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