Perceived efficiency of Rice based integrated farming systems: A comparative analysis

Introduction

Rice-based Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) play a vital role in ensuring sustainable agricultural production, particularly in regions where rice is the principal crop. The continuous practice of rice mono-cropping has led to several challenges such as declining soil fertility, stagnating productivity, and vulnerability to climatic and market fluctuations. Integrated Farming Systems offer a holistic approach that combines various agricultural enterprises such as crops, livestock, fisheries, horticulture, and poultry within the same farm unit to optimize resource utilization, enhance productivity, and generate sustainable livelihoods (Kumari et al, 2025) [4] . The efficiency of any farming system, however, is not solely determined by its technical or economic performance but also by the farmers' perception of its benefits and feasibility. Perceived efficiency reflects how farmers evaluate the effectiveness of IFS in improving productivity, profitability, and employment opportunities (Uddin and Takeya, 2006) [7] . Understanding farmers' perceptions is crucial for the successful promotion and adoption of integrated farming models, as it directly influences their decision-making behaviour and willingness to sustain such systems. The IFS model is based on the concept that the waste produced by one component serves as an input for another, ensuring effective recycling of farm and animal residues within the integrated system. This approach enhances yield per unit area by promoting crop intensification and diversification. Additionally, IFS aids in the natural management of pests, diseases, and weeds, reducing the dependency on harmful agrochemicals. Overall, Integrated Farming Systems provide a sustainable agricultural strategy that balances environmental, economic, and social objectives. Majority i.e. 55.00 percent of the farmers were in medium level of perception, followed by 24.67 percent of them were in high level and 20.33 percent were in low level of perception. The item wise analysis revealed that the items IFS helps to increase income diversification, IFS ensures livelihood security of farm family and IFS provides employment to the farm family round the year were given higher mean percent score by the farmers (Kumar. et al, 2025) [2] . Previous research has demonstrated that integrated farming systems provide multiple economic and environmental advantages. For instance, studies have shown that these systems enhance land productivity by leveraging the complementary relationships between crops and livestock farmers. Farmers had a positive perception about the integrated farming system, which they believe that it can improve production efficiency, environmental sustainability, www.extensionjournal.com and economic benefits (Widadie et al. 2025) [8] . They also minimize dependence on external inputs such as chemical fertilizers, thereby lowering production costs and mitigating adverse environmental effects. Moreover, other studies suggest that integrated farming systems contribute to improved food security in rural areas by diversifying agricultural production and increasing farmers' income (Kumar. et al, 2022) [3] . The unfavorable weather, especially monsoon flooding, is the major challenge for Kuttanad farmers, making livestock rearing difficult despite coping measures like raised cattle sheds. Labour shortage and rising wages due to migration and the pandemic have further impacted agriculture and dairy. Bird flu has discouraged large-scale poultry and duckery farming. Soil acidity and salinity from poor drainage and saltwater intrusion continue to affect rice cultivation despite interventions like liming. Overall, these factors severely constrain agricultural productivity in the region (Prema and Baiju, 2023) [5] . Agronomic research that deals with multi-component crop production systems is conceptually and technically complex with respect to field experimental designs that would minimise the risk of reaching flawed or biased conclusions. However, because of the raised expectations and pressures to generate quick and spectacular results, some scientists appear increasingly tempted to overlook and/or bypass the experimental complexities involved (Stoop et al, 2009) [6] .

Methodology

The study employed a multistage random sampling method to assess farmers' perceptions on the efficiency of ricebased Integrated Farming Systems (IFS) in terms of productivity, profitability, and employment generation. A structured schedule consisting of twelve items was developed through expert consultation to measure perceived efficiency on a five-point continuum ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. A total of 240 farmers were selected for the study, comprising 180 from Telangana and 60 from Kerala. In Telangana, three districts representing different agro-climatic zones, Jagityal from the north, Nalgonda from the south, and Khammam from the central region were chosen. From each district, three mandals were selected, and two villages were chosen from each mandal. Ten farmers practicing rice-based IFS were randomly selected from each village, totalling 180 farmers. In Kerala, two major rice tracts, Palakkad and Kuttanad, were selected, and from each, two gram panchayaths were chosen, with 15 farmers from each included in the sample, making a total of 60 farmers. The reliability of the scale was tested using Cronbach's alpha, which yielded values of 0.865 for Telangana and 0.839 for Kerala, confirming high internal consistency. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, quartile classification, and the Kruskal Wallis test with Dunn's post hoc analysis to compare mean scores among the study locations.

Results and Discussion

The Table 1 represents the item rest correlations of all the items and it has been observed from the table that all the values for all the statements is above 0.2 satisfying the reliability of the item (Cicchetti and Sparrow, 1981) [1] . The cronbachs' alpha value is >0.7 for both the states. Hence, all the items were retained for further analysis. Similarly, the data presented in Table 3 gives the region wise farmer distribution. More than half of the farmers from Jagityal and Nalgonda (53% each), 70.00 percent of Khammam farmers, 66.67 percent of Palakkad farmers and 46.67 percent of Kuttanad farmers belong to medium level of perception. This can be attributed to the fact that the farmers of both states were having medium to high level of farming experience, medium level of risk management and are aware about the benefits that rice based IFS offers to the farming household in terms of profitability, productivity and employment generation. The results are in conformity with the findings of Kumar et al. (2025) [2] . The data in Table 4 presents the statement wise perceptions among farmers across different study locations on ricebased IFS and it also indicates that there are significant differences in farmers' perceptions (p-value <0.05). This finding suggests that farmers' perceptions are regionspecific and are influenced by factors such as net gains obtained from the farming system, the level of awareness, and degree of farm diversification. The average mean values in Table 4 indicates that the Palakkad farmers had higher mean value of 4.24, followed by Khammam with a mean value of 4.09. The farmers from Palakkad and Khammam exhibited higher levels of perceived efficiency. The greater enterprise diversification and higher net returns from the rice based IFS could be the possible reasons for farmers of those regions to have higher perception. The findings are in line with Widadie et al. (2025) [8] . Jagital farmers had medium level of perception with 3.70 mean value. Conversely, the farmers of Kuttanad and Nalgonda exhibited lower mean values with 3.65 and 3.55 respectively. Farmers of Kuttanad recorded lower perception levels due to limited diversification as they face environmental constraints such as frequent flooding, soil salinity, and acidity. This can be attributed to the fact that the farmers in Kuttanad face severe hardships as the area gets flooded during the monsoon making it difficult for them to raise cattle, poultry and duckery. Although farmers have come up with coping strategies like constructing cattle shed on raised platforms, these have not received widespread acceptance. Similar findings were reported by Prema and Baiju (2023) www.extensionjournal.com (2025) [2] .

Conclusion

The study concluded that most farmers in both Telangana and Kerala perceived rice-based Integrated Farming Systems as moderately efficient, with 58.33 percent of farmers in Telangana and 60.00 percent in Kerala falling in the medium perception category. Farmers from Khammam and Palakkad exhibited higher levels of perceived efficiency, which could be attributed to greater enterprise diversification and higher net returns from IFS. Conversely, farmers from Nalgonda and Kuttanad recorded lower perception levels due to limited diversification and environmental constraints such as frequent flooding, soil salinity, and acidity. The findings highlight the importance of promoting diversification and implementing locationspecific interventions to enhance both the perceived and actual efficiency of rice-based Integrated Farming Systems. Increasing the awareness of the farmers regarding the benefits of IFS through trainings, capacity building programmes, localised weather forecasting and warning systems, strengthening of risk minimising strategies like insuring the crops and livestock and support for taking up allied activities like mushroom cultivation, vermicomposting that yield better income to the farmers. Encouraging enterprise integration and addressing regionspecific challenges can significantly contribute to improving productivity, profitability, and sustainability in rice-based farming systems.

References

1. Cicchetti DV, Sparrow SA. Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items. Am J Ment Defic. 1981;86(2):127-137.
2. Kumar PS, Ramesh P, Vengatesan D, Prabakar C. Indian J Applied & Pure Bio. 2025;40(1):785-792. https://biologyjournal.org/journal/volume40/issue82/ijapb40-194.html
3. Kumar S, Shivani, Dey A, Kumar U, Kumar R, Mondal et al. Location-specific integrated farming system models for resource recycling and livelihood security for smallholders. Front Agron. 2022;4:938331.
4. Kumari S, Jha BK, Kumar A, Kumari N, Kumar A, Mishra S. An analytical study on identification and system productivity of rice based integrated farming system in Jharkhand. ORYZA-An Int J Rice. 2024;61(4):420-425.
5. Prema A, Baiju N. Integrated Farming System (IFS) models as sustainable economic models to combat climate change mediated harm to farmers: evidence from the rice based system in Kuttanad, Kerala, India. Paper Presented at the International Rice Congress 2023; October 16-19; Manila, Philippines. 2023. p. 1037. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.10397979
6. Stoop WA, Adam A, Kassam A. Comparing rice production systems: A challenge for agronomic research and for the dissemination of knowledgeintensive farming practices. Agric Water Manag. 2009;96(11):1491-1501.
7. Uddin MT, Takeya H. Comparative study on integrated farming in Bangladesh and other countries. Bangladesh J Agric Econ. 2006;29:81-92.
8. Widadie F, Rahayu ES, Irianto H, Handayani SM, Setyowati, Sundari MT. Farmers' perception of the integrated farming system of arrowroot and livestock in supporting a zero-waste agriculture system. In: BIO Web Conf., Proceedings of the 155th Conference. 2025;1-9.