The document outlines the rationale and advantages of integrated farming systems (IFS) in India, emphasizing the importance of resource optimization for small and marginal farmers facing declining land availability. It details various practices in integrated fish farming and poultry, highlighting the benefits such as increased profitability, food security, and environmental sustainability. Additionally, it documents a farmer's success story in implementing IFS, demonstrating its economic viability and impact on rural livelihoods.

1.  INTRODUCTION
 RATIONAL OF IFS
 GOALS OF IFS
 ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRATED FISH FARMING (IFF)
 FISH CULTURE PRACTICES
 POULTRY FARMING PRACTICES
 PRODUCTION DETAILS
 CONCLUSION
 KVK ACTIVITIES
 DOCUMENTATION OF IFS FARMER SUCCESS STORY
 FUTURE THRUST

2. INTRODUCTION
 Indian economy is mainly agriculture oriented.
 Small and marginal farmers are the core of the Indian
rural economy constituting 85% of the total farming
community but possessing only 44% of the total
operational land (GoI 2014).
 The operational farm holding in India is still declining.
In Bihar and Kerala, the average size of holding fell by
more than three times during the last four decades.
 In Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra, it has reduced by more than two times
due to immense population pressure on the limited land
resource available for cultivation (NABARD 2014).

3.  The declining trend of per capita land availability poses a serious challenge to the
sustainability and profitability of farming.
 Due to ever increasing population and shrinking land resources in the country.
 The rationale behind integrated farming is to minimize wastes from the various
subsystems on the farm.
 Wastes or by-products from each subsystem are used as inputs to other subsystems to
improve the productivity and lower the cost of production of the outputs of the various
subsystems
RATIONALE OF INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM

4. GOALS OF IFS
 To provide a steady and stable income and
rejuvenation of the system’s productivity.
 To provide environmentally sustainable and
economically viable technology that encompasses
rational utilization of available resources of the
region.
 To conserve natural resource base, protect the
environment and enhance prosperity for a longer
period of time.

5. ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRATED FISH FARMING (IFF)
 Save fertilizer cost and also supplementary feed cost(60%)
 Provides quality protein food, resource utilisation, recycling of
farm waste.
 Maximum return per unit area per unit time in terms of
produce and money.
 Increased productivity, profitability and sustainability are
ensured with protective food and environmental safety.
 Employment generation and ultimately increasing the
standard of living of the farmers are other major benefits of
integrated farming system.
 Obtaining food and nutritional security at farm level and can
also generate rural employment, thus preventing excessive
migration to urban areas.

6. FISH CULTURE PRACTICES
PRE STOCKING
MANAGEMENT
STOCKING MANAGEMENT
POST STOCKING
MANAGEMENT
Construction of fish pond /
Renovation of existing fish pond
1. Selection of species
2. Fish species to be Stocking
3. Stocking
a. Liming
b. Fertilization
c. Feeding
d. Water quality management
e. Fish health management
f. Harvesting management

7. PRE STOCKING MANAGEMENT
Pond digging/Repairing of dykes
Construction of fish pond / Renovation of existing fish
pond
Water filling
Removal of aquatic weeds, weed fishes,
unwanted organisms

8. STOCKING MANAGEMENT
1. Selection of species
2. Fish species to be Stocking
3. Stocking
Selection of species
Fast growth rate, Good food
conversion efficiency,
Acceptability of supplementary
and natural food and good
market value
Fish species to be Stocking
Catla, Rohu, Mrigal, silver
carp, common carp and
grass carp
Stocking
10-15 cm-7000-7500/ ha

9. POST STOCKING MANAGEMENT
a. Liming
b. Fertilization
c. Feeding
d. Water quality management
e. Fish health management
f. Harvesting management
Liming-Based on water and soil pH
Fertilization and Feeding-No feed
and fertilizer is applied in the pond
Water quality management-Depth of
water, Turbidity of pond water,
Dissolved oxygen(DO), Ammonia and
pH of water
Fish health management
Harvesting management

10. Construction of poultry house
Housing of birds
Selection of birds
POULTRY FARMING PRACTICES
Feeding
Egg laying
Health care

11.  Poultry house: Height-2-2.4 m, slope- 3-3.3 m
 Width-not exceed 9m
 Cage system and Deep litter system
 250 birds per pen
 1 sqft floor space /bird
A low cost house –local available materials like-
Bamboo, wood etc.,
Construction of poultry house
Housing of birds
Selection of birds
 Dual purpose-meat and egg
 Vanaraja, Grama priya, Kadaknath Aseel and
white leghorn
 500-600 birds/ha ( 8 weeks old chicks)
Feeding
Grower mash-9-20 weeks @50-70gm/bird/day
Layer mash-above 20 weeks@80-120gm/bird
/day
For layer birds: starter feed-0-8 weeks, grower
feed-8-20 weeks and brooder feed-20 weeks
onwards
For Broiler birds: starter feed-0-8 weeks and
finisher feed-4-6 week

12. Egg laying
 Egg production commences at the age of 22
weeks and then gradually decline
 Vanaraja and grama priya -140-160 eggs /year
 White leghorn-240-300 eggs/year
 Kadaknath-120-130 eggs/year
 After the age of 18 month birds are disposed
Health care
 Vaccinated against diseases like bronchitis,
infected laryngotrancheties, mark’s disease
ranikhet, powl pox.
 Bacterial diseases-salmonellosis, coryza, fowl
cholera.
 Deep litter requirement for pond-
50kg/ha/day

13. PRODUCTION DETAILS
Parameter Fish production
(1 ha area/year)
Poultry production
(500-600 birds)
Yield 8000-8500 kgs Eggs-80,000-100000
nos/year
Meat-3500 kg/year
Gross
income
9,60,000/-@120/-/kg 7,00,000/-
(Egg-3,50,000@3.5/-
Meat-3,50,000@100 /-
kg)
Net income 5,60,000/- 3,00,000/-
BC ratio 1:1.4 1:1.75

14. KVK ACTIVITIES –POULTRY FARMING
 FLD on Demonstration of improved backyard poultry birds-
Sreenidhi, Vanashree and Gaghus in Agency area (2019-2022)
 FLD on Azolla cultivation as a feed of poultry birds (2021-22)

15. KVK ACTIVITIES -POULTRY CUM FISH CULTURE-TRAINING
PROGRAMMES/ FOLLOWUP VISITS

16. KVK ACTIVITIES -FISH CULTURE-SEED DISTRIBUTION/TRAINING
PROGRAMMES/ FOLLOWUP VISITS

17. CONCLUSION
 To provide food security, nutritional benefits, employment generation
and providing additional income to resource poor small farmers.
 This approach is a location specific, technically skill based, play
multidimensional role in fulfilling the domestic requirement,
employment avenues, rational use of resources, sustaining productivity,
invest ability and economic ability of the systems.
 Enhances the net return, generates employment, conserves natural
resources, reduces the cost of production and increases the overall
income by minimizing risk.

18. Farming history of farmer before intervention
DOCUMENTATION OF IFS FARMER SUCCESS STORY
Component Description Benchmark (Baseline period 2016-17)
Components Names Area
(Acre)/Number
Production
(Q/Liter/No.)
Gross
Income
(Rs.)
Net Income
(Rs.)
Field Crop 1 Paddy 2.5 acres 48 q 76,800/- 48,050/-
Field Crop 2 - Nil Nil Nil Nil
Hort. Crop 1 - Nil Nil Nil Nil
Hort. Crop 2 - Nil Nil Nil Nil
Livestock 1 Goat Nil Nil Nil Nil
Livestock 2 Poultry 4 no.s 2 1600/- 1100/-
Other
enterprise
Fisheries
Nil Nil Nil Nil
Total 2 components 2.5 acres 48q 78,400/- 49,150/-
Name of the Farmer: Kangala Ramaswamy
Father’s name :Kannayya Dora
Aadhar No.:538003747915
Address :I.Polavaram village, Rampachodavarammandal, East
Godavari district, A.P.
Area:1 ha.
IFS model: Crop-Livestock-Poultry-Fishery Farming System.
Brief: The farmer used to get annual income of Rs. 78,000/- with least benefit: cost ration of 2.67 through
cultivation of paddy in an area of 1 ha. He faced problems like crop failures due to climatic factors, pest &
diseases incidences, low yields due to low yielding varieties thereby resulted in low economic returns from
single arable cropping system.

19. Technology/
Intervention
Area
or Number
Yield
(q.)
Cost of
Cultivatio
n (Rs.)
Gross
Income
(Rs.)
Net
Income
(Rs.)
B:C
Ratio
Farmer’s Practice (Before Intervention)
Paddy 1 ha 48 28,750/- 76,800/- 48,050/- 2.67
Different crop enterprises/components under Integrated Farming System
Paddy 1 acre 19.6 11,500/- 31,360/- 19,860/- 2.72
Redgram 5 cents 0.28 500/- 1,400/- 9,00/- 2.80
Blackgram+ Cowpea inter
cropping
3 cents 0.25 300/- 1,250/- 950/- 4.16
Vegetables (Bhendiand Chilli) 5 cents 2.3 750/- 4,600/- 3,850/- 5.13
Fishery
(Catla, Ragandi,
Erramaila,China)
1 acre 490 kg 36,000/- 73,500/- 37,500/- 2.04
Poultry 12 6 1,500/- 4,800/- 3,300/- 3.2
Goat 2+1+ 2 kids 5 2,500/- 12,000/- 9,500/- 4.8
Total 1 ha - 53,050 1,28,910 75,860 3.6
Paddy
24%
Redgram
1%
Blackgram+
Cowpea inter
cropping
1%
Vegetable
s (Bhendi
and Chilli)
4%
Fishery
57%
Poultry
4% Goat
9%
% of Income from different
components under
Integrated Farming System
Paddy
11%
Redgram
11%
Blackgram+
Cowpea
17%
Vegetables
(Bhendi and
Chilli)
21%
Fishery
8%
Poultry
13%
Goat
19%
% of B:C obtained from different entreprises
under IFS

20. Integrated Farming System module developed at I.Polavaram village of Rampachodavaram mandal
Demonstration of Integrated Farming System in Tribal Area of East Godavari District

21.  Creation of database on IFS throughout the country in relation to type and size of
integrated farming systems, enterprise selected and their way of allocation,
infrastructure, economics, economic sustainability of the system etc. under different
ecological situations.
 Development of ecologically stable, environmentally sound and location specific low
cost viable IFS modules for different holding sizes which are socially acceptable is
required.
 On –farm testing and refinement of the developed modules according to the farmers’
need and requirement as it is a continuous process i.e. addition of profitable
components and replacement of less profitable components with time, choice of the
farmers and availability of market.
FUTURE THRUST

22. Need to identify the constraints in adoption of identified integrated
farming systems for particular area or locality.
Documentation of ITKs of IFS in the farming community and its scientific
validation.
Need to prepare a strong policy draft for the consideration of planners for
its promotion and creating awareness at large scale with some pity
financial assistance either through loans or subsidy.