Mitigating distress migration through Agri-entrepreneurship: An economic analysis of integrated farming in Uttarakhand

Introduction

The agricultural landscape in the Himalayan region represents a paradox of rich ecological resources with poor economic outcomes for the farmers. A review of recent literature underlines three critical themes, namely: structural constraints of hill agriculture, socio-economic drivers of distress migration, and efficacy of integrated farming systems (IFS) as a sustainable intervention.

a. Structural constraints and Drivers of distress migration

Agriculture in the hilly regions is depressed due to unique biophysical and institutional constraints. Joshi and Dwivedi 2025 [1] , through the use of regression analysis and ANOVA in Pithoragarh district level data, were able to pinpoint that financial constraints and market-related issues were the major factors that result in negative significant impact on agricultural earnings. Their study pinpoints that though environmental risks are there, lack of market linkage and financial liquidity are major obstacles. Further, Raghav and Srivastava 2014 [2] , in their study of tribal farms in the Tarai region Udham Singh Nagar, have listed fragmented landholdings, high cost of inputs, and poor linkage with extension agencies as the major constraints to the adoption of modern farming systems. They argue that the high cost of inputs discourages farmers from using essential plant protection measures, thus resulting in suboptimal yields. The reduced viability of agriculture functionally represents a strong "push" factor that encourages the able-bodied workforce to leave the hills. Mamgain & Reddy (2017) [3] refer to migration simply as a means of survival but instead emphasize the semi-permanent nature of the process, as 36% of households have abandoned their villages permanently, giving rise to the problem of the "Ghost Village". More important, the study attests that a failure within the 'remittance economy' has occurred, the primary use of remittances being consumption spending for survival, which lacks a local 'multiplier effect,' adding instead to productive agriculture investments. It also holds a deep significance for the people who remain in their homeland. According to Bhandari & Reddy (2015) [4] , "the feminization of agriculture is observed in these regions, as women in migrant households work more compared to their non-migrant counterparts." It is ironic that Remittancereceiving migrant households, despite earning money, tend to have a substantial percentage of their lands fallow along with a smaller number of livestock compared to nonmigrant families, thereby resulting in a further stagnation in agricultural growth. The studies conducted by Joshi & Dwivedi (2025) [5] tend to support this, stating that when the youths migrate, there is a substantial underutilization of agricultural lands along with a subsequent reliance on nondomestic income sources.

b. Integrated Farming System (IFS) as a Strategic Solution

In light of these challenges, recent research work has identified and confirmed the potential provided by the www.extensionjournal.com Integrated Farming System (IFS) as a game-changer for small-scale farmers. Sati et al., (2025) [6] clearly outline that "IFS provides a 'Closed Loop System' wherein crop residue is given as feed to livestock, and crop nutrients are provided by livestock's refuse, thereby lowering the cost of production considerably." The result of their case study clearly supports that "diversification in poultry and offseason vegetables raises income multi-fold, as against monoculture practices." Thakur et al. (2025) [7] established that 1.0-hectare IFS units in the NW Himalayas gave a net profit of ₹3.05 lakhs and provided employment of 481 man-days per year, thus reducing the pressure to migrate. Again, a success story has been provided by Kushwaha et al. (2021) [8] on a Champawat model that is diverse, encompassing fish, milk, and mushrooms, achieving a Benefit-Cost ratio of 3.08 and guaranteeing the nutritive independence of the farmer family. To support this, Singh et al., (2025) [10] noted that a Horticulture-based IFS in Bageshwar raised the income four times in seven years (i.e. from ₹ 1.15 lakh to ₹ 5.20 lakh) supporting that such models are resilient to climatic changes. Then again, with the economic disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, Singh et al., (2025) [10] showed how IFS exhibited resilience: while the B:C of standalone poultry units dropped to 1.87, the diversified IFS model buffered this disruption with a B:C ratio of 2.04. This optimized system yielded the highest net return of ₹ 3,97,590 by 2024-25 because of on-farm resource recycling and value addition. As regards the details, a study carried out by Gangwar et al., in 2013 [11] on poultry-based systems in the Kumaon area identified that even small-scale setups with 10-15 birds could provide considerable additional earnings and protein supplementation in poor families. Lastly, macro-level studies carried out by Prakash et al., in 2019 [12] establish the relevance and need for such interventions. An SLSI (Sustainable Livelihood Security Index)-based study recently carried out established that there was an inverse correlation between "Ecology" and "Economy" in the hill regions of Uttarakhand, with districts having maximal forest area corresponding to lowest economic efficiency. As proposed in IFS, it was established that eco-friendly intensification was necessary to validate it as the only feasible alternative that could increase economic efficiency despite reduced ecological safety. The current research highlights the success story of Mr. Manoj Singh Koranga, a progressive farmer from the district of Bageshwar, who was successful in shifting from traditional farming practices to an Integrated Farming System of a much higher value. Unlike other traditional ways of farming, limited only to the main production, this specific success story examined the feasibility of a comprehensive approach towards the integration of protected cultivation, commercial poultry farming, and, most importantly, the value addition approach through the use of the "FSSAI spice and pickle processing unit." This paper will endeavour to provide a successful "Agri-Entrepreneurship Model" of averting distress migration and facilitating sustainable means of living, as practiced by the educated youth of village Banlekh, shifting towards IFS, thereby countering the drawbacks of traditional hill farming.

Socio-Economic Profile and Background of the Case Study

The current paper is a case study on Shri Manoj Singh Koranga (S/o Shri Khushal Singh Koranga), a 39-year-old progressive farmer from Village Banlekh, District Bageshwar, Uttarakhand. Though possessing higher-level educational qualifications (M.A. and B.Ed.), Shri Koranga encountered difficulties in acquiring suitable work. This motivated him to join the agricultural and allied sector to create a sustainable living out of his 1.0 acre marginal land. Presently, his main occupation includes a diverse Integrated Farming System involving horticulture, rearing, and processing. It is worth noting that he upgraded his skills to become a "Quality Seed Grower" through training (2019-2020) at KVK Bageshwar and established "Om Food Processing Unit" with the marking of FSSAI. The system of farming being practiced in 2017, i.e. before technical interventions, was just subsistence-level farming with low profitability, largely restricted, due to unscientific management practices, and weak market connections.

Methodology and Interventions

Towards solving the limitations associated with the baseline subsistence model, an intervention strategy with multiple approaches was developed under technical mentorship from Krishi Vigyan Kendra (ICAR-VPKAS), Bageshwar, Uttarakhand. Technical assistance was obtained through convergence initiatives with the concerned state departments of Agriculture, Horticulture, Fishery, and the Zila Udyog Kendra (District Industry Centre). The change was achieved with the application of the four strategic pillars described in detail in Table 1. Change in the cropping pattern from low value crops to high value horticultural crops, with emphasis on offseason vegetable growing using protected structures (Polyhouses), with a fruit component to derive maximum unit return.

2 Livestock Integration Diversification of farm resources to manage risk and guarantee a constant income stream by introducing crossbreed dairy cattle, a backyard broiler farm and fishery units.

Capacity Building

Up-skilling of the subject through specialized "Quality Seed Growers" training (2019-20) in KVK Bageshwar, which helps produce quality vegetable seeds and seedlings within the farm itself as an additional income avenue.

Value Addition and Processing

Reducing post-harvest losses with the launch of the 'FSSAI-certified Om Food Processing Unit' (2021), with a focus on processing local spices, Juices as well as pickles to gain a greater share of the overall consumer spend. www.extensionjournal.com

Economic Analysis

The economic viability of the transition from traditional subsistence farming to Integrated Farming System was studied by comparing cost of production, gross returns, and net income between baseline year (2016-17) and postintervention maturity year (2024-25).

As evident from Table 2 and Table 3, the structural transformation in farm enterprises has fundamentally changed the financial profile of the farm economy. During the baseline period, in 2016-17, the farm economy depended on traditional field crops such as Finger Millet, Paddy, and Wheat, supplemented with only one Desi cow, yielding a low Gross Income of ₹ 28,950 and a Net Income of ₹ 13,300. It was a low-input and low-output production system, predominantly for household consumption, with minimal market surplus. farming practices to an investment-based commercial farming approach, but the escalation in cost has been surpassed by the dramatic increase in income.

Key Economic Observations

A critical examination of the comparative data (presented in Table 4) highlights following points:

Value Addition Buffer:

The value addition cum processing unit (spices/pickles) has added Rs.85,000 to the bottom line, thereby eliminating losses in the postharvest sector.

Resource Efficiency:

The capital efficiency has been improved to a great extent, with an increase in B: C Ratio from 1.85 to 2.97.

Conclusion

The case study of Shri Manoj Singh Koranga proves that if there is an effective transition from traditional subsistence agriculture to a scientifically managed IFS, it is possible to combat both stagnation in terms of economy and distress migration, which is so prevalent in this Himalayan belt. By integrating protected cultivation, animal husbandry, and value addition, there was a transformative increase of net income, and there was an improvement in the BCR, which was raised from 1.85 to 2.97. It proves that eco-friendly intensification, besides being economical on marginal soil, is scalable aggression in the form of an "Agri-Entrepreneurship Model," wherein it is possible to reverse the fate of Ghost Villages.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors are very grateful to the Director, ICAR-VPKAS, Almora, Uttarakhand and Director, ICAR-ATARI, Zone-1, Ludhiana for granting permission, encouragement and financial support to undertake the research works.

References

1. Joshi A, Dwivedi R. Challenges and constraints in hill agriculture: Assessing their impact on farmers' income in District Pithoragarh of Uttarakhand State. Ind J Agri Life Sci. 2025;5(3):49-54.
2. Raghav S, Srivastava S. Constraints in adoption of farming systems on tribal farms in Uttarakhand. J Hill Agric. 2014;5:174-174.
3. Mamgain RP, Reddy DN. Out-migration from the hill region of Uttarakhand: Magnitude, challenges, and policy options. In: Rural labour mobility in times of structural transformation. Singapore: Springer; 2017. p. 237-260.
4. Bhandari G, Reddy BVC. Impact of out-migration on agriculture and women work load: An economic analysis of hilly regions of Uttarakhand, India. Indian J Agric Econ. 2015;70(3):1-10.
5. Joshi A, Dwivedi R. Migration and agricultural challenges: A study of the Pithoragarh district in Uttarakhand. EPRA Int J Agric Rural Econ Res. 2025;13:1-6.
6. Sati A, Negi R, Butola J, Singh S, Singh S. Empowering hill agriculture: The impact of integrated farming systems on sustainable livelihoods. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2025;9:1655465.
7. Thakur NP, Kachroo D, Kumar P, Gupta AK, Ravishankar N, Khajuria V, et al. Sustainable integrated farming system model for enhancing profitability, resource efficiency, and soil health for smallholders in the Indian Mediterranean ecosystem of the north-western Himalayan region. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2025;9:1655465.
8. Kushwaha A, Gupta V, Nayak H, Singh VK, Sharma SK, Kushwaha A, et al. Integrated farming system for sustainable livelihood, family food and nutritional security of Uttarakhand farmers: A case study. J Inland Fish Soc India. 2021;53(1-2):109-113.
9. Singh NK, Kumar R, Pande KK, Joshi HC, Joshi N, Kumar A. Empowering rural youth through horticulture-based integrated farming: A case study of commercial IFS from the Kumaon hills of Uttarakhand. Int J Res Agron. 2026;9(1):14-16.
10. Singh NK, Kumar R, Pande KK, Joshi HC, Joshi N, Kumar A. Livelihood enhancement through diversification: Transitioning from standalone poultry farming to integrated farming systems. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2025;8(12):162-165.
11. Gangwar LS, Saran S, Kumar S. Integrated poultry-fish farming systems for sustainable rural livelihood security in Kumaon hills of Uttarakhand. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2013;26(Conf):1-1.
12. Prakash A, Singh HN, Pal VK. Sustainable livelihood security in Uttarakhand state: A micro-economic evidence of district-level analysis. Pantnagar J Res. 2019;17(2):114-119.