P-ISSN: 2618-0723 NAAS Rating: 5.

04
E-ISSN: 2618-0731 [Link]

International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development

Volume 7; Issue 10; October 2024; Page No. 526-529
Received: 15-07-2024 Indexed Journal
Accepted: 20-08-2024 Peer Reviewed Journal

Evaluation of case studies of different integrated farming system models practiced by

selected farmers in indo-gangetic plain region of India
1
Ravi KN and 2Padaria RN
1
Scientist, ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Ballari, Karnataka, India
2
Joint Director (Extension) and Principal Scientist, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
DOI: [Link]
Corresponding Author: Ravi KN

Abstract
Economic evaluation of the farmer practising integrated faming systems is crucial step towards providing feedback to research institutes
through identification of combination of enterprises, economic benefits, existing gaps and practical problems associated in integration of
certain enterprises. In this background the documentation of selective integrated farming system case studies conducted in three blocks of
Haryana and Uttar Pradesh states in India. The in-depth case analysis of five framer adopted integrated farming systems revealed that
practices of integration, recycling of farm resources combined with adoption of on-farm resource conservation techniques provide more
stability towards risk and economic profitability to farmers. Study further analyse risk encountered by Indo-Gangetic plain region farmers in
integration of enterprises and suggested some feasible measures to minimise the risks for promoting Integrated Farming System.

Keywords: Integrated farming system, case study, resource recycling, indo-gangetic region

[15]
Introduction ; Baishya et al. 2005 [3]; Kumar et al. 2012) [10] resulted in
A Farming system is a complex process of interactions the decrease in dependency on external inputs (chemical
among several inter-dependent enterprises, where an fertilisers) that will reduce input cost. Considering the
individual farmer allocates and manages required quantities benefits and advantages of practicing IFS many attempts
and qualities of farm resources (Behera 2008) [5]. At the were been made by agriculture scientists to evaluate
present scenario of shrinking in average landholding size of different farming system models (Kumar et al. 2012 [10];
agricultural households (NABARD, 2018) [17] in the country Kashyap et al. 2015 [9]; Singh 2015 [13]; Sharma et al. 2017)
having more than 80% of small holdings (Chand 2011) [11], [12]
in the research farm to identify the suitable enterprise
farming is no more a profitable venture unless integrated combinations under various agro-climatic regions in India.
and recycled farm resources effectively with suitable But effective transfer or recommendation of any technology
farming enterprises (Behera et al. 2004 [4]; Kumar et al. or models depends on how it performs under realistic field
2012 [10]; Behera et al. 2013 [6]; Ansari et al. 2014 [1]). condition under varying resources and constraints. Hence,
According to Singh et al. (2009) [18] Integrated farming evaluation of a farmer practicing IFS models was taken for
system reorient the present ways of doing agriculture with a study. The study focuses on in-depth economic evaluation
focus to improve productivity and efficiency of farm of farmer adopted IFS in Indo-Gangetic region to explore its
resources to provide regular returns to meet farmers daily profitability and identification of existing gaps with case
needs. In a nutshell, the entire concept of Integrated analysis for further implications.
Farming System (IFS) aims at increasing small holder’s
productivity, profitability and employment through the Study area and sampling technique
integration of various farm enterprises and recycling of on- The present study was undertaken in Muzzafarnagar district
farm resources within the farm (Behera and Mahapatra of western Uttar Pradhesh and Gurgaon and Nuh districts of
2004; Behera et al. 2008) [4, 5]. However, the success of any Haryana state located in Indo-Gangetic plain region of
IFS doesn't only depend on merely integration or addition of India. An in-depth investigation of a farmer practicing
enterprises. But, the integration should be based on the individual IFS models explored through personal interview,
cardinal principles of minimizing the competition and observation and documentation through purposive (non-
maximise the complementarities between the enterprises probability) sampling method. The IFS practising
(Annadurai et al. 1994; Chandrasekaran et al. 2008) [2, 8] and progressive farmers were identified through snowball
the extent of knowledge processed by farmers to integrate technique in discussion with scientists of Indian Council of
the system (Morries 1999) [11]. Meanwhile, recycling of farm Agriculture Research Institutes located in the region. Total 9
resources is associated with gaining of benefits like IFS case studies were documented from the Kathauli and
additional nutrients to soil (Rangaswamy and Jayanthi 1994 Jansath blocks of Muzzafarnagar district and 6 IFS case
[Link] 526
International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development [Link]

studies are collected from the Pataudi and Nuh blocks of Results and Discussion
Gurgaon and Nuh districts respectively. Considering the IFS models and its components
nature of integration and clarity of data obtained a total of 5 Six different farmers practising IFS models with different
unique IFS case studies, were analysed and presented in the combinations of components and area are documented to
paper. know the resource flow, profitability, employment
generation, potential risks and existing gaps under farmer’s
Tools and techniques field conditions. Further, economic analysis of the different
An economic analysis of IFS models were assessed by components is worked out through B: C ratio and Net
calculating total cost (variable and fixed cost), gross returns Returns per day to assess the profitability of each
and net returns for individual enterprises. The sums of all component. After careful analysis and observation of
the individual enterprises of each case study were added to components and their integration, about 5 IFS case studies
obtain farm level costs and returns. Further, we calculated were evaluated and presented in detail to understand their
Net returns per day and cropping intensity of the each economic feasibility, profitability, employability and risks
enterprise for comparison. associated with practising Integrated Farming System in
farmer field under practical situation.

Table 1: Allocation of different enterprises under Integrated farming system models practiced by progressive farmers
Case study Enterprise combination
IFS Model 1 Crop + Horticulture + Fodder crop + Dairy farming + Vermicompost unit
IFS Model 2 Crops + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy farming + Agro-forestry + Compost unit
IFS Model 3 Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy + Got farming + Fish farming + Compost unit
IFS Model 4 Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy + Mushroom + Vermicompost unit
IFS Model 5 Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy farming+ Agro-forestry + Vermicompost unit

Six different farmers practicing successful farming system production and dairy is the major components. However,
models with different combinations of enterprises (Table 1) model 2, 4, and 5 having Agro-forestry component and
and area are documented to know the resource flow, model 3 having got farming, fish farming and model 4
profitability, employment generation, potential risks and having mushroom production unit in an addition to crop and
existing gaps under farmer’s field conditions. Among the dairy enterprises.
five farming systems documented from farmers, crop

Table 2: Allocation of area under different enterprises of integrated farming system models practiced by progressive farmers
Crop Horticulture Fodder Dairy Agro-Forestry Goat Fish Pond
IFS Land Holding (ha.) Mushroom unit (ft)
(ha.) (ha.) (ha.) (No.) (ha.) (No.) (ha.)
1 0.42 0.16 0.48 0.16 3 - - - -
2 2.19 1.86 0.26 0.2 7 0.1 - - -
3 2.6 2.4 0.4 0.6 4 - 3 0.15 -
4 2.6 3.32 0.2 0.4 6 - - - 10˟12
5 4 2.8 1 0.4 2 0.2 - - -

Selective five cases studies of integrated farming system cases.

models practiced by progressive farmers were documented The Agro-forestry system was practised in case 2 & 5
and evaluated with different land holdings (Table 2). The models. In IFS model 3 and 4 adopted
systems include (1) Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy, enterprises/components with pisciculture and mushroom
(2) Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy +Agro forestry, production, respectively. From the table 3 it was observed
(3) Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy + Goat farming + that all the model IFS farmers were adopted or followed
Fish farming, (4) Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + Dairy + different resource conservation measures and on-farm
Mushroom production, (5) Crop + Horticulture + Fodder + recycling technique to improve income and reduce external
Dairy + Agro forestry combinations practiced by in 0.42, resource application includes diversified crop selection,
2.19, 2.6, 2.6, & 4 ha of land holdings, respectively. Further, intercropping systems, recycling of farm waste through
the area allotment on different crops in a year is shown in vermin-compost production, mulching techniques, micro-
Table 2. The detailed adoption of different components of irrigation, use of cow based organic liquid manures like
the IFS models were compared and show in the Table 3. In jeevamrutha and use of Jaivik decomposer for in-situ
all the case studies farmer adopted traditional cereals crops decomposition of farm waste. Hence, the IFS models were
with commercial horticulture crops and fodder component align with the major principles of Integrated Farming
due to adoption of Animal husbandry component in all System.

[Link] 527
International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development [Link]

Table 3: Crop and Livestock details of IFS models practiced by progressive farmers
Vermi-
IFS Agro- Fish or Resource conservation
Crop Horticulture Fodder Dairy Goat compost
Model forestry mushroom practices adopted
(ft)
Diversified Cropping,
Broccoli and Cow,
Lemon Intercropping, jaivik
Model 1 Papaya (inter- Sorghum Buffalo, - - - 15x15
Grass decomposer and
crop) Calf
Vermicompost
Ratoon cropping,
2 Cow, 4
Sorghum, mulching, compost
Model 2 Sugarcane Potato Calves; Poplus - 60x40
Napier recycling, strip cropping,
1 Bull
agro-forestry etc.
Compost recycling,
diversified enterprises,
Wheat and Sorghum, 2 Buffalo,
Model 3 Brinjal - 3 Rohu; Catla 15x15 recycling of kitchen waste
Mustard Bajra 2 Calf
and dung for fish and fish
cultured water for crops
Adoption of diversified
Sugarcane, Cow;
Mango and Sorghum, crops and enterprises.
Model 4 Rice and Bull; - - Mushroom 15x15
guava Maize Recycling of mushroom
wheat 2 Calves
waste
Vermicompost, green
manuring, use of
Cotton; Desi cow
Tomato; Chilly; jeevamrutha and adoption
Model 5 Sesame; Sorghum and Neem - - 60x40
Citrus of water and labour
Pearl Millet Buffalo
saving techniques like
sprinkler, drip and etc.

Table 4: Economics of IFS models practiced by progressive farmers

Cropping Total Gross Net Net
IFS Gross Cropped Net Sown B:C
Intensity Cost Returns Returns returns/day
Model Area (ha.) Area (ha.) Ratio
(%) (₹) (₹) (₹) (₹/day)
Model 1 0.51 0.42 121.4 207823 543640 335817 920 2.6
Model 2 2.42 2.19 110.5 412325 900650 488325 1337 2.2
Model 3 4.4 2.6 169.2 483664 1120114 636450 1743 2.3
Model 4 3.92 2.6 150.7 440433 954325 513892 1408 2.2
Model 5 4.4 4 110.0 346366 722675 376309 1031 2.08

An economic evaluation of each case study shows that all enterprises/component. The case analysis of the model 3,
models are giving better returns and higher benefit-cost ratio farmer incurred a loss of ₹ 300000, due to failure of
on every rupee invested (see table 4). In case of model 1 net Pisciculture (death of entire fish in pond), similarly case
sown area is lowest of 0.42 ha, however the B:C ratio is 2.6 analysis of model 2 reveals farmer incurred loss due to low
highest among all the other IFS models. This is possible due market rate/ less price for potato (Horticulture crop) & in
to effective management and recycling of the resources by the case 5 farmer reported decrease in price of Chilli due to
farmers in a limited area of land, thereby reducing total cost market glut, all of these affected the farmers revenue during
(₹ 207823) for management of different components and the study year. However, due to diversified
improving the gross returns (₹ 543640). Hence, effective components/enterprises and adoption of on farm resource
management resources and practice of Integrated farming conservation and recycling measures the total loss was
system in small holder farms also give a better retunes to decreased and compensated by other enterprises. Even after
small hold farmers. Further, model 2,3 and 4 provides the uncertain risk due to market and unforeseen loss of unit
almost similar B:C returns to farmers and it will give almost the B:C ratio of the models were recorded more than 2 in all
double income as per rupee invested as seen from table 4. cases. The net return of the each model was calculated and
Further, in case of model 5 our results revealed that farmer provides better income per day to farmers as shown in table 4.
with 4 ha of land having B:C ratio comparatively less than
other small holder farmers. This is mainly due to increase in Practical constraints in practicing IFS by farmers
the land may some cases will reduce the farmers strategy in An in-depth analysis of selected case studies reveals that
planning the resource utilization may not so effectively as in market price fluctuations for high-value horticulture crops
case of the small holders where they can manage with the are a significant risk for farmers who adopt horticulture, as
available resource and family labor, that drastically reduce observed in Case 3 and Case 5. These price fluctuations
total cost of production of different enterprises. This can pose a major threat to crop diversification from the
also observed in indicators like low cropping intensity in sugarcane-wheat and rice-wheat systems, where farmers
case of model 5 and loss of income due to market glut. The receive assured income, particularly in the Indo-Gangetic
case analysis also provides insight into how IFS will ensure region. Additionally, Case 4 illustrates threats like disease
better benefits even during the failure of one another or death of fish in pisciculture, often resulting in substantial

[Link] 528
International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development [Link]

financial losses for farmers. However, the case studies also systems methodology for efficient resource
show that farmers are able to compensate for losses in one management at the farm level: a review from an Indian
enterprise through gains in another, indicating that the perspective. The Journal of Agricultural Science.
Integrated Farming System (IFS) helps in minimizing 2008;146(5):493-505.
overall economic risk. Farmers noted that the adoption and 6. Behera UK, DASS A, Rautaraym SK, Choudhary AK,
integration of certain enterprises, such as pisciculture, Rana DS. Integrated farming system research in India:
mushroom production, and beekeeping, were limited due to an overview. In: Integrated Farming Systems for
a lack of specific management skills and necessary inputs Enhancing Livelihood of Small and Marginal Farmers.
(e.g., knowledge of mushroom cultivation or beehive Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research
maintenance). Additionally, there were challenges in Institute, New Delhi; c2013. p. 40-78.
accessing information and markets, such as sourcing 7. Chand R, Prasanna PL, Singh A. Farm size and
mushroom seeds or beehive cages, as observed in Case 2 productivity: Understanding the strengths of
and Case 5. smallholders and improving their livelihoods.
Economic and Political Weekly. 2011;46(26):5-11.
Conclusion 8. Chandrasekaran B, Annadurai K, Kavimani R. Rice
The analysis of six case studies shows that the Integrated science. Scientific Publisher; c2008. ISBN: 978-81-
Farming System (IFS) is effectively demonstrated and 7233-504-5.
managed by farmers under field conditions. The results from 9. Kashyap P, Kansal A, Prusty AK, Singh JP. Evaluation
these IFS models indicate a positive benefit-cost ratio per of horticulture based IFS models for providing
rupee invested, ranging from 1.9 to 2.6 across different land nutritional security to small and marginal farmers of
holdings (refer to Table 1). Despite the Constraints faced by Western Plain Zone of Uttar Pradesh, India.
IFS farmers, the case studies highlight that farmers are International Journal of Economic Plants. 2015;1(2):79-
obtaining remunerative returns due to increased risk-bearing 81.
capacity and compensation provided by one or more other 10. Kumar S, Subash N, Shivani S, Singh SS, Dey A.
enterprises in the event of failure of any one enterprise. Evaluation of different components under the integrated
Therefore, we recommend implementing effective policy farming system (IFS) for small and marginal farmers
measures to address the adoption constraints of enterprises under semi-humid climatic environment. Experimental
such as mushroom cultivation, poultry, beekeeping, and Agriculture. 2012;48(3):399-413.
pisciculture. This can be achieved by establishing proper 11. Morris C, Winter M. Integrated farming systems: the
backward and forward linkages for easy availability of third way for European agriculture? Land Use Policy.
inputs and equipping farmers with the necessary 1999;16(4):193-205.
management skills for crop and enterprise diversification, 12. Sharma RL, Abraham S, Bhagat R, Prakash O.
thereby optimizing farm resource utilization. Additionally, Comparative performance of integrated farming system
there is a need to raise awareness among farmer groups models in Gariyaband region under rainfed and
about the economic benefits of adopting IFS, using case irrigated conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural
studies of farmers who have successfully implemented the Research. c2017;51(1).
system. This will motivate others, particularly in the Indo- 13. Singh S, Pati BK. Empirical proof on benefits of the
Gangetic Plain region, to shift from mono-cropping to the integrated farming system in smallholder farms in
more sustainable IFS approach. Odisha. Current Agriculture Research Journal.
2015;3(1):69-74.
References 14. Tanwar S, Bhati T, Singh M, Patidar B, Mathur P,
1. Ansari MA, Prakash N, Baishya LK, Punitha P, Sharma Kumar P, et al. Rainfed integrated farming systems in
PK, Yadav JS, et al. Integrated farming system: an ideal arid zone of India: resilience unmatched. Indian Journal
approach for developing more economically and of Agronomy. 2018;63(4):403-414.
environmentally sustainable farming systems for the 15. Rangaswamy A, Jayanthi C. Recycling of organic
Eastern Himalayan Region. Indian Journal of wastes in integrated systems. In: Proceedings of
Agricultural Sciences. 2014;84(3):356-362. National Training on Organic Farming, TNAU,
2. Annadurai K, Palniappan SP, Chinnusamy C, Jayanthi Coimbatore, India. c1994;1-8 September.
C. Integrated farming system. Kisan World. 16. NABARD. NABARD All India Rural Financial
1994;21(8):51. Inclusion Survey c2016-17. Accessed on: 12-03-2019.
3. Baishya A, Pathak AK, Bhowmick BC, Kalita MC, Available from:
Mazumder DK, Chutia S, et al. Predominant farming [Link]
system and alternatives in Assam. In: Alternate 180417NABARD-Repo-16_Web_P.pdf
Farming Systems: Enhanced Returns and Employment 17. NABARD. NAFIS: All India Rural Financial Inclusion
Generation Options for Small and Marginal Farmers. Survey 2016–17, Mumbai: National Bank for
c2005. p. 228-237. Agricultural and Rural Development; c2018.
4. Behera UK, Jha KP, Mahapatra IC. Integrated 18. Singh B, Sharma DK, Kumar R, Gupta A. Controlled
management of available resources of small and release of the fungicide thiram from starch–alginate–
marginal farmers for generation of income and clay based formulation. Applied Clay Science. 2009
employment in eastern India. Crop Research. Jun 1;45(1-2):76-82.
2004;27(1):83-89.
5. Behera UK, Yates CM, Kebreab E, France J. Farming

[Link] 529