Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89 (11): 1764–72, November 2019/Review Article

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i11.95286

Integrated farming systems for prosperity of marginal farmers and

sustainable agriculture: a roadmap for India
U K BEHERA

Central Agricultural University (I), Kyrdemkulai, Meghalaya 793 105, India

Received: 22 January 2019; Accepted: 1 August 2019

ABSTRACT
Agriculture in India and other Asian countries is facing multiple and complex challenges which are expected to
become severe with the passage of time. Some major challenges are sustainability of natural resources, impact of
climate change and decline in factor productivity. Besides, declining trend in size of land holding poses a serious
challenge to the profitability and sustainability of farming. In view of the decline in per capita availability of land,
it is imperative to develop strategies and agricultural technologies that enable adequate employment and income
generation, especially for smallholders (farmers with < 2.0 ha land) who constitute the vast majority of the farming
community in the developing world. No single farm enterprise, such as a typical monocropping system, is likely to be
able to sustain the smallholder farmer. Integrated farming systems (IFS) are less risky if managed efficiently, as they
benefit from synergisms among enterprises, diversity in produce, and environmental soundness. On this basis, IFS
have been suggested for the development of small and marginal farms across Asia, and researchers have developed
strategies which have benefitted smallholder farmers by providing additional income and employment and minimizing
risk. However, these IFS have not been promulgated and promoted effectively. The present review helps solve this
by providing comprehensive information on innovative concepts, approaches and strategies for promotion of IFS
for small-holder farmers, which is lacking at present.

Key words: Integrated farming systems, Small and marginal farmers, Sustainability, Roadmap

Agriculture in South Asia is at cross-roads in terms in an era of self-reliance in food grain production, improved
of achieving sustainability mainly for three reasons, the rural prosperity and has brought in an element of resilience
region is finding it difficult to generate adequate income into agriculture (Evenson and Gollin 2003). Food-grain
and employment for its vast farming population, failing production, which was 50.8 million tonne (mt) in 1950–51,
to achieve environmental and energy security at the farm was raised to 196.8 mt by 1997. The impact of the Green
level, and failing to cope with climate change (Behera and Revolution was so impressive that India became a role model
France 2016). Faced with this situation, such agricultural for many developing countries. Concerted efforts made by
strategies need to be explored that increase productivity researchers, farmers and policy makers transformed India
and generate adequate income and employment for the from begging-bowl to bread-basket status within a short
small-holder farmers, as well as generate renewable period of a decade or so. Obviously, this proved a matter
energy on the farm, and stop the erosion of biodiversity of national pride and great satisfaction to the scientists and
and offset carbon emissions (Behera et al. 2015). The farmers of the country.
economic limitation of small-sized land operations is the In the backdrop of past glory, unabated growth of the
main challenge to sustainable farming in the 21st century. Indian population and its large scale (60%) dependence
This calls for structural and organizational changes in on agriculture, continue to pose a serious challenge for
managing the farm sector in South Asia (Behera and France planners and agricultural scientists alike (Falcon et al. 2005).
2016). The important issue is how to develop institutional Assuming present trends, the Indian population is estimated
mechanisms so that farmers get higher incomes by realizing at 1.3 billion by 2020, sharing resources with a very large
the advantages of beneficial technologies, aggregation of livestock population. On the basis of present consumption
inputs and outputs, and value addition and marketing. patterns, estimated total requirement for foodgrain will be
The remarkable growth of Indian agriculture over the around 300 and 350 mt by 2020 and 2030, respectively, as
last five and half decades, i.e. after the advent of Green against present production of approximately 270 mt. For
Revolution (i.e. cereal production) technologies, has ushered these two years, the demand for edible oil, milk, vegetables
and fruits is expected to rise to 7.9 and 9.5, 93.1 and 119.5,
Present address: Dean ([email protected]), College of 93.6 and 110.7, and 53.7 and 70.5 mt. Similarly, a 30–50%
Agriculture. increase in demand is anticipated for marine and livestock

12
November 2019] ROAD MAP FOR INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS 1765

products from present levels of 5.4 and 3.6 mt, respectively. been ignored (Paroda 2014). Moreover, decline in per capita
In other words, to keep pace with the food requirements availability of land from 0.5 ha in 1950–51 to 0.15 ha in
of such a large population, there is an urgent need to 2009 and a projected further drop to less than 0.1 ha by
accelerate all aspects of agricultural food production 2020 (Mahapatra and Behera 2011) point to the urgent need
with due consideration to restoration and conservation of of developing strategies and agricultural technologies that
natural resources, which can only be achieved through enable adequate employment and income generation, with
sustainable resource management and the adoption of small and marginal farmers at the fore front. The problems
farmer-participatory holistic approaches (termed the encountered by these 2 groups of farmers are different
farming systems approach). The farming systems approach than those having large holdings. These farms need multi-
is considered a resource management strategy to achieve enterprise farming activities that are complementary and
economic and sustained productivity that meets the diverse technically compromising in the interest of the productivity
requirements of the farm household whilst preserving the of the whole farming system. The crop and cropping system
resource base and maintaining a high level of environmental based perspective of research needs to make way for farming
quality (Lal and Miller 1990). Farming systems research is systems based research particularly with regard to small
considered a powerful tool for natural and human resource farmers (Jha 2003). In IFS research, integration of land-based
management in developing countries including India. This enterprises, such as aquaculture, poultry, duckery, apiary,
multidisciplinary whole-farm approach is very effective in field- and horticultural- crops within the biophysical and
solving the problems of small and marginal farmers (Behera socio-economic environment of the farmers is important to
2010, Mahapatra and Behera 2011). The approach aims at make farming more profitable and dependable (Behera et
increasing income and employment from small-holdings al. 2004, Rautaray et al. 2005). Adoption of an individual
by integrating various farm enterprises and recycling crop farm enterprise in isolation cannot sustain the farm family,
residues and by-products within the farm itself (Ahlawat but the IFS approach holds the promise of addressing the
et al. 2002, Rautaray et al. 2005). issues of sustainable economic growth of Indian farming
The structure of Indian agriculture is undergoing communities. Integrated farming systems benefit from
transformation. A notable feature of changing farm structure synergisms among different enterprises, diversity of produce,
is the dominance of smallholders whose number has and environmental soundness (Behera et al. 2010). For
increased over time and will continue to do so in future this reason, the IFS model has been suggested by several
(Table 1). The traditional monoculture and disciplinary workers for developing small and marginal farms across the
approach is unable to meet the growing and changing food country (Rangaswamy et al. 1996, Behera and Mahapatra
demand and improve the livelihood of these smallholders on 1999, Singh et al. 2006).
a sustainable basis (Mahapatra and Behera 2011). Therefore,
an integrated approach to farming is critical to sustain Approach to research: Holism and reductionism
agricultural production, maintain farm incomes, safeguard The four revolutions in the agriculture sector, viz. the
the environment and respond to consumer concern about Green (cereal production), White (milk), Yellow (oilseed)
food quality issues (Singh et al. 1998, Yadav and Prasad and Blue (fish) made India self-reliant in various agricultural
1998). However, the potential contribution of IFS to the commodities and also made it possible to export large
development of a more sustainable agriculture has largely quantities of some agricultural produce (Borthakur and

Table 1 Number and area of operational holdings by size group (2010-11)

Category of holding Number of holdings Area Average size of holdings
2000-01* 2005-06* 2010-11* 2000-01* 2005-06* 2010-11* 2000-01* 2005-06* 2010-11*
Marginal (less than 1 ha) 75408 83694 92826 29814 32026 35908 0.40 0.38 0.39
(62.9) (64.8) (67.1) (18.7) (20.2) (22.5)
Small (1-2 ha) 22695 23930 24779 32139 33101 35244 1.42 1.38 1.42
(18.9) (18.5) (17.9) (20.2) (20.9) (22.1)
Semi-medium (2-4 ha) 14021 14127 13896 38193 37898 37705 2.72 2.68 2.71
(11.7) (10.9) (10.0) (24.0) (23.9) (23.6)
Medium (4-10 ha) 6577 6375 5875 38217 36583 33828 5.81 5.74 5.76
(5.5) (4.9) (4.2) (24.0) (23.1) (21.2)
Large (10 ha and above) 1230 1096 973 21072 18715 16907 17.12 17.08 17.38
(1.0) (0.8) (0.7) (13.2) (11.8) (10.6)
All holdings 119931 129222 138348 159436 158323 159592 1.33 1.23 1.15
(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)
No. of holdings: (‘000), Area operated: (‘000 hectares), Average size: (hectares). The figures in parenthesis represent % of the total.
Source: ASG, 2015.

13
1766 BEHERA [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89 (11)

Singh 2013). With commodity-based research underpinning sustains the multiple function of agriculture (IOBC 1983).
these revolutions, the main emphasis has been on the Thus an IFS represents multiple crops (e.g. cereals,
evolution of high yielding varieties and increased use of legumes, tree crops, vegetables) and multiple enterprises
fertilizers and other chemicals combined with greater use of (e.g. livestock, apiary, aquaculture) on a single farm in an
irrigation water, with the research mostly being conducted integrated manner (Behera et al. 2015a). The IFS approach
in isolation and at the institute level (Jha 2003, Behera et is holistic, multi-disciplinary, problem solving, location
al. 2008, Jain 2008). This commodity-based research has specific and farmer oriented (Singh et al. 1998). The basic
proven largely inadequate in addressing the multifarious aim of IFS is to derive a set of resource development
problems of small farmers (Rhoades and Booth 1982, and utilization practices, which leads to a substantial and
Gangwar 1993, Jha 2003). Also, several ills have appeared sustained increase in agricultural production (Kumar and
in Indian farming, such as decreasing factor productivity Jain 2005). However, there exists a web of interactions
and resource-use efficiency, and declining farm profitability among the components within farming systems and it
and productivity (Chopra 1993, Sharma and Behera 2004, becomes difficult to deal with such inter-linking complex
Singh 2015). systems. This is a likely reason for the slow and limited
The systems view is a useful conceptual device for progress achieved in the field of farming systems research
all concerned with agriculture as it helps researchers in Asian countries.
understand the context of their research and define its For the small and marginal farmers of India, IFS can
content, thus contributing to its relevance. It helps them see play a vital role in enhancing their economic situation and
their specialization in perspective and in relation to other livelihood (Devendra and Thomas 2002a,b, Singh et al.
forces and creates a better climate for cross disciplinary 2006). Unlike specialized farming systems, IFS activity is
work. It has been demonstrated that research programmes focused around selected, interdependent, interrelated and
based on the traditional approach (i.e. commodity based) often interlinking production systems based on several
are not wholly sustainable, equitable and stable over a crops, animals and related subsidiary professions. An IFS
long period (Singh et al. 1998, Yadav and Prasad 1998). involves the utilization of primary and secondary produce
No doubt, such a research has made India self-sufficient of one system as basic inputs to the other systems, thus
in agricultural production; however, many associated making them mutually integrated as one whole unit. There is
problems have emerged in intensive farming areas which need for effective linkage and complementarities of various
will adversely affect the nation’s agricultural production components to develop effective holistic farming systems
(Jain 2008). Certain problems, such as recurrent pest and (Singh et al. 2007).
disease outbreaks, soil erosion, declining soil quality,
pollution and increasing inequality, can be more or less Benefits of IFS
directly attributed to the ‘Green Revolution’ itself; while The advantages of IFS include pooling and sharing of
others such as desertification, salinization and widespread resources/inputs, efficient use of family labour, conservation,
malnutrition and famine have persisted because the preservation and utilization of farm biomass including non-
revolutions so far have offered few solutions. The issue conventional feed and fodder resources, effective use of
of planning research programmes, therefore, by diverting manure/animal waste, regulation of soil fertility and health,
attention towards holistic conditions on the farm is being income and employment generation for many people and
realized, and research programmes are being formulated on increase economic resources. It improves space utilization
the basis of the farming system as a whole. and provides diversified products. IFS is a strategy to ensure
sustainable use of the natural resources for the benefit of
Integrated Farming Systems present and future generations. The important benefits from
An IFS may be defined as linking together two or more implementing IFS in a region/country are listed below.
normally separate components or enterprises which then Productivity: IFS provides an opportunity to increase
become subsystems of a whole farming system. Two major economic yield per unit area per unit time by virtue of
features of an IFS are: (i) waste or by-product utilization in intensification of crop and allied enterprises (Manjunath and
which the wastes or by-products of one sub-system become Itnal 2003a, Ravisankar et al. 2007, Rathore and Bhatt 2008).
an input to a second sub-system; and (ii) improved space Profitability: Improves profitability by reducing
utilization in which the two sub-systems essentially occupy production costs through recycling wastes and by-products of
part or all of the space required for an individual sub-system. one enterprise as inputs to other enterprises (Maheswarappa
Integrated farming has also been defined as the biologically et al.1998, Manjunath and Itnal 2003b, Ravisankar et al.
IFS which: (i) integrates natural resources and regulation 2010).
mechanisms into farming activities to achieve maximum Sustainability: IFS helps in optimal and effective
replacement of off-farm inputs; (ii) secures sustainable utilization of wastes and by-products of linked components.
production of high quality food and other products through It gives emphasis for achieving agro-ecological equilibrium
ecologically preferable technologies; (iii) sustains farm through reduced build-up of pests and diseases (Korkanthimath
income; (iv) eliminates or reduces sources of present and Manjunath 2009, Gill et al. 2010, Kumar et al. 2011).
environment pollution generated by agriculture; and (v) Balanced food: Components of a varied nature are

14
November 2019] ROAD MAP FOR INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS 1767

linked to produce different varieties of products and produce, and environmental protection (Devendra 2002a). Under the
which serve to provide a balanced diet for the farm family stress of intensive agriculture, environmental degradation
(Kumar et al. 2011, 2012, 2013). has been reported in many economically developed countries
Environmental safety: In an IFS, waste materials are from excessive use of high energy inputs, such as fertilizers
effectively recycled by linking appropriate enterprises and and pesticides. Use and recycling of locally available inputs
components, thus minimizing environment pollution. It is and integrating them with the minimum needed quantities
recognized that single enterprise based farming endangers of external inputs would enhance the sustainability of the
ecological security. For example, burning rice residues farming process. Use of locally available inputs, besides
is common practice in intensively rice-wheat cropped being environmentally friendly can keep production costs
areas of India (e.g. the Punjab, Haryana, Western Uttar within the affordable reach of the peasants. Indigenous
Pradesh), resulting in vast nutrient loss and increasing the technological knowledge has a substantial stake in this
concentration of GHG in the atmosphere (Kumar et al. process. IFS are useful owing to increased diversification,
2013). Such situations could be avoided by agricultural intensification, improved natural resource efficiency and
diversification with the introduction of more enterprises (e.g. increased productivity, as well as increased sustainability
animal husbandry) on the farm. Rice straw can be used as (Lightfoot et al. 1993, Devendra 1997, Dalsgaard and
animal feed and turned into manure for sustaining soil health. Prein 1999).
Also, as an IFS takes into account effective resource use
and nutrient recycling and makes farming less dependent on IFS for enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services
external inputs, it helps minimize environmental pollution There has been an ever increasing dominance of
occurring due to heavy use of external inputs (Shukla et economically-driven highly intensive farming systems
al. 2002). over ecologically-oriented traditional agricultural systems
Resource recycling: Effective recycling of waste all over the globe. (Ehrlich and Pingle 2008). Such a shift
materials and by-products (crop residues and livestock is rapidly reducing the diversity of cropping systems and
wastes) is practiced in an IFS. Therefore, there is less diminishing the quality of available habitats for various
reliance on outside inputs (e.g. fertilizers, agrochemicals, organisms associated with agricultural landscapes, and hence
feeds, energy). This leads to a more stable production system adversely affecting the existing biodiversity (Reidsma et al.
(Kumar et al. 2013). 2006). The Indian scenario provides an excellent example.
Year-round income : IFS provides a flow of money Market-oriented intensive agricultural production systems
for the farmers throughout the year by way of the sale are replacing ecologically-oriented extensive traditional
of a variety of farm produce (e.g. milk, egg, mushroom, farming systems, and hence leading to rapid changes in the
vegetables, fruits, food grains) (Behera and Mahapatra 1999, agricultural landscape. It is widely accepted that the major
Maheswarappa et al. 2001, Kumar et al. 2013). practices of the intensive systems that adversely affect farm
Risk minimization: IFS provides a stable and level biodiversity are application of synthetic fertilizers and
sustainable production system through diversified crops pesticides, cultivation of but a few high yielding varieties,
and enterprises, which helps in risk minimization and continued mechanization of agriculture and the removal
resilience to climate change (Ayyappan and Arunachalam of semi-natural habitats in farm areas (Bianchi et al. 2013,
2014). Single commodity based agriculture is always Amjath-Babu and Kaechele 2015). Dhyani et al. (2009)
endangered by natural hazards such as floods, drought, and argue that conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
disease epidemics. During 1999-2000 in India, many cotton contributes significantly to sustainable development and
growers in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka mitigation, and adaptation to climate change.
committed suicide as their crops were heavily damaged IFS promotes a rich culture of biodiversity through
by pests. Adoption of IFS would help farmers escape such maintaining a multi-enterprise system of flora and fauna.
situations and reduce the risk involved in crop failure Behera et al. (2007) reported 21 species of cropped plants
(Shukla et al. 2002). in an IFS under eastern Indian conditions, comprising root
crops, leafy vegetables and greens, flowers, fruits seeds
IFS for enhancing sustainable agriculture and nuts, agroforestry plants, trees, and medicinal plants
Monoculture and continuous cropping or rice-wheat besides the field crops such as rice, wheat, and green gram
and rice-rice systems has resulted in various disadvantages, grown for grain purpose and mustard and toria for oilseeds.
e.g. degradation of natural resources, build-up of diseases Such a mosaic of plant and crop species contributes for a
and pests, and decline in factor of productivity (Ayyappan better quality of life for the farmers by providing various
and Arunachalam 2014, Singh 2015). All these have items of food, fodder and fuel for the family (Behera et al.
endangered the basic fabric of sustainability in some of 2018). Rearing of cows, goats, etc. along with fish in farm
the most productive zones of India. Crop-animal systems ponds helps balance the diet of the family. Such multi-
in Asian agriculture display a wide diversity in cropping enterprise farming plays a vital role in making the farming
patterns, livestock species and use of the resource base. system sustainable through different cropping, biodiversity
There is evidence of positive and economic benefits from and ecosystem services. Intensification of farming has a
crop-animal interactions that promote sustainable agriculture clear impact on biodiversity (Amjath-Babu and Kaechele

15
1768 BEHERA [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89 (11)

2015). The process of intensification includes the combined the biophysical environment, identified through detailed
effects of ploughing frequency, fertilizer and pesticides analyses of the constraints, needs and opportunities.
applications, and specialization of production. Zechaister System perspectives are, therefore, of great importance in
and Moser (2001), Gaston (2000) and Wilson et.al. (2003) improving, understanding and developing the contribution
all demonstrated a strong correlation between land use for the farmers.
intensity in farming and biodiversity loss. Targeting research and development in rainfed areas:
The traditional farming systems of India are relatively The rationale and justification for targeting the rainfed areas
stable and in equilibrium. The species complexes in of Asia are related to three important reasons: inadequate
traditional systems exemplify the co-existence of plants, availability of arable lands, the need to increase productivity
humans, draught animals, birds, beneficial insects, from animals to match projected human needs and the
pollinators, earthworms, soil micro-organisms and bio- alleviation of poverty (Devendra 2000). The rainfed areas
control agents. Agricultural biodiversity and associated have been constrained by many factors, such as road and
traditional knowledge are essential to the climate change market access and hence, have been relatively underutilized
resilience of these landscapes but their roles are largely and also bypassed by research and development. Water is
overlooked by researchers and policymakers (Mijatovic another constraint, and without adequate irrigation systems,
et al. 2013). Modern farming systems, which evolved rainfed areas have been unable to increase productivity and
in response to the growing needs of society to ensure capacity. However, these constraints can be overcome by
food and nutritional security, have progressively replaced increased research and development attention, technology
traditional farming. More intensification of crops and delivery and market-oriented production systems. The
cropping systems in modern farming has led to a decline strategy for the development of small farms must therefore
in the genetic pool and an erosion of biodiversity, and the give priority to rainfed areas, especially to the potentially
links among the components and enterprises are broken more important locations.
causing unsustainability (Dent 1990). It is important that Markets and marketing: Small farmers have major
diversity is assured while attaining high production levels problems coping with a range of issues in the face of the
and profitability. Humans, particularly women, have a long complexity and general inefficiency of prevailing marketing
tradition of preserving plant species and the agro-ecosystem. chains. At present, inadequate access to market outlets and
There is a need to preserve traditional practices and learn weak marketing arrangements represent major constraints in
from available local wisdom. the production to consumption cycle. Market chains involve
The genetic future of livestock populations is closely rural, peri-urban, urban and international markets, and the
linked to crop integration in mixed farming systems (de major challenge lies in ways to link small farmers with
Haan et al. 1997). IFS are the reservoir for many valuable these markets and marketing systems. In order to provide
indigenous breeds of ruminants and non-ruminants that good links between rural and urban markets, appropriate
have been incompletely characterized and inadequately infrastructure and communication facilities must be in
exploited in Asia (Devandra 2002b). The intensification and place, in addition to centres for collection and processing.
industrialization of livestock production has led increasingly Extension strategy for 21st century agriculture: In the
to the demand for uniform genotypes causing the extinction national agriculture systems, we visit farmers’ field and
of some, and genetic erosion of other breeds. In South Asia, provide number of recommendations and advice to the
the crossbreeding of local breeds with a few introduced farmers related to varieties, breeds and technologies in
dairy breeds is proceeding on a very large scale, to the isolation. There is need for holistic ways by projecting the
detriment of the indigenous stock. A more detailed account whole farm income, expenditure, outcome and activities
of the problems associated with crossbreeding is given by round the year (Mahapatra and Behera 2011). This is lacking
Devandra et al. (2000). in national agricultural research and extension system.
Enterprise/activities combination in farming systems and
Integrated farming systems: the road map optimization of scarce resources at the command of farmers
The systems and interdisciplinary approach: A must revolve round optimization - optimization enterprise
significant weakness in the research and development combination and optimization of scare resource use at farm
process and programmes in most national systems concerned level fitting to the enterprise combination. These two aspects
with crop and livestock production in Asia is the near are weak in national agriculture systems in India and other
absence of the systems approach. Much of the research Asian countries also. This is very important for doubling
continues along strong disciplinary lines without reference the farmers income in our country. No agency in National
to the needs of small farms (Devendra 2007). Despite the agricultural system is equipped to do so. There is need
dominant emphasis on mixed farming in Asia, research to modify our education/training programme to develop
on crop-animal systems is seldom integrated. As a result, scientific and skilled manpower in this area.
the complex and interrelated system-based problems in The Developmental Farm Model (DFM): To help bring
crop-animal systems are not addressed in holistic terms. agricultural growth to the rural areas of South Asia and in
The systems approach requires multi-interdisciplinary keeping with the millennium goal of reducing world poverty
interpretation of different components of the systems and by 50% by 2020, we advocate another model namely the

16
November 2019] ROAD MAP FOR INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS 1769

DFM (Behera et al. 2013, Behera and France 2014). This an IFS can provide an ideal farming system if some of
is a holistic farm model that assures adequate income the limitations mentioned previously are overcome. Next
generation and family employment opportunities for the we briefly address some policy measures that could make
farmer, particularly resource-poor, small-holder farmers, such a system attractive to farmers under current Indian
thereby helping to reduce poverty and improve livelihood. circumstances (Behera et al. 2015).
It is based on a bottom-up approach and is applicable to Farm development card: The system view is a useful
all classes of farmer to meet their multi-objective needs. conceptual device for all concerned with agriculture as it
Whether they are subsistence or corporate farmers, this helps researchers understand the context of their research
model can help them achieve their desired objectives. The and in defining its content, thus contributing to its relevance.
use of optimization methodology (e.g., linear programming It helps them see their specialization in perspective and
and its variants) helps enhance the application of DFM in in relation to other forces and creates a better climate for
an efficient way. cross-disciplinary work. It has been demonstrated that
The vision behind the DFM concept is to provide the research programmes based on the traditional approach (i.e.
farmers of South Asia and other developing regions with the commodity based) are not wholly sustainable, equitable
opportunity to have their own model of development. This and stable over a long period (Behera and France 2016).
takes full account of the fact that all farms are not alike. Doubling the farm income by 2022 is a major challenge
Hence, with the DFM approach, we visualize providing before National Agricultural Research System, which
each and every farmer with a model of their farm for their can be achieved through large-scale promotion of agro-
development. entrepreneurship by small and marginal farmers, who
DFM serves as a powerful capsule for helping cure constitute more than 85% of the farming community, and
the multiple problems of agriculture at the farm level. The by the rural youth. For the sustainable development of small
ingredients of the capsule might be the energy component, and marginal farmers in India there is need of system and
soil health improvement by developing a soil health card, holistic approach, which can better achieved with the help
farm mechanization to reduce drudgery, value addition, etc. of farm development card (Behera and France 2016).
Farm activities can be planned simultaneously to produce Farm development card (FDC) is a business plan for
renewable energy, generate income and minimise risk by the farmers which is based on holistic concept of farm
introducing different enterprises, achieve food security and development – which considers overall situations of the farm
maintain biodiversity and prevent erosion by way of planting including the knowledge and skill possessed by the farmer
trees, shrubs, etc. This creates ecosystem awareness by and activities needed to achieve the farmers goal within the
encouraging diversity at the farm level and redesigning the physical, biophysical and socio-economic and institutional
farming system. Thus, by implementing the DFM approach, forces under which the farmers operate (Behera 2018a).
aspects/issues such as income generation, risk minimisation, Farm development card also accommodates soil health card.
climate change, ecosystem service and energy security can Hence, beyond soil health card farm development card can
all be well addressed, which is difficult to achieve using better address the farmers’ problem and double the farmers’
conventional approaches. income. FDC includes the following vital components
Energy Self-sufficient Integrated Farming Systems (Behera 2018b): (i) Ecological development, (ii) Economic
(E-IFS): The question arises as to how and what forms of development, (iii) Energy security, (iv) Enhancing water
renewable modern energy generating capacity can be added productivity, (v) Soil health management and (vi) System
to the existing resource recycling capabilities of an IFS productivity and sustainability. In addition, FDC considers
so that the whole system becomes self-sufficient or even the farmers resource availability, constraints and market
surplus in energy (Behera et al. 2013). In the E-IFS concept, opportunity. For development of FDC, the procedures -
the objective is to integrate all direct and indirect sources (i) Collecting preliminary information, (ii) Formulation of
of energy (which so far have not been fully explored), and FDC, (iii) Revalidation of the plan to know the feasibility
to utilize resource recycling and resource conservation to (iv) Implementation of the Farm Development Card and
reduce the energy embodied in inputs such as fertilizers, (v) mid-term correction of the plan are followed.
pesticides and irrigation water. This would lead towards a Empowering farmers and entrepreneurs: For promotion
reduction in carbon emissions (i.e. towards carbon neutrality) of IFS, it’s essential that farmers are empowered with
and cleaner and greener farming. knowledge, skill and entrepreneurship. Subsistence
An E-IFS would be one that uses little or no fossil fuel agriculture does not generate enough income for the
energy and even produces more energy than is required, so farmers and rural families due to which they are forced to
that it becomes another product off the farm. However, such leave farming. Farmers and rural youth will prosper when
an energy surplus needs to be achieved without competing they are empowered with the required knowledge, skill
with food crops for land and resources. Finally, the very and entrepreneurship and are connected to value addition
nature of farming within an E-IFS, with its diversity of economic activities in the agri-business domain. Within
enterprise, can act as a risk reduction mechanism in the the farming systems, there is a need to train the farmers
wake of climatic changes that may possibly lead to crop for management of enterprises like dairy, poultry, fishery,
failure. The incorporation of modern energy sources within mushroom farming etc. and about modern technology/

17
1770 BEHERA [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89 (11)

methods for ‘Per Drop More Crop’, techniques to take up ASG. 2015. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2014. Oxford
organic farming, scientific design of an IFS etc. University Press, New Delhi, India.
Synergy through collaboration and linkages: In India, Ayyappan S and Arunachalam A. 2014. [Crop Diversification for
for accelerating agricultural growth, key lies with exploring Social Security of Farmer in India], pp. 1-6. (Eds) Rana D
S and Singh A K). Indian Society of Agronomy, New Delhi.
synergy through collaboration and linkages. We have
Behera U K, Rautray S K and Sahoo P K. 2010. Farming
developed vast infrastructure in our country in comparison
system-based composite pisciculture in harvested pond water
to other countries. We have around 703 Krishi Vigyan under eastern Indian situations. Journal of Soil and Water
Kendras, 343 zonal research centres, around 100 farming Conservation 9: 143–7.
system research centres (network of AICRP on IFS), vast Behera U K, Yates C M, Kebreab E and France J. 2008. Farming
agricultural line departments and more than 29000 ATMA systems methodology for efficient resource management at
workers. All are mandated to improve farming systems and the farm level: an Indian perspective. Journal of Agricultural
benefit farmers. It is seen that they work in parallel lines Science, Cambridge 146: 493–505.
and hardly collaborate and converge. Now, time has come Behera U K. 2018a. Development with Farm Development Card.
we should think how to get better output from the vast ICAR News 24(2): 4–7.
infrastructure we have developed. This is possible through Behera U K and France J. 2016. Integrated farming systems for the
livelihood security of small and marginal farmers in India and
exploring synergy by linkages and collaborations.
other developing countries. Advances in Agronomy 138: 235–82.
Prescriptive agriculture: Many sick farms of the country
Behera U K and Mahapatra I C. 1999. Income and employment
need a proper recommendation for corrective measures in generation of small and marginal farmers through integrated
the way of prescription. However, even after more than 6 farming systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy 44(3): 431–9.
decades of our efforts in agricultural development, we advice Behera U K and France J. 2014. Developmental Farm Model for
farmers mostly orally without handing over a prescription as revolutionizing agricultural growth. ICAR News 20(3): 5–6.
a doctor does when a patient consults him. It is observed that Behera U K, Babu A, Kaechele H and France J. 2015. Energy self-
our National agricultural systems is not properly equipped sufficient sustainable integrated farming systems for livelihood
to do so. Providing a prescription to the farmers may build security under a changing climate scenario in an Indian context:
mutual confidence and strengthen partnership, which is a case-study approach. CAB Reviews 10(19): 11.
very important from farmers, development point of view. Behera U K, Bhargavi B, Meena S L, Bhattacharyya R, Singh R,
Singh R K, Singh V K, Gupta N and Rana K S. 2018. Research
Bulletin on Integrated farming system model for livelihood
Conclusion
security of small and marginal farmers. Division of Agronomy,
Farming system approach to research/extension Indian Agricultural Research Institute.
and development is recognized as a potential tool for Behera U K, Choudhary A K, Dass A and Vyas A K. 2013. Integrated
management of the vast natural resources in developing Farming Systems for Livelihood Security of Small and Marginal
countries and to meet multiple demands, e.g. supporting Farmers. Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research
livelihood, conserving biodiversity, off-setting emissions, Institute 327 p.
adapting to climate change. An integrated farming system Behera U K, Sharma A R and Mahapatra I C. 2007. Crop
(IFS) represents multiple crops (cereals, legumes, tree diversification for efficient resource management in India:
crops, vegetables, etc.) and multiple enterprises (livestock Problems, prospects and policy. Journal of Sustainable
production, fish farming, bee keeping, etc.) on a single farm. Agriculture 30(3): 97–127.
Upadhyay P K, Rajanna G A, Sepat S, Bana R S, Choudhary A K,
Promotion of IFS is important for establishing sustainable
Singh T, Singh R K, Rathore S S, Kumar D, Nath C P, Shiva
agriculture. IFS provides scope for exploring synergistic
Dhar, Ghosh P K and Yadav R L. 2018. Doubling farmers’
interactions of the components of farming systems, and to income through agronomic interventions under changing
enhance resource-use efficiency and recycling of farm by- scenario. (In) Extended summaries of XXI Biennial National
products. The innovative approaches, DFM, E-IFS, FDC, Symposium. Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi
prescriptive agriculture, synergy through collaboration and 110 012, p 652.
linkages and farmers, empowerment are the keys to promote Behera U K, Jha K P and Mahapatra I C. 2004. Integrated
IFS in Indian agriculture. management of available resources of the small and marginal
farmers for generation of income and employment in eastern
REFERENCES India. Crop Research 27(1): 83–9.
Ahlawat S P S, Mandal A B and Pramanik S C. 2002. Integrated Bianchi F J J A, Mikkos V, Brussaard L, Delbalre B and Pulleman
crop-livestock fish farming system for sustained production M M. 2013. Opportunities and limitations for functional agro-
– Bay island perspective. (In) Proceedings of the National biodiversity in the European context. Environmental Science
Symposium on Agriculture in Changing Global Scenario. (Eds) Policy 27: 223–31.
Gautam R C, Mishra B N, Shivkumar B G, Rai R K, Mishra Borthakur A and Singh P. 2013. History of agricultural research
S K and Garg R N. Indian Society of Agricultural Sciences, in India. Current Science 105: 587–93.
New Delhi. Chopra K. 1993. Sustainability of agriculture. Indian Journal of
Amjath-Babu T S and Kaechele H. 2015. Agricultural system Agricultural Economics 48(3): 527–35.
transitions in selected Indian states: What do the related Dalsgaard J P T and Prein M. 1999. Integrated smallholder
indicators say about the underlying biodiversity changes and agriculture-aquaculture in Asia: Optimising tropic flows.
economic trade-offs? Ecological Indicators 57: 171–81. Nutrient disequilibria in agro-ecosystems: Concepts and case

18
November 2019] ROAD MAP FOR INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEMS 1771

studies pp. 141-155. (Eds) Smaling E M A, Oenema O, Fresco New Delhi.

L O), CABI, Wallingford, UK. Lightfoot C, Bimbao M P, Dalsgaard J P T and Pullin R S V. 1993.
de Haan C, Steinfeld H and Blackburn H. 1997. Livestock and Aquaculture and sustainability through integrated resources
environment: Finding a balance. FAO/USAID/The World Bank. management. Outlook on Agriculture 22(3): 143-150.
WRENmedia, Eye, Suffolk, UK. Lightfoot C, Bimbao M P, Dalsgaard J P T and Pullin R S V. 1993.
Dent J B. 1990. [Systems Theory Applied to Agriculture and the Aquaculture and sustainability through integrated resources
Food Chain]. Elsevier, Amsterdam. management. Outlook on Agriculture 22(3): 143-150.
Devendra C and Thomas D. 2002b. Crop-animal interactions in Mahapatra I C and Behera U K. 2011. Rice-based farming systems
mixed farming systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems 71: 27–40. for livelihood improvement of Indian farmers. Indian Journal
Devendra C, Thomas D, Jabbar M A and Zerbini E. 2000. of Agronomy 56(1): 1-19.
Improvement of livestock production in crop-animal systems Maheswarappa H P, Hegde M R, Dhanpal R and Biddappa C C.
in agro-ecological zones of South Asia. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. 1998. Mixed farming in coconut garden: its impact on soil,
Devendra C. 1997. Crop residues for feeding animals in Asia: physical, chemical properties, coconut nutrition and yield.
Technology assessment and adoption in crop/livestock systems. Journal of Plantation Crops 26(2): 139-43.
Crop residues in Sustainable Mixed Crop/Livestock farming Maheswarappa H P, Hegde M R, Dhanpal R, Sairam C V and
System pp. 241-267. (Ed) Renard C., . CABI, Wallingford, UK. Singh TV. 2001. Impact of integrated mixed farming systems
Devendra C. 2007. Small farm systems to feed hungry Asia. in coconut garden on coconut yield and economic analysis.
Outlook on Agriculture 36(1): 7–20. Indian Journal of Agronomy 46(1): 56-63.
Devendra C and Thomas D. 2002a. Smallholder farming systems Manjunath B L and Itnal C J. 2003b. Farming system options for
in Asia. Agricultural Systems 71: 17-25. small and marginal holdings in different topographics of Goa.
Dhyani S K, Newaj R and Sharma A R. 2009. Agroforestry: Its Indian Journal of Agronomy 48(1): 4-7.
relation with agronomy, challenges and opportunities. Indian Manjunath B L and Itnal C J. 2003a. Integrated farming system
Journal of Agronomy 54(3): 249–66. in enhancing the productivity of marginal rice (Oryza sativa)
Ehrlich P R and Pingle R M. 2008. Where does biodiversity go holdings in Goa. Indian Journal of Agronomy 48(1): 1-3.
from here? A grim business as usual forecast and a hopeful Mijatovic D, van Oudenhoven F, Eyzaguirre P and Hodgkin
portfolio of partial solutions. (In) Proceedings of the US T. 2013. The role of agricultural biodiversity in strengthening
National Academy of Sciences 105: 11579–86. resilience to climate change: Towards an analytical framework.
Evenson R E and Gollin D. 2003. Assessing the impact of the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11(2):
Green Revolution - 1960 to 2000. Science 300: 758–62. 95-107.
Falcon W and Naylor R L. 2005. Rethinking food security for Paroda R. 2014. Sustainable livelihoods through agriculture
the 21st century. American Journal of Agricultural Economics diversification and climate smart agriculture. (Eds.) D S Rana
87(5): 1113–27. and A K Singh. Indian Society of Agronomy, New Delhi.
Gangwar B. 1993. Farming systems research for accelerating Rangaswamy A, Venkitaswamy R, Purushothaman S and
agricultural development in less developed countries: A review. Palaniappan S P. 1996. Rice-poultry-fish-mushroom integrated
Agricultural Reviews 14(3): 149–59. farming systems for the lowlands of Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal
Gill M S, Singh J P and Gargwar K S. 2010. Integrated farming of Agronomy 41(3): 344-8.
systems and agriculture sustainability. Indian Journal of Rathore S S and Bhatt B P. 2008. Productivity improvement in
Agronomy 54(20): 128–39. jhum fields through an integrated farming system. Indian
IOBC 1983. International organization for biological and integrated Journal of Agronomy 53(4): 167–171.
control. Technical bulletin 16(1):45. Rautaray S K, Das,P C and Sinhababu D P. 2005. Increasing farm
Jain T C. 2008. New paradigms in agronomic research and income through a rice-fish based integrated farming system in
development. Indian Journal of Agronomy 53(4): 241-4. rainfed lowlands of Assam. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Jha D. 2003. An overview of farming systems research in India. Sciences 75(2): 79–82.
Annals of Agricultural Research 24(4): 695-706. Ravisankar N, Pramanik S C, Rai R B, Nawaz S, Biswas T K
Korikanthimath V S and Manjunath B L. 2009. Integrated farming and Bibi N. 2007. Study of an integrated farming system in
systems for sustainability in agriculture production. Indian hilly upland areas of Bay Islands. Indian Journal of Agronomy
Journal of Agronomy 54(2): 140-8. 52(1): 7–10.
Kumar S and Jain D K. 2005. Are linkages between crops and Ravisankar N, Subrmani T, Ambast S K and Srivasyava R C.
livestock important for the sustainability of the farming system? 2010. Enhancing farm income in an island ecosystem. Indian
Asian Economic Review 47(1): 90-101. Farming 60(6): 16–9.
Kumar S, Shivani and Singh S S. 2013. Sustainable food and Reidsma P, Tekelenburg T, van de Berg M and Alkemade R. 2006.
nutritional security through IFS. Indian Farming 63(7): 30-36. Impact of land use change on biodiversity: an assessment of
Kumar S, Singh S S, Shivani and Dey A. 2011. Integrated faming agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agricultural
system for eastern India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 56(4): Ecosystems and Environment 114: 86–102.
297-304. Rhoades R E and Booth R H. 1982. Farmer-back to back farmers:
Kumar S, Singh S S, Meena M K, Shivani and Dey A. 2012. a model for generating acceptable agricultural technology.
Resources recycling and their management under an integrated Agricultural Administration 11: 127–37.
faming system for lowlands of Bihar. Indian Journal of Sharma A R and Behera U K. 2004. Fertiliser use and option
Agricultural Science 82(6): 504-510. for diversification in rice-wheat cropping systems in India.
Lal R and Miller F P. 1990. Sustainable farming system for the Fertiliser News 49(12): 115–31.
tropics. Sustainable Agriculture: Issues and Prospectives, pp Shukla A K, Shukla N D and Singh V K. 2002. Farming system
69-89. R.P. Singh (Ed.) . Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI, approach for food security and sustained rural economy. Indian

19
1772 BEHERA [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89 (11)

Journal of Fertilizers 47(11): 55–62. New Delhi.

Singh G. 2015. Agriculture diversification for food, nutrition, Singh G. 2015. Agriculture diversification for food, nutrition,
livelihood and environmental security: Challenges and livelihood and environmental security: Challenges and
opportunities. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 60(2): 172–84. opportunities. Indian Journal of Agronomy 60(2): 172–84.
Singh K, Bohra J S, Singh Y and Singh J P. 2006. Development Singh J P, Gill M S and Tripathi D. 2007. Development of integrated
of farming system models for the north-eastern plain zone of farming system models for marginal and small farmers. (In)
Uttar Pradesh. Indian Farming 56(2): 5–11. Extended summaries of 3rd national symposium on integrated
Singh D P, Singh K P and Yadavika. 1998. Integrated farming farming system and its role towards livelihood improvement,
systems – a key issue for research education – extension pp 51-57. ARS, Durgapura, Jaipur, 26-28 November 2007.
linkages to sustain food security and ecofriendly environment Yadav R L and Prasad K. 1998. Farming systems research in
in 21st Century, pp 474-486. (In) Proceedings of the First India: needs and strategies. (In) Proceedings of first international
International Agronomy Congress: Agronomy, Environment agronomy congress: Agronomy, environment and food security
and Food Security for the 21st Century , pp. 474-486. Singh P, for 21st century (Eds.). Singh P, Prasad R and Ahlawat I P S,
Prasad R, Ahlawat I P S (Eds.). Indian Society of Agronomy, pp 333-341. Indian Society of Agronomy, New Delhi.

20