See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329285372

Integrated farming system in India: Current status, scope and future

prospects in changing agricultural scenario

Article  in  Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences · November 2018

CITATIONS READS

7 28,006

7 authors, including:

Shivendra Kumar Bhagwati Prasad Bhatt

ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region NRM Division, KAB-II, Pusa, New Delhi-110012
70 PUBLICATIONS   381 CITATIONS    521 PUBLICATIONS   3,400 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amitava Dey Ujjwal Kumar

ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region
87 PUBLICATIONS   373 CITATIONS    114 PUBLICATIONS   231 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Network Project on Climate Change View project

tillage and weed management in soybean based system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ujjwal Kumar on 19 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11): 1661–75, November 2018/Review Article

Integrated farming system in India: Current status, scope and

future prospects in changing agricultural scenario
SANJEEV KUMAR1, B P BHATT2, A DEY3, SHIVANI4, UJJWAL KUMAR5, MD IDRIS6,
J S MISHRA7 and SANTOSH KUMAR8

ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region, Patna, Bihar 800 014

Received: 14 January 2016; Accepted: 22 June 2018

ABSTRACT
Small and marginal farmers are the core of the Indian rural economy constituting 85% of the total farming community
but possessing only 44% of the total operational land. Indian agriculture is labour oriented and requires lot of man-power
and energy but even after this hard work farmers are not in a position to earn their livelihood, especially small farmers
because there is very little left after they pay for all inputs (seeds, livestock breeds, fertilizers, pesticides, energy, feed,
labour, etc.). To fulfill basic needs of these farm families including food (cereal, pulses, oilseeds, milk, fruit, honey,
meat etc.), feed fodder, fibre and fuel warrant an attention about integrated farming system (IFS). The emergence of
IFS has enabled us to develop a framework for an alternative development model to improve the feasibility of small
sized farming operations in relation to larger ones. IFS refer to agricultural systems that integrate livestock and crop
production or integrate fish and livestock and may sometimes be known as integrated bio systems. In this system, an
inter-related set of enterprises are used so that the waste from one component becomes an input for other enterprises
of the system, which reduces cost and improves production and thereby income. Integrated farming systems seem to
be the possible solution to the continuous increase of demand for food and nutrition, income stability and livelihood
upliftment particularly for small and marginal farmers with little resources. Based on the research works conducted all
over the country, it is clear that crop cultivation alone can’t fulfill the demand of food and nutritional requirement and
we have to focus on multi-component farming as it is the only way of efficient resource recycling within the system
with increased economic profitability, economic stability, enhanced soil sustainability, and preserving environmental
quality and maintaining biological diversity and ecological stability.

Key words: Farming system, Livelihood improvement, Productivity, Recycling

Indian economy is mainly agriculture oriented. Small possible by integrating appropriate farming components that
and marginal farmers are the core of the Indian rural require lesser space and time to ensure reasonable periodic
economy constituting 85% of the total farming community income to farm families (Gill et al. 2009). From the Green
but possessing only 44% of the total operational land (GoI Revolution onwards, farmers are mostly concentrating on
2014). The average size of operational land holdings has single enterprise based agricultural systems that lead to
reduced by half from 2.28 ha in 1970-71 to 1.16 ha in deterioration of soil health, increased risk of crop failure
2010-11 (Fig. 1). The operational farm holding in India and downward trends in productivity (Rahman and Sarkar
is still declining. In Bihar and Kerala, the average size of 2012). Rapid population growth, urbanization and income
holding fell by more than three times during the last four growth in developing countries like India, the demand for
decades, whereas in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya food of animal origin is increasing, while also aggravating
Pradesh and Maharashtra, it has reduced by more than two the competition between crops and livestock (increasing
times due to immense population pressure on the limited cropping areas and reducing rangelands). A system approach
land resource available for cultivation (NABARD 2014). is the need of the hour for fulfilling the demand of ever
The declining trend of per capita land availability poses a increasing population without disturbing the ecological
serious challenge to the sustainability and profitability of balance. Integrated farming system seems to be the possible
farming (Siddeswaran et al. 2012). Due to ever increasing solution to the continuous increase of demand for food
population and shrinking land resources in the country, production, stability of income and nutritional security
practically there is hardly any scope for horizontal expansion particularly for the small and marginal farmers with limited
of land for food production. Only vertical expansion is resources. It is not only a reliable way of obtaining a
fairly high productivity with substantial fertilizer economy
but also a concept of ecological soundness, leading to
1e mail: shiv_sanjeev@yahoo.co.in sustainable agriculture. Further, the modest increments in

13
1662 KUMAR ET AL. [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11)

enterprises for each farm according to the availability of

resources to sustain and satisfy as many necessities of the
owner as it is possible which leads to increase productivity
per unit area, efficient recycling of farm wastes, better
utilization of resources, generate employment, reduce the
risks and ensure sustainability. The integration is to be
made in such a way that by-product of one component
should be the input for other enterprises with high degree
of complimentary effects on each other (Gill et al. 2009).
The challenges can be mitigated by improving
efficiency and resilience of agriculture around the IFS.
It means an IFS is to upgrade in terms of technological
and social disciplines on a continuous basis and further to
Fig 1 Average size of operational holdings as per different integrate these disciplines to suit the region and the farm
agriculture census- All India (in ha) families in a manner that will ensure increased production
with stability, ecological sustainability and equitability
land productivity are no longer sufficient for the resource- (Varughese and Mathew 2009). In other words, technologies
poor farmers. Hence, intelligent management of available and management schemes that can enhance productivity
resources, including optimum allocation of resources, is need to be developed. At the same time, ways need to be
important to alleviate the risk related to land sustainability. found to preserve the natural resource base. Within this
The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, GoI has framework, an integrated crop-livestock farming system
also given major emphasis on Integrated Farming System represents a key solution for enhancing livestock production
(IFS) while planning for doubling farmers’ income by and safeguarding the environment through prudent and
2022. However, planning and implementation of different efficient resource use. The increasing pressure on land and
enterprises in integrated farming system in our country the growing demand for livestock products makes it more
lacks scientific and systemic approach. Moreover, proper and more important to ensure the effective use of feed
understanding of interactions and linkages between the resources, including crop residues. An integrated farming
components would improve food security. system consists of a range of resource-saving practices that
aim to achieve acceptable profits and high and sustained
Challenges ahead production levels, while minimizing the negative effects of
Food insecurity and poverty are the major challenges for intensive farming and preserving the environment.
the two-third of the world's hungry and poor people which
is exacerbated by the soaring food and fuel prices, global Rationale of integrated farming
economic downturn, volatile markets and climate change. The rationale behind integrated farming is to minimize
The problem has further increased due to rise in the cost of wastes from the various subsystems on the farm. Wastes
food and energy, depleting water resources, shrinking farm or by-products from each subsystem are used as inputs to
size, diversion of human capital from agriculture sector, other subsystems to improve the productivity and lower the
soil degradation, imbalanced use of fertilizer, excess use cost of production of the outputs of the various subsystems
of pesticides and herbicides and vulnerability to climate (Edwards et al. 1988, Gill et al. 2009). IFS seems to be
change (Paroda 2012). the possible solution with the changing agrarian scenario
The marginal farmers with small land holdings of India. Land fragmentation, scarcity of agricultural inputs
concentrate only on crop production, mainly cereals with and changing climatic scenario of the country necessitates
high risks of flood and drought. Due to failure of monsoon the follow up of the holistic perspective in agricultural
and small size of holdings, they hardly get sufficient income use. Integrated farming system provides an opportunity
to sustain their family (Kumar et al. 2013). Moreover, Indian to increase the economic yield per unit area per unit time
agriculture is labour oriented and requires lot of man-power by virtue of intensification and diversification of crops
and energy but even after this hard work farmers are not in and integration of allied enterprises. It also offers enough
position to earn their livelihood, especially small farmers scope to nutrient recycling within the system to economize
because there is very little left after they pay for all inputs and sustain the system and minimizes the dependence on
(seeds, livestock breeds, fertilizers, pesticides, energy, feed, chemical fertilizers for crop production to earn more profit
labour, etc.). (Rangaswami et al. 1999, Ganesan et al. 1999). This may
To solve the problems of small resource poor also generate more employment for the family members
farmers, diverse and risk prone environment has led to throughout the year (Kumar et al. 2015). Recycling of
the development of a more holistic, resource based, client waste products as input/ resources in agricultural production,
oriented and interacting approach, popularly known as diversification with different crops and enterprises bringing
Integrated Farming System. Biswas and Singh (2003) in stability, meeting the diversified needs of the farm family
defined integrated farming as the integration of two or more offer of an insurance against crop/ market risk and overall

14
November 2018] INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM – A REVIEW 1663

sustainability of soil have proven advantages over the • Chicken tractor poultry used in orchards or vineyards
monocropped situation (Manjunath and Singh 2012). IFS after harvest to clear rotten fruit and weeds while fer-
is an attempt to reconcile agricultural methods with the tilizing the soil.
principles of sustainable development by balancing, in the • Cattle or other livestock allowed to graze cover crop
words of 'FARRE', food production, profitability, safety, between crops on farms that contain both cropland and
animal welfare, social responsibility and environmental care pasture.
(Singh and Rai 2006). Overall an integrated farming system • Water-based agricultural systems that provide way
fulfill the multiple objective of making farmers self-sufficient for effective and efficient recycling of farm nutrients
by ensuring the family members a balance diet, improving producing fuel, fertilizer and a compost tea/mineralized
the standard of living through maximizing the total net irrigation water in the process.
returns and provide more employment, minimizing the risk • Construction of animal houses over a pond so that
and uncertainties and keeping harmony with environment animal waste fell directly into the pond on which fish
(Mali et al. 2014). Simultaneous production of fish in ponds, feed.
with pigs, duck or chicken rearing in pens, beside or over
the ponds constitutes a continuous organic fertilization of the Goals of IFS
pond by the livestock. This practice increases the efficiency The goals of integrated farming systems (IFS) are to:
and rentability of both livestock farming and fish culture • To provide a steady and stable income and rejuvenation/
through the profitable utilization of animal and feed wastes amelioration of the system’s productivity.
(Vincke 1988, Gill et al. 2005). • To achieve agro-ecological equilibrium through the
reduction in the build-up of pests and diseases, through
Concepts and components natural cropping system management and the reduc-
Integrated farming system is based on the concept that tion in the use of chemicals (in-organic fertilizers and
there is no waste, and waste is only a misplaced resource pesticides).
which can become a valuable material for another product • To provide environmentally sustainable and econom-
(Edwards et al. 1986). This approach is not only a reliable ically viable technology that encompasses rational
way of obtaining fairly high productivity with substantial utilization of available resources of the region.
fertilizer economy but also deriving maximum compatibility • To conserve natural resource base, protect the envi-
and replenishment of organic matter by way of effective ronment and enhance prosperity for a longer period
recycling of organic residues/wastes obtained through of time.
integration of various land-based enterprises (Jayanti et
al. 2003). IFS combine livestock, aquaculture, agriculture Advantages of IFS
and agro-industry in an expanded symbiotic or synergistic IFS is a multidisciplinary whole farm approach and
system, so that the wastes of one process become the input very effective in solving the problems of small and marginal
for other processes, with or without treatment to provide farmers. The approach aims at increasing income and
the means of production, such as energy, fertilizer, and feed employment from small-holding by integrating various farm
for optimum productivity at minimum costs. The concepts enterprises and recycling crop residues and by products
associated with IFS are practiced by numerous farmers within the farm itself (Behra and Mahapatra 1999, Singh et al.
throughout the globe. A common characteristic of these 2006). Increased productivity, profitability and sustainability
systems is that they have a combination of crop and livestock are ensured with protective food and environmental safety.
enterprises and in some cases may include combinations of Recycling of waste material, income round the year, saving
aquaculture and trees. The suitable tree-crop combinations energy, meeting fodder crisis, employment generation and
can find the place in integrated farming systems (Bhatt et al. ultimately increasing the standard of living of the farmers
2004a). It is a component of farming systems which takes are other major benefits of integrated farming system (Faroda
into account the concepts of minimizing risk, increasing 2014). It is advantageous over cropping system as it is an
total production and profits by lowering external inputs intensive farming and creates job opportunities to the small
through recycling and improving the utilization of organic and marginal farmers throughout the year, one enterprise
wastes and crop residues. In this respect integration usually may act as insurance to other in case of crop failure, by-
occurs when outputs (usually by-products) of one enterprise product of one enterprise may be used in other and also
are used as inputs by another within the context of the improves soil health and fertility in long run by increasing
farming systems. The difference between mixed farming the nutritional value of soil (Olele et al. 1999, Ugwumba
and integrated farming is that enterprises in the integrated et al. 2010). Integration of livestock with crop component
farming systems interact eco-biologically, in space and has been found beneficial as it improves soil physical and
time, are mutually supportive and depend on each other. chemical properties in terms of N, P, K and other mineral
Examples include: nutrients (Kumar et al. 2012b). The application of livestock
• Pig tractor systems where the animals are confined in manure increases soil organic matter content, and this leads
crop fields well prior to planting and plough the field to improved water infiltration and water holding capacity
by digging for roots. as well as an increased cation exchange capacity, mainly

15
1664 KUMAR ET AL. [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11)

because of biological aeration. Manure and urine raise chosen, planned and executed, gives greater dividends
the pH level and accelerate the decomposition of organic than a single enterprise, especially for small and marginal
matter and microbial activity (Brouwer and Powell 1995, farmers. Farm as a unit is to be considered and planned for
1998). It helps to improve and conserve the productive effective integration of the enterprises to be combined with
capacities of soils, with physical, chemical and biological crop production activity. Integration of farm enterprises to
soil recuperation. be combined on many factors such as:
Ever increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in 1. Soil and climatic features of the selected area.
the atmosphere resulting in global warming is likely to have 2. Availability of resources, land, labour and capital.
serious repercussions for human beings, animals, plants, 3. Present level of utilization of resources.
microbes and environment. As per NSSO, 40% farmers 4. Economics of proposed integrated farming system.
want to quit agriculture and the young generation is no 5. Managerial skill of the farmer
more interested in farming profession. Diversification into In the context of India, there are a number of situations
farming system mode of agriculture on small land holding and conditions that can be alleviated by an IFS. The
can provide proofing for predicted climate change related following situations are ideal for the introduction of IFS:
risk in agriculture. This can also help in obtaining food • The farmer wishes to improve the soil quality.
and nutritional security at farm level and can also generate • The farm household is struggling to buy food or below
rural employment, thus preventing excessive migration to the poverty line.
urban areas, which is a common problem in developing • Water is stored on-farm in ponds or river-charged
economies (Singh 2012). overflow areas.
Some other advantages of IFS are summarized below as: • Fertilizers are expensive or the recommended blend is
• It improves space utilization and increase productivity unavailable.
per unit area. • Soil salinity has increased as a result of inorganic
• It provides diversified products. fertilizer use.
• Improves soil fertility and soil physical structure from • The farmer is seeking to maximize profits on existing
appropriate crop rotation and using cover crop and holding.
organic compost. • The farm is being eroded by wind or water.
• Reduce weeds, insect pests and diseases from appro- • The farmer is looking to reduce chemical control
priate crop rotation. methods.
• Utilization of crop residues and livestock wastes. • The farmer wants to reduce pollution or waste disposal
• Less reliance to outside inputs – fertilizers, agrochem- costs.
icals, feeds, energy etc
• Increase profits by reducing production costs. Poor Integration of enterprises
farmers can use fertilizer from livestock operations, Since IFS is an interrelated complex matrix of soil,
especially when rising petroleum prices make chemical water, plant, animal and environment and their interaction
fertilizers unaffordable. with each other it enable the system to be more viable and
• Higher net returns to land and labour resources of the profitable over arable farming system and leads to production
farming family. It provides diversified income sources, of the quality food. The income obtained from crops is
guaranteeing a buffer against trade, price and climate hardly sufficient to sustain the farm family throughout the
fluctuations (Kumar et al. 2015). year. Assured regular cash flow is possible when the crop is
combined with other enterprises. Judicious combination of
Scope for IFS enterprises, keeping in view of the environmental conditions
An IFS consists of a range of resource-saving practices of a locality will pay greater dividends. At the same time,
that aim to achieve acceptable profits and high and sustained it will also promote effective recycling of residues/wastes
production levels, while minimizing the negative effects (Kumar et al. 2012a).
of intensive farming and preserving the environment (Lal To strengthen the food chain, it is essential to eliminate
and Miller 1990, Gupta et al. 2012). IFS gives greater nutritional disorder which has been realized on account of
importance for sound management of farm resources to appearing deficiencies of mineral nutrients and vitamins
enhance the farm productivity and reduce the environmental in food being consumed. Horticultural and vegetable
degradation, improve the living standard of resource poor crops can provide 2-3 times more energy production than
farmers and maintain sustainability (Kumar et al. 2013). cereal crops on the same piece of land and will also ensure
Integrated farming is a system which tries to imitate the the nutritional security and income sustainability in the
nature's principle, where not only crops but, varied types existing system (Gill et al. 2009). Similarly, inclusion of
of plants, animals, birds, fish and other aquatic flora and bee-keeping, fishery, mushroom cultivation, bird rearing,
fauna are utilized for production throughout the year (Kumar goatry, livestock on account of space conservation also
et al. 2015). Farming enterprises include crop, livestock, provide additional high energy without affecting production
poultry, fish, tree crops, plantation crops, etc. A combination of food grains. Integration of these enterprises helps the
of one or more enterprises with cropping, when carefully production, consumption and decomposition in a realistic

16
November 2018] INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM – A REVIEW 1665

manner in an ecosystem. It is pre-requisite in farming system of biogas or dung cakes can replace charcoal and wood.
to ensure the efficient recycling of resources particularly It can be methane-fermented, directly combusted, or made
crop residues and animal wastes, because 70-80% of the into solid fuel. Furthermore, biomass production of feed
micronutrients remain in the biomass and animal wastes is possible; the excreta is treated to be used as feed again
(Inman et al. 2005). (Moriya and Kitagawa 2007, Matsumoto and Matsuyama
IFS can be practiced in different way with variable 1995). In crop based integrated farming system, crop
intensity depending on socio-economic structure, residues are recycled. It is pre-requisite in farming system
characteristics of soil, choice of the farmers and most to ensure the efficient recycling of resources particularly
importantly the resource availability of the farmers (Rahman crop residues, because 80-90% of the micronutrients remain
and Sarkar 2012). It would be wise to select the enterprises by in the biomass. A pictorial presentation of efficient nutrient
keeping the location specificity in mind, means on the basis recycling /input-output flow diagram under IFS is illustrated
of environmental condition of the area, land topography, in Fig 3 (Kumar et al. 2011).
soil and ecosystem, market and processing facility, socio- Bhatt and Bujarbaruah (2005) investigated that
economical condition, risk bearing capacity, knowledge crop residue/weed biomass could be recycled for
about the selected enterprise and investment capacity of the vermicomposting in intensive integrated farming system.
individual as farming models are highly location specific On an average, 24.3 q of vermicompost could be obtained
and it varies from place to place and even farmer to farmer from 70.2 q of biomass (dry weight basis). Removal from
in the same area. The integration is to be made in such a the nutrient pool includes primarily uptake by the trees and
way that product of one enterprise should be the input for crops which becomes either locked up in the vegetative parts
other enterprises with high degree of complimentary effects or exported through harvested produce. Nutrient removal
on each other (Gill et al. 2009). Hence, proper attention through harvested produce is compensated by nutrient input
is required while selecting an enterprise to integrate into through manures, fertilizers, recycled crop residues and tree
the system so that the farming model would be profitable nutrient cycling processes. The tree components by virtue
and sustainable in all respect. A study conducted in Uttara of their deep roots intercept absorb and recycle nutrients
Kannada district of Karnataka with an overall objective of that would have been otherwise lost by leaching. A dynamic
identifying and analysing the optimality under different equilibrium can be expected with respect of organic matter
situations for different farming systems and it was concluded and plant nutrients in the soil due to continuous addition
that, with the introduction of integrated farming system with of leaf litter, other plant residues and animal wastes and
suitable enterprises, the net farm return would increase in its continuous removal through decomposition (Varughese
the range of 25 to 150% over existing plan. Further, with and Thomas 2009). An ideal nutrient interaction expected
the availability of additional resources for inclusion of new in an integrated farming system from the nutrient pool is
technologies, the net farm return would enhance by 40 to depicted in Fig 2.
170% (Naik 1998).

Efficient nutrient recycling

Efficient nutrient recycling
within the system is an integral part
of any farming system research.
In an integrated system, crops
and livestock interact to create a
synergy, with recycling allowing
the maximum use of available
resources. Crop residues can be used
for animal feed, while livestock and
livestock by-product production and
processing can enhance agricultural
productivity by intensifying nutrients
that improve soil fertility,reducing
the use of chemical fertilizers. For
agricultural use, animal excreta can
be used for fertilizer, feed and fuel.
Excreta can be dried, composted, or
liquid-composted for the production
of biogas and energy for household
use (e. g. cooking, lightning) or for
rural industries (e.g. powering mills
and water pumps). Fuel in the form Fig 2 Nutrient flow diagram for an integrated farming system model

17
1666 KUMAR ET AL. [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11)

Fig 3 Input-output flow diagram existing under the developed IFS module.

Research outcomes component improved the system profitability in totality even

Crop-livestock farming system: In integrated crop on small farm of 0.50 ha having 32% slope (converted into
livestock farming system, crop residues can be used for terraces) at Umiam, Meghalaya, which contributed more
animal feed, while manure from livestock can enhance than 55% of the total farm income and made the system
agricultural productivity by intensifying nutrients that more remunerative (Panwar 2014).The inclusion of animal
improve soil fertility as well as reducing the use of chemical component in the system set a positive link on sustainability
fertilizers (Gupta et al. 2012). Animal excreta contain several by generating cash income, improving family nutrition and
nutrients (including nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) recycling crop residues and livestock refuse into valuable
and organic matter, which are important for maintaining the nutrient source for crops (Saxena et al. 2003). Integration
soil structure and fertility. Bhatt and Bujarbaruah, (2005) of livestock with crops on watershed and individual holding
analyzed different sources of manure available in Intensive basis has been reported to improve the traditional farming
integrated farming system developed in Umiam and found system on sustainable and eco-friendly basis (Dhiman et
higher NPK, Ca and Mg in poultry manure, farmyard al. 2003). In North Telangana zone, farming system with
manure, goat manure, vermi-compost, pig manure, liquid agriculture and dairy generated more than 200% additional
manure, cow dung, duck droppings, Azolla pinnata in the employment over agriculture alone. The net returns were
range of N (%): 0.65- 5.20, P (%): 0.35- 1.46, K (%): 0.18- higher in agriculture and dairy followed by agriculture and
3.60, Ca (%)- 0.75-4.15, Mg (%)- 0.07-3.96 which were poultry and agriculture and sheep (Reddy 2005).
recycled within the system. In the pilot area of model Watershed, Rendhar, Jalaun,
Kumar et al. (2011) emphasized that the wastes/ Uttar Pradesh, among the tested integrated farming systems,
by-products of crop/animals used as input for another the maximum net income (` 65819/ha) was obtained from
component has increased the nutrient efficiency at the farm sesame-lentil + mustard + one Murrah buffalo and was
level through nutrient recycling. The input-output flow closely followed by sesame-lentil + linseed (` 64004/
diagram is depicted in Fig 3. Addition of organic residues ha) in ravines degraded soils of Bundelkhand (Singh et
into the system in the form of recycled animal and plant al. 2010a). Bohra et al. (2014) also found that the model
wastes could also help in improving the soil–health and comprising crop (1.15 ha) + vegetables (0.25 ha) + dairy
thereby productivity over a longer period of time with (3 cows) developed for small farm household of Mirzapur
lesser environmental hazards (Gill et al. 2009b, Kumar with assured irrigation ensured higher household income
et al. 2017). Integration of crop sequences with animal of ` 157737/year. Sharma et al. (2014) conducted on-farm

18
November 2018] INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM – A REVIEW 1667

field experiments on different farming system modules in of rice ecosystem as the rice bottom is highly fertilized on
five villages (Kochariya, Mandpiya, Rooppura, Dariba and account of the production of zoo and phytoplankton and
Salampura) of district Bhilwara in Rajasthan. The increase these resources are fully utilized by the fish. The gross
in net return was 2 to 5 times higher to that of conventional income obtained in rice + Azolla + fish was 25.7% more
cropping systems. The benefit cost ratio was high (2.01) over the rice crop and 6.9% more over the rice + fish. The
in micro-farming system compared to 1.49 in conventional net income followed the same trend. Thus rice + Azolla
system. + fish on an average gave ` 8817/ha more over the rice
In Haryana, Sheokand et al. (2000) conducted studies of monoculture and ` 3219/ha over the rice + fish. This model
various farming systems on 1 ha of irrigated and 1.5 ha of was proposed for extensive scale adoption in Tamil Nadu.
unirrigated land and found that under irrigated conditions of Bisht (2011) worked on participatory approach at
mixed farming with crossbred cows yielded the highest net farmer’s field in Indian Central Himalaya on integrated
profit (` 20581) followed by mixed farming with buffaloes fish farming and reported that beside protein rich food for
(` 6218) and lowest in arable farming (` 4615). In another household consumption, an average net gain of ` 36823
study conducted with 240 farmers of Rohtak (wheat- was obtained annually from integrated fish farming with
sugarcane), Hisar (wheat-cotton) and Bhiwani (chickpea- investment of ` 11925 by the farmer. Economic analysis
pearl millet) districts in Haryana which represented zones of technology clearly showed advantage over conventional
of different crop rotations revealed that maximum returns system of cropping under rainfed conditions. A net profit
of ` 12593, 6746 and 2317/ha was obtained from 1 ha of about 200% of the total cost indicates the economic
with buffaloes in Rohtak, Hisar and Bhiwani, respectively. viability of the technology. It has considerable potential
The highest net returns from Rohtak was attributed to the to provide food security, nutritional benefits, employment
existence of a better soil fertility type and of irrigation generation and providing additional income to resource
facilities coupled with better control measures compared poor small farmers.
to other zones. In terms of total man days, Rohtak had Crop-poultry farming system: With rice-based IFS
the highest employment potential followed by Hisar and in Kerala, major returns by 79% from coconut-banana
Bhiwani. The employment potential under mixed farming intercropping in the dykes and field bunds (Mathew and
conditions was predominantly from livestock rather than Varughese 2007). The intervention of green manure husk
crop production. (Singh et al. 1999). Livestock also burial (percent profit- 24.1 and net income: ` 32600/ha)
constitutes "living bank" providing flexible financial reserve and vermicompost with banana pseudo stem (percent
in times of emergency and serve as "insurance" against crop profit- 55.3 and net income: ` 75000/ha) provided a major
failure for survival (Ramrao et al. 2005). share of nutrients (NPK) in the farm over rice crop with
Crop-aquaculture farming system: This system of recommended doses of fertilizers. Duck droppings also
farming is most prevalent in Japan, China, Indonesia, resulted in enhanced profit percentage by 20.5 with net
India, Thailand and Philippines. Many reports suggest that income of ` 27800/ha. The above amendments have also
integrated rice-fish farming is ecologically sound because enhanced the physical properties of soil like bulk density,
fish improve soil fertility by increasing the availability porosity, aggregates, infiltration rate etc.
of nitrogen and phosphorus (Giap et al. 2005, Dugan et Crop-fish-poultry farming system: Channabasavanna et
al. 2006). On the other hand, rice fields provide fish with al. (2002) observed from integrated farming system studies
planktonic, periphytic and benthic food (Mustow 2002). at Sirupura that rice-fish-poultry combinations gave highest
Varughese and Mathew (2009) reported from Kerala net income (> ` 157000/ha) with an improvement in soil
that integrated farming involving aquaculture has great health. Channabasavanna and Biradar (2007) reported that
relevance to the coastal rice lands such as Kuttanad, Kole nutritional status of soil NPK show increased trend from
and Pokkali/Kaippad. In lowland rice, the entire food chain 187 kg/ha to 262 kg/ha (40%), 29.3 kg/ha to 33.6 kg/ha
and vast amount of fertilized water can be fully utilized by (14.6%) and 503kg/ha to 530 kg /ha (5.4%), respectively in
integrating rice and fish. The rice-based farming involving rice-fish poultry system over conventional system (rice-rice).
fish will not only reserve the present trend of non-utilizing The increase was to the tune of 11.5% over conventional
and underutilization of rice field but also make rice farming systems. Similarly, P and K content showed increased trend
more attractive, consequent of such a farming system, it can with IFS.
sustain food security. This system of farming could trigger Crop-livestock-poultry farming system: Ramrao et al.
a process of change whereby the income and economic (2006) studied crop-livestock integrated farming system
prosperity of people living in these areas will increase for the marginal farmers in rainfed regions of Chhattisgarh
leading to economic resurgence. in Central India to find out a sustainable mixed farming
Balusamy et al. (2003) explained that rice + Azolla- model which is economically viable integrating the different
cum-fish culture is one of the economical option in the area. component like crop, livestock, poultry and duck on 1.5-
Monoculture system rely mainly on external inputs while in acre land holding. A model having 2 bullocks + 1 cow
integrated system, recycling of nutrients takes place that help + 1 buffaloes + 10 goats + 10 poultry + 10 ducks along
in reducing the cost of production for economic yield. The with crop cultivation was the best with a net income of
fish in rice field utilized the untapped aquatic productivity ` 33076 per year against arable farming (crop farming)

19
1668 KUMAR ET AL. [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11)

alone (7843 per year) with a cost returns of 1:2.238 and 164810 (USD 2655/year), maximum sustainability for net
employment generation of 316 days. Korikanthimath and returns (73.1%) apart from addition of appreciable quantity
Manjunath (2009) found that FYM and poultry manure of N, P2O5 and K2O into the system in form of recycled
influenced the soil to improve its fertility after successive animal and plant wastes.
rotation of different cropping systems (1.35%) as compared In Tungabhadra project area of Karnataka, integration
to no manure recycling. Recycling of paddy straw with of crop with fish, poultry and goat resulted 26.3 and 32.3%
mushroom substrate had an impact in retaining carbon higher productivity and profitability, respectively over
status of soil (1.33%). Singh et al. (2014) developed two conventional rice-rice system. Among the components
integrated farming system models in Goa, one each for evaluated, the highest net returns were obtained from
upland (plantation crop based) and lowland (rice based) crop (63.8%), followed by goat (30.9%), fish (4.0%) and
with the feasible cropping systems and their integration with poultry (1.3%), respectively (Channabasavanna et al. 2009).
allied agri-enterprises. In the upland model, Cashew (Variety Kulkarni et al. (2014) conducted IFS in farmers' field of
Bhaskara) + Pine apple (Variety Giant Kew) system in the Raichur in Karnataka and found that integration of various
upper elevation; local coconut cultivar intercropped with components improved farm income in a sustainable manner
elephant foot yam/papaya (local selection) as well as noni besides reduction in cost of cultivation by adopting low
(Citrus morinifolia) in middle elevation and high-yielding cost and ecofriendly technologies. Pearl millet followed by
arecanut variety Mangala with intercrop of tissue cultured groundnut was common cropping practice followed by the
banana in lowlying areas integrated with poultry, piggery farmer. By adoption and integration of various components
and vermi composting were found productive. Solaiappan et like vegetable (tomato, brinjal, chilli, bottlegourd,
al. (2007) examined different farming system models along ridgegourd, coriander, menthi, etc), cow, poultry birds,
with conventional cropping and found that model having fishery, vermicomposting, Panchagavya, Jeevamruth etc.,
poultry (20) + goat (4) + sheep (6) + dairy (1) recorded there was sustainable increase in net returns, i.e. 243.3%
maximum organic carbon (0.35%), available soil N (134 over pearl millet– groundnut cropping system (` 23450).
kg/ha), soil P (8.5 kg/ha) and soil K (378 kg/ha) at the end There was also drastic reduction in cost of cultivation
of study. Kumara et al. (2015) found that integration of besides generating more employment, i.e. 245-man days
agriculture + dairy + banana + vegetables + sheeprearing in IFS demonstration as against 80-man days in normal
+ poultry + vermicomposting + foragecrop + banana was practice.
found beneficial on the basis of B:C ratio combination Singh et al. (2006) developed sustainable integrated
of complementary enterprises. The profit margin varied farming system models for irrigated agro-ecosystem of
(from ` 15000 to ` 150000/ha/annum) with the ecosystem eastern Uttar Pradesh of north-eastern plain zone which
(rainfed/irrigated), management skill, and socio-economic revealed that rice-pea-okra was the most remunerative
conditions. Resource recycling improves fertility led to 5 cropping sequence with highest rice equivalent yield of
to 10 q/ha crop yield increase, generate 50-75 man-days/ 17.88 t/ha and net returns than the conventional rice-
family/ year and reduce the cost of production by ` 500-1000/ wheat sequence. The rice based integrated farming system
ha. Simultaneously it takes care of the food and nutritional comprising crop components, dairy, poultry and fishery was
security of the farming family. the most suitable and efficient farming system model giving
Crop-livestock-fish-poultry farming system: IFS also the highest system productivity and ensured the multiple
play an important role in improving the soil health by uses of water. This model generated significantly higher
increasing the nutritional value of soil. The benefits of the levels of employment than rice-wheat system. Jayanti et al.
use of livestock manure in crop production are improvements (2004), based on field experimentation at Coimbatore on
in soil physical properties and the provision of N, P, K and farming in lowlands reported that integration of cropping
other mineral nutrients. The application of livestock manure with fish, poultry, pigeon and goat resulted in three-fold
increases soil organic matter content, and this leads to higher productivity per unit of land over cropping alone as
improved water infiltration and water holding capacity as use of manures from the linked allied enterprises helped in
well as an increased cation exchange capacity. Manure and increasing productivity of crops.
urine raise the pH level and accelerate the decomposition Kumar et al. (2012) studied different IFS models
of organic matter and termite activity (Brouwer and Powell at Patna and identified crop + fish + duck + goat as the
1995, 1998). best integrated farming system in terms of productivity
Kumar et al. (2012b) developed seven IFS models in and employment generation (752 man-days/year) due to
three districts of Bihar namely Patna, Vaishali and Munger better involvement of farm family labours throughout the
districts, to sustain productivity, profitability, employment year. Integration of enterprises created the employment
generation and nutrient recycling for lowland situations. opportunities where in comparison to 512 mandays/year
Among the tested models, crop + fish + cattle model generated in cropping alone system, cropping with fish, duck
recorded higher rice grain equivalent yield (18.76 t/ha) and goat created additional 240 mandays/annum (Fig 4).
than any other combinations but in terms of economics, Singh et al. (2012) had undertaken integrated farming
the crop + fish + goat model supersedes over all other (IFS) comprising the components like crop, dairy, fishery,
combinations by fetching highest average net returns of ` horticulture and apiary rearing at Modipuram, Meerut,

20
November 2018] INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM – A REVIEW 1669

Fig 4 Man-days requirement under different IFS combinations at Patna district.

Uttar Pradesh. The relative share of different component the least requirement of energy. The energy output was
in the order of merit were from dairy (48%), crop (41%), maximum under rice-brinjal + mushroom + poultry. The
horticulture (6%) followed by fish (3.0%) and apiary (2%). output of multi-rice-based enterprise was reasonably good
The net returns obtained from different components were varying from 1.91 to 10.5 lakh MJ/ha. It is thus evident that
` 87029, ` 74435, ` 10263, ` 4947, ` 4204, respectively efficient utilization of scarce and costly resource is the need
of which total return from IFS unit per year (1.4 ha) was of the hour and can be accrued by following the concept
` 135826. Efficient nutrient recycling made the model of IFS through supplementation of allied agro-enterprises
sustainable and eco-friendly. (Korikanthimath and Manjunath 2009).
In traditional Chinese system, the animal houses were Behera et al. (2014) undertook a case study in a
constructed over a pond so that animal waste fell directly small farm (1.25 ha) in eastern India involving IFS (crop-
into the water fueling the pond ecosystem, which the fish livestock-fishery-agroforestry) and presented a concept of
could then feast on for food. Not only were the fish harvested energy self-sufficient integrated farming system. The total
but the pond water, now with extra nutrients was used for energy requirement involving farming and household was
irrigation in crops. The maximum return (` 79064/ha) was 314.597 MJ and there was net deficit of 62.743 MJ (5259
earned from fisheries + piggery + poultry as compared to KWH). These energy requirements can be met by exploring
` 533221 from the rice-wheat system and registered 48.6% renewable energy production from biogas, solar panel and
gain. This also generated additional employment of about windmill. The integration of modern energy sources with
500-man days/ha/annum (Sutradhar 2016). conventional wisdom of integrated farming as suggested
by the concept is presented in graphical form (Fig 5). Its
Energy budgeting whole idea is to produce modern form of energy at the farm
Farming system is a resource management strategy itself by linking various interdependent enterprises in order
to avail maximum efficiency of a particular system. to bridge the energy deficit and future energy demands and
Studies conducted at Goa revealed the higher energy use offset emissions.
efficiency of IFS with rice. Integration of poultry and
mushroom enterprises with rice-brinjal system required Crop based farming system for hilly areas
highest energy input whereas rice cropping alone recorded A micro-watershed based agro-pastoral system in a

21
1670 KUMAR ET AL. [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11)

Source: Behra et al. 2014

Fig 5 Energy flow among different components of the proposed E-IFS.

hilly slope holds promise for small and marginal farmers for four natural ecosystem processes like energy flow, water
sustaining their family and soil fertility on low input basis cycle, mineral cycle and ecosystem dynamics work (Sullivan
(Bhatt and Bujarbaruah 2005). Makdoh et al. (2014) also 2003). These four ecosystems processes function together,
reported from Umiam, Meghalaya that due to adoption of complementing each other as sustainable agriculture requires
multiple cropping sequences in a farming system approach, system approach (Singh et al. 2009) and system implies a
very high maize equivalent yield of 6.78 t (18.79 t/ha) was set of agricultural activities organized while preserving land
realized from an area of 0.36 ha in sloping land. The same productivity and environmental quality and maintaining a
land area if kept under maize monocropping would have desired level of biological diversity and ecological stability.
given a maximum productivity of 3.85 t/ha under optimum A number of successful IFS models (size 4000m2) have
management practices. Thus, a farmer can realize almost been developed for different part of our country and by
five times enhancement in productivity if the farming system adopting those models’ farmer's income can be increased
concept with appropriate cropping sequences are adopted. many folds as well as sustainability and economic viability
of small and marginal farmers can be maintained (Table 1).
Sustainability through IFS
Sustainable development in agriculture must include Conclusion
integrated farming system (IFS) with efficient soil, Addition of organic residues in the form of animal
water crop and pest management practices, which are and plant wastes help in improving the soil health and
environmentally friendly, and cost effective (Walia and thereby productivity over a longer period of time with lesser
Kaur 2013). Nutrient recycling within the system advocates environmental hazards with increased profit margin. IFS
the self-sustainability of the system and which will not model comprising of crop components, dairy, poultry and
only reduce the dependency on the external inputs viz, fishery is the most suitable and efficient farming system
seed/ fertilizers etc. but also provide the balanced and rich model giving the highest system productivity for irrigated
nutrition to the farm family with reduced cost of cultivation agro-ecosystem of north eastern plain zone while suitable
and increased profit margin on the same piece of land which IFS model for Indian Central Himalaya region is fishery +
is key factor for taking care of sustainability. On any farm, poultry + vegetable farming which has considerable potential

22
November 2018] INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM – A REVIEW 1671

Table 1  Economic viability of Integrated Farming System Research models developed in different states of the country
State Prevailing system Net return Integrated Farming System Net returns References
Tamil Nadu Rice-rice- 8,312 Rice-rice-cotton + maize 15,009 Shanmugasundaram et al. (1995)
blackgram Rice-rice-cotton + maize + 17,209 Shanmugasundaram and Balusamy
poultry /fish (1993)
Rice-rice 15,299 Rice-rice-Azolla/Calotropis 17,488 Balusamy (2003)
+ Fish
Rice-rice-rice- 13,790 Rice-rice-rice-fallow-cotton + 24,117 Ganeshan et al. (1990)
fallow-pulses maize + duck cum fish
Cropping alone 36,190 Cropping + fish + poultry 97,731 Jayanthi et al. (2001)
Cropping + fish + pigeon 98,778
Cropping + fish + goat 13,1118
Rice 22,971 Rice + fish 28,569 Balusamy (2003)
Rice + Azolla + fish 31,788
Goa Cashew 36,330 Coconut + forage + dairy 32,335 Manjunath and Itnal (2003)
Rice-brinjal (0.5 ha) + Rice- 75,360
cowpea (0.5 ha) + mushroom
+ poultry
Madhya Arable farming 24,093 Mixed farming + 2 cow 37,668 Tiwari et al. (1999)
Pradesh Dairy (2 cows) + 15 goats + 44,913
10 poultry + 10 duck + fish
Maharashtra Cotton (K) + (-) 92 Blackgram(K) - Onion (R)- 1,304 Shelke et al. (2001)
Groundnut (S) Maize + cowpea 3,524
Crop + dairy + sericulture 5,121
Crop + dairy
Punjab Crops (rice- 81,200 (gross) Crops (rice-wheat) + dairy 15,4000 Gill (2004)
wheat) Fish + piggery (gross)
113,200
(Gross)
Uttar Pradesh Crops 41,017 Crops 47,737 Singh (2004)
(Sugarcane- (sugarcane+wheat)+dairy Singh et al. (2006)
wheat) 66,371 Crop + Dairy 103,615
Crops alone Crop + Dairy + Horticulture 107,467
Crop + Dairy + Apiary 134,382
Crop + Dairy + 139,472
Vermicomposting
Karnataka rice–rice system 21,599 Rice-fish (pit at the center of 62,977 Chnnabasavanna and Biradar (2007)
the field) – poultry (reared 49,303
separately)
Rice-fish (pit at one side of
the field) – poultry (shed on
fish pit)
Bihar Rice-wheat 22,234 Cropping + poultry + goatry 89413 Kumar et al. (2017).
+ mushroom

to provide food security, nutritional benefits, employment ecosystems and sub systems can be tuned through farmers’
generation and providing additional income to resource participatory trials with multilevel interventions itself on
poor small farmers. In general, IFS enable the agricultural the farmers’ fields. Undoubtedly, this approach is a location
production system sustainable, profitable (3-6 fold) and specific, technically skill based, play multidimensional role
productive on long term. About 90-95% of nutritional in fulfilling the domestic requirement, employment avenues,
requirement is self-sustained through resource recycling rational use of resources, sustaining productivity, invest
which curtails the cost of cultivation and increases profit ability and economic ability of the systems. Undoubtedly,
margins and employment. Therefore, it is imperative to state integrated farming system enhances the net return, generates
that to sustain food and nutritional security, IFS approach employment, conserves natural resources, reduces the cost of
is promising and will conserve the resource base through production and increases the overall income by minimizing
efficient recycling of residues and wastes within the system. risk. Hence, in the present scenario of agriculture sector,
The IFS models developed for different ecological integrated farming system is the only approach that can

23
1672 KUMAR ET AL. [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11)

enable the Indian farmers self-sufficient and competitive in Bhatt B P, Bujarbaruah K M, Patnayak A, Mandal B K, Vinod K,
the global market by producing quality edible products on Venkatesh M S, Rajkhowa C, Kumaresan A, Santosh A and
account of recycling the by-products of different enterprises. Dutta M. 2005. Rice based integrated farming system in the
North East. Agroforestry in North East India: Opportunities
and Challenges, pp 575-87. Bhatt B P and Bujarbaruah K M
Future thrust
(Eds). ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam,
• Creation of database on IFS throughout the country
Meghalaya.
in relation to type and size of integrated farming sys- Bisht Deepa. 2011. Integrated fish farming for food, nutritional
tems, enterprise selected and their way of allocation, security and economic efficiency in mid hills of Indian Central
infrastructure, economics, economic sustainability of Himalaya. Research Journal of Fisheries and Hydrobiology
the system etc. under different ecological situations. 18: 1-6.
• Development of ecologically stable, environmentally Biswas C and Singh R. 2003. Integrated farming system: An
sound and location specific low cost viable IFS modules intensive approach. Intensive Agriculture 41(7-8): 22–3.
for different holding sizes which are socially acceptable Bohra J S, Kushwaha S, Sing S R, Singh Ravi Pratap, Singh S
is required. K, Singh Shobhit, Mishra Pankaj, Tripathi A K, Singh Neeraj
• On –farm testing and refinement of the developed and Singh Anupam. 2014. Watershed based integrated farming
system modules for livelihood security of small and marginal
modules according to the farmers’ need and requirement
farmers of Vindhyan region. (In) Proceedings of National
as it is a continuous process i.e. addition of profitable
Symposium on Agricultural Diversification for Sustainable
components and replacement of less profitable compo- Livelihood and Environmental Security, held during 18-20
nents with time, choice of the farmers and availability November 2014 at Ludhiana, Punjab, pp 547-8
of market. Brouwer J and Powell J M. 1995. Soil aspects of nutrient cycling
• Need to study the sustainability of the developed or in a manure experiment in Niger. Livestock and Sustainable
identified farming systems under different agro- climatic Nutrient Cycling in Mixed Farming Sytsems of Sub-Saharan
situations in the long run including high value crops. Africa. Vol II: Technical papers. Powel J M, Fernandez-Rivera
• Need to study the nutrient dynamics of soil, accumula- S, Williams T O and Renard C (Eds). Proceedings of an
tion of carbon and carbon sequestration with continuous International Conference held during 22-26 November 1993
cropping and recycling of organic resources in form in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp 349-60.
Brouwer J and Powell J M. 1998. Micro-topography, water balance,
of plant or animal wastes with different systems over
millet yield and nutrient leaching in a manuring experiment on
time.
sandy soil in south-west Niger. (In) Soil Fertility Management
• Need to identify the constraints in adoption of identi- in West African Land Use Systems. Renard G, Neef A, Becker
fied integrated farming systems for particular area or K and Von Oppen M (Eds).. Proceedings of a workshop held
locality. during 4 - 8 March 1997 in Niamey, Margraf, Weikersheim,
• Documentation of ITKs of IFS in the farming commu- pp 349-60.
nity and its scientific validation. Channabasavanna A S, Itnal C J and Patil S G. 2002. Productivity,
• Need to prepare a strong policy draft for the consider- economics analysis and changes in physico-chemical properties
ation of planners for its promotion and creating aware- as influenced by integrated rice-based farming system. Indian
ness at large scale with some pity financial assistance Journal of Agronomy 46(1): 1–5.
either through loans or subsidy. Chnnabasavanna A S and Biradar D P. 2007. Relative performance
of different rice-fish-poultry integrated farming system models
REFERENCES with respect to system productivity and economics. Karnataka
Balusamy M, Shanmugham P M and Baskaran R. 2003. Mixed Journal of Agricultural Sciences 20(4): 706–9.
farming an ideal farming. Intensive Agriculture 41 (11–12): Channabasavanna A S, Biradar D P, Prabhudev K N and Hegde
20–5. M. 2009. Development of profitable integrated farming system
Behera U K and Mahapatra I C. 1999. Income and employment model for small and medium farmers of Tungabhadra project
generation of small and marginal farmers through integrated area of Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences
farming systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy 44(3): 431–9. 22(1): 25–7.
Behera U K, Babu Amjath, Kasechele Harald and France J. 2014. Dhiman K R, Bujarbaruah K M and Satapathy K K. 2003.
Energy self-sufficient sustainable integrated farming systems Integrated farming system for sustainable development
for livelihood security under changing climate scenario. ofrainfed agriculture in North Eastern region. (In) Proceedings
(In) Proceedings of National Symposium on Agricultural of International Conference on World Perspective on Short
Diversification for Sustainable livelihood and Environmental Rotation Forestry for Industrial and Rural Development, held
Security, held during 18-20 November 2014 at Ludhiana, during 7-13 September 2003 at Solan, Himachal Pradesh, p 154.
Punjab, p 576. Dugan P, Dey M M and Sugunan V V. 2006. Fisheries and water
Bhatt B P and Bujarbaruah K M. 2004. Characteristics of some productivity in tropical river basins: enhancing food security
Indian mountain firewood trees and shrubs in the North Eastern and livelihoods by managing water for fish. Agricultural Water
Himalayan region. Renewable Energy 29: 1401-5. Management 80: 262–75.
Bhatt B P and Bujarbaruah K M. 2005. Intensive integrated farming Edwards P, Kaewpaitoon K, McCoy E W and Chantachaeng C.
system: A sustainable approach of land use in eastern Himalayas. 1986. Pilot small scale crop/livestock/fish integrated farm,
Technical Bulletin No, 46, ICAR Research Complex for NEH AIT Research Report 184, pp.131 Bangkok, Thailand, p 131.
Region, Umiam, Meghalaya, pp 1-43. Edwards P, Pullin R S V and Gartner J A. 1988. Research and

24
November 2018] INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM – A REVIEW 1673

education for the development of integrated crop-livestock-fish and employment generation options for small and marginal
farming systems in the tropics. ICLARM Studies and Reviews farmers. PDCSR, Modipuram, pp 109-18.
16, Manilla, Philippines. Korikanthimath V S and Manjunath B L. 2009. Integrated farming
Faroda A S. 2014. Integrated farming system for livelihood and systems for sustainability in agricultural production. Indian
environmental security under rainfed conditions. (In) Souvenir Journal of Agronomy 54(2):140–8.
of National Symposium on Agricultural Diversification for Kulkarni Shyam Rao, Upperi S N, Hurali Sujay, Ahmmed Zaheer
Sustainable Livelihood and Environmental Security, held and Goudar S B. 2014. Sustainable livelihood improvement
during 18-20 November 2014 at Ludhiana, Punjab, pp 31-5. of farmer through integrated farming system. Proceedings
Ganesan G, Chinnasamy K N, Bala Subramanian A and of National Symposium on Agricultural Diversification for
Manickasundram P. 1990. Studies on rice-based farming system Sustainable Livelihood and Environmental Security, held during
with duck cum fish culture in deltaic region of Thanjavur 18-20 November 2014 at Ludhiana, Punjab, p 574.
district, Tamil Nadu. Farming Systems Newsletter 1(2) : 14. Kumar Sanjeev, Singh S S, Shivani and Dey A. 2011. Integrated
Ganesan S, Chinnaswamy K N, Balasubramaniam A and farming system for eastern India. Indian Journal of Agronomy
Manicksundaram P. 1999. Studies on rice-based farming 56(4): 297–304.
systems with duck-cum fish culture in deltaic region in Kumar Sanjeev, Singh S S, Meena M K, Shivani and Dey A. 2012a.
Thanjavur district of Tamil Nadu. Farming Systems News Resource recycling and their management under integrated
Letter 1(2): 15. farming system for lowlands of Bihar. Indian Journal of
Giap D H, Yi Y and Lin C K. 2005. Effects of different fertilization Agricultural Sciences 82(6): 504-10.
and feeding regimes on the production of integrated farming Kumar Sanjeev, Subhash N, Shivani, Singh S S and Dey A.
of rice and prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Aquaculture 2012b. Evaluation of different components under Integrated
Research 36: 292–9. Farming System (IFS) for small and marginal farmers under
Gill M S. 2004. Methodologies for farming system approach- semi-humid climatic environment. Experimental Agriculture
A case study. (In) Proceedings of National Symposium on 48 (3): 399-413.
Alternative Farming Systems, held during 16-18 September Kumar Sanjeev, Singh S S, Kumar Ujjwal, Dey A and Shivani.
2004 at PDCSR, Modipuram, Meerut, pp 1-29. 2013. Sustainability of integrated farming systems in the eastern
Gill M S, Singh J P and Gangwar K S. 2009. Integrated farming region. Natural Resource Conservation- Emerging Issues and
System and agriculture sustainability. Indian Journal of Future Challenges, pp. 455-64. Madhu M, Jakhar Praveen,
Agronomy 54(2): 128–39. Adhikarry P P, Gowda Hombe, Sharda V N, Mishra P K and
Gill M S, Samra J S and Singh Gurbachan. 2005. Integrated Khan M K (Eds).
farming system for realizing high productivity under shallow Kumar Sanjeev, Bhatt B P, Dwivedi S K and Shivani. 2015.
water-table conditions. Research Bulletins, Department of Family farming- A mechanism to contribute towards global
Agronomy, PAU, Ludhiana, pp 1-29. food security. Indian Farming 64(12): 13-8.
Gill M S, Singh J P, Gangwar B and Sarkar A. 2009b. Farming Kumar Sanjeev, Shivani, Samal S K, Dwivedi S K and
System approach towards income enhancement. (In) PDFSR Manibhushan. 2017. Enhancement in productivity and income
Bulletin no.2009-1 Modipuram, Meerut, pp 1-92. sustainability through integrated farming system approaches
GoI. 2014. Agricultural statistics at a glance, Directorate of for small and marginal farmers of Eastern India. Journal of
Economics and Statistics, Govt. of India, New Delhi. AgriSearch 4(2): 85–91.
Gupta V, Rai P K and Risam K S. 2012. Integrated crop-livestock Lal R and Miller F P. 1990. Sustainable farming for tropics.
farming systems: A strategy for resource conservation and Sustainable Agriculture: Issues and Prospective, Vol 1 pp 69-89.
environmental sustainability. Indian Research Journal of Singh R P (Ed). Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi.
Extension Education, 2: 49–54. Makdoh Badapmain, Das Anup, Ramkrushna G I, Daunisuting
Inman D, Khosla R, Westfall D G and Reich R. 2005. Nitrogen Jayantalayek, Lyngdoh M, Panwar A S and Ngachan S V. 2014.
uptake across site- specific management zones in irrigated corn Farming system approach for organic food production in Hills:
production systems. Agronomy Journal 97: 169–76. A land-use model for sloping land of Meghalaya. Proceeding
Jayanthi C, Rangasamy A, Mythili S, Balusamy M, Chinnusamy C of National Symposium on Agricultural Diversification for
and Sankaran N. 2001. Sustainable productivity and profitability Sustainable Livelihood and Environmental Security, held
to integrated farming systems in low land farms. Extended during 18-20 November 2014 at Ludhiana, Punjab, pp 542-3.
Summaries, National Symposium on Farming System Research Mali Hansram, Kumar Amit and Katara Pawan. 2014. Integrated
on New Millennium. Singh A K, Gangwar B, Pankaj and Pandey farming system for irrigated and rainfed conditions. (In)
P S (Eds). PDCSR, Modipuram, Meerut, pp 79-81. Proceedings of National Symposium on Agricultural
Jayanthi C, Balusamy M, Chinnusamy C and Mythili S. 2003. Diversification for Sustainable Livelihood and Environmental
Integrated nutrient supply system of linked components in Security, held during 18-20 November 2014 at Ludhiana,
lowland integrated farming system. Indian Journal of Agronomy Punjab, p 546.
48: 241–6. Manjunath B L and Itnal C J. 2003. Farming system options for
Jayanti C, Sakthivel N, Marimuthu S, Vivek G and Kandaswamy small and marginal holdings in different topographies of Goa.
O S. 2004. Efficient integrated farming system for increasing Indian Journal of Agronomy 48(1): 4–8.
the farm productivity of resource poor farmers. Singh A K, Manjunath B L and Singh M P. 2012. Farming system options for
Gangwar B, Sharma G C and Pandey P S (Eds). Farming different topographical situations of west coast region. Extended
System Research and Development Association, Modipuram. Summaries Vol 3: 3rd International Agronomy Congress, , held
Korikanthimath V S and Manjunath B L. 2005. Resource use during 26-30 November 2012 at New Delhi, pp 988-90.
efficiency in integrated farming systems. (In) Proceedings of Mathew T and Varughese K. 2007. Nutrient flow and economics
Symposium on Alternative Farming Systems: Enhanced income of integrated farming system practiced in the coastal region

25
1674 KUMAR ET AL. [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88 (11)

of Kerala. (In) National Symposium on Integrated Farming Shanmugasundaram V S and Balusamy M. 1993. Rice-fish- Azolla-
Systems and its Role towards Livelihood Improvement under An Integrated Farming System in low land wetlands. Farming
Indian Context, held during 26-28 October 2007 at RARS, Systems 9: 105-7.
Durgapura (Jaipur) RAU, Farming System Research and Shanmugasundaram V S, Balusamy M and Rangaswamy A.
Development Association, Modipuram. 1995. Integrated farming system research in Tamil Nadu.
Matsumoto H and Matsuyama S . 1995. Livestock Hygiene. Japan Journal of Farming Systems Research and Development 1(1
Agricultural Development and Extension Association, Japan. and 2): 1–9.
Moriya K and Kitagawa M. 2007. Old and new near-future style Shelke V B, Kulkarni S N, Waghmore D B and Chavan A. 2001.
agricultural production. (In) New challenges in Livestock Study on integrated farming system in Marathwada. Extended
Production, pp 217-44. Imai H (Ed.). Kyoto University Press. Summaries: 1st National Symposium on Farming System
Mustow S E. 2002. The effects of shading on phytoplankton Research in New Millennium, held during 15-17 October, 2001
photosynthesis in rice-fish fields in Bangladesh. Agriculture, at PDCSR, Modipuram, pp 99-100.
Ecosystems and Environment 90: 89-96. Sheokand R S, Narinder S and Sheoran O P. 2000. Comparative
NABARD Rural Pulse 2014. Agricultural land holdings in India economics of different farming systems under paddy-wheat
Issue-I:1-4 farming sequence in rice-belt of Haryana. Haryana Agricultural
Olele N F, Nweke F U and Agbogidi O M.1999. Role of integrated University Research Journal 30(1/2): 49–53.
farming system in agricultural development in the delta region Siddeswaran K, Sangetha S P and Shanmugam P M. 2012.
of Nigeria. Delta Agriculture 6: 128–34. Integrated farming system for the small irrigated upland farmers
Naik B K. 1998. ‘Farming systems in Uttara Kannada –An of Tamil Nadu. Extended Summaries Vol 3: 3rd International
econometric analysis’. PhD (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agronomy Congress, held during 26-30 November 2012 at
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. New Delhi, pp 992-3.
Panwar A S. 2014. Livestock based farming system for small and Singh Gurbachan. 2004. Farming systems options in sustainable
marginal farmers of north-eastern hill region. (In) Proceedings management of national resources. (In) Proceedings of National
of National Symposium on Agricultural Diversification for Symposium on Alternative Farming Systems, held during 16 to
Sustainable Livelihood and Environmental Security, pp 531-32, 18 September 2004 at PDCSR, Modipuram, Meerut, pp 80-94.
held during 18-20 November at Ludhiana, Punjab. Singh Gurbachan. 2012. Integrated farming systems: option for
ParodaRaj. 2012. Climate smart agriculture for improving diversification to manage climate change related risk and
livelihoods of small holder farmers. Extended Summaries Vol livelihood security. (In) lead papers Vol -I Third International
I: 3rd International Agronomy Congress, pp. 01-04, held during Agronomy Congress, held during 26-30 November at New
26-30 November 2012 at New Delhi, pp 01-04. Delhi, pp 93-4.
Rahman F H and Sarkar S. 2012. Efficient resource utilization Singh J P, Gangwar B, Kochewad S A and Pandey D K. 2012.
through integrated farming system approach in the farmers' Integrated farming system for improving livelihood of small
field at Burdwan district of West Bengal. Extended Summaries farmers of western plain zone of Uttar Pradesh, India. SAARC
Vol 3: 3rd International Agronomy Congress, held during 26-30 Journal of Agriculture 10(1): 45–53.
November 2012 at New Delhi, pp 997-8. Singh K, Bohra J S, Singh Y and Singh J P. 2006. Development
Ramrao W Y, Tiwari S P and Singh P. 2005. Crop-livestock of farming system models for the north-eastern plain zone of
integrated farming system for augmenting socio-economic U.P. Indian Farming 56(2): 5–11.
status of smallholder tribal of Chhattisgarh in central India. Singh N P, Manjunath B L, Mahajan Gopal, Devi Priya, Desai
Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol 17, Article#90. A R, Das S K, Chakurkar E B and Swain B K. 2014.
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/8/ramr17090.htm Development of integrated farming system models for west
Ramrao W Y, Tiwari S P and Singh P. 2006. Crop-livestock coast region, profitability and livelihood security in Garhwal
integrated farming system for the marginal farmers in rainfed region. (In) Proceedings of National Symposiumon Agricultural
regions of Chhattisgarh in central India. Livestock Research Diversification for Sustainable Livelihood and Environmental
for Rural development. 18(7): Article # 102. http://www.lrrd. Security, held during 18-20 November 2014 at Ludhiana,
org/lrrd18/7/ramr18102.htm Punjab, pp 554-5.
Rangaswami A, Manicksundaram P and Vidhya G. 1999. Integrated Singh R A, Singh D and Khan K. 2010. Integrated farming for
farming system: a variable approach. Farming Systems News rural prosperity and livelihood security based on watershed
Letter 1(2): 11–3. technology in Bundelkhand. Range Management and
Reddy M D. 2005. Predominant farming systems and alternatives Agroforestry 31(2): 130-2.
in Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Farming Systems Research Singh Rajender, Singh Narinder, Phogat S B, Sharma U K, Singh
Development 11: 217–27. R and Singh N. 1999. Income and employment potential of
Saxena D C, Singh N P, Satapathy K K, Panwar A S and Singh J different farming system. Haryana Agricultural University
L. 2003. Sustainable farming systems for hill agriculture. (In) Journal of Research 29(3-4): 143–5
Proceeding of National Seminar 'Approaches for Increasing Singh S P, Gangwar B and Singh M P. 2009. Economics of farming
Agricultural Productivity in Hill and Mountain Ecosystem', systems in Uttar Pradesh. Agricultural Economics Research
held during 18-20 October, 2001at Barapani, pp 73-85. Review 22 (January-June): 129-38.
Sharma S K, Sharma R K, Jajoria Dinesh and Kumar Ashok. 2014. Singh V P and Rai S C. 2006. Integrated Farming System. World
Enhancing income and resource conservation through micro Food Day: 31-6.
farming systems. (In) Proceedings of National Symposium on Solaiappan U, SubramanianV and Maruthi Sankar G R. 2007.
Agricultural Diversification for Sustainable Livelihood and Selection of suitable integrated farming system model for
Environmental Security, held during 18-20 November 2014 rainfed semi-arid vertic Inseptisols in Tamil Nadu. Indian
at Ludhiana, Punjab, pp 561-2. Journal of Agronomy 52(3): 194-7.

26
 November 2018] INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM – A REVIEW 1675

Sullivan P. 2003. Applying the Principles of Sustainable Farming: 448–52.

Fundamentals of Sustainable Agriculture. ATTRNA- National Ugwumba C A O, Okah R N, Ike P C, Nnabuife E L C and Orji
Sustainable Agricultural Information Service, Fayetteville, E C. 2010. Integrated farming system and its effect on farm
USA. cash income in Awka South Agricultural zone of Anambra state,
Sutradhar P. 2016. Improved farming system technology inclusion Nigeria, Am. Euras Journal of Agriculture and Environment
into existing farming system for sustainable agriculture. Ph Science 8(1): 1–6.
D Thesis, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, pp 1-120. Varughese K and Mathew T. 2009. Integrated farming systems
Tiwari S P, Ravi R, Nandeha K L, Vardia H K, Sharma R B and for sustainability in coastal ecosystem. Indian Journal of
Rajgopal S. 1999. Augmentation of economic status of Bastar Agronomy 54 (2): 120–7.
tribals through integrated (crop, livestock, poultry, duck, fish) Vincke M. 1988. La rizipisciculture et les elevageassociesenAfrique.
farming system. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 69(6): CIFA Technical Paper (4) Suppl 1: 659–707.

27

View publication stats