Integrated Farming System-A Holistic Approach for Food

and Livelihood Security

SEMINAR-I

NAVEEN KUMAR C
Sr. M.Sc (Agri)
PG16AGR8057
 Outline……

 Introduction

 Integrated farming system (IFS)

 Components and enterprises of IFS

 Research findings

 Conclusions
Introduction
 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)
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

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.
 Malnutrition (2013-14)
40
35 38.8
Percentage 30
25 30.1
20
15
10 15
5
0
underweight
Undernurished stunted wasted

Figure 1: 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.

 In India, about 15.2 % of population is undernourished and the country

stands at 97 rank of 118 nations in global hunger index

MWCD (2016)
Table 1:Projected changes in dietary demand
from 2000 to 2020
Requirement in million tones
Crops/item
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

 By 2050, consumption of meat and dairy products is

projected to increase by 173% and 158%, respectively.
Paroda et al. (2000)
Average land holding 2.5 2.28

2.0

1.5
1.16
(ha)

1.0
0.68
0.5 0.32

0.0
1970 2010 2020 2030
Year

Figure 2: Shrinking size of land holdings

(ha)

 In India more than 80% of farmers are categorized as

small and marginal holders.
 Per capita land availability:

FAO (2015)
 Energy

Soil Livestock
Farming
system

Water Crops

Figure 3: Farming system-components

 Enterprises of IFS

Crop husbandry
Dairy
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

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

 Irrigated

 Hill and mountains

 • 40% Human population

• 60% Animal population

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

About 65% of India’s agriculture land is rainfed contributing

44% to the national food basket.
Figure 4: Rainfed agro-ecosystem
CRIDA ,Hyderabad 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 farmers

Enterprises for rainfed agro-ecosystems
Crop
Dairy
Agroforestry

Fishery

Poultry
Apiculture Duckery

Mushroom
Piggery Horticulture
Research findings
Figure 5 : IFS model for marginal holder (0.6 ha) in
rainfed region
IGKV,Chhattisgarh Ramarao et al. (2006)
Table 2: Economics and employment generation in IFS for marginal
holder (0.6 ha) in rainfed region

Gross Net
returns returns B:C Employment
Treatments
ratio (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 poultry + 57975f 33076f 2.26 f 316 e
10 ducks

IGKV,Chattisgarh Ramarao et al. (2006)

Table 3 : RGYE, economics and employment generation in different
IFS models for rainfed regions
Treatments RGEY Net B:C Employment
(t/ha) returns ratio (days/ha/yr)
(Rs/ha)

T1:Field crops + poultry + fish + 14.90 48,503 1.83 532

banana
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

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

RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalent

ANGRAU, AP Sekhar et al. (2014)
 Table 4 : Productivity and profitability in integrated farming systems for
average of four year (dryland ecosystem)

UAS,RAICHUR Desai et al. (2014)

Figure 6 : IFS model for a marginal farmer
(0.6 ha) in rainfed regions
Yadav and Sharma (2013)
 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

Figure 7 : Profitability of different IFS models in rainfed regions

of Rajasthan (0.6 ha)
RARI,Durgapur Yadav and Sharma (2013)
 Table 5 : Economics of a suggested model on 1.25 ha farm of
enterprise diversification in rainfed regions
Employment Total
Net returns B:C
Components generation expenditure
(Rs) ratio
(days) (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

OUAT,Odisha Behera et al. (2013)

Figure 8 : Profitability of rainfed and irrigated IFS in Rajasthan
121,000

Net returns (Rs/ha)

101,000
81,000
Rainfed
61,000
41,000
21,000
1,000
Crop + Crop + Crop + Crop +
onion dairy dairy + poultry
251,000 nursery goat
Net returns (Rs/ha)

201,000

151,000

101,000 Irrigated
51,000

1,000
Crop + Crop + Crop + Crop +
vegetables dairy dairy + poultry +
goat orchard Singh and Burark (2016)
Farming Systems for arid regions of India
 Essentially animal-based agricultural economy

 Depends on crops-trees/grasses-livestock
 5.65 5.54
6
Carbon sequestration

5
(Mg/ha/year)

3.58 3.69
4
3.02
3

0
Leucaena Gmelina Teak based Gmelina Eucalyptus
based based system based based
system system system system

IGKV , RAIPUR
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 ha)
RGYE=94.53 q/ha
Income=3,17,904 Rs/ha RGYE=12.15 q/ha
Income=39,768 Rs/ha
Dropping
Manure

RGYE=11.04 q/ha Fish (2 ponds,

Income=42,788 Rs/ha 0.02 ha each)

RGYE=123.75 q/ha
Income=4,21,644 Rs/ha RGYE=6.02 q/ha
Rice-pea-okra (0.5 ha) Income=21,224 Rs/ha
Sorghum-berseem-maize
(0.26 ha)
Farm household
(1 ha)
CSAUA&T,UP Singh et al. (2007)
 Table 6 : Productivity of different IFS modules in irrigated agro-
ecosystem of Eastern Uttar Pradesh
Farming system Component productivity (Rice grain System
equivalent yield q/ha) 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

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

SBM=Sorghum- berseem -maize Singh et al. (2007)
Table 7: Productivity income and employment generation in IFS
model in Tungabhadra project area, Karnataka
Treatments Area Productivity Net B:C Employment
(ha) (kg/ha/yr) income ratio (days/ha/yr)
(Rs/ha)
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

ARS,Siruguppa Channabasavanna et al. (2009)

 Table 8: Energy scenario and water requirement in IFS modules for
small farmers in Tungabhadra project area, Karnataka

Treatments Energy Energy Specific Water

Energy requirement
input output ratio
ratio (mm)
(MJ/kg) (MJ/kg) (MJ/kg)
Rice-rice 9500 95630 10.06 4.37 848

maize- 82
3850 33200 8.62 4.24
sunflower
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

ARS, Siruguppa
Channabasavanna et al. (2009)
Table 9: 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 sustainability
(Rs/ha/ 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 + 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

RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalent

CAU, IMPAL Kumar et al. (2011)
Table 10: Profitability of IFS model for a marginal farmer (0.6 ha)
under irrigated conditions
Treatments Area Net returns B:C Employment
(ha) (Rs) ratio (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

Chhattisgarh Sharma et al. (2017)

 Table 11 : Economics and water use efficiency of IFS modules in
Tungabhadra Project area
Treatment System Net B:C WUE
productivity returns ratio (kg/ha-cm)
(q/ha) (Rs/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 corners 15.23 45,224 1.63 43.5
connected by trenches)-
poultry **
Conventional (Rice-rice 6.67 21,599 1.90 25.1
system)

*Shed on fish pit, **Reared separately

ARS,Siruguppa Channabasavanna and Biradar (2007)
 Table 12: Total farm production (REY t/ha) details in 1 ha IFS
Model
Year Total farm Total Total Total Total Others
production production production productio productio Vermicom
(Rice (REY t/ha) (REY t/ha) n (REY n (REY post
Equivalent from crops from t/ha) from t/ha) from /kitchen
Yield-t/ha unit horticultur livestock goat unit garden
e unit unit (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

ARS,SIRUGUPPA Basavannappa et al (2017)

 Table 13: Gross returns, net returns and B:C ratio of 1 ha IFS
model in different years

year Gross returns Net returns B:C ratio

(Rs/ha) ( Rs/ha)

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

ARS , SIRUGUPPA Basavannappa et al.

(2017)
 Table 14: Productivity and economics in different rice based IFS at
Goa (pooled over three years)

Treatment RGYE Net Returns Energy SYI Employment

(t/ha) (×103Rs/ha) ratio (days/ha)

Rice cropping alone 4.31 19.21 6.76 0.72 110

Rice–groundnut +
16.92 60.65 2.24 0.78 350
Mushroom + Poultry

Rice–cowpea +
18.03 73.43 2.41 0.70 345
Mushroom + poultry

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

Rice–sunhemp +
15.36 52.75 2.44 0.64 309
Mushroom + Poultry

RGYE=Rice grain yield equivalent , SYI=Sustainable yield index

ICAR Research complex, Goa Korikanthimath and Manjunath (2009)
Table 15: Profitability and WUE of different IFS modules for North-
eastern hilly region of India
Water
Area Employment Net returns productivity
Particulars
(m2) (days) (Rs/ha) (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 -
200 10 2,000
etc.)
Total 1500 24 7,360 23

North eastern region Das et al. (2013)

Table 16: Productivity and Profitability in Integrated farming systems for
average of Four years (Irrigated condition)

UAS,Raichur Desai et al. (2014)

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
 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.

 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 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.
“Civilization as it is known today could not have
evolved, nor can it survive, without an adequate food
supply” Norman Borlaug