Effect of crop and livestock based integrated farming system on livelihood improvement of marginal farmers

Introduction

Integrated Farming System is a holistic approach to manage a particular farm in such a way, which is very efficient and practical for tackling and addressing the challenges faced by small and marginal farmers (<2.0 ha land holders). In Rewa region of Madhya Pradesh about 13.46% farmers are marginal who have average land holding 0.43ha. IFS approach focuses to maintain various farm enterprises such as crops, horticulture (fruits and vegetables) and animals which are the main farm enterprises in IFS model that generate a year round employment and income better than other farming system like monocropping, (Rahangdale et al. 2025) [1] . This approach also helps to mitigate the risk of food security, nutritional sufficiency and stable income because of diversified cropping system and availability of livestock. The most important and cost-effective means are to be adopted in Integrated Farming System (IFS). Integrated Farming System with livestock enables a way to increase economic yield per unit area of time for farmers under small and marginal categories (Shanmugan et al. 2024). The waste produced gets recycled back in this system as a useful resource in the form of vermicompost and FYM (Singh et al. 2006) [9] . Several worker have reported that IFS approach helps to promote close loop nutrient recycling, which minimizes the external input use and enhances waste recycling thereby reducing pollution load in the ecosystem with improved food production (Bahera and Mahapatra 1999 and Fatima et al. 2023) [4] . IFS may overall a better approach than other farming system as it is highly efficient to provide a better income and employment all over the year in a sustainable and ecological way. Meena et al. (2022) [5] found that a 1.5 ha IFS model comprising crops, dairy, horticulture, fishery & vermicomposting enterprises generated a gross return of Rs 6.12 lakh annually with a benefit cost ratio of 2.53, while acting as a negative greenhouse gas emitter. Yadav et al. (2019) [6] has reported that IFS model is a viable strategy of improving food security, income, employment & resilience in rural economics. Integrated farming system offer unique opportunities for maintaining and extending biodiversity. The emphasis in such systems is on optimizing resource utilization rather than maximization of individual element in the system (Soni et al. 2014) [7] . Optimum combination of different component in 0.4 ha area have not been studied at Kymore-Satpura agro climatic region of Madhya Pradesh. Keeping above facts in view present study was started in the year 2021-22 and still continue.

Materials and Methods

The present experiment was conducted under All India coordinated Research Project on Integrated Farming System during 2021-2022 to 2024-2025. The experimental field was silty loan clay in texture & neutral in soil reaction (pH 7.1). Organic carbon status at initial stage was medium (0.47%) and experimental soil was low in available nitrogen (240 kg/ha), medium in available phosphorous (17.5 kg/ha) and high in available potash (284.5 kg/ha). The size of IFS model was 0.4 ha consisted of crop + Agri.horticulture + dairy + vermicompost + Boundary plantation. The major component in IFS model was Rice-wheat-Green manure in 0.2 ha (50% area), Ragi-Mustard-Bottle gourd in 0.02 ha (5% area), Okra-Garlic in 0.02 ha (5% area), Maize + Cowpea -Pea -Onion in 0.06 ha (15% area), Bajra-Barley -Maize + Cowpea fodder in 0.06 ha (15% area), Dairy with two crossbreed cows in 0.005 ha (1.25% area), Vermicompost & Compost unit in 0.005 ha (1.25% area) and Border plantation of Karonda, Citrus & Guava. The study was started in the year 2020-21 in the same year vermicompost and compost structure were also prepared. Assured irrigation facility was available for IFS model & all recommended packages of practices for different crops were adopted for irrigated condition, Greenhouse gas emission in terms of Kg CO2 equivalent was calculated by adopting the Apps developed by IIFSR, Modipuram, Meerut. The sustainable yield index was calculated by following equation on the basis of last 4 year data. Where n is the total number of enterprise (crops or farm product) and Yi is the gross revenue of ith enterprise product within one year.

Results and Discussion 1. Economical Yield

Economical yield obtained from different component of 0.4 ha IFS model existed at Rewa is given in Table 1. It is evident from the data that Rice -Wheat in 0.2 ha area gave 347 kg rice, 586 kg wheat and green manure which were equivalent to 12.7 quintal rice equivalent yield. Ragi -Mustard -Bottlegourd in 0.02 ha area gave 11.5 kg ragi, 37 kg mustard and 268.5 kg bottlegourd, which were equivalent to 2.92 quintal rice equivalent yield. Okra -Garlic cropping system in 0.02 ha area gave 172 kg okra & 206 kg garlic bulb which was equivalent to 8.62 quintal of rice equivalent yield. Maize + Cowpea -Pea -Onion in 0.06 ha gave 73.66 kg Green cow pea, 1185 number of cobs, 22 kg maize seed in Kharif and 442 kg green pea pod 9.5 kg pea seed in winter along with 346 kg onion bulb in summer which was equivalent to 11.28 quintal rice equivalent yield.

Bajra -Barley -Maize + Cowpea for fodder purposes has been taken in 0.06 ha area which gave 2318 kg green fodder in Kharif, 2260 kg in Rabi & 1575 kg in summer which was equivalent to 6.47 quintal rice equivalent yield. Dairy unit with two cows in 0.005 ha gave 2840.5 litre milk, 8955 kg dung and 2 heifer. Vermicompost and compost structure have been made in 0.005 ha which gave 3450 kg vermicompost and 6510 kg compost equivalent to 9.77 quintal rice equivalent yield. Boundary plantation of karonda and guava gave 8.2 kg karonda, 73.5 kg guava and 62 kg papaya which was equivalent to 0.39 quintal rice equivalent yield. Different component in 0.4 ha size of IFS model at Rewa gave 133.76 quintal rice equivalent yield.

Area, Yield and Net profit sharing by different

component Data pertaining to area, yield and net profit sharing of 0.4 ha IFS model have been given in Table 2 and depicted in Fig. 1 to Fig 3, After perusal of the result it is clear that Rice -Wheat -Green manure cropping system was taken in 0.2 ha area which was equivalent to 50% area of IFS, gave 9.94% of total yield & 5.81% of total net profit of 0.4 ha IFS model. Ragi-Mustard -Bottle gourd was taken in 5% area IFS model gave 2.18% of total rice equivalent yield & 3.31% of total net return. Okra -Garlic cropping system was taken in 0.02 ha area which is 5% area of total IFS model, gave 6.4% of total produce & 7.5% of total net profit. Maize + Cowpea -Pea -Onion cropping system was taken in 0.06 ha area which was 15% of 0.4 ha of IFS model gave 8.4% of total yield & 7.12% of total income, For production of fodder, Bajra -Barley -Maize + Cowpea was taken in 0.06 ha area which was equivalent to 15% of total IFS model area gave 4.8% of total rice equivalent yield & 6.61% of net profit. Under dairy component 2 crossbreed cows were taken in 0.005 ha area which was equivalent to 1.25% of total area of 0.4 ha gave 61% of total produce & 58.72% of total income. Vermicompost unit was established in 1.25% area which gave 7.3% of total income and 10.51% of total net income. Boundary plantation of guava, citrus and karonda gave 0. 29% of total yield and 0.11% of total income. Different component were taken in 0.37 ha and 0.03 ha area was kept for supporting activities out of 0.4 ha IFS model. Total rice equivalent yield was 133.76 quintal and net profit was Rs 116663 from 0.4 ha area. It is too much higher than Rice-Wheat cropping system taken in 0.2 ha area. It may be due to integration of different crop component, dairy, vermicompost and boundary plantation which increase the yield and net profit. These findings also also supported by Singh et al. (2006) [9] and Rahangdale et al. (2025) [1] .

Gross return and Net profit

Data pertaining to gross profit, net return and benefit cost ratio of 0.4 ha IFS model have been given in Table 3. After perusal of the data, it is evident that okragarlic cropping system gave higher gross return from 0.02 ha area is Rs 19317 and net profit of Rs 8817 while Rice -Wheat -Green manure was taken in 0. [9] & Maurya et al. (2024) [2] have also reported similar findings in which dairy component gave more net profit than crop component among different crop component. Okra -Garlic was found best. [10] , Singh et al. (2006) [9] & Maurya et al. (2024) [2] have also reported year round income from integration of crop, vegetables, fodder, cow, vermicompost, fishery & boundary plantation. (2024) [2] .

Flow of Income

Employment generation

Self-reliance status

Self reliance status was calculated by considering five members size of family and two cows. Their requirement has been taken & total production was considered which are given in Table 6, On the basis of 4 year pooled data, it is evident that green fodder production was 17.5% higher than the requirement. There was shortage of 66.0% of dry fodder and 91.06% of concentrate requirement. NPK production from compost & vermicompost was calculated which is given in the Table 6 reveals that 62.41% of nitrogen requirement was meet out from compost & vermicompost while 68.33% requirement of phosphorous was produced from different composting unit & Potassium production was sufficient to fulfill the need of 0.4 ha IFS model. Rahangdale et al. (2025) [1] also reported that small size IFS model with 2 cows fulfill the 53.76% need of total nitrogen, 67% need of phosphorous and 100% need of total K requirement.

Performance of IFS over different year

The IFS model was started in 2021-22 after completion of 4 years. Its performance was analysed in terms of net return, Employment generation & greenhouse gas emission, which are given in Table 7, After perusal of the result, It is clear that gross return Rs 260344 was minimum during initial year and it is increased year by year and reached Rs 335288 in year 2024-25. Similarly, Rice equivalent yield was also increased by 6.6 quintals over initial stage by the end of 2024-25. Net profit varied from Rs 81355 to Rs 139352 with the average net profit Rs 116721 from 0.4 ha. IFS model gave employment generation for 432 man-days to 526 man-days with the average employment of 490 labours Man-days per year. Net greenhouse gas emission was -3078.3 kg CO2 equivalent, therefore the model was climate smart. It may be due to use of FYM and vermicompost in different crop component and plantation of tee like guava, Karonda and citrus on border. Similar findings were also reported by Maurya et al. (2024) [2] and Behera and Mahapatra 1999 [10] .

Performance of IFS over years

The major performance indicators of IFS model are given in Table 8 which reveals that soil organic carbon status was increased by 17.02% over initial status, Sustainable value Index was 0.825 while sustainable yield Index was 0.958 showing 96% sustainability of 0.4 ha IFS model. Employment generation was 483 man-days/year in which 329 labour man-days was as male labour and 154 as female hired labour, greenhouse gas emission was -3236.4 kg CO2 equivalent, due to negative carbon dioxide balance the present IFS model was found climate smart. Rahangdale et al. (2025) [1] has also reported negative green house gases production from 1 acre IFS model.

Acknowledgement

www.extensionjournal.com was 0.96. greenhouse gas emission was -3236.4 kg CO2 equivalent by which present IFS model was found climate smart and sustainable.

References

1. Rahangdale M, Yadav K, Giri AK, Maurya BM. Integrated effect of crop and livestock-based farming system on income and employment generation of marginal farmers. Plant Arch. 2025;25(Suppl 2):669676.
2. Maurya BM, Singh D, Rajonia CS, Singh S. Studies on climate-smart IFS model for marginal farmers. Int J Res Agron. 2024;79(2):81-84.
3. Shanmugam PM, Sangeetha SP, Prabu PC, Varshini SV, Renukadevi A, Ravisankar N, et al. Croplivestock-integrated farming system: A strategy to achieve synergy between agricultural production, nutritional security and environmental sustainability. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2024;8:1338299. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1338299.
4. Fatima A, Singh VK, Babu S, Singh RK, Upadhyay PK, Rathore SS, et al. Food production potential and environmental sustainability of different integrated farming system models in Northwest India. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2023;7:959464. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.959464.
5. Meena LR, Kochewad SA, Prusty AK, Bhanu C, Kumar K. Integrated farming system models development for small and marginal for sustainable production and livelihood improvement in India: An overview. Agric Environ Sci. 2022;3(1):5-18.
6. Yadav AK, Nalini R, Dashrath S. Integrated farming systems approach: Increase food security, agricultural farm income and rural economy. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(2):1167-1185.
7. Soni RP, Katoch M, Ladohia R. Integrated farming systems -A review. IOSR J Agric Vet Sci. 2014;7(10):36-42. doi:10.9790/2380-071013642.
8. Soni RP, Katoch M, Ladohia R. Integrated farming system -A review. IOSR J Agric Vet Sci. 2014;7(10):36-42.
9. Singh K, Bohra JS, Singh Y, Singh JP. Development of a farming system model for the North Eastern plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Farming. 2006;56:5-11.
10. Behera UK, Mahapatra IC. Income and employment generation of small and marginal farmers through integrated farming system. Indian J Agron. 1999;44(3):431-439.