Sustainability approach for comparison of various farming systems models
K.P. Singh, K.K. Saxena, S.N. Singh & V.S. Kadian
Department of Agronomy, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar-125001 (India)
Abstract
Integrated farming systems models were tested for several years at the research farm of
Department of Agronomy, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar- 125004, India since 1984-85. The data recorded in these models were used to
develop Sustainable Value Index (SVI). A Sustainable Value Index (SVI) is the ratio of
absolute value of the difference of Average Net Income (ANI) from 1.96 times standard
deviation of ANI’s to the maximum net income in the whole period.
In this way the SVI will take account of both variability and maximum net income over
the years in the system. In this paper SVI’s have also been worked out for the prices at
fixed base of 1982 to make the various prices smoothened.
Introduction
Even after four decades of green revolution in India, the small and marginal
farmers are subject to high level of risk and uncertainty in respect of their income through
crop production. Of late Farming Systems Research, which involves a combination of
various enterprises, has been practiced in view of its generating more income and labor
days (Raman and Balaguru, 1991; Singh, 1994 and Jayanti et al., 1994). Various farming
system models have been tried at the research farm of Department of Agronomy,
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar since 1984-85. The
critical analysis of the results obtained over the years on the farming system models
reveal that there has not been any conclusion about the sustainability of these models and
there is no tool to compare sustainability of the models which could be used to evaluate
various farming system models on the basis of their sustainability. Hence, a need has
been felt to prepare a sustainable value index (SVI) for each farming system model.
2
Materials and Method
The data on expenditure, gross return and net income from various farming system
models developed on different small and marginal land holdings at Chaudhary Charan
Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar during 1984-85 to 1995-96 were used to
compute average net income (ANI) and coefficient of variation (C.V.). Maximum net
income within a farming system model over the years was also calculated and denoted by
MNI. Based on these values, the Sustainable Value Index (SVI) based on actual prices
was calculated as :
ANI - 1.96  s.d.
SVI 
MNI
The standard deviation of ANI is multiplied by 1.96 to form 95% confidence interval.
The value of SVI calculated by this formula lies between 0 and 1. A value of SVI near to
zero gives that model is not sustainable while a value of SVI near to one gives that model
is sustainable.
Average net income (ANI), Maximum Net Income (MNI), Coefficient of variation
(C.V.), Sustainable Value Index (SVI) and the rank of different models of farming
systems adopted on 1.0 acre (0.4 ha), 1.5 acres (0.6 ha), 2.5 acres (1.0 ha) and 4.0 acres
(1.5 ha) irrigated land area were worked out on actual prices and the prices based on
fixed base (1982). These parameters have been used to compare the economic
potentiality and sustainability of various farming system models under study for small
land holdings situation. The SVI based on actual price during each year and modified
SVI based on 1982 prices for all the farming systems have been presented in Table 1.
Results and Discussion
Highest MNI was recorded in mixed farming with 3 crossbred cows on 2.5 acre(1.0 ha)
land. Arable farming on 4.0 acres (1.5 ha), 2.5 acres (1.0 ha), 1.5 acres (0.6 ha), and 1.0
acres (0.4 ha) and mixed farming with crossbred cows on all land size holdings and
mixed farming of 3 buffaloes on 2.5 acres (1 ha) land gave positive ANI. Other farming
3
system models viz., mixed farming of 1 or 2 or 4 buffaloes on various size holdings gave
negative ANI. The ranks of SVI indicate that arable farming + one crossbred cow on 1.0
acre (0.4 ha) land was the most sustainable system followed by arable farming without
animal on 1.5 acres (0.6 ha) land, arable farming on 1.0 acre (0.4 ha) land, mixed farming
of 1 crossbred cow on 2.5 acres (1.0 ha) land and arable farming + one crossbred cow on
1.5 acres (0.6 ha) land.
In the case when the above parameters were computed on the fixed based prices of year
1982 level, almost similar findings for MNI, SVI and ranks have been observed except
that arable farming on 1.5 acres (0.6 ha) land was found to be the most sustainable. It
was followed by arable farming + one crossbred cow on 1.0 acres (0.4 ha), arable farming
without milch animal on 1.0 acre (0.4 ha) land, arable farming + 1 crossbred cow on 2.5
acres (1.0 ha) land and arable farming + 1 crossbred cow on 4.0 acres (1.5 ha) land. The
pattern of sustainability value index based on fixed prices further proved that smaller size
holdings were more sustainable as compared to large holdings.
Discussion
Better sustainability of smaller holdings may be explained on the basis of the fact that
various resources, inputs, operations, etc. are managed in a better way which improves
the productivity and efficiency of resource use in various farming system models on
smaller land holdings. In the present studies, small holdings were more sustainable than
large farms which are further strengthened by C.V. values in Table 1 which clearly
indicate that these are under tolerable limits (10%) on small holdings for actual as well as
fixed base prices. C.V. values for other farming systems were higher indicating more
variations in prices, income, etc. On the basis of these results, it is inferred that the
sustainable value index (SVI) may be used as a good tool for selecting any cropping
system or farming system in a particular farming situation.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the contribution of multi-disciplinary research team of farming
system group of Department of Agronomy, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar
(India) during the course of studies conducted for developing integrated farming system
models.
4
References
Jayanti C., Rangaswamy A., Chinnusamy C., Purushothaman L. and Palaniappan S.P.
(1994). Sustainable integrated farming systems for low land conditions in Tamil Nadu.
Personal communication.
Raman K.V. and Balaguru T. (1991). Farming Systems Research and Extension (FSR/E)
Approach in Indian Context. Proc.National Workshop “Farming Systems Research
Strategies for Implementation”. Hyderabad. Nov 25-28,1991. pp 17-39.
Singh K.P.(1994). Integrated farming systems approach – Concepts and Scope. Proc.
Symp. Resource Mgt. & Crop Prod. Hisar. Feb 16-18, 1994. pp 69-85.
Corresponding Authors Contact Information:
Dr. K.K. Saxena, Professor of Statistics, Department of Math & Stat, Chaudhary Charan
Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar. Tel. No. 0091-1662-44400. e.mail :
aks@hau.nic.in
Theme 1 – Poster Manuscript, Small farm diversification and
competitiveness.
Dr. K.P. Singh, Professor of Agronomy and Controller of Examinations, CCS Haryana
Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana-125 004(India), Phone: 91-1662-31518 (O),
35076(R), Fax : 91-1662-34613, coe@hau.nic.in, Poster, Small farm diversification and
competitiveness.
5
6
Table 1 : SVI for various farming system models based on actual and modified base 1982 prices
Sr.
No.
Farming
System
Models
5.
6.
On 2.5 acres (1.0 ha) land
Arable Farming
Arable Farming + 1 C.B. cow)*
Mixed Farming + 3 C.B. cows
Mixed Farming + 3 buffaloes
On 1.0 acre (0.4 ha) land
Arable Farming
Arable Farming + 1 C.B.cow
7.
Mixed Farming + 1 buffalo
1.
2.
3.
4.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
On 1.5 acres (0.6 ha ) land
Arable farming
Mixed Farming + 1 C.B.cow
Mixed Farming + 2 C.B.cow
Mixed Farming + 1 buffalo
Mixed Farming + 2 buffalo
On 4.0 acres (1.5 ha) land
Arable farming + 1 C.B. cow
Mixed Farming + 4 C.B. cows
Mixed Farming + 4 buffaloes
Actual prices
On the basis of 1982 prices
ANI
$
MNI
$
CV
SVI
rank
ANI
$
MNI
($)
CV
SVI
rank
146
98
441
194
256
120
675
408
52.5
26.8
37.4
73.9
0.02
0.39
0.17
0.21
11
4
8
7
115
58
317
145
185
66
489
291
37.2
19.7
35.8
65.3
0.17
0.53
0.19
0.14
8
4
7
10
46
52
14.0
0.8
0.64
0.98
3
1
21
23
9.0
5.7
0.75
0.84
3
2
96
-17
96
44
46
-
-
-
-
-
-
59
125
42
-19
-227
65
159
59
10.0
26.5
41.0
-
0.73
0.38
0.13
-
2
5
10
-
27
58
20
28
76
28
5.0
31.1
45.3
-
0.86
0.30
0.08
-
1
6
11
-
233
135
-343
316
238
26.5
66
-
0.35
0.17
-
6
9
-
76
45
102
77
25.1
65.1
-
0.37
0.16
-
5
9
-
* = Farmer’s practice ; C.B. = Crossbred
7