This document summarizes a doctoral seminar on farming systems approach for food security and sustained rural economy. It includes: 1. An introduction to farming systems approach and the need for this approach due to challenges like increasing population, food insecurity, soil degradation, and climate change. 2. An overview of integrated farming systems which aims to increase resource use efficiency, income, and ecological stability by integrating crop and livestock production. 3. A discussion of the methodology used to ground the concept of farming systems approach, including analyzing existing systems and developing alternative models based on resources and profitability.

1. Doctoral seminar –II
on
Farming systems approach for food
security and sustained rural economy
Presented by
S.Lokesh Babu,
TAD/2016-10,
Dept. of Agricultural
Extension

2. Flow of seminar …..
1.Introduction
2.Farming systems approach
3.Need for farming systems approach
4.Farming systems strategy
5.Methodology adopted for grounding the concept of FSA
6.Integrated farming system (IFS) a component of farming system
research (FSR)
7.Integrated Farming Systems Research Network
8.Case studies
9.Future thrust areas
10.Conclusion
2

3. Introduction

4. 4
Challenges
Challenge Current status
Rate of changes
(per year)
Population
world 7.2 billion + 1.3%
India 1.2billion + 1.95%
Food insecure population 194 million 1.0%
Soil degradation 120.40 m ha 5-10 M ha
Desertification 105.19 m ha 6 M ha
Irrigated area per person 0.245 ha -1.3%
Grain harvested area per person 0.22 ha -0.55%
Forested area per capita 0.59 ha -0.78%
Atmospheric concentration of GHGs
CO2 370 ppm +0.5%
CH4 1.74 ppm +0.75%
N2O 311 ppb +0.25%

5. FOOD SECURITY
• In FAO report on „The State of Food Insecurity, 2001‟ , food
security is defined as a “ The situation that exists when all
people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access
to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary
needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”.
5

6. National Food Security Act, 2013.
• It marks a paradigm shift in approach to food security – from a
welfare to rights based approach.
• The Act legally entitles upto 75% of the rural population and
50% of the urban population to receive subsidized food grains
under Targeted Public Distribution System.
6

7. Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2017
• India ranked 100th position among 119 countries.
• Report released by Washington-based International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
• This year India slipped by three positions as compared to
97th rank in 2016 GHI.
7

8. • GHI is multidimensional measure that describes state of hunger
situation on regional, national and global level.
• It ranks countries on a 0 to 100-point scale calculated by taking
into account four indicator parameters. Zero means best score
(no hunger) and 100 is worst.
• The four parameters are (i)Undernourished population,(ii) Child
wasting,(iii) Child stunting and (iv)infant mortality rate
Source: GHI report by IFPRI 8

9. Sustainable rural livelihood
• Sustainable rural livelihood has been defined as a
livelihood that comprises of the capabilities, assets and
activities required for a means of living.
9

10. • A livelihood is sustainable than can cope with and recover
from stress and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities
and assets, and provide sustainable livelihood opportunities
for the next generation; and which contributes net benefits
to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in the
short and long term, ( Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway,
1992).

11. Problems of present day agriculture
 Challenge of providing national as well as household food and
nutritional security to its teeming millions.
 Declining productivity in vast tracts of rainfed/ dry land areas
constituting approximately 44.2% of net cultivated area.
 Wide-spread occurrence of ill-effects of green revolution
technologies in all intensively cultivated areas is threatening
the sustainability of the important agricultural production
systems and national food security.
11

12.  The human population of India has increased to 1210.2
million at a growth rate of 1.76 per cent in 2011 and is
estimated to increase further to 1530 million by 2030.
 On the other hand our national food grain production for
past 3-4 years is hovering around 260 million tonnes.
 There are projections that demand for food grains would
increase from 271.4 million tonnes to 345 million tonnes in
2030.
12

13.  The average size of the landholding has declined to 1.21 ha
during 2009-10 from 2.30 ha in 1970-71.
 Declining size of landholdings without any alternative
income augmenting opportunity is resulting in fall of farm
income and causing agrarian distress.
 To meet the multiple objectives of poverty reduction, food
security, competitiveness and sustainability, several
researchers have recommended the farming systems
approach to research and development.
13

14. What is the solution?
INTEGRATED FARMING
SYSTEMS APPROACH
14

15. Farming systems approach
15

16. a. Concept
• Farming system is an integrated set of activities that
farmers perform in their farms under their resources and
circumstances to maximize the productivity and net farm
income on a sustainable basis.
• The farming system takes into account the components of
soil, water, crops, livestock, labour, capital, energy and other
resources, with the farm family at the centre managing
agriculture and related activities.
16

17. • The farming system conceptually is a set of elements or
components that are interrelated which interact among
themselves.
• At the center of the interaction is the farmer exercising
control and choice regarding the types of results of
interaction.
• The selection of enterprises must be based on the cardinal
principles of minimizing the competition and maximizing the
complementary between the enterprises.
17

18. b.Definition
• Farming System is defined as a complex inter related
matrix of soil, plants, animals, implements, power, labour
capital and other inputs controlled in part by farming
families and influenced to varying degrees by political,
economic, institutional and social forces that operate at
many levels.
18

19. c.Characteristics of farming systems
1. It is holistic or system oriented,
2. It is problem solving: involvement of farmers in problem
identification and solving process,
3. It is farmer participatory,
4. It envisages location specific technology solutions,
5. It is for specific client group – small/ marginal farmer,
6.It adopts bottom up approach,
7. It compasses extensive on farm activities, collaboration
between farmer and scientist,
8. It ultimate objective is sustainability,
9.It focuses on actual adoption,
10.It recognizes interdependence among multiple clients.
19

20. Need for farming systems approach
20

21. Need for farming systems approach
• High cost of farm inputs
• Fluctuation in the market price of farm produce
• Risk in crop harvest due to climatic vagaries and biotic
factors
• Environmental degradation
• Depletion in soil fertility & productivity
• Unstable income of the farmer
• Fragmentation of holdings and
• Low standard of living
21

22. Farming Systems Strategy
22

23. Farming Systems Strategy
• Serious limitations on horizontal expansion of land and
agriculture.
• Only alternative left is for vertical expansion through
various farm enterprises required less space and time but
giving high productivity and ensuring periodic income
specially for the small and marginal farmers located in
rainfed areas, dry lands, arid zone, hilly areas, tribal belts
and problem soils.
23

24. • The farming systems research and extension should be dealt in
holistic manner on farmers participatory mode with problem
solving approach.
• It should emphasize extensive on-farm activities and
complement the experimental on-station research.
• Greater importance is placed on feedback to modify the content
of subsequent on farm trials, if necessary, by changing research
priorities focusing policy shifts based upon micro level analysis.
24

25. Role of farming system
Food security
Provide balanced food
Quality food basket
High productivity and enhanced farm income
Effective recycling of resources
Minimizing environmental pollution
Employment generation 25

26. Methodology adopted for grounding
the concept of FSA
26

27. Methodology adopted for grounding the
concept of FSA
 Major socio-economic situations.
 Modifications made in existing farming system by innovative
farmers.
 New options recommended by the Researchers/
Extensionists.
 Economic analysis
 In the absence of any recommendations, work out an
alternate model by fine tuning the existing model (without
major changes) considering the resources, market,
profitability and sustainability.
27

28. Integrated farming system (IFS) a
component of farming system research
(FSR)
28

29. • Introduces a change in farming techniques for maximum
production is a cropping pattern and take care of optimal
utilization of resources.
• Integrated farming system involves the utilization of primary
produce and secondary produce of one system as basic input
of other system, thus making the mutually integrated as one
whole unit.
29

30. Definition :
• Acc. to Paul Harris, “IFS is a system which comprises of
inter-related set of enterprises with crop activity as base,
will provide ways to recycle produces and “waste” from
one component becomes an input for another part of the
system, which reduces cost and improves soil health and
production and/or income.”
30

31. Objectives
• To integrate different production systems like dairy, poultry,
livestock, fishery, horticulture, sericulture, apiculture, etc. with
agricultural crops production as the base.
• To increase farm resource use efficiency (land, labour and
production/by- products) so as to increase farm income and
gainful employment opportunity.
• To promote multi-cropping for multi-layered crops of economic
value so as to sustain land productivity.
• To maintain environmental quality and ecological stability.
31

32. Goals of Integrated Farming Systems
• Maximization of yield of all component enterprises to
provide steady and stable income.
• Rejuvenation 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.
32

33. Ideal situations for introduction of IFS
• The farmer wishes to improve the soil quality
• The farm household is struggling to buy food or below the
poverty line
• Water is stored on-farm in ponds or river-charged overflow
areas
• Soil salinity has increased as a result of inorganic fertilizer use
33

34. • The farmer is seeking to maximize profits on existing holding
• The farm is being eroded by wind or water
• The farmer is looking to reduce chemical control methods
• The farmer wants to reduce pollution or waste disposal costs
Source:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219406002651 19
34

35. IFS
Determinants
Objective Physical
Economic
Environment
Social
Constraints Components
35

36. Factors determining type of farming
• Physical factor (Climate, soil, topography)
• Economic factor ( Marketing cost ,Labour availability
,Capital Land value ,Consumer demand ,Prevalent pest and
diseases )
• Social factor (type of community, easy transport, marketing
facilities)
• Objective (income, production, minimizing cost etc.)
• Environment (availability of resources and components
36

37. Integrated Farming System COMPONENTS
• Crop production
• Livestock production
• Poultry
• Duckery
• Horticulture
• Aquaculture
• Apiculture
• Sericulture
• Mushroom cultivation
• Agro-forestry
• Biogas plants
37

38. Types of Integrated Farming Systems
 Crop-live stock farming system
 Crop-live stock –fishery farming system
 Crop-live stock – poultry - fishery farming system
 Crop-poultry-fishery – mushroom farming system
 Crop-fishery-poultry farming system
 Crop- livestock-fishery-vermi composting farming system
 Crop-live stock-forestry farming system
 Agri-silvi-horticulture system
 Agri-horti-silvi-pastoral system
 Home garden agro-forestry system
38

39. Integrated Farming Systems
Research Network
39

40. Integrated Farming Systems Research Network
• Indian Institute of Farming Systems Research was established
by ICAR, at Modipuram, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh).
• During the year 2009-10 the PDCSR was re-named as Project
Directorate for Farming Systems Research (PDFSR).
• All India Coordinated Research Project on Integrated Farming
Systems(42 on-station, 32 on-farm and 5 voluntary research
centres).
40

41. • VISION: Management of natural resources for holistic
improvement of small and marginal farmers through Integrated
Farming Systems
• MISSION Improve food, nutrition, livelihood and financial
security of small and marginal households through climate smart
Integrated Farming Systems(to make marginal and small
households as bountiful)
41

42. Case studies
42

43. Case study 1
• Place : Belagera village, Yadgir district, Karnataka
• Aim : to study the profitability and productivity of IFS
during the year 2011-2012.
• Farmers and area :25 farmers were selected with total
landholding of 40 hactre (69% irrigated,31%rainfed).
• Methodology : initial base line data was collected in first
year and interventions were made by
college of agriculture UAS, Raichur.
• Initial data was compared with the secondary data(IFS
Practices ) and results were finalized.
• Interventions made: Inputs, trainings, demonstrations,
exposure visits ,provision of chicks for backyard rearing
43

44. Table 1. Study of the profitability and productivity of
IFS
Parameters Crop equivalent
yield(q/ha)
Net returns(Rs.) B:C ratio
Farming
system
Farmers
practice
IFS Farmers
practice
IFS Farmers
practice
IFS
Mean 17.2 19.4 63611 71705 1.72 1.94
SD 1.33 1.47 4915 5435 0.134 0.147
SEM 0.27 0.29 983 1087 0.027 0.029
‘t’ Value 10.738 10.736 10.658
Significance S S S
Jaishankar et al. 2014
int’l conference on chemical, biological and environmental sciences,
karnataka 44

45. Case study-2
• Place :TNAU,Coimbatore
• Aim : Economics of rice-poultry-fish-mushroom system of
Integrated Farming System
45
CONVENTIONAL CROPPING SYSTEM(0.40 ha) INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM(0.40ha)
1 Rice –rice-green gram 0.20 ha 1 Rice-rice-maize 0.16ha
2 Rice-rice-green manure
(sun hemp)
0.20 ha 2 Rice-rice-ground nut 0.10 ha
3 Rice-rice-sesame 0.10 ha
4 Fish culture 0.04 ha
5 Poultry (over the fish pond )
6 Mushroom shed(5m x3m)

46. Table 2: Economics of rice-poultry-fish-mushroom system
of Integrated Farming System
Component Integrated farming system
(0.40 ha)
Conventional cropping system
(0.40 ha)
Additional
net income
from IFS
over CCS
(Rs)Gross
income
(Rs)
Cost of
producti
on (Rs)
Net
income
(Rs)
Gross
income
(Rs)
Cost of
production
(Rs)
Net
income
(Rs)
Crop 19076 11398 7678 13536 7202 6334 1344
Poultry 2861 1944 917 - - - 917
Fisheries 3568 1486 2082 - - - 2082
mushroom 6156 5078 1078 - - - 1078
Total 31661 19906 11755 13536 7202 6334 5421
Rangasamy et al. 1996Indian Journal of Agronomy 41(3):344-348 Tamil Nadu 46

47. Table 3: System productivity (sorghum grain-equivalent yield), employment
generation and economics in integrated farming systems
Farming system Productivity
t/ha
Employment
Man days/ha System
productivity
t/ha
Cost of
production
(103Rs/ha)
Net
returns
(×
103/ha)2000-01 2001-02 2000-01 2001-02
FS1 cropping alone
FS2 crop +pigeon+ goat+
agroforestry +
farm pond
FS3 crop+pigeon+Buffalo
+agroforestry+farm pond
FS4 crop+pigeon+goat+
Buffalo+agroforestry
+farm pond
0.69
4.23
11.20
12.18
1.84
5.21
10.79
12.59
28
110
140
160
32
116
142
166
1.27
4.72
10.99
12.39
5.520
18.90
43.65
52.85
1.17
1.49
22.67
21.82
Shekinah and Sankaran (2007)Indian Journal of Agronomy ,Tamil Nadu
47

48. Table 4: Comparative Benefit-Cost (B:C) ratio of
integrated fish-livestock farming system
48
Farming system Fish
productivity
(Kg)
Total
operational
cost (Rs)
Total gross
returns (Rs)
Net returns
(Rs)
B:C Ratio
Fish only 268.81 14730 30275.20 15545.20 1.06
Fish -pig 245.96 23518 71541.19 48023.19 2.04
Fish –poultry 196.11 30943 64607.06 33664.06 1.09
International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 2015, 5(5),Mizoram Sahoo and Singh(2015)

49. Table 5: Productivity, profitability and employment generation in integrated
farming system
System Gross income
(Rs ha-1)
Expenditure
(Rs ha-1)
Net returns
(Rs ha-1)
Employment
generated
(man days)
Crops + Cattle + Poultry +
Fish
5,75,214 1,34,049 4,41,165 346
Crop Cultivation Alone
4,53,819 96,053 3,57,766 225
Additional Benefit
1,21,395 - 83,399 121
Ravisankar et al. (2007)Indian journal of agronomy 52(1) :7-10, Andaman and Nicobar 49

50. CASE STUDY 6
• Agricultural Research Station, Siruguppa, Karnataka,
• Cropping (rice, maize, sunflower, vegetables), fishery, poultry
and goat as the integrated system.
• Cropping (rice-rice) alone as the control.
• In one hectare area of integrated farming system, an area of
0.73 ha crop component ( rice-rice, maize - sunflower
sequence, vegetables), 0.06 ha (fish pond) and 0.21 for goats
(including fodder area).
• Poly culture fingerlings @ 10,000/ha ( rohu 20%, catla 30% and
mrigal 40%) were released into the pond (600 m2) .
• Thirty poultry birds (giriraj) were maintained in the poultry
shed constructed on the fish pond. Goats ( 10 females + 2
males) were maintained in a shed constructed separately. This
was compared with the conventional rice-rice system.
50

51. Table 6: Productivity (rice equivalent yield) and profitability of different
components under integrated farming system
Treatments
Area(ha)
Productivity kg-1
ha-1year)
Cost of
Cultivation
(Rs)
Net returns (Rs) B:C ratio
Integrated farming system
Rice-rice system 0.33 2175 8683 7387 1.84
Hybrid maize-
sunflower
0.20 908 3697 3540 1.96
Vegetables 0.20 2136 4712 3673 2.00
Fodder + goat 0.21 1339 6289 7060 2.75
Fish 0.06 203 515 926 2.23
Poultry (0.005) 327 2145 300 1.13
Total 1.00 7088 18225 22887 1.97
Conventional
Rice-rice
1.00 5611 25503 17293 1.64
Channabasavanna et al. 2009Karnataka journal of agricultural .sciences, SIRUGUPPA 51

52. Case study 7
• Teak planting all along the borders.
• Bunds between the segments are planted with drumstick, curry leaf and
fodder grasses like NB-21, Guinea grass .
• Segment 1: Bullock pair: 1 Cow , 2. Poultry birds: 60 ,Kitchen garden,
Construction of farm pond (Fishery), farm house, Poultry cage, Cattle shed
and Vermicompost unit as per the specification
• Segment 2: Horticulture crops like Mango & Fig/Guava inter-cropped with
vegetables like Bhendi, Ridge gourd and Leafy vegetables
• Segment 3: Maize followed by Bengal gram
• Segment 4: Bt-cotton
• Segment 5: Part 1: Jasmine Part 2: Marigold Part 3: Watermelon 52

53. Table 7:Productivity and profitability in integrated
farming system for average of three years
53
Success story under RKVY Project Implemented at UAS, Raichur

54. Constraints
1.
• Lack of appropriate technology
2.
• Lack of farmers participatory research
3.
• Inadequate Training
4.
• Lack of rural infrastructure
54

55. 5.
• Policy implication
6.
• Inadvertent avoidance of farm women
7.
• Socio-economic constraints
8.
• Inadequate institutional support
55

56. 9.Future research thrust
 Need to study the sustainability of the identified systems
under different topographical situations in the long run
including high value crops.
 Need to study the nutrient dynamics of soil with
continuous cropping and recycling of manurial resources
with different systems over time.
 Modelling of the identified farming system options to suit a
given agro-climatic and socio-economic situation.
 Need to identify the constraints in adoption of identified
farming systems by the farmers for further refinement.
56

57. 10.Conclusion
• Integrated Farming System approach not only fulfills the
household needs but enrich diet of human being and animals
both for nutritional security.
• Diversified nature of the model provides employment
opportunity for unemployed rural youth.
• Economic and livelihood analysis of the system revealed
that beside household food, feed, fodder and fuel security,
the system generates a sizable amount of savings which will
assist to meet other liabilities of the family including
education, health and social obligations and overall
improvement in livelihood of small farm holders.
57

58. • Over two decades extension agencies have been
encouraging farmers to adopt ways of integrating resources
for better efficiency and to reduce dependency on adopting
practices with high input cost.
• Any planning in this regard to be ecologically sound,
economically viable, adaptable, socially acceptable and
humane should based on the need of the targeted
population and take into account the “6-M Kits” which
consists of Manpower, Money, Material, Market, Motivation
and Management aspects with Knowledge, Information,
Technology and Skill of both extension worker and
beneficiaries for its’ successful promotion and propagation.
58

59. Thank you
59