Welco

Integrated Farming System-A Holistic Approach for

Food and Livelihood Security

Anita Kumawat
Roll No. 10770
Ph.D Scholar
 Outline……

 Introduction
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

 Integrated farming system (IFS)

 Components and enterprises of
IFS
 Research findings
 Conclusions
 Path ahead
 Food and nutritional security
 By 2050 the country’s population will reach 1.6 billion
and food grain production needs to be increase by
349 million tons.
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

 In India, about 15.2 % of population is

undernourished and the country stands at 97 rank of
118 nations in global hunger index

Malnutrition (2013-14)
40
35 38.8
Percentage

30
30.1
25
20
15
15
10
5
0
Undernurished
underweight stunted wasted

MWCD (2016)
 Projected changes in dietary demand
from 2000 to 2020
Requirement in million tones
Crops/item
2000 2010 2020
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

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

 By 2050, consumption of meat and dairy

products is projected to increase by 173% and
158%, respectively.
Paroda et al. (2000)
 Shrinking size of land holdings (ha)
 In India more than 80% of farmers are categorized
as small and marginal holders.
 Per capita land availability:
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

0.5 ha in 1950-51
0.15 ha in 2015
2.5 0.10 ha in 2020
2.28
Average land holding

2.0

1.5
(ha)

1.16
1.0
0.68
0.5 0.32

0.0
1970 2010 2020 2030
Year
ASG (2015)
 Integrated Farming System (IFS)

 Integrated farming system is defined as an integrated

set of elements/components and activities that
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

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)
 Farming system-components
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

Energy

Soil Livestock
Farming
system

Water Crops
 Enterprises of IFS

Crop husbandry
Dairy
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

Piggery
Poultry
Duck farming
Aquaculture
Fruit cultivation
Vegetable
production
Agro-forestry
Mushroom
production
Apiculture
Sericulture
Biogas plants
 Resource recycling in a farming system
unit

Field crop unit Manure

Grain
Floriculture unit
Aesthetic Nectar
Apiary
Pomology unit
Fruit
Agro-forestry unit
Compost pit
Timber
Waste
Farm family
Slurry

Milk Dung Gas

Fish Dairy unit
Dung Biogas plant
Egg &
meat Pisciculture unit Slurry

Duckery Poultry
Droppings
Behera and France (2016)
 Elements of integrated farming system
Watershed

Farm ponds
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

Bio-pesticides

Bio-fertilizers

Bio-gas

Solar energy

Vermicompost
making

Green manuring

Rain water
harvesting Manjunath et al. (2014)
 IFS under different agro-ecosystems

 Rainfed and dryland

DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

 Irrigated

 Hill and mountains

 Rainfed agro-ecosystem
About 55% of India’s agriculture land is rainfed
contributing 44% to the national food basket.
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

• 40% Human population

• 60% Animal population

• 85% coarse
cereals
• 83% pulses
• 70% oilseeds
• 42% rice
• 65% cotton

Venkateswarlu and Prasad (2012

 Features of Rainfed
ecosystems

Frequent drought and impact of climate change

Small and staggered land holdings

Rapid soil degradation and loss of soil fertility

Inadequate supply of quality inputs

Dominance of traditional farming system

Poor resources base and market linkages of farmer

 Enterprises for rainfed agro-ecosystems
Crop
Dairy
Agroforestry
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

Fisher
y

Poultry
Apiculture Duckery

Mushroo
Pigger m Horticulture
y
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

Research findings
IFS model for marginal holder (0.6 ha) in rainfed
region of Chhattisgarh

Ramarao et al. (2006)

Economics and employment generation in IFS for
marginal holder (0.6 ha) in rainfed region of
Chhattisgarh
Gross Net
return return B:C Employme
Treatments
ratio nt (days)
(Rs) (Rs)
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
42803d 21462d 2.00 d 291 c
buffalo
Crop+2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1
52695e 29400e 2.23 e 308 d
buffalo + 10 goats
Crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1
buffalo + 10 goats + 10 57975f 33076f 2.26 f 316 e
poultry + 10 ducks

Values with different superscript in the same column differ

significantly from each other (P<0.01)
Ramrao et al. (2006)
 RGYE, economics and employment generation in
different IFS models for rainfed regions of Andhra
Treatments
Pradesh
RGEY Net B:C Employmen
(t/ha) returns t
(Rs/ha) (days/ha/
yr)
Field crops + poultry + fish + 14.90 48,503 1.83 532
banana
Rice + fish + banana 13.25 17,642 1.89 438

Fish + banana + apiculture 14.40 12,812 1.96 454

Cropping alone (Rice-rice system) 7.50 14,500 1.47 398

Poultry - Fish -Horticultural system Paddy - Fish -Horticultural system

RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalent Sekhar et al. (2014)

IFS model for a marginal farmer (0.6 ha) in rainfed
regions of Rajasthan

Yadav and Sharma (2013)

 Profitability of different IFS models in rainfed
regions of Rajasthan (0.6 ha)
35000

30000
Net returns (Rs)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6

T1=Crop
T2=Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow
T3=Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1Buffalo
T4=Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1Buffalo
T5=Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo + 10 Goats
T6=Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo + 10 Goats + 20
Poultry birds
Yadav and Sharma (2013)
Economics of a suggested model on 1.25 ha farm of
enterprise diversification in rainfed regions of
Odisha
Employment Total
Net return
Components generation expenditur B:C
(Rs)
(days) e (Rs)
Field crops 98.2 3315 5638 2.7
Multistoried cropping 87 3831 9089 3.37
Pomology 18.4 900 1466 2.63
Olericulture 96.4 3812 8302 3.18
Floriculture 4 125 100 1.8
Pisciculture 31 3722 16603 5.46
Poultry 23 9240 981 1.11
Duckery 23 5387 713 1.13
Mushroom cultivation 180 18184 12856 1.7
Apiculture 1 170 1180 7.94
Biogas 11 600 1431 3.38
Total 573 49286 58360 2.18
Behera et al. (2013)
 Profitability of rainfed and irrigated IFS in
Rajasthan
121,000
101,000

Net returns (Rs/ha)

Rainfed 81,000
61,000
41,000
21,000
1,000
Crop + Crop + Crop + Crop +
onion dairy dairy + poultry
251,000 nursery goat
201,000
Net returns (Rs/ha)

151,000
101,000
51,000
1,000
s ry t d Irrigate
le a i oa ar
a b d g ch d
et + + o r
g p ry +
ve ro a i
y
C d tr
+ + l
p p ou
ro ro p
C C +
p
ro Singh and Burark (2016)
C
 Farming Systems for arid regions of
India
 Essentially animal-based agricultural economy

 Depends on crops-trees/grasses-livestock
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY
 Crop yields under khejri agroforestry in
Rajasthan
Without Khejri
With Khejri
Crops Grain References
Grain Straw Straw
yield
yield yield yield
(t/ha)
(t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha)

Cow pea 0.92 3.83 0.78 3.05

Cluster
0.82 2.49 0.69 2.03 333 tree/ha
bean
Kaushik & Kumar
Pearl millet 1.27 4.99 1.06 4.00 (2003)
Mustard 1.42 - 1.18 -
Taramira 0.91 - 0.68 -
277 tree/ha
Wheat 1.53 2.38 1.61 4.57 Singh et al.
(2013)
208 tree/ha
Mung bean 0.20 1.8 0.18 1.70 Singh et al.
 Carbon storage (Mg/ha/year) in different
agroforestry systems

5.65 5.54
6
Carbon sequestration (Mg/

5
3.58 3.69
4
3.02
3
ha/year)

Swami and Puri (2005)

Sustainable farming system model for irrigated
agro-ecosystem of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Green Dairy (0.02 ha)

fodder
Poultry (0.02
RGYE=94.53 q/ha ha)
Income=3,17,904 RGYE=12.15 q/ha
Rs/ha Income=39,768
Co
Rs/ha Dropping
Manure du w
ng

RGYE=11.04 q/ha Fish (2 ponds,

Income=42,788 0.02 ha each)
Rs/ha
RGYE=123.75 q/ha
Income=4,21,644 RGYE=6.02 q/ha
Rice-pea-okra (0.5 ha) Rs/ha Income=21,224
Sorghum-berseem-maize Rs/ha
(0.26 ha)
Farm household
(1 ha)
Singh et al.
 Productivity of different IFS modules in irrigated
agro-ecosystem of Eastern Uttar Pradesh
Farming system Component productivity (Rice System
grain equivalent yield q/ha.) productivity
(q/ha)
Crop Dairy Poultry Fish

S=Rice-table pea-okra,P =Poultry,F=Fish,D=Dairy

SBM=Sorghum- berseem - , Singh et al. (2007)
maize
 Productivity (RGYE), income and employment
generation in IFS model in Tungabhadra project
area, Karnataka
Treatments Area Productivi Net B:C Employmen
(ha) ty income t
(kg/ha/yr) (Rs/ha) (days/ha/
yr)
Rice-rice 0.33 2175 7,387 1.84 172

maize- 0.20 908 3,540 1.96 45

sunflower
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 1.00 5611 17,293 1.64 459

rice-rice
system
RGYE= Rice grain yield equivalent
Channabasavanna et al. (2009
 Energy scenario and water requirement in IFS
modules for small farmers in Tungabhadra project
area, Karnataka
Treatments Energy Energy Specific Water
Energy requireme
input output ratio
ratio nt (mm)
(MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg)
Rice-rice 9500 95630 10.06 4.37 848

maize- 82
sunflower 3850 33200 8.62 4.24

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 28560 243870 8.54 5.09 2370 (23.7)*

rice-rice
system
* Water use efficiency in kg/ha-cm Channabasavanna et al. (2009)
 Productivity and profitability of different IFS
modules for Eastern region of India (mean value of
3 years)
Treatments RGYE Net returns Net Income
(t/ha) (×103Rs/ha) returns sustainabilit
(Rs/ha/ y index
day)
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 + 21.20 159.5 437 80.0

goat
FC + fish + cattle 21.18 128.5 352 60.6

FC + fish + 16.56 127.9 350 60.2

mushroom
RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalent
Kumar et al. (2011)
Profitability of IFS model for a marginal farmer (0.6
ha) under irrigated conditions of Chhattisgarh
Treatments Area Net B:C Employme
(ha) returns nt
(Rs) (days/yr)
Rice-wheat-cucurbits 61,681 3.10 60
0.34
(GN-linseed-cucurbits)
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)
Economics and water use efficiency of IFS modules
in Tungabhadra Project area, Karnataka
Treatment System Net B:C WUE
productivit returns (kg/ha-cm)
y (Rs/ha)
(q/ha)
Rice-fish (pit at one side)- 15.29 49,303 1.73 40.7
poultry *
Rice-fish (pit at one side 15.15 47,744 1.14 40.0
connected by trenches)-
poultry *
Rice-fish (pit at the center)- 17.50 62,977 1.91 49.6
poultry **
Rice-fish (pit at one side 14.60 37,766 1.57 42.0
connected by trenches)-
poultry **
Rice-fish (pit at four 15.23 45,224 1.63 43.5
corners connected by
trenches)-poultry **
Conventional (Rice-rice 6.67 21,599 1.90 25.1
system)
*Shed on fish pit, **Reared separately
Channabasavanna and Biradar (2007
 Productivity and economics in different rice based
IFS at Goa (pooled over three years)

Treatment RGYE Net Energ SYI Employme

(t/ha) Returns y nt
(×103Rs/ha) ratio (days/ha)

Rice cropping alone 4.31 19.21 6.76 0.72 110

Rice–groundnut +
Mushroom + 16.92 60.65 2.24 0.78 350
Poultry
Rice–cowpea +
Mushroom + 18.03 73.43 2.41 0.70 345
poultry

Rice–brinjal +
Mushroom + 21.49 77.31 3.18 0.75 392
Poultry

Rice–sunhemp +
Mushroom + 15.36 52.75 2.44 0.64 309
RGYE=Rice
Poultry grain yield equivalent
Korikanthimath and Manjunath (2009)
Profitability and WUE of different IFS modules for
North-eastern hilly region of India
Water
Employmen Net productivit
Area
Particulars t return y
(m2)
(days) (Rs)
(Rs/m3)
IFS

Crop + fish + pig 1500 67 28,250 70

Crop + fish + duck 1500 52 20,350 45

Farmers' practice

Fish culture 500 5 4,000 -

Pond dyke 500 - - -
Maize 200 5 360 -
French bean 100 4 900 -
Chilli, turmeric, mustard -
200 10 2,000
etc.)
Total 1500 24 7,360 23
Das et al. (2013)
 Advantages of IFS
Increase the livelihood and sustain the productivity of
farmers

Reduce the degradation of natural resources

DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

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

 Key barriers in adoption of IFS
Lack of awareness about sustainable farming
systems.
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

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.

 Conclusions

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 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.

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.
 Path Ahead….
 Need to develop IFS modules for different agro-
climatic conditions and holding size with
economically viable and socially accepted
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY

system.

 The synergistic interactions of the farm

components need to be exploited to enhance
resource-use efficiency and recycling of farm by-
products.

 The assessment and refinement of the

technologies developed at research station to
farmer’s field.

 Shift from the existing discipline-oriented

strategy to more holistic approaches would
require attitudinal changes from the policy
makers, scientists and developmental personnel
“Civilization as it is known today could not have
evolved, nor can it survive, without an adequate
food supply” Norman Borlaug