Basics of Integrated Farming Systems [1st ed. 2023] 9819965551, 9789819965557

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
About the Authors
1: Introduction
References
2: Problems of Small and Marginal Farmers Related to Agriculture
Reference
3: What Is Cropping System
3.1 Points to Be Concerned While Adopting the Cropping System
3.2 Benefits of Integrated Farming System
3.3 Complementary Enterprises for Small and Marginal Farmers
3.4 Aim/Goals of Integrated Farming System
3.5 Principles of Integrated Farming System
References
4: Crop Component
4.1 Factors Influencing Decisions on the Selection of Crops and Cropping System
Cereals
Pulses
Oilseeds
Forage Crops
5: Vegetable Component
5.1 Ways to Boost Yields in Vegetable Garden
5.2 Protected Cultivation of Vegetables
5.3 Production System for Vegetable Crops Under Protected Cultivation
5.4 Response of Individual Crops to Protected Cultivation
References
Untitled
6: Horticultural Component
6.1 Package of Practices to Be Adopted for Fruit Cultivation in IFS
Planting Time
6.2 Planting Distance for Square System and High-Density Planting
6.3 Training and Pruning
6.4 Nutrient Management
Micronutrient Deficiency
6.5 Water Management
6.6 Weed Management
6.7 Fruit Drop
6.8 Crop Regulation
6.9 Quality Improvement
Reference
7: Livestock Rearing (Dairying)
7.1 Indigenous Dairy Breeds of Cattle
7.2 Exotic Dairy Breeds of Cattle
7.3 Cross-Bred: Dairy Cattle
7.4 Buffalo Breeds
Indigenous Buffalo Breeds
7.5 Housing for Dairy Cattle
7.6 Feeding of Dairy Cattle
7.7 Tips for Feeding Dairy Cattle
7.8 Feeding the Cattle During Stress Period
7.9 Care and Management of Pregnant Animal
7.10 Care and Management of Milch Animals
7.11 Clean Milk Production in India
Reference
8: Poultry Rearing
8.1 Selection of Location
9: Fish Farming
9.1 Selection of Site for Fish Pond
9.2 Constructing the Fish Pond
9.3 Fish Breed for Fish Pond
10: Beekeeping
10.1 Species of Honey Bees in India
10.2 Bee Family
10.3 Establishment of Hives
10.4 Establishing a Bee Colony
10.5 Management of Colonies
Management During Lean Season
Management During Honey Flow Season
10.6 Harvesting of Honey
10.7 Benefits of Beekeeping as an Income Generation Activity
10.8 Bee Products
11: Mushroom Cultivation
11.1 How to Grow Button Mushroom
Making Compost
Filling the Compost in Trays
Spawning
Casing
Cropping
Harvesting
11.2 Cultivation of Paddy Straw Mushrooms
11.3 Cultivation of Oyster Mushroom
11.4 Benefits of Mushroom Cultivation
12: Vermicomposting
12.1 Vermicompost Production Methodology
12.2 Advantages of Vermicompost
Reference
13: Rabbit Farming
13.1 Advantages of Rabbit Farming
13.2 Rabbit Breeds
13.3 Rabbit Farming Method
14: Turkey Rearing
14.1 Breeds of the Turkeys
Housing
Equipment
Availability of Poults
Feeding and Feed Requirements
Water and Electricity
Reproductive Parameters
Marketing
Reference
15: Sericulture
15.1 What Is Silk Made Up Of?
15.2 Processes Followed in Sericulture
Moriculture
Silkworm Rearing
Silk Reeling
15.3 Challenges Faced in Sericulture
15.4 Multipurpose Use of Sericulture
16: Waste Recycling in IFS
Reference
17: Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS
17.1 Concept of Integrated Farming System
17.2 Difference Between IFS and Mixed Farming
17.3 Aim/Goals of Integrated Farming System
17.4 Need for Integrating Farming System
17.5 Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers in IFS
17.6 Principles of Integrated Farming System
17.7 Present Scenario of Integrated Farming System
17.8 IFS for Different Agro-Climatic Zones of India
17.9 Components of Integrated Farming System
Integrated Crop/Livestock Farming System
Improving Nutrient Cycling
Source of Energy
Integrated Livestock/Fish Farming System
Poverty Alleviation
Economic Benefits
Food Security
Quality of Manure
Integrated Poultry/Aquaculture Farming System
17.10 Paddy cum Fish Culture
17.11 Duckery Unit
17.12 Mushroom Cultivation
17.13 Bee Keeping
17.14 Sericulture
17.15 Success Stories in Integrated Farming System
17.16 Constraints in the IFS Model
17.17 Women Empowerment Through IFS
References
18: Farming System Approach and Its Role Toward Livelihood Security Under Different Farming Situations
18.1 Role of Farming System
18.2 Farming System Approaches for Different Agro Climatic Zones in India
References
19: Concept of Farming System in Relation to Conservation of Natural Resources
19.1 Agroforestry-Based IFS: An Approach for Climate Change Mitigation and Natural Resource Management
19.2 Watershed and Integrated Farming System
19.3 Resource Conservation Under Rice-Based Cropping System
References
20: Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare Models of Farming System in a Tropical and Subtropi...
20.1 Rice-Fish-Based Integrated Farming System in Rainfed Lowlands of Assam (Rautaray et al. 2005)
20.2 Rice-Fish-Prawn Farming Systems of Orissa
20.3 Integrated Farming System for the North-eastern Himalayan Region
20.4 Integrated Farming System for Lowlands of Bihar
20.5 Integrated Farming System for Punjab
20.6 Integrated Farming Systems for Tribal Farmers in Hilly Regions of Manipur
References
21: Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food Security in the Country
21.1 Integrated Crop Livestock Farming System
21.2 Diversified Versus Integrated Systems
21.3 Promoting Ecologically Sustainable Farming
21.4 Livelihood Security in the NW IGP
21.5 Environmental Sustainability
21.6 Farming Systems Scenario in NW IGP
21.7 Development of Farming System Model
21.8 Economics and Livelihood Improvement
21.9 Employment Generation
21.10 Case Study
References
22: Organic Integrated Farming System
22.1 Organic Approach of Integrated Framing Systems
22.2 Main Principles of Organic Farming
22.3 Nutrient Management
22.4 Insect Pest Management
22.5 Disease Management
22.6 Weed Management
22.7 Prospects of Organic Dairy Farming in India
22.8 Feeding to Livestock in Organic Systems
22.9 Some Other Issues to Consider (Sharma and Saini 2015)
22.10 Limitations
References
23: Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains Toward Food Productivity Enhancement in a Major Croppi...
23.1 Food Supply in the Indo-Gangetic Plain
23.2 Nutrient Management
23.3 Crop Production and Nutrient Use Efficiency of Conservation Agriculture for Soybean-Wheat Rotation in the Indo-Gangetic P...
23.4 Improving Nitrogen and Phosphorus Use Efficiencies Through the Inclusion of Forage Cowpea in the Rice-Wheat Systems in th...
23.5 Fertilizer Management Strategies for Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency and Sustainable Wheat Production
23.6 Nutrient Management in Rice-Wheat Sequence Under Sodic Soil
23.7 IPNS Strategies for Major Cropping Systems (Singh and Singh 2014)
Rice-Wheat
References
24: Conclusion
Untitled

Citation preview

Sohan Singh Walia Tamanpreet Kaur

Basics of Integrated Farming Systems

Basics of Integrated Farming Systems

Sohan Singh Walia • Tamanpreet Kaur

Basics of Integrated Farming Systems

Sohan Singh Walia School of Organic Farming Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Tamanpreet Kaur School of Organic Farming Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana, Punjab, India

ISBN 978-981-99-6555-7 ISBN 978-981-99-6556-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4

(eBook)

# The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore Paper in this product is recyclable.

Preface

Indian agriculture faces various challenges and problems that have significant implications for the country’s food security, rural economy, and livelihoods of millions of farmers. These issues stem from a combination of factors such as fragmented landholdings, outdated farming practices, water scarcity, market inefficiencies, and climate variability. Moreover, soil degradation, pests, and diseases pose continuous threats to crop productivity, while lack of access to formal credit and crop insurance exposes farmers to financial risks. The focus on certain crops and inadequate agricultural diversification also affect the sustainability of the sector and create imbalances in food production. The challenges of Indian agriculture call for comprehensive strategies and policy interventions to promote sustainable practices, improve infrastructure, and enhance market linkages. The crop and cropping system-based perspective of research needs to make way for farming systems-based research conducted in a holistic manner for the sound management of available resources by small farmers. No single farm enterprise is expected to be able to sustain the marginal and small farmers without switching to integrated farming systems (IFS) for the generation of adequate income and productive employment year-round. IFS offers a solution to many of the challenges faced by traditional farming systems, such as declining soil fertility, water scarcity, pest infestations, and market fluctuations. By diversifying farm activities and utilizing resources efficiently, IFS aims to enhance farm resilience and income generation while minimizing environmental impact. It encourages the use of organic and natural inputs, reducing dependency on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The concept of “integrated farming system” refers to a holistic and sustainable approach to agriculture, wherein multiple enterprises are combined and managed together to maximize resource utilization, productivity, and economic returns. Integrated farming systems aim to create synergies between various components, such as crops, livestock, fisheries, and agroforestry, to optimize input use, minimize waste, and improve overall farm efficiency. Through this book, we will explore the principles, benefits, and challenges of adopting Integrated Farming System. We will delve into the different components involved, their interactions, and the potential for IFS to improve the socio-economic well-being of farming communities. Additionally, we will highlight successful case studies and best practices from around the world to showcase the positive outcomes v

vi

Preface

of implementing IFS. Overall, this book will set the stage for a comprehensive exploration of the concept and significance of Integrated Farming System in modern agriculture. Currently, there is a limited availability of reference books catering to the needs of students in this specialized area. This book presents the subject matter in a wellstructured and coherent manner, aiming to enhance students’ comprehension and ensure a consistent learning experience. We believe that this book will prove immensely valuable to students, teachers, and extension personnel alike. We are open to receiving suggestions for further enhancing the content of this book. Your input and feedback are highly appreciated as they will help us continually improve and refine the material. Together, we can strive for excellence in this field of study. Ludhiana, Punjab, India Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Sohan Singh Walia Tamanpreet Kaur

Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 3

2

Problems of Small and Marginal Farmers Related to Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 7

3

4

5

What Is Cropping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Points to Be Concerned While Adopting the Cropping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Benefits of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Complementary Enterprises for Small and Marginal Farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Aim/Goals of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Principles of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crop Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Factors Influencing Decisions on the Selection of Crops and Cropping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cereals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pulses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oilseeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forage Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vegetable Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Ways to Boost Yields in Vegetable Garden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Protected Cultivation of Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Production System for Vegetable Crops Under Protected Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Response of Individual Crops to Protected Cultivation . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 10 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 20 21 22 23 25 31 32 34 35 36

vii

viii

Contents

Horticultural Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Package of Practices to Be Adopted for Fruit Cultivation in IFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Planting Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Planting Distance for Square System and High-Density Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Training and Pruning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Nutrient Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Micronutrient Deficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 Water Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Weed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 Fruit Drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.8 Crop Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 Quality Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 41 42 45 46 47 47 48 49 49

7

Livestock Rearing (Dairying) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Indigenous Dairy Breeds of Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Exotic Dairy Breeds of Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Cross-Bred: Dairy Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Buffalo Breeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indigenous Buffalo Breeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Housing for Dairy Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Feeding of Dairy Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Tips for Feeding Dairy Cattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Feeding the Cattle During Stress Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.9 Care and Management of Pregnant Animal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.10 Care and Management of Milch Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.11 Clean Milk Production in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51 52 52 54 54 54 57 58 59 60 61 62 64 65

8

Poultry Rearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 Selection of Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67 68

9

Fish Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Selection of Site for Fish Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Constructing the Fish Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 Fish Breed for Fish Pond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 72 73 73

10

Beekeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 Species of Honey Bees in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Bee Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Establishment of Hives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Establishing a Bee Colony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Management of Colonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management During Lean Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77 78 79 79 80 80 80

6

39 40 40

Contents

ix

Management During Honey Flow Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvesting of Honey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benefits of Beekeeping as an Income Generation Activity . . . . Bee Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81 81 81 81

11

Mushroom Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 How to Grow Button Mushroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Making Compost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Filling the Compost in Trays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spawning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Casing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 Cultivation of Paddy Straw Mushrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 Cultivation of Oyster Mushroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.4 Benefits of Mushroom Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83 84 84 85 85 85 85 86 86 86 87

12

Vermicomposting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Vermicompost Production Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 Advantages of Vermicompost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89 90 93 93

13

Rabbit Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 Advantages of Rabbit Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Rabbit Breeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.3 Rabbit Farming Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95 96 97 97

14

Turkey Rearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.1 Breeds of the Turkeys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Availability of Poults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feeding and Feed Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water and Electricity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reproductive Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99 100 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103

15

Sericulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.1 What Is Silk Made Up Of? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 Processes Followed in Sericulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silkworm Rearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silk Reeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 Challenges Faced in Sericulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 Multipurpose Use of Sericulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

105 106 106 106 107 107 108 108

10.6 10.7 10.8

x

Contents

16

Waste Recycling in IFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 Concept of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.2 Difference Between IFS and Mixed Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 Aim/Goals of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 Need for Integrating Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5 Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers in IFS . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 Principles of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.7 Present Scenario of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.8 IFS for Different Agro-Climatic Zones of India . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.9 Components of Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Crop/Livestock Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Livestock/Fish Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Poultry/Aquaculture Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . 17.10 Paddy cum Fish Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.11 Duckery Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.12 Mushroom Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.13 Bee Keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.14 Sericulture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.15 Success Stories in Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.16 Constraints in the IFS Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.17 Women Empowerment Through IFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

Farming System Approach and Its Role Toward Livelihood Security Under Different Farming Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.1 Role of Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 Farming System Approaches for Different Agro Climatic Zones in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

20

Concept of Farming System in Relation to Conservation of Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 Agroforestry-Based IFS: An Approach for Climate Change Mitigation and Natural Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 Resource Conservation Under Rice-Based Cropping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

113 117 119 119 120 126 128 129 131 131 133 135 138 138 140 141 141 141 144 146 148 148 157 158 160 163 165 166 169 170

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare Models of Farming System in a Tropical and Subtropical Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 20.1 Rice–Fish-Based Integrated Farming System in Rainfed Lowlands of Assam (Rautaray et al. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

Contents

20.2 20.3

Rice–Fish–Prawn Farming Systems of Orissa . . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Farming System for the North-eastern Himalayan Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.4 Integrated Farming System for Lowlands of Bihar . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 Integrated Farming System for Punjab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 Integrated Farming Systems for Tribal Farmers in Hilly Regions of Manipur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

xi

174 176 178 180 180 183

Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food Security in the Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.1 Integrated Crop Livestock Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Diversified Versus Integrated Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.3 Promoting Ecologically Sustainable Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.4 Livelihood Security in the NW IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.5 Environmental Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 Farming Systems Scenario in NW IGP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.7 Development of Farming System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8 Economics and Livelihood Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9 Employment Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.10 Case Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185 186 186 187 187 188 189 190 191 192 194 196

22

Organic Integrated Farming System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 Organic Approach of Integrated Framing Systems . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 Main Principles of Organic Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.3 Nutrient Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 Insect Pest Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.5 Disease Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.6 Weed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 Prospects of Organic Dairy Farming in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 Feeding to Livestock in Organic Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.9 Some Other Issues to Consider (Sharma and Saini 2015) . . . . . 22.10 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

197 198 199 200 201 201 202 202 203 203 204 205

23

Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains Toward Food Productivity Enhancement in a Major Cropping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.1 Food Supply in the Indo-Gangetic Plain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 Nutrient Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.3 Crop Production and Nutrient Use Efficiency of Conservation Agriculture for Soybean–Wheat Rotation in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of Northwestern India (Aulakh et al. 2012) . . . . . . . . . .

207 208 209

210

xii

Contents

23.4

Improving Nitrogen and Phosphorus Use Efficiencies Through the Inclusion of Forage Cowpea in the Rice–Wheat Systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 Fertilizer Management Strategies for Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency and Sustainable Wheat Production . . . . . . . . . 23.6 Nutrient Management in Rice–Wheat Sequence Under Sodic Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 IPNS Strategies for Major Cropping Systems (Singh and Singh 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rice–Wheat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

. 210 . 213 . 216 . 217 . 217 . 218

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

About the Authors

Sohan Singh Walia is working as Director in the School of Organic Farming, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. He started organic farming research as a pioneer work at PAU, Ludhiana, as Ph.D. student (2001–2004) and then worked on organic farming and integrated farming systems in All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Integrated Farming Systems and All India Network Project on Organic Farming. Dr Walia has to his credit more than 450 research and extension publications, nine books, ten teaching manuals, seven extension folders, and 22 book chapters. He has handled 24 research projects and is currently handling five research projects. The chapter on organic farming and integrated farming system in package of practices was included during 2004–2005 and 2017–2018, respectively. Sixty-eight recommendations have been included in the package of practices for mass adoption by Punjab Farmers, especially resource-conservative cropping systems, nine organic farming-based cropping systems, and production technology for the cultivation of direct-seeded rice. In addition, he was involved in technologies related to the application of consortium in sugarcane, turmeric, potato, onion, maize, and wheat crops; integrated nutrient management in maize/soybean; and rice residue management for the mass scale adoption under Punjab conditions. Developed Integrated Farming System Research Model comprising dairy, fishery, horticulture, vegetables, agro-forestry, and vermi-composting. He has been involved in teaching of 93 courses. He has guided four Ph.D. and eleven M.Sc. students as major advisor. Dr Walia has organized 20 training programs, delivered 62 invited lectures, 350 training lectures, and 52 TV and radio talks. He has attended ten international and 75 national conferences/seminars/workshops. He was appreciated for outstanding work on integrated (2007–2017) and organic farming during QRT review (2012–2017). Recipient of best organic farming center award (2019) by ICAR; Dr M S Randhawa best book award (2017); Fellow, Indian Ecological Society (2016); Gold medal from Society of Recent Development in Agriculture at International Conference (2013); ISA Best Paper Award along with a cash prize of Rs 5000/- from Indian Society of Agronomy (2011) for a paper entitled, “Alternate cropping systems to rice-wheat for Punjab”; ISA P. S. Deshmukh Young Agronomist Award (2005) by Indian Society of Agronomy; Fellow, Society of Environmental Sciences (2004). The AICRP on Integrated Farming System, Ludhiana center, received the Best Centre Award (2014) from ICAR-Indian Institute of Farming xiii

xiv

About the Authors

Systems Research, Modipuram, Meerut. Received Dr. Gurbaksh Singh Gill Gold Medal, Merit Certificate for M.Sc. (Agronomy); S.S. Labh Singh Gold Medal and Merit Certificate for B.Sc. Agri. (Hons.). Dr Walia has acquired advance training in rice production systems from School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, University of Adelaide, South Australia. Tamanpreet Kaur is working as Senior Research Fellow (2018–till date) under project entitled “All India Co-ordinated Research Project on Integrated Farming Systems” at School of Organic Farming, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. He holds a M.Sc. in Agriculture from Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Her area of interest is on integrated farming systems. She has eight research papers, 13 extension articles, one booklet on integrated farming systems, and three book chapters.

1

Introduction

Abstract

In the context of India’s slow agricultural growth despite rapid economic expansion, the imminent population surge to 1370 million by 2030 and 1600 million by 2050 raises pressing concerns regarding food production. However, the diminishing cultivable land area, predicted to decrease by over 20% for non-agricultural uses by 2030, poses a substantial challenge. The shift from large to small land holdings, with over 80% being less than 1 ha, aggravates the need for innovative strategies. Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) emerge as a promising solution, encompassing various enterprises like crop, livestock, agrihorticulture, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and sericulture. This holistic approach not only boosts farm productivity and profitability but also mitigates environmental pollution and enhances resource-poor farmers’ quality of life. This integrated approach fosters symbiotic relationships among enterprises, resulting in reduced risk and enhanced environmental sustainability. Keywords

Integrated farming system · Sustainability · Enterprises

In India, the agricultural growth rate has been very slow in the recent past despite the rapid economic growth. It is estimated that our country’s population will reach 1370 million by 2030 and 1600 million by 2050. To fulfill the demand of the everincreasing population, we have to produce 289 MT and 349 MT of food grains during the respective periods. The current scenario in the country demonstrates that the area under cultivation may decline further, and by 2030, more than 20% of the current cultivable area will be converted for non-agricultural purposes (Gill et al. 2005).

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_1

1

2

1 Introduction

The Indian economy is prevalently agrarian and rural, and the decreasing trend in the size of land holdings poses a serious challenge to the profitability and sustainability of farming. Considering the decrease in per capita availability of land from 0.5 ha in 1950–1951 to 0.15 ha by the turn of the century and an extended further decline to under 0.1 ha by 2030, it is important to develop strategies and agricultural technologies that empower employment and income generation, particularly for small and marginal farmers who establish over 80% of the farming community. The operational farm holding in India is declining, and more than 85 million out of 105 million are underneath the size of 1 ha. Due to continuous increase in the population and decline in the amount of land available per person in the country, there is virtually no opportunity for expanding agricultural land horizontally. The only viable option is vertical expansion, achieved by integrating farming components that require less space and time while providing fair returns to farming families. The Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) subsequently expect more prominent significance for sound management of farm resources to increase farm productivity and decrease environmental pollution, improve the quality of life of resource-poor farmers, and maintain sustainability. To continue a positive development rate in farming, a comprehensive methodology is the need of great importance. The farming system is a judicious mix of farm enterprises in which farm families allocate resources for adequate utilization of the existing enterprises to improve profitability and productivity of the farm. These farm enterprises are crop, livestock, agri-horticulture, aquaculture, agroforestry, and sericulture (Varughese and Mathew 2009). Environmental pollution is done through unsustainable farm activities and poses a threat to the livelihood of millions of small farm holder’s families. In developing countries, enhancing the agricultural production systems for greater sustainability and higher economic returns is a critical process for improving income, food, and nutrition security (Ravallion and Chen 2007). Along these lines, IFS is a multifaceted whole-farm approach and plays a vital role in solving the problems of small and marginal farmers. The approach aims at increasing employment opportunities and income from small-holding by integrating various farm enterprises and recycling crop residues and by-products within the farm itself. This system ensures an eco-friendly utilization of waste of one component as an input of another, leaving behind nutrient and organic matter-rich soil for higher-end products for sustaining the soil productivity. Due to high profitability and low investment, the integrated farming system has immense potential to come up as an effective tool for improvement of rural economy (Nanda and Bandopadhyay 2011). The incorporation of diverse agricultural enterprises with crops offers a chance to recycle the products and by-products of one component, utilizing them as inputs in other interconnected components. As a result, this practice reduces production costs and increases the overall income of the farm (Ravisankar et al. 2007). For this integrated system to be successful, the different components must be mutually symbiotic, complementary, and efficient in recycling by-products such as organic residues and wastes. This approach makes the entire system more profitable and environmentally friendly (Yadav 2006). Integrated farming systems are often considered less risky due to

References

3

the benefits derived from symbiotic relationships among enterprises and the diverse range of produce, which ensures environmental sustainability.

References Gill MS, Samra JS, Gurbachan S (2005) Integrated farming system for realizing high productivity under shallow water-table conditions. Research bulletins, Department of Agronomy, PAU, Ludhiana, pp 1–29 Nanda PK, Bandopadhyay UK (2011) Recent advances in integrated livestock cum fish farming in India. Training manual, Short course on advances in production of livestock management practices, IVRI, ERS, Belgachia, Kolkata Ravallion M, Chen S (2007) China’s (uneven) progress against poverty. J Dev Econ 82(1):1–42 Ravisankar N, Pramanik SC, Rai RB, Nawaz S, Tapan KR, Biswas and Bibi, N. (2007) Study on integrated farming system in hill upland areas of Bay Islands. Indian J Agron 52(1):7–10 Varughese K, Mathew T (2009) Integrated farming systems for sustainability in coastal ecosystem. Indian J Agron 54(2):120–127 Yadav JSP (2006) Improved farming and ecological security in coastal region. J Indian Soc Coast Agric Res 24(2):229–240

2

Problems of Small and Marginal Farmers Related to Agriculture

Abstract

In India, marginal and small agricultural land holdings have experienced a slight increase from 2010–2011 to 2015–2016, with small holdings (below two hectares) now constituting 86.21% of total land holdings. This shift highlights the prevalence of individuals owning smaller farming areas. The challenges faced by these farmers are significant, encompassing issues such as income instability, imperfect markets, limited access to credit and extension services, and inadequate availability of “public goods.” The emergence of Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) offers a promising solution, enabling the development of alternative models for small-sized farming operations. IFS integrates diverse agricultural enterprises, including crops, animals, and allied activities, to enhance resource utilization and minimize negative environmental impacts. This approach not only boosts farmers’ income but also contributes to increased family labor employment. Moreover, IFS provides substantial employment opportunities, particularly for women who play a vital role in agriculture. By involving women in farming activities, their economic empowerment contributes to improved livelihoods and a better quality of life. Keywords

Small and marginal farmers · Integrated farming systems · Economic empowerment · Employment opportunities

In India, the number of marginal and small agricultural land holdings (commonly known as operational holdings) has enlisted a minimal increment in 2015–2016 contrasted with 2010–2011, as per the tenth agriculture census. This implies there are more individuals who currently own smaller parcels of farming area. Small and marginal holdings (below two hectares) constituted 86.21% of the total land # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_2

5

6

2

Problems of Small and Marginal Farmers Related to Agriculture

holdings, indicating an increase of 1.2% when compared with 2010–2011. It is essential that marginal, small, and medium land holdings constitute a huge share of the operated area as the large land holdings account for only 9% of the total operational area. Today, India is notable in the world due to farming practices, rural society, and rural problems in the villages. The condition of small and marginal farmers having land holding around 2–4 acres makes it very difficult for the family to survive on this limited land. The farmers suffer and cannot cope up with the problems. The quality of life deteriorates, and their social, economic, and political status is at an average level. They have to indulge in other supplementary occupations to improve their livelihood (Dumore 2016). There are numerous issues and challenges for marginal and small holding agriculture in India. Some of the common issues that are faced by small and marginal farmers as agriculturalists are income instability; inadequate markets for agricultural inputs and products, leading to limited economic returns; non-attendance of admittance to credit markets or flawed credit markets prompting imperfect speculation choices or input applications; poor human resource base; little admittance to appropriate extension services limiting suitable decisions with respect to cultivation practices and technological know-how; limited access to “public goods” such as public irrigation, command area development, and electricity grids; greater negative externalities from poor quality land and water management; lack of nutrition; etc. Everywhere in the world, farmers make a solid effort to procure a living. In any case, not all farmers make money, especially small farmers. There is next to no extra after they pay for all their inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, livestock breeds, feed, energy, labor, etc.). Presently, the time has come to zero in on the social prudent issue of these farmers and attempt to discover the answer to the issues. The emergence of integrated farming systems (IFS) has enabled farmers to develop a framework for an alternative development model to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of small-sized farming operations. Over the most recent couple of decades, “modern” technologies have been generally used to improve the per acre productivity of land to ensure that there is enough food for the over-rising global population. Due to indiscriminate and over-exploitation of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, our food and ecosystems have been poisoned. Integrated Farming System (IFS) is an interdependent, interrelated, often interlocking production system based on a few crops, animals, and related allied enterprises in a way to ensure the maximum utilization of nutrients of each system and minimize the negative effect of these enterprises on the environment. The incorporation of diverse agricultural enterprises, including cropping, fishery, animal husbandry, and forestry, among others, holds significant potential in the agricultural economy. These integrated enterprises not only increase farmers’ income but also contribute to higher levels of family labor employment. The integrated farming system approach represents a shift in farming techniques to enhance production in the cropping pattern and ensure optimal resource utilization. Within this integrated system, farm wastes are effectively recycled for productive purposes. By carefully selecting a combination of agricultural enterprises, such as dairy, fishery, piggery, poultry, sericulture, etc., that

Reference

7

suit the specific agro-climatic conditions and socio-economic status of the farmers, prosperity can be achieved in the farming sector. Integrated Farming Systems offer significantly greater employment opportunities compared to traditional farming systems that include only cropping and dairy practices. In the traditional farming system, the cropping pattern provided 25 workdays per acre per year, whereas the adoption of integrated farming systems with various cropping systems generated 49 workdays of employment, showcasing the increased potential for workforce engagement. An animal component of IFS generated a maximum of 183 workdays per acre per year while the traditional cropping system generated only about 80 workdays employment. Women, likewise, can assume a crucial role in agriculture as women possess a significant spot in Indian societies. They are graced with versatile qualities. With the change in time, the role of women in society also started changing. Their drive to acknowledge demands to meet her own needs and family needs to turn out to be financially free. Economic independence encouraged women to be involved and deliver their services in various fields. Women in rural India work hand in hand with men in almost all fields, especially in agriculture. Women contribute a noteworthy part in the development of not only their family but also society. Women are the backbone of agriculture development. Women alone take interest in specific agriculture activities like transplantation, winnowing, weeding, etc. Subsequently, including household labor and women in the farming system helps in diminishing the expense of cultivation and, thus, high income and a better way of life.

Reference Dumore SV (2016) Economic study of marginal farmers problem in India. EPRM Int J Multidiscip Res 2(4):28–30

3

What Is Cropping System

Abstract

Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) are pivotal for small and marginal farmers in India, where cropping systems play a vital role in sustainable agriculture. These systems comprise a sequence of crops cultivated over a fixed period, considering farm resources, technology, and enterprises. With 86.21% of total land holdings falling under small and marginal categories, IFS becomes imperative for optimal resource utilization. Farm resources, technology, and enterprises dictate the choice of cropping patterns, impacting profitability and sustainability. IFS, which integrate crops, livestock, and other components, enhance productivity, profitability, and sustainability. They offer benefits such as balanced nutrition, environmental safety, and year-round income, making a key strategy for rural development. However, effective IFS implementation requires considerations such as crop selection, rotation, residue management, nutrient and water management, and complementary enterprises. By adhering to the principles of selfsufficiency, enterprise diversification, and ecological sustainability, IFS can alleviate poverty, ensure food security, and promote a harmonious co-existence with the environment. Keywords

Cropping systems · Integrated farming systems · Sustainable agriculture · Profitability · Environmental safety

Cropping systems are critical component of farming system, which represent a cropping pattern used on a farm and their interaction with farm resources, available technology, and other farm enterprises that determine their makeup. They are defined as the sequence in which the crops are cultivated over a fixed period on a piece of land or the manner in which different crops are grown. Sometimes, a # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_3

9

10

3

What Is Cropping System

number of crops are grown together in the cropping systems, or they are grown separately at short intervals in the same field. Different types of cropping systems have to be evolved based on climate, soil, and water availability for understanding the potential production levels through efficient use of available resources. The cropping system should be capable of providing enough food for the family and fodder for cattle and generate sufficient cash income for cultivation and domestic expenses. Efficient cropping systems for a particular farm rely on farm resources, farm technology, and farm enterprises because the farm is an organized economic unit. The farm resources incorporate land, labor, water, capital, and infrastructure. In a limited land, an intensive cropping system is adapted to make the best use of available water and labor. When cheap and sufficient labor is available, laborintensive crops like vegetable crops are also included in the cropping systems. When capital is not a constraint, capital-intensive crops, such as banana, sugarcane, turmeric, etc., find a space in the cropping system. In low rainfall regions (750 mm/ annum), mono-cropping is followed and when rainfall exceeds 750 mm, intercropping is practiced. With adequate irrigation water, triple and quadruple cropping is adopted. When other climatic factors are not limiting, farm enterprises, such as poultry, dairy, etc., are also included in the cropping system. The cropping system, including dairy, should also contain fodder crops.

3.1

Points to Be Concerned While Adopting the Cropping System

1. Selection of Crop: The selection of crops plays a crucial role in any cropping system. When deciding which crop to plant, farmers must carefully consider several factors, such as its profitability, disease resistance, adaptability to aberrant weather conditions, and the need for specific technologies during growth or harvesting. It is equally important for them to assess the prevailing environmental conditions on their farm and how the chosen crop will integrate with other elements of their production system. By taking these aspects into account, farmers can make decisions that will contribute to the overall success of their agricultural endeavors. 2. Crop organization and rotation: Numerous modern farms are composed of number of fields, which can be cultivated separately and thus can be used in a crop rotation sequence. Crop rotation has been practiced for many years and has been generally found to enhance yield and prevent the deterioration of the soil environment that limits productivity in the long term. In spite of the fact that the specific mechanisms managing that impact are not completely perceived, they are assumed to be related to differential effects on soil’s physical, chemical, and microbiological properties by different crops. By influencing the soil in various manners, crops in a rotation help settle changes in the properties. Another consideration is that numerous agricultural pests are species-specific, so having a given species present in a field just a portion of the time assists with keeping the

3.1 Points to Be Concerned While Adopting the Cropping System

3.

4.

5.

6.

11

populations of pests from growing. The organization of individual plants in a field is also variable and normally relies on the crop being grown. Many fruits, vegetables, and cereals are grown in contiguous rows, which are sufficiently wide enough to permit cultivation (or mowing, in the case of fruits) without damaging crop plants. Other systems aim for maximum plant density and have no such organization. Forages are grown in that manner since animal traffic is expected, and maximum plant density is required for their nutrition, as are cover crops, since their purpose of competing with weeds and preventing soil erosion depends largely on density. Residue management: The management of crop residues is important in most systems because the nutrients present in these dead tissues are made available to crops during decomposition, thus reducing the need for fertilizer inputs. Leaving residues in situ also increases the SOM, which has a number of benefits. Specific management practices can have a number of other impacts. Tillage: It is an essential technique by which farmers manage crop residues. Different types of tillage bring about varying amounts of crop residues that are incorporated into the soil profile. Conventional or intensive tillage commonly leaves less than 15% of crop residues on a field, reduced tillage leaves 15–30%, and conservation tillage systems leave at least 30% on the soil surface. The differences observed across these systems are diverse, and there is as yet extensive discussion concerning their relative economic and environmental impact, yet various generally detailed advantages have led to a major shift toward reduced tillage in modern cropping systems. Normally, leaving crop residues on the soil surface results in a mulching effect, which helps in controlling soil erosion, prevents excessive evaporation, and suppresses weeds, yet may require the utilization of specialized planting equipment. The incorporation of crop residues into the soil profile brings about rapid decomposition by soil micro-organisms, thus making planting easier and in some cases could imply that nutrients will be made available to plants sooner, but limited erosion control and weed suppression are provided. When implementing reduced or no-tillage practices, the limited exposure of soil micro-organisms can result in a slower decomposition rate. This delay in the conversion of organic polymers to carbon dioxide leads to an increase in the amount of carbon sequestered by the system. However, in poorly aerated soils, there might be a partial offset due to an increase in nitrous oxide emissions. Burning: In certain agricultural systems, crop residues are cleared by burning. This method serves as a quick approach to preparing the field for the next planting and can aid in pest control. However, it comes with several drawbacks. Burning causes the loss of organic matter (carbon) from the system and exposes the soil, making it more vulnerable to erosion, and the smoke produced becomes an atmospheric pollutant. Due to these negative impacts, many regions around the world have either banned or restricted this practice. Removal: Mainly in developing countries, crop residues may be collected and utilized for animal or human consumption, or for other purposes. This practice offers an additional source of income or sustenance, but it hinders the benefits associated with leaving residues within the agricultural system.

12

3

What Is Cropping System

7. Nutrient management: Nutrients are depleted during the growth of the crop, necessitating their renewal or replacement for sustainable agriculture on a particular piece of land. Fertilizers, whether synthetic or organic, are commonly employed to sustain the fertility of agricultural land. Organic farming advocates often prefer organic sources of fertilizers. However, excessive fertilizer usage not only escalates production costs but also adversely affects crops and leads to various environmental issues. Therefore, it is imperative to significantly develop nutrient management plans tailored to individual plots, aiming to optimize the application rates of fertilizers. 8. Water management: It is crucial to maintain an appropriate soil moisture content throughout the growing period for optimal plant development. The acceptable range of moisture conditions varies depending on the specific crop being cultivated. To enhance soil moisture, irrigation and the incorporation of finetextured amendments can be employed. Conversely, to reduce soil moisture, coarser-textured amendments and technologies like tile drainage can be utilized.

3.2

Benefits of Integrated Farming System

1. Productivity: IFS provides an opportunity to increase economic yield per unit area per unit time by virtue of the intensification of crop and allied enterprises. 2. Profitability: Using the waste material of one enterprise as the input for another enterprise results in decreasing the production cost. Thus, there is a reduction in production cost, from the utilization linkage of waste material and elimination of middleman interference in most input used. 3. Sustainability: Organic supplementation through effective utilization of by-products of linked components is done, thus providing an opportunity to sustain the potentiality of the production base for a much longer period. 4. Balanced food: IFS links components of varied nature, enabling the production of different sources of nutrition for farm families. 5. Environmental safety: In IFS, waste materials are effectively recycled by linking appropriate components, thus minimizing environmental pollution. 6. Income round the year: Interaction of enterprises with crops, eggs, milk, mushrooms, honey, fish, cocoons, etc., provides a flow of money to the farmers round the year. 7. Adoption of new technology: Money flow round the year due to IFS gives an inducement to the small and marginal farmers to go for the adoption of new technologies. 8. Saving energy: Effective recycling techniques of the organic wastes available in the system can be utilized to generate biogas. Energy crisis can be postponed to a later period. 9. Meeting fodder crisis: Every piece of land is effectively utilized, for example, plantation of perennial fodder trees on field borders. These practices will greatly relieve the problem of non-availability of quality fodder to the animal component linked.

3.3 Complementary Enterprises for Small and Marginal Farmers

13

10. Solving fuel and timber crisis: Linking agro-forestry appropriately to the production level of fuel and industrial wood can be enhanced without determining the effect on crops. This will also significantly lower the activity of deforestation, thereby preserving our natural ecosystem. 11. Employment generation: Combing crops with livestock enterprises would enhance the labor requirement significantly and would help in reducing the problems of underemployment to a great extent. IFS provides enough scope to employ family labor round the year. 12. Agro-industries: When one of the components linked in the Integrated Farming System (IFS) is scaled up to a commercial level, it results in surplus value addition, which in turn promotes the development of allied agro-industries. 13. Increasing input efficiency: Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) offer ample opportunities to utilize inputs more efficiently and effectively across different components. 14. Conservation of farm resources: Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) utilize on-farm resources such as manures and fertilizers, resulting in significant savings in the financial resources of the farm family. This reduction in cultivation costs contributes to increased income for the farmers. 15. Integrated farming system and carbon sequestration: Integrated farming system holds tremendous potential for carbon storage within the ecosystem due to several reasons: (a) trees are treated as an imperative component of the system, (b) extensive use of livestock and organic manures enhances soil carbon storage, (c) minimized external input of fertilizers indirectly saves fossil fuel, and (d) limited fossil fuels are used in farming practices. These factors combined make IFS an effective approach for sequestering carbon and promoting environmental sustainability. 16. Integrated farming system and biodiversity: Integrated Farming Systems promote the conservation of biodiversity within the agro-ecosystem through various practices. This includes cultivating a greater number of crops/varieties, often through mixed and intercropping methods. Additionally, IFS involves raising diverse breeds of ruminants and non-ruminants on the farm. Maintaining various tree species, herbs, and shrubs in the homestead and farm area serves multiple household and farm-related needs while contributing to biodiversity conservation. The integrated management of pests is also encouraged in IFS, further supporting biodiversity. Moreover, by incorporating more organic matter into the soil, IFS enhances soil microbial biodiversity, fostering a rich and diverse ecosystem.

3.3

Complementary Enterprises for Small and Marginal Farmers

The food-producing enterprises like agriculture and its allied activities, namely livestock, floriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, etc., can be adopted in addition to crops by marginal and small farmers to enhance their income. An economic

14

3

What Is Cropping System

assessment of farming systems intends to enhance the utilization capacity of locally available resources and find the magnitude of profits from each component of the farming system (Jayanthi and Mythily 2002; Singh et al. 2011). The various profitable and eco-friendly enterprises that can be adopted by marginal and small farmers along with the crops are listed below: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Dairy rearing Sheep rearing Goat rearing Poultry Duck rearing Piggery Apiary Aquaculture Rabbitory Sericulture Mushroom cultivation Biogas unit Vermicomposting Vegetables and fruit production Protected cultivation of vegetables

The different components of the Integrated Farming System are: 1. Crops, livestock, birds, and trees are the major components of any IFS. 2. Crops may have sub-systems like monocrop, mixed/intercrop, multi-tier crops of cereals, legumes (pulses), oilseeds, forage, etc. 3. Livestock components may be milch cow, goat, sheep, poultry, and honey bees. 4. Tree components may include timber, fuel, fodder, and fruit trees.

3.4

Aim/Goals of Integrated Farming System

1. To achieve a stable and regular income, maximizing the yield of all component enterprises is essential. 2. To improve and rejuvenate the overall productivity of the system, aiming to attain agro-ecological equilibrium. 3. Effective management of the cropping system should focus on controlling insect– pest infestations, diseases naturally, weed population, and maintaining them at low intensity levels. 4. To minimize the use of synthetic chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers and provide healthy and chemical-free produce, while creating an eco-friendly environment for society.

References

15

5. To prevent migration of farmers to urban areas by offering employment opportunities and promoting better economic returns to ensure livelihood security.

3.5

Principles of Integrated Farming System

Farming System Research is based on the following basic principles: 1. The primary objective is to achieve self-sufficiency within the farm household and ensure resilience against external forces. 2. Enterprise diversification is pursued to boost employment opportunities and income, minimize risks, and enhance the well-being of farm families through improved natural resources, environment, and diet. 3. The farming system takes into account the interactions between its components and their relationship with the environment. Exploring the synergy among these interacting components is a crucial aspect of the approach. In addition to aforementioned principles, the farming system may also incorporate the following three principles: 1. Cyclic: The farming system operates in a cyclical manner, where organic resources, livestock, land, and crops are intertwined. As a result, management decisions related to one component can significantly impact the others. 2. Rational: A crucial pathway to alleviate poverty lies in using crop residues more judiciously. For resource-poor farmers, effectively managing crop residues, alongside optimal allocation of scarce resources, leads to sustainable production, offering a way out of destitution. 3. Ecologically sustainable: IFS aims to maintain and enhance agricultural productivity by striking a balance between economic viability and ecological sustainability while mitigating negative environmental impacts.

References Jayanthi C, Mythily S (2002) Crop-poultry -fish - mushroom integrated farming systems for lowlands of Tamil Nadu. J Farming Syst Res Dev 8:93–95 Singh JP, Gangwar B, Pandey DK, Kochewad SA (2011) Integrated farming system model for small farm holders of Western Plain Zone of Uttar Pradesh. PDFSR bulletin No. 05, pp. 58. Project Directorate for Farming Systems Research, Modipuram, Meerut, India

4

Crop Component

Abstract

Crop production involves raising various food and fiber crops in ecologically sustainable ways, emphasizing soil health and biodiversity. Cereals like wheat, maize, millets, and rice provide essential carbohydrates, while pulses like black and green gram offer vital proteins. Oilseeds such as soybean and sesame provide fats, and fodder crops support livestock. Punjab, known as the “Granary of India,” is a major wheat and rice producer. The various factors influencing crop and cropping system choices include climatic conditions, soil health, water availability, cropping options (intercropping, rotation), past experiences, economic considerations, land holdings, labor availability, technology access, market demand, policies, and agricultural inputs. Crop rotation is crucial for sustainability, reducing fertilizer and herbicide use, enhancing soil health, and stabilizing yields. Oilseed crops like groundnut and sesame and forage crops such as maize and berseem are cultivated. Implementing effective practices and suitable cropping systems, like those involving fodder, can help ensure regular green fodder supply for livestock, contributing to overall agricultural productivity and profitability. Keywords

Sustainability · Crop rotation · Sustainability · Oilseed crops · Cropping systems · Green fodder · Livestock

Crop production is defined as the methods of raising vegetables, fruits, grains, and other food and fiber crops in ecologically sustainable ways that pays attention to soil health and biodiversity. Among various cereals, wheat, maize, millets, and rice are the commonest ones. They give us our day-to-day portion of carbohydrates that are required for having vitality in the body. India is also a leading producer of various # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_4

17

18

4

Crop Component

pulses like black and green gram, pigeon pea, and lentils that supplement our body with vital proteins. From the “fatty crops,” the usual ones are soybean, sesame, mustard, linseed, etc. Apart from these major varieties, fodder crops are also grown to sustain the livestock. Recent statistics indicated that there has been an improvement in the production of crops in India over the last 5 years.

4.1

Factors Influencing Decisions on the Selection of Crops and Cropping System

When making decisions about selecting a crop or cropping pattern, farmers should take the following factors into consideration. Throughout this decision-making process, they carefully assess the compatibility of the proposed crop or cropping systems with their existing resources and prevailing conditions. Ultimately, farmers justify their choices or rejections of specific crops or cropping systems based on this thorough evaluation. 1. Climatic factors: Is the crop/cropping system suitable for local weather parameters such as temperature, sunshine hours, relative humidity, rainfall, wind velocity, wind direction, seasons, and agro-ecological situations? 2. Soil conditions: Is the crop/cropping system suitable for local soil type, pH, and soil fertility? 3. Water (a) Do you have adequate water sources like tanks, wells, dams, etc.? (b) Do you receive adequate rainfall? (c) Is the distribution of rainfall suitable for growing identified crops? (d) Is the water quality suitable? (e) Is electricity available for lifting the water? (f) Do you have pump sets and micro-irrigation systems? 4. Cropping system options (a) Do you have the opportunity to go for inter-cropping, mixed cropping, multi-story cropping, relay cropping, crop rotation, etc.? (b) Do you have knowledge on cropping systems management? (c) Past and present experiences of farmers (d) What were your previous experiences with regard to the crop/cropping systems that you are planning to choose? 5. Expected profit and risk (a) What is the anticipated profit from the proposed crop or cropping system? (b) How does this projected profit compare to the existing crop or cropping system? (c) What potential risks do you foresee in the proposed crop or cropping system? (d) Are there viable solutions to address these risks? (e) Do you possess the capacity to manage and mitigate these risks effectively? (f) Is it justifiable to take on these risks considering the expected profits?

4.1 Factors Influencing Decisions on the Selection of Crops and Cropping System

19

6. Economic conditions of farmers including land holding (a) Do the proposed crop or cropping systems align with the size of your land holding? (b) Are your financial resources sufficient to manage the proposed crop or cropping system effectively? (c) If not, can you explore alternative sources to mobilize the required financial resources? (d) Mechanization potential and availability of labor (e) Can the proposed crop or cropping system managed with family labor? (f) If not, do you have a sufficient workforce to handle the tasks involved? (g) Is your family or hired labor equipped with the necessary skills to handle the proposed crop or cropping system? (h) Are there mechanization options available to substitute manual labor? (i) Is machinery accessible, affordable, and cost-effective? (j) Is your family or hired labor equipped to handle the machinery competently? 7. Technology availability and suitability (a) Does the proposed crop or cropping system suitable for your farm? (b) Do you have access to the necessary technologies required for the proposed crop or cropping system? (c) Is there access to extension services to obtain these technologies? (d) Does the technologies economically viable and technically feasible for your farm? (e) Are the technologies simple and user-friendly or overly complex? 8. Market demand and availability of market infrastructure (a) Is there significant market demand of the proposed crop? (b) Do you have access to the appropriate market infrastructure to sell the produce? (c) Is there an organized marketing system in place to minimize the involvement of intermediaries? (d) Do you get real-time market intelligence and market information on selected crops? 9. Policies and schemes (a) Do the policies of the government align with the cultivation of your crops? (b) Are there existing schemes that provide incentives for your specific crop? (c) Do you meet the eligibility criteria to avail of these benefits? 10. Availability of necessary agricultural inputs including agricultural credit (a) Are you able to obtain sufficient agricultural inputs such as seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, and implements in a timely manner? (b) Are institutional credits accessible to meet your agricultural needs?

Crop rotation is the most important cropping system that can help minimize the application of fertilizers and herbicides, thereby decreased food contamination with

20

4

Crop Component

agro-chemical residue and increase structure of soil microbial communities. Furthermore, among other benefits, additional benefits can also be gained such as high land use efficiency, superior yield stability, and good distribution of labor contribution over the growing season, which allows for more choice when deciding on changing one practice or more, larger variety of produce, less dependence on storage, and greater market opportunities by making a balance in the crop production. Legumes in rotation supply symbiotically fixed nitrogen to the system, aid in maintaining proper water status, and reduce pathogen load. Recently, many studies have shown that crop rotation is a foundational component of sustainability and long-term profitability without any requirements for additional financial investments. Crop rotation is beneficial for four main reasons: (1) Plants that fix nitrogen, such as peas and other legumes, improve soil quality for future vegetables planted in the same bed. (2) Alternating shallow-rooted and deep-rooted plants in a given area draws nutrients from the soil at varying depths. (3) Soil-borne pests that feed on one family of plants are hindered because their food source is not in the same location every year. (4) Farmers who practice crop rotation do not need to let beds or fields lie fallow (crop-free) as often as they might otherwise.

Cereals Punjab is one of the most fertile regions on Earth. The region is ideal for growing wheat, rice, sugarcane, fruits, and vegetables. Punjab is called the “Granary of India” or India’s bread-basket. It produces 20% of India’s wheat and 9% of India’s rice. On a global scale, this represents 3% of the world’s production of these crops, so Punjab produces 2% of the world’s cotton, 2% of its wheat, and 1% of world’s rice. The largest grown crop is wheat; however, other important crops are rice, cotton, sugarcane, pearl millet, maize, barley, and fruits. The principal crops of Punjab are barley, wheat, rice, maize, and sugarcane. The following points should be taken into consideration for enhancing the production of these crops: • Sow the nursery of various varieties as per the recommended schedule. Select the appropriate variety of the crop depending on the type of soil and climatic conditions. • The field should be leveled using a laser land leveler before sowing of the crop. Laser leveling improves irrigation water use efficiency and ensures better germination. Plow the field twice with a disc harrow followed by cultivation with cultivator and planking, and then level the field with a laser leveler. After laser leveling, irrigate the field, followed by cultivation with cultivator and planking. • To ensure the better production of the cereal crop, the time and method of sowing are important for getting healthy seedlings. The recommended seed rate of the crop should be used. In addition to this, the usage of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, and weedicides should be done as per the recommended rate.

4.1 Factors Influencing Decisions on the Selection of Crops and Cropping System

21

• PAU Leaf Color Chart should be used to determine the rate of nitrogen/urea application to the rice. • The irrigation interval may be adjusted with rainfall. Stop irrigation 10 days before harvesting. • Dip the seed in suitable lots in a water-contained tub/bucket. Stir the seed and remove immature grains that float at the top. The heavy seeds will settle down at the bottom. Heavy seed ensures healthy, sturdy, and uniform seedlings. • Apply organic manures, bio-fertilizers, and chemical fertilizers for higher crop yield and maintenance of soil health. • Use different groups of recommended herbicides in rotation to avoid the problem of herbicide resistance in weeds. • Apply the recommended quantity of consortium or Azotobacter and Streptomyces (Azo-S) biofertilizer to the seed for one acre and water it on a concrete floor. Allow it to dry in the shade and then sow immediately. The use of bio-fertilizers not only increases the yield of grain but also helps in maintaining and improving soil health. • Ensure the proper use of pre and post-emergence herbicides at the recommended dose and timing to achieve effective weed control. • Harvest and thresh cereals as soon as they reach full ripeness to prevent grain shattering. Delayed harvesting can lead to significant losses of grains.

Pulses Pulses are unique crops as they have built-in mechanisms to fix atmospheric nitrogen in their root nodules. They are also rich in protein and fit well in various cropping systems. While Punjab is the highest contributor of wheat and paddy to the national pool, it lags behind in cultivation of pulses. In Punjab, mainly moong, mash, and arhar pulses are grown. In 2019, there was an 11,700 ha (28,899 acres) area under pulses, including moong, mash, and arhar in the state, out of around 39.69 lakh hectares under agricultural crops. This area is not even 1% (0.74%) of the total agricultural area of Punjab. In Punjab, the most suitable time for cultivating pulses is during the spring/ summer months from March to May. This is the same time when lakhs of hectares of land in Punjab remains vacant after wheat and potato harvesting for over 2 months. Farmers take advantage of this period. The pulses can be sown immediately after the harvesting of potatoes and wheat as the fields remain empty for 65–80 days after potato and wheat harvesting, respectively, while the duration of moong/mash dal is only 65 days and is easily harvested before paddy sowing by the third week of June. The following points should be taken into consideration for enhancing the production of pulses: • Give 2–3 plowings followed by planking to crush the clods and eradicate the weeds before sowing of the crop. Pulses can be sown without any preparatory tillage with zero till drill.

22

4

Crop Component

• To ensure the better production of pulses, time and method of sowing are important for getting healthy seedlings. The recommended seed rate of the crop should be used. In addition to this, the usage of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, and weedicides should be done as per the recommended rate. • Farmers mostly rely on chemical fertilizers to meet the plant nutrient demands. Bio-fertilizers are formulations containing micro-organisms (i.e., bacteria and fungi); when applied on the surface of the seeds, they help increase the availability of nutrients in the soil and also improve the quality and health of the soil. Bio-fertilizers enrich the soil with nutrients mainly by the processes of biological nitrogen fixation (BNF), phosphate and potassium solubilization or mineralization, production of plant growth regulating substances, and release of antibiotics in the soil. In summer green gram, one packet of (@500 g/ha) of Rhizobium is used for seed treatment. In Punjab, dual inoculations of Rhizobium and Rhizobacterium are demonstrated to reap a higher yield of summer green gram. • For effective weed control, give the first hoeing 4 weeks after sowing of the crop and second hoeing, if needed, about 2 weeks thereafter. • Irrigation is required for the kharif season crop if the rain fails. • The crop should be harvested when 80% of the pods mature. Harvest the crop with sickle. Do not uproot the plants.

Oilseeds Gobhi sarson, African sarson, toria, raya, and taramira are the major crops that fall under this category. The main crops of the kharif seasons are groundnut and sesame. In trade, rapeseed includes toria, taramira, and gobhi sarson while mustard encompasses African sarson and raya. Toria, African sarson, and gobhi sarson are exclusively grown under irrigated conditions, whereas raya can be cultivated both under rainfed and irrigated conditions. Taramira is specifically grown as a rainfed crop. • Ensure oilseed crops are sown at the recommended time to minimize susceptibility to insect pests and diseases. • Consider intercropping toria with gobhi sarson or toria/gobhi sarson/raya with autumn-planted sugarcane and gobhi sarson with oats fodder for improved returns. • Opt for the transplanting method when dealing with African sarson and gobhi sarson under delayed conditions. • Prevent water stress during the flowering initiation, pod formation, and seedfilling stages of the crop. • Apply fertilizers based on soil testing results. • Control weeds through timely hoeing. Give one hoeing to toria after 3 weeks of sowing and one or two hoeings particularly with improved wheel hand hoe to raya, African sarson, gobhi sarson, and taramira are adequate. The first hoeing

4.1 Factors Influencing Decisions on the Selection of Crops and Cropping System

23

should be given 3 or 4 weeks after sowing, and if necessary, a second hoeing should follow 3 weeks after the first one. • Initiate monitoring of the fields for potential insect-pest attacks. • Harvest the crop when siliquae turn yellow, ensuring the harvest is done at the proper time.

Forage Crops Growing livestock numbers and evolving animal husbandry practices require a corresponding increase in fodder to meet livestock needs. Fodder production and utilization depend on cropping patterns, climate, type of livestock, and socioeconomic conditions. Deficit in fodder, dry crop residues, and feed have to be met by either increasing productivity, utilizing untapped feed resources, increasing land area, or through imports. A fodder crop must be included in the cropping system so as to ensure the regular supply of green fodder to the livestock throughout the year. The most commonly grown fodder crops of Punjab are maize, berseem, bajra, napier bajra, oats, sorghum, and lucerne. The following points should be taken into consideration to ensure the regular supply of green fodder to the animals: • Good preparation of land is essential to get rid of weeds as well as to enable the crop to attain initial growth. In the irrigated areas, one ploughing with a harrow followed by two ploughings with a cultivator should be given before sowing. • The appropriate fodder crop should be selected depending on the irrigation facilities and soil conditions. • Fodder crops should be grown away from other crops in which insecticides are used frequently. • The fertilizers should be applied at the recommended rate. • Harvest the crop of fodder from the boot to milk stage (65–80 days after sowing). Under drought conditions, apply irrigation 1 week before harvesting the crop. In order to ensure the regular supply of green fodder to the animals throughout the year, the following cropping systems must be adopted: 1. Cowpea/Bajra/Maize (fodder)–Maize/Rice–Wheat: Grow summer fodder crop (Cowpea/Bajra/Maize) with recommended seed rate and other practices, immediately after the harvest of wheat in the last week of April. These fodder crops will vacate the field for the timely sowing of the succeeding maize/rice crop. These fodder crops provide green fodder during the lean period in summer in the months of June. A fodder crop of 45–55 days old generally provides 80–100 q/acre of green fodder. 2. Groundnut–Potato–Bajra (fodder): This cropping system gives better productivity levels than rice–wheat system with sizeable saving of water and also ensures improvement in soil fertility. For this system, sow groundnut (SG-99, M-522) in

24

3.

4.

5.

6.

4

Crop Component

the first week of May, potato in the first week of October, and bajra fodder in the first fortnight of March. Basmati Rice–Celery–Bajra (fodder): This cropping system is more remunerative and productive than the existing basmati rice–wheat system. Transplant basmati rice in mid-July, which will vacate the field in mid-November. Then, grow celery in December, which vacates the field in the first fortnight of May, and after this, grow bajra crops for fodder. Basmati Rice–Berseem (fodder and seed): This cropping system provides substantial net returns compared with the existing basmati rice–wheat system. Transplant basmati rice in mid-July, which will vacate the field in mid-November. A successful crop of berseem for seed production can be grown in the end of November after the harvest of basmati rice. It provides three cuttings of green fodder before leaving the crop for seed production. Maize–Berseem–Bajra: In this cropping system, sow maize in second week of August and harvest it after 50–60 days after sowing when the crop is between milk ripe and dough stage of grain development. Sow berseem in the first or second week of October and take 4–5 cuttings. Then, sow bajra in the second week of June and harvest it after 45–55 days after sowing at the start of the ear initiation stage. Maize–Berseem–Maize + Cowpea: In this cropping system, sow maize in the second week of August and harvest it after 50–60 days after sowing when the crop is between milk ripe and dough stage of grain development. Sow berseem in the first or second week of October and take 4–5 cuttings. Then, sow the maize + cowpea mixture in the second week of June and harvest it 50–60 days after sowing when the maize crop is between the milk ripe and dough stage of grain development.

5

Vegetable Component

Abstract

Vegetable cultivation is a cornerstone of sustainable agriculture, providing a diverse array of nutrient-rich foods essential for human health. Factors like soil health, irrigation, pest management, and crop rotation play crucial roles in successful vegetable cultivation. As a critical component of dietary diversity, vegetables contribute essential vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, promoting overall well-being and reducing the risk of non-communicable diseases. The package and practices of various vegetables are discussed in this chapter. Protected cultivation is a vital practice in contemporary agriculture, particularly for high-value, small-sized, and short-duration vegetable crops. In regions like India’s hilly areas, crops such as sweet pepper, tomato, and cucumber thrive under these controlled conditions. This technique enhances crop quality, yield, and resource utilization while minimizing external threats. Various protective structures, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and shade houses, create a favorable microclimate, optimizing growth factors like temperature, humidity, and light. Keywords

Vegetable cultivation · Protected cultivation · High-value vegetable crops · Greenhouses · Crop rotation

Vegetables are important sources of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants providing human health benefits. Regular intake of the recommended amount of vegetables leads to sound health. The fresh and edible portions of herbaceous plants are generally termed vegetables, which are important components of a healthy diet. They are an important source of vitamins and minerals, dietary fibers, and antioxidants. Regular and adequate intake of different kinds of vegetables, such as # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_5

25

26

5 Vegetable Component

edible roots, stems, leaves, fruits, or seeds, helps us maintain good health. Vegetables contain low fats, less sugars, and sodium ions, which are the main focus of healthy diets. In this regard, WHO recommends consumption of more than 400 g of fruits and vegetables per day to maintain good health and also reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases. In today’s era of diversification of agriculture, farmers are now shifting from traditional subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture. Land holdings are in general small in our country. This makes a farmer adopt vegetable production. Reasons for the increasing importance and scope of vegetables are: • Changing food habits of people and so their food baskets. • Increasing awareness of people toward balanced diet and concept of nutritional security. • Vegetables produce more biomass per unit area and fetch more prices per unit production so are more economical to grow. • Proper fitment in farming systems: As vegetables are generally short-duration crops, these are suitable for mixed, companion, and intercropping. For example, some of the varieties of okra, radish, brinjal, chili, and tomato are ready for harvesting within 45–60 days after sowing/planting. This results in high cropping intensity and higher income per unit area. • In India, a big portion of farmers falls into marginal categories. Vegetable growing is suitable for small and marginal farmers. • Source of supplementary income: A number of vegetables can be grown successfully as intercrop along with trees. Crops suitable for growing at the early stages of planting of orchard are potato, okra, tomato, brinjal, sweet potato, peas, onion, etc. For later stages, crops that can be taken are chilli, palak, and ginger. This way a farmer gets more profit from his forest plantation. • Employment: Because of the involvement of labor, it is a source of intensive employment. The packaging and practices of various vegetables are as follows: 1. Potato: The early sown varieties of potato are Kufri Surya, Kufri Pukhraj, Kufri Ashoka, and Kufri Chandramukhi, mid-season varieties are Kufri Pushkar, Kufri Bahar, and Kufri Jyoti, and the late varieties are Kufri Badshah and Kufri Sindhuri. The best time for sowing is the last week of September to mid-October for the autumn crop and the second fortnight of January for the spring crop. For autumn sowing, 13–18 q/acre seed tubers of 40–50 g weight should be used for planting. Good quality and disease-free seed should be used. The seed should be produced by using the seed plot technique. If the seed raised from the autumn crop is to be used for spring planting, its dormancy should be broken by dipping cut tubers in a solution of 1% thiourea and 1 ppm gibberellic acid (1 mL per 100 L of water) for an hour followed by air drying the treated tuber pieces for 24 h in thin layers in shade.

5

Vegetable Component

27

2. Onion: For the cultivation of onion in Kharif season, sow Agri Found Dark Red (AFDR) Kharif variety. In Rabi season, sow PRO-7, PYO-102, PWO-35, PRO-6, Punjab White, and Punjab Naroya. In the middle of March (Kharif season), the bulb sets become ready for transplanting, and plant these bulb sets in the second fortnight of August. Bulb sets become ready for marketing as green onion in November–December and give higher income. Nursery beds should be raised 20 cm above the ground level, and 1–1.5 m wide area of the nursery beds depends upon the number of seedlings required. Keep nursery bed and field area ratio of 1:20. Sow seed 1–2 cm deep in lines with 5 cm spacing. The nursery is ready for transplanting after 6–8 weeks of sowing. The seedlings should be transplanted in the first week of August. Planting at 15 cm between rows and 7.5 cm between plants in the rows is most conducive for high yield. The bed planting of sets improves the bulb size of the kharif onion. Plant three rows on each bed of 60 cm size. This practice is highly suitable under conditions where drainage is a problem. The transplanting should always be done in the evening. Irrigation should be given immediately after transplanting, and subsequent irrigations should be given as and when required. For Rabi season, sow nursery from mid-October to mid-November and transplant from the middle of December to the middle of January. Harvest onion when tops dry up and fall. After harvesting, cure the bulbs under shade and then cut the leaves 1–2 cm above the bulb. Store in a well-ventilated and dry place. 3. Garlic: For the cultivation of garlic, PG 18 and PG 17 are the improved varieties. The optimum time of sowing is from the last week of September to the first week of October. For sowing an acre, 225–250 kg of healthy cloves are needed. For kitchen gardening and small-scale sowing, dibble the cloves. In the case of commercial planting, sow garlic by the “kera” method. Put the cloves at 3–5 cm depth. Sowing of garlic can also be done by manually operated garlic planter. Depth of planting with the machine should be maintained at about 1 inch. It covers about 0.5 acres per day with the help of 2–3 persons. Close planting at 15 cm between rows and 7.5 cm between plants in the row is most conducive. At maturity, the tops dry. Stop irrigation at least a fortnight before harvesting to prolong the storage life of bulbs. 4. Carrot: Sow Punjab Carrot Red and Punjab Black Beauty variety of carrot. Ridge planting is recommended for carrot raising. Punjab Black Beauty has high nutraceutical value and protects from cancer. Always apply potash to carrot for proper development of fruit color. For small scale, spacing of 45 cm between ridges and 7.5 cm between plants is kept. The plant spacing is maintained by thinning at the time of true leaf formation. Thinning is very important for producing superior-quality roots. For large scale, tractor-operated inclined plate planters can be used for direct planting of carrot seeds on beds at 67.5 cm spacing. The machine plants four rows on each bed with 10 cm spacing between rows and 8 cm between plants. Moreover, there is no need of thinning. Removal of weeds is necessary, especially in the early stages of growth. Apply 2–3 hoeing for effective weed control.

28

5 Vegetable Component

5. Radish and Turnip: For radish, Punjab Safed Mooli-2, Punjab Pasand, Pusa Himani, Pusa Chetki, and Japanese White are the improved varieties. On the other hand, L-1 is the improved variety of turnip. Although radish is a winterseason crop, varieties have been developed that can be grown in summer and spring seasons. Except for Pusa Chetki, other varieties do not tolerate high temperatures if planted early in the season. Asiatic varieties, if planted late in the season, start bolting without forming edible roots. With a careful selection of varieties, radish can be grown almost throughout the year. For desi varieties of turnip, August–September is the best sowing time. European types should be sown in October–November. A seed rate of 4–5 kg for radish and 2–3 kg for turnip is sufficient for one acre. A spacing of 45 cm between ridges and 7.5 cm between plants in the row is common for these crops. Radish and turnip are harvested when roots are tender. A few days’ delay in harvesting, particularly of European types, renders the roots pithy and unfit for consumption. 6. Cauliflower: Pusa Snowball-1 and Pusa Snowball K-1 are the improved varieties of cauliflower. The best transplanting time is June–July for the early varieties, August to mid-September for the main season varieties, and October to the first week of November for the late season varieties. The seed rate for main and late season varieties is 250 g per acre, whereas, for early season varieties, 500 g seed is required. To check bolting and buttoning, sow the recommended varieties at their proper time. The spacing for the main-season crop is 45 × 45 cm and 45 × 30 cm for early and late-season crops, respectively. To minimize mortality of early sown nursery and transplanted crop, apply heavy doses of well-rotten farmyard manure and irrigate frequently. Protect seedlings in the nursery beds against sunstroke with sarkanda thatch. Transplant seedlings in a cool “wattar” field in the afternoon and irrigate immediately. 7. Cabbage: September to October is the ideal planting time in the plains. Optimum seed rate is 200–250 g per acre. A spacing of 45 × 45 cm and 67.5 × 45 cm is optimum for the early and the late maturing varieties, respectively. To get early yield of cabbage, direct sowing on ridges at 60 cm apart maintaining a distance of 15–20 cm between plants may be practiced. 8. Spinach: Punjab Green is the recommended variety of spinach. Normally, spinach is grown almost throughout the year. Winter crop is sown during September–October and spring/summer crop from mid-February to April. For winter crops, use 4–6 kg and for summer crops 10–15 kg seed per acre. The seed should be sown 3–4 cm deep in rows at 20 cm apart. The crop will be ready for harvest in about 3–4 weeks after sowing. Subsequent cutting should be done at an interval of 20–25 days, depending upon the variety and season. During summer, only one harvesting should be taken. 9. Tomato: Punjab Swarna, Punjab Sona Cherry, Punjab Kesar Cherry, Punjab Red Cherry, Punjab Gaurav, and Punjab Sartaj are the improved varieties of tomato. Sow virus tolerant variety of tomato, viz., Punjab Varkha Bahar-4, Punjab Varkha Bahar-2, and Punjab Varkha Bahar-1 during the rainy season. For early and higher yield, sow nursery of TH-1, Punjab Ratta, Punjab Upma, Punjab Chhuhara, and Punjab NR-7 in October–November. Punjab Swarna,

5

Vegetable Component

29

Punjab Sona Cherry, and Punjab Kesar Cherry are suitable for protected cultivation. Transplant the tomato nursery in November–December and save the crop from frost during winter by covering it with polythene/sarkanda. The dwarf varieties of tomato should be planted at a close spacing of 75 cm × 30 cm. Rainy season varieties should be planted at a spacing of 120–150 × 30 cm. To increase the yield of tomatoes, spray “Vipul Booster” @ 1 ml/L of water in the nursery beds at least a week before transplanting. Repeat the spray of @ 0.5 mL/L of water five times at fortnightly intervals. 10. Brinjal: Punjab Neelam, PBHR-41, and PBHR-42 are round fruited; BH-2 is oblongly fruited; Punjab Raunak, PBH-5, PBH-4, Punjab Barsati, and Punjab Sada Bahar are long fruited; and PBH-3 and Punjab Nagina are the small fruited varieties of brinjal. Brinjal can be sown four times a year. The nursery for the first crop is sown in October, and seedlings are transplanted in November. The nursery for the second crop is sown in November. It gives seedlings for transplanting in the first fortnight of February. The seedlings of this nursery are required to be protected against frost. The seed for the third crop is sown in nursery beds in February–March. The seedlings are transplanted before the end of April. The seed for the fourth crop is sown in the nursery beds in July and transplanting is done in August. To plant an acre, 300–400 g of seed is grown in one marla (25 m × 1 m) on raised beds. During winter, protection of brinjal plants from low temperatures with low tunnel technology gives early and high yield. The plants are sown at the row spacing of 67.5 cm apart, and plants are spaced 30–45 cm apart in the row. 11. Chilly: The improved hybrids of chili are CH-27, CH-3, and CH-1, whereas the common varieties are Punjab Sindhuri, Punjab Tej, Punjab Surkh, and Punjab Guchhedar. The seed is sown in the nursery during the end of October to mid-November. Transplanting is generally done in February–March. The seed of chili is sown on raised beds. The beds should be 1.25 m wide with a height of 15 cm. To ensure successful growing of healthy seedlings from costly hybrid seed of chilli, nursery should be grown under polyhouse (size 24′ × 13′ × 6′) made of UV stabilized low-density polyethylene film of 200 μm (800 gauge) thickness. Thick and stout seedlings perform better than tall seedlings and should be planted on ridges at 75 cm apart with a plant-to-plant spacing of 45 cm. Due to high temperature in May–June, the dropping of flowers takes place. Two foliar sprays of naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) at 10-day interval increases the green and red ripe fruit yield of chili. 12. Ladyfinger: Punjab Suhawani, Punjab-8, Punjab-7, and Punjab Pandmini are the recommended varieties of ladyfinger. In north Indian plains, the spring crop is sown in February–March, whereas the rainy season crop is sown in the month of June–July throughout India. The optimum sowing time of seed crops is the middle of June. For sowing up to 15th February, 15 to 18 kg of seed per acre is required, 8–10 kg for March sowing, and 4–6 kg for the June–July sowing. Soak the seed in water for 24 h before sowing. Sowing should be done on ridges in February–March and on flats in June–July. For effective weed control, give two or three hoeings.

30

5 Vegetable Component

13. Muskmelon: MH-51, MH-27, and Punjab Hybrid are the improved hybrids of muskmelon, and the common varieties are Punjab Sunehri and Hara Madhu. The mid-February is the best sowing time. However, if the crop is raised by providing suitable mulch or any other type of cover during winter, the premium of early market can be captured. For early marketing of muskmelon, sow the nursery in mid-January. Transplant the nursery at the end of February to the first week of March. The fruits are ready for early marketing in 65 days. With careful planting on hills by dibbling, 400 g of seed is sufficient for one acre. 14. Watermelon: The improved variety of watermelon is Sugar Baby. The watermelon is sown generally from mid-January to March. Under protected cultivation, it can be sown in November–December. Use 1.5 kg seed for small seeded varieties and 2.0 kg seed for large seeded varieties per acre. Prepare 2.5–3.0 m wide beds for sowing of watermelon. Seeds should be sown on both sides of the beds at a distance of 60 cm between the plants. 15. Pumpkin: For early marketing, sow PPH-1 and PPH-2 hybrids of Pumpkin in February–March on beds. PAU Magaz Kadoo-1 and Punjab Samrat are the common varieties of pumpkin. PAU Magaz Kadoo-1 seeds are rich sources of omega-6 and protein and can be used as “Magaz” and snacks. For sowing of the pumpkin, prepare 3.0 m wide beds and sow two seeds per hill at 60 cm spacing on both sides of the beds. Hybrids PPH-1 and PPH-2 should be planted on both sides of 1.5 m broad bed at 45 cm spacing. The fruits are ready for marketing after 40 days of transplanting. 16. Bottle Gourd: Punjab Bahar, Punjab Barkat, Punjab Long, and Punjab Komal are the improved varieties. It is grown three times in a year: February–March, June–July, and November–December under protected cultivation. Prepare 2.0–2.5 m wide beds and sow 2.0 kg seed per acre on both sides of beds at a distance of 45–60 cm. The crop is ready for harvesting in about 60–70 days after sowing. 17. Bitter Gourd: Punjab Jhaar Karela-1, Punjab Karela-1, and Punjab-14 are the improved varieties of bitter gourd. The bitter gourd is sown twice a year: once in February–March and second in June–July. Use 2.0 kg seed per acre. The sowing should be done on both sides of 1.5 m wide beds, keeping a plant-to-plant distance of 45 cm. The crop will be ready for harvesting in about 55–60 days after sowing, depending upon variety and season. The picking should be done at 2–3 days of interval. 18. Round Gourd: The improved varieties of round gourd are Punjab Tinda-1 and Tinda-48. The round gourd is sown twice a year: once in February–March and second in June–July. Use 1.2 kg for Punjab Tinda 1 and 1.5 kg for Tinda 48 seed per acre. The seeds are sown on both sides of the beds of width 1.5 m at a spacing of 45 cm. The seeds may be soaked overnight in water to ensure proper germination. Sow at least two seeds at one spot. The seeds are sown on the pre-irrigated furrows on the top of the ridge on both sides of the beds. Subsequent irrigation is applied on the second or third day after sowing. 19. Sponge Gourd: PSG-9 and Pusa Chikni are the improved varieties of sponge gourd. The sponge gourd is also sown twice a year: once in mid-February to

5.1 Ways to Boost Yields in Vegetable Garden

31

March and second in mid-May to July. Sow at least two seeds per hill on one side of 3 m wide beds at a spacing of 75–90 cm using 2 kg seed per acre. The crop is ready for harvest in about 70–80 days after sowing.

5.1

Ways to Boost Yields in Vegetable Garden

1. Nourish the soil: Deep, nutrient-rich soils encourage extensive root systems and strong plants. Nourish the soil with plenty of organic matter such as compost, manure, or leaf mold. Compost and leaf mold can be easily made at home for free. The best time to add most organic matter is in winter to give enough time for it to become incorporated into the ground before spring. Then top up with more organic matter during the growing season, laying it 2–5 cm (1–2 inch) thick around existing crops. This surface mulch will also help slow moisture loss and suppress weeds, saving the time of watering and weeding. 2. Grow Hybrid Seed Varieties: Hybrid seed has increased vigor, so they are more hardy. They may be disease resistant or unappealing to pests. They can extend the season or decrease the days to maturity. This made it possible to grow plants in a colder climate. 3. Grow in Dedicated Beds: Convert to a system of permanent beds and minimize wasted space while concentrating the resources. Beds may be accessed from all sides, and plants can be grown in blocks, which maximizes productivity. Also, organic matter can be added directly to the beds; there is no wasting it on paths or other unproductive ground. 4. Collect More Rainwater: Rainwater is the best option for watering vegetables. Rainwater is softer, contains fewer contaminants, and is at a pH that is preferred by most plants, encouraging better growth. 5. Space Plants Correctly: If the plants are planted too close, the crops will fail to grow properly and be prone to disease, but if they are planted too far apart, it won’t make the proper utilization of the available space. The excellent soil can help push the boundaries by growing vegetables a little closer than recommended. Square Foot Gardening takes this to the extreme, with plants spaced up to five times. 6. Companion Planting: Some plants are mutually beneficial. Grown together, they can help increase overall productivity. Companion planting takes many forms. For example, lettuce grown in-between rows of carrots or onions helps smother weeds while these slower-growing crops establish. 7. Preventative Pest Control: Take a preventative approach to pests to stop them in their tracks. For example, place barriers over susceptible plants to protect them from flying insect pests or reduce a nuisance slug population by removing hiding places such as upturned pots or long grass in and around growing areas. Then, every few weeks, head out when slugs are feeding in the evening to pick off and dispose of them by torchlight. Make room for flowers in the vegetable garden too. Flowers like alyssum, calendula, and poached egg plants don’t take up much space and will improve productivity by attracting predators

32

5 Vegetable Component

such as hoverflies and ladybugs to control pests, including aphids, mites, and mealybugs. 8. Grow Vertically: Some crops normally sprawl along the ground and waste huge amounts of the garden outside of their root zone. Trellising crops like beans, melons, cucumbers, tomatoes, and even squash grow more plants in less space. Plants like potatoes, lettuce, and strawberries and herbs can be grown in towers, pallets, or a myriad of other vertical planters. 9. Fertilize: Fertilizing the vegetable plants helps them not only grow well but increases the amount of produce they yield. The amount of fertilization each plant needs varies depending on the type. Some plants, like tomatoes and cucumbers, are heavy feeders and require more frequent fertilization. Some are light feeders, such as lettuce or kale. They only require a little boost, maybe once or twice a season. Many fall somewhere in the middle. Apply the recommended rates of fertilizers to the plants at an adequate time. 10. Mulching: There are so many benefits of mulching, not the least of which is that it can actually increase yields but the most immediate effect is that mulch retains moisture, so even in a drought year, plants are less likely to be stressed. Beyond that mulch can prevent soil-borne disease because when rain falls, it doesn’t splash the soil up onto the leaves. It increases the organic matter and soil life, both of which increase the nutrients available to the plants. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, healthy plants will yield more fruit.

5.2

Protected Cultivation of Vegetables

A high-value, short-duration, and small-size vegetable crops are mostly suitable under protected cultivation. In India, especially in hills, sweet pepper, tomato, and cucumber are being raised. However, leafy vegetables are also suitable for protected cultivation (Sabir and Singh 2013). Cabbage, cauliflower, tomato, brinjal, capsicum, beans, pea, and coriander can be successfully grown under protected conditions at high altitudinal regions. The different types of protected structures are listed below: 1. Net houses: These nets can be classified into two types, namely insect-proof nets and shade nets. Shade nets are employed to reduce solar radiation and shield crops from wilting or scorching. They are available in three colors, viz., black, white, and green, with various shading intensities ranging from 25 to 75%. On the other hand, insect-proof nets are available in different intensities, typically ranging from 25 mesh to 60 mesh. Nets with a mesh count of 40 or higher are effective for controlling most flying insects. Additionally, they are used in controlled pollination during breeding programs. 2. Walk-in-tunnels: These structures are basic and typically have an arc-shaped design, standing at approximately 2–2.5 m in height at the center and having a width of about 4 m. They provide space for around 2–3 beds of vegetables and are particularly well-suited for crops with a low canopy, such as lettuce, capsicum, bush-type beans, and others. Additionally, they are suitable for nursery raising.

5.2 Protected Cultivation of Vegetables

33

3. Plastic low tunnels/row covers: These structures are deployed in open fields, designed to cover rows of plants using plastic transparent film stretched over steel hoops, which are approximately 50 cm in height and 1 m in width. Typically, a polyethylene film with a thickness of 30–50 μm is utilized for this purpose. It is often referred to as miniature greenhouses. They effectively conserve warmth, providing protection to crops against frost injuries. Moreover, these structures accelerate the growth of crops, making them suitable for early markets, particularly beneficial for cucurbits and similar produce. 4. Plastic mulch: Mulching is a technique used to improve the conditions for plant growth by covering the surface around the plant. It helps in conserving moisture, controlling weeds, facilitating better CO2 exchange for the root system, and maintaining soil structure. Additionally, mulching allows for cleaner crop cultivation as it prevents direct contact between the fruits and the soil. Yellow and silver colored films have been effective in repelling insects like whiteflies and aphids. However, black polyethylene mulches remain more popular due to their opaque nature. 5. Floating plastic covers: A transparent plastic sheet is employed to cover extensive open fields, providing protection to vegetables from snow, frost, and low temperatures. 6. Soil trenches: Soil trenches, also known as underground solar greenhouses, are a straightforward and cost-effective solution for cultivating vegetables during extreme winters. Typically, they possess a width of 5–6 m and a depth of 2–3 m. Trench cultivation utilizes the heat from the soil and sunlight to foster vegetable growth. These structures are highly favored in cold desert regions, particularly in areas like Ladakh. 7. Hotbeds: Conventional hotbeds operate basically on the concept that the heat produced from the decomposition of dung can be harnessed to grow vegetables, even in sub-zero temperatures. These beds are constructed above the ground, using alternating layers of straw and partially decomposed dung. They prove to be ideal for off-season nursery-raising activities. 8. Greenhouses: A greenhouse is a structured enclosure, either inflated or framed, covered with a translucent or transparent material. It allows crops to be grown under conditions of at least partially controlled environment, and it is spacious enough to accommodate individuals for carrying out necessary cultural operations. The main objective of a greenhouse is to provide favorable environmental conditions for plant growth. By altering the growing environment, it caters to the specific requirements of the plants. Among various structures, a greenhouse is fundamental and plays a crucial role in fully utilizing this technology. Utilizing greenhouse technology is the most efficient approach to achieve the objective of protected cultivation, as it offers a controlled and favorable environment for crops, resulting in high productivity throughout the year. Agro-climatic location and site selection of protected structures: Vegetable crops often need to be protected against a combination of weather conditions. In addition to protection against fluctuating temperatures, protection is also required

34

5 Vegetable Component

against solar radiation, heavy rain, hail, and strong wind. High standards will need to be placed on the type of soil, the soil profile, and the location. Thus, selecting suitable locations for greenhouse construction is of utmost importance. A good site can make all the difference in the functional and environmental operations of a polyhouse. • • • • • • • • •

The soil should have pH of 5.5–6.5. Availability of continuous sources of quality water. The pH of the irrigation water should be 5.5–7.0. Good supply of electricity. A ground slope for drainage is an important factor to divert surface water away from the greenhouse. Greenhouses should be located away from the buildings and trees to avoid obstruction to sunlight and should be pollution free. Facility of good road transport to nearby markets. Easy and cheap availability of laborers. Communication facility should be available at the site.

5.3

Production System for Vegetable Crops Under Protected Cultivation

1. Geoponics or soil system: In this method, crops are cultivated in the natural soil within a protected environment. However, this system has some drawbacks, such as an increased incidence of diseases and pests in the soil. Additionally, flood irrigation can lead to a high water table, reducing aeration and hindering root growth. 2. Soilless cultivation: Over the past few decades, soilless cultivation has gained popularity, primarily due to the impending ban as a soil disinfectant on methyl bromide between crop cycles. New types of substrates are being introduced to improve yield and plant quality compared to those grown in traditional soil. Various soilless media, such as coconut fiber, vermiculite, perlite, rock wool, rice hulls, peanut hulls, and coco peat, are utilized to protect crops from soil-borne infections. 3. Hydroponics: In this method, plants are cultivated in a nutrient and water solution without the use of soil. Terrestrial plants can be grown either with their roots immersed in the mineral solution alone or supported by an intermediate medium like gravel or perlite. 4. Aeroponics: The plants are raised in tubes, troughs, or other types of chambers, and their roots are suspended in the air and sprayed with a nutrient mist. This allows for efficient absorption of oxygen and nutrients, significantly reducing the risk of root diseases. 5. Temperature maintenance: Various crops have the ability to grow within a wide range of temperatures. However, optimal growth and development for each crop necessitate a specific temperature range. Protected cultivation offers the

5.4 Response of Individual Crops to Protected Cultivation

6.

7.

8.

9.

35

possibility of maintaining these specific temperature requirements for individual crops, ensuring their best growth and development. Climate control system: The production of vegetable crops can be challenging during adverse climatic conditions, such as flooding, high temperatures, and strong winds, as these conditions often lead to an increased incidence of diseases. To ensure successful production of crops, effective disease control measures are essential. The greenhouse production system stands out as one of the most suitable and efficient methods for achieving high-quality fresh vegetables, suitable for both domestic consumption and export markets. It proves particularly effective in regions with rainy and cold climates. Inside the greenhouse, the temperature gradually rises due to the heating effect of high irradiation. The greenhouse structure traps the incident light, preventing its escape and leading to a rise in temperature. Various methods, such as evaporative cooling, natural ventilation, and shading, are available to help cool greenhouses and maintain optimal growing conditions. Water management: Water is the critical factor that significantly influences the production system of vegetable crops. Growing vegetable crops during periods of high rainfall becomes challenging due to the tender and succulent nature of vegetables, which can negatively impact their quality. To mitigate the adverse effects of excessive rainfall and high winds, protected cultivation is the most appropriate technique. This approach ensures the production of high-quality vegetables consistently throughout the year. Pest and disease control: Insect-proof screens have been utilized within the greenhouse to cover the ventilation openings so as to manage insect pests. By effectively keeping the vectors (insects) away, it becomes possible to control viral diseases. According to Singh et al. (2015), observations were made under polyhouses and shade-net houses (35%), where pests like aphids and whiteflies were able to enter the shade-net area but did not cause any significant infestation. Higher yield: Moreover, poly-houses (PHs) and shade-net houses (SNHs) at 35% shading were found to be highly beneficial in creating a favorable micro-climate for plant growth, leading to higher yields and minimizing the incidence of pest infestations.

5.4

Response of Individual Crops to Protected Cultivation

Tomato Tomato plants thrive in a dry and relatively cool climate, as it contributes to achieving high yields and premium quality (Nicola et al. 2009). Temperature plays a crucial role in tomato cultivation, as both low and high temperatures can lead to various issues. When the temperature drops below 10 °C, it interferes with pollen bursting, affecting fertilization and leading to lower fruit yields. On the other hand, higher temperatures can cause premature fruit drops and result in damaged or misshaped fruits, making them unsuitable for the market. Red varieties of tomatoes may also tend to become more orange under high-temperature conditions. Protected cultivation provides a solution to these temperature-related problems by allowing the

36

5 Vegetable Component

maintenance of suitable temperature levels. When temperatures rise above 30 °C, both the pollen grains and stigma may dry out, negatively impacting the fruit set (Nicola et al. 2009; Harel et al. 2014). Hence, maintaining optimal temperature ranges within protected cultivation can help ensure successful tomato production and high-quality fruit. Coriander Isaac (2015) demonstrated that coriander thrives and exhibits higher production in biomass in naturally ventilated polyhouses. Cucumber For cucumber production, cultivating in PE bags using substrates like sand, perlite, and volcanic scoria proved to be more beneficial compared to soil production (Bas 1991). Additionally, Singh et al. (2007) concluded that naturally ventilated and low-cost greenhouses were the most appropriate and economically viable option for year-round cultivation of cucumber in the northern plains of India. Sweet pepper It can thrive and be successfully grown under naturally ventilated greenhouse conditions without the need for additional energy input. Capsicum Capsicum is one of the most extensively grown vegetables in greenhouses, offering higher returns on investment (Chandra et al. 2000). Brinjal The development of parthenocarpic hybrids in brinjal has made it feasible to cultivate this vegetable under protected conditions, as noted by Kumar and Singh (2015).

References Bas T (1991) Possibilities of using different organic and inorganic materials for greenhouse cucumber production. PhD Thesis, Ege University, Izmir Chandra P, Sirohi PS, Behera TK, Singh AK (2000) Cultivating vegetables in polyhouse. Indian Hortic 45:17–25 Harel D, Fadida H, Alik S, Gantz S, Shilo K (2014) The effect of mean daily temperature and relative humidity on pollen, fruit set and yield of tomato grown in commercial protected cultivation. Agronomy 4:167–177 Isaac SR (2015) Performance evaluation of leafy vegetables in naturally ventilated polyhouses. Int J Res Stud Agric Sci 1(3):1–4 Kumar N, Singh G (2015) Protected cultivation of parthenocarpic brinjal (Solanum melongena L.). Int J Agric Innov Res 4(1):2319–1473 Nicola S, Tibaldi G, Fontana E (2009) Tomato production systems and their application to the tropics. Acta Hortic 821:27–33. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.821.1 Sabir N, Singh B (2013) Protected cultivation of vegetables in global arena: a review. Indian J Agric Sci 83(2):123–135

References

37

Singh B, Kumar M, Sirohi NPS (2007) Protected cultivation of cucurbits under low-cost protected structure: a sustainable technology for peri-urban areas of northern India. Acta Hortic 731:267– 272 Singh J, Nangare DD, Meena VS, Bharat B, Bhatnagar PR, Naved S (2015) Growth, quality and pest infestation in tomato under protected cultivation in semi-arid region of Punjab. Indian J Hortic 72(4):518–522

6

Horticultural Component

Abstract

The horticultural component within an integrated farming system represents a strategic approach that synergizes diverse agricultural practices to enhance productivity, sustainability, and resource utilization. By integrating horticulture with other farming elements like livestock, poultry, and agroforestry, a harmonious ecosystem emerges, where outputs from one aspect contribute to the inputs of another. This approach optimizes land use, minimizes waste, and fosters ecological balance. Through efficient nutrient cycling, pest management, and water conservation, the horticultural component adds resilience to the entire farming system. This chapter discusses in detail the package of practices to be adopted for fruit cultivation in an integrated farming system. Keywords

Horticultural component · Productivity · Sustainability · Resource utilization · Pest management · Water conservation

The different types of fruit crops can be grown in different regions. For arid and semi-arid wetlands and irrigated and rainfed lands, different fruit crops are suitable. Well drained, deep, loamy, fertile soils free from hard pan to a depth of 2 m are suitable for fruit trees. Waterlogged, marshy, and salt affected soils are not suitable for fruit growing.

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_6

39

40

6.1

6

Horticultural Component

Package of Practices to Be Adopted for Fruit Cultivation in IFS

Planting Time Evergreen fruit plants These plants have two suitable planting periods: spring (February–March) and monsoon (September–October). Trees such as mango, citrus, and litchi are typically planted during September–October. Deciduous fruit plants These plants are best planted during their dormant stage, preferably in December–mid-January, just before the onset of new growth such as plum and peach. However, for pear and grapes, transplantation can be done until mid-February, as long as it is before the emergence of new sprouts. Recommended sowing time in Punjab Evergreen fruits that can be grown suitably under Punjab conditions are citrus, guava, mango, litchi, ber, amla, sapota, bael, and date palm. Citrus, mango, litchi, papaya, and loquat are preferably planted during September–October, i.e., in the monsoon season when there is adequate rainfall and the weather is sufficiently cool. Remaining evergreen fruit trees can be planted successfully in both spring and monsoon seasons. Banana is, however, planted during February–March. It is recommended to lift the evergreen plants with wellsized earthen balls to preserve the root structure. In the case of deciduous plants, it is advised to remove them with a significant portion of the root system intact. Fruit trees when transplanted bare-rooted (e.g., kinnow, baramasi lemon, ber) during December–February should be defoliated by removing one-fourth of the foliage, and the rest is covered with moist wrapping material. Deciduous fruit trees that can be grown suitably under Punjab conditions are pear, peach, plum, grapes, pomegranate, phalsa, and fig. These fruit trees are planted when the seedlings are dormant, i.e., in December–February. For an integrated farming system, guava, lemon, and papaya are more suitable for small holdings in Punjab as they bear early and are planted at narrow spacing. However, these trees are grown in IFS in various agroclimatic regions (Table 6.1), and any of the above-mentioned fruit can be successfully cultivated as per the farmer’s preference.

6.2

Planting Distance for Square System and High-Density Planting

Based on the optimum plant spacing, the following number of plants can be accommodated in 0.5 acre of land allocated for fruit trees with square planting and high-density planting in integrated farming systems (Table 6.1). Seasonal vegetables are preferred intercrops with fruit trees to increase profit and fulfill family needs. However, tall vegetables like okra and creeping vegetables (cucurbits) should not be intercropped with fruit trees once they start bearing fruits.

6.3 Training and Pruning

41

Table 6.1 Planting distance and number of plants accommodated in a 0.5-acre area of fruits in IFS

Fruit plant Mango and Sapota Citrus/soft Pear/ plum/fig Guava Pomegranate var. Kandhari Pomegranate var. Ganesh Peach Pear/ber/litchi/ amla Pear (Patharnakh) Papaya/phalsa Banana/papaya (Red Lady 786) Grapes (Bower)

Distance (m) Square High planting density 9.0 – 6.0 6×3 (Kinnow) 6.0 6×5 4.0 –

Rows × Plants in row Square High planting density 6×4 – 8×7 11 × 10 (Kinnow) 8×7 6 × 11 11 × 11 –

Number of plants/0.5 acre Square High planting density 24 – 56 110 (Kinnow) 56 66 121 –

3.0

–

15 × 15

–

225

–

6.5 7.5

6 × 1.5 –

8×6 6×6

15 × 15 –

48 36

225 –

7.5 1.5 1.8

8×4 – –

6×6 45 × 20 39 × 16

6 × 10 – –

36 900 624

60 – –

3.0

4 × 1.5

15 × 15

21 × 16

225

336

Source: PAU (2019)

Fruits like citrus, mango, pear, ber, and litchi are suitable for intercropping with vegetables and pulses in their initial years. Intercropping is not done when fruits are planted with high-density planting system. Intercropping with quick-growing fruits can be done; however, the filler trees must be uprooted once the main trees start bearing fruits. Pits of 1 × 1 m should be dug and filled with top soil and farm yard manure (FYM) in equal proportion before planting. Kinnow plants are more suitable for high-density plantation in younger stage, and after 15 years, the trees are uprooted to maintain a square geometry so as to increase the life expectancy of the plants. Healthy fruit seedlings free from diseases and insect pests and of known pedigree should be obtained from a reliable nursery and preferably near the farm.

6.3

Training and Pruning

Training In the modified leader system, the plants are headed back at a height of 75–90 cm during planting. Buds begin to sprout around February–March, and no branches are allowed to develop within 45 cm from the ground level. In the second year of growth, the topmost shoot in the center is retained as the leader but is cut back where the immature portion starts. Three to five properly spaced laterals, around 15–20 cm apart in different directions, are selected. It is beneficial to bend these laterals downward by tying them with a thick thread rope or to the ground. This tying process encourages the development of secondary branches. In the subsequent year,

42

6

Horticultural Component

the laterals left at the end of the second season’s growth are headed back to promote the sprouting of buds and the development of tertiary branches. Over the next year or more, any unwanted secondary and tertiary branches are removed. The leader is then cut back to a well-positioned, out-growing lateral to continue the training process. Pruning Pruning involves the removal of excess, undesirable, diseased, unproductive branches, shoots, and roots so as to allow the remaining parts to grow normally. The best time for pruning of deciduous fruit trees is winter when the trees become completely dormant after shedding their leaves. Therefore, pear, peach, plum, and phalsa are pruned during January. Since evergreen trees could be pruned at any time of the year, it is avoidable during the active growth period. The best time for pruning the bearing trees is after the harvest of the fruits during late winter or early spring. Trees bearing fruits on current season growth (guava, ber, and fig) require a light annual pruning of branches with a removal of 10 cm tips to encourage new shoots after the harvest. Trees like mango do not require much pruning and are headed back after 25–30 or more years. Grapes, however, are pruned according to the cultivar retaining 60–80 canes per vine and 4 buds per cane when the vines are dormant. Trees that bear fruits on spurs (pear, plum, etc.) are pruned to remove old non-bearing spurs when dormant. Pear (Patharnakh) trees should be pruned at a height of 2.5 m for better quality and fruit production. Prune the lower branches to prevent them from spreading on the ground. Ber trees are dormant during summers, and hence pruning operation is carried out during the second fortnight of May as per the cultivar grown. Pruning by heading back to 8 buds of the previous year’s growth gives a higher yield, and severe pruning after 45 years is beneficial in the case of ber. Diseased criss-crossed branches are removed from all the trees during pruning annually, and Bordeaux paste is often applied after pruning to prevent infection.

6.4

Nutrient Management

Fruit trees are supplied with an adequate amount of nutrients through farmyard manure and synthetic fertilizers, and the doses vary with the age of the tree. A brief account of nutrient management for various fruit trees is given in Table 6.2. Citrus Entire farmyard manure is applied during December in kinnow and other citrus fruits, while the nitrogen is applied in two equal splits in February and April– May after fruit set. Phosphorus through superphosphate is applied along with the first dose of nitrogen. Guava For optimal results, the application of farmyard manure should be done in May. As for inorganic fertilizers, it is advisable to apply half of the dose in May– June and the remaining half in September–October. Mango In the case of mango trees during their “on” year, especially in instances of alternate bearing, an additional half kg of urea should be applied in June. The

Source: PAU (2019)

Age/source FYM (kg) Urea (g) Superphosphate (g) MOP (g)

Fruit crop Kinnow >8 100 1940 2730 –

Guava >10 50 1000 2500 1500

Mango >10 100 500 1000 1000

Pear >10 50 1000 2000 1500

Ber >5 100 1000 – –

Litchi >10 60 1600 2250 600

Table 6.2 Fertilizer doses for various fruit trees (doses/tree) at a given tree age (years) Peach >5 25 1000 760 830

Grapes >5 80 1000 4500 800

Plum >6 36 360 570 360

Banana 1 – 450 190 (DAP) 350

Sapota >10 100 2200 3100 850

Loquat >10 50 1000 2000 1500

6.4 Nutrient Management 43

44

6

Horticultural Component

complete dose of farmyard manure and phosphatic fertilizer should be applied in December, while the nitrogen and potassic fertilizers should be applied in February. To prevent the occurrence of soft nose disorder in mango trees, one can use Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN) at a rate of 1.00 kg instead of urea. This disorder is caused by ammonium-induced calcium deficiency. By using CAN, this condition can be effectively addressed. Pear To achieve larger fruit size and higher yield, a supplementary dose of urea at the rate of 500 g is applied to fully grown Punjab Beauty plants in September, in addition to the recommended fertilizer doses. For optimal results, all farmyard manure, murate of potash and superphosphate should be applied in December. Half of the urea should be applied in early February, before flowering, and the remaining half in April, after the fruit set. Ber The entire dose of farmyard manure should be applied in May–June. As for urea, it can be split into two parts, half of the urea should be applied during the rainy season in July–August and the remaining half should be applied soon after the fruit set for optimal growth and productivity. Litchi In December, it is recommended to apply farmyard manure, murate of potash, and superphosphate. For urea fertilizer, it is advisable to divide the application into two halves. The first half should be applied in the middle of February, and the second half should be applied in the middle of April after the fruit set. Plum Farmyard manure, murate of potash, and superphosphate should be applied in December. The nitrogen (N) fertilizer should be split into two halves. The first half of N fertilizer should be applied in spring before flowering, and the second half should be applied 1 month later, after the fruit set. This approach ensures optimal nourishment and growth of plum trees for better fruit production. Amla For young amla plants, apply 15–20 kg of farmyard manure per plant in July. Mature amla plants, on the other hand, require 30–40 kg of farmyard manure per tree during the same period. Additionally, apply 110 g of urea to each 1-year-old plant. Gradually increase the urea dose by 50 g each year up to 10 years, and thereafter, apply 1100 g of urea to mature plants. Grapes For newly planted grapevines, apply 125 g of murate of potash and 60 g of urea in April, repeating the same dose in June. In older vineyards planted at a distance of 3 × 3 m, apply the entire amount of farmyard manure and superphosphate, along with half of the nitrogen and potassium fertilizers after pruning. The remaining potassic and nitrogenous fertilizers should be applied after fruit set in April. Caution must be taken not to use excessive doses of fertilizers, as it may lead to excessive vegetative growth and barrenness. To ensure the appropriate nutrient dosage, adjustments can be made based on plant and soil tests. For Perlette grapes,

6.4 Nutrient Management

45

two sprays of urea at a rate of 1.0% concentration should be done, the first at full bloom and the second at fruit-set, to achieve higher yield and improved fruit quality. Sapota The application of farmyard manure, potassium, and phosphorus should be done during the month of December–January. The nitrogen fertilizer should be divided into two equal halves, with the first half applied in March and the remaining half in July–August. Papaya Regarding papaya plants, they should be manured twice a year, during spring and monsoon, with a fertilizer mixture of urea, superphosphate, and murate of potash in a ratio of (1:2:1/3), totaling 1.25 kg. Additionally, 20 kg of well-rotted farmyard manure should be applied to the papaya plants. Pomegranate During December, apply farmyard manure at the rate of 5–6 kg per plant for each year of age. Additionally, apply 50 g of urea each year. The urea doses (250 g) should be stabilized after 5 years. For nitrogen (N) fertilizer, split it into two halves and apply one half in February and the other half in April. Phalsa Apply 10 kg of farmyard manure and 170 g of urea per bush right after pruning. Loquat Appy the entire quantity of farmyard manure in September, along with phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) fertilizers. Half of the urea dose should be applied in October, and the remaining half during January–February after the fruit set.

Micronutrient Deficiency Zinc deficiency Zinc deficiency is evident in fully mature new leaves, displaying irregular interveinal chlorosis, commonly called as “mottled leaf.” Additionally, the terminal leaves become narrow and small, often referred to as “little leaf.” Severe reduction in fruit bud formation and twig die-back are also common symptoms. To address zinc deficiency in citrus plants, a solution of zinc sulfate at a concentration of 0.47% (4.7 g/L of water) is recommended. This solution should be sprayed without the addition of lime on the spring flush in late April and in mid-August on the late summer flush. Foliar application is most effective when given to the fully developed flushes of leaves. By following this treatment, citrus plants can receive the necessary zinc supplementation to overcome the deficiency and promote healthy growth and fruit development. For other trees, unslaked lime is added with 1–2% zinc sulfate (in 1:2). Also, 2–3 sprays at fortnightly interval are required for correcting the deficiency. Iron deficiency In light textured soil, iron deficiency occurs in sensitive trees like peach. Application of 0.3% ferrous sulfate solution on spring flush in April, on

46

6

Horticultural Component

summer flush in June, and late summer flush in August or September is sufficient to correct the deficiency. Manganese deficiency To address manganese deficiency, the plant can be treated by spraying it with manganese sulfate (330 g) dissolved in 100 L of water. This treatment is recommended twice, once in late April and again in mid-August. Additionally, if there is a need for both zinc and manganese supplementation, a combined application of zinc sulfate and manganese sulfate can be utilized. However, it is essential to maintain a gap of 1 week between the foliar application of the Bordeaux mixture and the application of zinc sulfate and manganese sulfate solution to avoid any adverse interactions between the treatments.

6.5

Water Management

The management of water for trees varies depending on their age and the season of growth. Young plants up to the age of 3–4 years should be irrigated at weekly intervals. As the trees grow older, irrigation can be done at 2–3 week intervals, considering factors such as rainfall, climate, and soil type. It is essential to provide irrigation in February before sprouting, in April after fruit set, and during hot weather to ensure proper growth and development of the trees. Failure to do so may negatively impact the trees, leading to excessive shedding of flowers or fruits in many cases. Heavy irrigation is, however, avoided in the case of bearing trees. Irrigation is stopped during the ripening of fruits, which otherwise can delay the ripening of fruits. Water management of fruit trees and intercrops is carried out independently. The mango trees need regular watering during dry periods, especially young plants which have shallow root systems. On the other hand, mature bearing trees typically require irrigation between April and the end of June, about every 10–12 days interval, depending on the evapotranspiration rate, to support fruit development. One irrigation session during the addition of fertilizers in February is enough. During the months of October to December, there is a period of 2–3 months where no irrigation is necessary. Loquat, sapota, and plum are hardy in nature and can tolerate drought to a certain extent, whereas the shallow-rooted trees like fig and banana, on the other hand, need more frequent irrigation, and slight water stress reduces fruit size. In general, all trees require sufficient irrigation during summer months, and frequency is adjusted after the onset of monsoon. Sufficient soil moisture must be maintained during fruit development as any moisture stress during the period before fruit maturity leads to a reduction in fruit weight.

6.7 Fruit Drop

6.6

47

Weed Management

Fruit trees encounter diverse weed flora round the year, and a light cultivation or manual ploughing can be done to manage weeds. Intercrops can effectively suppress weeds, or weeds can be controlled by applying paddy straw at a rate of 4.0 tons per acre as mulch after the recommended doses of inorganic fertilizers and organic manures in May within the tree canopy. The used mulch is then incorporated into the field in October, along with the second dose of recommended fertilizers. Apart from weed suppression, using paddy straw mulch also leads to an increase in fruit size and overall yield.

6.7

Fruit Drop

The physiological fruit drop is a problem often encountered in fruit trees, viz. citrus, mango, ber, and plum. Pre-harvest fruit drop can be managed with the application of growth regulators. However, there should not be any water stress to the fruit trees at the time of spray of the growth regulators. A brief account of practices for the management of the fruit drop is given below: Citrus Citrus trees should be pruned from January to February after the fruit set to remove the diseased dead twigs, and Copper oxychloride 50 WP (3 g/L of water) or Bordeaux Mixture (2:2:250) is sprayed afterward with repeated spray in March, July, and September to reduce die-back of twigs. All the pruned wood should be collected and destroyed by burning. Spray of GA3 (10 mg/L of water) in mid-April, August, and September prevents fruit drop in citrus. The mummified fruits on or around the tree should be destroyed by deep burying. Water stagnation for a long time should be avoided around the tree basin. Mango Regarding mangoes, to control pre-harvest fruit drop in Langra and Dusehri cultivars, a spray of 10 g sodium salt 2,4-D in 500 L of water is recommended either during the last week of April or the first week of May. It is important to dissolve 2,4-D in a small quantity of alcohol or spirit before adding the required volume of water. One application of this spray is sufficient; there is no need for further repetition. Ber To address physiological fruit drop in ber, it is advisable to apply two sprays of 15 g NAA (naphthalene acetic acid) in 500 L of water per acre. These sprays should be done once in the second fortnight of October and again in the second fortnight of November. Similar to the mango spray, NAA should also be dissolved in a small quantity of alcohol or spirit before adding the required volume of water. Plum To prevent pre-harvest fruit drop in plum, it is recommended to give two sprays of NAA (naphthalene acetic acid) at a concentration of 10 ppm. To prepare the solution, dissolve 1 g of NAA in 10–15 mL of alcohol and then add water to

48

6

Horticultural Component

make a final volume of 100 L. Apply the sprays during the second and fourth weeks of April. Alternatively, give one spray of Ethrel at a concentration of 100 ppm. Mix 25 mL of Ethrel with 100 L of water for the solution. Apply this spray during the fourth week of March, specifically after pit hardening. Avoid applying Ethrel before or after pit hardening, as it may lead to increased fruit drop.

6.8

Crop Regulation

Crop regulation or fruit thinning is often required for obtaining quality produce without affecting trees. Following practices must be adopted for crop regulation in fruit trees. Citrus In the third and fourth year of age, kinnow plants often bear an excessive fruit load, sometimes reaching 400–500 fruits on a young plant. This heavy fruit burden can significantly impact the health of the plant, leading to potential issues and even plant mortality. To mitigate this problem, it is essential to thin out the fruit on young kinnow trees shortly after setting, which typically occurs in May. Guava Guava produces two crops annually, with the winter season crop being of higher quality compared to the one during the rainy season, which is susceptible to fruit fly infestations. To ensure only winter season crops, during may month when the majority of flowers have opened, apply a spray of either 10% urea or NAA at a concentration of 600 mg/L. Each tree requires approximately 10–12 L of this solution, totaling around 1000 L for the orchard. To completely avoid the rainy season crop, perform pruning on the terminal portions of the shoots, cutting them back up to 20 or 30 cm around mid-April. For further prevention, refrain from irrigation during April and May, as this discourages the rainy season crop. To encourage growth in July and August and promote maximum flowering for the winter season crop, apply fertilizers during June. This practice will help ensure a superior harvest during the winter season. Pear Pear trees have a tendency to produce an excessive number of fruits, which can lead to small-sized fruits. To prevent this, it is recommended to retain only one fruit per cluster after thinning. This thinning process should take place shortly after the natural fruit drop occurs, typically around the middle of April. Peach Peach trees are known for heavy fruit-bearing, but if all the fruits are allowed to mature on the trees, they tend to remain small and of lower quality, resulting in a reduced marketable yield. Moreover, the excessive fruit load weakens the trees and shortens their lifespan. To address these issues, it is essential to thin the fruits annually, as per the cultivar. For instance, in the Partap cultivar, the ideal time for fruit thinning is during the second and third weeks of March. On the other hand, for the Shan-i-Punjab cultivar, fruit thinning should be done in the third to fourth week of March. To further enhance fruit maturity and improve fruit quality in

Reference

49

Shan-i-Punjab, two methods can be employed. Girdling, combined with thinning at full bloom, or girdling alone performed 4 weeks after full bloom, can advance fruit maturity by 7–12 days. Fruit-to-fruit distance on the shoots should be 10–15 cm. Before initiating the fruit thinning process, gently shaking the fruit-bearing branches helps the naturally weak-fruited stems to drop. Subsequently, the thinning of fruits should commence from the base to the top of the branches. It is essential to complete this operation before the fruits undergo pit hardening.

6.9

Quality Improvement

For quality improvement of fruits, foliar sprays of potassium nitrate (1–1.5%), i.e., 10–15 g/L, should be applied after fruit set. Three sprays at fortnightly interval should be done in the case of citrus, pear, plum, and ber trees to improve fruit size and yield. In the case of grapes, the following package of treatments should be adopted for achieving better quality produce: Thinning of flower buds should be done 1 week before flowering by leaving 100–120 flower buds/panicle. When the berry size is 4 mm, vine should be carefully girdled by removing a 4 mm wide ring of bark from the main stem and the clusters are dipped in 40 ppm GA3. One week after the first GA3 treatment, a second dipping in 40 ppm GA3 should be made. An adequate moisture in the field is essential during the process of girdling and for at least 3 weeks afterward. To enhance the quality and color of grapes, it is recommended to administer two foliar sprays of potassium sulfate at a concentration of 1.5% (15 g/L). The first spray should be applied 1 week after fruit set, while the second should be done at the color break stage.

Reference PAU (2019) Package of practices for cultivation of fruits. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab

7

Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

Abstract

Dairy farming constitutes a vital and dynamic component of an integrated farming system, focusing on the sustainable production of milk and milk-derived products. This practice involves the careful management of dairy animals to ensure optimal milk yield, quality, and animal welfare. Dairy farming contributes significantly to nutritional security by providing a consistent source of highquality protein and essential nutrients. The different indigenous, exotic, and cross-bred breeds of dairy cattle and buffalo are discussed in this chapter. An efficient management of cattle will be incomplete without a well-planned and adequate housing of cattle. During the construction of a house for dairy cattle, care should be taken to provide comfortable accommodation for individual cattle. Moreover, it is essential to maintain a regular feeding schedule of dairy animals to ensure appropriate milk production. A concentrate mixture made up of protein supplements such as oil cakes, energy sources such as cereal grains (maize, jowar), tapioca chips, and laxative feeds such as brans (rice bran, wheat bran, gram husk) is generally used. Keywords

Dairy farming · Nutritional security · Housing of cattle · Feeding schedule

Dairy farming is an important source of subsidiary income for small/marginal farmers and agricultural laborers. The manure from animals provides a good source of organic matter for improving soil fertility and crop yields. The gobar gas from the dung is used as fuel for domestic purposes as well as for running engines for drawing water from wells. The surplus fodder and agricultural by-products are gainfully utilized for feeding the animals. The willful efforts of people and government reflected through the successful implementation of programs like “Operation # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_7

51

52

7 Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

Flood” transformed India from its deficit state in milk production to the world’s largest milk-producing country. India has the largest cattle and buffalo population in the world. Cows and buffaloes are the main milch animals, contributing 96% of the total milk production of the country. The different breeds of livestock are as follows:

7.1

Indigenous Dairy Breeds of Cattle

1. Gir (a) This breed is otherwise called Bhadawari, Desan, Gujarati, Kathiawari, Sorthi, and Surati. (b) Originated in Gir forests of South Kathiawar in Gujarat, also found in Maharashtra and adjacent Rajasthan. (c) Basic colors of skin are white with dark red or chocolate-brown patches or sometimes black or purely red. (d) Horns are peculiarly curved, giving a “half moon” appearance. (e) Milk yield ranges from 1200 to 1800 kg per lactation. (f) This bread is known for its hardiness and disease resistance. 2. Red Sindhi (a) This breed is otherwise called Red Karachi and Sindhi and Mahi. (b) Originated in Karachi and Hyderabad (Pakistan) regions of undivided India and also reared in certain organized farms in our country. (c) Color is red, with shades varying from dark red to light strips of white. (d) Milk yield ranges from 1250 to 1800 kg per lactation. (e) Bullocks, despite being lethargic and slow, can be used for road and fieldwork. 3. Sahiwal (a) Originated in the Montgomery region of undivided India. (b) This breed is otherwise known as Lola (loose skin), Lambi Bar, Montgomery, Multani, and Teli. (c) Best indigenous dairy breed. (d) Reddish dun or pale red in color, sometimes flashed with white patches. (e) Heavy breed with symmetrical body having loose skin. (f) The average milk yield of this breed is between 1400 and 2500 kg per lactation.

7.2

Exotic Dairy Breeds of Cattle

1. Jersey (a) Hailing from Jersey Island, U.K., the Jersey cattle breed is recognized as the smallest among dairy cattle types. (b) In India, this breed has successfully acclimatized and is extensively used for cross-breeding with indigenous cows.

7.2 Exotic Dairy Breeds of Cattle

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

53

(c) Jersey cattle are characterized by their reddish fawn color, along with a dished forehead and compact, angular body. (d) These cattle are renowned for being efficient milk producers, yielding milk with 4.5% fat content. (e) On average, they produce around 4500 kg of milk per lactation. Holstein Friesian (a) This cattle breed originated from the northern regions of the Netherlands, particularly in the province of Friesland. (b) Known for being the largest dairy breed, Holsteins possess robust build and have large udders. (c) These cattle are easily recognizable due to their distinctive black and white markings. (d) On average, a Holstein cow produces between 6000 and 7000 kg of milk per lactation. Brown Swiss (a) The Brown Swiss breed traces its origins back to the mountainous region of Switzerland. (b) These cattle are known for their rugged nature and excellent milk production capabilities. (c) On average, they yield around 5000 kg of milk per lactation. (d) The Karan Swiss, outstanding cross-bred cattle, is achieved by crossing the Brown Swiss breed with Sahiwal cattle at NDRI, Karnal. Red Dane (a) This breed originated in Denmark. (b) These Danish cattle display body colors that range from red to reddish brown, and sometimes even dark brown. (c) They are classified as a heavy breed. (d) The average lactation yield of the cattle falls between 3000 and 4000 kg. Ayrshire (a) The Ayrshire breed has its origin in Ayrshire, Scotland, and is highly regarded as one of the most aesthetically pleasing dairy breeds. However, these animals are known for their high activity levels, making them challenging to manage. (b) In terms of milk production, they may not yield as much milk or butter fat (only 4%) as other dairy breeds. (c) The breed was historically referred to as Dunlop cattle or Cunningham cattle. Guernsey (a) The Guernsey breed originated from the small island of Guernsey in France. (b) They exhibit a range of colors from cherry red to brown, with mahogany and white being variations in color. (c) The milk from Guernsey cows has a distinct golden color, attributed to its exceptionally high beta-carotene content. (d) On average, Guernsey cows produce approximately 6000 kg of milk per lactation.

54

7 Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

(e) For dairy farmers, the Guernsey cow offers several notable advantages over other breeds, including high milk production efficiency, a low incidence of calving difficulty, and greater longevity.

7.3

Cross-Bred: Dairy Cattle

1. Jersey Cross (a) Jersey crosses are obtained by cross-breeding non-descript or indigenous breeds of cows with Jersey breed semen. (b) Jersey crosses are well-suited as dairy animals for the tropical plains of India. (c) They are of medium size, exhibit superior heat tolerance compared to other exotic crosses, and are well adapted to our climatic conditions. (d) In comparison to the milk production potential of our indigenous cows, the Jersey crosses may exhibit a remarkable two- to three-fold increase in the yield of milk in the first generation. 2. Holstein Friesian Cross (a) The HF crosses are better suited for temperate climatic regions, such as hilly areas, as they exhibit lower heat tolerance. (b) They have comparatively lower resistance to tropical diseases compared to Jersey crosses. (c) While HF crosses tend to have higher milk yield, their fat percentage is quite lower.

7.4

Buffalo Breeds

Indigenous Buffalo Breeds 1. Murrah (a) The most prominent breed of buffaloes originates from Hisar, Rohtak, and Sind regions of Haryana, Nabha and Patiala districts of Punjab, and the southern parts of Delhi. (b) This breed is also known by various names, namely Kundi, Delhi, and Kali. (c) Typically, the buffaloes of this breed have a jet black color with white markings on their tail, face, and sometimes on their extremities. (d) A distinctive characteristic of this breed is their tightly curved horns. (e) Regarded as the most efficient milk and butterfat producers in India. (f) They boast a butterfat content of 7.83%. On average, their lactation yield varies between 1500 and 2500 kg per lactation. (g) Additionally, they are utilized for grading up inferior local buffaloes. 2. Surti

7.4 Buffalo Breeds

55

(a) This breed is known by various names, namely Gujarati, Deccani, Charator Talabda, and Nadiadi. (b) The breeding tract of this breed is primarily located in the Kaira and Baroda districts of Gujarat. (c) The color of the coat of this breed varies from rusty brown to silver-grey. (d) Their horns are moderately long, sickle-shaped, and flat in appearance. (e) A distinctive feature of this breed is the presence of two white collars, one encircling the jaw and the other around the brisket region. (f) The average yield ranges between 1000 and 1300 kg of milk per lactation. (g) One remarkable peculiarity of this breed is the exceptionally high fat percentage in their milk, which can reach 8–12%. 3. Jaffrabadi (a) The breeding tract encompasses the Kutch, Gir forests, and Jamnagar districts of Gujarat. (b) Among Indian buffalo breeds, this breed holds the distinction of being the heaviest breed. (c) The horns of these buffalo are sturdy and tend to droop on each side of the neck, curving up at the points (known as drooping horns). (d) The udder of this breed is well developed, featuring funnel-shaped teats. (e) On average, they yield around 1000–1200 kg of milk per lactation. (f) Additionally, the male buffaloes (bullocks) are heavy and find application in carting and ploughing. (g) Traditionally, these animals are primarily maintained by nomadic breeders known as Maldharis. 4. Bhadawari (a) Home tract of this breed includes Agra, Gwalior district of Madhya Pradesh, and Etawah districts of Uttar Pradesh. (b) This buffalo breed is considered medium-sized. (c) An intriguing characteristic of this breed is its body color, which is typically light or copper-colored. The eyelids of these buffaloes are generally copper or light brown in color. (d) A distinctive feature is the presence of two white lines, known as “Chevron,” located on the lower side of the neck, similar to Surti buffaloes. (e) On average, they yield around 800–1000 kg of milk per lactation. (f) The male buffaloes (bullocks) serve as excellent draught animals, possessing high heat tolerance. (g) The fat content of the milk produced by this breed varies from 6 to 12.5%. They are known for efficiently converting coarse feed into butterfat, resulting in high butterfat content in milk. 5. Nili Ravi (a) This breed traces its origins around the Ravi River. (b) This breed is primarily found in the Sahiwal (Pakistan) of undivided India and the Sutlej Valley in the Ferozepur district of Punjab. (c) A unique characteristic of this breed is the presence of wall eyes.

56

7 Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

(d) The head of this breed is elongated, small, bulging at the top, and depressed between eyes. (e) The horns are tightly coiled and notably small. (f) The male buffaloes (bullocks) of this breed are well-suited for heavy trotting work. (g) On average, they yield around 1500–1850 kg of milk per lactation. 6. Mehsana (a) The Mehsana breed of buffalo is a dairy breed primarily found in Sabarkanda, Mehsana, and Banaskanta districts in Gujarat and adjoining Maharashtra state. (b) This breed is a result of cross-breeding between the Surti and the Murrah buffalo breeds. (c) The body of the Mehsana buffalo is longer compared to the Murrah breed, while its limbs are lighter in structure. (d) The horns of the Mehsana buffalo are less curved than those of the Murrah breed and exhibit irregular patterns. (e) The male buffaloes (bullocks) of this breed are well-suited for heavy work. (f) On average, they yield around 1200–1500 kg of milk per lactation. 7. Nagpuri (a) Also known as Elitchpuri or Barari. (b) The breeding tract of this breed encompasses the Akola, Nagpur, and Amrawati districts of Maharashtra. (c) These animals are predominantly black with distinctive white patches on their legs, face, and tail. They also have long, flat, and curved horns that bend backward on each side of their back (resembling sword-shaped horns). (d) The male buffaloes (bullocks) of this breed are well-suited for heavy work. (e) On average, the yield ranges between 700 and 1200 kg of milk per lactation. 8. Toda (a) The Toda buffalo, a semi-wild breed, is named after the ancient Toda tribe residing in the Nilgiris Hills of South India. (b) Predominantly, these buffaloes exhibit coat colors such as fawn and ash-grey, with a thick hair coat covering their entire body. (c) They are known for their gregarious nature, preferring to live in social groups. (d) These buffaloes have a long and deep body structure with a deep chest and short yet robust legs. (e) The horns of the Toda buffalo are uniquely set wide apart, curving inward, outward, and forward, forming a characteristic crescent shape. (f) On average, the milk yield of this breed is around 500 kg per lactation, with a high-fat content of 8%.

7.5 Housing for Dairy Cattle

7.5

57

Housing for Dairy Cattle

An efficient management of cattle will be incomplete without a well-planned and adequate housing of cattle. Improper planning in the arrangement of animal housing may result in additional labor charges that curtail the profit of the owner. During the construction of a house for dairy cattle, care should be taken to provide comfortable accommodation for individual cattle. No less important are (1) proper sanitation, (2) durability, (3) arrangements for the production of clean milk under convenient and economic conditions, etc. Location of Dairy Buildings: The points that should be considered before the construction of dairy buildings are as follows: 1. Topography and drainage: When constructing a dairy building, it is crucial to position it at a higher elevation than the surrounding ground. This elevation provides a favorable slope for rainfall and efficient drainage of dairy wastes, preventing any stagnation. Opting for a leveled area reduces the need for extensive site preparation and subsequently lowers the building cost. Care should be taken to avoid lowlands, depressions, and locations near sources of bad odors to ensure optimal conditions for the dairy facility. 2. Soil type: The fertile soil should be left for cultivation purposes. It is important to avoid using foundation soils that are excessively desiccated or dehydrated. Such soils tend to swell significantly during the rainy season, leading to the formation of numerous cracks and fissures. 3. Exposure to the sun and protection from wind: Considering the exposure to the sun and protection from wind is crucial when selecting the location of a dairy building. It is advisable to position the building to maximize exposure to the sun in the north and minimize exposure in the south. Protection from prevailing strong hot or cold wind currents is also important. Additionally, buildings should be placed strategically to ensure that direct sunlight reaches the platforms, mangers, and gutters. Whenever possible, the long axis of the dairy barns should be oriented in the north-south direction to take full advantage of the sun’s benefits. 4. Accessibility: Ensuring easy accessibility to the dairy shed is of utmost importance. Ideally, placing the cattle shed alongside the main road at a distance of approximately 100 m is a favorable objective. 5. Durability and attractiveness: Considering both durability and attractiveness is essential when constructing dairy buildings. It is visually appealing when the buildings open up to a scenic view and enhance the overall grandeur of the surroundings. Moreover, ensuring the structure’s durability is a crucial aspect of the dairy building process. 6. Water supply: A plentiful supply of clean, fresh, and soft water should be readily available at an affordable rate. 7. Surroundings: Caution should be exercised in regions inhabited by wild animals and dacoits. To ensure safety, it is crucial to remove potential hazards such as

58

8. 9.

10.

11.

7 Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

narrow gates, high manger curbs, protruding nails, and loose hinges and maintain a smooth finished floor in areas where cows move. Labor: There should be consistent availability of honest and cost-effective labor. Marketing: Dairy buildings should be strategically located in areas that allow the owner to achieve regular and profitable sales of their products. The chosen location should enable prompt and cost-effective fulfillment of the farm’s requirements while satisfying the needs of customers at reasonable prices. Electricity: Electricity is the most important sanitary method of lighting a dairy. Since a modern dairy always handles pieces of electric equipment, which are also economical, it is desirable to have an adequate supply of electricity. Facilities, labor, food: Cattle yards should be so constructed and situated in relation to feed storages, hay stacks, silos, and manure pits as to affect the most efficient utilization of labor. Sufficient space per cow and well-arranged feeding mangers and resting contribute to greater milk yield of cows, make the work of the operator easier, and minimize feed expenses. The relative position of the feed stores should be quite adjacent to the cattle barn.

7.6

Feeding of Dairy Cattle

Proper feeding of dairy cattle should envisage minimum wastage of nutrients and maximum returns with respect to milk produced. A concentrate mixture made up of protein supplements such as oil cakes, energy sources such as cereal grains (maize, jowar), tapioca chips, and laxative feeds such as brans (rice bran, wheat bran, gram husk) is generally used. Mineral mixture containing major and all the trace elements should be included at a level of 2%. The feeding routines designed for various categories of mature cows with an approximate body weight of 250 kg are discussed in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1 Feeding schedule for different classes of adult cows (approximate body weight, 250 kg) When green grass is plenty

Category Dry cows Milking Pregnant

Concentrate mixture (kg) – 1 kg for 2.5– 3.0 kg of milk Production allowance + 1– 1.5 kg from sixth month of pregnancy

Source: GADVASU (2016)

Green grass (kg) 25–30 30 25–30

When paddy straw is the major roughage Green grass (kg) Concentrate mixture (kg) 1.25 5.0 1.25 + 1 kg for every 2.5–3.0 kg of milk Maintenance + production + 1– 1.5 kg from sixth month of pregnancy

Paddy straw (kg) 5–6

5.0

5–6

5.0

5–6

7.7 Tips for Feeding Dairy Cattle

59

The requirement of total dry matter by cattle is typically 2–3% of their body weight, although high milk-yielding animals might consume more than 3%. The dry matter intake can be influenced by various factors such as climate, feed processing, and palatability. For a cow of average size, a maintenance ration can be formed using good quality grasses like Guinea or Napier, containing at least 6% crude protein on a dry matter basis alone. However, to sustain milk production of up to 3–4 kg, a combination of grass-legume fodder can be utilized.

7.7

Tips for Feeding Dairy Cattle

• Concentrates should be fed individually based on the production requirements of each animal. • Providing high-quality roughage helps in saving concentrates. Roughly, 20 kg of grasses (such as napier, guinea, etc.) or 6–8 kg of legume fodder (lucerne, cowpea) can substitute 1 kg of concentrate mixture (containing 0.14–0.16 kg of DCP) in terms of protein content. • When using straw, 1 kg of straw can substitute 4–5 kg of grass on a dry matter basis. In such cases, any deficiency of protein and other nutrients should be considered by an appropriate concentrate mixture. • It is essential to maintain a regular feeding schedule. The concentrate mixture can be provided during or preferably before milking, with half given in the morning and the other half in the evening, preceding the two milking sessions. Half of the roughage ration can be offered after watering and cleaning the animals in the forenoon, while the remaining half is given after milking and watering in the evening. For high milk-yielding animals, it may be beneficial to feed them three times a day (both concentrate and roughage). An increase in the frequency of feeding of concentrate aids in ensuring normal rumen motility and adequate milk fat levels. • Caution should be exercised not to over-feed concentrates as it may lead to decreased appetite and indigestion. • Sudden changes in the feed should be avoided. • The grains should be grounded to a medium degree of fineness before feeding to the cattle. • It is recommended to chop and feed long and thick-stemmed fodders like Napier. • For highly tender and moist grasses, wilting or mixing them with straw before feeding can be beneficial. Similarly, to avoid bloating and indigestion, legume fodders can be mixed with straw or other grasses. • Feeds like silage that may affect the milk’s flavor should be given after milking. Concentrate mixture in mash form can be moistened with water and fed immediately, while pellets can be fed as they are. • Ensure that all feeds are appropriately stored in well-ventilated and dry locations. Do not feed any feed that is moldy or damaged. • High-yielding animals should maintain an ideal concentrate-to-roughage ratio of 60:40 on a dry matter basis.

60

7.8

7 Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

Feeding the Cattle During Stress Period

Grass is the cheapest source of feed for any livestock enterprise, and effective utilization of grass and its management is the key to getting the most out of your grassland. Ruminant animals depend on grass as a major source of energy and protein, as well as vitamins and minerals. So, to take maximum return from the grass, there is a way to make quality hay and silage from these. Silage: Silage making involves a fermentation process designed to preserve forage while it is in a wet state, away from exposure to air. The objective is to minimize the loss of dry matter and retain its nutritional value, while also avoiding crating products toxic to the animals. A well-prepared silage typically exhibits a light brown color, possesses a sharp taste, and has a mild smell due to its appropriate lactic acid content. Furthermore, it exhibits great stability, making it possible to store it for extended periods, if necessary. To achieve high-quality silage, the following steps are essential: • Utilize airtight silos (achieving total anaerobics) for the preservation of silage. Various types of silos, such as trench silo, tunnel silo, tower silo, corridor silo, etc., are used worldwide. Ensure that only clean forage, free from soil, is collected and piled up. • Consider employing additional techniques, if necessary, such as pre-tedding for forage with high water content or the use of preservatives (such as formic acid, sugar products, anti-molds, etc.) to enhance preservation. • Harvesting forage at the optimal time is crucial, taking into account nutritional quality, available quantity, and prevailing climatic conditions. Proper storage techniques should be applied to minimize losses. Various additives are available to enhance the quality of produced silage, and they can be broadly categorized into three main types of additives: • Sugars/carbohydrates: Adding extra sugar or molasses to the crop promotes increased lactic acid production. Some additives also include substances that stimulate the growth of Lactobacilli bacteria. • Acids: Formic and sulfuric acid are applied at a rate of 3–5 L per ton as the grass is collected from the field. This reduces the amount of lactic acid required to achieve a stable pH. • Preservatives: These additives help suppress chemical reactions and facilitate the fermentation process. Preservatives are often included in acid additives to aid in the preservation of silage more effectively. Hay: Hay is grass that is cut, dried, and stored by humans to be used at a later date; i.e., hay is sun-dried grass, while silage is fermented pasture (grass). Hay making is the process of turning green, perishable forage into a product that can be safely stored and easily transported without danger of spoilage, while keeping nutrient loss to a minimum. This involves reducing its moisture content by drying the

7.9 Care and Management of Pregnant Animal

61

forage in the sun. The process of drying the green crop without significant change in aroma, flavor, and nutritive quality of forage is called “curing.” This involves reducing the moisture content of green forages so that they can be stored without spoilage or further nutrient loss. Feeding hay to livestock helps reduce the amount of concentrate feeding and, thereby, the cost of feeding. The low moisture content of hay considerably reduces cost. Crops with slender stems and abundant foliage are more suitable for hay making since they dry at a faster rate compared to crops with thick, robust stems and small leaves. Examples of such crops include oats, lucerne, maize, napier grass, sorghum, and rhodes grass. Leguminous fodder crops like lucerne and cowpea should be harvested when they reach the flower initiation stage or when crown buds begin to grow. On the other hand, grasses and similar fodder crops should be harvested during the pre-flowering stage, as they possess the highest nutrient content and green matter at this phase. The grasses tend to have reduced nutrient levels after flowering and seeding. To facilitate the curing process, it is advisable to harvest the fodder during periods of low air humidity. Basic method of hay making: To optimize its nutritional content, forage is harvested before reaching full maturity, long before it reaches the seeding stage. While this early cutting may lead to a lower overall volume of hay, the significant rise in nutritive value more than offsets the decrease in yield. • When harvesting forage, it’s crucial to aim for a higher proportion of leaves and a minimal number of stems since leaves are more nutritious than stems. • Avoid cut forage to dry in damp conditions as this can promote mold growth, which poses risks to both livestock and handlers. • After cutting, spread the forage in a thin layer under the sun and regularly rake and turn it to expedite the drying process. • After drying, chopping the forage into small pieces will also accelerate drying. • Typically, the drying process may last between 2 and 3 days. • Be cautious not to over-dry the hay as it might ferment and become a potential fire hazard. • Ideally, store the dried hay in bales when its moisture content is low, preferably less than 15%. This facilitates storage and requires less space.

7.9

Care and Management of Pregnant Animal

Providing proper care and management practices to pregnant animals results in healthy calves and higher milk yield during subsequent lactation. The daily nutritional needs of a pregnant animal are mentioned in Table 7.2. Here are some guidelines to follow:

62

7 Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

Table 7.2 Daily feed requirements of a pregnant animal

Green fodder Dry fodder Compound cattle feed Oil cake Mineral mixture Salt

15–20 kg 4–5 kg 2–3 kg 1 kg 50 g 30 g

Source: GADVASU (2016)

• Offer an extra concentrate mix of 1.25–1.75 kg as pregnancy allowance for pregnant animals. Feed them with good quality of leguminous fodder, aiming to maintain them in a balanced condition, neither too lean nor too fat. • Ensure access to clean drinking water and protect them from thermal stress. • Avoid allowing pregnant animals to mix with other animals that have a history of abortion or are carriers of diseases such as brucellosis. • Encourage moderate exercise, as it can aid in normal calving. Avoid making them walk long distances, especially on uneven surfaces. • Prevent fights with other animals and protect them from being chased by dogs and other animals. • Minimize slippery conditions that could lead to falls, dislocations, or fractures. • Calculate the expected calving date, if accurate and appropriate breeding records are available, and separate the pregnant animal 1 or 2 weeks before that date, moving them to individual parturition pens. • Thoroughly clean the pens and provide fresh bedding. • Increase concentrate feed by 1 kg during the last 8 weeks of gestation. • Feed them with laxative about 3–5 days before and after calving (3 kg wheat bran + 0.5 g of groundnut cake + 100 g of mineral mixture of salt). • Monitor for signs of delivery such as swelling of udder and external genetalia. Most animals will deliver without assistance, but if there are difficulties, seek veterinary help. • After calving, clean and protect the external genital area and flank of the animal from chill, and provide warm water. • After calving, the placenta should naturally leave the cow within 2–4 h. Be mindful of milk fever before calving and consider giving calcium supplements. In cases of swollen udders just before calving, remove the milk partially. • Be attentive to any signs of abortion and ensure free access to drinking water at all times.

7.10

Care and Management of Milch Animals

• To achieve high milk production during any lactation, it is crucial to provide proper feeding and implement necessary care and management practices for milch animals.

7.10

Care and Management of Milch Animals

63

• Offer green succulent forage along with leguminous hay or straw, ensuring that the animal can consume enough to meet all its maintenance requirements through forage alone. Additionally, provide extra concentrates @1 kg for every 2–2.5 L of milk. Salt and mineral supplements should also be fed to support lactation. • Always handle the animals gently and avoid frightening or exciting them. Kind treatment is essential for their well-being. • With appropriate care and feeding, a cow will come into heat within 16 days of calving. It is essential not to unnecessarily delay breeding after noticing signs of heat in a cow. The animal becomes a more efficient milk producer if they have a shorter interval between calving. Maintaining accurate records of breeding and calving will ensure a steady flow of milk round the year. • Providing individual attention to each animal’s feed according to its production level is necessary. Keeping individual production records is beneficial for this purpose. • Maintain a regular feeding schedule, offering concentrate mix before or during milking and roughages after milking to avoid dust in the shed. • Ensure the animals have access to drinking water at will or at frequent intervals, especially if they are fed on paddy straw as the sole roughage. • Regular milking is essential to maintain milk production. Milking thrice is better than twice, as it can result in 10–15% more milk production. • Practice continuous, rapid, dry hand milking without jerking the teats. Milking should be done with the whole hand and not just with the index finger and thumb. • Train cows to let down milk without calf suckling to facilitate early weaning of calves. • During hot parts of the day, provide loose housing with shelter to allow animals to get maximum exercise. • Groom cows and wash buffaloes before milking to ensure clean production of milk. Daily brushing will remove dirt from the coat and loose hair, while grooming will keep the animal hide pliable. • Wallowing or water spraying on buffalo bodies will keep them comfortable, especially during the summers. • Properly detect and treat common ailments and vices such as licking, kicking, and suckling. • Allow a dry period of at least 60–90 days between calving to ensure sufficient milk yield in the subsequent lactation. • Vaccinate cows against important diseases and implement measures to protect them from insects and pests. • Record each animal’s number and keep track of milk yield, fat percentage, feed intake, breeding, drying, and calving dates. • Regularly check for mastitis and take appropriate measures for its management.

64

7.11

7 Livestock Rearing (Dairying)

Clean Milk Production in India

Village entrepreneurship is the mainstay for bringing India as the number one milk producer in the world. As a result, there is limited scope for mechanizing milking procedures, but this does not mean that India cannot produce clean milk. By launching a vigorous campaign, clean milk can be produced by good animal husbandry practices in villages, small farms with the help of Dairy Development Boards, different Cooperative Dairy Federations, etc. The first step to clean milk production should be the education and training of milk producers on hygiene, housekeeping, sanitation, milking methods, and good animal husbandry practices. The different strategies for clean milk production are as follows: 1. Awareness and training: Educational aids and programs should be organized for the farmers for making them aware of the importance of clean milk production. This should be in the form of charts/posters displayed at village, society, and milk collection centers. Make them aware of the correct handling of the milk from the udder to the reception dock, maintenance of a hygienic environment, clean utensils, and availability of milk cooling bulk tanks and coolers. 2. Feeding practices: The feeds and fodder of the animals should not introduce directly or indirectly microbiological or chemical contaminants in the milk in amounts that are unacceptable to health. Feed fodder and silage should be procured from a reliable source and should be stored properly. 3. Housing management: The shed should be comfortable and clean, with suitable arrangements to dispose dung, urine, feed, and fodder residues. There should be a proper supply of clean drinking water and electricity. The shed should be washed before milking. 4. Handling of milking vessels: The milking vessel should be made of stainless steel. It should be cleaned before and after milking with hot water and certified detergents/chemicals. It should have a small mouth. The milker should wear clean clothes and maintain personal hygiene. He should wash his hands before milking and should not spit or smoke. Shaving the hair of the hind legs and tail should be carried out routinely. Also, the fore milk should be discarded in a proper place. 5. Udder hygiene: Effective milking practice is one important criterion in order to produce safe and suitable milk; failure of which may introduce contamination of milk. From an ethological perspective, the cow rests in a lying position, which inevitably leads to contact of the udder skin with filth on the bedding surface. As much as 1 × 1010 of total microorganisms can be found in 1 g of filth from the udder surface. There are many procedures for udder hygiene prior to milking, such as washing by spraying water and wiping of teats, washing of teats with a cloth immersed in warm disinfectant solution and drying with a dry cloth, and immersing of teats in disinfectant and wiping with a paper cloth. 6. Health management: Good animal husbandry practices including regular monitoring of diseases such as mastitis should be a part of the routine work. During milking, using teat dips and washing of udder should be an ongoing activity of the

Reference

65

dairy farm. Sick animal sheds should be far away from the milking barn and separated from the healthy ones. The healthy animals must be milked first. Improper use of veterinary drugs should be avoided. 7. Milk collection and transportation: There should be a provision of bulk cooling tanks in order to reduce the bacteriological load in the milk immediately after collection. Introducing a differential pricing system based on the bacteriological quality of milk will help in the overall improvement of milk quality reaching the dairy dock. Other pre-requisites for clean milk production include hygienic norms and good animal husbandry practices, and proper handling, storage, and transportation of milk are important elements to produce quality milk. The lids of the milk cans should fit tightly, preventing the entry of rain and dust. The cans should be stored in an inverted condition on the stand. Excessive agitation while transportation should be avoided. When milk is agitated, the milk fat is destabilized, which becomes easily oxidized. The milk tanker should have proper insulation. The number of spoilage bacteria in raw milk depends on the level of hygiene during milking and the cleanliness of the vessels used for storing and transporting the milk. During the first 2–3 h after milking, raw milk is protected from spoilage by inherent natural antibacterial substances that inhibit the growth of spoilage bacteria. However, if the milk is not cooled, these antibacterial substances break down, causing bacteria to multiply rapidly. Cooling milk to less than 10 °C may prevent spoilage for up to 3 days. High storage temperatures result in faster microbial growth and hence faster milk spoilage.

Reference GADVASU (2016) Dairy farming, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana, Punjab

8

Poultry Rearing

Abstract

Poultry rearing within an integrated farming system constitutes a strategic approach that synergizes diverse agricultural practices to enhance productivity, sustainability, and resource optimization. By integrating poultry with complementary activities, a harmonious ecosystem emerges, where outputs from one sector contribute to the inputs of another. Poultry rearing contributes significantly to food security by providing a consistent source of high-quality protein in the form of eggs and meat. This chapter discusses the various points that should be taken under consideration before including poultry as a component in an integrated farming system. Keywords

Poultry rearing · High quality protein · Egg · Meat · Food security Poultry farming is defined as “raising different types of domestic birds commercially for the purpose of meat, eggs and feather production.” However, the most common and widely raised poultry birds are chickens. Around 5000 million chickens are being raised every year as a source of food (both meat and eggs of chicken). The chickens raised for eggs are called layer chicken, and the chickens that are raised for their meat production are called broiler chickens. Tips to keep in mind while building houses for poultry birds: • Always keep enough space in your poultry house, depending on the birds. It will help your birds to live, grow, and produce happily. Avoid overcrowding the poultry house. • Good ventilation system is a must. One should ensure that poultry houses are well ventilated. # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_8

67

68

8 Poultry Rearing

• Ensure sufficient flow of fresh air and light inside the house. • For commercial production, make the proper distance between two houses. • Clean the house and equipment on a regular basis. Must sterilize the house before bringing new chicks into farm. • Must take steps to prevent all types of predators and harmful animals. • Maintain good temperature so that birds do not suffer by excessive heat or cold. • Suitable drainage system inside the house is a must for cleaning it properly. • Making poultry houses in a calm and quiet place is a good idea.

8.1

Selection of Location

• • • • •

Poultry houses should be located away from residential and industrial areas. It should have proper road facilities. It should have basic amenities like water and electricity. Availability of farm laborers at relatively cheaper wages. Poultry houses should be located in an elevated area, and there should not be any water-logging. • It should have proper ventilation. House orientation (direction) The poultry house should be positioned in an east– west direction, ensuring that the long axis runs from east to west. This arrangement helps avoid direct exposure of the birds to intense sunlight. Size For the deep-litter system of rearing, each broiler requires 1 square ft. of floor space, while a layer needs 2 square ft. Hence, the size of the poultry house should be determined based on the number of birds to be housed. Length The length of the poultry house can vary based on the number of birds and the available land for construction. Width In tropical countries with open-sided poultry houses, the width should generally not exceed 22–25 ft. to facilitate adequate aeration and ventilation at the mid-portion. Sheds wider than this might not provide proper ventilation during hot summers. If the width exceeds 25 ft., ridge ventilation at the middle line of the roof with proper overhang is necessary to facilitate the escape of hot air and obnoxious gases. However, for environmentally controlled poultry houses, the width may be extended to 40 ft. or more since ventilation is managed using exhaust fans. Height The height of the sides, from the foundation to the roof line (eaves height), should be 6–7 ft., and at the center, it should be 10–12 ft. For cage houses, the height is determined by the type of cage arrangements, such as 3 tier or 4 tier.

8.1 Selection of Location

69

Foundation A solid concrete foundation is imperative to prevent water seepage into the poultry sheds. The concrete foundation should be about 1–1.5 ft. below the surface and 1–1.5 ft. above the ground level. Floor The floor should be made of concrete and equipped with rat-proof devices to keep it dry and free from dampness. Extending the floor 1.5 ft. outside the wall on all sides helps prevent snakes and rats from entering. Doors In the case of deep-litter poultry houses, the doors should open outside. The preferred size for the door is 6 × 2.5 ft. At the entry, a foot bath filled with disinfectant should be constructed. Side walls The side walls should be 1–1.5 ft. in height, generally at the level of the bird’s back height. These side walls protect the birds during rainy or cold weather while providing proper ventilation. Cage houses may not require side walls. Roof The type of roof for the poultry house can be chosen based on the cost involved. Options include tiled, thatched, concrete, or asbestos roofs. Various roof types such as gable, shed, half-monitor, full-monitor (monitor), flat concrete, gothic, and gambrel are available. In tropical countries like India, the gable type is commonly preferred. Overhang The overhang of the roof should not be less than 3.5 ft. in order to prevent the entry of rainwater into the shed. Lighting Light should be provided at 7–8 ft. above the ground level and must be hung from the ceiling. If incandescent bulbs are used, the interval between two bulbs is 10 ft. In the case of fluorescent lights (tube lights), the interval is 15 ft. Feeding One must always feed high-quality, fresh, and nutritious food. It ensures good health, proper growth, and high production. Hence, feed your poultry birds healthy and nutritious feeds. It is important to add all types of necessary vitamins and minerals to their feed. Besides feeding your birds a high-quality and nutritious feeds, always serve them sufficient amounts of fresh and clean water according to their demand. High-quality and well-balanced protein sources produce a maximum amount of muscle, organ, skin, and feather growth. The essential minerals produce bones and eggs, with about 3–4% of the live bird being composed of minerals and 10% of the egg. Calcium, phosphorus, sodium, chlorine, potassium, sulfur, manganese, iron, copper, cobalt, magnesium, and zinc are all required. Vitamins A, C, D, E, and K and all of the B vitamins are also required. Antibiotics are widely used to stimulate appetite, control harmful bacteria, and prevent disease. For chickens, modern rations produce about 0.5 kg (1 pound) of broiler on about 0.9 kg (2 pounds) of feed and a dozen eggs from 2 kg (4.5 pounds) of feed.

9

Fish Farming

Abstract

Fish farming, or pisciculture, is the commercial cultivation of fish in enclosed environments like tanks and ponds for food production. Factors for successful fish farming site selection include clean water availability, proper soil characteristics, favorable topography, vegetation considerations, and accessibility. Constructing effective fish ponds involves reliable water sources and proper land features, maintaining proper depth, slope, and water quality. Fish species selection, like catla, rohu, mrigal, common carp, grass carp, and silver carp, varies based on growth, habitat, and market demand. Different combinations in a polyculture system, like six, five, four, or three species, offer flexibility based on feed availability and market conditions. Keywords

Fish farming · Fish ponds · Catla · Rohu · Mrigal · Common carp · Grass carp · Silver carp Fish farming or pisciculture involves raising fish commercially in tanks or enclosures such as fish ponds, usually for food. It is the principal form of aquaculture, while other methods may fall under mariculture. A facility that releases juvenile fish into the wild for recreational fishing or to supplement a species’ natural numbers is generally referred to as a fish hatchery. Worldwide, the most important fish species produced in fish farming are carp, tilapia, salmon, and catfish. Demand is increasing for fish and fish protein, which has resulted in widespread overfishing in wild fisheries. China provides 62% of the world’s farmed fish. As of 2016, more than

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_9

71

72

9

Fish Farming

50% of seafood was produced by aquaculture. Farming carnivorous fish, such as salmon, does not always reduce pressure on wild fisheries. Carnivorous farmed fish are usually fed fishmeal and fish oil extracted from wild forage fish. The 2008 global returns for fish farming recorded by the FAO were 33.8 million tons worth about $US 60 billion.

9.1

Selection of Site for Fish Pond

Every farmer or individual wants success in business enterprise. Considerations for successful fish farming in ponds are given below: 1. Water Source and Supply: The availability of clean water is vital for fish growth and must be free from pollutants. Water that is discolored, foul-smelling, or contaminated with domestic effluents is unsuitable for fish farming. Good water sources include flowing rivers, brackish water from lagoons, tidal flows from the sea, well water, spring water, and reliable piped water. If the water is too clear, it may need the addition of manure or fertilizer; if it’s muddy, settling through the application of lime is required. Regular water supply is essential for the fish pond. 2. Nature of the Soil/Land Availability: The land is a crucial factor in fish farming. Ponds can be built either by excavating soil or by constructing embankment structures. Prospective fish farmers should ensure that the land is acquired legally, as pond structures can be in use for several production cycles (up to 10–15 years). Soil at the chosen site must be tested for water retention capacity, as good soil for fish culture should be able to hold water effectively. 3. Topography (Landscape): The shape of the land matters, and sloppy land that is not prone to erosion is suitable for fish ponds. For gravity-fed (free flow) water supply, the site of the pond should be situated at a lower level than the water source. Conducting a detailed survey of the area helps plan the layout of the ponds efficiently and minimize earthwork. Ideally, pond sites should have a gentle slope (1:2) to facilitate large pond construction. In flat land areas, dugout ponds with slanting bottoms should be constructed for proper drainage. 4. Vegetation of the Site: The type of vegetation at the pond site affects the cost of clearing the area for pond construction. Dense vegetation can be expensive to clear, considering the cost of felling and removing trees and root stumps. Stumps left in the soil may decay over time and cause pollution or damage fishing nets during harvesting. Therefore, it’s essential to avoid heavily vegetated lands or properly clear such sites. Lands in the Savannah belt with fewer trees and roots are cheaper to clear. 5. Other Considerations: Accessibility of the project site, availability of labor, inputs, and market for fish products are additional factors for prospective fish farmers to consider.

9.3 Fish Breed for Fish Pond

9.2

73

Constructing the Fish Pond

To plan the size and number of ponds to construct, having a reliable source of water supply and land that retains water is crucial. Ponds should be constructed with a sloping bottom, with drainage facilities (outlets) located near the embankment. The slope should be about 1:2. Water inlets should be placed preferably at the shallowest end of the pond. Pond depth can vary from 1 to 3 m, with average depths of 1.5–2 m suitable for most freshwater species. Shallow ponds are susceptible to turbidity caused by wind or human activities and expose fish to natural predators. Extremely deep ponds can create management challenges, especially during harvesting. Regular monitoring of water levels and timely replacement of lost water due to seepage or evaporation is essential for successful fish farming.

9.3

Fish Breed for Fish Pond

For fish rearing, a wide range of fish species are available, but the Indian breeds like rohu, mrigal, and catla and exotic species like silver carp, grass carp, and common carp are among some of the breeds discussed below. Catla Catla fish is one of the very popular freshwater fishes grown throughout India and identified as an Indian carp. The commercial farming of catla fish is very high due to its fast growth and market demand. The advantage of this fish is its fastgrowing nature, taste, and nutrition. This fish is also known as “bhakura” in India. Catla fish is native to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, and Myanmar. Catla fish is commonly found in rivers and canals, and the breeding percentage is very good. Its demand is relatively high due to delicious food and high protein content. It can be easily reared in the clear and deep water of tanks and ponds. Its growth is more rapid in rice fields than in tanks. It increases its weight more than 1.5 kg in 1 year. It gives around 0.80–1.20 lakh eggs per kg of their weight. It is reared along with Mrigal and Rohu fishes in equal proportions. This breed has an average 0.08 million per acre per year combined production. It is a fast-growing fish that attains the weight of 1200–1400 g in 1 year. It grows best when the temperature is 25–32 °C. At the time of harvesting, the size of catla is 1.5–2.0 kg. Rohu It is a major Indian carp found in Southern Asia and is very important. This fish is also known as “Rui,” “Ruee,” or Tapra. It has a small head, sharp face and frill-like lower lip, long and circular body, a brown gray color body coat, and an almost red color cane. Its whole body is covered with scales except fins and head. It mainly eats rotten weeds and left out waste material. During the monsoon season, the Rohu fish gives eggs once a year. This fish is most famous and popular because of its taste and high market demand. It is used as a culture species in aquaculture. It is mostly found in freshwater ponds, ditches, canals, rivers, lakes, etc. It is reared along with mrigal and catla fishes in equal proportions. This breed has an average of 0.08 million per acre per year combined production. It gives around 2.0–2.5 lakh eggs per

74

9

Fish Farming

kg of their weight. The weight of the fish depends upon a number of factors, such as stock in the pond, water condition, depth, size of the fish at the time of stocking, type of feed, etc. If the size of fingerling at the time of stocking is 2½–3 in., i.e., in February–March month, then it attains the weight approximately around 1 kg up to December month. If 10,000 fingerlings are stocked, then the recovery of rohu fish is about 6000. Mrigal Mrigal is eurythermal, appearing to tolerate a minimum temperature of 14 ° C. In culture, the species normally attains 600–700 g in the first year, depending on stocking density and management practices. The rearing period is usually confined to a maximum of 2 years, as the growth rate reduces thereafter. However, mrigal is reported to survive as long as 12 years in natural waters. Mrigal is normally cultured along with the other two Indian major carps—catla (Catla catla) and rohu (Labeo rohita). It is also cultured in composite carp culture systems that include the three Indian major carps as well as two Chinese carps—silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) and grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)—and common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Among the three Indian major carps, mrigal normally grows more slowly than catla and rohu. Being a bottom feeder, mrigal is usually stocked at 20–30% of the total species stocked in three-species culture, while in six-species culture, mrigal constitutes only about 15–20%. In India, carp is cultured in about 9,00,000–1,000,000 ha of ponds and “tanks” (water bodies that are usually larger than a pond but less than 10 ha) that are privately or community owned. Common carp Common carp is hardy in nature and can tolerate a wide variety of conditions. It usually favors large water bodies with slow-flowing or standing water with soft bottom sediments. The type and number of different species and the proportion of common carp within the polyculture system vary according to the climate and the suitability, availability, and marketability of other native or introduced fish species. Consequently, common carp is widely reared with Chinese major carps (silver, bighead, grass, and black carps), Indian major carps (catla, rohu, and mrigal), tilapia (Oreochromis spp.), South American major characids (tambaqui, pirapitinga, and pacu), and with different predator fishes. Common carp reach about 2.5–3.5 kg in 10–14 months. The average marketable size is 1.2–1.8 kg. Grass carp It is a basically herbivorous fish that naturally feeds on certain aquatic weeds. However, the fry/larvae feed on zooplankton. Under culture conditions, grass carp can well accept artificial feed such as the by-products from grain processing, vegetable oil extraction meals, and pelleted feeds, in addition to aquatic weeds and terrestrial grasses. Grass carp normally dwells in the mid-lower layer of the water column. Grass carp grows rapidly and reaches a maximum weight of 35 kg in the wild. Grass carp eats different types of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation, potatoes, grains, rice bran, cabbage, and leaves and stems of vegetables. During various scientific studies, it is found that the larvae of grass carp eat only plankton and the fingerling of 2–4 cm length eats aquatic vegetation. In India, it has been observed in large grass carp fish that the fish of 1 kg weight eats up to 2.5 kg hydrilla in a day.

9.3 Fish Breed for Fish Pond

75

Silver carp Today, these fish are cultivated worldwide in aquaculture, and by weight more silver carp are produced than any other species of fish except the grass carp fish. Generally, these fish are cultivated commercially in polyculture with other Asian carp fish. Sometimes, they are cultivated with catla and other fish species. Silver carp is used as a main species in the mixed-rearing method of carp fishes. Its growth is fast enough that it becomes 1 kg of weight within 6 months of rearing. Silver carp has less fish thorns than catla. The selection of species ratio in fish culture depends on various factors such as availability of seed, market demand, and the nutrient status of the pond. The following general guidelines are commonly used: 1. Six-species culture system: In this combination, the system consists of approximately 40–50% surface feeders (silver carp 30–35%, catla 10–15%), 20–25% column feeders (rohu) in moderately deep ponds (above 2 m average water depth), and 10% in shallow ponds (below 2 m average water depth). Bottom feeders should constitute 30–40% (common carp 15–20% and mrigal 15–20%), while macro vegetation feeders (grass carp) should account for 5–10%, depending on the availability of a dependable source of weed supply. 2. Five-species culture system: If a reliable source of feed is not available for grass carp, a five-species combination may be adopted. It can include silver carp, catla, rohu, mrigal, common, and mirror carp, with proportions around 20–30%, 10–15%, 15–20%, 10–15%, and 15–20%, respectively. 3. Four-species culture system: In areas where silver carp is not a preferred species due to lower price and market demand, a four-species combination may be followed. This combination can consist of catla (30–40%), rohu (20–30% in deeper ponds and 10–15% in shallower ponds), mrigal (15–20%), and common carp (15–20%). 4. Three-species culture system: In areas where silver carp is not a preferred species due to lower price and market demand, a four-species combination may be followed. This combination can consist of catla (30–40%), rohu (20–30% in deeper ponds and 10–15% in shallower ponds), mrigal (15–20%), and common carp (15–20%). When stocking the fish species, it is advisable to introduce them all at the same time. However, due to some inter-specific competition for food between silver carp and catla, it is recommended to stock silver carp 1 or 2 months later than catla. This allows catla to establish a good growth rate before silver carp are introduced. Stocking ponds with larger fingerlings of around 10–15 cm size are preferred for better survival rates.

Beekeeping

10

Abstract

Beekeeping, or apiculture, involves managing honeybee colonies to achieve specific goals, such as maintaining healthy populations during nectar flows for honey production and pollination services. Beekeeping offers diverse income opportunities, as bee products like honey, beeswax, royal jelly, propolis, pollen, and bee venom are valuable in various markets. A bee colony comprises a queen, worker bees, and drones. Beekeeping requires strategic hive establishment, colony management during lean and honey flow seasons, and harvesting methods. Beekeeping benefits include enhanced crop pollination, increased yields, and income diversification for rural areas. Honey is a nutritious food source with various market forms. Beeswax is valuable for candles, cosmetics, and other products. Bee venom, royal jelly, propolis, and pollen have medicinal and commercial uses. Beekeeping is an eco-friendly venture with low investment and high potential for multiple revenue streams. Keywords

Beekeeping · Honey · Beeswax · Royal jelly · Bee venom · Colony management

Beekeeping (apiculture) is the practice of managing honeybee colonies to attain desired objectives. The most common primary objectives for managing colonies are to ensure large, healthy adult honeybee populations to coincide with major nectar flows and to use these strong honeybee colonies to best execute the beekeeping management plan to maximize the collection of nectar (i.e., to maximize honey production) and/or provide pollination services for local food crops. Beekeeping, also known as apiculture, is a practice with deep historical roots in India, dating back to ancient times as referenced in Vedas and Buddhist sacred writings. While beekeeping has been one of the oldest traditions in the country, it has experienced # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_10

77

78

10

Beekeeping

significant growth and widespread popularity in recent years. Currently, India boasts around 35 lakh bee colonies, and the number of beekeepers and beekeeping companies is rapidly increasing day by day. Bee commercials are highly valuable in today’s market. From beeswax to fermented honey, nearly every product of a bee is useful. Whether it is used as lipstick, candle, massage wax, or Ayurvedic medicines, beeswax has a great value. Being an excellent gift of God, bees must be conserved. Modern storage, equipment, and processing have made beekeeping more advanced and easier for the potential market to be tapped. Apart from honey production, honey bees play a crucial role in pollinating crops, leading to higher yields and improved produce quality. According to a study, wellmanaged pollination results in a significant median increase of about 24% in crop yields, while also providing protection against pests. Given these benefits, beekeeping emerges as an excellent agri-business, particularly in rural areas, where it can serve as a secondary source of additional income. It is important to note that beekeeping goes beyond honey alone; products such as beeswax, royal jelly, propolis, pollen, and bee venom are also marketable at favorable prices, allowing farmers to diversify their revenue streams and enhance their overall income.

10.1

Species of Honey Bees in India

In the world, there are approximately 20,000 different species of bees, but only seven of them are honeybees. In India, five species of honeybees hold commercial importance. They are as follows: 1. The rock bee (Apis dorsata): These giant bees are larger Himalayan subspecies found in sub-mountainous regions all over India. Raising rock bees is challenging due to their aggressive nature. They construct a single comb (cells constructed from beeswax by bees) in an open area, approximately 6 ft. long and 3 ft. deep, yielding about 36 kg of honey per comb annually. 2. The Indian hive bee (Apis cerana indica): Tamed species that build multiple parallel combs. Each colony produces an average of 6–8 kg of honey per year. These honeybees are larger than Apis florae (little bee) but smaller than Apis mellifera (European or Italian bee). They are native to India and Asia. 3. The little bee (Apis florea): These bees construct single vertical combs, often building them in open spaces approximately the size of a palm on shrubbery branches, supports, structures, void cases, caverns, etc. Each hive produces about half a kilogram of honey per year. 4. The European or Italian bee (Apis mellifera): Similar to Indian bees, European or Italian bees construct parallel combs and are larger than all other honeybees except rock bees. The average honey production is 25–40 kg per colony per year. They have been imported from European countries, particularly Italy. 5. Dammer bee or stingless bee (Tetragonula iridipennis): Stingless bees are much smaller than regular honeybees and play a significant role in pollinating various

10.3

Establishment of Hives

79

food crops. While they can be tamed, the honey yield is only about 100 g per hive per year.

10.2

Bee Family

Honeybees are social insects that form hives or colonies comprising three main types of adult bees. A typical colony consists of a single queen, thousands of worker bees, and hundreds of drones. 1. Worker bees are female bees that do not engage in breeding. They undertake various essential tasks, including caring for the queen and her eggs, constructing a comb, collecting nectar, guarding the hive and honey, maintaining hive cleanliness, and producing honey. Worker bees live about 6 weeks during the active season but may live for several months if they emerge as adults in the fall and spend the winter in the cluster. 2. The queen bee is the only sexually developed female and has the main function to lay workers (fertilized eggs) and drones (unfertilized eggs) for the colony. The queen can live up to 5 years, although many beekeepers replace the queen every year or 2. If she is accidentally killed or begins to falter in her egg-laying efficiency, the worker bees will rear a “supersedure” queen that will mate and begin egg laying without a swarm emerging. She ignores the mother queen, who soon disappears from the colony. 3. The drones are the male bees in the colony and have the primary function to mate and fertilize the virgin queen and die soon after successful mating. Drones are reared only when the colony is populous and there are plentiful sources of nectar and pollen. They usually live a few weeks, but they are driven from the hive to perish when fall or an extended period of adversity comes upon the colony. All three types of bees are equally important for the survival of a colony.

10.3

Establishment of Hives

• The ideal location for the apiary should be a well-drained open area, preferably close to orchards that offer abundant sources of pollen, nectar, and water. • Providing shade to the hives is essential to maintain an optimal temperature within the bee boxes. • To protect the colonies from rain and excessive sunlight, ant wells are placed around the hive stand, and the bee boxes should generally face east with slight adjustments in direction. • Ensure that the colonies are positioned away from the access of cattle, other animals, busy roads, and streetlights for their safety and well-being.

80

10.4

10

Beekeeping

Establishing a Bee Colony

• In order to establish a colony of bees, one can either transfer a wild nesting colony into a hive or attract a passing swarm of bees to occupy it. • Prior to introducing a swarm or colony into a prepared hive, it is beneficial to make the smell of hive familiar by rubbing some beeswax or old brown comb pieces. Additionally, capturing the queen bee from a natural swarm and placing her under a hive can attract other bees. • Provide feed to the hived swarm for a few weeks by diluting half a cup of white sugar in half a cup of hot water. This will aid in rapid comb building along with the bars. • Avoid overcrowding to maintain a healthy colony.

10.5

Management of Colonies

• Monitor the hives of bees during honey-flow seasons at least once a week, preferably in the morning hours. • Regularly observe the colonies for a healthy queen, brood development, storage of pollen and honey, bee strength, presence of queen cells, and drone growth. • Look out for infestations by bee enemies. • Wax moth (Galleria mellonella): Rogue out all the silken webbings and larvae from the corners, combs, and crevices of the bee box. • Wax beetles (Platybolium sp.): Collect and destroy the adult beetles. • Mites: Clean the frame and floorboard with cotton swabs moistened with freshly made potassium permanganate solution. Repeat until no mites are seen on the floorboard.

Management During Lean Season • Begin the management process by removing any excess supers and organizing the healthy broods in the brood chamber efficiently. • Use a division board if required for the colony. • If you come across any queen cells or drone cells, make sure to destroy them. • For Indian bees, provide sugar syrup in the ratio of 1:1, with 200 g of sugar per colony per week. • Provide sugar syrup (1:1) @ 200 g sugar per colony per week for Indian bees. • When feeding the colonies in the apiary, do it simultaneously to prevent robbing behavior.

10.8

Bee Products

81

Management During Honey Flow Season • Ensure that the colony is strong enough before the honey flow season begins. • Ensure maximum space between the brood chamber and the first super, avoiding placement above the first super. • Use queen excluder sheets between the super chamber and brood so that the queen may remain to the brood chamber. • Conduct weekly examinations of the colony and move frames filled with honey to the sides of the super. Frames with three-fourths honey or pollen and one-fourth sealed brood should be removed from the brood chamber and replaced with empty combs or frames with foundation. • Harvest fully sealed combs or those that are two-thirds capped for honey extraction and return them to the supers after extraction.

10.6

Harvesting of Honey

• To harvest honey, use smoke to drive the bees away from the targeted parts and carefully cut the combs. • The ideal times for harvesting are during and shortly after the main flowering seasons, which are February–June and October/November. • A ripe comb can be identified by its light color and being filled with honey. More than half of the honey cells on both sides are sealed with wax.

10.7

Benefits of Beekeeping as an Income Generation Activity

• • • •

Beekeeping requires minimal money, time, and infrastructure investments. Beeswax and honey can be produced in areas with low agricultural value. Honey bees do not compete for resources with any other agricultural enterprise. Beekeeping has positive ecological consequences as bees are vital for pollinating many flowering plants, leading to increased yields of certain crops like sunflowers and various fruits. • Honey is a delicious and highly nutritious food. Raising bees in boxes and producing honey at home prevents the destruction of many wild colonies through traditional honey-hunting methods. • Beekeeping can be started by an individual or groups. • The market potential for honey and beeswax is promisingly high.

10.8

Bee Products

1. Honey: Honey is marketed in several different forms: liquid honey, comb honey, and creamed honey. Sometimes, the predominant floral type from which the honey was collected is indicated. Dabur, the most reliable brand in India, offers

82

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

10

Beekeeping

honey priced at Rs 395 per kg. Patanjali honey by Baba Ramdev is available at Rs 275 per kg, while Apis Himalaya sells honey for just Rs 366 per 2 kg, among other options. Although certain organic honey varieties may be more expensive, the majority of honey products are available in the market or on e-commerce sites for under Rs 1000. Beeswax: Beeswax is a by-product of beekeeping in most areas. When beekeepers uncap or break honeycombs or have unusable combs, they try to salvage the beeswax. First, they recover as much honey from the combs as possible by drainage or extraction. Then, they place the material in water heated to slightly over 145 °F (63 °C). This melts the wax, which rises to the surface. After it cools and hardens, the cake of wax is removed and refined for reuse in comb foundation. Beeswax has many other uses: in quality candles, cosmetics, agriculture, art, and industry. In some areas, bees are manipulated primarily for wax production. Wax is a highly stable commodity that can be transported long distances under unfavorable conditions without damage. Bee Venom: With its high medicinal value as a natural product, bee venom is priced between Rs 10,000 and Rs 12,000 per g in Indian markets. However, the price of bee venom can vary based on various factors such as production costs, packaging, analysis fees, manufacturer’s expenses, dealer’s commission, and the quality of the venom. Royal Jelly: Royal jelly finds application in medications, beauty care products, and dietary supplements. Its cost varies from one country to another, ranging from Rs 4000 to Rs 5000 per kg, and when processed or frozen, it can be priced between Rs 1.5 lakh and Rs 1.8 lakh. India Mart offers processed Fresh Royal Jelly at Rs 1.5 lakh per kg. Approximately half a kilogram of royal jelly can be extracted from one box per year. Propolis: Another significant honeybee product is propolis, which is utilized in both human and veterinary medications. Its cost ranges from Rs 500 to Rs 2000 per kg. Pollen: In the Indian market, bee pollen has an average price of about Rs 1250 per kg, and this can vary depending on its quality. A beekeeper can collect around 25 g of pollen daily from one colony.

Mushroom Cultivation

11

Abstract

Mushroom cultivation involves a meticulous process, starting from spawn preparation to harvesting. Mushrooms are categorized based on cultivation requirements: humus-inhabiting, wood-inhabiting, and mycorrhizal. In India, popular types include button, oyster, and paddy straw mushrooms. Button and oyster mushrooms require compost beds, while paddy straw mushrooms grow on soaked paddy straws. Mushroom cultivation is an eco-friendly, economically viable venture with potential health benefits, making it an attractive option for small business owners. Keywords

Mushroom cultivation · Button mushroom · Oyster mushroom

Mushroom cultivation follows similar principles to other types of cultivation, but it requires more attention and precision. The process begins with the use of “spawn,” which is mushroom tissue culture derived from spores that have been grown under sterile laboratory conditions to prevent contamination. Specialized suppliers offer spawn, which is then added to a substrate like compost, logs, or coffee grounds. This facilitates the spread of their mycelium, the thread-like root system, leading to mushroom production. The growth of mushrooms involves two main stages. First is the vegetative stage, where the young spawn is encouraged to feed and grow, preparing for the second stage called fruiting, during which the mushrooms are ready for harvesting. Mushroom spawn suppliers provide the spawn at the early vegetative stage, and it’s the responsibility of the grower to nurture it until the fruiting stage. Mushrooms can be categorized into three types based on their cultivation requirements:

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_11

83

84

11

Mushroom Cultivation

1. Humus-inhabiting mushrooms can be grown in a mixture of compost, soil, horse manure, and straw. This group includes popular varieties like button mushrooms, as well as others like blewits or shaggy ink-caps. 2. Wood-inhabiting mushrooms are grown in logs, such as maitake (hen of the woods), shiitake, ear fungus, or monkey’s head fungus. 3. Mycorrhizal mushrooms are grown in association with tree roots (called truffles, in other words). In India, three major types of mushrooms are commonly cultivated namely button mushrooms, oyster mushrooms, and paddy straw mushrooms. Paddy straw mushrooms can thrive in temperatures ranging from 35 to 40 °C, while oyster mushrooms are typically grown in the northern plains and button mushrooms during the winter season. Each of these commercially important mushrooms requires different cultivation methods and techniques, often grown in specialized beds known as compost beds.

11.1

How to Grow Button Mushroom

Making Compost Mushroom cultivation follows several steps to ensure successful growth and harvest. The process begins with composting, which involves preparing a compost yard on raised platforms made of concrete to prevent water collection. The composting can be done in the open but should be covered to protect it from rainwater. There are two types of compost used, natural and synthetic, both prepared in trays of specific dimensions, i.e., 100 × 50 × 15 cm. Synthetic Compost for Mushroom Farming: Wheat straw, urea, bran, calcium ammonium nitrate/ammonium sulfate, and gypsum are required for the preparation of synthetic compost. The straw should be cut up to a length of 8–20 cm. It is then equally spread to form a thin layer on the composting yard and then, it is soaked thoroughly by sprinkling water. The next step involves mixing of all other ingredients together like urea, gypsum, bran, and calcium nitrate with the wet straw and mounding them into a pile. Natural Compost: For this type of compost, you will need horse dung, wheat straw, poultry manure, and gypsum. Ensure that the wheat straw is finely sliced, and the horse dung should not be mixed with dung from other animals. It is crucial to use freshly collected horse dung that has not been exposed to rain. Once all the ingredients are mixed, they should be uniformly spread on the composting yard. The next step is to sprinkle water on the surface to moisten the straws. The mixture is then heaped and turned, similar to the process used for synthetic manure. As the heap undergoes fermentation, its temperature increases, and an ammonia smell is released, indicating that the compost has begun its process. The heap should be turned every 3 days and water should be sprinkled as needed during this composting stage.

11.1

How to Grow Button Mushroom

85

Filling the Compost in Trays The compost, once prepared, has a dark brown color. When filling the trays with compost, it is essential to strike the right balance of moisture. It should neither be too wet nor too dry. If the compost appears dry, a few drops of water can be sprayed to add moisture. Conversely, if it is too damp, allow some water to evaporate. The size of the trays can be chosen based on convenience, but they should be 15–18 cm deep. Additionally, ensure that the trays are made of softwood. Fill the trays with compost up to the edge and level the surface for proper cultivation.

Spawning Spawning involves sowing the mushroom mycelium into the beds. Certified national laboratories offer spawns at a nominal price. There are two methods for spawning: either scatter the compost in the tray on the bed surface or mix the grain spawn with compost before filling the trays. Once the spawning is complete, cover the trays with old newspapers and lightly sprinkle water on the sheet to maintain moisture and humidity. It is essential to leave a headspace of at least 1 m between the top tray and the ceiling for proper mushroom growth.

Casing To create casing soil, finely crushed and sieved rotten cow dung is mixed with garden soil. It is essential that the pH of the casing soil is alkaline. Once the mixture is prepared, it needs to undergo sterilization to eliminate pests, insects, nematodes, and other molds. Sterilization can be achieved by treating the soil with a formalin solution or through steaming. After applying the casing soil to the compost, the temperature is maintained at 25 °C for 72 h before being lowered to 18 °C. Adequate ventilation is crucial during the casing stage, so the room must have sufficient facilities to ensure a constant supply of fresh air.

Cropping Around 15–20 days after casing, the pinheads of the mushrooms become noticeable. Within 5–6 days of this stage, small-sized white buttons start developing. The mushrooms are considered ready for harvesting when their caps are tightly attached to the short stems.

86

11

Mushroom Cultivation

Harvesting Harvesting involves gently twisting off the cap. To do this, hold the mushroom delicately with your forefingers, press it against the soil, and then twist it off. The base of the stalk, which holds mycelial threads and soil particles, should be chopped off. These mushrooms are highly popular due to their delicious taste. Unlike button mushrooms, they are cultivated on raised platforms, often in shaded or wellventilated rooms.

11.2

Cultivation of Paddy Straw Mushrooms

Paddy straw mushrooms are cultivated by using chopped and soaked paddy straws as the substrate. Occasionally, they may also be spawned on cereal grains or millets. When spawned on paddy straw, they are referred to as straw spawn, and if spawned on cereal grains, they are called grain spawn. In India, this mushroom variety is predominantly grown on paddy straw. To prepare the substrate, well-dried and long paddy straws are tied together in bundles with a diameter of 8–10 cm. These bundles are then chopped to a uniform length of 70–80 cm and soaked in water for 12–16 h. After soaking, excess water is drained off before the cultivation process begins. Bed Preparation: To cultivate mushrooms on raised platforms, it is important to build foundations using bricks and soil that are raised. The size of the foundation should be slightly larger than the bedding and sturdy enough to support the weight of the bed. On top of the foundation, a bamboo frame of the same size is placed. At least four bundles of soaked straw are placed on the frame, with another four bundles arranged in the opposite direction, forming the first layer of bedding. The grain spawn is scattered around 12 cm away from the first layer. Once all the layers are in place, the entire bed is covered with a transparent plastic sheet. Care must be taken to ensure that the sheet does not come into direct contact with the bed. Mushrooming: Typically, mushrooms start to grow after 10–15 days of spawning. They continue to grow for the next 10 days. The crop is ready for harvesting after the eruption of volva erupts and the mushroom inside is exposed. Due to their delicate nature, these mushrooms have shorter shelf life and should be consumed fresh.

11.3

Cultivation of Oyster Mushroom

Oyster mushroom thrives in regions where the weather conditions are not favorable for button mushrooms. It is one of the easiest varieties to cultivate and is highly regarded for its delicious taste. Due to its low-fat content, it is often recommended for individuals seeking to control obesity, as well as patients with diabetes and blood pressure issues. Oyster mushroom can flourish at moderate temperatures ranging from 20 to 30 °C and humidity levels of 55–70% for a period of 6–8 months in a year. Additional humidity can be provided during the summer season to support its growth. In hilly areas, the ideal growing season for oyster mushrooms is usually from March or April

11.4

Benefits of Mushroom Cultivation

87

to September or October, while in lower regions, it is from September or October to March or April. The process for oyster mushroom cultivation can be divided into the following four steps: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Preparation of spawn Substrate preparation Spawning of substrate Crop management

Oyster mushrooms can be grown using various agro-wastes that contain cellulose and lignin, which promote increased enzyme production of cellulose and result in higher yields. These agro-wastes include paddy straw, wheat/ragi straw, stalks and leaves of maize, millets, and cotton, as well as used citronella leaves, sugarcane bagasse, jute, sawdust, cotton waste, used tea leaf waste, and synthetic compost of button mushrooms. Additionally, oyster mushrooms can be cultivated using industrial wastes like paper mill sludges, tobacco waste, coffee by-products, and others.

11.4

Benefits of Mushroom Cultivation

Mushroom cultivation offers a fascinating hobby with delicious outcomes, which can easily transform into a profitable small business due to its low input costs and high crop value. 1. Production costs are low: The production costs are notably low, especially for humus-inhabiting species that can be cultivated in coffee grounds, often available for free from coffee shops. Coffee grounds have the advantage of already being sterile and containing the necessary cellulose and lignin, making them an ideal substrate for mushrooms. 2. The substrate can be a waste product: The substrate used for mushroom cultivation can be derived from waste products, such as animal manure or coffee grounds, as mentioned earlier. With numerous coffee shops and restaurants generating significant amounts of waste per cup, there is a vast potential for using these resources for mushroom cultivation. 3. Mushrooms offer considerable health benefits, being rich in essential nutrients, and some species even possess medicinal properties. For instance, the Reishi bracket fungus has been used for centuries to produce medicinal tea and is now utilized alongside conventional HIV treatments to support the immune system. 4. Apart from being abundant in vitamins B and D, mushrooms also contain substantial amounts of protein and minerals, surpassing common vegetables. Additionally, the entire mushroom can be used as food, making it a valuable protein source and a suitable substitute for addressing protein deficiency. Since mushrooms are entirely starch-free, they are an excellent food option for diabetics and those aiming to manage their weight.

Vermicomposting

12

Abstract

Vermicomposting, also known as vermiculture, involves the use of earthworms to decompose organic waste materials into nutrient-rich vermicasts, which serve as effective fertilizers and soil enhancers. This eco-friendly biotechnology relies on earthworms as natural bioreactors to break down organic matter, producing valuable outputs. Vermicomposting can be done through two main methods, namely the bed method and the pit method. The chapter discusses in detail the methodology of preparation of vermicompost. Keywords

Vermicomposting · Vermicasts · Earthworms · Eco-friendly biotechnology Vermicomposting/vermiculture means “worm-farming.” Earthworms feed on the organic waste materials and give out excreta in the form of “vermicasts” that are rich in nitrates and minerals such as phosphorus, magnesium, calcium, and potassium. These are used as fertilizers and enhance soil quality. Vermicomposting is a modern, inexpensive, and eco-friendly biotechnology in which earthworms are employed as natural bioreactors in order to decompose the organic matter (Suleimana et al. 2017). The earthworms are commonly found living in soil, feeding on biomass, and excreting it in a digested form. Vermicomposting comprises two methods: 1. Bed Method: This is an easy method in which beds of organic matter are prepared. 2. Pit Method: In this method, the organic matter is collected in cemented pits. However, this method is not prominent as it involves problems of poor aeration and waterlogging. # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_12

89

90

12

Vermicomposting

This process is mainly required to add nutrients to the soil. Compost is a natural fertilizer that allows an easy flow of water to the growing plants. The earthworms are mainly used in this process as they eat the organic matter and produce castings through their digestive systems. The compost worms need five basic things: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Hospitable living environment, usually called “bedding” Food sources Adequate moisture (greater than 50% water content by weight) Adequate aeration Protection from temperature extremes

These five essentials are discussed in more detail below: Bedding: Bedding refers to the material used to create a stable habitat for worms. This habitat should possess certain essential characteristics to support the worms effectively: High absorbency: It is crucial to maintain a moist environment for the survival of worms as they breathe through their skin. If their skin dries out, it can lead to their death. Therefore, the bedding material must be capable of absorbing and retaining water well to ensure the worms thrive. Good bulking potential: If the material is initially too dense or tightly packed, it can restrict or even eliminate the flow of air. Just like us, worms require oxygen to survive. The overall porosity of the bedding is influenced by various factors like the range of particle size and shape, texture, and the strength and rigidity of its structure. In this document, this collective effect is referred to as the material’s “bulking potential.” Low protein and/or nitrogen content (high carbon:nitrogen ratio): Since worms generally consume their bedding as it breaks down, it is crucial for this process to be slow. High protein or nitrogen levels can lead to rapid degradation and generate excessive heat, creating inhospitable and potentially deadly conditions for the worms. While heating can occur safely in the food layers of the vermiculture or vermicomposting system, it should not happen in the bedding.

12.1

Vermicompost Production Methodology

1. Selection of suitable earthworm: For vermicompost production, the surface dwelling earthworm alone should be used. The earthworm, which lives below the soil, is not suitable for vermicompost production. The African earthworm (Eudrillus engenial), red worms (Eisenia foetida), and composting worm (Peronyx excavatus) are promising worms used for vermicompost production. All three worms can be mixed together for vermicompost production. The African worm (Eudrillus eugenial) is preferred over the other two types because it produces higher production of vermicompost in a short period of time and more young ones in the composting period.

12.1

Vermicompost Production Methodology

91

2. Selection of site for vermicompost production: Vermicompost can be produced in any place with shade, high humidity, and cool. Abandoned cattle shed or poultry shed or unused buildings can be used. If it is to be produced in an open area, a shady place is selected. A thatched roof may be provided to protect the process from direct sunlight and rain. The waste heaped for vermicompost production should be covered with moist gunny bags. 3. Containers for vermicompost production: A cement tub may be constructed to a height of 2½ ft. and a breadth of 3 ft. The length may be fixed to any level depending upon the size of the room. The bottom of the tub is made to slope-like structure to drain the excess water from the vermicompost unit. A small sump is necessary to collect the drain water. In another option over the hand floor, hollow blocks/bricks may be arranged in the compartment to a height of 1 ft., breadth of 3 ft., and length to a desired level to have a quick harvest. In this method, moisture assessment will be very easy. No excess water will be drained. Vermicompost can also be prepared in wooden boxes, plastic buckets, or in any containers with a drain hole at the bottom. 4. Vermiculture bed: Vermiculture bed or worm bed (3 cm) can be prepared by placing after-saw dust or husk or coir waste or sugarcane trash in the bottom of the tub/container. A layer of fine sand (3 cm) should be spread over the culture bed, followed by a layer of garden soil (3 cm). All layers must be moistened with water. If available, shredded paper or cardboard makes excellent bedding, particularly when combined with typical on-farm organic resources such as straw and hay. 5. Worm food: Compost worms are big eaters. Under ideal conditions, they are able to consume in excess of their body weight each day, although the general rule-of-thumb is ½ of their body weight per day. They will eat almost anything organic (that is, of plant or animal origin), but they definitely prefer some foods to others. Manures are the most commonly used worm feedstock, with dairy and beef manures generally considered the best natural food for Eisenia, with the possible exception of rabbit manure. The former, being more often available in large quantities, is the feed most often used. 6. Selection for vermicompost production: Cattle dung (except pig, poultry, and goat), farm wastes, crop residues, vegetable market waste, flower market waste, agro-industrial waste, fruit market waste, and all other biodegradable waste are suitable for vermicompost production. The cattle dung should be dried in open sunlight before being used for vermicompost production. All other waste should be pre-digested with cow dung for 20 days before being put into vermibed for composting. 7. Putting the waste in the container: The predigested waste material should be mud with 30% cattle dung either by weight or volume. The mixed waste is placed into the tub/container up to the brim. The moisture level should be maintained at 60%. Over this material, the selected earthworm is placed uniformly. For 1-m length, 1-m breadth, and 0.5-m height, 1 kg of worm (1000 Nos.) is required. There is no necessity that earthworms should be put inside the waste. Earthworms will move inside on their own.

92

12

Vermicomposting

8. Watering the vermibed: Daily watering is not required for vermibed. However, 60% moisture should be maintained throughout the period. If necessity arises, water should be sprinkled over the bed rather than pouring the water. Watering should be stopped before the harvest of vermicompost. 9. Harvesting vermicompost: In the tub method of composting, the castings formed on the top layer are collected periodically. The collection may be carried out once in a week. With hand, the casting will be scooped out and put in a shady place as a heap-like structure. The harvesting of casting should be limited up to earthworm presence on the top layer. This periodical harvesting is necessary for free flow and to retain the compost quality. Otherwise, the finished compost gets compacted when watering is done. In the small bed type of vermicomposting method, periodical harvesting is not required. Since the height of the waste material heaped is around 1 foot, the produced vermicompost will be harvested after the process is over. 10. Harvesting earthworm: After the vermicompost production, the earthworm present in the tub/small bed may be harvested by trapping method. In the vermibed, before harvesting the compost, small, fresh cow dung ball is made and inserted inside the bed in five or six places. After 24 h, the cow dung ball is removed. All the worms will be adhered to the ball. Putting the cow dung ball in a bucket of water will separate this adhered worm. The collected worms will be used for the next batch of composting. Worm harvesting is usually carried out in order to sell the worms, rather than to start new worm beds. Expanding the operation (new beds) can be accomplished by splitting the beds, that is, removing a portion of the bed to start a new one and replacing the material with new bedding and feed. When worms are sold, however, they are usually separated, weighed, and then transported in a relatively sterile medium, such as peat moss. To accomplish this, the worms must first be separated from the bedding and vermicompost. 11. Nutritive value of vermicompost: The nutrient content in vermicompost varies depending on the waste materials that are being used for compost preparation. If the waste materials are heterogeneous one, there will be a wide range of nutrients available in the compost. If the waste materials are homogeneous one, there will be only certain nutrients are available. The common available nutrients in vermicompost are as follows: (a) Organic carbon: 9.5–17.98% (b) Nitrogen: 0.5–1.50% (c) Phosphorous: 0.1–0.30% (d) Potassium: 0.15–0.56% (e) Sodium: 0.06–0.30% (f) Calcium and magnesium: 22.67–47.60 meq/100 g (g) Copper: 2–9.50 mg/kg (h) Iron: 2–9.30 mg/kg (i) Zinc: 5.70–11.50 mg/kg (j) Sulfur: 128–548 mg/kg 12. Storing and packing of vermicompost: The harvested vermicompost should be stored in a cool and dark place, ensuring it maintains a minimum moisture

Reference

93

level of 40%. It is crucial to avoid exposing the composted material to direct sunlight, as it can lead to moisture and nutrient loss. It is recommended to store the harvested composted material in an open space rather than in sealed bags. Packing can be done at the time of selling. If stored openly, it is advisable to periodically sprinkle water to maintain the moisture level and support a beneficial microbial population. In cases where storage is necessary, the use of laminated over sacs for packing can help minimize moisture evaporation. Vermicompost can be stored for up to 1 year without compromising its quality if the moisture is maintained at the desired 40% level.

12.2

Advantages of Vermicompost

• Vermicompost is abundant in essential plant nutrients, providing a significant boost to overall plant growth. It promotes the development of new shoots and leaves while enhancing the shelf life and quality of the produce. • This type of compost is free-flowing, making it easy to apply, handle, and store without any unpleasant odor. • It greatly improves soil structure, aeration, texture, and water-holding capacity and prevents erosion of the soil. • Vermicompost hosts a diverse range of beneficial microflora, including nitrogenfixing bacteria, P-solubilizers, and cellulose decomposing micro-flora, contributing to an improved soil environment. • The presence of earthworm cocoons in vermicompost increases the population and activity of earthworms in the soil, further enriching their health. • It acts as a natural soil neutralizer, balancing the soil’s pH levels. • By reducing nutrient losses and enhancing the efficiency of chemical fertilizers, vermicompost helps in maximizing nutrient utilization. • Vermicompost is free from pathogens, toxic elements, and weed seeds, ensuring a safe and clean application. • Its usage minimizes the occurrence of pests and diseases, supporting healthier plant growth. • The presence of vermicompost aids in the decomposition of organic matter within the soil, contributing to a more sustainable ecosystem. • Valuable vitamins, enzymes, and hormones like auxins and gibberellins are also present in vermicompost.

Reference Suleimana H, Roratab A, Grobelak A, Grosser A, Milczarek M, Płytyczc B, Kacprzak M, Vandenbulcke F (2017) Determination of the performance of vermicomposting process applied to sewage sludge by monitoring of the compost quality and immune responses in three earthworm species: Eisenia fetida, Eisenia andrei and Dendrobaena veneta. Bioresour Technol 241:103–112

Rabbit Farming

13

Abstract

Integrating diverse food production methods is crucial to meet the demands of a growing population and enhance income for small farmers. Rabbit farming, known as “Micro-Livestock,” offers a promising avenue for food production. Rabbit meat boasts high protein, energy, calcium, and vitamin content, while being low in cholesterol, fat, and sodium. Choosing suitable rabbit breeds like Dutch, Fox, New Zealand, and Chinchilla can impact productivity. Two main farming methods are the deep litter system for small-scale farming and the cage method for commercial production. Proper feeding with balanced nutrients, suitable breeding practices, and effective marketing strategies can lead to a profitable and sustainable rabbit farming business. Keywords

Rabbit farming · Commercial production · Balanced nutrients · Sustainable

To fulfill the food demand for the growing population or to increase the income of small and marginal farmers, we have to integrate different ways of food production. The rabbit, known as “Micro-Livestock,” can be a great source of food production. There is a great opportunity for rabbit farming, and commercial production can be a great source of income and employment. Rabbits need small places for living and less food for surviving. Rabbit meat contains a higher ratio of protein, energy, calcium, and vitamins than any other type of animal meat. The amount of cholesterol, fat, and sodium is also less than other meat. Heir meat is very tasty, nutritious, and easily digestible for all aged people. And there is no religious taboo for consuming rabbit meat. Rabbits grow very fast, and the female rabbit produce 2–8 kids every time. They can consume very low-quality food and turn these foods into high-quality meat and skin. # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_13

95

96

13

Rabbit Farming

Raising rabbits can be a great income source for the unemployed educated people and suitable option even for landless farmers. Cuniculture can be a viable component in different integrated farming system models, and commercial rabbit farming businesses can be a great source to meet up the food or protein demand and a great source of employment and income generation. Here are some benefits of a commercial rabbit farming business.

13.1

Advantages of Rabbit Farming

There are many advantages of commercial rabbit farming business. The main benefits of the rabbit farming business are listed below: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Rabbits are very fast-growing animals. Their food conversion rate is better than other animals. One female rabbit can give birth to about 2–8 kids each time. Rabbits can be raised within a short space. Production costs are less compared to other large-sized animals. Rabbit meat is very tasty, nutritious, and easily digestible. High in protein and low in fat. Hence, all aged people can eat without any problem. There are no religious restrictions on consuming rabbit meat, making it a versatile option for various communities. In terms of meat production, rabbits are often considered after poultry. Rabbits have a diverse diet, happily consuming kitchen wastes, grass, and plant leaves, making them easy and cost-effective to raise for family needs. Rabbit farming has less requirement for labor in comparison to other animal farming businesses, allowing families to use their own workforce for successful commercial rabbit farming. Commercial rabbit farming demands relatively lower capital investment, resulting in a quick return on investment. Due to its high profitability, commercial rabbit production can be a lucrative source of income and employment opportunities. Raising a few rabbits can meet the nutritional demands of a family.

While rabbits are commonly raised as pets, exploring commercial rabbit farming can be a wise choice for generating income and meeting the increasing global demand for meat. Currently, poultry, beef, and pork dominate this demand, but commercial rabbit production can significantly contribute to fulfilling it.

13.3

13.2

Rabbit Farming Method

97

Rabbit Breeds

Various rabbit breeds can be found worldwide, and some of the highly productive and popular ones include Dark Gray (internal), Dutch, Fox, New Zealand Black, New Zealand White, Belgium White, New Zealand Red, and Chinchilla. The choice of a suitable breed depends on its availability in the region.

13.3

Rabbit Farming Method

When it comes to rabbit farming, individuals have the option to raise rabbits using either the deep litter method or the cage farming method. Below are descriptions of these two raising methods. 1. Deep Litter Method: This approach is suitable for individuals looking to raise a small number of rabbits. Concrete floors work best for the deep litter system. Create a litter of about 4–5 inch in depth using husk, hay, straw, or wood shavings. With this method, you can house a maximum of 30 rabbits in a single area. It is essential to keep male and female rabbits in separate rooms. However, be aware that the deep litter system carries a higher risk of diseases, and managing rabbits in this system may present some challenges. 2. Cage Method: For those engaging in commercial rabbit farming, the cage method proves to be the most effective. This system involves keeping rabbits in cages constructed from wire or iron plates. Cage farming is advantageous for raising a larger number of rabbits efficiently. Ensure each cage provides sufficient space and necessary facilities for the rabbits. Male and female rabbits should be kept apart, except during the breeding period when they can be placed together in a separate cage. A floor space of 1 square ft. per animal is recommended in this method. Feeding Feed consumption rate and nutrient requirements vary, depending on the rabbit’s age and breed type. For proper nutrition of adult rabbits, their food should contain 17–18% crude protein, 14% fiber, 7% minerals, and 2700 kcal/kg of metabolic energy. Nutritious food must be fed to the farm rabbits for proper growth and good health. Grains, legumes, and green fodders like Lucerne, Agathi, Desmanthus, and kitchen wastes like carrot and cabbage leaves can be fed. Some amount of concentrate feed should also be fed. For 1 kg body weight of rabbit, about 40 g of concentrated food and 40 g of green fodder is required along with an adequate supply of fresh and clean drinking water. Breeding Typically, rabbits become mature and suitable for breeding purposes at around 5–6 months of age. However, it is advisable not to use male rabbits for breeding until they reach their first birthday. This approach ensures the production of high-quality young rabbits for commercial purposes. When breeding, always select healthy rabbits with appropriate body weight and refrain from breeding females that

98

13

Rabbit Farming

are unwell. Special care should be given to breeding males and pregnant females by providing them with nutritious feed. The gestation period of rabbits lasts about 28–31 days, and each doe can give birth to a litter of 2–8 kits. Marketing Selling rabbit products may pose some challenges in certain regions. Therefore, it is wise to plan your marketing strategy before starting the business. You can explore local markets or nearby towns for potential sales opportunities. With proper care and management, one can maximize profits from their rabbit farming venture. Ensure your animals receive quality nutritious food, maintain a clean living environment, and start with healthy breeds. By following these steps, you can make your rabbit farming business highly profitable.

Turkey Rearing

14

Abstract

While turkeys are well-known in Europe and North America, their commercial potential remains largely untapped in many developing countries due to the dominance of chicken farming. They are suitable for small and marginal farmers, requiring minimal investment in housing and management. Turkey meat is highly nutritious, with valuable protein content and essential vitamins like B3 and B6. It also provides essential minerals such as selenium. Turkeys are more diseaseresistant compared to other poultry species, making them a resilient choice. Several turkey breeds exist, and for commercial purposes, broad-breasted breeds like Bronze and Large White are often preferred. Housing for turkeys should have proper ventilation and drainage, and both deep litter and range systems are viable options. Adequate space, proper feeding, and temperature control are essential for optimal growth. Proper management, feeding, and marketing strategies are crucial for a successful turkey farming venture. Keywords

Turkey · Minimal investment · Marketing strategies · Commercial purposes

The turkey (Meleagaris galloparo) is a well-known bird in Europe and North America, but in the rest of the world, particularly in developing countries, it has not yet gained popularity as a commercial poultry option. The reason for this lack of popularity could be attributed to the widespread familiarity and successful growth of chickens, leaving little reason to consider other poultry options. Despite this, the turkey holds promising potential, especially in developing countries where there is a preference for lean meat. The turkey could be a suitable choice for the upliftment of marginal and small farmers, as it can be easily raised in a free-range or semiintensive system with minimal investment in housing, equipment, and management. # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_14

99

100

14

Turkey Rearing

Unlike chickens, turkeys are primarily reared for their meat, as they have a remarkable ability to grow quickly. Turkey grows faster like broiler chickens and becomes suitable for slaughter purpose within a very short time. However, some people keep one or several toms (mature male turkeys) as a pet. Turkey farming is similar to other poultry birds farming like chickens, ducks, quails, etc. It provides valuable amounts of protein, and therefore, turkey is often regarded as a high-protein food. Skinned turkey breast provides the most protein per serving (34 g in 4 oz). Besides this, the consumers get 31 g and 21 g of protein from 4 oz of turkey leg and thigh, respectively. Turkey is an excellent source of vitamin B3 (niacin) and provides over 13 mg in 4 oz, or over 80% of the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI). It is also a very good source of vitamin B6, amounting 0.92 mg in 4 oz (54% DRI). By providing 22% DRI for choline in 4 oz, turkey also ranks as a good source of B vitamin. In terms of minerals, turkey is the richest in containing selenium and provides over 60% of the DRI in a single 4-oz serving. Therefore, zinc, copper, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium, and iron are also provided by turkey meat with noteworthy amounts. For these reasons, turkey is more resistant to disease than other poultry species like chicken, duck, and quail. It has also been reported that the mortality rate of turkey is very low compared to other poultry birds as it is resistant to Marek’s and Infectious bronchitis and commonly encountered with other diseases like mycoplasmosis, fowl cholera, erysipelas, and hemorrhagic enteritis. Turkeys are adaptable to a wide range of climatic conditions and can be raised successfully almost anywhere in the world if they are well-fed and protected against diseases and predators. The meat of turkey is considered by many people as a luxury meat.

14.1

Breeds of the Turkeys

The world-famous seven standard breeds of turkeys are: • • • • • • •

White Holland Bourban Red Narragansett Black Slate Bronze Beltsville small white The exotic breeds used in our country for commercial production are:

• Broad Breasted Bronze (BBB) • Broad Breasted large white • Beltsnille Small white The indigenous and nondescriptive turkey is found in small numbers in and around Mirzapur and Allahabad districts of Uttar Pradesh and in some parts of

14.1

Breeds of the Turkeys

101

Southern India. The package and management practices for turkey farming are mentioned below:

Housing • The turkey shed should be strategically located at an elevated place and should have proper drainage and ventilation systems. A well-designed shed with easy-toclean and disinfect flooring, preferably made of cement, is recommended. • Turkeys are commonly raised in either a range or deep litter system. The deep litter system offers several advantages over the range system, including better protection against predators and harsh weather, lower land and labor costs, reduced risk of soil-borne diseases and parasites, and more convenient management. • To ensure optimal growth and performance, turkey poults should never be overcrowded. During the first 3–4 weeks, they require at least one square foot of floor space per poult, which is then increased to 1.5 square ft. per poult up to the eighth week. Subsequently, from the eighth to the 12th week, the floor space should be increased to 2 square ft. per growing poult, and from the 12th to the 16th week, a minimum of 2.5 square ft. per poult is necessary. After 16 weeks of age, turkeys require 3–5 square ft. of space each. For smaller type turkeys, the floor space requirements may be slightly reduced. Under the range system, the floor space is significantly reduced to one-third since they only need shelter from rain and sun. • Turkeys require warmer conditions than chickens, with a brooder temperature of 95 °F during the first week of brooding. The brooder temperature can be gradually reduced by approximately 50 °F per week until it reaches 70 °F or is equivalent to the prevailing environmental temperature. Artificial heat can be discontinued during the sixth week in winter brooding and the fourth week in summer brooding. The proper temperature in the brooder can be assessed by observing the poults’ free movement within it after about a week.

Equipment Scientifically designed equipment should be used for brooding, feeding, and watering purposes. Present the BIS specifications available for the equipment to the manufacturer and explore the possibility of getting the equipment manufactured locally to reduce costs.

Availability of Poults • Poults can be acquired from reputable institutes or farmers, usually with a supply of 3–5% extra chicks.

102

14

Turkey Rearing

• Purchase poults from hatcheries that maintain disease-free breeder stock. • Poults should undergo toe clipping on the inside and front toes on each foot. • Debeaking of the birds can be carried out at approximately 10 days of age.

Feeding and Feed Requirements Turkey requires considerably high amounts of vitamins, protein, amino acids, and minerals in comparison to chicken. The nutrient requirement of turkeys as recommended by NRC-1994 is as follows:

Nutrient ME (kcal/kg) Protein (%) Lysine (%) Methionine (%) Methionine + cystine (%)

Age (weeks) 0–4 4–8 2800 2900 28 26 1.6 1.5 0.55 0.45 1.05 0.95

8–12 3000 22 1.3 0.40 0.80

12–16 3100 19 1.0 0.35 0.65

16–20 3200 16.5 0.80 0.25 0.55

20–24 3300 14 0.65 0.25 0.45

Breeding Hen 2900 14 0.60 0.20 0.40

Source: NRC (1994)

Achieving the energy levels recommended by NRC may not be practical in Indian conditions, so a 10% reduction in all nutrients specified by NRC can be considered. Although ready-made turkey feed is not readily available in the market, turkeys can be raised on broiler feed with an additional protein source. • Employ well-designed feeders and implement measures to control rats to minimize feed wastage. • Maintain accurate records of feed consumption per bird for each batch.

Water and Electricity The farm should have an adequate supply of clean drinking water and availability of electricity.

Reproductive Parameters Age of laying No. of eggs produced per year Egg weight Incubation period Male–female ratio No. of chicks per female Source: NRC (1994)

24–28 weeks 70–100 85 g app. 28 days 1:5 43–63

Reference

103

Marketing • Turkey poult demand is largely seasonal, particularly during festive occasions like Christmas, Dipawali, and New Year. • The demand for turkeys is gradually increasing for the purpose of making biryani. • Currently, there is no well-established market for turkeys. • Due to their average weight being higher (6–8 kg), turkeys are not commonly included in the daily diet of middle-class families, who typically prefer broilers. • The majority of the birds are collected from the farm by traders and sold in nearby states.

Reference National Research Council (NRC) (1994) Nutrient requirements of poultry, 9th edn. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

Sericulture

15

Abstract

Sericulture, the process of raising silkworms and harvesting silk, involves the domestic silk moth “Bombyx mori” and other silkworm types like Eri, Muga, and Tasar. India and China dominate global silk production, with mulberry silk being the most common type. Silk comprises fibroin and sericin proteins, with distinct colors for different silks. The sericulture process includes moriculture (mulberry cultivation), silkworm rearing, and silk reeling, resulting in silk thread production. Challenges like diseases and pests affect sericulture, but it offers various by-products, including mulberry fruits, medicinal extracts, timber, and pupal oil. It plays a vital role in rural development by providing income sources and useful products. Keywords

Silkworms · Silk moth · Mulberry · Silk · Rural development

Sericulture refers to the process of raising silkworms and extracting silk from them. The primary species used in sericulture is the domestic silk moth, scientifically known as “Bombyx mori.” Additionally, other types of silkworms, like Eri, Muga, and Tasar, are cultivated for the production of “wild silks.” Sericulture holds significant importance as a domestic industry in numerous countries, with India and China being the world’s leading silk producers. Together, their silk output constitutes over 60% of the global production.

# The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_15

105

106

15.1

15

Sericulture

What Is Silk Made Up Of?

The composition of silk includes two different proteins: sericin and fibroin. Fibroin makes up approximately 80% of the silk fiber and is concentrated at the core. Surrounding the core is a layer of sericin, which constitutes the remaining 20% of the silk. The presence of pigments, such as xanthophyll, in the sericin layer imparts color to the silk. Each type of silk possesses distinct colors based on these characteristics. • • • •

Mulberry silk—yellow/green Eri silk—creamy-white/brick-red Tasar silk—copper-brown Muga silk—golden

15.2

Processes Followed in Sericulture

Sericulture process generally follows three main steps for the production of mulberry silk. 1. Moriculture—the cultivation of mulberry leaves 2. Silkworm rearing—promoting the growth of silkworms 3. Silk reeling—the extraction of silk filaments from silkworm cocoons Finally, the silk filaments are woven together to form a thread. These threads are often plied together to form a yarn.

Moriculture Moriculture involves the cultivation of mulberry plants, and the leaves of mulberry are utilized as feed for silkworms. There are three primary methods for growing mulberry plants: 1. Cultivation from seeds 2. Root-grafting 3. Stem grafting The stem grafting method is the most commonly used technique for establishing mulberry plantations. In this method, cuttings of around 22 cm in length, containing at least three buds, are taken from the stem of a mature mulberry plant. These cuttings can be directly planted or first placed in nurseries and then transplanted to their final location. The mulberry leaves can be harvested from the plants via the following methods:

15.2

Processes Followed in Sericulture

107

1. Leaf picking—individual leaves are plucked by hand. 2. Branch cutting—entire branches are removed to gather leaves. 3. Top shoot harvesting—tops of mulberry shoots are taken for leaf collection. Interestingly, approximately 1 kg of mulberry leaves can provide enough food to sustain around 50 silkworms from the egg stage to the cocoon stage.

Silkworm Rearing In the field of sericulture, the process of raising silkworms commences with the female silk moth laying eggs. Approximately 300–500 eggs are obtained from a single female silk moth, which are carefully placed on a paper or cardboard sheet. To ensure cleanliness and hygiene, these eggs are disinfected using 2% formalin solution. Next, a rearing tray is prepared as a feeding bed for the hatched larvae. Chopped mulberry leaves are sprinkled onto the tray, and the newly hatched larvae are gently transferred to it through a process called brushing. To maintain the necessary humidity levels, foam strips soaked in water are positioned on the tray. In the initial stages, the silkworm larvae have a voracious appetite, which gradually decreases as they reach their active stage. At this point, the silkworms eat with great enthusiasm until they reach their final feeding stage. Once they mature, the larvae instinctively search for suitable places to begin their pupation. During this period, the silkworm’s body undergoes changes, shrinking and becoming translucent. To commence the pupation process, the mature larvae wrap themselves in a cocoon by excreting saliva from their two salivary glands. This saliva solidifies upon contact with air and transforms into silk. Typically, the cocoon is spun over a span of 2–3 days, though certain silkworm varieties may take up to 4 days to complete this process.

Silk Reeling The cocoons serve as the site for the larvae to undergo metamorphosis and transform into pupae. The final phase of sericulture involves harvesting silk from these cocoons. Initially, the pupae inside the cocoon must be killed, which is achieved through a process known as stifling. The cocoon is subjected to boiling, steam, and dry heat to accomplish this. Once the pupae are deceased, the delicate silk filaments are carefully extracted from the cocoon using a method called reeling. The cocoons are immersed in boiling water for around 15 min, reducing the adhesion between the silk threads and allowing for the separation of individual filaments. These filaments are then twisted together to form a thread, utilizing a series of guides and pulleys. To enhance its shine, the silk thread undergoes another round of boiling. Each thread of silk typically consists of approximately 50 silk filaments. Surprisingly, a single cocoon can yield over 900 m of filament. This process culminates in obtaining raw silk from the silkworm, marking the completion of the sericulture journey.

108

15.3

15

Sericulture

Challenges Faced in Sericulture

Sericulture, practiced by silk farmers, presents numerous challenges that pose a threat to their harvest and also expose them to various health hazards. Silkworms, in particular, are susceptible to several diseases, such as pebrine and flacherie, which can prove fatal. Additionally, numerous pests jeopardize the healthy growth of silkworm larvae. The key challenges faced in sericulture are outlined below: 1. Pebrine disease can infect the eggs, leading to their premature demise before the larvae hatch. Affected larvae develop dark spots and exhibit lethargy. 2. Viral infections in the larvae may cause their bodies to shrink, emitting an unpleasant odor. 3. Other viral infections, like cytoplasmic polyhedrosis, can result in a loss of appetite in the larvae. 4. The muscardine infection, caused by fungi, weakens the larvae significantly and can eventually lead to their death. 5. The larvae of dermestid beetles can penetrate the silkworm cocoons, consuming the pupae within. This damage renders the cocoons unsuitable for reeling silk. 6. Some mites produce a toxic substance that proves fatal to silkworms.

15.4

Multipurpose Use of Sericulture

Apart from silk, there are several other by-products from sericulture. The mulberry fruits are rich in minerals and vitamins, and from the roots, barks, and mulberry leaves, several ayurvedic and herbal medicines are prepared. Some of the woody mulberry trees provide timber, which are resistant to termites and the timber is used for making sports items, toys, etc. The mulberry branches after silkworm feeding are generally dried and used as fuel, particularly in the villages. The foliage of mulberry is used as a fodder for cattle. The mulberry trees are also planted in the embarkment area to protect the soil to prevent soil erosion, and mulberry trees are planted as avenue trees. The silkworm pupae are rich in oil content, and pupal oil is used in the cosmetic industry and the remaining pupal cake is a rich source of protein suitable for poultry and fisheries. In some tribal populations, the people eat eri pupa as a source of protein and nourishment. The silkworm litter is used for biogas production and used as a fuel for cooking in the rural area. Thus, sericulture not only provides silk for fashionable clothing, but it also provides several very useful by-products to human society. Therefore, sericulture development provides opportunities to improve the living standards of people in rural areas of developing countries.

Waste Recycling in IFS

16

Abstract

IFS is a holistic and economically viable approach that interconnects soil, plants, water, animals, and the environment. It offers enhanced food production, nutritional security, and resource efficiency. Incorporating horticultural crops, animal husbandry, bee-keeping, fisheries, and other components enriches food variety and quality, while efficient resource recycling, like crop residue management, conserves nutrients and benefits soil health. Water management and diversified land use further boost income, employment, and ecological benefits. IFS demonstrates increased profits, improved soil fertility, and sustainable agricultural practices through synergistic integration. This comprehensive approach fosters a resilient and productive farming system. Keywords

Economically viable · Food production · Resource recycling · Employment · Ecological benefits · Synergistic integration

The Integrated Farming System (IFS) is a complex, interconnected matrix that involves soil, plants, water, animals, and the environment. This interdependence makes the system more economically viable and profitable than conventional arable farming methods. Moreover, IFS contributes to the production of high-quality food. To enhance the strength of the food chain, it becomes crucial to address nutritional disorders caused by deficiencies in mineral nutrients and vitamins in the food we consume. Incorporating horticultural and vegetable crops into the existing system can produce 2–3 times more energy than cereal crops grown on the same land. This inclusion ensures nutritional security by enriching the variety and quality of food available. Additionally, integrating bee-keeping, fisheries, sericulture, and mushroom cultivation conserves space while providing high-energy food sources without # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_16

109

110

16

Waste Recycling in IFS

compromising the production of staple food grains. The synergy created by these integrated enterprises promotes a realistic and sustainable ecosystem, benefitting production, consumption, and decomposition processes. Similarly, in the realm of farming systems, ensuring efficient resource recycling, especially with regard to crop residues, is of utmost importance, as a significant portion of micronutrients, about 80–90%, remains within the biomass. In certain regions like the Indo-Gangetic plains of India, where rice straw is not effectively recycled, vast quantities of paddy straw (approximately 16 million tons in Punjab alone) are wasted through burning. To address this valuable input loss, the implementation of second-generation machinery for efficient crop residue management becomes essential. This practice helps conserve moisture, enhance soil microorganism activities, regulate soil temperature, prevent soil erosion, suppress weed growth, and, upon decomposition, improve soil fertility. Furthermore, crop residues can be utilized in multiple ways, such as composting, floor thatch for cattle sheds, growing mushrooms, and providing dry fodder. Employing multiple-use water management strategies, such as using water for raising crops, fruits, vegetables, and fishery, can increase water productivity. In rural areas, sewerage water can be purified using hydrilla biomass before being released into fish ponds. Additionally, community lands accessible in villages should be put to productive use, adopting concepts like social forestry, water harvesting, recycling fishery, and implementing stall feeding practices for animals like goatery and piggery. Such integrative approaches not only contribute to increased profit margins but also offer numerous indirect benefits like employment opportunities and an improved ecological environment in the area. The integration of these diverse enterprises has been observed to generate additional income, ranging from Rs. 20,000–25,000/ha under irrigated conditions and Rs. 8000–12,000/ha under rainfed ecosystems. Furthermore, income enhancement due to processing and on-farm value addition can reach 25–50%, while yield improvements from enhanced soil health can reach 0.5–1.0 ton/ha, and cost reductions can amount to Rs. 500–1000/ha. Moreover, this integrated approach also leads to the generation of 50–75 person-days of employment per household (Gill et al. 2009). In many cases, the waste material (animal dung) is primarily utilized as fuel through the creation of dung cakes, with only a small quantity being allocated to FYM (Farm Yard Manure) or compost production. However, if these materials are recycled and utilized within the farm, it presents a significant opportunity to save substantial amounts of money typically spent on chemical fertilizers. Similarly, the plant debris, including leaves, stems, roots, and vegetable and crop weeds, can be transformed into vermicompost and reintegrated into the agricultural system. For instance, the resource in crop + poultry + fish and crop + pigeon + fish integrated farming system is represented in Figs. 16.1 and 16.2, respectively. This process allows for the effective recycling of organic matter back into the crops. By adopting a diversified approach that involves suitable crop choices, horticulture, fisheries, animal husbandry, and other complementary components, farmers can minimize risks while maximizing additional income and employment from the same piece of land over time. Moreover, such integration contributes to improving soil fertility in

16

Waste Recycling in IFS

111

POULTRY (20 layers) POLTRY DROPPING (700 KG) (3.22-2.50-1.05% NPK) (22.5-17.5-7.4 kg NPK)

INCOME (Rs 1252)

(5200 eggs)

61 Mandays PRODUCTIVITY 1205 kg REY

LABOUR

61 Mandays

87% by-products & rejects from crop component

CROPPING

PRODUCTIVITY

Sugarcane (P)-Sugarcane (R)

PRODUCTIVITY

FARM HOUSEHOLD

Banana (3 year rotation): 0.30 ha

(26352 kg REY)

(1.0 ha lowland)

(2052 kg REY) 310 kg fish

Banana-Turmeric-Rice-Sunhemp

INCOME

Banana (3 year rotation): 0.30 ha

(Rs 92725)

Income (Rs): 97731

(Rs 6258)

Maize-Rice-Seasame-Sunhemp

LABOUR

Employment (Mandays): 515

LABOUR

(420 Mandays)

Productivity (Kg): 26906

INCOME

FISH 0.04 ha ponded water with 400 Nos. Polyculture

(34 Mandays)

RECYCLED POND SILT (4500 KG) 1.96-1.02-0.72% NPK (88.2-45.9-32.4 kg NPK)

Fig. 16.1 Resource flow in crop + poultry + fish in the integrated farming system

the long run. By combining different components with crop cultivation, the overall profitability of the farming system is elevated through the efficient recycling of waste materials from one component to another. This integrated and sustainable approach promotes resource efficiency and contributes to a healthier and more productive agricultural system.

112

16

Waste Recycling in IFS

PIGEON (40 PAIRS) SHATTERED GRAINS

INCOME

(Rs 8552)

(363 kg of meat)

61 Mandays PRODUCTIVITY 2545 kg REY

LABOUR

61 Mandays

PIGEON DROPPING (700 KG) (1.82-0.56-0.98% NPK) (12.7-3.9-6.9 kg NPK)

CROPPING Sugarcane (P)-Sugarcane (R)

PRODUCTIVITY

FARM HOUSEHOLD

Banana (3 year rotation): 0.30 ha

(24854 kg REY)

(1.0 ha lowland)

Banana-Turmeric-Rice-Sunhemp

INCOME

Banana (3 year rotation): 0.30 ha

(Rs 85355)

Income (Rs): 98778

LABOUR

Employment (Mandays): 515

Maize-Rice-Seasame-Sunhemp

(420 Mandays)

PRODUCTIVITY (1774 kg REY

Productivity (Kg): 29173

INCOME (Rs 4871)

FISH 0.04 ha ponded

LABOUR (34 Mandays)

RECYCLED POND SILT (4500 KG) 0.84-0.30-0.56% NPK (37.8-13.5-25.2 1.96-1.02-0.72% (88.2-45.9-32.4 kg NPK)

Fig. 16.2 Resource flow in crop + pigeon + fish in the integrated farming system

Reference Gill MS, Singh JP, Gangwar KS (2009) Integrated farming system and agriculture sustainability. Indian J Agron 54(2):128–139

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

17

Abstract

In the face of global challenges such as climate change, resource depletion, and food insecurity, achieving sustainable rural livelihood security has become a paramount concern. Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) offer a promising approach to address these challenges by promoting the harmonious co-existence of various agricultural activities within a single farming system. This chapter provides an overview of the concept of sustainable rural livelihood security through integrated farming systems, highlighting its key components and potential benefits. Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) involve the deliberate integration of diverse agricultural enterprises, such as crop cultivation, livestock rearing, aquaculture, agro-forestry, and renewable energy production, into a unified and synergistic framework. This approach capitalizes on the interactions and synergies between different components, aiming to enhance resource use efficiency, optimize production outputs, and improve overall sustainability. Keywords

Sustainable rural livelihood security · Integrated farming systems · Enterprises · Harmonious · Renewable energy · Synergistic framework In essence, the term “livelihood” encompasses the means, activities, entitlements, and assets that individuals employ to earn a living. Assets can be categorized into various types: natural (land and water resources), human (education, labor, health, and nutrition), social (family, community, and social networks), political (participation and empowerment), physical (infrastructure like roads, markets, clinics, schools, and bridges), and economic (employment, savings, and credit). The sustainability of livelihoods depends on how individuals, both men and women, utilize their asset portfolios over the short and long term. A sustainable livelihood # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_17

113

114

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

can withstand and recover from uncertainties and stresses like droughts, policy failures, and civil wars by employing adaptive and coping techniques (Jirli et al. 2008). The concept of Sustainable Rural Livelihood (SRL) goes beyond traditional definitions and approaches to poverty eradication. Such traditional approaches were deemed too narrow, focusing solely on specific aspects or manifestations of poverty, like low income, while neglecting other vital aspects like vulnerability and social inclusion. To address poverty more comprehensively, more attention is now directed toward the various factors and processes that either limit or enhance the abilities of impoverished individuals to secure economically, ecologically, and socially sound livelihoods. The SRL concept provides a more rational and integrated approach to poverty eradication, acknowledging the importance of different livelihood capitals, such as human, social, natural, physical, and financial, in achieving sustainable rural livelihoods. These capitals enable individuals to cope with uncertainties and stresses, preserving or increasing their assets and capabilities both in the present and the future without depleting the natural resource base. Lightfoot and Minnick (1991) proposed that integrating trees into agricultural systems would enhance income security and ecological protection. They also emphasized that the use of diverse plants and animals would open up various income-generating opportunities. By transferring wastes and by-products between enterprises, the need for external inputs such as feeds and crop nutrients could be significantly reduced (Csavas 1992; Edwards 1997). Furthermore, animals on farms not only provide inputs to other enterprises but also serve as sources of milk, meat, savings, and social status (Schierre et al. 2002). Diversifying farming activities can lead to better labor utilization, potentially reducing unemployment in regions with a surplus of underutilized labor and providing livelihoods for households whose farms are their primary occupation (Thamrongwarangkul 2001; Van Brakel et al. 2003). An example of successful integration was demonstrated by Liyanage de Silva et al. (1993), who found that combining legume-based pasture and dairy cattle with coconut palms led to increased nut and copra yields by 17% and 11% more, respectively, while reducing fertilizer application needs significantly through the use of manure and urine from animals. The cost of fertilizer needs was reduced by 69% as the nutrients were returned by 73 kg of fresh manure and 30 L of urine/palm/ year. In contrast to the animals, there was enough forage to promote 306–590 g per head live weight and increase 3–8 L yield of milk per day during the first lactation. The integrated farming system, thus, is more economically viable and sustainable in comparison to the monoculture system. Comparatively, integrated farming systems were found to be more sustainable and economically viable than monoculture systems (De Jong and Ariaratne 1994). Dairying appeared to contribute the most to the total gross margin of the 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 ha units of 31%, 63%, and 69%, respectively, followed by (29%, 37%, and 19%), poultry (22%, 0%, and 9%), and goats (18%, 0%, and 3%). The overall ratio of cash income from Sri Lankan rupee spent was 9.9 for crops, 4.5 for goats, 3.2 for dairying, and 1.1 for poultry. Dairying and goats, thereby, proved to be lucrative earners with high labor productivity and high capital requirement, while manure tended to improve soil fertility and biogas to substitute domestic fuel, which were

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

115

important benefits. Poultry contributes a little less to improve farm income. Studies by Singh et al. (1993) and Kumar et al. (1994) assessed different farming systems (1 ha of irrigated land or 1.5 ha of un-irrigated land) and concluded that mixed farming with crossbred cows yield highest net profit under irrigated conditions followed by mixed farming with buffalo and arable farming. Kumar et al. (1994) studied the comparative productivity and economics of dairy enterprises (mixed farming on 1 ha of canal-irrigated land with three crossbred cows versus mixed farming with three Murrah buffaloes) and indicated that mixed farming with crossbred cows was more efficient for the utilization of land, capital, inputs, and the labor resources of the farmer. They also studied the financial viability of poultry and fish culture farming system and concluded that by integrating different enterprises on the farm, higher incomes and on-farm labor consumption could be ensured under the prevailing conditions. In a 5-year study, Rangaswamy et al. (1996) investigated the integration of poultry, fish, and mushrooms with rice cultivation. The study concluded that this integrated system led to higher net farm incomes and increased on-farm labor employment compared to the conventional rice cropping system. Radhamani et al. (2003) conducted a review of various studies on the financial viability of integrated farming systems and found that they had a positive impact on the economic viability of such systems. However, the results indicated that the actual implementation of regular inputs like genetic resources, labor, irrigation, and information might be more complex than initially assumed. Radhamani (2001) reported that the integration of crops and goats in rainfed vertisols resulted in additional employment gains of 314 person-days per year. Similarly, Devasenapathy et al. (1995) identified that integrated farming of groundnut–black gram–maize, along with other enterprises like dairy, fish, poultry, and rabbit rearing, yielded higher net income compared to conventional cropping systems. In another study, Ravi (2004) identified agriculture with poultry, sheep rearing, and sericulture as important farming systems in the study area. The relative profitability of the selected farming systems was assessed in both small and medium farms, with agriculture + sheep being the most profitable among the selected systems, generating annual net returns of 0.43 lakhs and 0.76 lakhs per farmer under the small and medium categories, respectively. Nageswaran et al. (2009) examined five different treatments involving crop + poultry (6 layers), dairy + dairy (3 milch cows), crop + poultry (3 milch cows +6 layers), improved cropping alone, and farmers’ cropping alone. Among these treatments, dairy-based farming in Paiyur demonstrated the highest income (12,180 ha/year) and employment (518 person-days/year), while in Yercaud, dairy cum poultry farming yield maximum income (13,822 ha/year) and employment (556 person-days/year). Dwivedi et al. (2007) concluded that the economic returns from an agri-horticultural system increased significantly, ranging from 16.5 to 136.2%, compared to a sole cropping system across different fruit crops. This integrated approach resulted in increased availability of fuelwood, fodder, food grains, fruit, and small timber from the same piece of land, leading to improved living standards for households. This included better access to food, clothing, construction of sturdy houses and wells, cemented irrigation channels, and the ability to purchase motorbikes and repay loans

116

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

taken from Regional Rural Banks. Jayanthi et al. (2009) found that an integrated farming system enhanced productivity, profitability, and nutritional security for farmers under different circumstances. Additionally, it contributed to sustaining soil productivity through the recycling of organic waste/residues from the various enterprises involved. Under traditional cropping systems, the mean maize grain equivalent yield was approximately 9417 kg/acre/year. However, with the adoption of an Integrated Farming System (IFS), the yield increased to about 22,754 kg/acre/ year. This adoption of IFS was found to generate additional income ranging from Rs. 9000 to Rs. 2,00,000 per ha, depending on the inclusion and combination of additional farm enterprises. These findings were reported by Dawood-Sheik et al. (1996), Shanmugasundaram and Balusamy (1993), Rangasamy et al. (1995), Meshram et al. (2003), Rautaray et al. (2005), Murugan and Kathiresan (2005), Ponnusamy (2006), and Ponnusamy and Gupta (2009). The implementation of Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) resulted in more workdays of employment compared to the traditional farming system, which involved cropping and dairy. Under the traditional system, each acre generated 25 workdays per year, while the IFS with various cropping systems produced 49 workdays of employment. Additionally, IFS with animal components could generate up to 183 workdays per acre per year, whereas the traditional cropping system only provided about 80 workdays of employment. Furthermore, it was noticed that the residue produced under the traditional cropping system was significantly lower than that of IFS. The combination of crops, milch cows, goats, guinea fowl, bio-compost, and vermicompost in the integrated farming system proved to be a more effective approach in utilizing bio-resources and recycling wastes/residues. The findings of the farmer participatory research in Tamil Nadu demonstrated that IFS was a better approach in terms of productivity, profitability, economics, and employment generation for marginal and small farmers. Ugwumba et al. (2010) studied the impact of IFS on farm income and found that most farmers in the study area practiced partial integration. However, it was evident that all types of IFS combinations were more profitable than existing practices. Farmers who adopted the crop–livestock–fish integration system achieved higher net farm income, indicating that full integration involving various enterprises such as crops, livestock, fisheries, processing, and biogas allowed them to earn more and potentially overcome poverty. The study also revealed that farm cash income was positively influenced by factors like farmer’s age, education level, years of experience, and the type of integration employed. Conversely, factors such as gender of the farmer, household size, and cost of farm inputs negatively affected farm cash income. Policymakers can play a crucial role in increasing farm cash income by providing suitable policies that reduce input costs, enhance farmer knowledge, and improve technical skills. Fraser et al. (2005) highlighted the significance of diversity in integrated farming systems, as it contributes to the system’s ability to withstand shocks and uncertainties, reducing vulnerability. Furthermore, it has been proven that increasing species diversity in a natural ecosystem enhances its temporal stability, but empirical evidence is lacking.

17.1

Concept of Integrated Farming System

117

According to Felipe et al. (2007), approximately 40% of organic farmers perceive lower risks of market price crises compared to conventional farmers. Organic farming practices contribute to increasing the organic matter content in the soil, leading to better soil moisture retention. This advantage makes organic farmers less vulnerable to the impacts of drought. Additionally, the presence of vegetative covers helps protect against radiation and frosts, further reducing vulnerability. Overall, organic farmers tend to experience a lesser sense of risk than conventional farmers. Venkatadri et al. (2008) demonstrated that a significant percentage (about 98%) of farmers believed that livestock rearing reduces vulnerability during drought years. Moreover, 97.8% expressed that dairy farming provides sustainable livelihoods, and 97% concluded that farmers’ suicides are less prevalent in areas with developed dairy farming, while commercial agriculture increased suicidal rates in Andhra Pradesh (96.0%). Integrated farming systems were found to outperform normal or commercial farming systems in four crucial dimensions of multifunctional agriculture: food security, economic security, social security, and environmental security. These findings support the notion that diversification and resource integration on farms are feasible both economically and ecologically. However, it was observed that integrated farming does not completely eliminate the need for external inputs. The initial high investment costs may pose a challenge for farmers transitioning from traditional to integrated farming systems, potentially limiting their ability to fully exploit the benefits of resource integration.

17.1

Concept of Integrated Farming System

The integrated farming system is practiced in many different countries in many different ways. Yet, a common characteristic of the integrated farming system is a combination of crop and livestock enterprises. Other forms of integrated farming include combinations with poultry, aquaculture, or trees. Many studies have explained the concept of integrated farming systems differently. FAO (1977) stated that “there is no waste,” and “waste is only a misplaced resource which can become a valuable material for another product” in IFS. Okigbo (1995) characterized the system as a mixed farming approach involving at least two distinct yet interconnected components, namely crop and livestock enterprises. Jayanthi et al. (2000), drawing from experiences in Tamil Nadu, India, referred to these systems as mixed animal–crop systems. In this setup, the animal component is often raised on agricultural waste products, and in return, the animals contribute to soil cultivation and provide manure that can be utilized as fertilizer and fuel. Jitsanguan (2001) defined Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) as an aquaculture system that integrates with livestock, wherein fresh animal waste serves as fish feed. Additionally, there are symbiotic and complementary relationships between the various enterprises forming the crop and animal components, which are fundamental to the concept of IFS. This concept highlights that integration typically occurs when the outputs (often by-products) of one enterprise are used as inputs by another within the farming system’s framework. Agbonlabor et al. (2003) from

118

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Fig. 17.1 Diagrammatic representation of integrated farming system model

Livestock Producon

Crop Residues

Integrated Crop -Livestock Farming System

Nutrient Recycling

Forage Crops

his study in Nigeria defined the IFS concept as a type of mixed farming system that combines crop and livestock enterprises in a supplementary and/or complementary manner. Radhamani et al. (2003) described IFS as a component of farming systems that takes into consideration the concepts of minimizing risk and increasing production and profits while improving the utilization of crop residues and organic wastes. Jayanthi (2006) described Integrated Farming System (IFS) as a crucial aspect of Farming System Research (FSR), aimed at introducing agricultural techniques that optimize production in cropping patterns while ensuring efficient resource utilization (Fig. 17.1). Mangala (2008) conducted a study on the implementation of the Integrated Farming System Programme in Dharwad, revealing that respondents adopted various integrated farming practices, with the majority incorporating agriculture–horticulture–forestry–dairy–vermicompost (62.14%) and other combinations like agriculture–horticulture–forestry–dairy–vermicompost–forage crops (21.43%), agriculture–horticulture–dairy–forage crops (7.86%), agriculture– horticulture–forestry–dairy–forage crops (5.00%), and agriculture–horticulture– dairy (3.57%). According to Singh and Ratan (2009), IFS refers to a combination of elements and activities that farmers integrate into their farms based on available resources and circumstances. The goal is to maximize productivity and net farm income sustainably. Panke et al. (2010) emphasized that the integration within IFS ensures that the output of one enterprise/component serves as the input for other enterprises, creating strong complementarity effects. Meanwhile, Bahire et al. (2010) defined IFS as an integrated mixed farming system that involves raising different yet interdependent enterprises. These enterprises primarily serve as supplementary and complementary components to each other. Thus, we can conclude that Integrated Farming System is the integration of more than one different type of agriculture and allied enterprises based on the sound principles of scientific agriculture for optimum utilization and management of available resources, recycling of waste/bi-products, decrease in the cost of cultivation, engagement of family labor, and increase in input use efficiency to maximize production, productivity, and income enhancement and provide gainful employment from the unit land area over a stipulated time period. The farm family is the owner,

17.3

Aim/Goals of Integrated Farming System

119

manager, and beneficiary of the farming system (Khanda 2009). The farm family gets wider scope for gainful employment, thereby ensuring good income and higher living standards round the year, even from small land holdings (Biswas 2009). Therefore, IFS ensures that wastes from one form of agriculture enterprise become a resource for another form. Since it utilizes waste as a resource, it not only decreases waste but also ensures overall increase in productivity for the whole agricultural systems [CARDI 2010]. The emergence of Integrated Farming System enabled us to improve the viability of small-sized farming operations in contrast to larger ones.

17.2

Difference Between IFS and Mixed Farming

According to Csavas (1992), the distinction between mixed farming and IFS lies in the level of interdependence and support among enterprises. In an integrated farming system, enterprises are mutually dependent, and they interact symbiotically. This allows for resource recycling and maximum utilization of available resources. For example, crop residues can be used as animal feed, and livestock production can contribute to agricultural productivity by enriching the soil with nutrients, reducing the reliance on chemical fertilizers. On the other hand, in a mixed farming system, components such as crops and livestock coexist independently, primarily aiming to minimize risks rather than promoting resource recycling and synergistic relationships. However, it’s important to recognize that achieving a high level of integration in an integrated farming system requires small farmers to have sufficient access to knowledge, assets, and inputs. This ensures that the system can be managed economically and environmentally sustainably over the long term (FAO 2001). Tipraqsa (2006) also noted that the difference between integrated farming systems and commercial farming systems is a matter of the degree of resource integration within the farm system. While mixed farming systems are considered essential for Asian agriculture (Devendra 1983), integrated farming systems encompass several subsystems, including crops, livestock, and fish. The interactions among these subsystems generate synergistic effects that surpass the combined impact of individual components (Edwards et al. 1988).

17.3

Aim/Goals of Integrated Farming System

The primary goals of the Integrated Farming System (IFS) can be summarized as follows: • Enhancing Yield and Stable Income: The main objective of IFS is to optimize the yield of all the component enterprises, ensuring a regular and stable income for farmers. This approach involves resource development and utilization practices that lead to substantial and sustained increases in agricultural production (Kumar

120

•

• • •

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

and Jain 2005). By intensifying and diversifying crops and integrating agriculture with allied enterprises, IFS offers an opportunity to enhance economic yield per unit area and unit time (Singh et al. 2007). For instance, integrating crops (0.80 ha), goats (5 female +1 male on 0.05 ha), pigeons (10 pairs on 0.01 ha), agroforestry (0.10 ha), and farm ponds (0.04 ha) has shown to be a viable alternative for small and marginal farmers with limited resources, where composted goat manure is recycled to benefit crops (Shekinah and Sankaran 2007). Rejuvenating System Productivity and Achieving Agro-Ecological Equilibrium: The IFS approach not only meets household needs but also ensures nutritional security for humans and animals. It generates employment and income opportunities while safeguarding the environment through the recycling of crop residues and animal waste within the farm itself. Natural Pest and Weed Management: IFS helps in suppressing the build-up of insect pests, weed populations, and diseases through efficient cropping system management, maintaining them at a low intensity. Reducing Chemical Usage: By implementing IFS, there is a reduction in the reliance on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, leading to chemical-free and healthier produce and a more eco-friendly environment for society. Promoting Rural Livelihood Security: IFS aims to prevent farmers from migrating to urban areas by providing employment opportunities and better economic returns, ensuring livelihood security for farming communities.

The generalized features of integrated farming systems under the eastern Indian situation are presented in Table 17.1.

17.4

Need for Integrating Farming System

• Protection and conservation of natural resources: In the post-green revolution era, our efforts to achieve food self-sufficiency and address food shortages have resulted in detrimental consequences. Food contamination with harmful chemicals and pesticides, groundwater pollution, soil degradation, and the loss of beneficial agricultural microorganisms are some of the adverse effects caused by the excessive use of agrochemicals, high dependence on irrigation, and intense cropping practices. In many regions, both surface and groundwater have become unsuitable for human and animal consumption due to the high concentration of pesticide residues. To combat these challenges, the adoption of the Integrated Farming System (IFS) strategy proves to be a promising solution. IFS demonstrates a natural ability to recycle and reuse farm and animal waste, reducing the reliance on external resources. By doing so, it ensures the conservation of both financial and natural resources in the country (Dadabhau and Kisan 2013). Embracing IFS can address the issues arising from the overexploitation of agrochemicals and high-intensity cropping, promoting a sustainable approach to

17.4

Need for Integrating Farming System

121

Table 17.1 Basic features of IFS farmers under the eastern Indian situation S. No. 1. 2.

3.

4.

Basic features Landholding Family size

Land types Upland: includes homestead land Medium land Low land Crop enterprise Upland: includes homestead land: This involves: kitchen garden/ garden consisting of greens, cucurbits, flowers/ ornamental plants, spices etc. Besides, in the upland, farmers usually take: Fruits: coconut (Cocos nucifera), lemon (Citrus sp.), guava (Psidium gujava), mango (Mangifera indica), papaya (Carica papaya), and banana (Musa paradisica) Vegetables: Brinjal (Solanum melongena), tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill), and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus); Cucurbits: bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), cucumber (Cucmis sativus), and pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata); greens: Basella (Basella rubra), Amaranthus (Amaranthus tricolor), and Kulfa (Portulaca oleracea) Manuring: Vegetables were grown with recommended practices where only FYM @ 10 t/ha was applied without using chemical fertilizer Medium land: Rice–rice Rice–mustard Rice–tomato/cucurbits

Area/% of area/number 0.5–1.0 ha 6–8 members (2 adults, 2 older people, and 3 children)

Benefits/remarks

20% of total area

Sandy, sandy loam

50% of total area 30% of total area

Sandy clay loam Sandy clay loam

0.3 ha

0.8 ha 0.5 0.3 0.2 (continued)

122

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Table 17.1 (continued) S. No.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Basic features Rice–sesamum Rice–green gram Lowland: Rice (long duration rice of 160–170 days duration during the rainy season)fallow Manuring of crops Fertilizer: variable amount and no proper recommendation is followed FYM: 2–5 t/ha depending upon availability and land types Pond system/pisciculture Pond depth Pond culture: Composite pisciculture Surface feeder: Catla (Catlacatla) Column feeder: Rohu (Labeorohita) Bottom feeder: Mrigal (Cirrhinusmrigala) Grass crap: Ctenopharyngodonidella Local fish species: local fish species involving: Shaula (Opheocephalusmuralis), Magur (Clariasbatrachus), Catfish/Singi (Heteropneustesfossilis), and Kau (Anabas testidenius). Stocking density 0.5–2.0 fingerlings/m2 Manuring of pond system: Manure/cow-dung application at the time of releasing fingerlings, livestock manure, kitchen waste Pond dykes: usually planted with fruit plants like papaya, banana, coconut, lemon, etc. Agroforestry

Area/% of area/number 0.2 0.2 0.7 ha

Benefits/remarks

0.12 ha 1.5–2.0 m Take these four species in such a polyculture system because of their trophic compatibility

Eat upon grass and aquatic weeds of the pond Some farmers prefer to take local fish due to better market price

0.08 (continued)

17.4

Need for Integrating Farming System

123

Table 17.1 (continued) S. No.

9.

10.

Basic features Consists of different plants/ trees of agroforestry mainly: teak (Tectona grandis), drumstick (Moringa oleifera), bamboo (Bombax malabaricum), tamarind (Tamarindus indica), karanja (Pongamia pinnata), and sahada (Strebulus asper) Livestock and types of livestock Cow (mostly local, but in a few cases, cross-bred Jersey cow is also taken) Bullock Buffalo for milk purpose Pig (local breed) Chicken (Banaraja, Leghorn breed) Duck (Khaki campbell) Feed resources Buffalo and cow Pig Chicken and duck

11.

Irrigation of crops

12.

Tillage operations for field preparation

13.

Family household energy requirement: 1. Energy requirement for lighting

Area/% of area/number

Benefits/remarks Meet family requirement vegetables, thatching of house, biofuel requirement of the house

0.16 ha 2

2 1–2 1–2 10 5–10 Rice straw, grass, kitchen waste Water hyacinth, grazing outside, kitchen waste Rice bran, kitchen waste, leftover foodstuff Lifting groundwater for irrigation of crops using diesel pump, electric motor, from the family pond by manually by hand or shoulder, and also manually driven mechanical means Plow manually by bullockdriven plow. In a few cases, the tractor is used on a hire basis for land preparation and other operations like sowing; beushening and intercultural operations are done with the help of family laborers

(i) Around 50–60% farm families use kerosene lamps (continued)

124

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Table 17.1 (continued) S. No.

Basic features

2. Energy requirement for cooking

Area/% of area/number

Benefits/remarks

for lighting of houses during dark hours only. Usually 4–6 small lamps/lanthan are used for about 4–5 h/day for study purposes of children, cooking food, providing services to cattle, and other activities, which consumes 300 ml kerosene/day/family (ii) Around 40–50% of households are electrified. There is frequent interruption of electricity supply in rural areas. Every day, the family gets around 12 h supply. On average, electricity consumption is 2–3 KW/day/family Cooking of food for about 6–8 members of family for lunch, dinner, and breakfast, and parboiling of rice before milling. Fuel requirement is met by burning cow-dung cake, rice straw, fuel wood available in the farm, collecting wood from the nearby forest, and purchasing fuel wood from the market @ Rs. 5000/ton

Source: Behra et al. (2013)

agriculture that mitigates the harmful impacts on the environment and human health. • Protection from environment and climate change: The rise in greenhouse gas emissions has led to global warming, and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) predicts a temperature increase of 1.8–4.0 °C by the end of this century. Such temperature and sea level changes will directly or indirectly impact agriculture, affecting soils, crops, livestock, fisheries, and pests. India, being heavily reliant on agriculture, faces a significant threat due to environmental changes, limited natural resources, a rapid increase in human and livestock population, shifting land use patterns, and socioeconomic factors. This poses a substantial challenge in meeting the demands for food, fiber, fuel, and fodder. To mitigate the adverse effects of climate change and environmental challenges, adopting an Integrated Farming System (IFS) can prove highly beneficial. IFS ensures sustainable agricultural production, effective and efficient

17.4

•

•

•

•

Need for Integrating Farming System

125

conservation and utilization of natural resources, scientific livestock rearing, and optimized land use to meet the demands for food, fuel, fiber, and fodder under existing and changing socio-economic conditions (Kumar and Arif 2017). Protection and conservation of biodiversity: The adoption of modern crop varieties and animal breeds has resulted in a decline in genetic biodiversity, as traditional varieties and local breeds have been replaced. While these modern varieties and breeds are better suited for intensive agriculture, little consideration has been given to preserving the overall biodiversity of agricultural ecosystems. Additionally, the increased density of farming systems has contributed to the reduction in flora and fauna biodiversity within these ecosystems. For example, in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, the extensive replacement of traditional crops with rice–wheat monoculture has led to the erosion of soil micro-flora due to the heavy use of agro-chemicals and insufficient recycling of crop residues. Some authors have pointed out that commercial farming systems can contribute to the loss of genetic diversity, posing potential negative impacts and environmental threats (Ashby 2001). In contrast, Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) rely on multiple enterprises, such as crops, livestock, horticulture, and fishery, to fulfill the food and fodder requirements for both humans and animals. Because IFS depends on various production systems to meet these needs, it avoids overexploiting or depleting the genetic biodiversity of any particular component. Instead, it provides an opportunity for different components to flourish simultaneously and/or sequentially, promoting a more balanced and sustainable approach to agriculture. Food and nutritional security: The livelihood of the majority of farmers, especially small and marginal ones constituting over 80% of the total, heavily relies on crops and livestock. However, their agricultural activities are often vulnerable to the unpredictability of weather patterns. Currently, the lack of scientifically designed, economically viable, and socially acceptable integrated farming system models prevents them from harnessing the benefits of integration. As a consequence, their farming practices remain predominantly subsistent and sometimes uneconomical. In contrast, Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) offer a solution by providing a well-balanced and consistent supply of food, fodder, and other consumables throughout the year. By simultaneously integrating various enterprises, IFS ensures the production of different components in sufficient quantities and proportions to meet the farming family’s food and nutritional requirements, including food grains, milk, eggs, and meat. Restoration of soil fertility: By effectively utilizing farm and animal wastes through on-farm recycling as organic sources, IFS contributes to improving the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. This promotes sustainability in soil health and creates a better environment for crop growth. With these benefits, IFS proves to be a valuable approach for small and marginal farmers, empowering them with more stable and productive farming practices. Farm resource recycling: Farmers often under-utilize the recycling of farm residues and industrial and municipal organic wastes in agriculture due to lack of sufficient knowledge about the techniques and benefits involved.

126

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

However, there is substantial untapped potential to recycle these solid and liquid organic wastes from farms. By effectively recycling crop residues, the soil’s health can be sustained, leading to numerous benefits. Incorporating crop residues, whether from rice or wheat, has been shown to increase rice yield and nutrient uptake and improve the soil’s physicochemical properties, creating a better environment for crop growth. Through the recycling of farm wastes in the form of compost and vermicompost within the system itself, more than 35% of the NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) requirement can be met. This approach proves to be highly economical, as it reduces the need for chemical fertilizers or their substitutes while simultaneously enhancing soil health conditions. Consequently, this increase in organic matter and microbial activity leads to sustainable production (Gill et al. 2009; Jayanthi et al. 2003). • Sustainable rural livelihood security: Integrated Farming System (IFS) offers a reliable means of ensuring consistent income and employment opportunities for farming families. Its inherent potential to provide economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and socially acceptable livelihoods makes it a rational choice under various socio-economic constraints, benefiting rural farmers and unemployed youths. Researchers have highlighted the income and employment generation potential of IFS across the country. For instance, Radhamani (2001) conducted a study and found that an integrated farming system combining crops and goats in rainfed vertisols proved effective in generating an additional employment of 314 person-days per year. This demonstrates how IFS can contribute significantly to addressing rural unemployment and supporting the economic well-being of farming communities, making it a valuable and sustainable approach for rural livelihoods.

17.5

Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers in IFS

According to Nageswaran et al. (2009), a significant portion of farmers following Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) were categorized as 47.3% were marginal farmers with landholdings below 2.5 acres, 29.4% were small farmers with landholdings ranging from 2.5 to 5.0 acres, and the remaining 27.8% were classified as large farmers with more than 5.1 acres of land. Bhalerao et al. (2010) discovered that in the Konkan region, livestock-based farming was primarily undertaken by middle-aged farmers with a high school education, medium-sized families, and a moderate level of farming experience. Mahadik et al. (2010) observed that the majority (68%) of farmers engaged in rice and backyard poultry farming were middle-aged, with 36.8% having completed secondary education, 60% having low annual income, and having significant exposure to mass media and extension agencies. Prasad et al. (2011) reported that integrated farmers in Sahibganj and Pakur districts of Jharkhand had low levels of education, with the majority of them being small and marginal farmers. In a study conducted by Singh et al. (2017) to investigate the socioeconomic profile of farmers adopting IFS, 60 farmers were selected as respondents from the Directorate of Extension Education, Punjab Agricultural University,

17.5

Socio-economic Characteristics of Farmers in IFS

127

Table 17.2 Distribution of respondents according to their socio-personal characteristics (N = 60) S. No 1.

Socio-personal characteristics of the respondents Age

2.

Gender

3.

Education

4.

Family type

5.

Family size (No. of family members)

6.

Source of income

7.

Social participation

8.

Mass media exposure

9.

Extension contacts

Category range 30–46 46–62 Above 62 Male Female Illiterate Matric Graduation Postgraduation Nuclear Joint Small (up to 4) Medium (5–8) Large (>8) Agriculture Agriculture + Service Agriculture + Business Low (0–1) Medium (2–3) High (above 3) Low (0–8) Medium (8–16) High (16–24) Low (0–1) Medium (2–3) High (above 3)

Frequency 26 30 4 58 2 1 30 27 2 38 22 9 33 18 60 4

Percentage 43.33 50.00 6.66 96.67 3.33 1.67 50.00 45.00 3.33 63.33 36.67 15.00 55.00 30.00 100.00 6.67

0

0.00

0 16 44 0 24 36 0 7 53

0.00 26.67 73.33 0.00 40.00 60.00 0.00 11.67 88.33

Source: Singh et al. (2017)

Ludhiana. The results indicated that the majority of the respondents fell within the age group of up to 35 years, followed by the age group of 35–50 years (Table 17.2). Approximately 94% of the respondents relied solely on agriculture as their source of income, while 6% of them earned income from both agriculture and other forms of employment. These findings shed light on the diverse socio-economic backgrounds of farmers adopting IFS, encompassing different age groups, education levels, income sources, and landholding sizes.

128

17.6

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Principles of Integrated Farming System

Farming System Research (FSR) emphasizes two key principles: First, the development of relevant and viable technology for small farmers should be based on a comprehensive understanding of the existing farming system. Second, the evaluation of such technology should not only consider its technical performance but also its alignment with the goals, needs, and socio-economic circumstances of the targeted small farm system, particularly focusing on aspects like profitability and employment generation. In the context of research and extension efforts with a farming systems perspective, the objectives can vary, ranging from expanding knowledge about farming systems to resolving challenges in different farming scenarios. There are high expectations in its problem-solving role, aiming to enhance farming system productivity through the generation and dissemination of suitable agricultural technologies for farmers (Biggs and Stephen 1995). The primary objective of FSR is to elevate the well-being of individual farming families by improving the productivity of their farming system, taking into account the limitations imposed by available resources and the surrounding environment (Norman and Collinson 1985). In essence, FSR seeks to empower farmers with the right tools and knowledge to optimize their farming practices and achieve greater prosperity and sustainability. Farming System Research is founded on several fundamental principles: • The primary goal is to ensure farm households become self-sufficient and less vulnerable to external influences. • Encouraging diverse enterprises on the farm to increase income and employment opportunities, minimize risks, and improve natural resources, environment, and the diet of farm families. • The interactions between various components within the farming system and their interactions with the environment are carefully considered. Exploring the synergies among these components is essential. Additionally, the farming system incorporates the following three principles: • Cyclic: The farming system operates in a cyclic manner, with organic resources, livestock, land, and crops interconnected. Management decisions related to one component can significantly impact others. • Rational: For resource-poor farmers, proper management of crop residues, along with optimal allocation of limited resources, is a crucial pathway to achieving sustainable production and lifting themselves out of poverty. • Ecologically sustainable: Striving for ecological sustainability and economic viability, the integrated farming system aims to maintain and improve agricultural productivity while minimizing negative environmental impacts.

17.7

17.7

Present Scenario of Integrated Farming System

129

Present Scenario of Integrated Farming System

Given the serious limitations of horizontal land expansion for agriculture, the only viable alternative is vertical expansion through various farm enterprises that require less space and time but offer high productivity, ensuring periodic income, especially for small and marginal farmers. 1. High returns: Singh et al. (1993) conducted studies in Haryana comparing different farming systems on 1 ha of irrigated land and 1.5 ha of unirrigated land. They found that mixed farming with crossbred cows under irrigated conditions gave highest net profit (Rs. 20,581), followed by mixed farming with buffaloes (Rs. 6218), and the lowest in arable farming (Rs. 4615). Another study involving 240 farmers from Rohtak (wheat-sugarcane), Bhiwani (grambajra), and Hisar (wheat-cotton) districts in Haryana, representing zones with different crop rotations, revealed that the maximum returns of Rs. 12,593/ha, Rs. 6746/ha, and Rs. 2317/ha were obtained from 1 ha with buffaloes in Rohtak, Hisar, and Bhiwani, respectively. The highest net returns in Rohtak were attributed to better soil fertility and irrigation facilities, along with improved control measures compared to other zones. 2. Increase in employment: Singh et al. (1993) also conducted a study on total person-days of employment. They concluded that Rohtak had the highest employment potential, followed by Hisar and Bhiwani. Integrating various enterprises created more employment opportunities, generating an additional 207 person-days/annum compared to the 369 person-days/year in the croppingalone system. This emphasizes the significance of enterprise integration in creating additional job opportunities and contributing to the overall economic viability of farming systems. 3. Increase in productivity: Jayanthi et al. (2001) conducted another study in Tamil Nadu under wetland conditions, integrating various components such as cropping, poultry, pigeons, goats, and fishery. Over a 3-year period, the results demonstrated that combining crops with fish (400 reared in 3 ponds of 0.04 ha each), poultry (20 babkok layer birds), pigeons (40 pairs), and goats (Tellichery breed of 20 female and 1 male in 0.03 ha deep litter system) led to higher productivity and increased economic returns, with an average of Rs. 1,31,118 over the 3-year period. 4. Recycling of resources: A key aspect of this integrated system was the efficient recycling of resources. Fish were fed with poultry, pigeon, and goat droppings, while any excess poultry, pigeon, and goat manure, along with composted crop residues of banana and sugarcane, were applied back to the crops. Four conventional cropping systems were tested in the study, namely rice–rice–blackgram, maize–rice–blackgram, maize–rice–sunhemp, and rice–rice–sunhemp. Balusamy et al. (2003) explained that rice + Azolla-cum-fish culture is one of the economical option. Monoculture systems rely mainly on external inputs, while in an integrated system, recycling of nutrients takes place that helps in reducing the cost of production for economic yield. The fish in the rice field utilized the

130

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Table 17.3 Employment patterns of the crop+ fruits farming system

Enterprise Crops Fruits Crops + fruits % increase/farm Per ha employment

Person-days/annum/farm Family labor Hired labor Days %age Days 817.23 40.22 1214.51 176.62 34.24 339.28 993.85 39.01 1553.79 21.61% 27.94% 28.51 44.57

%age 59.78 65.76 60.99

Total labor Days 2031.74 515.90 2547.64 25.39% 73.08

%age 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: Singh et al. (2017)

untapped aquatic productivity of the rice ecosystem as the rice bottom is highly fertilized on account of the production of zoo and phytoplankton and these resources are fully utilized by the fish. The gross income obtained in rice + Azolla + fish was 25.7% more over the rice crop and 6.9% more over the rice + fish. The net income followed the same trend. Thus, rice + Azolla + fish on average gave Rs. 8817/ha more over the rice monoculture and Rs. 3219/ha over the rice + fish. Singh et al. (2017) conducted the study on the Punjab farmers under the name of “Integrated Farming Systems Approach of PAU Awardee Farmers for Income and Employment Enhancement in Punjab” to find productivity, profitability, and employment generation of an integrated farming system as compared to a conventional cropping system under Punjab conditions. The study comprised two integrated farming systems, viz., crop + fruit farming system and crop + poultry farming system. Both these integrated farming systems were more productive and profitable than of the sole cropping system. The net returns increased by 3.24% and 60 per hectare with the inclusion of fruits and poultry enterprises, respectively, over the sole cropping system. The study also indicated that crop + fruit farming system generated 28.51 person-days/hectare/annum/farm employment for family, 44.57 person-days/ hectare/annum/farm for hired labor, and 73.08 person-days/hectare/annum/farm for total labor. In the case of crop + poultry, it was observed that employment generated through the crop + poultry farming system for family labor was 36.54 person-days/ hectare/annum/farm, for hired labor was 58.25 person-days/hectare/annum/farm, and for total labor was 94.79 person-days/hectare/annum/farm. The increase in employment patterns due to the introduction of poultry and fruits in cropping patterns is depicted in Tables 17.3 and 17.4. It is thus evident that efficient utilization of scarce and costly resource is the need of the hour and can be accrued by following the concept of IFS through supplementation of allied agro-enterprises. Also, the dominant integrated farming system models prevalent in different states of the country are depicted in Table 17.5.

17.9

Components of Integrated Farming System

131

Table 17.4 Employment pattern of the crop + poultry farming system

Enterprise Crops Poultry Crops + poultry % increase/farm Per ha employment

Person-days/annum/farm Family labor Hired labor Days %age Days 341.27 41.63 478.56 117.32 31.73 252.46 38.55 731.02 34.38% 52.75% 36.54 58.25

%age 58.37 68.27 61.45

Total labor Days 819.83 369.78 1189.61 45.10% 94.79

%age 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: Singh et al. (2017)

17.8

IFS for Different Agro-Climatic Zones of India

1. High altitude cold deserts: Pastures with forestry, goats, angora rabbits, and limited settled agricultural crops like millets, wheat, barley, and fodder. 2. Arid and desert region: Centering mainly in animal husbandry with the camels, sheep, and goat and with moderate cropping components involving pearl millet, wheat, pulses, gram, and fodder crops. 3. Western and central Himalayas: Horticultural crops as a major component have less intensive agriculture, mainly on the hill terraces and slopes with maize, rice, wheat, pulses, and fodder crops. 4. Eastern Himalayas: Primitive crop husbandry with rice, millets, pulses, etc. Agroforestry system is also common. Piggery and poultry are the chief livestock activity. 5. Indo-Gangetic plain: Intensive crop husbandry involving rice, wheat, maize, mustard, pulses, and livestock, inclusive of dairy cattle and buffaloes. 6. Central and southern highlands: Cotton, sorghum, millets, pulses with dairy cattle, sheep and goats, and poultry are the secondary livestock and animal husbandry enterprises. 7. Western Ghats: Major activity on plantation crops and cultivation of rice and pulses are the secondary agricultural activity. Cattle, sheep, and goats are the livestock components, which, in most parts, are maintained as large herds and allowed to range. 8. Delta and coastal plains: Rice cultivation, along with fish culture, poultry, and piggery enterprises, and capture fisheries of the marine ecosystem are specialized enterprise and do not mix with cropping activity.

17.9

Components of Integrated Farming System

Chawla et al. (2004) found that marginal and small landholders typically keep bovines, cattle, and buffalo (usually 1–2 animals) along with desi fowls (10–20) in their family backyards. In coastal or water-rich areas, ducks are also commonly

(-) 92

Cotton + groundnut

Crops (sugarcane– wheat) Rice–rice system

Maharashtra

Uttar Pradesh Karnataka

21,599

41,017

24,093

Arable farming

Madhya Pradesh

36,330

22,971

Rice

Cashew

36,190

15,299 13,790

Net returns 8312

Rice–rice Rice–rice–rice– fallow–pulses Cropping alone

Prevailing system Rice–rice– blackgram

97,731 98,778 1,31,118 28,569 31,788 32,335 75,360

Cropping + fish + poultry Cropping + fish + pigeon Cropping + fish + goat Rice + fish Rice + Azolla + fish Coconut + forage + dairy Rice–brinjal (0.5 ha) + rice–cowpea (0.5 ha) + mushroom + poultry Mixed farming + 2 cow dairy (2 cows) + 15 goats + 10 poultry + 10 duck + fish

Rice–fish (pit at the center of the field)–poultry (reared separately) Rice–fish (pit at the one side of the field)–poultry (shed on fish pit)

Blackgram-onion-maize+ cowpea Crop + dairy + sericulture Crop + dairy Crops (sugarcane + wheat) + dairy

17,209 17,488 24,117

Rice–rice–cotton + maize + poultry/fish Rice–rice–Azolla/calotropis + fish Rice–rice–rice–fallow–cotton + maize + duck cum fish

49,303

62,977

37,668 44,913 1304 3524 5121 47,737

Net returns 15,009

Integrated Farming System Rice–rice–cotton + maize

Chnnabasavanna and Biradar (2007)

Singh (2004)

Shelke et al. (2001)

Tiwari et al. (1999)

Manjunath and Itnal (2003)

Balusamy et al. (2003)

Jayanthi et al. (2001)

Ganesan et al. (1990)

References Shanmugasundaram and Balusamy (1993) Shanmugasundaram et al. (1995)

17

Goa

State Tamil Nadu

Table 17.5 Integrated Farming System Models in different states of the country

132 Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

17.9

Components of Integrated Farming System

133

raised. However, sheep are not commonly integrated into mixed farming systems. Thamizoli et al. (2006) discovered that introducing tree crops alongside agriculture and incorporating farm-based allied enterprises like dairy, goat rearing, and apiculture served as a risk management strategy to cope with disasters such as prolonged drought seasons and heavy floods. In the Gajapati district of Orissa, Mohanty et al. (2010a, b) identified an Integrated Farming System (IFS) model consisting of field crops (rice, groundnut, maize, pigeon pea, and ragi), horticultural crops (yam, banana, tapioca, and vegetables), vermicomposting, and poultry (Vanaraja breed). In Uttarakhand, Tripathi and Rathi (2011) outlined various prevailing farming system models, including crop + dairy, crop + dairy + goats + horticulture, vegetables + dairy, crop + dairy + vegetables, crop + horticulture + goats, horticulture + dairy + vegetables, and crop + dairy + companion animals as the major components of IFS. Manivannan et al. (2011) reported that respondents from the Erode district of Tamil Nadu were primarily involved in goat + crop, goat + dairy + crop, goat + dairy, and goat + dairy + crop systems as the main components of their IFS. Vision 2030 (2011) revealed that integrating mono-crop agriculture with agroforestry, pisciculture, and animal husbandry is essential for resource utilization, enhancing farm income, and ensuring livelihood security for farmers. Vision 2020 (2011) emphasized integrated fish farming as a diversified and coordinated system of producing fish and agricultural/livestock produce in fish farms. Fish serves as the primary component for maximal land/water utilization through the recycling of wastes and by-products, reduced application of fertilizers and feeds, and the maintenance of a balanced ecosystem.

Integrated Crop/Livestock Farming System An integrated farming system incorporates a range of resource-saving practices to achieve profitable and sustainable production levels while mitigating the negative impacts of intensive farming and protecting the environment (Lal and Miller 1990; Gupta et al. 2012). Among these, the integrated crop–livestock farming system emerges as a vital solution for enhancing livestock production and environmental conservation by employing prudent and efficient resource utilization. In this system, the waste produced by one enterprise serves as the input for another, ensuring optimal resource utilization (Tiwari 1993). For instance, crop residues can be utilized as animal feed, while livestock manure can boost agricultural productivity by enriching soil nutrients and reducing the need for chemical fertilizers (Gupta et al. 2012). A well-functioning dairy component within this integrated system is functionally linked to crop cultivation by utilizing crop residues and weed biomass as feed for dairy cattle, while the by-products from dairy, such as vermicompost, are employed as manure for crop cultivation. Farmyard manure, as an integral part of integrated nutrient management, enhances soil health and improves crop productivity, particularly in rice-based cropping systems (Sarangi et al. 2014). Animal excreta plays a crucial role in the overall sustainability of the integrated farming system,

134

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

offering multiple benefits for agricultural use, including its potential as fertilizer, feed, and even a source of fuel. By efficiently utilizing animal excreta, the system promotes a circular economy, reducing waste and ensuring optimal resource utilization while maintaining a sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural approach.

Improving Nutrient Cycling Animal excreta are rich sources of essential nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, which play a vital role in preserving soil structure and fertility. These inorganic nutrient components, as shown in Table 17.6, are crucial for sustaining agricultural productivity. The quantity of nutrients present in animal excreta, along with potential contributions from biowastes in Southern Kerala, is detailed in Table 17.7. These findings highlight the significance of utilizing animal excreta and biowastes to enrich the soil and maintain its fertility, promoting sustainable agricultural practices in the region. Source of Energy Excreta can undergo various treatment methods such as drying, composting, or liquid-composting to produce biogas and energy for household use, such as cooking Table 17.6 Values for the nutrient content of manure sampled in Virginia

Total nutrient content (pounds/ton or pounds/1000 gallons) Manure Nitrogen P2O5 K2O Dry Broiler Litter 62.58 62.12 28.57 Dry Turkey Litter 61.75 63.68 24.36 Layer or Breeder 36.46 65.06 24.22 22.61 12.07 18.92 Liquid Dairya Semi-Solid Dairy 10.54 6.12 8.67 Semi-Solid Beef 12.79 6.67 11.30 10.14 5.68 5.72 Swine Lagoona Mixed Swinea 41.13 29.75 18.18 Source: Mullins (2009) a Values are in pounds/1000 gallons. All other values are in pounds/ ton

Table 17.7 Nutrient content and additions possible through biowastes

Biowaste Goat manure Vermicompost Poultry manure NPK addition through biowastes

Quantity kg/year 1490 740 420

Source: Issac et al. (2015)

N% 5.93 1.84 4.97 257.59

N addition kg/year 241.1 13.62 20.87

P% 0.882 0.556 1.817 24.88

P addition kg/year 13.14 4.11 7.63

K% 0.293 0.914 1.829 18.80

K addition kg/year 4.36 6.76 7.68

17.9

Components of Integrated Farming System

135

and lighting, or for powering rural industries, like mills and water pumps. This renewable energy source, in the form of biogas or dung cakes, can replace the use of charcoal and wood, promoting sustainable energy practices. Additionally, the biomass production of feed is feasible as the treated excreta can be reused as animal feed (Moriya and Kitagawa 2007; Matsumoto and Matsuyama 1995). However, managing increased amounts of manure requires careful treatment to convert it into biologically safe and usable materials, ensuring safe disposal. Typically, livestock manure treatment involves transferring it to large holding structures or earthen lagoons. In these lagoons, bacteria break down the manure, resulting in clear water effluent that can be drained off and a sludge that is generally applied to surrounding land (IAN 1998). While animal manure can significantly contribute to soil fertility and boost production, excessive quantities can lead to water and air pollution issues. Land application of manure for nutrient recycling can result in the accumulation of soil nitrogen and phosphorus, potentially causing losses through runoff and leaching. To ensure that the discharge of excreta remains within the environmental capacity, it is essential to control and decrease the overall quantity of excreta. This can be achieved through two measures: (a) Reducing the number of animals kept on the farm. (b) Enhancing the efficiency of excreta management per animal (per weight). However, since the latter might not be easily achievable, focusing on the former (a) becomes a more practical approach. To maintain business sustainability while reducing the number of animals, efforts should be made to enhance the value per animal. If the quantity of excreta produced exceeds the environmental capacity, appropriate measures must be taken to treat the excess excreta effectively. Implementation of well-defined excreta disposal method is necessary to handle the surplus excreta in a responsible manner (Kawata 2011). By adhering to these measures, it is possible to maintain a balance between agricultural operations and environmental preservation, ensuring that excreta management remains sustainable and within the acceptable limits of the environment.

Integrated Livestock/Fish Farming System Little and Edwards (1999) contested the common and narrow perception that Integrated Fish Farming Systems (IFFS) solely involve the direct use of fresh livestock manure in fish culture. They argued that integrated farming with fish should be broadly defined as the concurrent or sequential linkage between two or more human activity systems, with at least one being aquaculture. These linkages extend beyond agriculture (involving crops, livestock, irrigation, dams, and canals) and encompass sanitation practices (such as night soil or human excreta re-use),

136

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

nutrient recovery (e.g., hydroponic-fish, breweries), and energy recovery (utilizing heated effluents from power plants or dairies) (Prein 2002). Recent studies have explored the impact of rural livestock–fish farming systems on household nutrition. Findings reveal significant benefits, either through direct consumption of fish by producing households or by generating additional income, which allows for the purchase of other affordable foods, leading to improved household food consumption (Thilsted and Roos 1999; Thompson et al. 1999; Prein and Ahmed 2000; Sultana 2000). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1979) highlighted several benefits of integrated fish farming in a Chinese community, which include the following: • Provision of a cost-effective feedstuff • Utilization of organic manure for pond fertilization, eliminating the need for supplementary feeds • Reduction in costs related to inorganic fertilizers and commercial feed. • 30–40% increase in profit • Attainment of self-sufficiency and self-reliance for communities by producing grains, vegetables, fish, and livestock within integrated fish farming systems • Utilization of silt (rich water) from fish ponds to fertilize crops, leading to a reduction in the use of chemical fertilizers In an Integrated Farming System, the integrated fish farming component serves four crucial roles:

Poverty Alleviation There are several instances where aquaculture has been proposed as a means for poverty reduction and promoting sustainable rural livelihoods. However, some of these systems demand such high levels of productivity and inputs from the manureproviding enterprise that they become financially burdensome and unmanageable for smallholder farmers with limited resources. As a result, the significant role of Integrated Fish Farming Systems (IFFS) often goes underappreciated, and their potential for improvement is frequently overlooked in favor of supporting largescale commercial ventures, which tend to be more appealing to development institutions and policymakers. Economic Benefits As per Edwards (2000), rural integrated aquaculture offers various direct benefits, apart from the enhancement of household nutrition and income, which include: • Local availability of fresh fish • The provision of employment for household members. Furthermore, the indirect benefits are:

17.9

Components of Integrated Farming System

137

• Increased availability of fish in local and urban markets, potentially leading to a reduction in fish prices, making it more affordable for consumers. • Expanded employment opportunities arising from the development of an industry that provides jobs on fish farms and in related services. • Sharing of investment in community-managed common-pool resources, such as water bodies, cages, and the cultivation of settled/attached species like freshwater and marine invertebrates and seaweeds.

Food Security The high nutritional value of fish, especially for vulnerable groups like pre-school children, pregnant and lactating women, is widely recognized. In certain societies, specific fish species are targeted as a primary food source for these categories due to their exceptional quality (Thilsted and Roos 1999). Given the prevailing economic conditions in developing countries, there is a crucial need for farmers to adopt resultoriented farming systems that ensure and sustain adequate food security (Gabriel et al. 2007). The demand for protein-rich foods in these regions is high, but the supply is often expensive for rural communities facing limited resources. In this context, Integrated Fish Farming (IFF) presents a significant opportunity and hope for improving livelihoods. IFF serves as a food-production base, combining crop cultivation, livestock rearing, and fish farming. This integrated approach not only provides ample manure to support abundant fish production but also yields meat, milk, eggs, and vegetables (Gabriel et al. 2007). A study conducted by Tipraqsa et al. (2007) demonstrated that Integrated Farming Systems (IFFS) outperformed commercial farming systems across multiple dimensions of multifunctional agriculture. IFFS offers a more secure supply of food while effectively meeting social needs by serving as a source of food materials, supporting economic activities, and contributing to environmental functions. This makes IFFS a promising solution to address food security challenges and improve overall well-being of rural communities. Quality of Manure Manure is rich in essential nutrients for fish production, containing protein in the range of 10–30%, energy between 0.46 and 5.86 MJ/kg, and substantial levels of soluble vitamins (Pratt 1975; Tuleum 1992). Additionally, it comprises non-digested feed, metabolic excretory products, and residues resulting from microbial synthesis, which can serve as a substitute for conventional fish-feed components, leading to reduced production costs (Falayi 1998; Fashakin et al. 2002). Notably, the application of manure in fish ponds has been found to yield superior results compared to pond fertilization (Ansa and Jiya 2002). According to Otubusin (1986), the amount of manure needed by fish is directly related to the number of farm animals present. The quantity and composition of the resulting organic matter from manure varies based on factors such as the type of feed, age, and total live weight of the farm animals (Gabriel et al. 2007). One significant advantage of using manure in fish production is its ability to stimulate the growth of benthic organisms, including small

138

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

living creatures and plants, within the pond ecosystem. This enhancement contributes to healthier and more productive environment for fish farming.

Integrated Poultry/Aquaculture Farming System Poultry–fish farming is the integration of poultry, such as chickens, ducks, and geese with fish farming. The poultry house can be constructed over the pond or adjacent to the pond. In both cases, the excreta from the birds can serve as feed, which fertilizes the pond or the fish can feed on the excreta directly. The use of poultry in an integrated production system with fish has several benefits, such as low digestibility due to the size of the digestive tract resulting in nutrient-rich manure and subsequent low input integration, as well as the apparent synergistic relationship between the two production systems under integration. Poultry manure can be used fresh, or after processing, to enhance natural food production in sunlit tropical ponds. Although some nutrition may be derived directly from the waste, natural feed produced on the nutrients released from the waste is more important. Poultry waste, being more nutrient dense than other livestock waste, contains less moisture, fiber, and compounds such as tannins that discolor water when used as fish pond fertilizers (Little and Satapornavit 1995). Poultry manure is a “complete” fertilizer with characteristics of both organic and inorganic fertilizers, which can be used without resorting to the addition of supplementary feed (Banerjee et al. 1979; FAO 2003). The economic benefits of an integrated livestock-poultry farming system are presented in Table 17.8.

17.10 Paddy cum Fish Culture Integrated rice–fish farming is widely practiced in countries like Japan, China, Indonesia, India, Thailand, and the Philippines. Numerous reports highlight the ecological benefits of this farming system, as fish play a crucial role in enhancing soil fertility by increasing the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus (Giap et al. 2005; Dugan et al. 2006). Simultaneously, the rice fields provide fish with planktonic, periphytic, and benthic food sources, creating a mutually beneficial relationship (Mustow 2002). In paddy cum fish culture, it is essential to select fish species with faster growth rates for successful cultivation. Commonly cultured fish species in rice fields include Catla catla, Labeo rohita, Cirrhinus mrigala, Cyprinus carpio, Tilapia mossambicus, Anabas, Clarius batrachus, and various Channa species (Shamsuddin 2013). Table 17.9 represents per hectare profitability of integrated rice-cum-fish culture in comparison to rice monoculture, and Table 17.10 reflects the positive and negative impacts of pisciculture in IFS.

Manure (kg/day) 29.5 32.5 1.75 4 1.75 0.03

Urine (L/day) 14.1 12.2 0.70 1.5 0.87 –

Source: Ponnusamy and Devi (2017)

Animal Cow Buffalo Goat Piggery Sheep Poultry

Manure (kg/year) 10,767 11,862 638 1460 638 11.0

Urine production per year 5146 4453 255 547 317 –

Manure rate (Rs/kg) 0.60 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.50 1.50

Manure rate (Rs/year) 6460 5100 319 627 319 16

Urine rate/kg 0.60 0.43 0.50 0.43 0.50 –

Urine rate (Rs/year) 3087 1914 127 235 158 –

Table 17.8 Estimation of economic contribution of manure and urine of animals in IFS in Tiruvallur and Thanjavur of Tamil Nadu Rate of manure (Rs/ton) 600 450 500 450 500 1500

17.10 Paddy cum Fish Culture 139

140

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Table 17.9 Per hectare profitability of integrated rice-cum-fish culture and rice monoculture in Bangladesh

Item Gross return (Tk/ha) Gross cost (Tk/ha) Net return (Tk/ha) BCR (Undiscounted)

Considering home supplied laborers were paid Rice-cum-fish Rice culture monoculture 83,235.00 50,989.50

Considering home supplied laborers were not paid Rice-cum-fish Rice culture monoculture 83,235.00 50,989.50

67,890.00

45,600.00

59,071.50

38,439.00

15,345.00

5389.50

24,163.50

12,550.50

1.23

1.12

1.41

1.33

Source: Rahman et al. (2012) Note: Tk is the currency of Bangladesh Table 17.10 Integration of pisciculture in crop/livestock system Capital assets Natural

Possible impacts Positive Reduced pressure on biodiversity

Social

Increased fish and other aquatic products available for enhancing social relationships Skills and knowledge developed that can be used to further diversify livelihood strategies. Improved nutrition enhances physical and mental health Improved potential for diversification of farming systems and livelihoods, reduced risk to both flood and drought Improved overall income and regularity of income, creditworthiness, and savings

Human

Physical

Financial

Negative Increased pressure on water and nutrients Theft, increased conflicts over water use Competition with more vital activities for time and attention. Extra labor burden Reduced area available for staple crops High investment cost

Source: Sarangi et al. (2016)

17.11 Duckery Unit Ducks are incorporated into the pisciculture system within the pond. A duck shed or platform is constructed on or inside the pond for the ducks to rest during the night and other times. During the day, the ducks utilize the pond, and their droppings act as feed for the fishes. The movement of ducks in the pond water contributes to aeration, promoting the growth of fishes. Fish ponds provide ducks with a healthy environment, virtually free from diseases. Ducks help control the population of juvenile frogs, tadpoles, and dragonfly larvae, which are natural predators of fish fry and fingerlings. Moreover, these natural food organisms have high protein content,

17.14

Sericulture

141

reducing the need for protein in duck feeds. It is recommended to choose a proven breed like Khaki Campbell for duck raising in fish ponds. This integrated duckery unit can generate additional income for the farming family. The resource flow of the poultry-fed aquaculture system is depicted in Table 17.11.

17.12 Mushroom Cultivation In coastal areas, the abundant availability of paddy straw presents an opportunity for mushroom cultivation. Constructing a low-cost house for growing paddy straw mushrooms can generate additional income for the farm family. The straw utilized in this process can later be repurposed as compost for field crops and vegetables, further benefiting the farming system. Table 17.12 demonstrates the economic advantages of the rice-based farming system for marginal farmers.

17.13 Bee Keeping Bee-keeping is primarily practiced by orchard owners and landless families residing near orchards. Apart from producing honey and wax, beekeeping plays a vital role in pollinating various crops. It has been observed that for every rupee worth of honey and wax produced, honeybees contribute ten times their value as pollinators. To ensure year-round availability of flowers and maximize profits, shifting bee colonies from one location to another is necessary. However, this practice may not be feasible for small-scale farmers. To diversify the existing farming system and make beekeeping accessible to small farmers, starting a small beekeeping unit can provide additional income for them.

17.14 Sericulture This is defined as the practice of combining mulberry cultivation, silkworm rearing, and silk reeling. India occupies the second position among silk-producing countries in the world, next to China. Sericulture is labor intensive in all its phases, including off-farm activities such as twisting, dyeing, weaving, and printing. It has considerable socio-economic importance in India largely due to its suitability for small and marginal farm holdings by generating employment and requiring low investment (Behera and Sharma 2008). The relative efficiency of different enterprises of integrated farming systems is explained in Table 17.13.

0.03

0.15

0.23

0.20

9.7

3.0

1.24

0.4

14.3

1.07

0.4

0.3

10.0

6.71

0.01

0.03

0.10

0.08

0.3

0.46

0.07

P

N – – – 0.47

– 0.17 0.17

Others Dry matter – – – –

– – –

–

–

–

0.23

–

–

–

P

5 m2 tanks, 3 months; ducks fed 75% ad lib (AFE 1992) 200 m2 pond, 4 months (AASP 1996), rice bran 200 m2 pond, 4 months (AASP 1996) paddy rice

220 m2 pond, 5 months (Knud-Hansen et al. 1991)

400 m2 pond, 3 months (Hopkins and Cruz 1982) 1000 m2 pond, 5 months (Green et al. 1994)

200 m2 pond, 6 months (Edwards et al. 1986)

System

Tilapia

Tilapia

Tilapia

Tilapia

Tilapia, common crap Tilapia

Tilapia

Fish

Output

0.53

1.21

1.38

2.75

1.33

2.87

2.82

g/fish/m2/ day

17

Source: Little and Satapornavit (1995)

System Feedlot Egg laying ducks Broiler chickens Layer chickens Layer chickens Scavenging Muscovy ducks Egg laying ducks Egg laying ducks

Input (g/m2/day) Poultry waste Dry matter N

Table 17.11 Input and output of poultry-fed aquaculture

142 Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

17.14

Sericulture

143

Table 17.12 Economics of a rice-based farming system for a marginal farmer (0.4 ha) in a flood flood-prone coastal ecosystem Component Crop Duckery Fishery Mushroom Total Conventional cropping

Expenditure (000′ Rs) 33 6 4.5 15 58.5 21

Gross returns (000′ Rs) 60 9 10.5 18 98.5 39

Net return (000′ Rs) 27 3 6 3 40 18

Source: Sarangi et al. (2016) Table 17.13 Relative efficiency of various enterprises in IFS

Farm enterprises Field crops (cereals/pulses/ oilseeds/green fodders, etc.) Horticulture Guava Lemon Total Agroforestry

Total Dairy Aquaculture (freshwater fish production) Boundary plantation

Total Kitchen gardening (cabbage, cauliflower, spinach, broccoli, carrot, radish, etc.) Mushroom IFS model-total allocated area Source: Walia et al. (2016)

Size of the unit (area/ no.) 6400 m2

Gross returns (Rs.) 164,555

Cost of production (Rs.) 61,369

Net returns (Rs.) 103,186

1900 m2

53,360 2420 3840 59,620 Turmeric— 3100 Wheat— 1398 4498 465,713 20,125

16,848

16,848 2400

36,512 2420 3840 42,772 2098

2400 266,611 2575

2098 199,102 17,550

0.75 6.81

–

1600

–

200 m2

Galgal— 1200 Karonda— 400 1600 9300

– 1300

1600 8000

6.15

10,000 m2

8000 733,411

2000 353,103

6000 380,308

3.00 1.08

300 m2

200 m2 1000 m2 –

B:C ratio 1.68 2.54

0.87

144

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

17.15 Success Stories in Integrated Farming System Jayanthi et al. (2003) and Ravishankar et al. (2007) presented their findings on net returns obtained from all the components, amounting to Rs. 22,887, which reflected a significant 32.3% increase compared to the conventional rice–rice system. In a study by Ramrao et al. (2005), they developed a crop–livestock mixed farming model for 1.5 acre small-scale holders, generating 571 person-days of employment and achieving a net income of Rs. 58,456 per year, in contrast to crop farming alone, which generated 385 person-days of employment and yield net returns of only Rs. 18,300 per year. Similarly, Ramrao et al. (2006) observed that mixed farming with 2 bullocks, 1 cow, 1 buffalo, 10 goats, 10 poultry, and 10 ducks resulted in net return of Rs. 33,076, while arable farming yield only Rs. 7843. Veerabhadraiah (2007) noticed that crop–livestock integrated farmers earned higher returns, with a farmer having 2.5 acres of irrigated land and raising HF and buffaloes earning Rs. 1,04,321, and another farmer with 3.5 acres of irrigated land and 2 cows and 4 sheep earning Rs. 78,867. Additionally, a farmer with one acre of irrigated land and 4 HF cows earned Rs. 1,32,000. Furthermore, Ramasamy et al. (2008) reported that the income from integrated crop + livestock + goat + poultry amounted to Rs. 98,270, which was significantly higher than Rs. 28,600 obtained in the traditional farming system. Similarly, the income from IFS with crop + livestock + goat + poultry was Rs. 99,209, surpassing the conventional farming system. According to Nageswaran et al. (2009), the annual net revenue per acre was higher for IFS compared to CFS, with average net annual revenues per acre of Rs. 11,662.57 and Rs. 4553.31, respectively. IFS also proved to be more labor-intensive, providing 185.78 persondays of employment per acre, while CFS offered 89.3 persons. Ray (2009) reported that IFS with cropping, fisheries, poultry, and mushroom yield net additional income of Rs. 12,500/ha/year and created an additional employment of 550 person-days/ year compared to the conventional cropping system. Channabasavanna et al. (2009) observed higher benefit-cost ratio of 1.97 in IFS compared to the conventional system, with a ratio of 1.64. Among the various components in Palladam district, goat recorded the highest benefit–cost ratio (2.75), followed by fish (2.23) and vegetables (2.00), while poultry showed the lowest ratio (1.13) due to higher maintenance costs. Moreover, Mohanty et al. (2010a, b) reported the success of tribal integrated farmer in Orissa who experienced enhanced productivity, profitability, and sustainability after adopting IFS, earning seven times higher Net Monetary Return (NMR) compared to the traditional farming method. Tripathi et al. (2010) conducted a study on the integration of seven different enterprises, including crop, fish, goat, vermicompost, fruit production, spice production, and agroforestry. They reported an annual net return of Rs. 2,30,329 with benefit–cost ratio (BCR) of 1.07:1. The fish production contributed the most to the net returns (68.53%), followed by vermicomposting (9.90%), spices (8.46%), and animal production (7.40%). Among the enterprises, spice production had highest BCR (1.83:1), followed by fishery (2.25:1) and vermicomposting (1.45:1). Radhamani et al. (2003) reviewed several studies on the financial viability of IFS

17.15

Success Stories in Integrated Farming System

145

Table 17.14 Productivity and economic analysis of integrated farming system in Tamil Nadu Farming systems Cropping alone Cropping + fish + poultry Cropping + fish + pigeon Cropping + fish + goat

Riceequivalent yield (t/ha) 13.0

Net returns (Rs/ha) 37,153

B:C ratio 2.43

Per day return (Rs) 178

Employment generation (persondays) 369

29.6

97,731

3.02

400

515

29.2

98,778

3.06

400

515

37.7

1,31,118

3.36

511

576

Source: Manjunatha et al. (2014) Table 17.15 Economics of a Rice–Azolla–fish integrated farming system in Tamil Nadu System Rice Rice + fish Rice + Azolla + fish

Gross income Crop Fish 43,291 – 39,447 11,422 40,752 13,649

Total 43,291 50,869 54,401

Total expenditure (Rs) Net income (Rs) 20,320 22,971 22,300 28,569 22,613 31,788

Source: Manjunatha et al. (2014)

and concluded that they had a positive impact on the economic viability. Bosma et al. (2005) and Phong et al. (2008) identified that farmers who transformed their rice monoculture to rice-based farming systems, incorporating rice, upland crops, livestock, and aquaculture on the same farm, experienced improved farm income and environmental benefits. Tipraqsa et al. (2007) reported the advantages of IFS, including increased productivity, capital saving, family labor employment, and income generation. Prein (2002) and Nhan et al. (2007) found that the integration of 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1 buffalo and 10 goats, along with other subsidiaries like poultry and ducks, was the most beneficial system for supplementing the income of tribal people and improving their socioeconomic status. Biswas (2010) highlighted that IFS revolves around better utilization of time, money, resources, and family labor, providing scope for gainful employment throughout the year and ensuring good income and a higher standard of living even from small holdings. Jagadeeshwara et al. (2011) reported that the productivity of IFS was 26.3% higher than the conventional system, with crop yield contributing the most (46.32%), followed by horticulture (16.77%), dairy (42.26%), and piggery (8.07%) in southern Karnataka state. Poorani et al. (2011) found that IFS increased productivity, profitability, and employment generation by 48%, 40%, and 45%, respectively, compared to the existing conventional farming system in the Palladam district of the Western Zone of Tamil Nadu. Manjunatha et al. (2014) studied the economic returns from integrated farming systems under the wetlands of Tamil Nadu, and the results are presented in Tables 17.14 and 17.15.

146

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Table 17.16 Economic viability of the IFS model in the western plains of Uttar Pradesh Enterprises Crops including fodders Dairy + vermicompost Horticulture Fishery Mushroom Apiary Total

Size of unit 6800 m2. Two milch animals and young ones 2200 m2. 1000 m2. 500 bags * 4 harvests/ year 20 bee boxes 10,000 m2.

Gross returns (Rs.) 1,65,345

Cost of production (Rs.) 63,220

Net returns (Rs.) 1,02,125

1,89,360

1,08,310

81,050

94,000 20,000 60,000

54,472 5293 20,000

39,528 14,707 40,000

42,000 5,70,705

16,000 2,67,295

26,000 3,03,410

Source: Singh et al. (2011)

Singh et al. (2011) conducted a study on integrated farming systems during 2004–2010 in the western plains of Uttar Pradesh, and the results of the study revealed that the suggested IFS model not only provides sufficient feed and fodder for the household but also, after meeting production cost, creates an additional saving of Rs.75,060/ha/year to assist the family in other liabilities including health and education. Table 17.16 shows the expenditure involved in IFS development and outputs in term of gross and net returns. A brief review of the success stories of the integrated farming system is presented in Table 17.17.

17.16 Constraints in the IFS Model Banerjee et al. (1990) highlighted that the primary constraint in Integrated Farming Systems (IFSs) is the limited amount of capital available. Ngambeki et al. (1992) further revealed that major production constraints in IFS include the lack of animal feed throughout the year and the unavailability of labor during critical periods. Lightfoot (1997) suggested that the adoption of integrated farming systems in the Philippines and Ghana faced several challenges, such as long transition periods during implementation, labor shortages (especially in small family setups), lack of secure land rights, and disincentives due to government subsidies for fertilizers and herbicides. Thamrongwarangkul (2001) reported that resource-poor farmers are unable to invest substantial initial capital due to the need for immediate economic returns to meet essential needs like food, education, healthcare, and loan repayment. Tipraqsa et al. (2007) emphasized that high start-up costs can prevent farmers from switching to integrated farming and reaping the benefits of resource integration. Nageswaran et al. (2009) identified various constraints, including difficulties in procuring improved livestock breeds, timely availability of fish seed and feed, lack of low-cost energy-efficient pumping machines, limited information on government schemes, and inadequate credit support from financial institutions. Kadam et al.

17.16

Constraints in the IFS Model

147

Table 17.17 Success stories of the integrated farming system

Enterprise Cropping + livestock + vermicompost + sheep + goat Cropping + cattle + goat+ poultry + pig + fishery + duckery + Mushroom + vermicompost Crop + livestock + goat + poultry + horticultural plants + vegetables Cropping + livestock + Vermicompost + boundary plantation Crop + livestock + vegetables Crop + dairy + poultry + mushroom Crop + livestock + vermicompost + Azolla + kitchen garden Crop + livestock + Value addition + horticulture Crop + livestock + Horticulture + poultry Crop + livestock + poultry + vegetables Crop + livestock + value addition + Poultry + fishery + vegetables

Location Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

Net returns (Rs/yr) 45,400

Percentageage increase over preceding system/ yield advantage 19 times

References Rao et al. (2015)

13,475 per month

2 times

Chandrakar et al. (2015)

Kawardha, Chhattisgarh

105,000

31.25%

Chandrakar et al. (2015)

Mehsana, Gujarat

107,650

86.00%

Patel et al. (2015)

Mehsana, Gujarat Samba, Jammu & Kashmir Kolar, Karnataka

310,390

114.00%

74,000

147.00%

Patel et al. (2015) Gupta et al. (2015)

126,021

54.88

Vishwanath et al. (2015)

155,460

26.00

80,680

76.60

25,790

40.92

76,352

111.34

Desai et al. (2015) Patra et al. (2015) Kathirvelan et al. (2015) Singh et al. (2015)

Pune, Maharashtra Angul, Odisha Sivagangai, Tamil Nadu Nainital, Uttarakhand

(2010) observed that major constraints in IFS were the high cost of concentrate feed, unavailability of green fodder, lack of market facilities, absence of cooperative societies, limited scientific knowledge on animal rearing, and unavailability of improved breeds in local markets. Moreover, 20%, 6%, and 4% of respondents expressed the lack of scientific knowledge on animal rearing, unavailability of improved breeds in local markets, and insufficient financial support, respectively, as significant constraints in IFS. Poorani et al. (2011) reported that integrated farmers in the Palladam district of Western Zone, Tamil Nadu, cited insufficient fodder quantity during off-seasons as a significant constraint in implementing IFS.

148

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

17.17 Women Empowerment Through IFS Women play a crucial role in managing households, particularly in hilly and tribal areas, where their contribution to agricultural operations is significant. By employing innovative practices and effectively utilizing family labor and household resources, there is a considerable opportunity to enhance household profitability. Empowering women through tailored training programs and essential support based on their specific needs can facilitate this process. As the educational status of women continues to improve in the future, their role in agriculture and household resource management will become increasingly vital. Consequently, there is an expected trend toward the feminization of agriculture in the long term. However, as men migrate to rural nonfarm sectors, creating farming system models centered around women will pose a real challenge.

References AASP, Agricultural and Aquatic Systems Program (1996) Final technical report-IDRC: the development of feeding systems for fish and an integrated duck-fish system (30 Dec 1991–31 April 1996). Agricultural and Aquatic Systems Program, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology AFE, Agricultural and Food Engineering (1992) Final report-Muscovy duck project: the development of economic feeding systems for Muscovy ducks (Cairhina moschata) in duck/fish integration in Thailand (15 May 1988–31 Dec 1991). Agricultural and Food Engineering, Asian Institute of Technology Agbonlabor MU, Aromolaran AB, Aiboni VI (2003) Sustainable soil management practices in small farms of Southern Nigeria: a poultry-food crop integrated farming approach. J Sustain Agric 22:51–62 Ansa EJ, Jiya J (2002) Effect of pig Manure on the growth of Oreochromis niloticus under integrated Fish cum-pig faming system. J Aquat Sci 17(2):85–87 Ashby JA (2001) Integrating research on food and the environment: an exit strategy from the rational fool syndrome in agricultural science. Ecol Soc 5. 20. [online] URL: http://www. consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art20/ Bahire VV, Kadam RP, Sidam VN (2010) Sustainable integrated farming is the need of the Indian farmer. In: 22nd national seminar on “Role of Extension in Integrated Farming Systems for sustainable rural livelihood”, Maharashtra, 9–10 Dec, p 65 Balusamy M, Shanmugham PM, Baskaran R (2003) Mixed farming an ideal farming. Intensive Agric. 41(11–12):20–25 Banerjee RK, Roy P, Singit CS, Dutta BR (1979) Poultry dropping- its manurial potentiality in aquaculture. J Inland Fish Soc India 2(1):94–108 Banerjee BN, Sarker SC, Maity AK (1990) Impact of resource optimization on cropping pattern and income on crop-dairy mixed farm. Indian J Dairy Sci 43:295–301 Behera UK, Sharma AR (2008) Farming systems. In: Modern concepts of agriculture. National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR), CSIR, New Delhi Behra UK, Dass A, Rautaray SK, Choudhary AK, Rana DS (2013) Integrated farming system research in India: an overview. In: Behera UK, Choudhary AK, Dass A, Vyas AK (eds) Integrated Farming Systems for livelihood security of small and marginal farmers. Divison of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi Bhalerao RA, Charge KV, Patil VG (2010) Profile of the farmers practicing the livestock based farming system: In: 22nd national seminar on “Role of Extension in Integrated Farming Systems for sustainable rural livelihood”, Maharashtra, 9–10 Dec, p 29

References

149

Biggs, Stephen D (1995) Farming system research and rural poverty: relationship between context and content. Agric Syst 47:161–174 Biswas BC (2009) IFS to improve input use efficiency, employment and income in Eastern India. In: Winter School on multi criteria decision making and optimization methodology for sustainable farming systems. Division of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, pp 60–76 Biswas BC (2010) Farming system approach to improve IUE, Employment and Income in Eastern India. Fertil Market News 41(5):6–12 Bosma RH, Udo HMJ, Verreth JAJ, Visser LE, Nam CQ (2005) Agriculture diversification in the mekong delta: farmers’ motives and contributions to livelihoods. Asian J Agric Dev 2(1&2): 49–66 CARDI (2010) A mannual on Integrated Farming System. Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute, (Ministry of Economic Development, Belize 2010), pp 1–58 Channabasavanna AS, Biradar DP, Prabhudev KN, Hegde M (2009) Development of protable integrated farming system model for small and medium farmers of Tungabhadra project area of Karnataka. Karnataka J Agric Sci 22(1):25–27 Chawla NK, Kurup MPG, Sharma VP (2004) Animal Husbandry. State of Indian farmer. A millennium study, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi and Academic Foundation, New Delhi Chnnabasavanna AS, Biradar DP (2007) Relative performance of different rice-fish-poultry integrated farming system models with respect to system productivity and economics. Karnataka J Agric Sci 20(4):706–709 Csavas I (1992) Regional review on livestock-fish production systems in Asia. In: Mukherjee TK, Moi PS, Panandam JM, Yang YS (eds) Proceedings of the FAO/IPT workshop on integrated livestock-fish production systems, 16–20 Dec 1991. Institute of Advance Studies, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur Dadabhau AS, Kisan WS (2013) Sustainable rural livelihood security through integrated farming systems-a review. Agric Rev 34(3):207–215 Dawood-Sheik A, Santhi P, Ponnuswamy K, Muthukrishnan P (1996) Integrated farming system for lowlands of Cauvery delta zone. Farming Syst 13(3–4):11–14 De Jong R, Ariaratne MG (1994) Performance of dairy farming on abandoned marginal tea lands in the mid country Sri Lanka. In: de Jong R (ed) Dairy stock development and milk production with smallholders. Scribd, Wageningen, pp 148–192 Devasenapathy P, Mytswamy V, Christopher Louduraj A, Rabindran R (1995) Integrated farming systems for sustained productivity. Madras Agric J 82:306–307 Devendra C (1983) Small farm systems combining crops and animals. Proc V World Conf Anim Prod 1:173–191 Dugan P, Dey MM, Sugunan VV (2006) Fisheries and water productivity in tropical river basins: enhancing food security and livelihoods by managing water for fish. Agric Water Manag 80: 262–275 Dwivedi RP, Tewari RK, Kareemulla K, Chaturvedi OP, Rai P (2007) Agri-horticultural system for household livelihood - a case study. Indian Res J Ext Educ 7(1):22–26 Edwards P (1997) Sustainable food production through aquaculture. Aquaculture Asia, vol 2. School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Pathumthani Edwards P (2000) Aquaculture, poverty impacts and livelihoods. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives 56. Overseas Development Institute, London Edwards P, Kaewpaitoon K, McCoy EW, Chantachaeng C (1986) Pilot small-scale crop/livestock/ fish integrated farm. AIT Research Report, 184. AIT, Bangkok, p 131 Edwards P, Pullin RSV, Gartner JA (1988) Research and education for the development of crop livestock-fish farming systems in the tropics (Studies and Reviews N° 16). International Centre for Land Use and Resource Management, Manila

150

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Falayi BA (1998) Inclusion to poultry manure in a complete ratio for Tilapia O. niloticus fingerlings. Project submitted to the dept. of fishers and wild life fed unit tech Akure. In partial fulfillment OF P.GD Awards in Wild Life and Fisheries, pp 14–17 FAO (1977) Recycling of organic wastes in agriculture. FAO Soil Bull. 40 - Rome FAO (1979) Guidelines for integrated control of maize pests, 1979 (C E) FAO (2003) Egg marketing: a guide for the production and sale of eggs. FAO Agricultural Service Bulletin 150, pp 20–34 Fashakin EA, Falayi BA, Eyo AA (2002) Inclusion of poultry manure in a complete feed for Tilapia O. niloticus fingerlings. J Fish Technol 2:51–56 Felipe M, Ana I, Carlos M (2007) Risk management, vulnerability and risk perception of organic farmers in Spain. The 101st EAAE seminar, management of climate risks in agriculture, Berlin, Germany. Department of Agricultural Economy of Coag Spanish Farmers Organisation, [email protected] Fraser EDG, Mabee W, Figge F (2005) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of food systems to future shocks. Futures 37:465–479 Gabriel UU, Akinrotimi OA, Bekibele DO, Anyanwu PE, Onunkwo DN (2007) Economic benefit and ecological efficiency of integrated fish farming in Nigeria. Sci Res Essay 2(8):302–308 Ganesan G, Chinnasamy KN, Bala Subramanian A, Manickasundram P (1990) Studies on rice based farming system with duck cum fish culture in deltaic region of Thanjavur district, Tamilnadu. Farming Syst Newslett 1(2):14 Giap DH, Yi Y, Lin CK (2005) Effects of different fertilization and feeding regimes on the production of integrated farming of rice and prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Aquac Res 36:292–299 Gill MS, Singh JP, Gangwar KS (2009) Integrated farming system and agriculture sustainability. Indian J Agron 54(2):128–139 Green BW, Teichert-Coddington DR, Hanson TR (1994) Development of semi-intensive aquaculture technologies in Honduras. International Center for Aquaculture and Aquatic Environments Research and development Series Number 39, 48, Auburn University, Alabama Gupta V, Rai PK, Risam KS (2012) Integrated crop-livestock farming systems: a strategy for resource conservation and environmental sustainability. Indian Res J Ext Educ Special Issue 2: 49–54 Hopkins KD, Cruz EM (1982) The ICLARM-CLSU, integrated animal-fish farming project: final report. ICLARM Technical Reports 5. Freshwater Aquaculture Centre-central Luzon State University and International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Nueva Ecija, Philippines IAN (1998) The Iowa Association of Naturalists (IAN): The Iowa Environmental Issues Series. REAP Conservation Education Board, Iowa Issac SR, George AJ, George L (2015) Resource integration, nutrient recycling and economics of an integrated farming system in Southern Kerala. Int Res J Agric Econ Stat 6(1):1–8 Jagadeeshwara K, Nagaraju Y, Bhagyavathi, Nagaraju K (2011) Livelihood improvement of vulnerable farmers through Integrated Farming Systems of Southern Karnataka, pp 145–146 Jayanthi C (2006) Integrated farming system: a path to sustainable agriculture, 2nd edn. Department of Agronomy, Directorate of Soil and Crop management studies, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, p 1 Jayanthi C, Rangasamy A, Chinnusamy C (2000) Water budgeting for components in lowland integrated farming systems. Agric J 87:411–416 Jayanthi C, Rangasamy A, Mythili S, Balusamy M, Chinnusamy C, Sankaran N (2001) Sustainable productivity and profitability to integrated farming systems in low land farms. In: Singh AK, Gangwar B, Pankaj, Pandey PS (eds) Extended summaries, pp 79–81. National Symposium on Farming System Research on New Millennium, PDCSR, Modipuram Jayanthi C, Baluswamy M, Chinnusamy C, Mythily S (2003) Integrated nutrient supply system of linked components in lowland integrated farming system. Indian J Agron 48:241–246

References

151

Jayanthi C, Vennila C, Nalini K, Chandrasekaran B (2009) Sustainable integrated management of crop with allied enterprises. Ensuring livelihood security of small and marginal farmers. Sustainable agriculture 21–27 Jirli B, Bhati DS, De D (2008) Diversifying cropping system with rapeseed mustard – an approach to sustain livelihood. In: Proceedings of international seminar on strategies for Improving Livelihood Security of Rural Poor, Goa, India, pp 201–202 Jitsanguan T (2001) Sustainable agriculture systems for small scale farmers in Thailand: implications for the environment. http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/509/. Accessed 1 Feb 2012 Kadam SS, Hatey AA, Nikam TR, Landge SP, Palampalley HY (2010) Constraints of IFS in Kankan region of Maharashtra - a case study. In: 22nd national seminar on “Role of Extension in Integrated Farming Systems for sustainable rural livelihood”, Maharashtra, 9–10 Dec, p 101 Kawata Y (2011) Pollution and environmental issues in agriculture and the livestock industry: a brief review of the Japanese case. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/30277/ Khanda CM (2009) Integrated Farming System: an approach for improving livelihood of Small and Marginal farmers. In: Invited papers and abstracts of the national seminar on managing rural livelihood in India: challenges and opportunities. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, pp 140–145 Knud-Hansen CF, Batterson TR, McNabb CD, Kitjar J (1991) Yield of Nile Tilapia (Orechromis niloticus) in fish ponds in Thailand using chicken manure supplemented with nitrogen and phosphorus. In: Egna HS, Bowman J, McNamara M (eds) Eighth annual administrative report (1 Sept 1989 to 31 Aug 1990). Pond dynamics/aquaculture CRSP, Oregon, USA, pp 54–62 Kumar A, Arif M and Kadam S.S. (2017) Integrated farming system-a model land use plan for sustainable development. Rashtriya Krishi 12 (1): 45–47 Kumar S, Jain DK (2005) Are linkages between crops and livestock important for the sustainability of the farming system. Asian Econ Rev 47(1):90–101 Kumar H, Singh JN, Kadian VS, Singh KP, Saxena KK, Kumar H (1994) Comparative productivity and economics of dairy enterprises under mixed farming systems. Farming Syst 10:36–44 Lal R, Miller FP (1990) Sustainable farming for tropics. In: Singh RP (ed) Sustainable agriculture: issues and prospective, vol 1. Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, pp 69–89 Lightfoot C (1997) Promoting low external inputs agriculture (LEIA) from LEIA to intensive integrated farming systems. In: Dolberg F, Petersen PH (eds) Maximizing the influence of the user: alternatives to the training and visit system. Proceedings of a workshop, Tune Landboskole, Denmark, 7–11 April 1997 Lightfoot C, Minnick DR (1991) Farmer-first qualitative methods: farmers diagrams for improving methods of experimental design in integrated farming systems. J Farming Syst Res Ext 2:11–34 Little DC, Edwards P (1999) Alternative strategies for livestock-fish integration with emphasis on Asia. Ambio 28:118–124 Little D, Satapornavit K (1995) Poultry and fish production-a framework for their integration in Asia. Livestock feed resources within integrated farming systems, pp 425–453 Liyanage de Silva M, Jayasundara HPS, Fernando DNS, Fernando MIN, Liyanage de Silva M (1993) Integration of legume based pasture and cattle into coconut farming systems in Sri Lanka. J Asian Farming Syst Assoc 1:579–588 Mahadik RP, Bhairamkar MS, Desai AN (2010) Profile of the farmers practicising the backyard poultry farming system. In: 22nd national seminar on “Role of Extension in Integrated Farming Systems for sustainable rural livelihood”, Maharastra, 9–10 Dec, pp 30–31 Mangala B (2008) Impact of agricultural interventions on socio-economic status of Bharatiya Agroindustries Foundation (BAIF) beneficiary farmers. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka Manivannan A, Mathialagan P, Narmatha N (2011) Goat based farming system in Tamilnadu, p 163 Manjunath BL, Itnal CJ (2003) Farming system options for small and marginal holdings in different topographies of Goa. Indian J Agron 48(1):4–8 Manjunatha SB, Shivmurthy D, Satyareddi SA, Nagaraj MV, Basavesha KN (2014) Integrated farming system – a holistic approach: a review. Res Rev 3(4):30–38

152

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Matsumoto H, Matsuyama S (eds) (1995) Livestock hygiene. Japan Agricultural Development and Extension Association, Japan Meshram SJ, Sawardekar SV, Dhane SS, Mahale DM (2003) Feasibility of rice-cum-fish culture in coastal saline land of Maharashtra. Indian Soc Coastal Agric Res 21(1):75–78 Mohanty D, Patnaik SC, Jeevan Das P, Parida NK, Nedunchezhiyan M (2010a) Sustainable livelihood: a success story of a tribal farmer. Orissa Review, Sept, p 41 Mohanty D, Patnaik SC, Jeevan Das P, Parida NK, Nedunchezhiyan M (2010b) Sustainable livelihood: a success story of a tribal farmer. Orissa Review, Sept, pp 41–43 Moriya K, Kitagawa M (2007) Old and new near-future style agricultural production. In: Imai H (ed) New challenges in livestock production. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto, pp 217–244 Mullins G (2009) Phosphorus, agriculture and the environment. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Petersburg Murugan G, Kathiresan RM (2005) Integrated rice farming system. Indian Farming 55(5):4–6 Mustow SE (2002) The effects of shading on phytoplankton photosynthesis in rice-fish fields in Bangladesh. Agric Ecosyst Environ 90:89–96 Nageswaran M, Selvaganapathy E, Subbiah VR, Nair S (2009) Demonstration and replication of Integrated Farming Systems at Chidambaram. Report of M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), Chennai, pp 16–53 Ngambeki DS, Deuson RR, Preckel PV (1992) Integrating livestock into farming systems in northern Cameroon. Agric Syst 38:319–338 Nhan DK, Phong LT, Verdegem MJC, Duong LT, Bosma RH, Little DC (2007) Integrated freshwater aquaculture, crop and animal production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: determinants and the role of the pond. Agric Syst 94:445–458 Norman DW, Collinson M (1985) Farming systems research in theory and practice. In: Remenyi JV (ed) Agricultural systems research for developing countries. Proceedings of an international workshop held at Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Richmond, New South Wales, Australia, 12–15 May 1985. ACIAR Proceedings 11. ACIAR (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research), Canberra, pp 16–30 Okigbo BN (1995) Major farming systems of the lowland savanna of SSA and the potential for improvement. In: Proceedings of the IITA/FAO Workshop, Ibadan, Nigeria Otubusin SO (1986) A proposed integrated livestock-rice-poultry-cum-fish culture in enclosure system. In: FISON conference proceedings, 1986, pp 319–326 Panke SK, Kadam RP, Nakhate CS (2010) Integrated Farming System for sustainable rural livelihood security. In: 22nd national seminar on “Role of Extension in Integrated Farming Systems for sustainable rural livelihood”, Maharashtra, 9–10 Dec, pp 33–35 Phong LT, Tri LQ, Udo HMJ, Nhan DK, van Mensvoort MEF, van der Zijpp AJ, Bosma RH (2008) Integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in the Mekong delta, Vietnam: an analysis of recent trends. Asian J Agric Dev 4:51–66 Ponnusamy K (2006) Multidimensional analysis of integrated farming system in the coastal agroeco system of Tamil Nadu. Ph.D. Thesis. NDRI (Deemed University), Karnal, Haryana Ponnusamy K, Devi MK (2017) Impact of integrated farming system approach on doubling farmers’ income. Agric Econ Res Rev 30:233–240 Ponnusamy K, Gupta J (2009) Livelihood contribution, prospects and problems of aquaculture in integrated farming systems. Indian J Fish 56(4):317–322 Poorani A, Jayanthi C, Vennila C (2011) Farmer participatory research on Integrated Farming Systems. In: National seminar on “Innovations in farming systems research and extension for inclusive development”, 24–25 Nov. Madras Veterinary College, Chennai, p 153 Prasad SC, Lakra V, Prasad C (2011) Integrated Farming Systems for enhancing sustainable rural livelihood security in Sahibganj and Pakur Districts of Jharkhand. In: International conference on innovative approaches for agriculture knowledge management global extension experiences, 9–12 Nov, National Agricultural Science Complex, New Delhi Pratt PF (1975) Utilization of Animal manure and sewage Sludges in food and fiber production. Never form the council on Agric. Sci Technol 3(3):23–25

References

153

Prein M (2002) Integration of aquaculture into crop-animal systems in Asia. Agric Syst 71:127–146 Prein M, Ahmed M (2000) Integration of aquaculture into smallholder farming systems for improved food security and household nutrition. Food Nutr Bull 21:466–471 Radhamani S (2001) Sustainable integrated farming system for dryland Vertisol of Western Zone of Tamil Nadu. Ph.D. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore Radhamani S, Balasubramanian A, Ramamoorthy K, Geethalakshmi V (2003) Sustainable integrated farming systems for dry lands: a review. Agric Rev 24:204–210 Rahman MA, Haque S, Sarma PK (2012) Socioeconomic impact of rice-cum-fish culture in a selected areas of Bangladesh. J. Bangladesh Agric Univ 10(1):119–123 Ramasamy C, Natarajan S, Jayanthi C, Kumar DS (2008) Intensive Integrated Farming System to boost income of farmers. Paper presented in the 32nd IAUN VC’s Annual convention held at RAU, Ranchi Ramrao WY, Tiwari SP, Singh P (2005) Crop-livestock integrated farming system for augmenting socio economic status of smallholder tribal of Chhattisgarh in central India. Livestock Research Rural Development 17. Article # 90. Accessed 17 May 2006 Ramrao WY, Tiwari SP, Singh P (2006) Crop-livestock integrated farming system for the Marginal farmers in rain fed regions of Chhattisgarh in Central India. Livest Res Rural Dev 18(7) Rangasamy A, Venkitasamy R, Jayanthi C, Purushothaman S, Palaniappan SP (1995) Rice based farming system: a viable approach. Indian Farming 46(4):27–29 Rangaswamy A, Venkitaswamy R, Purushothaman, Palaniappan SP (1996) Rice-Poultry – Fish – Mushroom integrated farming systems for lowlands of Tamil Nadu. Indian J Agron 41(3): 344–348 Rautaray SK, Dash PC, Sinhababu DP (2005) Increasing farm income through rice fish based integrated farming system in rainfed lowlands of Assam. Indian J Agric Sci 75(2):79–82 Ravi K (2004) Integrated farming: boon for small and marginal farmers. Kurukshetra 47(9):22–23 Ravisankar N, Pramanik SC, Rai RB, Nawaz S, Tapan KR, Biswas, Bibi N (2007) Study on integrated farming system in hill upland areas of Bay Islands. Indian J Agron 52(1):7–10 Ray DP (2009) Livelihood Security in rice based farming systems. In: Invited papers and abstracts of the National Seminar on Managing Rural Livelihood in India: challenges and opportunities. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, pp 1–5 Sarangi SK, Maji B, Singh S, Sharma DK, Burman D, Mandal S, Ismail AM, Haefele SM (2014) Crop establishment and nutrient management for dry season (boro) rice in coastal areas. Agron J 106(6):2013–2023. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj14.0182 Sarangi SK, Maji B, Mahanta KK, Burman D, Mandal S, Mandal UK, Raut S, Lama TD, Sharma DK (2016) Integrated farming system: a holistic approach for farm income optimization and risk minimization in coastal region of India. J Indian Soc Coastal Agric Res 34(2):15–21 Schierre JB, Ibrahim MNM, Van Keulen H (2002) The role of livestock for sustainability in mixed farming: criteria and scenario studies under varying resources allocation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 90:139–153 Shamsuddin M (2013). http://www.scholar-park.com/index.php/fisheries/aquaculture/integratedaquaculture/paddy-cum-fish-culture Shanmugasundaram VS, Balusamy M (1993) Rice- fish- azolla-an integrated farming system in low lying wet lands. Farming Syst 9(3–4):105–107 Shanmugasundaram VS, Baluswamy M, Rangaswamy A (1995) Integrated farming system research in Tamil Nadu. J Farming Syst Res Dev 1(1 and 2):1–9 Shekinah DE, Sankaran N (2007) Productivity, profitability and employment generation in integrated farming systems for rainfed vertisols of western zone of Tamil Nadu. Indian J Agron 54(4):275–278 Shelke VB, Kulkarni SN, Waghmore DB, Chavan A (2001) Study on Integrated Farming System in Marathwada. Extended summaries: 1st national symposium on Farming System Research in New Millennium held at PDCSR, Modipuram, 15–17 Oct 2001, pp 99–100

154

17

Sustainable Rural Livelihood Security Through IFS

Singh G (2004) Farming systems options in sustainable management of national resources. In: Proceedings national symposium on Alternative Farming Systems held at PDCSR, Modipuram, 16–18 Sept 2004, pp 80–94 Singh RP, Ratan (2009) Farming system approach for growth in Indian Agriculture. In: Lead paper in National seminar on Enhancing efficiency of Extension for sustainable agriculture and livestock production, Dec 29–30. Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar Singh CB, Renkema JA, Dhaka JP, Singh K, Schiere JB (1993) Income and employment on small farmers. In: Proceeding an International workshop on feeding of ruminants on fibrous crop residues: aspects of treatment, feeding, nutrient evaluation, research and extension. Karnal, Haryana, 4–8 Feb 1991, pp 67–76 Singh K, Bohra JS, Singh TK, Singh JP, Singh Y, Singh CS (2007) Productivity and economics of integrated farming system in irrigated agro-ecosystem of eastern Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Agron 52(1):11–15 Singh JP, Gangwar B, Pandey DK, Kochewad SA (2011) Integrated Farming System model for small farm holders of Western Plain Zone of Uttar Pradesh. PDFSR Bulletin No. 05. Project Directorate for Farming Systems Research, Modipuram, Meerut, p 58 Singh R, Riar TS, Gill JS (2017) Integrated farming systems and socio-economic characteristics of Punjab Agricultural University Awardee Farmers. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol 16(3):1–5 Sultana P (2000) Household fish consumption and socio-economic impacts in Kapasia. Paper Presented at the Workshop on aquaculture extension: impacts and sustainability, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 11 May 2000. ICLARM, Penang, Malaysia and the Department of Fisheries, Dhaka, p 7 Thamizoli PR, Rengalakshmi K, Senthilkumar, Selvaraju T (2006) Agronomic rehabilitation and livelihood restoration of tsunami affected lands in Nagapattinam district of Tamil Nadu. M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation Chennai, p 31 Thamrongwarangkul A (2001) Annual report on sustainable community development for good livelihoods and environmental project. Khon Kaen University, Thailand Thilsted SH, Roos N (1999) Policy issues on fisheries in relation to food and nutrition security. In: Ahmed M, Delgado C, Sverdrup-Jensen S, Santos RAV (eds) Fisheries policy research in developing countries: issues, priorities and needs. ICLARM conference proceedings 60. ICLARM, Penang, pp 61–69 Thompson P, Sultana P, Nuruzzaman M, Firoz Khan AKM (1999) Fisheries extension evaluation project progress report March 1998 to mid 1999. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Penang Tipraqsa P (2006) Opportunities and constraints of integrated farming system in Northeast Thailand. A case study of the Huai Nong Ian catchment, Khon Kaen Province. Ecology Development Series No. 35. University of Bonn. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen Tipraqsa P, Craswell ET, Noble AT, Schmidi-vogt D (2007) Resource integration for multiple benefits multifunctionality of Integrated farming system in Northeast Thailand. Agric Syst 94: 694–703 Tiwari PN (1993) Integrated Farming Research for sustaining food production. J Nucl Agric Biol 20:1–13 Tiwari SP, Ravi R, Nandeha KL, Vardia HK, Sharma RB, Rajgopal S (1999) Augmentation of economic status of Bastar tribals through integrated (crop, livestock, poultry, duck, fish) farming system. Indian J Anim Sci 69(6):448–452 Tripathi SC, Rathi RC (2011) Livestock farming system module for hills. In: Souvenir. National symposium on technological interventions for sustainable agriculture, GBPUAT, Hill Campus, Ranichuri, 3–5 May, pp 103–104 Tripathi H, Tomar SS, Pandey R, Solanki VS, Singh R, Meena KL, Tomar M, Adhikari DS (2010) Economic feasibility of Integrated Farming System models with respect to productivity and economics. In: 22nd national seminar on “Role of Extension in Integrated Farming Systems for sustainable rural livelihood”, Maharashtra, 9–10 Dec, pp 42–43

References

155

Tuleum CD (1992) The utilization of heat treated poultry manure in chicks diets. Paper presented at the 17th annual conference of the N.S.A.P Abuja 23 RD – 27 TH March, 1992, p 8 Ugwumba COA, Okoh RN, Ike PC, Nnabuife ELC, Orji EC (2010) Integrated farming system and its effect on farm cash income in Awka south agricultural zone of Anambra state, Nigeria. Am-Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 8(1):1–6 Van Brakel ML, Morales EJ, Turingruang D, Little DC (2003) Livelihood improving functions of pond based integrated agriculture and aquaculture systems. MRC Fisheries Programme (FP). Institute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Scotland Veerabhadraiah (2007) Technological interventions and productivity of small farms. Unpublished research project report. UAS. Bangalore Venkatadri S, Swaroopa Rani K, Raghunadha Reddy G (2008) A study on improvement in rural livelihoods through dairy farming. Centre for Self Employment and Rural Enterprises. National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad Vision 2020 (2011) KVK. Assam Agricultural University, Darrang, Mangaldai, pp 159–160 Vision 2030 (2011) Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), Karnal, p 15 Walia SS, Aulakh CS, Gill RS, Dhawan V, Kaur J (2016) Intensive integrated farming system approach - a vaccination to cure agrarian crisis in Punjab. Indian J Econ Dev 12(1a):451–455

Farming System Approach and Its Role Toward Livelihood Security Under Different Farming Situations

18

Abstract

In the context of evolving agricultural challenges and the imperative to ensure livelihood security, the Farming System Approach (FSA) emerges as a dynamic and context-sensitive strategy. This chapter explores the pivotal role of FSA in promoting livelihood security across diverse farming situations, highlighting its adaptability and multifaceted benefits. The Farming System Approach recognizes agriculture as a complex and interdependent system, encompassing various interlinked components such as crops, livestock, agroforestry, and socio-economic factors. FSA emphasizes the need to analyze and optimize the interactions between these components to enhance productivity, sustainability, and resilience. Keywords

Livelihood security · Adaptability · Productivity · Sustainability · Resilience · Interlinked components

Agriculture is a basic source of subsistence of humanity in India, and it helps provide employment, livelihood, food, nutrient and ecological securities. Indian economy is mostly based on agriculture, with a contribution to GVA of 16.5 during 2019–20220 (Economy survey of India 2019). Because of the ill effects of green revolution technologies, the sustainability of agricultural production systems and national food security are threatened. This results in a very big problem of stagnant yield as we are unable to increase yield by increasing land under agriculture. The decreasing trend in the size of landholding with each passing year poses a serious challenge to the profitability and sustainability of farming. The average size of the landholding has declined to 0.68 ha in 2020 from 2.28 ha in 1970–1971. If this trend continues, the average size of holding in India will be further reduced to 0.32 ha in 2030 (Agriculture Census 2010–2011). The reduction of farm size in India is due to # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_18

157

158

18 Farming System Approach and Its Role Toward Livelihood Security. . .

fragmentation, rapid urbanization, and the creation of infrastructure facilities like roads, railway tracks, dams, etc. (Behera et al. 2001). This situation in India demands an integrated approach to address the emerging issues. So, it is important to develop such strategies and technologies in agriculture that enable adequate employment and income generation for small and marginal farmers, who constitute more than 80% of the farming community (Singh et al. 2010). Moreover, small and marginal farmers are unable to meet domestic requirements with the income from cropping alone. A farming system is an appropriate mix of farm enterprises for efficient use of land, labor, and other resources of a farm family, which provides year-round income to the farmers. The farming system approach is considered to be the most powerful tool for enhancing the profitability of farming systems by integrated agro-forestry, horticulture, dairy, sheep and goat rearing, fishery, poultry, pigeon, biogas, mushroom, sericulture, etc. These integrated farming systems are required to be planned, designed, implemented, and analyzed as socially acceptable, economically viable, and eco-friendly. Integration of enterprises leads to greater income and productivity than single enterprise-based farming.

18.1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Role of Farming System

Food security Provide balanced food Quality food basket High productivity and enhanced farm income Effective recycling of resources Minimizing environment pollution Employment generation

Food security Food security is defined as the balanced food supply and effective demand for food. Alternatively, it is defined as livelihood security for the household and all members within, which ensures both physical and economic access to a balanced diet, safe drinking water, environment sanitation, primary education, and basic health care. Economic and ecological access to food could be only ensured by adopting a farming system approach consisting of integrated use and management of land, water, and human resources to maximize income and employment. Provide balanced food There is a need for farming system that has several components like dairy, poultry, goatry, and fisheries, along with crop production. In this way, the farming system would not only meet the food requirement but also the need for protein, fat, vitamins, minerals. Quality food basket As the living standard is improved, the requirement for cereals will be decreased and supplemented by other items like milk, egg, meat, fruit, etc. Integration of allied enterprises with cropping increases the nutritive value of the

18.1

Role of Farming System

159

Table 18.1 Productivity and profitability of different components under irrigated farming system Treatment Integrated farming system Rice–rice system Hybrid maize–sunflower Vegetables Fodder + goat Fish Poultry Total Conventional rice–rice

Area (ha)

Productivity (kg/ha)

Net return (Rs)

0.33 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.06 0.005 1.0 1.0

2175 908 2136 1339 203 327 7088 5611

7387 3540 3673 7060 926 300 22,887 17,293

Source: Channabasavanna et al. (2009)

product. For instance, cropping with pigeon + fish + mushroom was found to have the highest protein of 1963 kg, which is 31–52% higher than the cropping alone. Higher productivity and enhanced farm income Integration of fish in the rice system decreases the rice grain yield due to the presence of fish trenches occupying 10% of the rice area; however, it increases the additional income (Table 18.1). The profit can be increased more when fish, vegetable systems, and livestock are included in the rice–rice farming system (Channabasavanna et al. 2009). Effective recycling of resources The effective recycling of farm resources is possible by adoption of farming system research. Crop by-product is utilized as fodder for animals, and animal by-product, i.e., milk and dung, may be utilized for increasing income and soil fertility, respectively. Minimize environmental pollution In Punjab, Haryana, and western UP, burning of rice residue is common, which increases the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in addition to huge amount of nutrient loss. Such a situation could be avoided by integrating some more farm enterprises like livestock so that rice residue is used as animal feed. Employment generations Since crop-based agriculture is highly season-specific and time bound, the intensity of labor requirement increases during the sowing and harvesting time of crops. For the rest of the year, farmers sit idle if they do not have off-farm activities. This leisure time could be utilized effectively by the adoption of a farming system, which keeps the whole family busy throughout the year. For instance, as shown in Table 18.2, Shekinah and Sankaran (2007) in Tamil Nadu conducted a study using different components of the farming system and observed higher employment and system productivity under the farming system having more components.

160

18 Farming System Approach and Its Role Toward Livelihood Security. . .

Table 18.2 System productivity (sorghum-grain equivalent yield), employment generation, and economics in an integrated farming system

Farming system Cropping alone Crop + pigeon + goat + agroforestry + farm pond Crop + pigeon + buffalo + agroforestry + farm pond Crop + pigeon + goat + buffalo + agroforestry + farm pond

Productivity (t/ha) 2000–2001 2001–2002 0.69 1.84 4.23 5.21

Employment person-days/ ha 2000–2001 2001–2002 28 32 110 116

System productivity (t/ha) 1.27 4.72

11.20

10.79

140

142

10.99

12.18

12.59

160

166

12.39

Source: Shekinah and Sankaran (2007)

18.2

Farming System Approaches for Different Agro Climatic Zones in India

1. Farming system approaches in wetland situation: The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Water is the heart of the wetland. So, there is a need for appropriate technology to use the resources available in wetlands effectively. To use wetland resources more effectively in India, Tamil Nadu University gives the farming system (rice– fish–poultry–mushroom) to increase productivity and sustainability. The farming system under consideration was compared to the conventional cropping methods commonly practiced in the region, namely rice–rice–green gram and rice–rice– green manure (0.20 ha). In this particular zone, pisciculture plays a crucial role as water is available in the canal for approximately 7–8 months. Another viable aspect is poultry farming. By integrating poultry and fish culture with rice cropping, the economic status of small and marginal farmers can be significantly improved. The integrated farming system involves a fish pond area of 0.04 ha with a depth of 1.5 m. Improved cropping methods, such as rice–rice–cotton (0.76 ha) and rice–rice–maize (0.20 ha), are practiced. The setup includes a poultry shed located at the corner of the fish pond (with a size of 2.2 m2) and a mushroom shed of 5 × 3 m constructed using local materials. The poultry unit comprises 50 Bapocock’s and 300 hybrid layer birds aged 21 weeks, which are maintained until 43 weeks. The birds are fed with diet consisting of maize, rice bran, and groundnut cake, with daily intake of 100 g per bird. For fish culture, ponds are situated near the poultry shed. The ponds are stocked with different fish

18.2

Farming System Approaches for Different Agro Climatic Zones in India

161

Table 18.3 Different farming system models under irrigated conditions

Farming system Rice–Wheat system Rice–Wheat + Dairy Rice–Wheat + Dairy + Fishery Rice–Wheat + Dairy + Fishery + Duckery Rice–Wheat + Dairy + Fishery + Duckery Rice–Wheat + Vegetable + Dairy Rice–Wheat + Vegetable + Dairy + Fishery

Rice– Wheat 46,122 43,815 38,050

Vegetable – – –

Fishery – – 22,500

Duckery – – –

Cattle – 42,290 42,290

Net income (Rs) 46,122 86,105 102,840

38,050

–

22,500

18,000

42,290

144,165

38,050

–

22,500

18,000

42,290

134,130

32,285

53,790

–

–

42,290

128,365

322,805

53,790

22,500

–

42,290

150,865

Source: Lal et al. (2018) Table 18.4 Framing system model under irrigated Treatments Crop + dairy + horticulture + poultry + fishery Crop + dairy + poultry Soybean–wheat

Net return 199,848

Energy balance 411,949

Employment generation 1275

Water productivity 991

48,477 32,613

325,528 153,379

657 227

406 375

Source: Surve et al. (2014)

fingerlings, with population density of 10,000 fingerlings per hectare. The fish are harvested after approximately 6½ months. Economically, the integrated rice– poultry–mushroom system yield an average net profit of Rs. 11,755, while the conventional cropping system only resulted in Rs. 6335. Additionally, the integrated farming system generated an additional employment of 174 persondays. The overall economic gain from integrating different enterprises, including poultry-cum-fish culture with cropping, amounted to a net return of Rs. 17,200 and created a total employment of 385 person-days. 2. Farming system approaches in irrigated areas: The different integrated farming systems that could be possibly adopted under irrigated conditions are mentioned in Table 18.3. (a) Farming with assured water supply from artificial sources of irrigation is known as irrigated farming. (b) Cropping with dairy, biogas, and silviculture. (c) Rice–Azolla–fish farming system. (d) Crop–horticulture–goat–poultry–mushroom–vermicompost. Surve et al. (2014) reported farming system models studied in Maharashtra to compare different models under irrigated conditions and observed that the integrated model has higher net return, water productivity, and employment generation as compared to the soybean–wheat cropping system (Table 18.4).

162

18 Farming System Approach and Its Role Toward Livelihood Security. . .

3. Farming system approach for dry areas: Ginkel et al. (2013) reported that more than 400 million people depend on dryland agriculture for their livelihoods in the developing world. Dryland agriculture involves a complex combination of productive components: staple crops, vegetables, livestock, trees, and fish interacting principally with rangeland, cultivated areas, and watercourses. The various constraints in dryland farming are natural resource limitations such as water scarcity, degradation, poor access of markets and inputs, weak governance, and lack of information about alternative production technologies. Among these, the major constraints that limit crop production in dry land are moisture stress and deficiency of nutrients. Poor soil fertility and low water holding capacity also lead to poor crop yields in dry farming regions (Sheshshayee et al. 2003). However, the past efforts for development under dryland agriculture were not much beneficial for the livelihood security of people in dryland. This indicates the need for new integrated approaches for the development of dryland systems by managing risk and enhancing productivity through diversification, efficient resource management, improved crop production technologies and alternate land use systems, and sustainable intensification for securing and improving rural livelihoods (Singh 1995). Important crops cultivated in dry land were sorghum, cotton, soybean, groundnut, sunflower, and pulses (Singh et al. 2000). (a) Integrated farming system in dry land: The selection of enterprises must be based on the cardinal principle of minimizing the competition and maximizing the complementarity between the enterprises. (b) Integrated farming system approach with a combination of crops (rice, off-season tomato, cauliflower) and non-crop enterprises like poultry + paddy straw mushroom production + vermicomposting was a sustainable system giving maximum net return and additional employment under rainfed risk-prone situations in the Deogarh district of Orissa (Barik et al. 2010). (c) Integrated farming system with two bullocks + one cow + one buffalo +10 goats along with poultry and duck was the most beneficial system for the marginal farmers in rainfed regions of Chhattisgarh in Central India (Ramrao et al. 2006). (d) In an integrated farming system along with crop components, goat, pigeon, buffalo, agroforestry system, and farm pond were integrated by Esther Shekinah et al. (2005). Tellicherry breeds were maintained for meat purposes. Buffaloes were maintained solely for milk. The farm pond was dug for collecting the runoff to be used in times of moisture stress and silt collection. Through the quantification of physical indicators, the study led to the conclusion that farming systems with enterprise combination of cropping (fertilized with composted buffalo manure), pigeon (10 pairs), goat (5 + 1), buffaloes (two milking buffaloes + one calf), agroforestry, and farm pond could be recommended for the dry land tracts of Western Zone of Tamil Nadu. (e) In Uttar Pradesh, it was observed that crop + dairy + goat farming followed by crop + goat farming had the maximum potential (Singh and Sharma

References

163

1987). Similarly, Singh et al. (1988) suggested the integrated farming system with goat and sheep rearing under dry land of the Punjab region of India. 4. Farming system approach under rainfed areas: Rainfed agriculture occupies 68% of cultivated area and supports 40% and 60% of human and livestock population, respectively. Thus, it plays a critical role in India’s food security. However, the aberrant behavior of monsoon rainfall, eroded and degraded soils with multiple nutrient and water deficiencies, declining groundwater table and poor resource base of the farmers, leads to low and unstable yields in rainfed areas (Singh et al. 2004). So, to increase crop productivity in rainfed agriculture, there is a need for appropriate cropping and farming systems. The cropping system under rainfed has been divided into five major systems: nutritious cereals, rainfed rice, pulses, cotton and soybean, and oilseed-based system. Therefore, the farming system plays a pivotal role in accomplishing livelihood security under different farming situations for small and marginal farmers. • Efficient utilization of scarce and costly resources is the need of the hour to make crop production a viable proposition in the present-day competitive scenario. • Following the concepts of the farming system through the supplementation of allied agro-enterprises by recycling the wastes of one enterprise in another is the right step in this direction. • It provides alternate and sustainable avocation to marginal and sub-marginal farmers. • The crop residues and biomass available in plenty in the crop production system need to be properly managed to harness full benefits. • Improving the integrated approach not only enhances farm income but also overcomes environmental pollution. • A better planning and utilization of the available resources will usher in bright prospects for the farm economy as a whole.

References Agriculture Census (2010–2011) Manual of schedules and instructions for data collection. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Cooperation Barik KC, Mohanty D, Nath SK, Sahoo SK, Soren L (2010) Assessment of integrated farming system for rainfed agro ecosystem in Deogarh district of Orissa. In: Extended summaries of XIX national symposium on resource management approaches towards livelihood security, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 2–4 Dec, p 172 Behera UK, Jha KP, Mahapatra (2001) Generation of income and employment, a success story. Intensiv Agric 39(7–8):9–13 Channabasavanna AS, Biradar DP, Prabhudev KN, Mahabhaleswar H (2009) Development of profitable integrated farming system model for small and medium farmers of Tungabhadra project area of Karnataka. Karnataka J Agric Sci 22(1):25–27 Economy Survey of India (2019) Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, Economic Division, North Block, New Delhi

164

18 Farming System Approach and Its Role Toward Livelihood Security. . .

Esther Shekinah D, Jayanthi C, Sankaran N (2005) Physical indicators of sustainability - a farming systems approach for the small farmer in the rainfed vertisols of the Western zone of Tamil Nadu. J Sustain Agric 25(3):43–65 Ginkel MV, Sayer J, Sinclair F, Aw-Hassan A (2013) An integrated agro-ecosystem and livelihood systems approach for the poor and vulnerable in dry areas. Food Secur 5(6):751–767 Lal M, Patidar J, Kumar S, Patidar P (2018) Different integrated farming system model for irrigated condition of India on basis of economic assessment: a case study: a review. Int J Chem Stud 6(4):166–175. ISSN: 2349–8528 E-ISSN: 2321–4902 Ramrao WY, Tiwari SP, Singh P (2006) Crop-livestock integrated farming system for the marginal farmers in rainfed regions of Chhattisgarh in Central India. Livest Res Rural Dev 18(7):23–30 Shekinah DE, Sankaran N (2007) Productivity, profitability and employment generation in integrated farming systems under rainfed Vertisols of western zone of Tamil Nadu. Indian J Agron 52:275–278 Sheshshayee MS, Bindumadhava H, Shanker AG, Prasad TG, Udayakumar M (2003) Breeding strategies to explain water use efficiency for crop improvement. J Plant Biol 30(2):253–268 Singh RP (ed) (1995) Problems and prospects of dryland agriculture in India. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, pp 13–23 Singh AK, Sharma JS (1987) A farming system approach for growth with equity of small farmers. J Rural Dev 6(4):396–405 Singh SN, Singh KP, Singh N, Kandian VS, Dahiya SS (1988) Employment potentialities of different farming systems. In: Abstract of National seminar on Farming systems for semi-arid tropics. ICAR and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, p 7 Singh HP, Sharma KL, Srinivas K, Venkateswarlu B (2000) Nutrient management strategies for dryland farming. Fertil News 45(5):43–50 Singh M, Singh SP, Singh JP (2004) Farming systems characterization problems and prospects. Extended summaries. In: Second national symposium on alternate farming systems: enhanced income and employment options for small and marginal farmers. Held at PDCSR, Modipuram, 16–18 Sept 2004, pp 25–26 Singh JP, Kochewad SA, Langer RK, Pandey DK (2010) Integrated farming system – a multipurpose farming system for sustainable production. In: Souvenir & Abstract –national symposium on emerging trends in agricultural research –Organized by Hi-Tech Horticultural Society, Meerut, 11–12 Sept 2010, p 49 Surve US, Patil EN, Sindhi JB, Bodake PS, Kadlag AD (2014) Evaluation of different integrated farming system under irrigated situation of Maharashtra. Indian J Agron 59:518–526

Concept of Farming System in Relation to Conservation of Natural Resources

19

Abstract

The concept of farming systems plays a crucial role in the conservation of natural resources by emphasizing a holistic and integrated approach to agricultural practices. By recognizing the interconnectedness of various components within a farming system, including crops, livestock, agroforestry, soil, water, and biodiversity, farming systems contribute to sustainable resource management. This chapter discusses in detail various resource-efficient techniques that farming systems promote, such as crop rotation, agro-forestry, and integrated pest management. These practices help maintain soil fertility, prevent erosion, and reduce the need for chemical inputs, thereby safeguarding soil health and water quality. Keywords

Natural resources · Soil fertility · Erosion · Soil health · Water quality · Agroforestry · Sustainable resource management

The farming system is an appropriate mix of farm enterprises and the means available to the farmers to raise them for profitability. It interacts adequately with the environment without dislocating the ecological and socio-economic balance on the one hand and attempts to meet the national goal on the other hand. Lal and Miller (1990) define the farming system as a resource management strategy to achieve economic and sustained agricultural production to meet diverse requirements of farm livelihood while preserving the resource base and maintaining a high level of environmental quality. Jayanthi et al. (2002) represent it as an appropriate combination of farm enterprises (cropping systems, horticulture, livestock, fishery, forestry, poultry) and the means available to the farmer to raise them for profitability. It interacts adequately with the environment without dislocating the ecological and socio-economic balance on the one hand and attempts to meet the national goals on # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_19

165

166

19

Concept of Farming System in Relation to Conservation of Natural Resources

the other. The farming system is essentially cyclic (organic resources–livestock– land–crops). Therefore, management decisions related to one component may affect the others.

19.1

Agroforestry-Based IFS: An Approach for Climate Change Mitigation and Natural Resource Management

In modern times, agriculture has become more intensive due to the availability of improved inputs like better seeds, fertilizers, and farm machinery. As a result, many farms have shifted toward single-product cultivation, reducing their mixed farming practices. However, extensive use of exhaustive cropping systems has led to land degradation and soil health issues. This has prompted the exploration of alternative systems that mimic natural ecosystems, aiming to maintain a balanced biological production system. In the NEH region, there has been a traditional practice of deliberately integrating trees with crop and livestock production, known as agroforestry. Agroforestry refers to a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials are intentionally incorporated on the same land management units as agricultural crops and/or animals, in specific spatial arrangements and temporal sequences (ICRAF). Various crops such as maize, ginger, coffee, pineapple, and vegetables are grown alongside tree species like Pinus kesiya, Alnus nepalensis, Schima wallichii, pear, plum, and areca nut. The choice of a particular tree species and intercrop depends on the climatic conditions of the area and the economic significance of the species. By incorporating agroforestry practices, farmers aim to address the challenges of land degradation while maintaining a sustainable and productive agricultural system. Agro-forestry system is recognized as a carbon sequestration strategy because of its applicability in agricultural lands as well as in reforestation programs. Agroforestry offers the highest potential for carbon sequestration: • Direct role: Carbon sequestration rates ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 Mg C/ha/year in agroforestry systems. • Indirect role: Agroforestry has also some indirect effects on carbon sequestration since it helps reduce pressure on natural forests. Agroforestry model Silvopastoral system (5 years) Silvopastoral system (aged 6 years) Block plantation (aged 6 years)

Carbon storage capacity 9.5–19.7 tC/ha

Region Semiarid

Author Rai et al. (2001)

1.5–18.5 tC/ha

Northwestern India

24.1–31.1 tC/ha

Central India

4.7–13.0 tC/ha

Arid region

Kaur et al. (2002) Swamy et al. (2003) Singh (2005) (continued)

19.2

Watershed and Integrated Farming System

Agroforestry model Agrisilviculture system (aged 8 years) Agrisilviculture system (aged 11 years) Eucalyptus bund plantation Poplar block plantation Populus deltoides “G48” + wheat P. deltoides + wheat boundary plantation Silvopasture Natural grassland Agrihorti silviculture Hortipastoral Agrisilviculture Agri-horticulture

167

Carbon storage capacity

Region

Author

26.0 tC/ha

Semiarid region

NRCAF (2007)

59,361 t 330,510 t 18.53 tC/ha

Punjab (Rupnagar)

Gera et al. (2006)

Tarai region of central Himalaya

Yadava (2010)

Himachal Pradesh

Verma and Singh (2008)

4.66 tC/ha 31.71 tC/ha 19.2 tC/ha 18.81 tC/ha 17.16 tC/ha 13.37 tC/ha 12.28 tC/ha

In this context, integrated farming systems become sustainable, adaptable, and acceptable in the socio-cultural and ecological settings.

19.2

Watershed and Integrated Farming System

The components of soil, water, plants, and animals are integral to our agricultural system. Water, in particular, holds utmost significance both in farming and sustaining life, making its conservation a crucial priority. Therefore, watershed management plays a pivotal role in agricultural development programs. Numerous agencies, including soil conservation, integrated dryland development, special crop programs, afforestation, joint forest management (JFM), the National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Agriculture (NWDPRA), and the National Wastelands Development Board (NWDB), are involved in watershed management. These agencies must be considered to devise effective land-use systems tailored to the specific site characteristics. To facilitate watershed management, integrated farming systems offer various models that promote sustainable practices. These models take into account the interdependence of different elements and provide strategies for effective land utilization. • Agricultural-based land use system: The system can be implemented on hill slopes with up to a 50% gradient and where the soil depth exceeds 1 m. The primary soil conservation measures include bench terraces and contour bunding. The cost of land development for this system is estimated at around 400 persondays per hectare. Crop selection should consider the preferences of the farmers and the market potential. It is advisable to maintain hilltop areas as forests,

168

19

Concept of Farming System in Relation to Conservation of Natural Resources

incorporating fuel-cum-fodder trees, bamboo, and timber trees. Based on existing farming systems, agro-climatic conditions, and soil characteristics, the envisioned cropping systems include rice-based systems (e.g., rice-mustard/potato/radish), maize-based systems (e.g., maize-groundnut/soybean/mustard/radish/potato/ tomato), oilseed-based systems, and others. Implementing a toposequence approach on hill slopes proves beneficial, with rice typically grown at the bottom, cassava and buckwheat on the upper terraces, and maize adjacent to rice. Integrating dairy cows with crop production on terraced hill slopes promotes sustainable agriculture within the system. About 30% of the land, occupied by bunds and terrace risers, can serve as a source of additional income through animal husbandry by utilizing by-products of crops and fodder raised in this area. Perennial grasses and legumes like Setaria sphacelata, thin napier, Guinea grass (Panicum maximum), and Stylosanthes have shown to be suitable for terrace risers. Proper management of forage crops on the terrace risers is vital, ensuring they do not grow taller than 50–60 cm to avoid shading food crops on the terraces. On wider terraces, fodder trees can be planted to address the deficit of green fodder during winter. Feeding leaves of broom grass and crop residues produced in the watershed can supplement the winter feed requirements. This agropastoral land use approach has the potential to sustain 1.18 livestock units, with one unit equivalent to 1.0 buffalo, 1.25 cattle, 5.0 pigs, and 10.0 goats. To reduce the reliance on chemical fertilizers, in situ generation of farmyard manure from livestock refuse, weeds, and nonedible crop residues can be efficiently utilized under an integrated nutrient management strategy. • Horticultural-based land use system: Essential conservation measures for this type of farming system include contour bunds, half-moon terraces at the fruit plant locations, grassed waterways, and a few bench terraces for growing vegetable crops. The major fruit crops in the region are citrus, pineapple, and banana. In this system, mandarin orange can be planted at intervals of 5 m on the half-moon terraces. Pineapple, which thrives in semi-shady conditions, can be planted on the contour bunds along the slope. The space between the rows of mandarin orange can be effectively utilized by growing vegetable crops. Additionally, the risers of the bench terraces in the lower portion can be used to cultivate rhizomatous or tuber crops, while fodder legumes can be planted in the same area. Filler crops like papaya can be intercropped, provided they are spaced away from the main fruit plants and removed once the primary fruit crops reach the bearing stage. For the lowermost portion of the land (below 40% slope), efficient utilization involves growing vegetables either solely or in combination with fruit trees. By implementing these strategies, the farming system can maximize land use and enhance overall productivity. • Horti-silviculture: These are integrated land management systems aimed at simultaneously producing fruits and forest crops, with the latter serving as a source of fuel, fodder, and small timber for the farmers. To protect the orchard from high-velocity winds and storms, various tree species can be strategically grown as windbreaks, shelterbelts, or fillers. Notably, Salix, Populus sp., and Alnus nepalensis have proven successful around fruit farms without negatively

19.3

Resource Conservation Under Rice-Based Cropping System

169

impacting fruit production. Agricultural crops can also be cultivated between the rows of fruit trees, creating a multi-tiered agri-horti-silviculture system. For example, lemon and pineapple thrive when grown alongside fodder cowpea, which provides excellent ground coverage (90–100%) by the end of June. This ground coverage helps prevent soil loss during the monsoon season. Such a land use system can be effectively implemented in areas with slopes of less than 50% and moderately fertile, deep soils. • Agri-horti-silvipastoral land use system: This mixed land-use system can be applied to land with slopes of up to 100% and soil depth exceeding 1 m. The system is composed of three main components: agricultural land use in the foothills, horticultural crops in the middle portion of the hill, and silvipastoral crops at the top of the hill slopes. To support sustainable practices, contour bunds, bench terraces, half-moon terraces, and grassed waterways are essential conservation measures. Land development for this system may require approximately 190 person-days per hectare. The choice of crops will vary based on the altitude of the area. The fodder obtained from the terrace risers, horticultural portion, and silvipastoral unit can sustain a unit of 10 goats with a reproduction efficiency of 170%. The nutrient requirements for these activities can be met through succulent grasses, grains, and radishes produced in the watershed. This diverse range of agro-activities contributes to the production of a variety of produce, catering to the self-sufficiency needs of farmers in remote areas. The integrated farming system provides full-time and effective employment opportunities to tribal families, promoting sustainable livelihoods in the region. • Livestock-based farming system: Land with a minimum soil depth of 0.5 m and a 100% slope can be effectively utilized for livestock farming. To prepare the land for this purpose, contour trenches are constructed, requiring approximately 150 person-days per hectare. For fodder production, legumes or nonlegume shrubs and trees are grown. These crops not only provide fodder but also help in soil stabilization, contributing to the overall sustainability of the land. By combining cultivated varieties of perennial legumes, shrubs, grasses, and trees, the availability of green fodder can be extended up to February at low altitudes. This extension reduces the need for conserved fodder during the lean season. The carrying capacity of such high land for livestock farming is estimated to be 4–5 livestock units per hectare, particularly when using a mixture of Setaria and Stylo in a 1:1 ratio for fodder production. The livestock-based farming system offers significant income potential through farmyard manure and facilitates selfsufficiency in fuel through the utilization of biogas plants.

19.3

Resource Conservation Under Rice-Based Cropping System

Around 600 years ago, the rice-based farming system was developed in Southeast Asia. However, this system was gradually abandoned due to population pressure and the adoption of the green revolution, which focused on high-input monoculture

170

19

Concept of Farming System in Relation to Conservation of Natural Resources

using high-yield rice varieties, pesticides, and herbicides. The green revolution’s intensive practices placed immense pressure on natural resources such as soil and water, leading to overexploitation and degradation of the crop system and the environment as a whole. Consequently, the sustainability of agricultural production systems and farming practices has been jeopardized. To address this, there is an urgent need to develop integrated farming systems that combine various components to enhance productivity, profitability, and resource conservation while preserving the environment. India, as the world’s second largest rice-growing country, cultivates approximately 43.4 million hectares of land, with rice production contributing around 92.0 million tons of food grain. Rice is grown in diverse topographic situations, including uplands, medium lands, and lowlands. To conserve natural resources and achieve household food security and year-round economic support, there is a need to improve the rice system. One possible strategy is the adoption of a rice-based integrated farming system, where plant–animal–fish–MPTs (Microbial Protein Technology) and horticulture are combined in a complementary manner to optimize production. In the context of the North East region, the major components of a ricebased farming system can be explored. • • • • • •

Rice-fish integration Rice–livestock farming including poultry and duckery Rice–fish–azolla farming Multipurpose trees and shrubs Hedgerow intercropping Variety of other crops like seasonal vegetables, medicinal herbs, and potential wild edibles

These integrated systems help increase the productivity of the rice system and also increase the sustainability of livelihood security.

References Gera M, Mohan G, Bisht NS, Gera N (2006) Carbon sequestration potential under agroforestry in Roopnagar district of Punjab. Indian Forester 132(5):543–555 Jayanthi C, Mythili S, Chinnasamy C (2002) Integrated farming systems – a viable approach for sustainable productivity, profitability and resource recycling under low land farms. J Ecobiol. 14(2):143–148 Kaur B, Gupta SR, Singh G (2002) Carbon storage and nitrogen cycling in silvopastoral systems on a sodic in northwestern India. Agrofor Syst 54:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1014269221934 Lal R, Miller FP (1990) Sustainable farming system for tropics. In: Singh RP (ed) Sustainable agriculture: issues and prospective, vol I. Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, pp 68–89 NRCAF (2007) NRCAF perspective plan vision 2025. National Research Centre for Agroforestry, Jhansi, p 46

References

171

Rai P, Yadav RS, Solanki KR, Rao GR (2001) Growth and pruned production of multipurpose tree species in silvo-pastoral systems on degraded lands in semi-arid region of Uttar Pradesh, India. For Trees Livelihoods 11(4):347. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2001.9752400 Singh G (2005) Farming systems options for sustainability of natural resources. In: Singh AK, Gangwar B, Sharma SK (eds) Proceedings of symposium on “Alternative Farming Systems: enhanced income and employment generation options for small and marginal farmers”. FSR held at Project Directorate for Cropping systems Research, Modipuram from 16–18 Sept 2004, pp 57–64 Swamy PS, Kumar M, Sundarapandian MS (2003) Spirituality and ecology of sacred groves in Tamil Nadu, India. Unasylva 54(213):53–58 Verma SK, Singh SB (2008) Enhancing of wheat production through appropriate agronomic management. Indian Farming 58(5):15–18 Yadav (2010) Biomass production and carbon sequestration in different agro-forestry stystems in Tarai region of Central Himalaya. Indian Forester, 234–244

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare Models of Farming System in a Tropical and Subtropical Situation

20

Abstract

In the context of tropical and subtropical agricultural settings, the distribution of farming components across a two-hectare model is a pivotal determinant of sustainable productivity. This chapter highlights the allocation of farming areas in such models, focusing on optimizing resource utilization and enhancing overall agricultural resilience. Within the two-hectare framework, a balanced distribution of components such as staple crops, cash crops, agroforestry, and livestock hold paramount significance. Staple crops ensure food security, occupying a significant portion, while cash crops contribute to income diversification and market engagement. Efficient water management through irrigation components is crucial in tropical and subtropical contexts, enhancing crop productivity and mitigating water stress. Keywords

Resource utilization · Agricultural resilience · Income diversification · Crop productivity

20.1

Rice–Fish-Based Integrated Farming System in Rainfed Lowlands of Assam (Rautaray et al. 2005)

There are approximately ten million hectares of rainfed lowlands suitable for rice (Oryza sativa L.)–fish farming in various ecologies, including medium-deep areas (up to 50 cm water depth), deepwater areas (up to 100 cm water depth), and coastal wetlands. In the specific case of Assam, around one million hectares are well-suited for such system. In these ecologies, rice is the primary crop grown, but its productivity is limited and unstable, typically yielding 1.0–1.5 tons/ha. The rice cultivation faces various stresses, including excess water, submergence, floods, # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_20

173

174

20

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare. . .

drought, weeds, insect pests, diseases, and the challenging socio-economic conditions of farmers. Given these constraints, rice remains the only viable crop option for this situation. The Brahmaputra valley in Assam provides an excellent opportunity for rice–fish farming systems due to the high levels of rainfall, resulting in waterlogging in low-lying rice fields for 3–8 months, and the preference of both rice and fish by farmers. The Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, developed rice–fish integrated farming system model, and it was tested at the Regional Rainfed Lowland Rice Research Station, Gerua, Assam, in 2002 for revalidation and refinement of the technology. Of the total 0.5 ha of a lowland rice field, 60% was allocated for the field, 23% for the construction of dyke around the farm for growing vegetables, fruits, ornamental plants, and agro-forestry components, and the remaining 17% for trench and pond refuge. A total of 3831 kg of rice grain (12.8 tons ha) (Table 20.1) was harvested from the rice–rice–rice cropping system in the field area of 3000 m2. The net returns obtained from rice crops were Rs 8281. Tillage operation was not done for rainy (sali) and winter season (boro) rice cultivation, and chemical fertilizer was not applied for rainy-season rice. Besides rice grain, 0.199-ton fish (Labeo rohita Hamil., Cirrhinus mrigala Hamil-Buchanan, Labeo bata Hami1-Buchanan, Cyprinus carpio comnlunis L., Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val., and Puntius gonionotus Sleeker) worth Rs 9130 were harvested and another 0.193 tons of under-size fish (Catla catla Hamil., Labeo rohita, Cirrhinus rnrigala, Labeo bata, Cyprinus carpio conznzunis, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix, and Puntius gonionotus) worth Rs 6000 were left for further rearing. The net returns derived from the fishery were Rs 8530, which is similar to three rice crops grown in a sequence. Net returns from vegetables and ornamental crops were Rs 425.

20.2

Rice–Fish–Prawn Farming Systems of Orissa

To maintain the achieved self-sufficiency from the green revolution, it is crucial to establish an agricultural system that sustains soil fertility and productivity by embracing biological principles. Thus, it becomes essential to assess current farming practices, focusing on an integrated approach to sustainable agriculture that enhances the environment’s quality and preserves natural resources while also ensuring higher productivity. The pressing need of the moment is to diversify agricultural enterprises to yield multiple foods from the same unit. By employing a well-balanced combination of one or more enterprises that complement crop activities, farmers can increase their income and recycle farm residues effectively. In this context, the integration of rice and fish becomes a primary option for promoting ecological agriculture, maximizing benefits from the system, avoiding detrimental effects, and striving for maximum output using available energy and resources (Mohanty et al. 2009). To study the impact of fish and prawn on rice field ecology and productivity in rice–fish–prawn farming system, an on-farm experiment was conducted at Khentalo village of Cuttack district, Orissa. The experiment continued for three crop cycles

82

48

76

18 17 21 23

500

250

750 750 1500 1500

ABW at stocking (g)

1000

No. of stocked fish

Source: Rautaray et al. (2005)

Common carp Silver carp China punti Rohu Bata Catla Mrigal Other fish Total

Fish species

170 136 128 127

310

165

325

ABW at harvesting (g)

158

130 180

68

200

181

No. of harvested fish

112 245 405 340

42

168

388

No. of harvested and restocked fish

32.3 56.7 27 31

44.0

73.6

56.9

Survival (%)

20 21 199

22 24

21

33

59

Weight (kg)

50 40

50 50

50

40

50

Price (Rs/kg)

Price of harvested fish

Table 20.1 Yield, yield attributes, and economics of fish cultivation in the rice–fish farming system

1000 840 9460

1100 1200

1050

1320

2950

Return (Rs)

193

9 16 51 23

10

14

70

40 40 40 40

40

40

40

7720

360 640 2040 920

400

560

2800

Price of fish harvested and restocked Restock value Weight Price (Rs) (kg) (Rs/kg)

1460 1840 1040 1920 840 17,180

1450

1880

5750

Total price of fish (Rs

20.2 Rice–Fish–Prawn Farming Systems of Orissa 175

176

20

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare. . .

Table 20.2 Rice yield attributes in a deepwater rice–fish–prawn system

Treatment Rice monocrop Rice–fish– prawn system LSD (P = 0.05)

Rice yield (tons/ ha) 2.60

Straw yield (tons/ ha) 3.18

Panicles/ m2 122.2

Filled grain/ panicle 98.5

Test weight (g) 25.7

Percent increase in grain yield over rice monocrop

3.04

3.61

130.2

106.2

25.6

16.9

0.21

0.17

0.4

0.5

NS

Source: Mohanty et al. (2010)

(2005–2007). A patch of the waterlogged area was converted into 3 1-ha units each of deepwater rice mono-crop system and deepwater rice–fish–prawn system. Fifty percent of the lands in the deepwater rice–fish–prawn system units were excavated up to a depth of 100 cm to create a refuge area of 5000 m2, and the excavated soil was utilized for peripheral dyke construction up to a height of 2.5 m. The yield of rice grain was 3.04 tons/ha in the rice–fish–prawn system, which was 16.9% higher than the rice monocrop. In the rice–fish–prawn system, where fish and prawn culture was practiced in 50% of the area, the net returns improved by 23-folds as compared to rice monocrop. Significantly higher net returns of Rs 79,585/ha, net water productivity of Rs 7.66/m3, and the higher ratio of the output value to the cost of cultivation (1.6) in the rice–fish–prawn system infers that rice–fish–prawn culture being more beneficial can be adopted and expanded in lowland/ waterlogged areas (Table 20.2).

20.3

Integrated Farming System for the North-eastern Himalayan Region

In the North-eastern Region, despite the hard work put in by farmers, they struggle to make a profit due to the substantial expenses involved in purchasing inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, livestock breeds, feed, energy, and labor. However, the emergence of Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) has offered a potential alternative development model to enhance the viability of small-scale farming operations compared to larger ones (Ravisankar et al. 2006). Integrated Farming System is a widely used concept that emphasizes a more holistic and integrated approach to farming, as opposed to monoculture practices. It involves the integration of livestock and crop production or even fish and livestock, sometimes referred to as Integrated Biosystems. The key idea is to create a synergistic relationship among various components of the system, where the “waste” from one part becomes a valuable input for another, leading to cost reduction and improved overall production and income. In essence, IFS functions as a system of systems (Chan 2006). By utilizing

20.3

Integrated Farming System for the North-eastern Himalayan Region

177

Table 20.3 The area under different components in an integrated farming system in different years Enterprises Cropping system Rice Pea Rapeseed and mustard Animal husbandry Piggery Backyard poultry Horticulture Fruit production Vegetable production Fishery Water harvesting Apiary Total

Area under different enterprises (ha) 2010–2011 2011–2012

2012–2013

0.80 0.20 0.20

1.00 0.25 0.25

1.00 0.25 0.25

0.01 0.001

0.02 0.005

0.03 0.01

0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 Integrated with crops 1.33

0.03 0.25 0.15 0.01 Integrated with crops 1.96

0.05 0.35 0.25 0.02 Integrated with crops 2.21

Source: Ansari et al. (2014)

agricultural waste as resources, Integrated Farming Systems not only help in waste elimination but also contribute to an overall increase in productivity for the entire agricultural system. A study was conducted on the field of H B Starson (a tribal farmer) in Chandel Khullen village, Chandel district of Manipur, spanning from 2010–2011 to 2012–2013. During this period, a model of the integrated farming system was developed and implemented in the farmer’s field. The study involved conducting a household survey to assess the socio-economic status and agricultural practices in 2010–2011. In 2012–2013, a follow-up survey was conducted to understand the changes in the farmers’ socio-economic status. As a result of technological interventions like terracing and utilizing fallow land for cultivation, the farmer’s holding size increased from 1.33 ha in 2010–2011 to 1.96 ha in 2011–2012 and 2.21 ha in 2012–2013 (Table 20.3). This highlights the positive impact of Integrated Farming Systems on agricultural productivity and land utilization. In 2010–2011, the paddy yield was 3.5 tons/ha as compared to 4.79 tons/ha in 2012–2013. It was mainly due to the adoption of improved packages and practices. The cabbage and onion yield increased by 103% and 54%, respectively, after the adoption of improved cultivation methods under the integrated farming system. Similarly, papaya and banana production was increased by 275 and 270%. There was a marked increase in pork, chicken, egg, and fish production. In 2012–2013, this system also provided significantly higher Rs per Re invested than the other in 2010–2011. In Manipur, women’s participation is more in the farming system rather than men’s. In the same way, this farming system also gives more opportunities for women to engage in agriculture farming. Thus, the integrated farming system provides a new venture for employment and sustainable development of livelihood for North-eastern people. The overall result revealed that the improved practices

178

20

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare. . .

with different crop and animal components are an excellent approach for sustainable production, income generation, and employment opportunities for the small and marginal rural households of Manipur (Ansari et al. 2014).

20.4

Integrated Farming System for Lowlands of Bihar

In Bihar, crop productivity trends have been below the Indian average for most cereal crops and far below their potential yield, even after Bihar’s fertile land and water resources. About 85% of the farmers are small and marginal but sharing only 50% of the land. The average size of the holding is 0.83 ha, with that of small and marginal farmers ranging from 0.32 to 0.5 ha (Bhaskar 2001). With the average size of land holdings shrinking as a result of increasing fragmentation, many marginal farms are becoming economically non-viable and oriented toward subsistence. Due to the failure of monsoon, the farmers are forced to judicious mix up of agricultural enterprises like dairy, poultry, pigeon, fishery, sericulture, apiculture, etc., suited to their agro-climatic and socio-economic condition and largely dependent on the farm size. To overcome the problems of small resource-poor farmers, diverse and riskprone environments have led to the development of a more holistic, resource-based, client-oriented, and interacting approach, popularly known as an integrated farming system. The study was conducted at the main farm of ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region, Patna, from 2007 to 2010. Seven different farming systems (treatments) were evaluated, each involving a combination of field crops, vegetables, poultry, cattle, goats, mushroom farming, fishery, and duckery. The objective was to recycle residues and by-products of one component to benefit the others. Each system was assigned an area of 0.8 ha (approximately 2 acres). The seven integrated farming system (IFS) models were examined, namely crop alone, crop + fish + poultry, crop + fish + duck, crop + fish + goat, crop + fish + duck + goat, crop + fish + cattle, and crop + fish + mushroom. Among these IFS models, the combination of crop + fish + duck + goat emerged as the most favorable integrated farming system. It exhibited superior productivity, sustainability index (0.80%), net return (`159,485/year), and employment generation (752 person-days/year). Additionally, this system contributed a substantial amount of recycled N, P2O5, and K2O from animal and plant wastes. The productivity in terms of rice grain equivalent yield (tons/ha) of different models is given in Table 20.4. Although the integration of crop + fish + duck + goat and crop + fish + cattle yielded nearly the same amount of rice-grain-equivalent yield (21.20 and 21.18 tons/ha, respectively), the crop + fish + duck + goat system outperformed in economic terms, surpassing the latter by `30,870 (Kumar et al. 2012).

Component productivity (RGEY) Crop Poultry Fish 9.23 (100) 12.30 (66.1) 4.50 (24.2) 1.81 (9.7) 12.00 (78.1) 1.81 (11.8) 12.20 (62.1) 1.81 (9.2) 12.20 (57.5) 1.81 (8.5) 12.09 (57.1) 1.81 (8.5) 12.42 (81.1) 1.81 (11.8) 1.56 (7.4)

1.56 (10.1)

Duck

Source: Kumar et al. (2012) Figures in parentheses indicate percent contribution to the total system productivity

Farming system Cropping alone Crop + fish + poultry Crop + fish + duck Crop + fish + goat Crop + fish + duck + goat Crop + fish + cattle Crop + fish + mushroom 5.63 (28.7) 5.63 (26.6) 7.28 (34.4)

Goat

Cattle

1.10 (7.2)

Mushroom

Table 20.4 Productivity in terms of rice grain equivalent yield (tons/ha) of different models (mean value of 2007–2010) RGEY of system (tons/ha) 9.23 18.61 15.37 19.64 21.20 21.18 15.33

20.4 Integrated Farming System for Lowlands of Bihar 179

180

20.5

20

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare. . .

Integrated Farming System for Punjab

The concept of “Integrated Farming System” presents an economically viable approach to boost farm productivity, address environmental concerns, ensure nutritional security, and uplift resource-poor farmers. This system involves a favorable and well-balanced combination of crops, livestock, aquaculture, agroforestry, and agri-horticulture to achieve sustainability, profitability, and a consistent supply of diverse food items while generating employment opportunities. Moreover, the integrated farming system serves as a resource management strategy for sustained production, catering to the diverse needs of farm households, making agriculture cost-effective and profitable, and ultimately securing the livelihoods of farming communities. Based on extensive long-term research, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, has developed a model of an integrated farming system specifically tailored for small farmers, covering an area of 2.5 acres (Table 20.5). The integrated farming system involves crop + dairy + kitchen gardening and other secondary components along with the location. Specific agri-based enterprises can be included after acquiring proper training. The integrated farming system is highly remunerative compared to the conventional rice-wheat cropping system.

20.6

Integrated Farming Systems for Tribal Farmers in Hilly Regions of Manipur

The farming system approach requires the involvement of agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation, forestry, fisheries, animal husbandry (piggery and poultry), apiculture, etc. The integrated farming system takes into account the concepts of minimizing risk and increasing production and profits while improving the utilization of organic wastes and crop residue. It is clear from the above that IFS is characterized by synergy and between crop and animal components that form the basis of the concept. The agricultural production of the state has not been able to Table 20.5 Area allocated to different components Component Field crops Fodder Oilseeds/pulses Fruit trees with intercropping of seasonal vegetables Agroforestry Dairy (2 cows/buffaloes) shed with composting/vermicomposting unit Fishery (with high-density boundary planting of fruit trees and Napier bajra) Kitchen gardening Planting of turmeric on bunds around field crops Boundary plantation of karonda and galagal (optional) Source: Author’s calculations

Area (kanal) 7.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 – –

20.6

Integrated Farming Systems for Tribal Farmers in Hilly Regions of Manipur

181

Fig. 20.1 Area under different components in an integrated farming system in Ukhrul (the average holding size of the farm was 0.87 ha)

keep pace with population growth, which is 14.75% per decade. The shortage in agricultural production is due to conventional farming and the nonadoption of recommended technologies in improved farming systems. Seven components, i.e., paddy, vegetables, fruits, piggery, backyard poultry, fishery, and water management, were studied. The area allocated under different components in an integrated farming system is depicted in Fig. 20.1. Among hill districts, Ukhrul had higher production of all enterprises. The results revealed that the performance of all components is better in IIFS than CFS. The average productivity of different enterprises was significantly higher in IIFS compared to the CFS (Ansari et al. 2013). ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region, Patna, has developed two integrated farming system modules for small and marginal farmers of the Eastern region for lowland situation The details (Fig. 20.2 and Table 20.6) of the module are given as follows: Two-acre IFS Module (Lowland Situation) Components: Crop + Livestock + Fishery. Allied: Duckery/Vermicomposting/Beekeeping/FYM

182

20

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare. . .

1.5%

18%

1.9% 50% 12%

4% 12.5%

Cereals

Vegetables

Vegetables (Bund)

Fodder

Livestock

Fisheries

Manure pits

Fig. 20.2 Land allocation to different enterprises of a 2-acre IFS module Table 20.6 Establishment, income, and expenditure statement of two-acre IFS module Components Crop (0.4 ha) Vegetables (0.15 ha) Orchards/fruits Fodder (0.01 ha) Fishery (0.1 ha) Duckery (on the pond) Dairy (3 + 3) 0.016 ha Crop waste V.C. Total

Establishment cost – – 2500 – 70,000 18,000 100,000 – 15,000 205,000

Gross income (Rs) 29,618 27,841 15,119 9216 17,119 – 135,241 1578 5341 240,093

Net income (Rs) 28,748 224,659 14,701 11,584 11,961 – 70,295 31,267 8659 202,874

1. Cereal crops (50% area). (a) Kharif: Rice. (b) Rabi: Wheat/maize/lentil/mustard 2. Horticultural crops (fruits + vegetables): 12.5% area. 3. Vegetables: (c) Kharif: Cucurbits/brinjal/okra. (d) Summer: Brinjal/boro/okra/bitter gourd/cucumber, etc. 4. Fruits: Papaya (on pond’s dike and field bunds), banana (on pond’s dike), lemon (on pond’s dike and horticultural block), and guava (on pond’s dike and horticultural block). 5. All around the field bunds, cucurbits or seasonal vegetables having lesser water requirements may be raised by making wire fences.

References

183

6. Fish + Duck integration (17.8% area). (a) Mix carp culture: Rohu (20% as a column feeder), catla (30% as a surface feeder), and mrigal/common carp (50% as a bottom feeder). (b) Duck: For 1000 m2 water area, 40 ducks are sufficient. The Khakhi Campbell breed of duck is the right choice for this area (dual purpose). A thatched hut of 10 × 15′ size is optimum for 40 ducks above the water or on the pond’s dike. 7. Livestock (1.80% area): A size of 3 adult cows + 3 calves is optimum for two-acre land with respect to the FYM requirement for the fields and fodder requirement for the livestock. A thatched hut of 20′ × 30′ with sufficient paddock space is sufficient for the above number of animals. The cowshed should be connected with the pond with a drainage channel so that urine and water can move into the pond. A storage hut for storing animal feed should also be made near the animal shed. 8. Fodder production (12.5% area): For feeding of 3 cows and 3 calves, 1000 m2 land is sufficient if year-round fodder production is carried out. In addition to green fodder, straw, leaves, stems of different cereals, and vegetables can also be used as animal feed. (a) Kharif: M.P. Chari/Sudan grass/Napier/Maize. (b) Summer: Boro/Lobia/Maize/Sudangrass. (c) Rabi: Berseem/Oat/Maize, etc. 9. Spices: In the sheds or where light intensity is less like orchards, spaces between the huts, etc., turmeric, ginger, or guinea grass can be taken. 10. FYM/vermicomposting pits: (1.4% area): Optimal size pits for preparation of FYM and vermicompost should be made depending upon land available near the cowshed so that required raw materials for making manures should be made available nearby for convenience and to avoid transportation charges (Sanjeev et al. 2011).

References Ansari MA, Prakash N, Baishya K, Punitha P, Yadav JS, Sharma PK, Sailo B, Ansari MH (2013) Comparative study on conventional and improved integrated farming systems for sustainable production, income generation, and employment opportunity among the tribal farmers in hilly Regions of Manipur. Indian J Agric Sci 83(7):765–772 Ansari MA, Prakash N, Baishya K, Punitha P, Sharma PK, Yadav JS, Kabuei GP, Levis KL (2014) Integrated Farming System: an ideal approach for developing more economically and environmentally sustainable farming systems for the Eastern Himalayan Region. Indian J Agric Sci 84(3):356–362 Bhaskar B (2001) Report of the working group on Agricultural development in Eastern and NorthEastern India for the formulation of the Tenth Five Year plan. Governement of India, Planning Commission Chan GL (2006) Integrated farming system. What does an integrated farming system do? http:// www.scizerinm.org/chanarticle.htm

184

20

Distribution of Area Under Different Farming Components in Two-Hectare. . .

Kumar S, Singh SS, Meena MK, Shivani, and Dey A. (2012) Resource recycling and their management under an integrated farming system for the lowlands of Bihar. Indian J Agric Sci 82(6):504–510 Mohanty RK, Jena SK, Thakur AK, Patil DU (2009) Impact of high-density stocking and selective harvesting on yield and water productivity of deepwater rice-fish systems. Agric Water Manag 96(12):1844–1850 Mohanty RK, Thakur AK, Ghosh S, Patil DU (2010) Impact of rice-fish–prawn culture on rice field ecology and productivity. Indian J Agric Sci 80(7):597–602 Rautaray SK, Dash PC, Sinhababu DP (2005) Increasing farm income through rice (Oryza sativa)fish based integrated farming system in rainfed lowlands of Assam. Indian J Agric Sci 75(2): 79–82 Ravisankar N, Ganeshkumar B, Ghoshal Chaudhuri S, Raja R, Srivastava R C, Singh D R, Kundu A, Medhi RP (2006) Development of integrated farming system (IFS) models under different resource conditions in humid tropics of Bay Islands. http://cari.res.in/Natural percent20 rmach/Developmentpercent20ofpercent20IFSHtm Sanjeev K, Singh SS, Dey A, Shivani (2011) Integrated farming systems for Eastern India. Indian J Agron 56(4):297–304

Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food Security in the Country

21

Abstract

The Indo-Gangetic Plain, a vital agricultural region, holds immense potential to ensure national food security. The scope of the farming system in this region is extensive, with multifaceted dimensions that contribute significantly to the overall food production of the country. Employing advanced agricultural practices, optimizing land utilization, and integrating sustainable technologies can amplify the productivity of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. This, in turn, bolsters food security by catering to the burgeoning population’s dietary needs. However, challenges such as water scarcity, soil degradation, and climate change impacts must be effectively managed to realize the full potential of this farming system. By harnessing the region’s agricultural capabilities and implementing innovative strategies, the Indo-Gangetic Plain can play a pivotal role in ensuring a stable and abundant food supply for the nation. Keywords

Indo-Gangetic Plain · Productivity · Land utilization · Integrating sustainable technologies

The outstanding contribution of agricultural research toward improving the livelihoods of poor farmers in North West India through the Green Revolution technologies is well documented. From the 1960s to the 1980s, cereal production was much improved with the planting of high-yielding wheat and rice varieties combined with the application of fertilizer in the irrigated fields of the IGP. As a result, India moved from a state of deficiency in the staple grains, wheat and rice, to a position of secure self-sufficiency. Presently, with the decline in groundwater reserves and soil degradation, the task at hand is to maintain the gains in crop productivity while supporting the millions of resource-poor families in North West # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_21

185

21 Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food. . .

186

India. The goal is to encourage these families to diversify their farming practices, thereby securing and enhancing their livelihoods, all while ensuring environmental sustainability. Crucial to achieving this objective is the role of ruminant livestock, particularly buffalo, cattle, and goats, which form an integral part of the region’s farming systems. Over the years, the interdependence between rice and wheat cultivation and ruminant livestock has been the foundation of livelihoods in North West India.

21.1

Integrated Crop Livestock Farming System

An integrated farming system encompasses a range of practices aimed at achieving profitable and sustainable production levels while minimizing the adverse impacts of intensive farming and preserving the environment. Within this framework, the integration of crop and livestock farming emerges as a crucial solution to enhance livestock production and promote environmental preservation through efficient resource management. In an integrated crop–livestock farming system, a circular economy approach is employed, where the waste generated by one enterprise becomes the input for another, optimizing resource utilization. For instance, crop residues can be utilized as animal feed, while livestock manure enriches the soil with essential nutrients, reducing the reliance on chemical fertilizers and enhancing soil fertility. Embracing the principles of enhancing natural biological processes both above and below the ground, the integrated farming system proves to be a winning combination that fosters sustainability and prosperity in agriculture. (a) (b) (c) (d)

Mitigates erosion. Enhances crop yields, soil biological activity, and nutrient cycling. Optimizes land utilization, leading to increased profits. Consequently, it aids in poverty and malnutrition alleviation while bolstering environmental sustainability.

21.2

Diversified Versus Integrated Systems

Diversified systems involve separate components, such as crops and livestock, co-existing independently. The integration of crops and livestock in such systems is primarily aimed at risk reduction rather than resource recycling. On the other hand, an integrated system fosters synergy between crops and livestock, maximizing the utilization of available resources through effective recycling. Crop residues can serve as valuable animal feed, while livestock production and processing contribute to agricultural productivity by enriching soil fertility through intensified nutrient cycles, thereby reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers. High integration of crops and livestock is often considered a step forward, but its successful implementation for small farmers requires sufficient access to knowledge, resources, and inputs to ensure long-term economic and environmental sustainability.

21.4

Livelihood Security in the NW IGP

187

Crop–livestock interactions play a crucial role in achieving ecological sustainability by intensifying nutrient and energy cycles. Crop residues become a significant source of forage in smallholder farming systems, offering better digestibility, crude protein, and phosphorus content than natural ranges at the same time of the year. Manuring accelerates nutrient recycling, transferring nutrients from range to cropland and concentrating them on specific areas, effectively slowing down soil depletion and enabling more efficient cultivation over extended periods. In smallholder farming regions, forage is pre-dominantly derived from “wasteland” or temporarily uncultivated land, often interspersed between cultivated plots. This land serves as grazing areas for herded or tethered livestock or is utilized by cutting the vegetation for fodder.

21.3

Promoting Ecologically Sustainable Farming

To encourage a rural-based crop–livestock integrated mixed farming system, farmers should receive suitable incentives. This approach would discourage the shift away from mixed farming practices and instead motivate farmers to embrace organic methods. Simultaneously, it is essential to direct intensive farming systems to appropriate areas and implement stringent policies and regulations to effectively manage and mitigate their negative environmental impacts. By following an environmentally conscious growth path, we can ensure sustainable utilization of natural resources. As a part of a long-term strategy, it is crucial to accurately assess the environmental costs associated with various activities and incorporate these costs into commodity prices. This approach, known as internalizing negative environmental externalities, will promote the responsible and sustainable use of our natural resources.

21.4

Livelihood Security in the NW IGP

In the North-western Indo-Gangetic Plain (NW IGP), the asset base and returns are relatively favorable, providing comfortable livelihoods for landed households, especially those with reasonably large farms. The presence of well-established irrigation systems and developed market and institutional infrastructure adds to the overall advantage. The rice–wheat system, in particular, offers an attractive and stable income to farm households with minimal risk, making it a secure and profitable choice that minimizes market and production risks. The integration of dairy buffalo, which utilize crop by-products, adds value to the crop production enterprise and serves as a significant complementary income source. This integration enhances the level and stability of household income and reduces seasonality and overall risk. Even smallholders have seen relative success in the NW IGP by adopting a combination of agricultural intensification, dairying, and off-farm diversification. A notable feature in the region is the divergent management of the crop and livestock components, especially in the north-west. Crop production is pre-dominantly

188

21 Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food. . .

Table 21.1 IFS models developed in Northern India States Punjab

Prevailing system Crops (rice– wheat)

UP

Crops (sugarcane– wheat) Crops alone

Net return (Rs./ ha/year) 81,200

41,017

66,371

Integrated farming system Crops (rice– wheat) + dairy Fish + piggery Crops (Sugarcane + wheat) + dairy

Net return (Rs./ ha/year) 1,54,000

Crop + dairy Crop + dairy + horticulture Crop + dairy + apiary Crop + dairy + vermicomposting

1,03,615 1,07,467

1,13,200 47,737

1,34,382 1,39,472

Source: Gill et al. (2009)

intensified, utilizing high external inputs, resulting in high productivity and extensive market integration. The contrasting livelihood security in the IGP is shaped by two key factors: the asset base and market opportunities available to rural households for accumulating surplus. Access to land plays a central role in securing rural livelihoods across the IGP, with poverty being most prevalent among the rural landless, who are primarily agricultural laborers. The ability to generate surplus is closely tied to farm size and annual productivity, with secure irrigation being a crucial determinant of productivity. Market opportunities, on the other hand, depend on market access and infrastructure. Labor-intensive crops, dairying, and off-farm diversification provide relatively broad-based growth opportunities, contributing to overall economic stability in the region. The different IFS models developed in Northern India are given in Table 21.1.

21.5

Environmental Sustainability

Water management is a key concern throughout the IGP, albeit varying from overexploitation of groundwater in some areas to poor unreliable irrigation and the negative effects on productivity from flooding and water logging in others. With the continuing spread of private diesel-powered tubes and shallow wells, declining water tables are likely to become more widespread. Another critical challenge to the existing livelihoods is the depletion of soil fertility and organic matter through mining practices. Managing organic matter presents a particular issue, as there are predominantly one-way extractive flows from the fields, leading to a decline in soil organic matter stocks, especially in the eastern plains of the IGP. The current crop-residue management practices, along with intensive use of cereal residues and limited application of farmyard manure, result in few organic residues remaining in the fields during land preparation.

21.6

Farming Systems Scenario in NW IGP

189

Moreover, unbalanced fertilizer use further undermines soil fertility. In the north western region, the burning of crop residues during land preparation also contributes to significant air pollution, affecting both rural and urban areas in the vicinity. More significantly, maintaining agricultural productivity in these high-potential areas becomes crucial to alleviate agricultural pressure on the delicate natural resources in other regions. Thus, to handle these problems in Indo-Gangetic plains, there is a need to promote an integrated farming system in this region, which helps in the conservation of natural resources and also provides livelihood security.

21.6

Farming Systems Scenario in NW IGP

The pre-dominant farming system in the North West IGP is a combination of crop production and dairy animal rearing (crops + dairy), adopted by approximately 96% of farmers in the area. The major cropping systems in the region include sugarcane– wheat and rice–wheat. Based on the prevailing market rates of inputs and outputs during the year 2004–2005, the estimated net return for the sugarcane–wheat cropping system was Rs. 39,689/ha, while for the rice–wheat cropping system, it was Rs. 24,048/ha. This indicates that the sugarcane–wheat system is more advantageous in terms of profitability compared to the rice–wheat system. The economic analysis considering the farm holding size revealed that in the sugarcane–wheat system (Table 21.2), net returns increased with an increase in farm size, whereas in the case of rice–wheat, it was inversely related. Large farmers achieved the highest net returns of Rs. 41,133/ha under the sugarcane–wheat system (Table 21.2). Conversely, for rice–wheat, sub-medium farmers recorded the highest returns of Rs. 26,558/ha. Regarding dairy animals, on average, each family had 0.56 milch animals for small farmers, 1.16 for sub-medium farmers, 1.99 for medium farmers, and 2.57 for large farmers, with an overall average of 1.53 milch animals per family. The combined economic analysis of the crop-dairy system suggests that incorporating dairy animal rearing along with crop production can further increase the income of farmers in different categories, ranging from Rs. 760 to Rs. 1712 per family per year.

Table 21.2 Economics of prevailing cropping/farming systems Economics (Rs./ha/year) based on category of farmers Cropping/farming system Small Sub-medium Medium Large Sugarcane–wheat system Net income 38,614.02 38,826.07 40,184.69 41,133.19 Rice–wheat system Net income NA 26,557.89 23,081.16 22,506.31 Farming system (Crop + dairy-based farming system) Net income 39,361.93 39,573.97 41,348.42 42,844.78 Source: Singh et al. (2011)

Mean 39,689.49 24,048.45 40,782.27

190

21.7

21 Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food. . .

Development of Farming System Model

In 2004–2005, a research project on Integrated Farming System (IFS) was initiated at PDCSR, Modipuram, with the aim of ensuring livelihood security for marginal and small farmers while promoting agricultural sustainability and environmental safety. The IFS model, developed on a 1.5 ha area, comprised various components: 1. Crops (0.72 ha): Field crops, including fodders, were cultivated to provide food for family consumption and feed for other enterprises. 2. Dairy (0.32 ha): The dairy unit had improved milch animals, consisting of two buffaloes of the murrah breed and one cow of the sahiwal breed. 3. Horticulture (0.22 ha): A multi-storied fruit and vegetable unit was established to diversify the income and enhance the overall productivity of the farm. 4. Fishery (0.10 ha): A mixed culture of fishes, including rohu, katla, mrigal, nain, and grass carp, was maintained for fish production. 5. Miscellaneous (0.14 ha): This area was utilized for various purposes, such as goat rearing, apiary (ten bee boxes), vermicompost production, threshing floor, and farm building. In subsequent years, the model was further strengthened by adding a small vermicompost unit (0.01 ha) in 2006. However, the goat unit (15 goat animals) was found unsuitable and unprofitable under stall feeding, so it was removed from the program. Fruit plants, including stone fruit such as “Bel,” jackfruit, aonla, jamun, and citrus spp., were planted around the farm boundaries as windbreaks to protect the field crops and also contribute to the farm’s income. At the boundary of the horticultural unit, Carisa carendis (karonda) was planted, serving as live fencing and providing a bonus fruit yield (4–6 q/year). The IFS model ensured the efficient recycling of all farm wastes, by-products, and crop residues within the system, leaving nothing as waste. Outputs from one enterprise were used as inputs for other enterprises. For example, crop residues and green fodders were used as feed for dairy animals and fish, and cow dung and urine were composted and utilized as a major source of nutrients for field and plantation crops. Calves were either used as draught animals or sold in the open market. Animal wash from the animal shed was diverted directly to the fish pond to serve as fish feed. These interdependent interactions within the system made IFS a complex yet highly viable and sustainable approach. Overall, the major components of the integrated farming system model at PDCSR, Modipuram, were crop production, dairy, horticulture, fishery, and various supplementary enterprises to ensure efficient resource utilization and maximize the farm’s productivity.

21.8

Economics and Livelihood Improvement

191

Crops þ Dairy ðDominate Farming System of the RegionÞ þ Horticulture þ Fishery ðMost Promising Enterprises for Integration=DiversificationÞ þ Apiary þ Vermicompost þ Boundary Plantations ðSupplementary EnterprisesÞ

21.8

Economics and Livelihood Improvement

Gross and net returns: On average, the Integrated Farming System (IFS) demonstrated significant financial gains, with gross and net returns amounting to Rs. 3,29,400/ha/year and Rs. 1,35,820/ha/year, respectively (Table 21.3). These figures represented a remarkable increase of 165.2% and 82.5% compared to the returns from crops alone, which stood at Rs. 1,24,230 and Rs. 74,430/ha/year, respectively. The notable improvement in financial outcomes under IFS can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the inclusion of more enterprising vegetables and flower crops contributed to higher revenue generation. Additionally, livestock and fishery units were strengthened, leading to increased profits. Furthermore, the optimal recycling of farm wastes and crop residues, along with better management Table 21.3 Net returns under IFS since start of the project (2004–2005 to 2009–2010) from an IFS model of 1.5 ha cultivated land

Enterprises Crops Animals (dairya + goatb) Horticulture Fishery Apiary Total IFS

Initial years (Av. 2004– 2006) 45.02 22.45a

2006– 2007 104.05 40.70a

2007– 2008 80.35 32.29a

2008– 2009 89.66 192.67b

2009– 2010 53.07 146.13

(2004– 2010) Average 74.43 87.02

12.14 -4.21 8.10 83.51

3.37 0.79 -1.54 147.37

13.45 4.29 3.71 134.11

14.04 7.80 9.95 314.12

8.30c 16.06 0.80d 224.37

10.26 4.94 4.20 135.82

Source: Singh et al. (2011) Note: a Income from dairy animal alone b Income from dairy + goat animals c The orchard unit was auctioned for 1 year, and the income from intercrops raised is not included in gross and net returns d Apiary unit was badly affected by insect Baravo, which damaged almost all the bee hives, resulting in poor honey production in the year

192

21 Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food. . .

practices for all enterprises within the model, resulted in higher production levels and enhanced overall profitability.

21.9

Employment Generation

The diversified and intensive nature of various activities associated with the Integrated Farming System (IFS) model offers ample employment opportunities, engaging farmers and their family members throughout the year. This, in turn, can play a significant role in addressing the unemployment issue, especially among rural youths in the country. While crops alone required 182 person-days per hectare per annum for production, the IFS model demanded significantly more labor, approximately 795 person-days per hectare per annum (Table 21.4). This reflects the substantial increase in employment opportunities created by the multifarious activities integrated within the IFS model compared to traditional crop farming alone. At PDFSR, Modipuram, an in-depth study was conducted to modify the existing cropping systems by incorporating pulses, oilseeds, vegetables, and fruits to fulfill the family’s needs. The area allocation was adjusted accordingly, resulting in synthesized cropping systems. The increase in net returns of various farming systems due to on-farm interventions in farming system approaches under different locations is discussed in Table 21.5. These included sugarcane (spring) + onion– ratoon (12% area, 0.12 ha), rice–potato–wheat (0.15% ha)/marigold (0.15 ha)– dhaincha (26% area, 0.30 ha), maize for cobs + arhar/wheat (11% area, 0.13 ha), and sorghum–rice–mustard (0.21 ha)/oat (0.07 ha)/berseem (0.07 ha) (28% area, 0.35 ha). Arhar and mustard were added to produce sufficient pulses and oilseeds for the family’s consumption. The livestock component with two buffaloes and one cattle remained unchanged, but provisions were made to produce adequate green fodder by including oat and berseem in the cropping systems. To enhance income and resource recycling, complementary enterprises such as apiary, vermicompost (0.7% area, 100 m2), and boundary plantations of karonda, citrus, jackfruit, and subabul were incorporated.

Table 21.4 Employment generation Component enterprises of IFS Crop alone (1.04 ha) Dairy (5 milch animals and their young ones) Fishery (fish pond of 0.10 ha) Apiary (10 bee boxes) Goat (15 animals) Vermicomposting (0.01 ha) Total IFS (1.5 ha) Source: Singh et al. (2011)

Person-days 189 365 52 38 91 60 795 person-days (530/ha)

21.9

Employment Generation

193

Table 21.5 Increase in net returns of various farming systems due to on-farm interventions in farming system approach Location Kangra (HP)

Area (ha) 0.31

Santkabirnagar (UP) Kakdwip

0.82

Kabirdham (CG)

0.98

0.61

Farming system modules Crop + dairy + primary processing + kitchen garden Crop + Dairy Crop + dairy + poultry + fisheries + secondary processing Crop + dairy + secondary processing + fruits + mushroom

Net returns (Rs) Before After 39,942 61,084

Increase (%) 53

28,181

66,824

137

36,344

55,969

54

68,843

103,618

51

Source: Gangwar (2015)

Karonda serves as a living fence while also yielding fruit that can be used to make pickles. Additionally, it acts as a protective barrier, deterring blue bulls or stray animals from entering the farm. Mango, guava + brinjal and tomato (16% area, 0.20 ha), and fishery (7.5% area, 0.08 ha) were added as supplementary incomegenerating activities in the model. According to ICMR standards, a family comprising seven members, including five adults and two children, requires 550 kg of cereals, 200 kg of pulses, 130 kg of oilseeds, 900 kg of vegetables, 200 kg of fruits, 1120 kg of milk, and 154 kg of fish per annum to meet their nutritional needs. The synthesized model covering 1.2 ha was found capable of producing the required quantity of these items for the family. Moreover, the system generated marketable surpluses of 3585 kg of cereals, 106 kg of oilseeds, 3200 kg of vegetables, 2218 kg of fruits, 5001 kg of milk, and 276 kg of fish, ensuring sufficient income for the family and improving the availability of these products in the market. There was an additional production of 265 kg of cereals and 1033 kg of milk annually. To meet the green fodder requirement for two buffaloes and one cattle, the existing system produced only 21 tons of green fodder, while around 27 tons of green fodder and 5.5 tons of dry fodder per annum were required. In the improved farming system, green fodder production increased to 36 tons and 6.4 tons per annum, respectively, which was the primary reason for the additional production of 1033 kg of milk. The total production in terms of sugarcane equivalent yield in the improved system was 108 tons per annum, compared to 56 tons per annum in the existing system. The net profit increased by 88%, while the cost of the system increased by only 35%. The internal supply of N, P2O5, and K2O in the improved system was significantly higher at 204, 136, and 186 kg, respectively, compared to 100, 40, and 100 kg in the existing system. It is estimated that the improved system can meet 65%, 85%, and 100% of the N, P2O5, and K2O requirements within the farm, and the recycled resources are expected to provide sufficient micronutrients. Employment opportunities for the family increased from 260 person-days to 625 person-days due to the improved farming system.

194

21 Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food. . .

21.10 Case Study The sustainability and economic efficiency of the Integrated Farming System model established at the farm of Sh. Darshan Singh, Hyatpura Ludhiana is given in Table 21.6. The sustainability of an integrated crop–livestock system relies on the availability of sufficient nutrients to support both animals and plants while maintaining soil fertility. To enhance the nutritional value of crop residues, cultivating fodder legumes and using them as supplements is a practical and cost-effective approach. Timely and balanced nutrient application is essential for sustainable yield and quality growth, promoting plant health, and reducing environmental risks. The complementarities between crop and livestock production are often viewed as crucial building blocks for socioeconomic development and environmental sustainability. These complementarities highlight mutually beneficial interactions and synergies between crops, livestock, and human livelihoods. The integration of the livestock component with the crop component involves distinct management for the two enterprises, each with different resource utilization patterns. This allows for complementarities and potential resource savings at the household level, fostering more efficient resource utilization. As a result, the integration of diversified activities in farming offers various advantages: 1. Increased revenue: By introducing new activities, farm families can experience higher farm income and an improved quality of life. 2. Adaptability: Engaging in new activities allows farmers to learn and make necessary adjustments, making them better equipped to respond to future opportunities. 3. Security: Diversifying income sources provides long-term stability and a secure future for the farm family, reducing reliance on a single income stream. 4. Tradition: Diversification can ensure the continuation of valued and cherished traditional activities while seeking to increase income and secure the farm’s future. 5. Developing new skills: Managing new ventures offers opportunities to enhance skills and expand business networks, covering areas from management and marketing to finance and customer service, ultimately fostering business acumen.

Rice equivalent yield (q/ha) 133.81 147.47 124.29 212.57 304.11 296.31

Gross return (Rs.) 789,480 870,090 733,320 1,254,183 1,794,242 1,748,216

Source: Gill et al. (2009) R rice, W wheat, D dairy, AF agroforestry, PG piggery, PL poultry, G goatry

System R-W R-W + D R-W + AF F + PG F + PG + PL R-W + D + PL + PG + AF

Area under the system (ha) 10.8 10.4, 0.4 9.2, 1.6 10.79, 0.01 10.64 + 0.01 + 0.15 10.8

Total cost (Rs.) 214,696 278,033 2,142,696 468,541 940,354 949,310

Employment generation over R-W system (persondays) – 176 57 322 499 483

Table 21.6 Relative economics of various farming systems at the farm of Sh. Darshan Singh, Hyatpura Ludhiana Net returns (Rs./ha) 53,221 54,820 48,063 72,745 79,064 73,973

Net return over rice–wheat (Rs./ ha) – 1599 -5158 19,524 25,843 20,752

21.10 Case Study 195

196

21 Scope of Farming System in the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Ensure Food. . .

References Gangwar B (2015) Diversification for small and marginal farmers in various agroecological regions. In: Pandey et al. (eds.) Centre of Advanced Faculty Training (Agronomy), GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, pp 30–34 Gill MS, Singh JP, Gangwar KS (2009) Integrated farming system and agriculture sustainability. Indian J Agron 54:128–139 Singh JP, Gangwar B, Pandey DK, Kochewad SA (2011) Integrated Farming System model for small farm holders of Western Plain Zone of Uttar Pradesh. PDFSR Bulletin No. 05, pp. 58. Project Directorate for Farming Systemsn Research, Modipuram, Meerut

Organic Integrated Farming System

22

Abstract

Organic Integrated Farming System (OIFS) embodies a holistic and sustainable approach to agriculture, seamlessly combining organic farming principles with diverse agricultural activities. This innovative system promotes the efficient utilization of resources, emphasizing the integration of crops, livestock, and agroforestry. OIFS encourages natural synergies among components, optimizing nutrient cycling, pest management, and overall ecosystem health. By minimizing external inputs and embracing biological diversity, OIFS enhances soil fertility, reduces environmental impact, and ensures long-term agricultural resilience. This approach empowers farmers to achieve economic viability while adhering to organic practices, fostering food security and environmental sustainability. Keywords

Sustainable · Crops · Livestock · Agroforestry · Food security · Environmental sustainability

During the green revolution, grain yields witnessed significant growth globally, paralleled by a similar trend in individual animal production levels (Alexandratos 1995; Porcire and Rabbinge 1997). As the global population is projected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050 and over 10 billion by the end of the twenty-first century, ensuring food security becomes a monumental challenge for the existing agricultural production system (UNPFA 2011). In India, the shrinking average farm size and financial constraints faced by small and marginal farmers (who make up 80% of farm families) further exacerbate the challenge. To address the need for food and nutrition security for a substantial population, enhancing productivity becomes a critical solution. This entails adopting scientific agronomic practices and technologies that augment the productivity of traditional agricultural systems. Although the liberal use # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_22

197

198

22

Organic Integrated Farming System

of inorganic pesticides and fertilizers in the twentieth century significantly boosted productivity, concerns arose about economic feasibility and sustainability due to undesirable environmental degradation and increased operational costs in agriculture (IAASTD 2009; FAO 2010). The adverse impacts of such practices disproportionately affect rural communities in developing economies, whose livelihoods are directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture and allied activities (FAO 2009). Unsustainable farming practices lead to environmental pollution and pose threats to the livelihoods of millions of small-scale farmers. Thus, strengthening agricultural production systems for greater sustainability and higher economic returns is a crucial process to enhance income and achieve food and nutrition security in developing countries (Ravallion and Chen 2007). The emergence of Organic Integrated Farming Systems offers an alternative development model to enhance the feasibility of small-sized farming operations compared to larger ones. Integrated organic farming systems represent a more integrated approach to farming, distinct from monoculture approaches. An Integrated Farming System may be defined as linking together two or more normally separate components or enterprises, which then become subsystems of a whole farming system. Two major features of IFS are: (1) waste or by-product utilization in which the wastes or by-products of one subsystem become an input to a second subsystem; and (2) improved space utilization in which the two subsystems essentially occupy part or all of the space required for an individual subsystem (IOBC 1983). Thus, an IFS represents multiple crops (e.g., cereals, legumes, tree crops, vegetables) and multiple enterprises (e.g., livestock, apiary, aquaculture) on a single farm in an integrated manner (Behera et al. 2015). The basic aim of IFS is to derive a set of resource development and utilization practices, which leads to a substantial and sustained increase in agricultural production (Kumar and Jain 2005).

22.1

Organic Approach of Integrated Framing Systems

Organic agriculture, sometimes called biological or ecological agriculture, combines traditional conservation-minded farming methods with modern farming technologies. It emphasizes rotating crops, managing pests naturally, diversifying crops and livestock, and improving the soil with compost additions and animal and green manures. As per the definition of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), “organic farming is a system which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetic inputs (such as fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, feed additives etc.) and to the maximum extent feasible rely upon crop rotations, crop residues, animal manures, off-farm organic waste, mineral grade rock additives and biological system of nutrient mobilization and plant protection.” Also, FAO suggested that “Organic agriculture is a unique production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity, and this is accomplished by using on-farm agronomic, biological and mechanical methods in exclusion of all synthetic off-farm inputs.”

22.2

Main Principles of Organic Farming

199

Food, fibre and fuel for human and livestock use and consumption

Crop and animal health

Biological controls

Supplementary lime, organic fertilizers and compost

Weed management

Disease management

Diverse crop and livestock rotation

Balanced nutrient supply

Biologically active soil

Physical methods

Species, variety and breed selection

Temporal and spatial patterns

Diverse species balance

Biological controls

Pest management

Hedges, Margins and other habitat areas

Fig. 22.1 Organic management practices

Organic farmers use modern equipment, improved crop varieties, soil and water conservation practices, and the latest innovations in feeding and handling livestock. Organic farming systems range from strict closed-cycle systems that go beyond organic certification guidelines by limiting external inputs as much as possible to more standard systems that simply follow organic certification guidelines. Organic management practices (Fig. 22.1): They are the complex interactions among structural factors and tactical management strategies on a diversified organic farm producing food, fiber, and fuel for human and livestock use and consumption. Structural factors, represented by circles, are the foundation of organic management, with diverse crop and livestock rotations at the center. Tactical management decisions are used to supplement the structural factors and include the use of biological controls; supplementary lime, organic fertilizers, and compost; hedges, margins, and other habitat areas; species, variety, and breed selection; temporal and spatial patterns; and physical weed management (Reganold and Wachter 2016).

22.2

Main Principles of Organic Farming

The main principles of organic farming by Chandrashekar (2010) are as follows:

200

22

Organic Integrated Farming System

• To work as much as possible within a closed system, and draw upon local resources. • To maintain the long-term fertility of soils. • To avoid all forms of pollution that may result from agricultural techniques. • To produce foodstuffs of high nutritional quality and in sufficient quantity. • To reduce the use of fossil energy in agricultural practice to a minimum. • To give livestock conditions of life that confirm their physiological need. • To make it possible for agricultural producers to earn a living through their work and develop their potential as human beings. All the above principles are based on the four ethical principles: Principle of Health, Principle of Care, Principle of Fairness, and Principle of Ecology (IFOAM 2005).

22.3

Nutrient Management

The organic production of crops is based on the principle of “feed the soil and not the plants,” emphasizing the return of nutrients to nature that have been taken from it (Funtilana 1990). Soil organic matter and humus play a crucial role in this philosophy, significantly impacting soil properties such as bulk density, water holding capacity, infiltration rate, hydraulic conductivity, and aggregate stability (Shepherd et al. 2003). Organic manures serve as major sources of soil organic matter, and their significance has been recognized since ancient times, with references as early as 400 BC in Krishi Parashara (Nene 2010). Plants acquire nutrients from organic sources through the process of mineralization facilitated by soil microorganisms. Waksman (1938) highlighted the importance of microbes, stating that “without soil microbes, life on the planet would come to a standstill.” Soil macro-organisms like earthworms, termites, and other macro fauna also play a vital role in the decomposition of organic residues and their redistribution within the soil profile. For instance, a population of three tons of earthworms per hectare passes an amount of soil equivalent to a 10 cm soil layer through their system in 1 year (Edwards and Lofty 1972). Leguminous green manure crops contribute to fixing atmospheric nitrogen in the soil in an available form, enhancing soil health, preventing nutrient leaching, and conserving excess soil moisture (Virdi et al. 2005). Studies have shown that cereal– legume cropping systems yield 30–35% higher yields of cereals compared to cereal– cereal cropping sequences (Peoples and Craswell 1992). The recycling of crop residues is a fundamental aspect of organic farming systems due to their role in improving soil health and the prohibition of their burning on organic farms. Crop residues can be effectively recycled through practices such as soil incorporation, composting, vermicomposting, and mulching. Their proper management has the potential to enhance soil and water conservation, maintain soil productivity, and increase crop yields (Das et al. 2003). Biofertilizers also play a vital role in organic farming by fixing atmospheric nitrogen, solubilizing/mobilizing soil phosphorus, and promoting the decomposition of crop residues. Research has shown that

22.5

Disease Management

201

biofertilizer inoculation can increase crop yields by approximately 6–25%. For example, chickpea yields can increase by 13–76%, pigeon pea by 10–46%, green gram by 9–95%, mash by 32–54%, and cowpea by 25–30% with the application of biofertilizers (Kler et al. 2001). Azospirillum inoculations have been found to boost grain productivity of cereals by 5–20%, millets by 30%, and fodder crops by over 50% (Dahama 2003).

22.4

Insect Pest Management

Crop rotations play a crucial role in preventing the carryover of crop-specific pests from one crop to another, providing an essential phytosanitary function. Utilizing non-grass crops in crop rotation can help reduce the population of borers. To manage the rice leaf folder, running a rope in rice fields has been found effective (PAU 2017). Organic farming practices have been shown to result in lesser numbers of eggs, larvae, and adults of the American bollworm in cotton compared to conventional methods (Sharma 2003). Certain plants naturally produce secondary metabolites like terpenoids, alkaloids, flavonoids, and phenolic compounds with insecticidal properties, making them suitable candidates for botanical pesticides. For instance, neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) at 5% has proven to be effective against H. armigera, and seed treatment at 10 ml/kg seed and drenching with 10% solution at 4 l/ha of Aonla (Emblica officinalis) can control termites in chickpea (Gaur and Sharma 2010). Organic practices for insect pest management typically involve the following: • Encouraging predatory beneficial insects by providing them with nursery plants or alternative habitats • Promoting beneficial microorganisms • Implementing crop rotations to disrupt pest reproductive cycles • Planting companion crops and pest-repellent crops • Using biological pesticides and herbicides • Employing insect traps to monitor and control insect pest populations For example, the application of Trichogramma, a parasitoid, in sugarcane at 50,000 eggs/ha at 10-day intervals from July to October has shown a significant reduction in damage caused by stalk borers (Singh et al. 1997). Additionally, Bt formulations have demonstrated effectiveness against H. armigera, leaf webber, and other crop pests (Gujar et al. 2000).

22.5

Disease Management

One of the main challenges in achieving successful organic crop production lies in the presence of bacterial and fungal plant diseases. However, adopting crop rotations and implementing proper fertility management practices can provide an additional

202

22

Organic Integrated Farming System

advantage by enhancing the resistance of crops to certain diseases. As a result, one of the most significant benefits of organic farming is the promotion of healthy soil that is alive with beneficial organisms. By promoting microbial populations that feed on nematodes, organic crop management practices have been shown to reduce the relative abundance of plant parasitic nematodes (Surekha et al. 2010). Trichoderma viride can serve as an effective control agent against root and stem rots, wilts, blights, and other fungal diseases (Vinale et al. 2008). Similarly, Pseudomonas fluorescens has shown effectiveness against root and stem rots, downy mildews, damping off, blights, powdery mildews, and other fungal diseases. Furthermore, cultural practices, such as specific planting methods, can also impact the incidence and spread of diseases. For example, ridge sowing has been found to reduce late blight in potatoes and smut diseases in wheat. Additionally, intercropping green gram, black gram, and cowpea with sugarcane has been observed to decrease the incidence of sugarcane early shoot borer.

22.6

Weed Management

Organic weed management focuses on weed suppression rather than complete elimination, achieved by enhancing crop competition and utilizing phytotoxic effects on weeds. Organic farmers employ a combination of cultural, biological, mechanical, physical, and chemical tactics to manage weeds without using synthetic herbicides. For instance, managing Phalaris minor can involve crop rotation with other rabi crops like berseem, potato, raya or gobhi sarson, winter maize, oats (fodder), and sugarcane. Early sowing of wheat in October and adopting narrow row spacing of 15 cm can also aid in its control (Mahajan and Brar 2001). Furthermore, summer ploughing can be effective in controlling Cyperus rotundus by exposing its tubers to sunlight (Tewari and Singh 1991). Intercropping cowpea in maize and harvesting it around 40–45 days after sowing provides not only fodder but also helps in controlling weeds (PAU 2017). Another approach is to utilize allelopathy as a tool to manage weeds in field crops by using allelopathic water extracts. Certain plants like eucalyptus and sorghum contain allele chemicals that interfere with the photosynthesis and respiratory metabolism of weeds, leading to their reduced growth. Leather (1987) reported that 13 genotypes of cultivated sunflowers exhibit allelopathic effects on several weed species. Additionally, grazing can be employed as a means of weed control.

22.7

Prospects of Organic Dairy Farming in India

With the prevalence of close-to-traditional and integrated farming systems in rural India and a growing demand for healthy food products in both domestic and foreign markets, organic farming presents an opportunity for Indian farmers. Unlike the highly intensive dairy production in developed countries, dairy farming in developing countries, including India, is relatively less intensive (Wolde and Tamir 2016).

22.9

Some Other Issues to Consider (Sharma and Saini 2015)

203

Certain regions in India, especially mountain areas and specific communities, have remained untouched by green revolution technologies and agrochemical use, making them ideal “organic zones” (Singh 2007). Moreover, rainfed areas of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, hilly areas of Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Jammu and Kashmir, Tamil Nadu, and the entire North-Eastern region are well-suited for organic milk production. In contrast, regions like the Trans-Gangetic plains of Punjab, Haryana, Western U.P., and parts of Rajasthan have seen intensive crop husbandry, but dairy farming in these areas has not undergone the same level of intensification as in developed countries, making them more amenable to organic conversion. Organic dairy farming holds significant promise in India, particularly due to the prevalence of smallholders and landless dairy farmers, who contribute 70% of the country’s total milk production (Kumar et al. 2005). However, challenges like certification difficulties, traceability issues, and limited awareness and local markets for organic produce need to be addressed. Co-operative organizations can play a crucial role in promoting organic dairy farming in rural areas by certifying, procuring, processing, and marketing organic milk. India’s dairy farming strengths include the availability of quality indigenous breeds, natural and integrated farming systems, greater disease resistance in animals, and improved dairy animal performance. There is scope for further exploration in areas that promote awareness of healthy food choices, crop residue-based feeding, and the protection and enhancement of biodiversity (Maji et al. 2017). However, successful implementation of organic farming policies requires strong initiatives from the government and commitment from all stakeholders.

22.8

Feeding to Livestock in Organic Systems

Animal husbandry fulfills a central role in organic farming. The general principle of livestock feeding in organic systems is that the animals have to be fed a speciesspecific diet in a way “suited to their physiology.” Nutrient supply must be based on the animal’s requirements to avoid “metabolic disturbances” and to maintain fertility and overall health (Swami et al. 2019). In recent times, it is possible to design 100% organic feeding rations, but many of them have not been verified in practice or are not suitable due to high price and production constraints. Organic feeding rations for high-performing animals are based on recent knowledge in organic animal nutrition research, which is still at the beginning and not sufficient. Conventional feedstuff research is not applicable to many questions and circumstances in organic farming.

22.9

Some Other Issues to Consider (Sharma and Saini 2015)

Conversion period: One year is necessary to bring conventional dairy herds to certified organic status. Successful conversion of the herd will depend on the successful conversion of land and the soil-building practices employed.

204

22

Organic Integrated Farming System

Grazing: Rotational grazing is the best choice to maximize grazing, lengthen the grazing season, and reduce cost. In organic farming, the ration for dairy cattle during the housing period mainly consists of grass silage. Organic dairy cows have to be given some concentrates in order to fulfill the genetic potential for milk production, even if they are fed with high-quality silage. Housing: Loose housing is required to be followed. Good ventilation helps reduce lung problems. Husbandry practices: Weaning period depends on the certification agencies. Studies indicate that suckling has a beneficial effect on both mother and calf as it increases the level of oxytocin in blood, and as a long-lasting effect of this, the growth rate of calves is enhanced. Health problems: Organic husbandry conditions promote robust health of the animals, though there is always a chance for infectious disease to creep in, for instance, Mastitis. Research has shown that a cure for most of these diseases can be achieved if systematic sanitation methods combined with appropriate homeopathic remedies are followed.

22.10 Limitations • During the initial years, crop production in organic farming may be low, and to incentivize farmers, premium prices should be offered for their organic produce. • Organic manures may not be readily available in sufficient quantities, and when purchased on a plant-nutrient basis, they could be more expensive than chemical fertilizers. • Farmers may lack clarity on how to effectively market their organically grown produce. • The guidelines for organic production, processing, transportation, and certification may be complex and challenging for ordinary Indian farmers to comprehend. Inappropriate use of modern agricultural practices caused adverse effects on today’s agriculture. Overuse of pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, and herbicides build up residue in soil and also contaminates the groundwater. Thus, environment-friendly alteration in agricultural practices is the need of the hour. Also, people are becoming health conscious nowadays and show consideration toward quality parameters. Organic integrated farming systems provide distinctive possibilities for the preservation and expansion of natural resources. The focus in such systems is on optimizing the utilization of resources rather than maximizing individual elements within the system. By harnessing the collective knowledge and efforts of farmers, scientists, researchers, and students in various countries facing similar eco-sociological conditions, Organic Integrated Farming Systems can contribute to enhancing the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers.

References

205

References Alexandratos N (1995) World agriculture: towards 2010. An FAO study. FAO, Rome Behera UK, Babu A, Kaechele H, France J (2015) Energy self sufficient sustainable integrated farming systems for livelihood security under a changing climate scenario in an Indian context: a case-study approach. CAB Rev 10(19):11 Chandrashekar HM (2010) Changing scenario of organic farming in India: an overview. Int NGO J 5:34–39 Dahama AK (2003) Use of traditional and non traditional additives for organic farming. In: Organic farming for sustainable agriculture. Agrobios (India), Jodhpur, pp 91–227 Das K, Medhi DN, Guha B (2003) Application of crop residues in combination with chemical fertilizers for sustainable productivity in rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) system. Indian J Agron 48:8–11 Edwards CA, Lofty JR (1972) Biology of earthworms. Chapman and Hall, London, p 283 FAO (2009) Food security and agricultural mitigation in developing countries: options for capturing synergies. Rome, FAO FAO (2010) Sustainable crop production intensification through an ecosystem approach and an enabling environment: capturing efficiency through ecosystem services and management. FAO Committee on Agriculture, 16–19 June 2010 Funtilana S (1990) Safe, inexpensive, profitable and sensible. International Agricultural Development, March–April 24 Gaur RB, Sharma RN (2010) Validation of some traditional wisdom of farming communities of semi-arid region of Rajasthan, India- Regional review. In: Choudhary SL, Khandelwal SK and Nene YL (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on traditional practices in conservation agriculture, 18–20 Sept 2010, pp 142–151 Gujar GT, Kalia V, Kumari A (2000) Bioactivity of Bacillus thuringiensis against American bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). Ann Plant Prot Sci 8(2):125–131 IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at the crossroads, international assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development. Island Press, Washington, DC IFOAM (2005) Principles of organic agriculture. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Bonn IOBC (1983) International organization for biological and integrated control of Noxious Animals and Plants, Netherlands by Ponsen & Looijen, Wageningen. Kler DS, Kumar A, Chinna GS, Kaur R, Uppal RS (2001) Essentials of organic farming – a review. Environ Ecol 19(4):776–798 Kumar S, Jain DK (2005) Are linkages between crops and livestock important for the sustainability of the farming system? Asian Econ Rev 47(1):90–101 Kumar N, Sawant S, Malik RK, Patil G (2005) Development of analytical process for detection of antibiotic residues in milk using bacterial spores as biosensors (Patent Reg # IPR/4.9.1.41 05074114791 deI/2006) Leather GR (1987) Weed control using allelopathic sunflowers and herbicide. Plant Soil 98:17–23 Mahajan G, Brar LS (2001) Integrated management of Phalaris minor in wheat. Indian J Weed Sci 33:9–13 Maji S, Meena BS, Paul P, Rudroju V (2017) Prospect of organic dairy farming in India: a review. Asian J Dairy Food Res 36(1):1–8 Nene YL (2010) Indian indigenous knowledge in conservation agriculture. In: Choudhary SL, Khandelwal SK, Nene YL (eds) Proceedings of the international conference on traditional practices in conservation agriculture, 18–20 Sept 2010, pp 1–6 PAU (2017) Package of practices for crops of Punjab, Kharif 2017. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, p 203 Peoples M, Craswell ET (1992) Biological nitrogen fixation: investments, expectations and actual contributions to agriculture. Plant Soil 141:13–39

206

22

Organic Integrated Farming System

Porcire E, Rabbinge R (1997) Role of research and education in the development of agriculture in Europe. Eur J Agron 7:1–13 Ravallion M, Chen S (2007) China’s (Uneven) progress against poverty. J Dev Econ 82(1):1–42 Reganold JP, Wachter JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat Plants 2(2): 1–8 Sharma PD (2003) Prospects of organic farming in India. In: Proceedings of national seminar on organic products and their future prospects. Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Srinagar, pp 21–29 Sharma A, Saini JP (2015) Livestock management in organic farming: concepts and practices. In: First national conference of SVAHE, 18–20 Nov 2015. GADVASU, Ludhiana Shepherd M, Pearce B, Cormack B, Philipps L, Cuttle S, Bhogal A, Costigan P, Uniwin R (2003) An assessment of the environmental impacts of organic farming. ADAS, Wleverhampton Singh AK (2007) Conversion to organic agriculture. International Book Distributing Co., Lucknow Singh M, Brar KS, Bakhetia DRC (1997) Management of sugarcane stalk borer (Chilo auricillius) with egg parasitoid (Trichogramma chilonis). In: Third Agricultural Science Congress, Ludhiana, pp 12–15 Surekha K, Jhansilakshmi V, Somasekhar N, Latha PC, Kumar RM, Rani NS, Rao KV, Viraktamath BC (2010) Status of organic farming and research experiences in rice. Europe 7(1.87):10–12 Swami S, Goswami SC, Gurjar GN (2019) Fodder production under organic farming system. ICAR Sponsored Winter School on current status, emerging issues and future scenario regarding conservation of indigenous breeds of livestock, 5–25 Nov 2019 Tewari AN, Singh RD (1991) Studies on Cyperus rotundus L. Control through summer treatments in maize-potato cropping syste. Indian J Weed Sci 23:6–11 UNPFA (2011) State of the world population, United Nations Population Fund Vinale F, Sivasithamparam K, Ghisalberti EL, Marra R, Woo SL, Lorito M (2008) Trichodermaplant-pathogen interactions. Soil Biol Biochem 40:1–10 Virdi KS, Joshi N, Singh S (2005) Green manuring an alternate way to improve soil fertility. Indian Farming, pp 19–21 Waksman SA (1938) Humus: origin, chemical composition and importance in nature. The Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore Wolde DT, Tamir B (2016) Organic livestock farming and the scenario in the developing countries: opportunities and challenges. Global Vet 16:399–412

Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains Toward Food Productivity Enhancement in a Major Cropping System

23

Abstract

Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) emerges as a pivotal strategy in the IndoGangetic plains, aiming to elevate food productivity within the pre-dominant cropping systems. This approach synergizes organic and inorganic nutrient sources, judiciously balancing their application to optimize soil fertility and plant nutrition. The scope of INM encompasses a wide array of practices, including the integration of crop residues, green manures, organic wastes, and mineral fertilizers. By tailoring nutrient inputs to specific crop requirements and soil conditions, INM enhances nutrient use efficiency, mitigates nutrient imbalances, and fosters sustainable agricultural production. The Indo-Gangetic plains’ diverse cropping patterns and varying agro-climatic zones provide an ideal canvas for implementing INM, offering a means to address yield limitations and ensure food security while minimizing environmental repercussions. Keywords

Food productivity · Soil fertility · Plant nutrition · Green manures · Sustainable agricultural production

South Asia’s Indo-Gangetic plains spread over the region’s four countries, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, are agriculturally the most important region of the subcontinent. The Indian portion of the plains accounts for 27% of the net cultivated area and nearly 52% of the food grains production in the country. The plains experience a gradual transition in rainfall from east to west. The alluvial plains constitute one of the richest groundwater resources with the greatest potential for development. The aquifer systems are extensive, thick, hydraulically interconnected, and moderate-to-high yielding. The salinity of groundwater increases in the southwest direction with the decrease in rainfall, suggesting that groundwater # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_23

207

208

23 Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. . .

picks up salt as it passes from the recharge to transition and discharge zones (Abrol 1999). Rice (Oryza sativa L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) system (RWS) is one of the pre-dominant agricultural production systems in the world, occupying 13.5 million hectares of cultivated land in the Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP) in South Asia and several million hectares in China (Ladha et al. 2009). This provides food, income, and employment to ensure livelihood security for millions of rural and urban producers and consumers in South Asia. It is practiced on many soil types and under different ecologies ranging from coarse to fine-textured soils under arid to the semi-arid climate of northwestern India to sandy loam to clay soils under moist sub-humid to dry sub-humid climate conditions of north-eastern India. Opportunities for area expansion are limited due to finite and often over-exploited natural resources (Timsina and Connor 2001). Therefore, agronomic management has to be improved for greater efficiency of applied inputs to sustain yields of RWS (Yadav 2003). Fertilizer use in the RWS is highly variable across the IGP, with mean application rates of N + P2O5 + K2O ranging from 258 kg/ha in the LGP to 444 kg/ha in the TGP (Sharma 2003). On average, the range is 0.5–1.0 kg/ha Zn, 2–3 kg/ha Fe, and 3–3.5 kg/ha Mn (Narang et al. 1990). Diagnostic surveys in the IGP, however, revealed that farmers often apply greater than recommended rates of fertilizers N and P, but ignore the sufficient application of other limiting nutrients to the RWS (Singh et al. 2013). Unbalanced application of nutrients over the years has led to the emergence of multi-nutrient deficiencies in soils under the RWS, particularly in the TGP and UGP (Ladha et al. 2009). In recent years, only the evidence of soil fertility depletion and stagnation or decline in rice and wheat yields were documented; concerns of increased environmental risks associated with unbalanced N application and loss of excess N from the root zone in the RWS have also been highlighted (Singh et al. 2005). Excess N applications in the RWS canal enhance the emission of nitrous oxide arising from the nitrification–denitrification nexus.

23.1

Food Supply in the Indo-Gangetic Plain

The IGP is now the “breadbasket” for much of South Asia. Rice and wheat, the major cereal crops of this region, are grown in rotation on almost 12 Mha of land. Together, they are the principal source of food and livelihood security for several hundred millions of people in this densely populated region (Paroda et al. 1994). Assuming a medium growth scenario, this population is predicted to increase by further 700 million people (about equal to the current population of Europe) in the next 30 years. This will result in greater demand for food, and it is estimated that the food grain requirement by 2020 in the region will be almost 50% more than at present (Paroda and Kumar 2000; Table 23.1). It is anticipated that the IGP will have to meet much of this increased demand, but the additional quantities will have to be produced from the same land resource, or less, due to the increase in competition for land and other resources by non-agricultural sectors.

23.2

Nutrient Management

209

Table 23.1 Projected demand for food in South Asia for 2010 and 2020 assuming a 5% GDP growth and constant prices Items Rice Wheat Coarse grains Total cereals Pulses Food grains Fruits Vegetables Milk Meat and eggs Marine products

Production (MT) 1999–2000 85.4 71.0 29.9 184.7 16.1 200.8 41.1 84.5 75.3 3.7 5.7

Demand for food (MT) 2010 103.6 85.8 34.9 224.3 21.4 245.7 56.3 112.7 103.7 5.4 8.2

2020 122.1 102.8 40.9 265.8 27.8 293.6 77.0 149.7 142.7 7.8 11.8

Source: Paroda and Kumar (2000)

23.2

Nutrient Management

In the case of nitrogen, findings from IRRI’s research on matching site-specific capacities of the soil to supply nutrients and to the demand of crop(s) in the system have been reflected in the development of a leaf color chart (LCC) to help farmers select the right dose and time of application for optimum response in rice. Efforts have also been made to extend the LCC technology to wheat crops by synchronizing N application with irrigation practices (Shukla et al. 2004). The LCC has been widely distributed to tens of thousands of farmers in the consortium countries to assess response. LCC technology has the potential to save about 15–20% of N fertilizer application in rice (Balasubramanian et al. 2003). The work on other nutrients is less advanced at the farm level, although a careful examination of long-term experiments undertaken in the consortium countries by the Rice–Wheat Consortium (RWC) is identifying nutrient mining (such as of K) and imbalances, along with the loss of C in some situations, as contributing factors to reduced yields (Ladha et al. 2003). These nutrient management strategies are now being adapted to new crop and tillage systems in the presence of residues retained on the soil surface.

210

23.3

23 Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. . .

Crop Production and Nutrient Use Efficiency of Conservation Agriculture for Soybean–Wheat Rotation in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of Northwestern India (Aulakh et al. 2012)

In the case of succeeding wheat, the application of NP fertilizers showed similar trends to those observed in soybean, but the magnitude of the yield increase for wheat was much higher (Table 23.2). In the absence of surface residue (SR), treatments T2, T3, and T4 in the conventional tillage (CT) system resulted in a 2181–2756 kg/ha (166–207%), 2599–3011 kg/ha (198–228%), and 2572–2974 kg/ ha (196–229%) increase in wheat grain yield over the control (T1), respectively. Corresponding treatments in the conservation agriculture (CA) system, T10, T11, and T12, enhanced wheat grain yield by 2370–2961 kg/ha (195–229%), 2357–3277 kg/ha (210–264%), and 2360–3028 kg/ha (215–255%) over the control (T1), respectively. With the addition of 3 t SR/ha, the increase in wheat grain yield over the control with T6, T7, and T8 treatments was 2065–2901 kg/ha (157–216%), 2587–3007 kg/ha (197–234%), and 2581–3017 kg/ha (196–245%) in CT, and T14, T15, and T16 treatments in CA resulted in 2144–2810 kg/ha (172–237%), 2278–3162 kg/ha (189–266%), and 2182–3094 kg/ha (185–261%), respectively. The incorporation of SR without fertilizers in CT showed an increase of 9% and 8% in wheat yield in Years 1 and 2 but a decrease of 23% and 18% in Years 3 and 4, respectively, whereas the retention of SR on the soil surface in CA consistently reduced wheat yield. On average over 4 years, without crop residue (CR), the application of the recommended rate of NP, 25% higher NP rate, and recommended NP rate plus residual 10 t FYM/ha (applied before soybean) increased wheat grain yield over CT-control by 189%, 213%, and 214% in CT and 203%, 220%, and 213% in the CA system, respectively. Similarly, with SR, the increase in soybean yield over CT-control with respective treatments was 190%, 216%, and 218% in CT and 182%, 206%, and 194% in CA.

23.4

Improving Nitrogen and Phosphorus Use Efficiencies Through the Inclusion of Forage Cowpea in the Rice– Wheat Systems in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India

Balanced fertilizer use, which involves applying fertilizer nutrients in the appropriate proportions and sufficient quantities, along with Integrated Plant Nutrient Supply (IPNS), are considered promising agricultural techniques to sustain crop yields, enhance fertilizer use efficiency (FUE), and restore soil fertility in intensive cropping systems (Yadav et al. 1998). In this regard, the benefits of green manure legumes and short-duration grain legumes in rice–wheat cropping systems have been extensively studied and well-documented (Ahlawat et al. 1998). However, the potential of incorporating fast-growing forage legumes as catch crops during the summer after wheat harvest has not received adequate attention, despite the significant opportunities for implementing this practice (Yadav et al. 1998).

T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8

Treatment No.

Treatments Soybean Conventional tillage N0P0WR0a N20P26WR0 N25P33WR0 N20P26WR0 + FYM10c N0P0WR6 N20P26WR6 N25P33WR6 N20P26WR0 + FYM10 CT mean Conservation agriculture N0P0WR0 N20P26WR0 N25P33WR0 N20P26WR0 + FYM N0P0WR6 N20P26WR6 N25P33WR6 N20P26WR6 + FYM10 CA mean LSD (0.05) Fertilizer management Tillage Crop residue 1360 4017 4220 4290 1170 3823 3930 3877 3336 256 Ns Ns

1235 3505 3849 3906 1351 3415 3880 3965 3138 1301 4262 4578 4247 1232 3542 4153 3765 3385 211 nsd ns

N0P0SR0b N120P26SR0 N150P33SR0 N120P26SR0 N0P0SR3 N120P26SR3 N150P33SR3 N120P26SR3

N0P0SR0 N120P26SR0 N150P33SR0 N120P26SR0 N0P0SR3 N120P26SR3 N150P33SR3 N120P26SR3

1230 3770 4030 4050 1330 3890 4110 4247 3332

Year 1

Wheat

Year 2

199 ns ns

1187 3907 4323 4215 1063 3997 4349 4281 3415

1389 4145 4400 4363 1144 4290 4396 4361 3561

Year 4

(continued)

108 ns 92

1232 3909 4140 4048 1086 3647 3948 3797 3226

1292 3729 4048 4052 1210 3744 4083 4106 3283

Mean

Improving Nitrogen and Phosphorus Use Efficiencies Through the. . .

226 257 ns

1081 3451 3438 3441 879 3225 3359 3263 2767

1315 3496 3914 3887 1016 3380 3902 3896 3101

Year 3

Table 23.2 Grain yield of wheat (kg/ha) as influenced by NP fertilizers, FYM, and crop residue management practices during 4 years in soybean–wheat rotation under conservation agriculture (CA) and conventional tillage (CT)

23.4 211

Treatments Soybean Year Tillage × Crop residue Tillage × Fertilizer treatment Year × Tillage Year × Fertilizer treatment Other interactionse Wheat

Year 1 – ns 298 – – –

Year 2 – Ns ns – – –

Year 3 – ns ns – – –

Year 4 – ns ns – – –

Mean 222 130 ns 183 216 ns

a

Source: Aulakh et al. (2012) N = fertilizer N (kg N/ha); P = fertilizer P (kg P/ha); WR = wheat residue (t/ha) b SR = soybean residue (t/ha) c FYM = farmyard manure (t/ha) d ns = nonsignificant e Other interactions = Year × Crop residue, Crop residue × Fertilizer treatment, Year × Tillage × Crop residue, Crop residue × Fertilizer management × Tillage, Year × Fertilizer treatment × Tillage, Year × Fertilizer treatment × Crop residue, Year × Fertilizer treatment × Tillage × Crop residue

Treatment No.

Table 23.2 (continued)

212 23 Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. . .

23.5

Fertilizer Management Strategies for Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency. . .

213

In the high productivity zones of the Indo-Gangetic Plains in South Asia, the rice– wheat system faces challenges due to production fatigue, as evident from declining soil organic matter content, low fertilizer use efficiency, and decreasing rates of factor productivity. To address these issues, field experiments were conducted at Modipuram, India, aiming to conserve soil organic carbon, improve nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) use efficiency, and increase yields of the rice–wheat system. The approach involved integrating forage cowpea during the summer before cultivating the rice–wheat system (Table 23.3). The study found that cowpea forage, harvested at 50 days, removed larger amounts of N and P through aboveground biomass compared to those recycled through belowground roots and nodules. Incorporating cowpea into the system resulted in reduced leaching of NO3-N beyond 45 cm depth in the soil profile after wheat harvest, as compared to the fallow during the summer. Furthermore, when both 120 kg N and 26 kg P per hectare were applied, the NO3-N content below 45 cm depth was lower compared to treatments receiving N or P alone. Over three crop cycles, the soil organic carbon (OC) content in the 0–15 and 15–30 cm depths increased compared to the initial OC in plots with cowpea. The application of 26 kg P per hectare increased the available P content above the initial P content and also over the P content of the soil under no P treatments. However, available P content was generally lower under summer cowpea plots than under no cowpea plots. The continuous rice–wheat cropping led to an increase in soil bulk density (BD) at different profile depths, especially at 30–45 cm depth in plots without cowpea. The inclusion of summer cowpea helped decrease BD in the surface (0–15 cm) and sub-surface (15–30 and 30–45 cm) soil layers. The inclusion of summer cowpea did not significantly influence rice yield but resulted in increased wheat grain yield (P < 0.05 during the terminal year) when both crops received recommended rates of fertilizer N and P. However, skipping N or P or both in the fertilizer application resulted in consistently lower yields in the summer cowpea treatments compared to the no cowpea treatments, although the differences were not necessarily significant every year. Overall, the use efficiency of applied N and P fertilizers in rice and wheat, as measured by agronomic efficiency and apparent recovery, increased with the use of recommended rates of N and P fertilizers and the inclusion of summer cowpea in the cropping system (Dwivedi et al. 2003).

23.5

Fertilizer Management Strategies for Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency and Sustainable Wheat Production

The historical use of organic fertilizers as a nutrient source can be traced back to the early days of settled agriculture. However, with the widespread adoption of mineral fertilizers, organic fertilizers took a backseat and were considered secondary sources of nutrients. In recent times, there has been a renewed emphasis on the importance of organic fertilizers and various organic materials in integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) to maintain soil health and sustainability in agriculture. The core principle of IPNM is to focus on preserving and potentially enhancing soil fertility and overall land health. While organic sources play a crucial role in providing

2.95 3.42 3.18 CD (P < 0.05) Summer crop (C) NSa NS NS

1997–1998 Summer fallow 1.67 1.75 1.71 4.23 5.09 4.66

Source: Dwivedi et al. (2003) a Not significant at P < 0.05

1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000

Fertilizer NP rate (kg/ha) N0P0 N0P26 Mean N120P0 N120P26 Mean Mean of P rates P0 P26 Overall mean Fertilizer P (P) 0.24 0.25 0.30

C×N

Fertilizer N (N) 0.24 0.25 0.30 0.34 NS NS

3.00 3.46 3.23

2.87 3.44 –

Mean 1.58 1.68 – 4.14 5.18 –

1998–1999 Summer fallow 1.72 2.01 1.87 4.28 4.91 4.60

2.78 3.45 3.11

Summer cowpea 1.50 1.61 1.56 4.05 5.28 4.67

NS NS 0.42

C×P

2.68 3.52 3.10

Summer cowpea 1.48 1.69 1.59 3.87 5.35 4.61

0.34 0.36 0.42

N×P

2.84 3.49 –

Mean 1.60 1.85 – 4.08 5.13 –

NS NS NS

C×N×P

2.96 3.63 3.29

1999–2000 Summer fallow 1.86 2.08 1.97 4.05 5.17 4.61 2.68 3.73 3.20

Summer cowpea 1.58 1.95 1.77 3.77 5.51 4.64

2.82 3.68 –

Mean 1.72 2.02 – 3.91 5.34 –

Table 23.3 Effect of fertilizer N and P applied to rice and wheat on the grain yield of wheat (t/ha) as influenced by summer cowpea (forage) in RWCS

214 23 Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. . .

23.5

Fertilizer Management Strategies for Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency. . .

215

Table 23.4 Wheat yield and plant nutrient uptake as affected by long-term (1971–2007) use of organic and inorganic fertilizers Treatments 50% NPK 100% NPK + W 150% NPK 100% NPK 100% NPK Zn 100% NP 100% N 100% NPK + FYM 100% NPK (-S) Control

Wheat yield Grain 3.53e 4.56cd 5.08ab 4.69bc 4.65c 4.17d 3.74c 5.13a 4.60c 1.63f

Straw 5.34c 7.80ab 8.43a 8.25a 7.59ab 7.60ab 6.38b 8.48a 7.23b 2.61d

Nutrient uptake (kg/ha) N P 83.8f 4.9d cd 117.0 16.4ab b 130.1 18.3a bc 122.8 16.3ab c 120.5 17.3a d 109.8 13.1c d 93.7 8.8d 150.8a 18.5a 117.7cd 14.0bc 40.1g 4.6e

K 53.9d 79.6b 81.8ab 82.0a 81.3ab 77.4b 61.7c 92.4a 73.4b 25.9c

Source: Singh Brar et al. (2015)

nutrients to crops, the long-term productivity of crops often requires the use of fertilizer nutrients in addition to organic sources. The balanced and integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers can contribute to the accumulation of soil organic matter and improvement of soil physical properties. This integrated approach is particularly beneficial for sustainable and environmentally friendly nutrient management, especially in soils with low organic matter content (Khan et al. 2007). Incorporating organic materials like farmyard manure (FYM) or green manure not only reduces environmental hazards but also enhances crop productivity. Moreover, integrated plant nutrient treatments that combine various organic and chemical fertilizers have been shown to improve plant uptake of essential nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (Dilshad et al. 2010). This holistic approach to nutrient management holds promise for promoting healthier soil, sustainable agriculture, and increased crop yields. Continuous cropping and the integrated use of both organic and inorganic fertilizers have been shown to enhance soil carbon sequestration and crop yields. Therefore, a balanced application of NPK fertilizers along with farmyard manure (FYM) is considered the optimal choice for achieving high crop yields (Singh Brar et al. 2015). Research has demonstrated that organic manure and compost applications lead to higher soil organic carbon content compared to the same amount of inorganic fertilizer applications (Gregorich et al. 2001). However, the accumulation of organic carbon from applied organic manures depends on the rate of the decomposition process (Singh Brar et al. 2015). The integrated application of mineral fertilizers with organic sources has proven to be more effective than using mineral fertilizers alone. Long-term experiments have indicated that studying changes in soil properties and processes over time is crucial for developing soil sustainability and maintaining soil health. Table 23.4 shows that grain and wheat straw yields were highest when 100% NPK and FYM were applied, compared to nontreated plants (Singh Brar et al. 2015). Integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated nutrient supply (INS) systems aim to efficiently use

23 Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. . .

216

Table 23.5 Wheat crop yield and changes in soil organic carbon affected by the application of mineral fertilizers, FYM, and their combination in a 9-year experiment on a wheat/soybean cropping system Treatments NPK (kg/ha) 0–0–0 0–0–0 120–26–33 120–26–33 LSD (P = 0.05)

FYM (t/ha) 0 10 0 10 –

Mean yield of wheat over 9 years (t/ha) 1.30 1.71 2.40 3.04 0.21

Soil organic carbon content in 0–15 cm topsoil (t/ha) 14.10 15.44 16.91 18.62 1.89

Source: Bhattacharyya et al. (2010)

chemical fertilizers in combination with organic manures. Long-term field experiments with intensive cereal-based cropping systems have shown lower productivity, even with the recommended rates of N, P, and K fertilizers (Mahajan et al. 2008). Through best investments and field practices, wheat crop productivity can be increased, soil quality improved, and a sustainable system achieved with minimal adverse effects from increased input use. IPNM practices focus on optimizing plant nutrient supply with the primary objective of improving and maintaining soil health while minimizing adverse effects on the soil environment (Bhattacharyya et al. 2010). In a long-term study (9 years) on a wheat/soybean cropping system, wheat productivity and soil health were significantly increased with the combined addition of organic manure and mineral fertilizers, leading to higher soil organic carbon content (Table 23.5).

23.6

Nutrient Management in Rice–Wheat Sequence Under Sodic Soil

Nutrient management is one of the major problems of the sodic soil due to low organic carbon status and toxicity of sodium, which reduces the availability of other nutrients and affects soil properties. A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of different nutrient management practices in sodic soil at research station Dalip Nagar, C.S.A. University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, during 2005–2006 and 2006–2007. Results indicated that grain and straw yield and harvest index significantly increased in rice by the application of fertilizer on the soil test basis (100% STR) (Table 23.6). All the parameters further increased when 5 t/ha organic manures (FYM, press mud, and NADEP compost) were added along with recommended doses of fertilizers, which were at par with 125% STR. Application of organic manures integrated with a recommended dose of fertilizers and biofertilizers (PSB + BGA/Azotobacter) produced grain yield of rice and wheat (5.36 and 3.35 t/ ha, respectively), which was at par in comparison to 125% recommended dose of fertilizers (5.32 and 3.35 t/ha, respectively) (Bahadur et al. 2013).

23.7

IPNS Strategies for Major Cropping Systems (Singh and Singh 2014)

217

Table 23.6 Effect of treatments on grain and straw yield and harvest index of rice and wheat (mean of 2 years)

Treatments T1—Control T2—Farmers practice (N100P40K0) T3—100% NPKZn (STR) T4—T3 + FYM @5 t/ha T5—T3 + Pressmud @5 t/ha T6—T3 + NADEP compost @5 t/ha T7—T3 + PSB T8—T3 + BGA/Azotobacter T9—T3 + PSB + BGA/ Azotobacter T10—125% NPKZn(STR) T11—T3 + FYM @5 t/ ha + PSB + BGA/Azotobacter CD (P = 0.05)

Rice yield (t/ha) Grain Straw 1.78 2.90 3.56 5.47

Harvest index (%) 38.0 39.4

Rice yield (t/ha) Grain Straw 1.71 1.65 2.70 3.59

Harvest index (%) 50.9 42.9

4.62 5.00 5.29 5.21

6.88 7.70 8.12 8.05

40.2 39.4 39.4 39.3

3.01 3.21 3.31 3.26

4.06 4.28 4.51 4.49

42.5 42.8 42.3 42.1

4.85 4.87 4.98

7.60 7.61 7.78

38.9 39.0 39.1

3.10 3.15 3.19

4.12 4.24 4.29

42.9 42.6 42.6

5.32 5.36

8.11 8.20

39.6 39.5

3.35 3.35

4.50 4.54

42.7 42.5

0.23

0.34

–

0.16

0.21

–

Source: Bahadur et al. (2013)

23.7

IPNS Strategies for Major Cropping Systems (Singh and Singh 2014)

Rice–Wheat • Green manuring of rice with sun hemp equivalent to 90 kg fertilizer N along with 40 kg N/ha produces a yield equivalent to 120 kg N/ha. • In an acid Alfisol soil, incorporation of a Lantana camera 10–15 days before transplanting of rice helps increase the N use efficiency. • Apply 75% NPK + 25% NPK through green manure or FYM at 6 t/ha to rice and 75% NPK to wheat. • Inoculation of BGA @ 10 kg/ha provides about 20–30 kg N/ha. The basic concept of integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated plant nutrition management (IPNM) is the adjustment of plant nutrient supply to an optimum level for sustaining the desired crop productivity. It involves the proper combination of chemical fertilizers, organic manure, crop residues, and N2 fixing crops and bio-fertilizers suitable to the system of land use and ecological, social, and economic conditions. Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) refers to the practice of using the optimum combination of different sources of nutrient supply for efficient crop production. This is achieved through the optimization of benefits

218

23 Scope of Integrated Nutrient Management in the Indo-Gangetic Plains. . .

derived from different sources of nutrient supply, including chemical fertilizers, organic manures, crop residues, green manures, and bio-fertilizers, which are desired as components of INM. Fertilizer consumption in India is grossly imbalanced since the beginning. In many areas, imbalanced fertilization is the root cause of poor crop yields and poor soil fertility status. In the agro-ecological regions, cropping systems like rice–wheat, maize–wheat, rice pulse, potato–wheat, and sugarcane demand immediate attention to correct the imbalances in nutrient consumption to prevent further deterioration of soil quality and to break the yield barriers.

References Abrol IP (1999) Sustaining rice-wheat system productivity in the Indo-Gangetic plains: water management-related issues. Agric Water Manag 40:31–35 Ahlawat IPS, Ali M, Yadav RL, Rao JDVK, Rego TJ, Singh RP (1998) Biological nitrogen fixation and residual effect of summer and rainy season grain legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. In: JDVK KR, Johnsen C, Rego TJ (eds) Residual effects of legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. International crop research institute for the semi-arid tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India. Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi Aulakh MS, Manchanda JS, Garg AK, Kumar S, Dercon G, Nguyen M-L (2012) Crop production and nutrient use efficiency of conservation agriculture for soybean–wheat rotation in the IndoGangetic Plains of Northwestern India. Soil Tillage Res 120:50–60 Bahadur L, Tiwari DD, Mishra J, Gupta BR (2013) Nutrient management in rice-wheat sequence under sodic soil. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 61(4):341–346 Balasubramanian V, Ladha JK, Gupta RK, Naresh RK, Mehla RS, Singh Y, Song B (2003) Technology options for rice in rice-wheat systems in Asia. ASA, Special Publication No. 65. ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, pp 115–172 Bhattacharyya R, Pandey S, Chandra S, Kundu S, Saha S, Mina B et al (2010) Fertilization effects on yield sustainability and soil properties under irrigated wheat-soybean rotation of an Indian Himalayan upper valley. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 86(2):255–268 Dilshad M, Lone M, Jilani G, Malik MA, Yousaf M, Khalid R et al (2010) Integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) on maize under rainfed condition. Pak J Nutr 9(9):896–901 Dwivedi BS, Shukla AK, Singh VK, Yadav RL (2003) Improving nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiencies through the inclusion of forage cowpea in the rice-wheat systems in the IndoGangetic Plains of India. Field Crops Res 84:399–418 Gregorich E, Drury C, Baldock JA (2001) Changes in soil carbon under long-term maize in monoculture and legume-based rotation. Can J Soil Sci 81(1):21–31 Khan MU, Qasim M, Khan IU, Qasim M, Khan I (2007) Effect of integrated nutrient management on crop yields in the rice-wheat cropping system. Sarhad J Agric 23(4):1019 Ladha JK, Dawe D, Pathak H, Padre AT, Yadav RL, Bijay S, Singh Y, Singh Y, Singh P, Kundu AL, Sakal R, Ram N, Regmi AP, Gami SK, Bhandari AL, Amin R, Yadav CR, Bhattarai EM, Das S, Aggarwal HP, Gupta RK, Hobbs PR (2003) How extensive are yield declines in longterm rice–wheat experiments in Asia? Field Crop Res 81:159–180 Ladha JK, Singh Y, Erenstein O, Hardy B (2009) Integrated crop and resource management in the rice-wheat system of South Asia. International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos Mahajan A, Bhagat R, Gupta R (2008) Integrated nutrient management in a sustainable rice-wheat cropping system for food security in India. SAARC J Agric 6(2):29–32 Narang RS, Cheema SS, Grewal DS, Grewal HS, Sharma BD, Dev G (1990) Yield, nutrient uptake, and changes in soil fertility under intensive rice-wheat cropping systems. Indian J Agron 35: 113–119

References

219

Paroda RS, Kumar P (2000) Food production and demand in South Asia. Agric Econ Res Rev 13(1):1–24 Paroda RS, Woodhead T, Singh RB (1994) Sustainability of Rice– Wheat Production Systems in Asia. RAPA Publication, 1994/11. FAO, Bangkok Sharma SK (2003) Characterization and mapping of the rice-wheat system: its changes and constraints to system sustainability. Final report, 2003–04). NATP (PSR 4.1), New Delhi Shukla A, Ladha JK, Singh VK, Dwivedi BS, Balasubramanian V, Gupta RK, Sharma SK, Singh Y, Pathak H, Pandey PS, Padre AT, Yadav RL (2004) Calibrating the leaf color chart for nitrogen management in different genotypes of rice and wheat in systems perspectives. Agron J 96:1606–1621 Singh Brar B, Singh J, Singh G, Kaur G (2015) Effects of long term application of inorganic and organic fertilizers on soil organic carbon and physical properties in maize-wheat rotation. Agronomy 5(2):220–238 Singh A, Singh H (2014) Integrated nutrient management for sustaining crop productivity. Indian Farming 63(10). https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IndFarm/article/view/49411 Singh Y, Singh B, Timsina J (2005) Crop residue management for nutrient cycling and improving soil productivity in rice-based cropping systems in tropics. Adv Agron 85:269–407 Singh VK, Dwivedi BS, Buresh RJ, Jat ML, Majumdar K, Gangwar B, Govil V, Singh SK (2013) Potassium fertilization in the rice-wheat system on farmer’s fields in India: crop performance and soil nutrients. Agron J 105:471–481 Timsina J, Connor DJ (2001) Productivity and management of rice-wheat cropping systems: issues and challenges. Field Crops Res. 69:93–132 Yadav RL (2003) Assessing on-farm efficiency and economics of fertilizer N, P, and K in ricewheat systems in India. Field Crops Res 81:39–51 Yadav RL, Prasad K, Gangwar KS (1998) Analysis of eco-regional production constraints in ricewheat cropping system. PDCSR Bulletin No. 98–2. PDCSR, Modipuram, p 68

Conclusion

24

The integrated farming system (IFS) acts as a promising enterprise, especially for marginal and small farmers with less farm holdings. Adopting multiple farm enterprises in an integrated manner can ensure a substantial and regular income generation to improve the livelihood of farmers over the inadequate income from self-standing enterprises. The cropping system, once very popular among the farming communities, started losing its importance after the Green Revolution in the late1960s. The focus of the present government is on doubling farmers’ income by 2022. The partial budgeting, economic estimation of manure and urine from animal components, and factors associated with total income from different enterprise combinations have shown the directions for policymakers, extension functionaries, and progressive farmers to prepare strategies for doubling farmers’ income by curtailing the input cost. Only the livestock component would provide the facilitating inputs to enhance the income of farm families within a short period of 5 years in a synergistic mode. The adoption of IFS is the right approach in this direction and should be supported through institutional, extension, policy, and marketing interventions in a system approach. Based on this study, we have observed that Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) offer significant opportunities for progressive economic growth, employment generation, meeting family nutritional needs, and optimal utilization of farming resources, including the recycling of farm residues and wastes. Many researchers have identified various types of integrated farming system models across the country, but the documentation and dissemination of such models to reach a wider audience of farmers, especially marginal and small farmers, have been inadequate. It is essential to take appropriate measures to document and share these farming system models with farmers in need, aiming to uplift their living standards. Despite the benefits, integrated farming systems may face certain constraints. Therefore, it is imperative for the scientific community and research institutions to take the initiative to address these challenges and help improve the standard of living and income of farmers. # The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 S. S. Walia, T. Kaur, Basics of Integrated Farming Systems, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-6556-4_24

221