Integrated Farming System Innovative farmers Doubling farmers Income

1. Integrated farming systems for doubling
farmer’s income, sustainable productivity,
and natural resource management
By
L. Muralikrishnan
Scientist, ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research
Institute,
New Delhi-110012

2. Introduction
 India have 20 broad distinct agro-ecological zones with various agro-
climatic ecosystems and other natural features
 The Indian region is one of the world's eight centres of origin with
diversified plants and livestock
 At the same time, in the present globalized economic environment,
doubling farmers’ income is needed
 It should be possible through adoption of sustainable – location specific
multiple farm enterprises based integrated farming system (IFS) practices.
 How?

3. Methodology
 The innovative farmer led multiple farm enterprises based IFS adoption process
 It supports doubling farmer’s income, sustainable productivity and ensuring natural
resource management through energy recycling process with ecosystem specificity
 Under this context a survey research study was conducted with 332 innovative
farmers respondents of ICAR-IARI, through telephonic interview, online survey and
social media based interactions across the country
 Among the 332 farmers, 173 (52.10%) farmers adopted IFS practices and remaining
159 farmers as the non-adopters to compare their socio-economic perspectives,
income and sustainable farming practices

4. Results and discussion
S.
No.
Profile Low % Medium % High %
1 Knowledge level 33 09.93 144 43.37 155 46.68
2 Social Participation 42 12.65 138 41.56 152 45.78
3 Economic motivation 93 28.00 127 38.25 112 33.73
4 Risk taking ability 66 19.87 169 50.90 97 29.21
5 Scientific orientation 85 25.60 149 44.87 98 29.51
6 Information seeking behaviour 37 11.14 119 35.84 176 53.00
7 Training undergone 44 13.25 105 31.62 183 55.12
8 Perception on IFS 82 24.69 139 41.86 111 33.43
9 Innovativeness 38 11.44 140 42.16 154 46.38
10 Contact with extension agency 36 10.84 153 46.08 144 43.37
11 Leadership abilities 39 11.74 177 52.40 116 34.93
1. Socio- economic profile of the respondents (n=332)

5. Cont..
 The farmers’ knowledge level, Social participation level, risk taking ability,
innovativeness, contact with extension agency, leadership abilities had significantly good
as compare to other variables. This factors supported the innovative technology adoption
process.
 Most of the farmers’ socio-economic characteristics were in the medium and high
category.
 Around 25 percentage of the famers perception towards IFS is very low; this may be
the reason for non-adoption of IFS among the selected respondents.

6. 2. Location specific IFS based agronomic practices (n=173)
Sl.
No
Appropriate on farm IFS based agronomic practices Number of
respondents
Percent
age (%)
1 Crop diversification practices 87 50.28
2 Mulching practices 69 39.88
3 Farm pond based rainwater storage for effective watershed
management practices
57 17.16
4 Micro irrigation practices 72 41.61
5 Natural / Organic farming practices 88 50.86
6 Multistage cropping 12 6.93
7 Ridges and furrows based cultivation for soil and water conservation 36 20.80
8 Crop rotation 96 55.49
9 Green and Green leaf manuring 59 34.10
More than 50% of the IFS farmers’ practised crop rotation, crop diversification and natural/organic
farming practices. This shows that, the IFS farmers were highly favoured towards the natural resources
conservation and management practices

7. 3. Location specific IFS based eco-friendly crop protection practices (n=173)
Sl. No IFS based eco-friendly crop protection practices Number of
respondents
Percentage
(%)
1. LEISA and eco-friendly farming practices 76 43.93
2. Integrated pest management 134 77.45
3. Integrated disease management 116 67.05
4. Integrated nutrient management 127 73.41
5. Jeevamitrha and Panchakavya application 83 47.97
Around 70 percent of the farmers were practised the IPM, IDM practices and 45 percent of the farmers
adopted (LEISA) practices, eco-friendly farming practices of Jeevamitrha and Panchakavya application for
sustainable agriculture.
It played important role in sustainable and eco-friendly agricultural production and natural resources
management.
It also reduced the cost of cultivation without compromising the output and supported the enhanced net
income.

8. 4. Location specific IFS based Biodiversity conservation practices (n=173)
Sl.
No
Biodiversity conservation practices Number of
respondent
s
Percentag
e
1 Mixed cropping practices 94 54.33
2 Bio fertilizer, bio control agent application
For conserving microorganisms
20 11.56
3 Maintenance of indigenous crop and animal breeds for
biodiversity conservation and germplasm
36 20.80
4 Cultivation of location specific varieties 28 16.18
5 Agricultural practices for Carbon sequestration 15 8.67
• More than 50 percent of the farmers were practised mixed cropping practices, bio fertilizer and bio control
agent application, maintenance of indigenous crop and animal breeds, cultivation of location specific
varieties for carbon sequestration, germplasm and biodiversity conservation purposes
• This practises played important role in sustainable natural resources management systems

9. 5. Location specific IFS based multiple commercial agricultural activities (n=173)
Sl.
No
Commercial agricultural activities Number of
respondents
Percentage (%)
1 Dairy and Animal Husbandry 147 84.97
2 Goat and sheep rearing activity 94 54.33
3 Agro- Horticulture 127 73.41
3 Fisheries 39 22.54
4 Piggeries 8 4.62
5 Poultry and backyard poultry 43 24.85
6. Apiculture 21 12.13
7. Mushroom production 17 9.82
8. Agro forestry activities 39 22.54
Most of the farmers adopted the dairy and animal husbandry activities, agri-horiculture practices and the livestock
and horticultural activities played very important role for sustainable income generation and ecosystem
maintenance
It also proves a demand driven market oriented demand driven production in enhanced income as compare to
supply driven traditional, rice-wheat, sorghum and Pearl millet-based cropping systems.

10. 6. Average rate of return over cost of cultivation (1 Ha) in the location specific IFS
activities (n=332) (173 IFS farmers +159 conventional farmers)
Sl.
No
Contents Average income and
expenditure statement (1 ha)
1. IFS Enterprise establishment cost (Fixed cost) 33,470.00
2. IFS Enterprise resource (Inventory) cost 26,410.00
3 IFS Human resource cost (including family labour) 43,360.00
4 IFS Marketing cost 27,680.00
5. Total cost 1,30,920.00
6. Gross income 2, 93,320.00
7. Net income 1,62,400.00
8. BCR in IFS 1: 2.240
9. Average Conventional farming income total cost 72,800.00
10. Gross income 1,12,300.00
11. Net income 39,500.00
12. BCR in Conventional Farming activity 1:1.542
The average BCR ratio of the IFS activity farmers were 2.240 as compare to 1.1542 in conventional farming
practices
The organized multi enterprise based IFS enhance the farmers’ income in some extent it also doubled in some of
the farmers contacts.

11. 7 Constraints in location specific IFS activities (n=332)
Sl. No. Constraints Respondent
s
Percentage
1 Lack of skill and poor knowledge in IFS 268 80.72
2 High cost and inadequacy of labour 234 70.48
3 Inadequate credit facilities 112 33.73
4 Lack of extension services and poor impacted the
demonstrated IFS models
187 56.32
5 Marketing and value addition 210 63.25
6 Climate and natural constraints 164 49.39
Lack of skill and poor knowledge in IFS (80.72%), followed by high cost and inadequacy of
labour (70.48%) and lack of extension services and poor impacted the demonstrated IFS
models (56.32%) were the three major constraints

12. Conclusion
 The study concluded that 74.33% of farmers’ income had increased from
22 percent to 156 percent
 The study reported that the livestock, poultry and fisheries component
were majorly supported to enhance the income of farm families in a
short period
 It also reported that 42.07% and more of farmers had high level of
knowledge with improved educational status, farming experiences,
economic motivation, scientific orientation with better extension
agency for sustainable productivity and natural resource management
 It also acts as a climate smart farming practices and 61.76% of farmers’
attitude was highly favoured towards climate smart sustainable farming
practices

13. References
1. Véronique Chable , Edwin Nuijten , Ambrogio Costanzo , Isabelle Goldringer , Riccardo Bocci
, Bernadette Oehen , Frédéric Rey , Dionysia Fasoula , Judit Feher , Marjo Keskitalo , Beate
Koller , Michalis Omirou , Pedro Mendes-Moreira , Gaëlle van Frank , Abdel Kader Naino Jika
, Mathieu Thomas and Adanella Ross, Embedding Cultivated Diversity in Society for Agro-
Ecological Transition, Sustainability 2020, 12, 784
2. Nimisha Tripath, Raj S. Singh, Danielle Kristy Pal, R.K. Singh, Agroecology and sustainability
of agriculture in India: An overview, EC, Agriculture 2.1(241-248
3. Suraj Bhan and Sanjay Arora (Editors). 2015. Advances in Soil and Water Resource
Management for Food and Livelihood Security in Changing Climate, Soil Conservation Society
of India, New Delhi. pp. 682
4. Melesse B, A Review on Factors Affecting Adoption of Agricultural New Technologies in
Ethiopia, Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Research, 2018,9.3
5. Government of India, Agricultural Sector and Marketing Reforms – eNAM, Model APMC Act,
Eco Survey, 2020