Household livelihood security and diversification of smallholder farmers in central Kerala: A mixed farming perspective

Introduction

In developing countries like India, the crop-livestock system serves as the backbone of smallholder agriculture, which provides an integrated approach to food accessibility, economic stability, and resource utilization (Innazent et al., 2022) [1] . Livestock significantly enhances livelihood security by supplying income, nutrition, energy, manure, labour, and acts as a liquid asset for the majority of rural families (Herrero et al., 2013) [2] . The dairy sector of Kerala, a southern state of India, not only offered self-employment opportunities but also encouraged the economic advancement of the population, particularly in the rural areas of the state. In Kerala, milk production was primarily carried out by smallholder farmers and was a broadly practiced activity that relied heavily on purchased feed (Thayyil, 2007) [3] . Most dairy households utilize integrated crop-livestock systems, generating income from both dairy products and crops, which leads to enhanced economic development (Khan et al., 2010) [5] . The danger of household livelihood failure increases the degree of vulnerability of a household to income, food, health, and nutritional instability. Unfortunately, not all households are equal in their ability to manage stress and shocks. Livelihood security is described as sufficient and sustainable access to income and other resources to enable households to fulfill their essential needs (Frankenberger, 1996) [4] . In this study, various dimensions of livelihood are taken into account, and a composite livelihood security index (CLSI) was developed to recognize which aspect of security is stronger and which poses challenges; thus, the weaker component can be enhanced.

Methodology

The study was conducted in Central Kerala. Central Kerala includes -Palakkad, Thrissur, Ernakulam, and Idukki districts. The cattle population in Central Kerala, based on the 2019 livestock census (DAHD, 2019) [6] , is shown in Table 1. Among these, Thrissur and Palakkad districts were purposively selected based on the cattle population. The study utilizes primary data from 200 mixed farmers with land sizes up to 2 ha and 2-3 milch cows, collected through a well-structured questionnaire. To ensure the reliability of the questionnaire and to identify the cropping patterns in the area, a pilot study was conducted. The major cropping systems of the region include coconut, arecanut, rice, banana, homestead vegetables, and green fodder, with coconut as the major crop. Primary data on various parameters, including food and feed availability, financial capacity, infrastructural security, social security, and ecological security, were collected from respondents. The data collected were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistical methods to draw meaningful insights and understand underlying patterns. A Composite Livelihood Security Index (CLSI) was developed to assess the livelihood security status of farm households. The index was constructed following a systematic approach designed to develop composite measures. It represents a weighted index that brings together multiple indicators from various dimensions of livelihood security into a single comprehensive measure. To construct CLSI, the livelihood security was classified into four categories, which were further classified into respective components. A set of 73 indicators representing the four dimensions of livelihood security was used. The indicators were identified through a literature review (Eqbal, M.D., 2015; Jena, T., 2021; and Sreekumar, S., 2023) [7,8,9] , and to validate and refine the selection, expert consultation was carried out. Food and feed security highlights the adequacy of nutrition for both farm families and their livestock. Economic security signifies the financial stability and capability of farm households to uphold livelihoods and preserve a decent quality of life. Social security indicates the general welfare and social stability of agricultural households, including health, education, institutional aid, and access to markets. Ecological security signifies the sustainability of natural resources and the resilience of agricultural systems to environmental changes.

As not all indicators have the same impact on livelihood outcomes, weighing ensures that the most important factors are given appropriate significance in the final index. The weighing process was conducted using the Delphi technique, which depends on expert agreement obtained through multiple iterative rounds. A Likert scale was designed for each indicator, and experts were asked to assign scores. The scores were transformed into weightage by following the methodology followed by Alfares (2006) [10] . Mean scores of each indicator were calculated to assess the level of consensus among experts.

The mean scores, along with the indicators, are then sent to the experts for their review and agreement. The indicators are finalised after this. Based on the responses from farmers, the indicators are ranked from 1 to 3, where 1 = least secure, 3 = highly secure. The responses are standardized between 0 and 1 to make it easier for interpretation and to compare the livelihood security levels across households through a procedure adopted by Hahn et al. (2009) [11] :

Where, Z indj = standardized indicator j Max j and Min j = the maximum and minimum value of indicatorj, respectively. Then, for each household, livelihood security was carried out using the formula:

Where According to these values, farmers were classified into low, medium, and high categories based on the mean and standard deviation, where mean + SD represents the higher level of classification for each component of livelihood security, while mean -SD represents the lower level.

Garrett ranking technique was used to identify the constraints faced by the respondents in the study area (Garrett and Woodworth, 1969) [12] . The formula used is given below:

Where, Rij = Rank provided for the ith variable by the jth respondent; Nj = the number of variables ranked by the jth respondent.

Results and discussion

In this study, the overall livelihood security is classified under broader dimensions: food and feed, economic, social, and ecological. The overall livelihood security index and its component indices are shown in

Food and Feed Security

Food security analyses the availability of food and its proper utilisation, including the capacity of the household to produce sufficient food that meets the nutritional needs of its members. Feed security considers the year-round availability and affordability of quality fodder and feed necessary for maintaining livestock productivity. Table 3 shows that the majority of respondents in the study area had a medium level of security. 10.5 per cent of the respondents had a low level of food and feed security, while only 16.5 per cent had a high level. This indicates that most households can meet their daily food and feed requirements, but this is not fully ensured throughout the year. This may be due to the periodic shortage of green fodder or fluctuation in milk yield, or high cost of feed. The cost of the raw materials used for cattle feed production has risen, which significantly increases the cost of the feed, affecting the farmers with low-income security (Jayadevan and Franco, 2022) [13]

Economic Security

Economic security represents the financial stability and selfsufficiency of farming households, ensuring their ability to sustain livelihoods and maintain a reasonable standard of living. The average Monthly Per Capita Consumption Expenditure (MPCE) in the study area is Rs. 10932, which is higher than the state average of Rs. 6611(GOI, 2025) [14] . The higher mean value does not imply that all households have a uniform level of security, but only a section of households may have better economic conditions. While a considerable proportion still face livelihood constraints, with their consumption expenditure remaining close to or below the standard MPCE. Table 4 shows the classification of livelihoods based on economic security. Most respondents report medium economic security (71.5%), as mixed farming provides them with additional income. Low income security has been experienced by 13% of the respondents. The sample respondents were so selected that they have at least 1-3 milch cows, and in the case of households with only one milch cow, they may not have had a year-round production cycle, which would have adversely affected their income. Other reasons could be the fluctuations in milk prices and the high production cost. Only 15% of the respondents reported high income security.

Social Security

The ability to access social services and institutional networks that contribute to a secure livelihood represents the social security index. Table 5 shows the classification of livelihoods based on social security. About 75% of the respondents have medium social security, while 12% of the respondents have low social security. This implies that numerous farmers have restricted access to community networks, social institutions, and support systems that can offer stability in periods of stress. In many instances, farmers reported low engagement in cooperatives, self-help groups, and farmer associations, often due to insufficient awareness. To address these issues, it is crucial to strengthen farmer organizations and promote increased community involvement through cooperatives, producer associations, and self-help groups.

Ecological Security

Ecological security represents the sustainability of natural resources and the ability of farmers to adopt adaptive measures against climate change. Table 6 shows the classification of livelihoods based on ecological security. About 22% of the respondents have high ecological security. While majority of the farmers have medium security and 10.5% of the respondents have low ecological www.extensionjournal.com security. Most farmers are unaware of the climate-resilient practices, the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions from cattle, and the water and soil conservation practices. To improve the ecological security of farmers, awareness should be provided to farmers to adopt climateresilient practices and water-saving irrigation methods like drip irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, etc. Livelihood Security A sustainable livelihood can withstand and bounce back from shocks and strains, preserve or improve its capabilities and assets, offer sustainable livelihood opportunities for future generations, and provide net benefits to other livelihoods both locally and globally in the long and short term (Uddin et al., 2015) [15] . Overall livelihood security of farmers was calculated to analyze the extent of security of the farmers and their ability to cope with the constraints. Table 7 shows the livelihood security of the respondents. The livelihood security of majority of the farmers in this area is medium (64.5%), while 17.5% of the respondents have low livelihood security. The farmers have relatively stable income sources or access to basic needs, but limited ecological sustainability. This suggests that the existing livelihood strategies are sufficient to meet the daily requirements but not enough to ensure long-term resilience.

Challenges faced by mixed farmers

Crop-livestock systems involve interaction between crop and livestock production that are exploited simultaneously across time and space, which impose numerous challenges (de Moraes et al., 2014) [16] . A constraint analysis was done using the Garrett ranking technique, which showed that the major constraint faced by the farmers is the high cost of the feed. Even though sufficient subsidy was provided, the farmers couldn't meet the daily feed requirements of their cattle. Another major constraint faced by the farmers is the low price of milk. The price they receive from the milk society is comparatively lower than the price they receive from the sale of milk to their nearby houses. The ranking of the constraints along with their average score is shown in Table 8.

Conclusion

The study assessed the livelihood security index of smallholder farmers in Central Kerala by developing a composite livelihood security index (CLSI). Among the four components of livelihood security, the economic security index showed the maximum, indicating that mixed farming can provide them with an extra source of income apart from their regular source of income. However, the low level of ecological security can be resolved by the adoption of climate-resilient practices and by organizing training sessions for creating awareness among farmers about various soil and water conservation practices that can be adopted to ensure sustainability. Food and feed security, along with social security, showed a medium level of security. The overall livelihood status of the smallholder mixed farmers turned out to be medium, indicating that they can meet their daily requirements but are vulnerable to external shocks. Institutional support, including community fodder banks, timely awareness on various schemes and subsidies, and exposure to climate-resilient practices in farming can help smallholder mixed farmers to improve their livelihood status.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementI would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all the respondents who have shared their valuable time and information. I extend my sincere gratitude to all those who have provided valuable guidance and encouraged me throughout this work.

References

1. Innazent A, Jacob D, Bindhu JS, Joseph B, Anith KN, Ravisankar N, et al. Farm typology of smallholders' integrated farming systems in Southern Coastal Plains of Kerala, India. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):333.
2. Herrero M, Grace D, Njuki J, Johnson N, Enahoro D, Silvestri S, et al. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal. 2013;7(S1):3-18.
3. Thayyil KI. Dairy sector in Kerala: a retrospective. Paper presented at: Research-Extension-IndustryFarmer Interface for Dairy Development; 2007; Karnal, India. Dairy Extension Division, NDRI. p. 46-52.
4. Frankenberger T. Measuring household livelihood security: an approach for reducing absolute poverty. Food Forum. 1996;34(2):1-5.
5. Khan N, Rehman MAIA, Rehman A, Salman SM. Livestock husbandry in India: a blessing for the poor. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Seminar on Tropical Animal Production; 2010; Yogyakarta, Indonesia. p. 1-6.
6. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD). 20th Livestock Census -2019: All India Report. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2019. https://dahd.gov.in/schemes/programmes/animalhusbandry-statistics.
7. Eqbal MD. An assessment of livelihood security through dairying among tribal of Jharkhand. Karnal: NDRI; 2015.
8. Jena T. An analysis of sustainable livelihood security, crop and livestock diversification in Odisha. Varanasi: Department of Agricultural Economics, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University; 2021.
9. Sreekumar S. Climate change resilience analysis of rice farming in flood-prone ecosystem of Kerala. Vellayani: College of Agriculture; 2023.
10. Alfares HK. Combining criteria ranks for calculating their weights in group MCDM. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: Systems Engineering Department, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals; 2007.
11. Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO. The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change-a case study in Mozambique. Glob Environ Change. 2009;19(1):7488.
12. Garrett HE, Woodworth RS. Statistics in psychology and education. New York: Longmans, Green & Co.; 1969.
13. Jayadevan GR, Franco D. A study on the cost of milk production in Kerala. Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation; 2022. 41 p. 14. Government of India (GOI). Household Consumption Expenditure Survey: 2023-2024. 2024. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID= 2097601
14. Uddin MT, Khan MA, Islam MM. Integrated farming and its impact on farmers' livelihood in Bangladesh. SAARC J Agric. 2015;13(2):61-79.
15. de Moraes A, de Faccio Carvalho PC, Anghinoni I, Lustosa SBC, de Andrade SEVG. Integrated croplivestock systems in the Brazilian subtropics. Eur J Agron. 2014;57:4-9.