5. Integrated Farming System (IFS)
Integrated farming system is defined as an integrated set of
elements/components and activities that farmers perform in
their farms under their resources and circumstances to
maximize the productivity and net farm income on a
sustainable basis.
Singh and Ratan (2009)
When different enterprises are dependent, complementary
and supplementary to each other, they interact among
themselves and affect the others. Such a mixed farming
system is termed an “integrated farming system”
Bahire et al. (2010)
6. Advantages of IFS
Increase the livelihood and sustain the productivity of farmers
Reduce the degradation of natural resources
Provides balanced food
Encourages recycling of by products
Generates income and employment round the year
Solves energy and fodder crisis
Reduces environmental pollution
Provides opportunity for agro-based industries
Improves input use efficiency
7. Goals of Integrated Farming System
The four primary goals of IFS are-
Maximization of yield of all component enterprises to provide steady and
stable income.
Rejuvenation / amelioration of system's productivity and achieve agro-
ecological equilibrium.
•Avoid build-up of insect-pests, diseases and weed population through
natural cropping system. management and keep them at low level of
intensity.
• Reducing the use of chemicals (fertilizers and pesticides) to provide
chemical free healthy produce and environment to the society.
8. Figure 1: Food and nutritional security
MWCD (2016)
By 2050 the country’s population will reach 1.6 billion and food grain
production needs to be increase by 349 million tons.
In India, about 15.2 % of population is undernourished and the country
stands at 97 rank of 118 nations in global hunger index
30.1
38.8
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Undernurished stunted wasted
Percentage
Malnutrition (2013-14)
underweight
9. Crops/item
Requirement in million tones
2000 2010 2020
Cereals and millets 198.70 234.40 280.99
Pulses and legumes 18.92 22.61 26.76
Oils and fats 10.41 12.44 14.72
Vegetables 91.66 109.52 129.62
Root and tubers 35.48 42.39 50.18
Fruits 36.66 43.81 51.85
Milk 70.96 84.79 100.35
Egg 21.29 25.44 30.11
fish 11.83 14.13 16.73
Paroda et al. (2000)
Table 1:Projected changes in dietary demand
from 2000 to 2020
By 2050, consumption of meat and dairy products is
projected to increase by 173% and 158%, respectively.
10. 2.28
1.16
0.68
0.32
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1970 2010 2020 2030
Averagelandholding
(ha)
Year
In India more than 80% of farmers are categorized as
small and marginal holders.
Per capita land availability:
Figure 2: Shrinking size of land holdings
(ha)
FAO (2015)
11. Figure 3: Farming system-components
Farming
system
Energy
Livestock
CropsWater
Soil
12. Enterprises of IFS
Crop husbandry
Dairy
Piggery
Poultry
Duck farming
Aquaculture
Fruit cultivation
Vegetable production
Agro-forestry
Mushroom production
Apiculture
Sericulture
Biogas plants
13. Resource recycling in a farming system unit
Field crop unit
Floriculture unit
Pomology unit
Agro-forestry unit
Apiary
Compost pit
Biogas plant
Farm family
Dairy unit
Pisciculture unit
Nectar
Manure
Slurry
Dung
Dung Gas
Waste
Slurry
PoultryDuckery
Droppings
Grain
Aesthetic
Fruit
Timber
Milk
Fish
Egg &
meat
Behera and France (2016)
14. Elements of integrated farming system
Watershed
Farm ponds
Bio-pesticides
Bio-fertilizers
Bio-gas
Solar energy
Vermicompost making
Green manuring
Rain water harvesting
Manjunath et al. (2014)
15. IFS under different agro-ecosystems
Rainfed and dryland
Irrigated
Hill and mountains
16. About 65% of India’s agriculture land is rainfed contributing
44% to the national food basket.
Figure 4: Rainfed agro-ecosystem
• 40% Human population
• 60% Animal population
• 85% coarse
cereals
• 83% pulses
• 70% oilseeds
• 42% rice
• 65% cotton
Venkateswarlu and Prasad (2012)CRIDA ,Hyderabad
17. Dominance of traditional farming system
Inadequate supply of quality inputs
Rapid soil degradation and loss of soil fertility
Small and staggered land holdings
Frequent drought and impact of climate change
Poor resources base and market linkages of farmers
Features of Rainfed ecosystems
20. Figure 5 : IFS model for marginal holder (0.6 ha) in
rainfed region
Ramarao et al. (2006)IGKV,Chhattisgarh
21. Table 2: Economics and employment generation in IFS for marginal
holder (0.6 ha) in rainfed region
Ramarao et al. (2006)
Treatments
Gross
returns
(Rs)
Net
returns
(Rs)
B:C
ratio
Employment
(days)
Crop alone 20239a 7843a 1.63 a 165 a
Crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow 33104b 14184b 1.63 a 273 b
Crop + 2 bullocks + 1 buffalo 37449c 18260c 1.95 c 273 b
Crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1
buffalo
42803d 21462d 2.00 d 291 c
Crop+2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1
buffalo + 10 goats
52695e 29400e 2.23 e 308 d
Crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1
buffalo + 10 goats + 10 poultry +
10 ducks
57975f 33076f 2.26 f 316 e
IGKV,Chattisgarh
22. Poultry - Fish -Horticultural system Paddy - Fish -Horticultural system
Table 3 : RGYE, economics and employment generation in different
IFS models for rainfed regions
Sekhar et al. (2014)
Treatments RGEY
(t/ha)
Net
returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
Employment
(days/ha/yr)
T1:Field crops + poultry + fish +
banana
14.90 48,503 1.83 532
T2 :Rice + fish + banana 13.25 17,642 1.89 438
T3 :Rice+Fish + banana + apiculture 14.40 12,812 1.96 454
T4: Cropping alone (Rice-rice system) 7.50 14,500 1.47 398
RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalent
ANGRAU, AP
23. Table 4 : Productivity and profitability in integrated farming systems for
average of four year (dryland ecosystem)
UAS,RAICHUR Desai et al. (2014)
24. Figure 6 : IFS model for a marginal farmer
(0.6 ha) in rainfed regions
Yadav and Sharma (2013)
30. Sustainable farming system model for irrigated agro-
ecosystem of Eastern Uttar Pradesh
Green
fodder
Farm household
(1 ha)
Dairy (0.02 ha)
Poultry (0.02 ha)
Fish (2 ponds,
0.02 ha each)
Dropping
Manure
Singh et al. (2007)
Rice-pea-okra (0.5 ha)
Sorghum-berseem-maize
(0.26 ha)
RGYE=11.04 q/ha
Income=42,788 Rs/ha
RGYE=123.75 q/ha
Income=4,21,644 Rs/ha RGYE=6.02 q/ha
Income=21,224 Rs/ha
RGYE=12.15 q/ha
Income=39,768 Rs/ha
RGYE=94.53 q/ha
Income=3,17,904 Rs/ha
CSAUA&T,UP
31. Table 6 : Productivity of different IFS modules in irrigated agro-
ecosystem of Eastern Uttar Pradesh
Farming system Component productivity (Rice grain
equivalent yield q/ha)
System
productivity
(q/ha)
Crop Dairy Poultry Fish
Rice–wheat 21.61 - - - 86.44
S+ SBM + D 32.70 236.33 - - 1076.12
S+ SBM + P 32.70 - 30.37 - 252.28
S+ SBM + F 28.57 - - 15.06 174.52
S+ SBM + D+ P 32.42 236.33 30.37 - 1196.48
S+ SBM +D+ F 28.09 236.33 - 15.06 1117.92
S+ SBM + F+ P 28.09 - 30.37 15.06 294.08
S+ SBM +D+ F+ P 27.61 236.33 30.37 15.06 1237.48
Singh et al. (2007)
P =Poultry,S=Rice-table pea-okra, D=Dairy,F=Fish,
SBM=Sorghum- berseem -maize
32. Table 7: Productivity income and employment generation in IFS
model in Tungabhadra project area, Karnataka
Treatments Area
(ha)
Productivity
(kg/ha/yr)
Net
income
(Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
Employment
(days/ha/yr)
Rice-rice 0.33 2175 7,387 1.84 172
maize-
sunflower
0.20 908 3,540 1.96 45
Vegetables 0.20 2136 3,673 2.00 31
Fodder + goat 0.21 1339 7,060 2.75 9
Fish 0.06 203 926 2.23 5
poultry 0.005 327 300 1.13 13
Total 1.00 7088 22,887 1.97 275
Conventional
rice-rice system
1.00 5611 17,293 1.64 459
Channabasavanna et al. (2009)ARS,Siruguppa
33. Table 8: Energy scenario and water requirement in IFS modules for
small farmers in Tungabhadra project area, Karnataka
Channabasavanna et al. (2009)
Treatments Energy
input
(MJ/kg)
Energy
output
(MJ/kg)
Energy
ratio
Specific
ratio
(MJ/kg)
Water
requirement
(mm)
Rice-rice 9500 95630 10.06 4.37 848
maize-
sunflower
3850 33200 8.62 4.24
82
Vegetables 4200 7200 1.71 1.97 95
Fodder + goat 1850 3955 2.14 1.38 82
Fish 92 341 3.71 0.44 105
poultry 2450 205 0.8 7.49 35
Total 21942 140531 6.40 3.09 1247 (56.8)*
Conventional
rice-rice system
28560 243870 8.54 5.09 2370 (23.7)*
* Water use efficiency in kg/ha-cm
ARS, Siruguppa
34. Table 9: Productivity and profitability of different IFS modules for
Eastern region of India (mean value of 3 years)
Treatments RGYE
(t/ha)
Net returns
(×103Rs/ha)
Net
returns
(Rs/ha/
day)
Income
sustainability
index (%)
Field crops (FC) 9.23 62.8 172 19.3
FC + fish + poultry 18.61 139.5 382 67.4
FC + fish + duck 15.36 114.1 313 51.5
FC + fish + goat 19.63 151.6 415 75.1
FC + fish + duck + goat 21.20 159.5 437 80.0
FC + fish + cattle 21.18 128.5 352 60.6
FC + fish + mushroom 16.56 127.9 350 60.2
Kumar et al. (2011)
RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalentCAU, IMPAL
35. Table 10: Profitability of IFS model for a marginal farmer (0.6 ha)
under irrigated conditions
Treatments Area
(ha)
Net returns
(Rs)
B:C
ratio
Employment
(days/yr)
Rice-wheat-cucurbits
(GN-linseed-cucurbits)
0.34
61,681 3.10 60
Vegetables 0.12 1,20,439 8.56 74
Fodder 0.06 5,244 1.66 80
Fruit plantations (Papaya) 0.03 75,375 9.84 53
Floriculture 0.03 5,230 1.87 45
Dairy (2 cows) 0.005 57,372 1.81 365
Goat rearing (20+1) 0.005 42,253 3.28 228
Poultry (20) 0.002 22,220 4.08 72
Duck (20) 0.002 40,300 6.60 43
Vermicompost 0.003 22,000 2.83 13
Total 0.6 4,52,096 3.46 1033
Sharma et al. (2017)Chhattisgarh
36. Table 11 : Economics and water use efficiency of IFS modules in
Tungabhadra Project area
Channabasavanna and Biradar (2007)
*Shed on fish pit, **Reared separately
Treatment System
productivity
(q/ha)
Net
returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
WUE
(kg/ha-cm)
Rice-fish (pit at one side)-
poultry *
15.29 49,303 1.73 40.7
Rice-fish (pit at one side
connected by trenches)-
poultry *
15.15 47,744 1.14 40.0
Rice-fish (pit at the center)-
poultry **
17.50 62,977 1.91 49.6
Rice-fish (pit at one side
connected by trenches)-
poultry **
14.60 37,766 1.57 42.0
Rice-fish (pit at four corners
connected by trenches)-
poultry **
15.23 45,224 1.63 43.5
Conventional (Rice-rice
system)
6.67 21,599 1.90 25.1
ARS,Siruguppa
37. Year Total farm
production
(Rice
Equivalent
Yield-t/ha
Total
production
(REY t/ha)
from crops
unit
Total
production
(REY t/ha)
from
horticultur
e unit
Total
productio
n (REY
t/ha) from
livestock
unit
Total
productio
n (REY
t/ha) from
goat unit
Others
Vermicom
post
/kitchen
garden
(REY
t/ha)
2011-12 10.75 5.27 0.59 3.26 0.00 1.63
2012-13 24.20 5.75 1.08 17.12 0.00 0.25
2013-14 24.05 8.14 1.92 10.17 3.31 0.41
2014-15 29.05 6.84 2.51 13.50 1.52 4.68
2015-16 18.29 4.79 2.63 5.81 1.86 3.80
Average 21.27 6.16 1.75 9.99 1.34 2.15
Table 12: Total farm production (REY t/ha) details in 1 ha IFS
Model
Basavannappa et al (2017)ARS,SIRUGUPPA
38. year Gross returns
(Rs/ha)
Net returns
( Rs/ha)
B:C ratio
2011-12 1,87,576 95,878 2.05
2012-13 2,60,252 13,2895 2.04
2013-14 3,50,861 1,94,569 2.24
2014-15 3,32,373 1,60,578 1.93
2015-16 3,75,484 2,08,779 2.25
Average
3,01,309 1,58,540 2.10
Table 13: Gross returns, net returns and B:C ratio of 1 ha IFS
model in different years
Basavannappa et al.
(2017)
ARS , SIRUGUPPA
39. Table 14: Productivity and economics in different rice based IFS at
Goa (pooled over three years)
Korikanthimath and Manjunath (2009)
Treatment RGYE
(t/ha)
Net Returns
(×103Rs/ha)
Energy
ratio
SYI Employment
(days/ha)
Rice cropping alone 4.31 19.21 6.76 0.72 110
Rice–groundnut +
Mushroom + Poultry
16.92 60.65 2.24 0.78 350
Rice–cowpea +
Mushroom + poultry
18.03 73.43 2.41 0.70 345
Rice–brinjal +
Mushroom + Poultry
21.49 77.31 3.18 0.75 392
Rice–sunhemp +
Mushroom + Poultry
15.36 52.75 2.44 0.64 309
RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalent , SYI=Sustainable yield index
ICAR Research complex, Goa
40. Table 15: Profitability and WUE of different IFS modules for North-
eastern hilly region of India
Particulars
Area
(m2)
Employment
(days)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
Water
productivity
(Rs/m3 of
water)
IFS
Crop + fish + pig 1500 67 28,250 70
Crop + fish + duck 1500 52 20,350 45
Farmer’s practice
Fish culture 500 5 4,000 -
Pond dyke 500 - - -
Maize 200 5 360 -
French bean 100 4 900 -
Chilli, turmeric, mustard
etc.)
200 10 2,000 -
Total 1500 24 7,360 23
Das et al. (2013)North eastern region
41. Table 16: Productivity and Profitability in Integrated farming systems for
average of Four years (Irrigated condition)
Desai et al. (2014)UAS,Raichur
42. Table 17: Economic viability of Integrated Farming System Research
models developed in different states of the country
Shanmugasundaram
Ganesan and
Chinnasamy
Jayanthi and
Rangasamy
Balusamy and
Shanmugham
Manjunath
Tiwari and Ravi
Singh , Renkema ,
Dhaka , Singh and
Kera
Singh Gurbachan.
Channabasavanna
and Biradar D P
43. Key barriers in adoption of IFS
Lack of awareness about sustainable farming systems.
Unavailability of varied farming system models.
Unavailability of financial resources and varying
conditions on farmers fields.
Lacking ensured marketing facilities specially for
perishable commodities.
Lack of Deep freezing and storage facilities.
Lack of timely availability of inputs.
Lack of access to information, extension, skills.
44. Conclusion
IFS through integration of crop, livestock, poultry, fishery, piggery,
horticulture, agroforestry, mushroom cultivation etc. has a
paramount importance to increase the productivity, profitability
and sustainability of agricultural production systems.
IFS is a promising system particularly for the marginal and small
farmers to generate adequate income and employment and to
improve their livelihoods in a sustainable manner.
IFS could be an efficient way of using farm resource to meet out
nutritional requirements through balanced diet for the farm family
and also reducing hunger and malnutrition.
45. “Civilization as it is known today could not have
evolved, nor can it survive, without an adequate food
supply” Norman Borlaug
Editor's Notes
To meet the growing demand and to cope up with 1.6 billion country’s population by 2050, food grain production needs to be increase by 349 mt.
UN report released by FAO showed that that, India had nearly 195 (15%) million undernourished people in 2014-2016, which is the second largest in the world after china,
When different enterprises are dependent, complementary and supplementary to each other, they interact among themselves and affect the others. Such a mixed farming system is termed an “integrated farming system”
To meet the growing demand and to cope up with 1.6 billion country’s population by 2050, food grain production needs to be increase by 349 mt.
UN report released by FAO showed that that, India had nearly 195 (15%) million undernourished people in 2014-2016, which is the second largest in the world after china,
A major challenge to food security comes from dietary diversification. Increase in per capita income and urbanization has led to changes in the composition of the food basket, with shift in dietary pattern in favour of non-cereal food items such as fruits, vegetables, milk, meat, eggs and fish during the coming decades.
India is the land of marginal and small farmers. The per capita land availability and average size of land holding in India has been declining. And it is projected that by 2020 the per capita land availability will be 0.1 ha. So, there is hardly any scope for horizontal expansion of land to meet the food, feed and fibre production. This situation calls for an integrated effort to address the emerging food security and livelihood issues. The IFS approach is considered to be the most powerful tool for enhancing the profitability of small and marginal farmers.
The farming system, as a concept, takes into account the components of soil, water, crops, livestock, labor, capital, energy, and other resources with the farm family at the center managing agricultural and related activities.
On any given farm, farming subsystems or farming activities may comprise any one or the combination of the following enterprises as a source of food and livelihood. IFS centers around the available resources, needs, and social preferences of the local community for the sustainable development of family farms.
Resource recycling indicates the interdependence of the different enterprises of the total farming system to make the farmer self-sufficient in terms of ensuring balanced diet for leading a healthy life and also making the farm self-sufficient through recycling of by-products and wastes. The by- product of dairying (cow dung) forms a major raw material for bio-gas plants. Digested slurry from bio-gas production forms a useful feed for pisciculture by increasing plankton growth, as well as supplying valuable manure to raise the productivity of field crops and enrich the soil. Byproducts of field crops such as paddy straw form a major raw material for mushroom cultivation. Straw after use in mushroom production is utilized as cattle feed and compost preparation. Similarly, poultry droppings form an important ingredient of pisciculture for increasing plankton growth as well as increasing land fertility. An apiary, apart from providing a wholesome food product such as honey, plays a role in improving pollination. Therefore, it is dangerous to deal separately with things in such linked system. The entire philosophy of IFS revolves round better utilization of time, money, resources, and family labor. The farm family has scope for gainful employment year round, thereby ensuring a reasonable income and a better standard of living
Following elements may be included in IFS demonstrations depending upon the individual farmers resources, interest and opportunities.
Physical factor (Climate, soil, topography) Economic factor
Marketing cost Labour availability Capital
Land value
Consumer demand
Prevalent pest and disease
Social factor (type of community, easy transport, market facilities)
Objective (income, production, minimizing cost)
Environment (availability of resources and componenets)
The farming system varied in different agro ecosystem with respect to structure and function depending upon agro-ecological situations, socio-economic condition, in order to properly address the specific needs of farmers through interdisciplinary approaches. Irrigated agriculture accounts for 38% of the India’s arable land and provides 55% of the total agricultural production, thus the irrigated agro-ecosystem is the main stay of India’s agricultural economy. a strong base for the food security of the country (ASG, 2015). It is concentrated in the Indo–Gangetic Plains . Mountain ecosystems are generally fragile and this ecosystem suffers severe soil erosion, scanty irrigation, limited land resources and unscientific land management and crop cultivation, erosion of biodiversity, and a high population of low-yielding animals. The land holding is much smaller than that in the plains. Therefore, for making hill farming sustainable and ensuring livelihood security, judicious use of resources and technologies is imperative. Hill farming is agri-horticulture and livestock based,
Although India has the largest irrigated area in the world, it has a very sizeable area around 55% of the cultivated area contributes 40% of the country’s food production. Moreover, rainfed regions are home to about 40% of the human and 60% of the livestock population and It holds the key to wiping out the shortage of pulses, oilseeds and increasing export opportunities of nutritious cereals. Even after full irrigation potential of the country is realized, half of the cultivated area will continue to be under rainfed farming. Much of the acreage under coarse cereals (85%), pulses (83%) and oilseeds (70%), substantial area under rice (42%) and nearly 65% of cotton area is rainfed. Hence, it is necessary to increase the productivity of major rainfed crops to meet the ever increasing demand of food and fibre. Investments in irrigated areas continue to increase, their marginal returns come down gradually, whereas in the rainfed areas, the marginal returns from additional public investments in technology and i Thus, rainfed agriculture assumes importance from the consideration of growth, equity and sustainability.
Rainfall is the key variable influencing crop productivity in rainfed crops in particular. Intermittent and prolonged droughts are a major cause of yield reduction in most crops. Long-term data for India indicates that rain fed areas witness 3‒4 drought years in every 10-year period. Low biomass input and accelerated erosion of surface soil under intensive rainfall are important factors leading to low SOC concentration.The severe depletion of SOC in rainfed agro-ecosystems in India has adversely impacted soil quality, crop productivity, and sustainability. Use of production inputs (e.g., fertilizers, supplemental irrigation, good quality seeds, pesticides, and herbicides) are lower in rainfed than in irrigated crops. Thus, yield of rainfed crops is low. Rainfed agriculture in India comprises of small and marginal farmers who accounted for 62% of operational holdings. Most of the rural areas are characterized by a subsistence economy. The surplus farm produce is sold only if family requirements are met. Further, in-dividual production units (families) operate independently which makes it difficult to pool the produce for an efficient marketing. The present market-ing system in most villages has numerous constraints. Traditional markets are unorganized, unregulated, and nonprofitable. The traditional markets are dominated by middlemen, and are characterized by unreliable marketing channels (Dixit et al., 2013). Facilitating market linkage involves a clear understanding of the demand and supply situation, transient storage oppor-tunities, transport infrastructure, and easy access to markets. The strategy is to intervene at any of these steps in the value chain to enhance farmers’share in the retail market price. Diversification of agriculture through crop diversification and IFS needs special attention in this agro- ecosystem
The study was conducted in rainfed region of Chhattisgarh to develop a model suitable for 0.6 ha of farm size, holding a set of 6 combinations with crop (grains, fodder) livestock (cow, buffalo, bullock, goat poultry and duck). To make the mixed farming module viable to achieve the maximum returns, better utilization of resources and recycling of by-products.
In this system, animals are raised on agricultural waste. The animal power is used for agricultural operation and the dung is used as manure and fuel. It may be possible to reach the some level of yield with proportionately less input in the integrated farming and the yield would be inherently more sustainable because the waste of one enterprise becomes the input of another leaving almost no waste to pollute the environment or to degrade the resource base. To put this concept into practice efficiently, it is necessary to study linkage and complementary of different enterprises will help to develop integrated farming system in which the waste of one enterprise is more efficiently used as input to another within the system.
Ramrao et al. (2006) reported that IFS module having 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1 buffalo + 10 goats + 10 poultry birds + 10 ducks with crop cultivation resulted in highest net income (33076 ₹/year), B:C ratio (2.26) and employment generation for 316 man days with almost uniform distribution throughout the year compared to 165 man days in arable farming
that integration of field crops with Poultry, Fishery and Horticulture system resulted in productive and profitable IFS in terms of net returns and employment generation over arable cropping returns. This was mainly due to the addition of poultry component which added maximum profit to the system. Higher B:C ratio in fish + banana + apiary system was due to less operational cost incurred and more net income from the farming system.
Integrated farming system offer a pragmatic solution to meet the increasing demand for food, diversification in food habits and stabilizing the income thus improving the nutrition of the small-scale farmers with limited resources.
The study was conducted in rainfed region of Rajasthan to find out a sustainable and economically viable IFS model by integrating different component like crop, livestock and poultry on 0.6 ha of land holding for the tribal region for sustaining the productivity and profitability of small and marginal farmers .
The results of this study have indicated that integration of various enterprises on 0.6 ha size of land holding were viable. Integration of livestock rearing with crop production gave significant higher economic return compared to crop production alone. Further, better utilization of land, water, input and output resources were observed in the mixed farming model with bullocks, cows, buffaloes, goats and poultry as compared to arable farming alone
that the integration of dairy, poultry, fishery, mushroom, apiculture, and biogas complements the cropping system, and resulted higher net returns (58,367₹/yr) and employment generation for 573 man days, thus leading to higher social and economic up-liftment and better utilization of time,
money, resources and family labourers ensuring good income and higher standard of living
That net income per hectare was maximum in FS-IV, due to poultry enterprises got highest net income. FS-IV was found more profitable than other farming systems, where livestock /poultry was one of the component of these farming systems
In irrigated condition the net returns in C + V over the C +D. The reason for getting higher net returns in FS-I was due to growing of vegetables in this system which was more remunerative than dairy.
The arid agro-ecosystem is spread in 38.7 m ha of which 31.7 m ha is under hot arid and 7 m ha is under cold arid region. The hot arid region occupies major part of north-western India (28.57 m ha) mainly in western parts of Rajasthan (19.6 m ha), Gujarat (6.22 m ha) and southwestern part of Haryana and Punjab (2.75 m ha) and small pockets (3.13 m ha) in southern peninsula. The cold arid zone (7 m ha) is spread in the states of Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. The hot arid region is characterized by scarce natural resources and inhospitable climate. The rainfall varies from less than 100 mm to 400 mm, which is highly erratic and unpredict The region experiences extremes of temperature (-2 to 48 oC), long day sunshine, high wind speed
(35-40 km/hr) and thus very high evaporation. Nearly, 41-85% ground water is saline (8-60 ppt). Pearlmillet, clusterbean, mungbean, mothbean, seasame, and mustard are major crop grown under rainfed conditions or with limited irrigation. Drought-hardy arid fruits and shrubs supplement human diet in this region. Livestock is the major source of survival of people in arid region because
cropping is not a secure and definite proposition
Agroforestry systems like agri-silvi-culture, silvipasture and agri-horticulture offer both adaptation and mitigation opportunities. Agroforestry systems buffer farmers against climate variability by modifying the microclimate. Agroforestry systems are better land use systems for arresting land degradation and also improves the productivity of degraded lands and can sequester carbon and produce a range of economic, environmental, and socioeconomic benefits. The extent of carbon sequestration by these systems is given below Sole tree plantations produce large quantities of biomass in a short period and they provide fodder, timber, pulpwood and props for commercial use. The carbon sequestered by these systems is presented in Table
The model was developed for marginal and small farmers of NEPZ of Uttar Pradesh with 1 ha land. The chart shows the area allocated to each component and recycling of resources. production potential and income generated by the farm household. It reveals that integrated farming system provides an opportunity to increase the economic yield per unit time by intensification of cropping and integration of allied enterprises
It reveals that integrated farming system provides an opportunity to increase the economic yield per unit time by intensification of cropping and integration of allied enterprises. It also offers enough scope to increase the profitability, employment generation and nutrient recycling within the system to improve the livelihood of the farmers and sustainability of eco-system.
The better management, inclusion of profitable enterprises and efficient recycling of resources from one system to another, which reduced the total input requirement, lowering the cost of production in farming system constituting crop + dairy + poultry + fishery resulted in the highest system productivity. Among the different components, dairy was found highly productive, over poultry and fishery,
Channabasavanna et al. (2009) reported that integration of crop with fish, poultry and goat resulted higher productivity, profitability and employment generation than conventional rice-rice system alone. high procurement price of rice resulted in higher returns. Integrated farming system showed 26.3 per cent higher productivity over conventional rice-rice system. Net returns obtained from all the components was Rs. 22,887 with an increase of 32.3 per cent
higher than conventional rice-rice system. In the present study, the IFS reduced the labour requirement by 40 per cent but distributed throughout the year.
The energy flow in the rice-rice system showed the highest energy ratio (10.06) due to high energy output (95630 M J) as against the energy input of 9500 MJ. This was followed by Hy. Maize- sunflower sequence (8.62). The total energy ratio in IFS was 6.40 as against the conventional rice-rice system. The reduced energy ratio in IFS was attributed to low energy output and energy ratio of animal components. Specific energy was less in the IFS over conventional rice-rice system. This indicates that low input energy is required under IFS to produce a kg of produce.
The present study showed an alternate profitable model requiring lower water requirement. The projected model consumed 47.4 per cent less water as compared to conventional rice-rice system. The water use efficiency (WUE) was 56.8 kg/ ha.cm in IFS as against 23.7 kg/ha.cm in conventional rice -rice
reported that crop + fish + duck + goat emerged as the best IFS module for eastern region of the country in terms of productivity, net returns (159,485₹), employment generation (752 man-days/year) and income sustainability index (0.8).
Higher the Income - Sustainability Index, higher will be the net return (Vittal et “ al., 2002) and more profitable will be the IFS. A suitable IFS model can be identified for adoption based on net returns, income sustainability index, employment generation
The model involving Rice-fish (pit at the center of the field) – poultry (reared separately) recorded the highest system yield and productivityThe model involving Rice-fish (pit at the center of the field) – poultry (reared separately) recorded the highest system yield and productivity. This may be attributed to the better growth, development and survival rate of fish in these treatments thus resulting in higher additional income.
The pooled economic analysis of the system (Table 3)
revealed that rice-brinjal system integrated with mushroom
and poultry was highly economical with the highest net
returns. that ricebrinjal+ mushroom+poultry as best one interns of rice equivalent yield (21.49 t/ha), employment generation (392man days), energy efficiency and economics.
Availability of financial resources Lack of credit facilities at easy and reasonable interest rate
Availability of financial resources Lack of credit facilities at easy and reasonable interest rate
