Understanding the Potential to Increase Adoption of Orphan Crops: The Case of Lathyrus spp. Cultivation in Greece

Abstract

Little progress has been made in translating the increased awareness of neglected and underutilized crops into a viable tool for advancing not just sustainable development in rural areas but also sustainable agricultural and secured food systems. This is caused, in part, by a lack of understanding the importance of several underutilized crops that are currently in cultivation. Among underutilized crops, grasspea (Lathyrus sativus) is an orphan legume crop with great agronomic potential due to its suitability for a variety of sustainable food and feed production systems throughout the world’s semi-arid and arid regions and its high protein content. The current study presents a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis to unravel the following: What are the strengths and weaknesses of Lathyrus spp. cultivation, what factors are opportunities or initiatives that encourage the adoption of the crop by growers, and what factors are disincentives or threats that prevent its adoption? What strategies could help expand cultivation? We use data from a questionnaire survey of farmers in Central Greece (Thessaly) to examine their attitudes and perceptions with regards to the above questions. The outcome of this study strongly suggests that farmers are willing to adopt the new Lathyrus spp. cultivation if they are assisted via contractualization, training, and new financial tools.

1. Introduction

To mitigate the problems that threaten global food security and the sustainability of agricultural production resulting from a changing climate, a growing world population, and a decrease in arable land, the interest of the research community is directed toward the recording, utilization, and improvement of the so-called underutilized/orphan crops [1]. Orphan crops—also known as minor crops, or ‘poor man’s crops’—include cereals and pseudo-cereals such as finger millet (Eleusine coracana), tef (Eragrostis tef), buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum), legumes, bambara groundnut, (Vigna subterranean), grass pea (Lathyrus sativus), rice bean (Vigna umbellata), horse gram (Macrotyloma uniflorum), leafy vegetable, (Gynandropsis gynandra), and Cinderella species [2]. Over the last 50 years, various definitions have been used to describe the concept of use, value, and potential of these crops [3]. Many orphan crops have high nutritional values that can contribute to food security and combat micronutrient deficiencies [4]. Despite their enormous potential, however, some of them have been lost or replaced by others due to stagnant productivity, antinutritional factors harmful to human health, or socio-economic factors [5]. Scientific studies since 2004 have found that the reasons for the underutilization of orphan crops include their limited economic importance in world markets and the complexity of their genomes [6,7].

Nevertheless, nowadays these crops require special attention, as some of them are better adapted to harsh soil and climate conditions and environments that are challenging for high-yielding varieties of cereal crops such as maize, rice, and wheat. Therefore, their improvement can increase their productivity and nutritional value [8]. Indicative of their contribution in relation to climate variability was the establishment of the African Orphan Crops Consortium (AOCC) in 2011 of the Crops for the Future (CFF) research center based in Malaysia, with the aim of research focused on upgrading livelihoods and food security, especially in poor societies (www.cropbase.org) (accessed on 19 October 2023) [8,9].

Legumes constitute an important category of orphan crops that has been found to significantly enhance human health and sustainable food production [10]. Cullis and Kunert in 2017 pointed out the significant potential of orphan legumes for food security and consumer nutrition; as a source of income for poor farmers; and as genetic resources that harbor important traits for crop improvement so as to address stresses caused by climate change [11].

Among orphan legumes, lathyrus (Lathyrus sativus) serves as a “typical orphan legume crop” or “poor man’s insurance crop” [12]. The genus Lathyrus is characterized by great genetic diversity in morphological traits, yield traits, flowering and ripening time intervals, and nutritional quality traits [13,14,15,16]. L. sativus is a favorable alternative to existing crops when it comes to facing increasing stress pressures from rainfall variability, temperature increase, water deficit, and the spread of pest and disease epidemics, due to its important characteristics of resistance and adaptability to abiotic-biotic stresses as well as its minimum input requirements [17,18]. Regarding nutritional value, L. sativus is a crop rich in sustainable protein sources, carbohydrates, and minerals [19], with antioxidant activity due to phenolic substances in the seed [20]. Its proteins are abundant, relatively low-cost, not particularly allergenic, and widely accepted [21]. It provides a balanced amino acid diet for poor people when combined with cereals [22]. It is also classified as a “Functional Food” as it contains a non-protein amino acid, L-homoarginine, that has been found to have benefits in treating cardiovascular disease and controlling hypertension [23,24].

Due to its attractive agronomic properties and multiple potential uses, lathyrus may be an alternative crop in a sustainable low-input production model using local genetic resources. In addition, it can support production systems resilient to climate change and sustainable agriculture, leading to high-quality products that can cover the emerging needs and requirements of consumers. However, it remains an underutilized crop and it is interesting to show the reasons behind this fact.

In Greece, three species of Lathyrus spp. are cultivated: L. sativus (grass pea), Lathyrus clymenum (Spanish vetchling), and Lathyrus ochrus (Cyprus vetch). Therefore, in the present study, we use the name of the genus lathyrus to include these three cultivated species. This study is an extended analysis of the internal and external environment of lathyrus production in Greece. A questionnaire survey was utilized where farmers were asked about their attitudes and opinions with regards to the internal (producers’ preferences, exploitation characteristics, etc.) and external environment (politics, economic environment, etc.) of Lathyrus spp. cultivation. Data were gathered from selected producers in Thessaly, Central Greece, a region in Greece with the most acres under cultivation. A comprehensive SWOT analysis was used to identify strategies that may promote the expansion of Lathyrus cultivation in Greece. To our knowledge, this is the first study that analyzes the internal and external environment of Lathyrus cultivation.

2. Materials and Methods

Research Area and Methodology

The study area was the Region of Thessaly, situated in the central part of Greece (Figure 1). Its area is estimated at 14,037 km², half of which is categorized as lowland while the other half is mountainous and semi-mountainous. Thessaly is the most important areas agricultural area in Greece.

The total cultivated area for pulses was 30.100 ha in 2021. Moreover, the total cultivated area with lathyrus for the years 2015–2021 in Greece is illustrated in Figure 2. This period coincides with the beginning of direct income support (coupled payments) for legumes through Pillar I of the Common Agricultural Policy. In 2015, production in Thessaly was very low, while the main centers of lathyrus production were the Aegean islands and Peloponnese, where many Lathyrus species are traditional and their products are certified with a Protected Geographic Indication (PGI), such as Feneos Plateau lathyrus (L. sativus), or Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), such as Santorini Island fava (L. clymenum). However, after 2015 the acreage of Lathyrus species in Thessaly increased significantly, reaching 857.6 ha in 2021, being the fourth most popular pulse after bean, lentil, and chickpea. The main cultivated variety is Maleme-107 with b-OPAD content within the permissible limits.

The sample included 177 randomly selected producers from the Regional Units of Karditsa and Larissa. The survey was conducted from June to August 2022, through a specially designed questionnaire. It consisted of two sections dealing with (a) demographic and farm-related data and (b) questions purely related to Lathyrus species cultivation. The latter questions were structured as multi-thematic variables, each of which included items related to (i) the strong features of lathyrus cultivation, (ii) the weak features of lathyrus (internal environment), (iii) the opportunities for lathyrus cultivation and (iv) threats to the expansion of lathyrus production (external environment). Additionally, one more multi-thematic variable was added investigating farmers’ opinions and preferences regarding appropriate strategies to increase lathyrus cultivation. Farmers were asked to respond using a five-point “Likert-type” scale.

The methodological framework of the analysis was comprised of three steps. The first involved a descriptive statistics analysis (Descriptive analysis) for all multi-thematic variables (means and standard deviations), to detect notable trends in the opinions and attitudes of farmers. In the second step, a Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CatPCA) was employed for each one of the groups of variables included in the questionnaire, i.e., for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats for lathyrus cultivation as well as for Policies to increase lathyrus cultivation (five groups of variables in total). Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a transformation technique by means of which a set of complex relationships can be reduced to a simple normal form. Such an integrated criterion is obtained by transforming the observed original correlated variables into new uncorrelated ones, which account for as much of the variance as possible in descending order [27,28]. CatPCA was chosen specifically because of the nature of the variables (categorical variables based on a 5-point Likert scale). The statistical package SPSS 24 was used for the statistical processing of the data [29].

In this study, the uncorrelated components that emerged from a set of 41 variables were the new variables, from which conclusions were drawn, without losing valuable information. In the third step, these new variables were used in a SWOT analysis of lathyrus cultivation. SWOT analysis is a method used to evaluate the ‘strengths’, ‘weaknesses’, ‘opportunities’, and ‘threats’ involved in an organization, plan, project, person, or business activity, in which the management team identifies the internal and external factors that affect company and business performance [30]. In this application, the SWOT analysis was chosen to provide an integrated overview of the opinions and attitudes of farmers and to consolidate the findings of the quantitative analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

From the demographic data of the study, it is evident that eighty-eight percent of producers were men, with an age distribution as follows: 30% were 31–44 years old, 53.5% were 45–64 years, 11% were over 65 years old, and 5.5% were under 30 years old. Thirteen percent of producers had completed primary school, 60% had completed secondary school, 18% had completed high school, and the remaining 9% were university graduates. Sixty-nine percent of the crops were grown on flatland while the rest were grown in mountainous or semi-mountainous areas. Finally, 72.3% of the producers did not know about lathyrus cultivation, although all farmers knew the species.

3.1. Categorical Principal Component Analysis

Supplementary Table S1 presents the results of the CatPCA. It shows a frequency analysis of items included in each one of the principal components identified through the CatPCA. These components reflect the attitudes of respondents towards the Strengths and Weaknesses of lathyrus cultivation as well as the Opportunities and Threats for lathyrus cultivation from the external environment, including the strategies that could support its expansion. The identified Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Strengths of Lathyrus Cultivation

Regarding the internal environment and the “Strengths of lathyrus cultivation”, the nine (9) initial variables were categorized into three (3) main components/dimensions (illustrated in Figure 3), explaining 89.6% of the total variance with very high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.985). The loadings for each component are shown in Supplementary Table S1.

The first component described 43.3% of the total variance and included four variables with very high positive loadings and Cronbach’s α = 0.903. These variables describe the significant versatility of lathyrus consumption, as it is rich in protein and suitable for human consumption as well as animal feed. They also describe economic sustainability—with consistent yields from year to year—as well as environmental sustainability—because integrating horticulture into mixed cropping systems may benefit crops that demand a lot of input while also supplying essential nutrients. Due to the nature of these variables, the dimension (D1.1) was named “Efficiency—Versatility and Sustainability”.

The second component, explaining 34.4% of the total variance, included 4 variables with high loadings and Cronbach’s α = 0.884. This dimension (D1.2) was named “Resilience and Autonomy”, as the variables with high loadings described the resilience of lathyrus to abiotic and biotic stresses, as well as its contribution to dietary autonomy and achieving local self-sufficiency using local varieties (seed preservation), without additional requirements for specialized equipment.

The third component (D1.3), explaining 11.8% of the total variance, included only the variable “Utilization of Degraded Soils” (Cronbach’s α = 0.616). Therefore, it was named accordingly. This variable concerned the possibility for cultivation of lathyrus in marginal and degraded lands with reduced soil fertility, which are unsuitable for other crops.

Figure 3 illustrates farmers’ attitudes regarding the strengths of lathyrus cultivation per component. The high protein content of lathyrus and its multiple uses—such as animal feed or as a crop used in rotation with other crops—were evaluated positively or very positively by about 70% of the farmers. The producers, considering that they also cultivate cereals, believe that adding a protein-rich multipurpose crop will contribute to food security. This is in line with other studies that recognize the role that legumes can play in food security and sustainable agriculture [31,32,33,34].

The resistance of lathyrus to abiotic stresses, specifically drought stress, was evaluated positively by more than 70% of farmers, which was expected given that in the study area there is an apparent decrease in the availability of water resources but also a notable degradation of the quality of irrigation water [35,36]. The resilience of lathyrus to biotic stresses was also evaluated positively, considering the increase in fertilizer and pesticide costs and the general trend of encouraging the rationalization of input use in arable crops. Indeed, a technical and economic analysis of farms cultivating legumes and cereals in Northern Greece demonstrated that improving the efficiency of operations requires a reduction of inputs by 48%, along with a rational and effective utilization of resources [37], and a crop with the characteristics of lathyrus could play an important role in the transition towards more sustainable patterns.

Another important element was the contribution of lathyrus to food autonomy. Specific characteristics, such as the ability to store seeds for the following growing season and the utilization of equipment which is already available in farms, were evaluated positively by more than two thirds of the respondents. They also expressed a particular interest in local varieties of lathyrus, in the context of conserving and preserving valuable plant genetic material. This finding aligns with Raggi et al., who indicated that farmers were the ones primarily responsible for managing, using, and conserving the diversity of local varieties [38]. Furthermore, through an extensive study conducted by Bebeli et al., in 2020 at the Lemnos island (Aegean sea), it was demonstrated that the willingness of producers to collaborate with local and scientific entities resulted in the promotion and more widespread utilization of the genetic resources of the island [39] (data produced for the Terra Lemnia project [26]).

The potential utilization of degraded soils for the cultivation of lathyrus was recognized positively by 45% of the producers (positively-very positively), while approximately 35% were indifferent. The intensification of cultivation techniques for two main crops (cotton and cereals, occupying 70% of cultivable areas), over-extraction of surface waters, nitrate pollution, prolonged dry and hot conditions, and overgrazing are considered significant issues for the Thessaly region. Soil salinity is a major cause of degradation and desertification, while in hilly areas with slopes and mountain foothills, erosion is the primary threat [40]. Many researchers agree that lathyrus is suitable for degraded soils, contributing to their improvement and restoration, either as an independent crop or in intercropping systems or as a cover crop [17,41,42,43,44,45].

3.3. Weaknesses of Lathyrus Cultivation

Regarding the internal environment and the “Weaknesses of lathyrus Cultivation” the analysis revealed that the eight (8) initial variables formed three (3) main components/dimensions (illustrated in Figure 4), explaining 80.2% of the total variability with a high level of reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.965). The loadings for each component are shown in Supplementary Table S1.

Specifically, the first component accounted for 40% of the total variance and included 4 variables with high positive loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.834). These variables related to the lack of knowledge about lathyrus—either regarding the crop itself or regarding the suitable cultivation techniques—and the preference of farmers to cultivate other crops which are more familiar to them. Due to the nature of these variables, the component (D2.1) was named “Lack of Knowledge and Competitiveness”.

The second component (D2.2) accounted for 26.3% of the total variance and included 3 variables with high loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.762), which described the uncertainty of producers about the quality, price, and availability of the product since there is no demand from local livestock farmers. This dimension was thus named “Uncertainty”.

The third component (D2.3) accounted for 13.9% of the total variance and only included the variable “Difficulty in Harvesting“ (Cronbach’s α = 0.429). The dimension was thus named the same and reflected producers’ concerns about the correct harvesting period.

The outputs of the PCA per item are presented in Figure 4, thus revealing the attitudes of respondents with regards to each specific weakness identified within the survey. The identified knowledge gap of producers regarding the cultivation of lathyrus, seems to be a non-deterrent factor for 55% of them (“not at all” or “slightly”) when considering including lathyrus in their cropping pattern. Additionally, only 25% of them (very much—quite a lot) considered competition with other crops as a weakness. This is because lathyrus serves a distinct function, they have arable land that is available, and they are eager to try out novel farming techniques. In a study by Zimmer et al., in 2016, it became apparent that Luxembourg farmers, when asked a similar question, unlike Greek producers, consider the lack of knowledge as the main deterrent factor for their involvement in cultivating forage legumes [46]. Reckling et al., in 2016, concluded that the expansion of legumes could lead to competitive cropping systems with positive environmental effects, provided that farmers receive advisory support on new management strategies [47]. This highlights the importance of a well-functioning Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) that will guide farmers during the adoption process and will provide information, knowledge, and advisory support.

According to the results, about 60% of producers were not influenced by the choices of other producers in the region and made independent decisions about their production (not at all—slightly). The impact of the “neighbor farmer” was studied in 2019 by Villamayor-Tomase et al., regarding the willingness to accept agri-environmental programs among Spanish, German, and Swiss farmers. The study showed that the influence of the “neighbor” was effective only among Swiss farmers [48]. In a Greek study, Koutsou et al., in 2014 found that farmers trusted their peers—especially family members—more than institutions and that they made independent decisions based on their knowledge and personal beliefs [49].

The uncertainty among producers due to lack of demand from local livestock farmers and volatile prices was considered a weakness for about 30–35% of respondents (very much—quite a lot). Essentially, research agrees that within the context of a balanced diet, lathyrus does not cause harm to humans and animals [50,51,52]. As a result of discussions with the producers, the issue of demand and pricing of the product is influenced by the lack of support and information about the possibilities of utilizing domestically produced products.

The primary weakness of lathyrus for producers (more than 50% expressed their concern) was the harvesting stage of cultivation. This result aligns with the conclusions of Zimmer et al., in 2016, who also found that harvesting was a major issue for legume cultivation in general [46]. Harvesting of lathyrus is done either manually or with combine harvesters after special adjustments. The timing and method depend on the purpose of cultivation (fruit-bearing, forage). In the case of manual harvesting, plants are cut near the ground with sickles, left in the field for drying, and then threshed. This process increases costs as it requires additional labor [53]. In the case of mechanical harvesting, inadequate adjustment of the combine harvester results in yield losses. The timing of the harvesting process is particularly crucial, especially for varieties with small seeds, as the seed pods can shatter, leading to fragmentation of the seeds within. Early harvesting can prevent seed shattering and loss [54].

3.4. Opportunities for Lathyrus Cultivation

Regarding the external environment and the “Opportunities for lathyrus cultivation”, the analysis showed that the eight (8) initial variables were categorized into three (3) main components/dimensions (presented in Figure 5), explaining 82.9% of the total variability (Cronbach’s α = 0.971). The loadings for each component are shown in Supplementary Table S1.

The first component explains 37% of the total variance and includes 4 variables with high positive loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.861). These variables describe the prospects of Lathyrus to replace soybean, given its high protein composition, the availability of advisory support for farmers, as well as the possibility for distribution and marketing of the lathyrus through cooperatives and producer groups. This component (D3.1) was therefore named “Value Chains and Advisory Support”.

The second component explained 24.4% of the total variance and includes 2 variables with high loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.838). These variables refer to increased production costs due to higher inputs and the contribution of lathyrus in mitigating the effects of climate change. This dimension (D3.2) was named “Economic and Environmental Sustainability”.

The third component explained 21.5% of the total variance and included 2 variables with high loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.761). This component (D3.3) was named “Availability of Inputs” because these two variables referred to the availability of inputs for lathyrus cultivation as well as problems with the ongoing increase in the cost of irrigation water.

The analysis of responses (Figure 5) showed that respondents agreed that lathyrus can be an effective alternative for soybean cultivation as an option for increasing plant-based protein. This finding aligns with the new dietary guidelines (UN 2015, SDGs), which increasingly consider food security and the sustainability of food systems, supporting a transition towards diets primarily based on plant protein products [55]. In addition, in a study comparing soybean meal and locally produced legume meal for dairy cow feed, locally produced legume meal was identified as an opportunity to reduce dependence on soybean imports [56].

The finding that the availability of advisory support is necessary and would enhance the potential for lathyrus cultivation is quite common in other studies. A comprehensive discussion is conducted concerning the reciprocal relationship between social capital and cooperatives, as well as the challenges and opportunities of globalization in the development of cooperatives [57,58]. Although farmers’ trust in cooperatives is generally low in Greece [49], resent research shows that, despite their internal challenges and members’ diversity of behavior and choices, agricultural cooperatives in Greece have proven to be sustainable as they have invested in innovation, knowledge, environmental protection, development, and trade [59,60,61]. Survey participants showed a supportive opinion about the local Agricultural Cooperative of Cattle and Sheep Farmers and believed that the distribution and marketing of lathyrus through cooperatives or producer groups would contribute to secure their income [62]. In other countries, such perceptions are different. For example, Ajates in 2020 reported that farmers, despite feeling disillusioned by their loss of power as members in cooperatives, could not continue farming without their support [63].

Sustainability benefits of lathyrus cultivation—including mitigation of climate variability effects—were acknowledged by most respondents (over 60%). In this context, the study of Faisal et al., in 2017, aimed at exploring the conditions for increasing cultivated areas of legumes due to their advantages [64]. It was shown that a combination of agro-economic practices led to an increase in rural income by 11–26% and a reduction in energy consumption by 4–8%. Moreover, a similar study by Goncalves et al. in 2022 also confirmed that lathyrus can be used as an exemplary cultivation in sustainable cropping systems as part of a comprehensive strategy to address the impacts of climate change [17]. Rizvi et al., in 2016, characterized lathyrus a “smart” climate-resilient crop capable of responding to abiotic stresses and being cultivated with minimal external inputs [44].

The finding that over 60% of respondents agree that low irrigation requirements of lathyrus combined with high autonomy in arid environments constitutes an opportunity due to expected increases in irrigation costs. Indeed, Gourgouletis, in 2020, reported that the cost of irrigation in the study area remains low because most of the irrigation water comes from private wells instead of collective irrigation networks (70–30% respectively, with about 30.000 private irrigation wells) [65]. However, the implementation of the pricing scheme described within Directive 2000/60/EC—which is based on the recovery of financial, environmental, and resource cost of irrigation water—would bring a significant increase in these costs, as current prices account for 45% of financial costs and 29% of total costs.

3.5. Threats for Lathyrus Cultivation

Regarding the “Threats for lathyrus cultivation”, the analysis revealed that the initial eight (8) variables could be grouped into three (3) main components/dimensions (Figure 6), explaining 81.7% of the total variability with very high reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.968). The loadings for each component are shown in Supplementary Table S1.

The first component explained 40.6% of the total variance and included 4 variables with high positive loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.850). These variables concerned the low recognizability of lathyrus products in the study area. Additionally, they discuss the difficulties brought on by growing land prices and rents as well as the lack of contractual farming, which forces people to choose alternate crops. Due to the nature of these variables, the component (D4.1) was named “Institutional Constraints and Recognizability”.

The second component explained 20.8% of the total variance with 2 variables with high loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.732). These variables described the skepticism regarding the product due to its content of the antinutritional factor β-ODAP, as well as the limited options for marketing, therefore the dimension (D4.2) was named “Market Constraints”.

The third component (D4.3), which explained 20.5% of the total variance (Cronbach’s α = 0.651), was named “Economic Viability”, as the two variables with high loadings accounted for concerns about income uncertainty and the prevailing orientation towards irrigated crops that are more profitable.

As shown in Figure 6, the absence of contractual farming and the increase in land value and rents are not considered severe threats by almost 45% of respondents. A study by Karalis in 2020 indicated that while 64% of Greek producers believe that the economic crisis contributed to a shift towards contractual farming, only 27% expressed satisfaction with the funding terms [66], because contractual farming may risk the loss of autonomy despite its advantages [67].

Regarding market restrictions, it is obvious that producers identify limited marketing options as the primary threat to the expansion of cultivation, rather than antinutritional factors (ODAP) (more than 45% compared to 30%, respectively). This aligns with the study by Lambein et al. in 2019, which suggests that an excessive focus on the antinutritional factors of Lathyrus spp. could lead to overlooking the plant’s extremely positive agronomic properties and nutritional advantages [68].

Economic viability, which encompasses income uncertainty and competition from more-profitable irrigated crops, is considered a threat by about 40% of respondents. A study regarding production organization and the perspective of legumes in the study area revealed producers’ concerns about product distribution and their preference for crops they are familiar with and that are subsidized, such as wheat and cotton. It was observed that distribution to large food chains or to wholesalers reduced the income of legume producers and this was exacerbated by the cheap import of low-quality raw materials [69].

In Table 1, the SWOT Analysis resulting from the data processing is illustrated.

3.6. Strategies to Promote Lathyrus Cultivation

Regarding the “Strategies for the expansion of lathyrus cultivation”, the analysis showed that the initial seven (7) variables formed three (3) main components/dimensions (Figure 7), explaining approximately 80% of the total variability (Cronbach’s α = 0.958). The loadings for each component are displayed in Supplementary Table S1.

The first component explained 36.5% of the total variance (Cronbach’s α = 0.827). The variables with high loadings described strategies focusing on informing producers and the public as well on encouraging the utilization of domestic varieties. The component was therefore named “Information”.

The second component explained 22.5% of the total variance and included 2 variables with high loadings (Cronbach’s α = 0.705). These variables described policies through coupled income support as well as new financial tools. This component was named “Financial Tools and Income Support”. The Agricultural Development Guarantee Fund (TEAA), which provides access to financing through loan guarantees, and the Agricultural Entrepreneurship Loan Fund (TaMIDAE), which makes it easier for farmers, livestock breeders, and agri-food businesses to access financing, could both provide financial support for lathyrus cultivation. Both innovative funding tools are part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2023–2027 (Ministry of Rural Development and Food, 2023). The funding sources include investments in agricultural operations (improvement projects) as well as investments in the processing and marketing of agricultural goods (LEADER).

The third component explained 20.9% of the total variance (Cronbach’s α = 0.747) and was named “Domestic Production and Education” as the variables which the highest loadings were related to the farmer education in the cultivation of lathyrus as well as to its utilization for livestock production based on locally produced feedstuff.

As anticipated, 100% of producers concurred that the growth of Lathyrus sp. cultivation should be implemented via a plan that takes into consideration the encouragement of domestic variety production and the use of new financial mechanisms. The strategy should also include educating growers about growing issues and educating customers about the worth of the finished product through advertising. The “Terra Lemnia” research project, which was successfully implemented on the Greek island of Lemnos and sought to preserve traditional cultural practices that shape landscapes of high ecological value, is an effective example of such a combined approach with diverse actions and initiatives.

As part of the European Green Deal, the CAP 2023–2027 of the EU continues the Agri-Environmental Schemes under the form of “eco-schemes”. The latter are voluntary and provide incentives to farmers to adopt or continue environmental-friendly practices. Farmers have the option to choose eco-schemes each year and receive the corresponding support if they fulfil the requirements. In the case of lathyrus, several of the eco-schemes introduced in the Strategic Plan of CAP 2023–2027 of Greece could be relevant, including (i) “Use of Resilient and Adapted Species and Varieties” (WP1-31.1), which involves “Low-input pulse crops, replacing water-intensive crops” and “Local varieties of annual crops and/or species and varieties adapted to local conditions for food or feed”; (ii) “Implementation of Improved Plant Cover Practices with Concurrent Biodiversity Enhancement” (WP1-31.3), which includes practices such as “sowing pulse crops to maintain or increase organic matter in the soil and reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers by partially covering the nutritional needs of the crop through green manure fertilization”; (iii) “Environmental Management of Livestock Systems” (WP1-31.7), which involves “developing sustainable forage systems in collaboration with a consultant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

4. Conclusions

The challenges regarding climate change and food security can be addressed through diversification of cropping patterns with the integration of underutilized crops such as lathyrus within sustainable farming systems. Lathyrus is underutilized due to limited knowledge of cultivation practices and socio-economic constraints. This paper demonstrates that producers recognize the potential of lathyrus, including its resilience to biotic-abiotic conditions, rich protein composition, versatility, seed preservation ability, and utilization in degraded soils. Weaknesses, however, are mostly related to the harvesting process, price fluctuations, and lack of knowledge about cultivation. Farmers see opportunities in lathyrus cultivation with regards to the modern trend of consuming plant-based proteins, while also ensuring economic and environmental sustainability. They believe that advisory support and promotion are essential, including farmers’ organization through cooperatives or producer groups. However, limited market options and income uncertainty remain significant threats. Strategies for the development and adaptation of lathyrus include the valorization of local varieties, new financing tools, contractualization, and training.

This study constitutes an initial effort to summarize factors and strategies to promote lathyrus cultivation. Nevertheless, the methodological approach can be of use also to increase understanding and design strategies for adopting many other orphan crops. In future research, farmers from other areas could be approached to understand how spatial differentiation can affect preferences and for the design of integrated strategies for lathyrus and for other underutilized crops. In addition, this work records the perceptions and preferences of farmers in a particular time. It would, therefore, be interesting to see how preferences evolve in the future with a similar survey in the area—or with participatory methods—to understand in more depth the dynamics that affect the mindset of farmers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization E.T., M.G. (Maria Goufa) and A.R.; methodology M.G. (Maria Goufa), E.T. and A.R.; data curation M.G. (Maria Goufa) and E.M.; data analysis M.G. (Maria Goufa) and A.R.; initial draft M.G. (Maria Goufa), M.G. (Maria Gerakari), E.S., E.T. and A.R.; comments and manuscript revision P.J.B., E.T., M.G. (Maria Gerakari), A.R., E.S., A.B. and M.G. (Maria Goufa); read and approved the final manuscript M.G. (Maria Goufa), E.T., A.R., A.B. and P.J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The data sets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Table

Generate image description

Figure 1. Region of Thessaly, Greece (https://commons.wikimedia.org/) (accessed on 19 October 2023) [25].

Generate image description

Figure 2. Total cultivated area of lathyrus in different parts of Greece (2015–2021) (ha). Source: Payment and Control Agency for Guidance and Guarantee Community Aid (OPEKEPE) (various years) [26].

Generate image description

Figure 3. Strengths of lathyrus cultivation per principal component (D1.1: “Efficiency, Versatility, and Sustainability”, D1.2: “Resilience and Autonomy”, D1.3: “Utilization of degraded soils”).

Generate image description

Figure 4. Weaknesses of lathyrus cultivation per Principal Component (D2.1: “Lack of Knowledge and Competitiveness”, D2.2: “Uncertainty”, D2.3: “Difficulty in harvesting”).

Generate image description

Figure 5. Opportunities for lathyrus cultivation per principal component (D3.1: “Value Chains and Advisory Support”, D3.2: “Economic and Environmental Sustainability”, D3.3: “Availability of Inputs”).

Generate image description

Figure 6. Threats for lathyrus cultivation per principal component (D4.1: “Institutional Constraints and Recognizability”, D4.2: “Market Constraints”, D4.3: “Economic Viability”).

Generate image description

Figure 7. D5.1: “Information”, D5.2: “Financial Tools and Income Support”, D5.3: “Domestic Production and Education”.

Table 1

SWOT Analysis for lathyrus cultivation in Thessaly, Greece.

S	W	O	T
Strengths	Weaknesses	Opportunities	Threats
Efficiency, Versatility, and Sustainability (43.35% of variance)	Lack of knowledge and Competitiveness(40.00% of variance)	Value chains and Advisory Support(37.00% of variance)	Institutional Constraints and Recognition(40.56% of variance)
Resilience and Autonomy(34.40% of variance)	Uncertainty(26.30% of variance)	Economic and Environmental Sustainability(24.42% of variance)	Market Constraints(20.74% of variance)
Utilization of degraded soils(11.84% of variance)	Difficulty in harvesting(13.90% of variance)	Availability of Inputs(21.52% of variance)	Economic viability(20.48% of variance)

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy14010108/s1, Table S1: PCA identified the frequency analysis of items included in each one of the principal components.

References

1. Tadele, Z. African orphan crops under abiotic stresses: Challenges and opportunities. Scientifica; 2018; 2018, 1451894. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2018/1451894] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29623231]

2. Tadele, Z.; Bartels, D. Promoting orphan crops research and development. Planta; 2019; 250, pp. 675-676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019-03235-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31280328]

3. Mabhaudhi, T.; Chimonyo, V.G.; Modi, A.T. Status of underutilised crops in South Africa: Opportunities for developing research capacity. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 1569. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9091569]

4. Arivalagan, M.; Prasad, T.; Bag, M. Role of underutilized crops for combating iron deficiency in Indian population. Curr. Sci.; 2012; 103, 137.

5. Gahukar, R. Potential of minor food crops and wild plants for nutritional security in the developing world. J. Agric. Food Inf.; 2014; 15, pp. 342-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496505.2014.952429]

6. Armstead, I.; Huang, L.; Ravagnani, A.; Robson, P.; Ougham, H. Bioinformatics in the orphan crops. Brief. Bioinform.; 2009; 10, pp. 645-653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbp036] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19734255]

7. Naylor, R.L.; Falcon, W.P.; Goodman, R.M.; Jahn, M.M.; Sengooba, T.; Tefera, H.; Nelson, R.J. Biotechnology in the developing world: A case for increased investments in orphan crops. Food Policy; 2004; 29, pp. 15-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.01.002]

8. Gregory, P.J.; Mayes, S.; Hui, C.H.; Jahanshiri, E.; Julkifle, A.; Kuppusamy, G.; Kuan, H.W.; Lin, T.X.; Massawe, F.; Suhairi, T. Crops For the Future (CFF): An overview of research efforts in the adoption of underutilised species. Planta; 2019; 250, pp. 979-988. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019-03179-2]

9. Hendre, P.S.; Muthemba, S.; Kariba, R.; Muchugi, A.; Fu, Y.; Chang, Y.; Song, B.; Liu, H.; Liu, M.; Liao, X. African Orphan Crops Consortium (AOCC): Status of developing genomic resources for African orphan crops. Planta; 2019; 250, pp. 989-1003. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-019-03156-9]

10. Foyer, C.H.; Lam, H.-M.; Nguyen, H.T.; Siddique, K.H.; Varshney, R.K.; Colmer, T.D.; Cowling, W.; Bramley, H.; Mori, T.A.; Hodgson, J.M. Neglecting legumes has compromised human health and sustainable food production. Nat. Plants; 2016; 2, 16112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.112]

11. Cullis, C.; Kunert, K.J. Unlocking the potential of orphan legumes. J. Exp. Bot.; 2017; 68, pp. 1895-1903. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw437] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28003311]

12. Tadesse, W. Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.): The hardy pulse crop. Faba Bean Information Service; International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas: Beirut, Lebanon, 1997.

13. Brezeanu, C.; Brezeanu, P.M.; Calara, M.; Ambăruş, S.; Cristea, T.O. The Role of Food Legume Species in the Context of Sustainable Agriculture, Food Security, Agrobiodiversity, Conservation and Human Health. Sci. Pap. Ser. B. Hortic.; 2021; 65, pp. 382-391.

14. Kumar Yadav, V.; Radhakrishna, A.; Mohan Das, M.; Singh, T.; Yadav, S.; Sharma, P.; Kumar Mishra, A.; Sarker, A. Deciphering Genetic Diversity in Grass Pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) Collections Using Agronomic and Forage Quality Traits and SSR Markers. J. Agric. Sci. Technol.; 2022; 24, pp. 1429-1442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.52547/jast.24.6.1429]

15. Polignano, G.; Uggenti, P.; Alba, V.; Bisignano, V.; Della Gatta, C. Morpho-agronomic diversity in grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Plant Genet. Resour.; 2005; 3, pp. 29-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/PGR200455]

16. Rahman, S.; Molla, M.; Nazim-ud-Dowla, M.; Rasul, M.; Mian, M. Assessment of Genetic Diversity in Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) Genotypes using morphological markers. Acad. J. Plant Sci.; 2010; 3, pp. 85-91.

17. Gonçalves, L.; Rubiales, D.; Bronze, M.R.; Vaz Patto, M.C. Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.)—A sustainable and resilient answer to climate challenges. Agronomy; 2022; 12, 1324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061324]

18. Dalila, B.; Laouar, M.; Leila, M.-H.; Harek, D. Drought tolerance in some populations of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Legume Res.-Int. J.; 2018; 41, pp. 12-19.

19. Moges, G.; Wodajo, N.; Gorton, L.; Yigzaw, Y.; Kalcher, K.; Belay, A.; Akalu, G.; Nair, B.M.; Solomon, T. Glutamate oxidase advances in the selective bioanalytical detection of the neurotoxic amino acid β-ODAP in grass pea: A decade of progress. Pure Appl. Chem.; 2004; 76, pp. 765-775. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1351/pac200476040765]

20. Rybiński, W.; Karamać, M.; Janiak, M.; Börner, A.; Płatosz, N.; Amarowicz, R. Antioxidant capacity of Lathyrus sativus seeds. J. Food Bioact.; 2020; 11, pp. 110-118. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31665/JFB.2020.11242]

21. Goldstein, N.; Reifen, R. The potential of legume-derived proteins in the food industry. Grain Oil Sci. Technol.; 2022; 5, pp. 167-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaost.2022.06.002]

22. Rajarammohan, S.; Kaur, L.; Verma, A.; Singh, D.; Mantri, S.; Roy, J.K.; Sharma, T.R.; Pareek, A.; Kandoth, P.K. Genome sequencing and assembly of Lathyrus sativus—A nutrient-rich hardy legume crop. Sci. Data; 2023; 10, 32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01903-4] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36650149]

23. Lambein, F.; Khan, J.K.; Kuo, Y.H.; Campbell, C.G.; Briggs, C.J. Toxins in the seedlings of some varieties of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus). Nat. Toxins; 1993; 1, pp. 246-249. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nt.2620010408] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8167942]

24. Sarma, P.; Padmanaban, G. Lathyrogens. Toxic Constituents of Plant Foodstuffs; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1969; pp. 267-291.

25. SilentResident, P.B. The Location of Thessaly within Greece. Available online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Location_map_of_Thessaly_(Greece).svg (accessed on 19 October 2023).

26. Available online: https://www.opekepe.gr/ (accessed on 19 October 2023).

27. Jolliffe, I.T. Principal component analysis: A beginner’s guide—I. Introduction and application. Weather; 1990; 45, pp. 375-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1990.tb05558.x]

28. Nieuwoudt, W. Interrelationships amongst efficiency measures: A note. J. Agric. Econ.; 1977; 28, pp. 77-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1977.tb00856.x]

29. SPSS. SPSS Categories 11.5. A Software Package; version 11.0 SPSS Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2002.

30. Gurl, E. SWOT Analysis: A Theoretical Review. 2017; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10673/792 (accessed on 8 December 2023).

31. Baldermann, S.; Blagojević, L.; Frede, K.; Klopsch, R.; Neugart, S.; Neumann, A.; Ngwene, B.; Norkeweit, J.; Schröter, D.; Schröter, A. Are neglected plants the food for the future?. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.; 2016; 35, pp. 106-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2016.1201399]

32. Das, A.; Ghosh, P. Role of legumes in sustainable agriculture and food security: An Indian perspective. Outlook Agric.; 2012; 41, pp. 279-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5367/oa.2012.0109]

33. Madsen, S.; Bezner Kerr, R.; Shumba, L.; Dakishoni, L. Agroecological practices of legume residue management and crop diversification for improved smallholder food security, dietary diversity and sustainable land use in Malawi. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst.; 2021; 45, pp. 197-224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2020.1811828]

34. Rani, K.; Sharma, P.; Kumar, S.; Wati, L.; Kumar, R.; Gurjar, D.S.; Kumar, D.; Kumar, R. Legumes for sustainable soil and crop management. Sustainable Management of Soil and Environment; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 193-215.

35. Dota, A.; Theodossiou, N. Water footprint–A new approach in water resources management. Application in the Prefecture of Karditsa. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Protection and Restoration of the Environment; Thessaloniki, Greece, 2–6 July 2012; pp. 184-194.

36. Efstratiadis, A.; Hadjibiros, K. Can an environment-friendly management policy improve the overall performance of an artificial lake? Analysis of a multipurpose dam in Greece. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2011; 14, pp. 1151-1162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.06.001]

37. Prentzas, A.; Nastis, S.A.; Moulogianni, C.; Kouriati, A. Technical and economic analysis of farms cultivating cereals and legumes: A Greek case study. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Manag. Inform.; 2022; 8, pp. 446-459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSAMI.2022.126804]

38. Raggi, L.; Caproni, L.; Negri, V. Landrace added value and accessibility in Europe: What a collection of case studies tells us. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2021; 30, pp. 1031-1048. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02130-w]

39. Bebeli, P.; Thanopoulos, R. The Plant Wealth of Lemnos Island—A Source of Prosperity for Local Society. MedINA Athens Greece; 2020; 81, 193.

40. Christakis, C. Multifunctional Landscape in the Thessaly Valley. Master’s Thesis; University of Thessaly: Volos, Greece, 2013.

41. Chettri, P.; Atta, K.; Pal, A. Comparative Physiology of Drought and Salinity Stress in Grass Pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) Seedlings. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Chang.; 2021; 11, pp. 111-119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2021/v11i630427]

42. Esfandiary Ekhlas, E.; Nael, M.; Hamzei, J. The effect of integrated management of conservation tillage and Lathyrus sativus cover cropping on Cucurbita pepo yield and selected soil quality indicators. Iran. J. Field Crops Res.; 2018; 16, pp. 421-434.

43. Petrova, S.D.; Chipilski, R.R. Agrobiological and physiological evaluation of the accessions of the Lathyrus sp. collection from the Genebank in Sadovo. Phytol. Balc.; 2020; 26, pp. 457-460.

44. Rizvi, A.H.; Sarker, A.; Dogra, A. Enhancing grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) production in problematic soils of South Asia for nutritional security. Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed.; 2016; 76, pp. 583-592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0975-6906.2016.00074.2]

45. Tokarz, B.; Wójtowicz, T.; Makowski, W.; Jędrzejczyk, R.J.; Tokarz, K.M. What is the difference between the response of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) to salinity and drought stress?—A physiological study. Agronomy; 2020; 10, 833. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10060833]

46. Zimmer, S.; Liebe, U.; Didier, J.-P.; Heß, J. Luxembourgish farmers’ lack of information about grain legume cultivation. Agron. Sustain. Dev.; 2016; 36, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0339-5]

47. Reckling, M.; Bergkvist, G.; Watson, C.A.; Stoddard, F.L.; Zander, P.M.; Walker, R.L.; Pristeri, A.; Toncea, I.; Bachinger, J. Trade-offs between economic and environmental impacts of introducing legumes into cropping systems. Front. Plant Sci.; 2016; 7, 669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00669]

48. Villamayor-Tomas, S.; Sagebiel, J.; Olschewski, R. Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe. Land Use Policy; 2019; 84, pp. 200-215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.006]

49. Koutsou, S.; Partalidou, M.; Ragkos, A. Young farmers’ social capital in Greece: Trust levels and collective actions. J. Rural Stud.; 2014; 34, pp. 204-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.02.002]

50. Getahun, H.; Lambein, F.; Vanhoorne, M.; Van der Stuyft, P. Food-aid cereals to reduce neurolathyrism related to grass-pea preparations during famine. Lancet; 2003; 362, pp. 1808-1810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14902-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14654321]

51. Lambein, F.; Kuo, Y.-H.; Ikegami, F.; Kusama-Eguchi, K.; Enneking, D. Grain legumes and human health. Proceedings of the Fourth International Food Legumes Research Conference (IFLRC-IV); New Delhi, India, 18–22 October 2005; pp. 422-432.

52. Mishra, V.; Tripathi, C.; Kumar, A.; Nandmer, V.; Ansari, A.; Kumar, B.; Chaurasia, R.; Joshi, D. Lathyrism: Has the scenario changed in 2013?. Neurol. Res.; 2014; 36, pp. 38-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1743132813Y.0000000258] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24070169]

53. Mitsi, C. Characterization of Lathyrus spp. Greek Cultivated Species. Master’s Thesis; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2013.

54. Campbell, C.G. Grass Pea, Lathyrus sativus L.; Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 1997; Volume 18.

55. Aiking, H.; de Boer, J. The next protein transition. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2020; 105, pp. 515-522. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2018.07.008]

56. Kirgiakos, L.-S. Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) for the Comparative Evaluation of Soybean and Psyllium in the Entire Production Model (Farm—Cattle Farming Unit) in Terms of Dairy Milk Production Capability. Master’s Thesis; University of Thessaly: Volos, Greece, 2020.

57. Bretos, I.; Marcuello, C. Revisiting globalization challenges and opportunities in the development of cooperatives. Ann. Public Coop. Econ.; 2017; 88, pp. 47-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apce.12145]

58. Saz-Gil, I.; Bretos, I.; Díaz-Foncea, M. Cooperatives and social capital: A narrative literature review and directions for future research. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13020534]

59. Georgopoulou, G. The Sustainability of Rural Cooperatives-Progress during the Finicial Crisis. Master’s Thesis; Democritus University of Thrace: Komotini, Greece, 2021.

60. Kokorikou, E. The Governance of Small Rural Cooperatives. Organization, Operation, and Decision-Making Methods through Case Study Analysis. Master’s Thesis; Greek Open University: Patras, Greece, 2023.

61. Stamouli, B. Withdrawal, Protest, Loyalty: The Importance of Diffent Opinions of Members at the Agricultural Association THESgi. Master’s Thesis; Agricultural Univercity of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2022.

62. Karanikolas, P.; Bebeli, P.J.; Thanopoulos, R. Farm economic sustainability and agrobiodiversity: Identifying viable farming alternatives during the economic crisis in Greece. J. Environ. Econ. Policy; 2018; 7, pp. 69-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2017.1360212]

63. Ajates, R. An integrated conceptual framework for the study of agricultural cooperatives: From repolitisation to cooperative sustainability. J. Rural Stud.; 2020; 78, pp. 467-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.019]

64. Faisal, M.; Belhouchette, H.; Nasim, W.; Shahzada, T.; Hussain, A.; Therond, O.; Fahad, E.; Sultana, S.R.; Wery, J. Economic and environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes in farming systems of Midi-Pyrenees region (France): A simulation approach. Int. J. Plant Prod.; 2017; 11, pp. 65-87.

65. Gourgouletis, N. Investigation of Best Practices and Measures for Conserving Water Resources in the Thessaly Hydrological District. Master’s Thesis; National Technical University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2020.

66. Karalis, T. The Development of Contract Farming in Greece through Bank Finacing. Master’s Thesis; Greek Open University: Patras, Greece, 2020.

67. Kokota, D. Assessment of Contract Farming and Development Prospects in Greece. Master’s Thesis; Aristotle University of Thessaloniki: Thessaloniki, Greece, 2017.

68. Lambein, F.; Travella, S.; Kuo, Y.-H.; Van Montagu, M.; Heijde, M. Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.): Orphan crop, nutraceutical or just plain food?. Planta; 2019; 250, pp. 821-838. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-018-03084-0]

69. Pardalis, N. Vertical Unit for the Production, Processing, Standardization and Marketing of Greek Legumes. Master’s Thesis; Agricultural University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 2013.