INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM

1. WELCOME
• Submitted to, Submitted by,
 Dr. S . T. Bairappanavar, Trupti . K . R
Associate professor ALH5084
 Dr. R . Jayarammaiah
Assistant professor ,
 Dr . Pramod . R ,
Assistant professor
 Dr . Naveen . S ,
Assistant professor
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Background
 Farming system- components
 IFS definition
 Objectives
 IFS system components
 Review of literature
 Advantages and disadvantages
 Effect of IFS on farm cash income
 Case studies
 SWOT analysis
 Assistance by government
 Conclusion
 References

3. INTRODUCTION

5.  It is the combination of one or more farm
enterprises with cropping ,when carefully chosen ,
planned and executed , gives greater dividends than
a single enterprise , especially for small and marginal
farmers.
 IFS enterprises includes crop , livestock , poultry ,
fish , tree crops , plantation crops etc.,
 It holds a special position as in this system nothing
is wasted , by-product of one system becomes input
for other.

6.  To integrate different production systems like dairy ,
poultry , fishery , horticulture , sericulture , apiculture
etc., with agricultural crops production as base.
 To increase farm resource use efficiency ( land , labour
and production/ by products)
 To promote multicropping in order to sustain land
productivity.
 To maintain environmental quality and ecological
stability.
 To increase farm income and gainful employment
opportunity.

7.  Filed crops
 Crop production
 Vegetables
 Fruit cultivation
 Poultry farming
 Livestock integration
 Duckery
 Aquaculture
 Agro forestry
 Bee- keeping
 Mushroom cultivation
 Bio gas plant

9. • Involvement of risks
• Contradiction among the system
• Lack of knowledge about interactions within
the system
• Contradiction to human health

10. ADVANTAGES
 Productivity
 Profitability
 Potentiality or Sustainability
Balanced food
Environmental safety
 Recycling
Income around the year
 Meeting fodder crisis
 Solving fuel and timber crisis
 Employment generation etc.,

11.  HOSSAIN, et al ( 2003) resulted that the higher yield was possible to the
project farmers by adopting or using new technologies and resources .
Farm income was higher with the project farmers than that of non – farm
project.
 PATEL & DUTTA ( 2004) resulted that the integrated farming system fulfills
the objectives of making farmers self-sufficient by ensuring the family
members a balanced diet , improving the standard of living through
maximizing the total net returns.
 PATEL & DUTTA ( 2004) reported that integrated cropping with fishery
and poultry enterprises realized an additional net income over the
conventional system . Out of the income obtained from the IFS , 70% was
from cropping , 9.4% from poultry and 20.6% from fishery. Also additional
employment generated in the IFS was 275 man-days ha yr.

12. CONTD.
 ANSARI( 2014) found that in this system , family members are gainfully
employed due to production and maintenance of several components . A
special feature of farming system is value addition due to employment of
family members and non farming families. One small farmer absorbs 593
man days , out of which family labour absorption is 470 man days (MSSRF
2009) . Family members were employed for 109 , 267 and 373 days in
2010-11 , 2011-12 and 2012-13.
 MANJUNATHA ( 2014) Integrated farming system approach is not only a
reliable way of obtaining fairly high productivity with considerable scope
for resource recycling, but also concept of ecological soundness leading to
sustainable agriculture.
 SONI ( 2014) reviewed that IFS is an multidisciplinary whole farm
approach and is very effective in solving the problems of small and
marginal farmers.

13. • ECONOMIC FACTORS such as marketing cost , labour
availability , capital , land value , consumer demand ,
prevalent pest and diseases.
• Effect of IFS on farm income can be studied under various
domain as;
 % change in cropping pattern
 % change in income from Different sources
 % change in employment pattern
 % change in total food and non food expenditure pattern
Before and after the intervention of Integrated Farming System.
 Employment generation ( man -days)
 Expected output

15. Comparison of land use pattern before and
after Integrated Farming System

16. PERCENT CHANGE IN CROPPING PATTERN OVER
YEAR

17. INCOME FROM
DIFFERENT SOURCES

18. % CHANGES IN INCOME FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES
(Rs/farm/ year)

21. %Changes in employment pattern before and after
intervention of Integrated Farming system

24. % changes in food expenditure before and after the
IFS

25. % changes in non food expenditure before and after
IFS

27. EMPLOYMENT GENERATION ( man days )
FARMING
SYSTEM
CRO
P
POU
LTRY
PIGE
ON
FIS
H
GOA
T
TOTAL SYSTEM
EMPLOYMENT
GENERATION
CROPPING ALONE 369 - - - - 369
CROP + FISH + POULTRY 420 61 - 34 - 515
CROP + FISH + PIGEON 420 - 61 34 - 515
CROP + FISH + GOAT 420 - - 34 122 576

28. EXPECTED OUTPUT
ASPECT EXPECTED OUTPUT
 Productivity gains 2 – 3 times

Gain in net returns 3 – 5 times

Resource saving 40 to 50 %
 Avg regular net daily income Rs . 800 / household of 1 ha
 Additional employment
generation
70 – 80 %
 Lower emissions of GHG 50 %
 House hold nutritional
security
100%

30. EXISTING FARMING SYSTEM CROP ( RICE / SOYABEAN/BEAN – GRAM/
WHEAT) + LIVESTOCK(cow/buffalo/goat/poultry)
Average holding size(ha) 0.97 ha
Average present net income / year Rs. 68,842 / household
Additional income & employment ( module wise) with selected interventions
MODULES Cost of
interventions
(Rs)
Net returns
from
interventions
(Rs)
Net returns
per rupee
invested
Household
employme
nt (man
days)
CROP ( improved varieties +
Balanced NPK + IPM)
3350 16722 5.0 14
LIVESTOCK( Fodder slips +
mineral mixture)
1200 1894 1.6 4
OPTIONAL(NKG(seeds) +
mushroom ( spawn) + Fish(
fingerlings))
3200 17052 5.3 55
TOTAL 7750 35668 4.60 73
TOTAL net income after
interventions (Rs/year)

32. SWOT ANALYSIS
 Sufficient manpower
 Hardworking nature
 Recycling or reuse of the
farm wastage is possible
through IFS
 Increased employment
period
 Adequate extension
support
 Active involvement of state
government
 Increased input use
efficiency
 Fragmented land
holdings
 Poverty, Low literacy
 Low risk bearing quality
 Lack of marketing
facilities & prices
 Poor post harvest
management

33. Contd.
 Loan with low investment
 Subsidies for livestock
addition
 Presence of more than one
enterprise
 Adoption of new
technology
 Agro industries
 Additional employment
generation
 Saving energy
 Weather related
adversities
 Technology failure would
affect economy

34. ASSISTANCE BY STATE GOVERNMENT
SL
.NO
COMPONENTS TOTAL COST IN
RUPEES
(APPROXIMATE)
Financial
Assistance from
STATE PLAN RS.
FARMER’S
contribution in Rs.
1. Pisciculture in the pond 15,000 10,000 5,000
2. Duckery 5,000 4,000 1,000
3. Poultry colour birds & desi birds with
living space
3,000 3,000 0
4. Cost of cross breed 32,000 28,000 4,000
5. Apiculture 7,000 7,000 0
6. Vermicompost 10,000 6,000 4,000
7. Land development bank 30,000 10,000 20,000
8. Fruit plants on farm pond bund and
other areas
3,000 3,000 0
9. Boundary plantations 10,000 4,000 6,000
10. Vegetable cultivation 15,000 10,000 5,000
11. Rice cultivation 5,000 2,000 3,000
12. Maize cultivation 4,000 2,000 2,000
13. Pulses & oilseeds 13,000 7,000 6,000
14. Green fodder culture 6,000 4,000 2,000
TOTAL 1,58,000 1,00,000 58,000

35.  In a country like India wherein agriculture is considered as the
“backbone of the country” the share of agriculture in gross
domestic product is declining and size of the land holding is
contracting.
 Integration of enterprises lead to greater dividends than
single enterprise based farming.
 Hence, IFS are viewed as sustainable alternative to
commercial farming systems particularly on marginal lands
with the objective of reversing resource degradation and
stabilizing farm income.
 IFS stands as a valuable approach to addressing the problems
of sustainable economic growth of the farming communities.

36. How can I learn more about opportunities for profitable
agriculture and also help the farming community at the
same time?
It’s through” INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM”
• REFERENCES
 Internet sources
 ANNUAL REPORT 2016-17 Department of agriculture ,
cooperation & farmer’s welfare.
 ACTA scientific agriculture (ISSN: 2581-365X)Volume 2
 Impact assessment of IFS programme for sustainable rural
livelihood security in kanker district of chattisgarh