < 100 ha, > 500 ha, and 100–500 ha. Additionally, the survey asked farmers to rate the reasonability of soil management practices and identify the main barriers to implementing these measures, such as technology, economic, and knowledge (Table 2). The share of organic farmers in the sample (19.2%) is within the range of the shares of organic farms across the German federal states (7.3%–26.3%) and slightly higher than the national share of organic farms at 14.2% [29].

Table 2 Stakeholder survey: categorization of inquired variables
Full size table

2.2 Data analysis techniques and model specification

The study utilized logistic regression to figure out in how far conventional and organic farming systems differ in their perceptions on preferences and barriers in the soil management practices. The dependent variable was divided into two categories: conventional farm = 1 and organic farm = 0.

Logistic regression was chosen as an appropriate method for analyzing binary choice models, considering the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable since the assumptions required for ordinary least squares, such as normality and homoscedasticity, were not applicable. The binary logit model, derived from utility theory, was employed to examine the influence of the selected independent variables. In the statistical model it is transformed using the logit transformation into a probability ranging from 0 to 1. Equation 1 shows a statistical form of the binary logistic regression model for one independent variable [31].

$${p}_{y}=\frac{1}{1+{e}^{-\left({b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1}\right)}}$$
(1)

In Eq. 1, the \({p}_{y}\) stands for the probability of one category (often the presence of a behavior or condition) of the dependent variable \(y\), the \(b\) are coefficients of the independent variable or predictor, and the \(x\) are the independent variable.

While the predicted probabilities from the logistic function can be useful in measuring how well the model is predicting or explaining the outcome, the results of logistic regression are usually reported with odd ratio. Just like how coefficients in linear regression help explain the relationship between variables, odds ratios measure the impact of a one-unit change in a predictor on the odds of the outcome occurring. Odds are computed using probabilities. Equation 2 computes odds from probabilities [32].

$$odds=\frac{prob(y)}{1-prob(y)}$$
(2)

The logistic function is utilized for calculating probabilities, therefore incorporating the logistic model from Eq. 1 into Eq. 2 results in Eq. 3, which demonstrates how odds are determined in a logistic regression model.

$$odds=\frac{\frac{1}{1+{e}^{-\left({b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1}\right)}}}{1+\frac{1}{1+{e}^{-\left({b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1}\right)}}}= {e}^{{b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1}}$$
(3)

Once the \({b}_{0}\) and \({b}_{1}\) are estimated, these values can be substituted into the simplified version of Eq. 3 to compute odds. However, this is not the final step, since odds and odd ratios are different. An odd ratio is a ratio of two odds and is computed by dividing the odds of the outcome at one value of a predictor by the odds of the outcome at the previous value. Equation 4 uses odds to compute odd ratios from a logistic regression model.

$$odd\,ratio=\frac{{e}^{{b}_{0}+{b}_{1}(x+1)}}{{e}^{{b}_{0}+{b}_{1}x}}={e}^{{b}_{1}}$$
(4)

The maximum likelihood method was used to estimate the parameters, however, logit coefficients cannot be read as regular ordinary least square coefficients. To interpret it, the predicted probabilities of the outcome at one value needs to be estimated. For that reason, in this study the interpretation of the parameters is made using the “Marginal Effect (ME)”. Marginal effects can be used to express how the predicted probability of the predictor or independent variable changes with a change in an independent variable. It is defined as below [31].

$$\text{ME}=\frac{d{\text{p}}_{\text{y}}}{d{\text{x}}_{1}}=\frac{\text{exp}({b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1})}{{\left(1+\text{exp}(({b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{1})\right)}^{2}}.{\text{b}}_{1}$$
(5)

where \(\text{ME}\) is marginal effect, \({x}_{1}\) is independent variable and \({\text{b}}_{1}\) is the parameter of \({x}_{1}\) variable.

2.3 Estimating logit model with small samples

The Logit model is straightforward to implement and interpret, requiring no assumptions about class distributions. It handles multiple classes and provides probabilistic predictions, along with measures of predictor relevance and association direction. However, it may overfit less, works well with linearly separable data, but is less effective with small sample sizes, assumes linear relationships between variables, and only predicts discrete outcomes [33].

[34] introduced a ratio, known as events per variable, to determine sample size for binary logistic prediction models. Events per variable is calculated by dividing the number of observations in the smaller outcome group by the number of parameters. The recommended threshold is 10. Since the events per variable in this study (3.75) is less than the threshold of 10, as defined by [34], the sample size is considered small. In small samples, the maximum likelihood estimates of logit model coefficients can result in large odds ratios, large standard errors, and wide confidence intervals, leading to reduced interpretability and reliability of the models [35].

In small samples, logistic regression may suffer from non-convergence or unreliable maximum likelihood estimates due to issues with concavity [36]. To address small-sample bias, we employed Firth's penalized maximum likelihood estimator, which reduces bias and variance by penalizing the likelihood function with a factor related to the information matrix's determinant. This method provides a more reliable solution without biasing odds ratio estimates, unlike approaches that inflate zero cells or remove variables [37]. In consideration of econometric neoclassical assumptions and degrees of freedom, it is not feasible to incorporate all factors (variables) into the model. To discern the primary influential variables that could impact the adaptation barriers in implementing diverse soil management practices across production systems, a multicollinearity test was conducted following [38], utilizing the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3 variance inflation factor (VIF) results for identifying key soil management practices with differential preferences among conventional and organic farmers
Full size table

This test was conducted to address the implicit interdependence among soil management practices, which can undermine parameter significance due to high correlations. Such correlations may obscure the individual impacts of variables[39].

The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is used to assess multicollinearity: VIF = 1 indicates no multicollinearity, while VIF between 1 and 5 suggests acceptable levels, though high values can lead to unreliable estimates. To ensure model robustness, variables with high VIFs were systematically removed, improving reliability by eliminating intertwined correlations and stabilizing coefficient estimates [39].

As a result of these tests, the most distinguishing variable between conventional and farming systems were determined by grey color in Table 2 as follows: reduce weight pressure: technology barrier, reasonability of conservation tillage, diversified crop rotation: economic barrier, and optimizing timing of wheeling.

In order to identify the main barriers to implementing different soil management practices in conventional and organic farming systems, three distinct groups (farm types and farm size, rate of reasonability of soil management practices and barriers in implementing soil management practices) were created to examine independent variables. Indeed, these groups were designed to determine the key factors that influence conventional and organic farmers’ preferences regarding the implementation of different soil management practices.

As discussed above, the collected survey highlights that among the total of 76 farmers surveyed, 61 adhere to conventional practices, while 15 are engaged in organic farming. Considering these distinct groups, figures have been categorized accordingly. Overall, the analysis of the total group encompasses a comparison of various factors (such as farm types in Fig. 3 or different soil management practices in Figs. 4–7) across the entire pool of 76 farmers. For the conventional group, the analysis specifically focuses on comparing these factors within the subset of 61 conventional farmers. Similarly, for the organic group, the comparison is limited to the 15 farmers practicing organic methods.

Fig. 3
figure 3

The first group of variables: farm types in conventional and organic farming systems (n=76). Source: survey results

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

The second group of variable: the rate of reasonability in implementing different soil management practices in conventional and organic farming systems (n=76). Source: survey results

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

The third group of variable: economic barriers in implementing different soil management practices. Source: survey results

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

The third group of variables: the knowledge barriers in implementing different soil management practices. Source: survey results

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

The third group of variables: the technology barriers in implementing different soil management practices. Source: survey results

Full size image

3 Results

3.1 Farm characteristics

The survey categorizes farm types into four groups: arable farming, grassland, permanent crops, and livestock farming. Arable farming is the most common, with 89% of farmers choosing this type, followed by grassland (58%) and livestock farming (57%). Permanent crops are the least favored, with only 7% of farmers opting for them (Fig. 3). These preferences are influenced by the distinct practices of conventional and organic farming. Conventional arable farming relies on mineral fertilizers and pesticides, often using monoculture [40], while organic arable farming focuses on sustainability, avoiding mineral inputs and utilizing crop rotation for nutrient enrichment [12]. Conventional grassland farming uses mineral inputs and intensive grazing [41].

In comparing conventional and organic systems, conventional farms show a higher preference for arable farming (93%) than organic farms (73%). Conversely, organic farms have a greater share in livestock and grassland farming, reflecting the extensive use of grassland in coastal and alpine regions of Germany, which suits organic practices [42].

The results of the survey also reveal that among the respondents, more than half of farms (62%) are between 50 and 100 ha in size. Notably, organic farmers have made a considerable contribution of 73% in this context. This can be attributed to the growing consumer demand for organic products, which has created opportunities for smaller farms to cater to local markets and preferences [43]. Larger farms have also recognized the market potential and allocated portions of their land to meet the increasing demand for organic produce [44]. Farmers are increasingly transitioning to organic practices as a strategic move to enhance profitability, particularly in cases where the farm faces constraints on expansion due to landscape features. Notably, the adoption of organic farming is driven by the prospect of lowering input costs, including expenditures on fertilizers and pesticides. Furthermore, the potential to secure higher prices for organic products in the market adds to the economic attractiveness of this transformative shift [45].

3.2 Reasonability of sustainable soil management practices

In the second group, farmers were asked to rate the reasonability of soil management practices—whether they deemed them suitable for protecting or restoring soils and soil health. The results showed that more than 80% of farmers rated all soil management practices as reasonable measures (Fig. 4). In this context, the practices that received the top-rated reasonability from farmers are as follows: reduced weight pressure and diversified crop rotation with a rating of 96%, organic fertilization with a rating of 92%, conservation tillage with a rating of 88%, keeping soil covered with a rating of 84%, and structural landscape and optimizing the timing of wheeling with a rating of 80% (Fig. 4). Extensive research has shown that these practices offer numerous benefits, such as shielding the soil from erosion [46], enhancing nutrient cycling, improving organic matter content, minimizing soil compaction [47], preserving moisture levels, fostering beneficial soil organisms [48], reducing water runoff [49], and ultimately ensuring agricultural sustainability and higher crop yields [15]. However, it's important to note that the perceived reasonability of practices varies between conventional and organic farmers due to their distinct characteristics and approaches to farming [11].

In conventional farmers, we find that 98% consider reduced weight pressure as the most reasonable practice due to its ability to mitigate soil compaction, improve water infiltration, and foster root growth [50]. This practice also preserves soil structure, supports nutrient uptake, enhances soil aeration, reduces erosion, and offers cost savings [14]. Diversified crop rotation is the second most reasonable practice, with 97% of conventional farmers valuing its benefits, including effective nutrient management, pest and disease control, weed suppression, and enhanced organic matter content [13, 51]. Conservation tillage and organic fertilization and conservation tillage both rank third with a preference of 91% among conventional farmers.

Organic fertilizers enrich soil structure, improve nutrient availability, and support beneficial microbes [12], while conservation tillage minimizes soil disturbance, reduces erosion, and enhances organic matter content, water retention, and nutrient holding capacity [52]. Keeping soil covered is ranked fourth at 80% and is considered reasonable for protecting and restoring soils. It offers various advantages, such as reducing erosion, retaining moisture, suppressing weeds, enriching soil with organic matter, promoting water infiltration and root development, fostering a diverse soil ecosystem, and contributing to carbon sequestration [6]. On the other hand, the optimized timing of wheeling and the implementation of structural landscape elements are considered to have a relatively lower impact on soil protection by 77% of conventional farmers. This might be due to the need for planning, investment, and adjustments to existing farm practices and a lack of awareness about their potential benefits and best practices [53].

In organic farms, the top-ranked practice, keeping soil covered, is unanimously supported by all organic farmers due to its numerous benefits such as reducing erosion, conserving moisture, enriching organic matter, supporting soil biology, and promoting carbon sequestration [54]. From 93% of organic farmers, practices like organic fertilization, diversified crop rotation, optimized timing of wheeling, and structural landscape elements are considered reasonable. Organic fertilizers, such as compost and manure, enhance soil health by improving structure, nutrient availability, and microbial activity [55]. Diversified crop rotation reduces pests and enhances nutrient cycling without relying on mineral chemicals [51]. Proper wheeling timing minimizes soil compaction, benefiting water infiltration and root development [46]. Structural landscape elements control erosion and water runoff, ensuring soil health and environmental conservation [56].

Figure 4 shows that 87% of organic farmers also find reduced weight pressure a reasonable practice, which preserves soil structure and pore space, supports a diverse soil microbial community, and promotes healthier root systems while reducing the risk of soil erosion [46]. Conservation tillage ranks fourth, with 73% of organic farmers supporting it. That is because it involves minimal soil disturbance, preserving crop residues as a protective cover to reduce soil erosion, increasing organic matter content, water retention, and nutrient holding capacity [52].

3.3 Stated barriers for implementing sustainable soil management practices

3.3.1 Economy

Conventional and organic farmers face barriers when implementing soil management practices, categorized into economic, knowledge, and technology groups. As shown in Fig. 5, diversified crop rotation, structural landscape elements, and reduced weight pressure rank as the top three practices, with over around 50% of farmers facing economic challenges during implementation. These barriers include initial investment costs, potential short-term profit reductions, unfavorable market demand [57], and limited access to credit [53]. Organic fertilization and keeping soil covered are ranked fourth (by 36% of farmers) and fifth (by 32% of farmers), respectively.

The primary economic barriers for these practices include opportunity costs of alternative practices (e.g., using mineral fertilizers for higher yield), initial investments in cover crop seeds and equipment [58], limited short-term financial benefits, challenges for larger farms in scaling up, and competing financial priorities [59]. Furthermore, farmers encounter economic barriers when implementing optimized time of wheeling and conservation tillage practices, including equipment costs [60], risk perception, and farm size implications [46]. However, in this study the survey revealed that optimized timing of wheeling and conservation tillage are less affected by economic barriers, with 24% and 16% of farmers, respectively, compared to other practices.

In conventional farms, 67% of farmers face economic barriers to implementing diversified crop rotation, mainly due to uncertain market demand, limited infrastructure, and land availability [23]. Structural landscape elements and reduced weight pressure follow closely, impacting 57% of farmers each. Implementing structural landscape elements faces economic challenges such as high initial costs, land use trade-offs, maintenance expenses, uncertain returns on investment, short-term profit focus, and limited financing options [20]. Reduced weight pressure is hindered by high equipment costs, yield fluctuations, and market demand concerns [14]. Organic fertilization is ranked third, and 36% of conventional farmers encounter economic barriers in its implementation. These challenges stem from higher costs compared to mineral alternatives, limited availability in certain regions and initial investment demands [59]. Keeping soil covered ranks fourth, with 31% of conventional farmers who face economic barriers. The practice is perceived as an opportunity cost due to increased labor and time demands, along with initial investments and delayed financial returns [6]. Figure 5 indicates that optimized time of wheeling and conservation tillage are ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, with 26% and 16% of conventional farmers facing economic barriers. These barriers encompass equipment costs [7], transition disruptions, yield uncertainties, market demand, and farm size implications [44].

In organic farms, structural landscape elements and diversified crop rotation face economic barriers, ranking first (by 57% of farmers) and second (by 47% of farmers), respectively. Structural landscape elements are hindered by high costs, and limited capital access [61]. Diversified crop rotation encounters barriers related to short-term profitability, high labor costs, and market constraints [23]. Organic fertilization and keeping soil covered by 33% of organic farmers rank third in facing economic barriers. Organic fertilization is hindered by higher input costs, limited availability, and transportation expenses [62]. For keeping soil covered, barriers include initial costs, labor, market demand, and land size [58]. Conservation tillage, reduced weight pressure, and optimized time of wheeling are the last three practices facing economic barriers, with 13% of organic farmers encountering challenges in their implementation. The main economic issues arise from the need for machinery use, leading to initial investment costs for equipment and skilled labor costs [46].

3.3.2 Knowledge

Fewer than 30% of farmers view knowledge as a major barrier to implementing soil management practices (Fig. 6). The most cited knowledge-related challenge is maintaining soil cover, identified by 29% of farmers. This issue primarily stems from inadequate awareness and training [63]. Additionally, 25% of farmers cite optimizing the timing of wheeling as a secondary concern, while 20% highlight diversified crop rotation as a third priority. Barriers for timing of wheeling include limited awareness of soil compaction, weather variability, and technical knowledge for machinery [7]. For diversified crop rotation, challenges involve crop selection, adapting to local conditions, and accessing diverse seeds and inputs [64]. Organic fertilization, chosen by 16% of farmers, and structural landscape elements, selected by 13% of farmers, encounter moderate knowledge barriers. To successfully implement organic fertilization, farmers require a solid understanding of composting techniques, and nutrient management [65]. Likewise, knowledge of landscape design, erosion control, and plant selection is necessary for structural landscape elements [61]. Conservation tillage (12% of farmers) and reduced weight pressure (9% of farmers) rank sixth and seventh, with fewer knowledge barriers. Indeed, their simplicity and widespread adoption [66], and minimal requirement of technical knowledge make them accessible to a broader range of farmers [52].

In conventional farming, 25% and 23% of farmers face knowledge barriers related to soil cover and weight pressure, due to insufficient awareness of soil benefits, erosion risks, and weed management [6]. Barriers for weight pressure include lack of understanding of compaction effects and technical issues with machinery [47]. Diversified crop rotation is the third practice with knowledge barriers, requiring adaptation to local conditions, climate, and optimal crop sequencing [13]. Organic fertilization, the fourth practice, faces barriers for 15% of farmers due to unfamiliarity with composting techniques, nutrient management, and access to diverse organic fertilizers [67].

Conservation tillage and structural landscape practices each face knowledge barriers for 11% of farmers, related to technique understanding and erosion control [20, 66]. Reduced weight pressure has lower knowledge barriers due to its wide adoption and integration with existing systems [60].In organic farming, nearly half of the farmers (47%) face knowledge barriers with soil cover practices, mainly due to difficulties in selecting and managing cover crops in rotation [49]. Conservation tillage, however, poses fewer barriers (13%) as it aligns with organic principles of soil health, erosion reduction, and biodiversity [5]. The second most common barriers (33%) are related to optimizing the timing of wheeling and diversified crop rotation. For diversified crop rotation, challenges include managing crop interactions, transitioning from monoculture, and efficient time and labor use [51].

Barriers for optimizing wheeling involve understanding soil compaction, moisture, and suitable machinery [14]. Organic fertilization and reduced weight pressure each face knowledge barriers for 20% of farmers. For organic fertilization, issues include managing nutrient availability and balancing nitrogen due to slower release [65], while reduced weight pressure barriers involve understanding soil compaction impacts and machinery modifications [47].

3.3.3 Technology

Technology-related hurdles in implementing soil management practices are significant. As shown in Fig. 7, conservation tillage leads with 45% of farmers citing technology barriers, primarily due to the need for suitable and affordable equipment and technical expertise [47]. Reduced weight pressure ranks second, affecting 29% of farmers due to barriers such as the need for specialized equipment, financial investment for machinery, and technology upgrades [7]. Organic fertilization and optimized wheeling timing are third and fourth, affecting 22% and 21% of farmers, respectively. Organic fertilization faces challenges with technology for composting and nitrogen balancing [62], while optimized wheeling timing is hindered by insufficient technical knowledge and suitable machinery [24]. Keeping soil covered ranks fifth, with 16% of farmers encountering technology barriers related to accessing organic mulch, cover crop selection, and climate adaptation, requiring costly technologies like remote sensing [21]. Structural landscape elements and diversified crop rotation face minimal technology barriers (under 5%) due to their simplicity and adaptability, reducing reliance on technical support [68].

In conventional farming, technology barriers are significant. Forty-eight percent of farmers cite these as the primary obstacle to implementing conservation tillage, due to the need for specialized, compatible equipment [5]. Reduced weight pressure and optimized wheeling timing are also impacted, with 25% and 23% of farmers facing challenges related to specialized equipment that requires frequent maintenance and adjustments for varying field conditions [24, 25]. Optimized wheeling timing further struggles with inadequate technology for accurate soil moisture measurement [50].

Additionally, 21% of conventional farmers face technology barriers with organic fertilization, while 16% encounter difficulties with soil coverage. These challenges stem from the need for adjustments in equipment and practices, including crop rotations and composting infrastructure [58]. In contrast, implementing structural landscape elements (7%) and diversified crop rotation (2%) face fewer technology barriers due to their adaptability and simplicity, which reduce the need for advanced equipment [23]. In organic farming, technology barriers are most significant for reduced weight pressure (47% of farmers) and conservation tillage (33%). These barriers include limited access to specialized machinery and soil health assessment tools [69]. Organic fertilization ranks third, with 27% of farmers facing challenges due to the need for equipment that ensures even distribution of organic fertilizers.

Keeping soil covered and optimizing wheeling time both rank fourth, each affecting 13% of farmers. Technology barriers for keeping soil covered involve limited access to tools for effective cover crop management [21]. For optimizing wheeling time, barriers include insufficient technology for precise soil condition assessment and moisture measurement [60]. Notably, organic farmers face no technology barriers with diversified crop rotation and structural landscape elements, as these practices rely on familiar techniques and readily available materials [20, 70].

Up to this point, we have comprehensively explored and elucidated the farmers' contributions to soil management practices and the challenges they encounter in implementing them in both conventional and organic farming systems. However, to identify the most effective measure that accounts for differences in the likelihood of adopting soil management practices and barriers between the two systems, we should compare ranked measures (the highest and lowest) within conventional and organic farms.

Conventional farmers rate reduced weight pressure as the most practical soil management practice due to its compatibility with existing methods. In contrast, optimized wheeling time and structural landscape elements receive lower ratings because they require changes to conventional practices and specialized equipment [14]. For organic farmers, keeping soil covered is rated highest for reasonability, as it supports their focus on soil health and sustainability [54]. Conversely, conservation tillage is rated lower due to its need for specialized machinery [52].

Economic barriers are more pronounced in conventional farms when implementing diversified crop rotation compared to conservation tillage. Diversified crop rotation involves additional labor, resources, and potential equipment modifications, leading to increased costs that may deter some farmers [51]. On the other hand, conservation tillage, with its focus on reducing soil disturbance, may require fewer changes in crop choices and rotations, resulting in relatively fewer economic barriers. Conversely, for organic farmers, economic barriers pose the greatest barrier in implementing structural landscape elements due to the investments in materials and labor without immediate economic returns [61]. However, practices that heavily rely on machinery, such as conservation tillage, reduced weight pressure, and optimized wheeling time, encounter fewer economic barriers in organic farms. These practices offer cost-saving benefits by reducing mineral inputs and promoting soil health, aligning with organic farming principles [46].

Knowledge is identified as a remarkable barrier in implementing keep soil covered in both conventional and organic farming systems because this practice requires farmers to have a deep understanding of cover cropping, mulching, and other techniques to maintain continuous soil cover [6]. However, this knowledge barrier is not considered a major barrier in implementing reduced weight pressure in conventional farms or conservation tillage in organic farms. In reduced weight pressure, conventional farmers may already have familiarity with the concept of minimizing soil compaction and implementing it might not demand extensive additional knowledge [5]. Similarly, organic farmers are often well-versed in conservation tillage principles and techniques as they align with their ecological sustainability focus, resulting in less emphasis on knowledge as a major barrier [71]. On the other hand, farmers from both conventional and organic systems face notable technology barriers when implementing conservation tillage and reduced weight pressure practices due to the need for specialized equipment and machinery, which may be unavailable or costly [68].

Conservation tillage requires specific implements for minimal soil disturbance, while reduced weight pressure demands low-pressure tires or tracks [53]. Both practices involve technological investments and may require farmers to modify existing equipment or purchase new machinery, leading to technology-related challenges [72]. However, in the case of implementing diversified crop rotation, conventional farmers encounter fewer technology barriers, while organic farmers face none. Diversified crop rotation is a well-established practice that does not require specialized technologies, making it more accessible for conventional farmers [57]. For organic farmers, who prioritize soil health and sustainability, diversified crop rotation aligns with their principles and does not demand advanced technology, resulting in the absence of technology barriers [70].

3.4 Synthesis of differences in perceptions towards sustainable soil management practices between conventional and organic farming systems

The results for Firth's logit model are shown in Table 4. The penalized log-likelihood ratio was obtained -35.19 and the Wald-square statistic [73] for the goodness of fit of the model is 10.36, significant at 5% level. Thus, according to the result in Table 4, the overall model here is significant and a good fit. The estimated model includes one dependent variable (Y) and 4 independent variables. Table 4 indicated that reduce weight pressure: technology barrier and reasonability of optimize timing of wheeling had negatively impacted on probability of a farmer managing a conventional farming system or a positive impact on them managing an organic farming system. The result also revealed that the probability of being a conventional farming system is increased if diversify crop rotation: economic barrier and reasonability of conservation tillage increase.

Table 4 Firth logit regression
Full size table

To analyze the impact of barriers on farmers' adoption of soil improving management practices in conventional and organic farming systems, a set of states has been defined (Table 5). Each state represents specific conditions that influence the probability of being a conventional farming system. The marginal effect (Table 5, column 9) of each variable can be assessed by comparing the differences in probability between states. The eighth column provides a reference for the number of states to compare. The following description focuses on the first five states.

Table 5 Marginal effect of key soil management practices with differential preferences among conventional and organic farmers
Full size table

In the first state (basic state), where all barriers are set to zero (state 1 in Table 5), the probability of a farm being conventional is 81% with a predicted value of 1.47. In the second state, where reduce weight pressure: technology barrier is set to one and the rest are zero, the probability of a farm being conventional decreases by 49%, indicating a marginal effect of 32% for reduce weight pressure: technology barrier. This suggests that perceiving technology as a barrier increases the likelihood of adopting organic farming practices. In the third state, where only diversify crop rotation: economic barrier is set to one, the probability of a farm being conventional is 95% with a marginal effect of 14%. This indicates that economic constraints can discourage diversification of crop rotation in conventional systems. In the fourth state, where reasonability of conservation tillage is set to one, the probability of a farm being conventional increases to 98% with a marginal effect of 16% which means that conservation tillage is more feasible and economically beneficial in conventional farming system. In the fifth state, where reasonability of optimize timing of wheeling is set to one, the probability of a farm being conventional decreases to 21% with a marginal effect of 60%. This shows that valuing the avoidance of soil compaction is more common among organic farmers due to their limited options for dealing with the consequences of soil compaction.

4 Discussion

In this section, we compare our study's results with existing research, enriching our understanding of the Barriers of adopting sustainable soil management practices for organic and conventional farming systems. Indeed, recognizing similarities and limitations not only validates our findings but also underscores broader implications within the current scientific knowledge base.

Our findings align with previous research: 89% of farmers in our study practice arable farming, consistent with [40], and 58% engage in grassland farming, as noted by [41]. Our survey also reflects the emphasis on sustainable practices in organic arable farming highlighted by [12], with organic farmers showing a lower preference for permanent crops. Furthermore, our results support [42]’s observation that both conventional and organic systems often encompass multiple farm types.

Our study confirms the findings of [42], showing that conventional farms are more likely to focus on arable farming, while organic farms emphasize livestock and grassland. This aligns with previous research on farm type distribution and practice preferences. Additionally, our results are consistent with studies such as [15, 46,47,48,49], which highlight the effectiveness of practices like reduced weight pressure, diversified crop rotation, organic fertilization, conservation tillage, and keeping soil covered. Over 80% of surveyed farmers rated these practices as highly reasonable, reflecting their benefits in erosion control, nutrient cycling, organic matter improvement, soil compaction reduction, and enhanced crop yields. However, as noted by [11], the perceived reasonability of these practices varies between conventional and organic farmers, with conventional farmers particularly endorsing reduced weight pressure, diversified crop rotation, and conservation tillage, consistent with [12,13,14, 50,51,52].

Our findings align with [6], showing that the preference for keeping soil covered reflects its recognized benefits. Conventional farmers' lower acceptance of optimized wheeling timing and structural landscape elements corroborates the challenges identified by [53]. Organic farmers, in contrast, widely support keeping soil covered and also endorse practices like organic fertilization, diversified crop rotation, optimized wheeling timing, and structural landscape elements, consistent with [46, 51, 55, 56]. These results underscore the alignment of our survey with established literature on the reasonability of soil management practices in both conventional and organic farming. Additionally, our results on economic barriers reinforce existing research, highlighting the challenges faced by farmers.

Key practices such as diversified crop rotation, structural landscape elements, and reduced weight pressure resonate with findings from [23, 57], revealing that over 50% of farmers encounter economic challenges. Barriers to organic fertilization and soil coverage (ranked fourth and fifth) align with insights from [6, 58, 59], citing issues such as opportunity costs and initial investments.

Our results also further indicate lower economic barriers for optimized wheeling timing and conservation tillage, consistent with findings from [46, 60]. Economic challenges in both conventional and organic farms mirror findings from various studies, establishing a comprehensive agreement between the results of this study and existing literature on farmers' economic hurdles in implementing specific soil management practices.

Our findings coincide with the current body of literature addressing knowledge barriers to soil management practices, shedding light on the difficulties encountered by farmers in this domain. The top concern, keeping soil covered, resonates with [63] findings, highlighting the lack of awareness and education hindering farmers' access to crucial information. Optimizing wheeling timing and diversified crop rotation rank next in knowledge barriers, reflecting challenges outlined by [7, 64], including soil compaction awareness, adapting to variable weather, crop selection, adaptation to local conditions, and limited access to diverse crop seeds. Organic fertilization and structural landscape elements face moderate knowledge barriers, aligning with requirements highlighted by [61, 65]. Conservation tillage and reduced weight pressure encounter fewer knowledge barriers, consistent with their simplicity, widespread adoption, and minimal technical knowledge requirements, as suggested by [52, 66]. In conventional farming, knowledge barriers align with challenges identified by [6, 20, 47, 51, 66, 67]. Within organic farming, knowledge barriers for soil cover practices correspond with challenges presented by [49]. Conservation tillage's low knowledge barriers align with its organic farming principles, noted by [5]. Knowledge barriers for optimizing wheeling timing, diversified crop rotation, organic fertilization, and reduced weight pressure are in line with insights from [14, 47, 51, 65]. The comprehensive agreement between our results and existing literature underscores persistent challenges related to knowledge barriers in adopting specific soil management practices across both conventional and organic farming contexts.

The results regarding technology barriers reveal that conservation tillage and reduced weight pressure are identified as major concerns, consistent with challenges noted by [47]. Organic fertilization and optimized wheeling timing, as highlighted by [24, 62] also face technology barriers, reflecting the demand for advanced technology. Our study aligns with these findings. Keeping soil covered encounters technology barriers for 16% of farmers, in accordance with [21], who emphasize the need for costly technologies. Structural landscape elements and diversified crop rotation face minimal technology barriers (below 5%), aligning with studies by [23, 68]. In conventional farming, technology barriers in practices like conservation tillage and reduced weight pressure align with [5, 25]. Among organic farmers, technology barriers for practices such as reduced weight pressure, conservation tillage, and organic fertilization resonate with [21, 60, 69]. Additionally, [20, 70] note that diversified crop rotation and structural landscape elements face no technology barriers, emphasizing their simplicity and adaptability a finding consistent with our study.

This study has several limitations. The inclusion of qualitative data on demographics and socio-economic factors, while enriching the analysis, introduces complexities in data collection and interpretation. This mixed-method approach may add subjectivity and variability to the results. Additionally, assuming uniformity within conventional and organic farming systems may oversimplify the diverse attitudes and responses of farmers, particularly in relation to policy reforms like the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Recent influences, such as soil and energy topics, which are beyond the study's scope, may also affect farmers' preferences and practices.

The study's sample size is another limitation. A larger sample, especially of organic farmers, could provide more robust results. The focus on Germany limits the generalizability of findings to other countries with different cultural, economic, and policy contexts. Furthermore, the lack of longitudinal data restricts the ability to observe long-term trends and causal relationships. Future research should include comparative studies across different countries and explore the impact of emerging agricultural technologies. Investigating social and cultural factors, and developing solutions for small-scale farms, are also important for advancing sustainable soil management globally.

5 Conclusions

The Logit model, using Firth's Penalized Maximum Likelihood estimation, revealed that the perceived reasonability of optimizing wheeling time, technological barriers in reducing weight pressure, economic barriers in crop rotation, and the perceived reasonability of conservation tillage were the most effective factors affecting perceived barriers between the two farming systems. However, the assessment of marginal effects showed that the economic barrier in crop rotation and the reasonability of conservation tillage had a greater impact on the probability of adopting an organic farming system compared to the reasonability of optimizing wheeling time and technological barriers in reducing weight pressure.

To promote sustainable practices, it is crucial to address economic barriers, enhance financial support and incentives, and expand knowledge in both conventional and organic farming systems. Effective policies, including financial assistance, research and extension services, training and education, technical support, market incentives, and labelling programs, are vital for supporting the adoption of sustainable soil management practices. Providing targeted incentives, facilitating knowledge transfer, and offering practical assistance can empower farmers to overcome barriers, adopt sustainable practices, and ultimately enhance soil health and farm performance in both farming systems.