Integrated Farming Systems for Smallholders in India – Models and Issues for Semi-arid
Tropical Conditions
K.P. Singh,
Professor of Agronomy, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (India)
ABSTRACT
The results of more than 15 years of investigation on the development of suitable farming systems for semi-arid tropical situations in Haryana, India, indicate that mixed farming systems of crops and animals are more efficient and remunerative, and generate more employment, than arable farming systems under small land holdings for irrigated and dry land conditions.
INTRODUCTION
In India, the majority of farmers hold less than two hectares of land. These farmers generally practice subsistence farming where they need to produce a continuous, reliable and balanced supply of foods, as well as cash for basic needs and recurrent farm expenditure. Therefore, there is need to develop suitable integrated farming systems for such farmers since single crop production enterprises are subject to a high degree of risk and uncertainty because of seasonal, irregular and uncertain income and employment to the farmers. Sporadic but location specific research efforts in this regard have been encouraging (Singh, 1994; Jayanthi et.al.
, 1994).
However, systematic farming systems work involving a larger number of farm families and comparing different types of integrated farming systems over multiple years remains rare.
Several specific possibilities for integration of various livestock enterprises with crop production for small and marginal land holders under irrigated and dry land situations of semi-arid tropical regions of India were introduced and field tested over extended periods starting in the mid-1980s.
This paper summarizes results from the field testing of integrated farming systems in Haryana and makes recommendations on needed action to promote and support widespread adoption of the most appropriate integrated systems.
BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH APPROACH
In India, studies are being conducted at many institutes/agricultural universities to support the development of appropriate integrated farming systems for various farming situations in different states. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India, has been a leading contributor to research suitable integrated farming systems models for different agro-climatic regions of Haryana.
Studies were initiated in 1984 and still continue at research farms as well as on farmer’s field.
The purpose of the studies has been to develop, test, refine and recommend suitable integrated farming system models for semi-arid tropical situations of Haryana state (north-west India).
Various models for on-farm testing have been developed on the basis of experiment station results obtained for at least three years. These models are further tested on farmers’ field for two years.
- 1 -

METHODOLOGY
Studies were carried out on 1.0 ha, 0.6 ha, 0.4 ha irrigated land holdings and 1.5 ha holding and on grazing under dry land conditions to compare integrated mixed farming systems models with arable farming systems as described in Table 1. The mixed farming systems consisted of either crossbred cows [Hariana (local breed) x Holstein/Jersey] or buffaloes (Murrah breed) and arable farming without any milch animal or with one milch animal (farmer’s practice). In mixed farming about 55-65 percent of the area was covered under fodder crops and rest under grain crops. The farmyard manure prepared from the dung and wastes was used as manure in the system itself. Crops and animals were raised by applying all recommended package of practices.
For relative economic analysis during different years cost of inputs and outputs at market prices prevailing in the year was considered and net income and a Link Relative Index was worked out
(see below for further explanation). A multi-disciplinary team of research scientists from agronomy (author), animal sciences, economics and statistics was involved in carrying out these studies.
FINDINGS
The results of several studies carried out during 1984 to 2000 indicate that integration of various enterprises on various sizes of land holdings tend to be more profitable than arable farming alone, and generate more employment. Part of these findings has also been reported by Singh et al . (1993) and Singh et al. (1997).
Net Returns
A summary of key results from the studies carried out from 1984 through 2000 on arable farming systems relative to various integrated crop-animal systems is given in Table 1 (below). On 1.0 hectare of irrigated land, the net return for mixed farming with three crossbred cows ranged between US $ 466-1090 per year in different years, compared to a range between US $ -50 to
656 in mixed farming with three buffaloes. Three buffaloes units gave negative return during one year only in 7 years. The farmer’s practice gave a minimum net return of US $ 153. On 0.6 ha, mixed farming with one crossbred cow gave the highest average net return of US $ 226 followed by US $93 from arable farming. Mixed farming of one or two buffaloes gave a negative return on this land holding.
On .4 ha irrigated land, mixed farming of one crossbred cow gave a net return of US $ 153 as compared to US $ 73 from arable farming. The return for mixed farming of 1 buffalo was negative. The comparative average return as indicated by cost : return reveals that in most cases it was highest in arable farming followed by mixed farming with crossbred cows. Though cost: return was higher in arable farming, mixed farming had other advantages like production of more commodities, higher total net return, availability of more number of employment days uniformly distributed throughout the year and better use of by-products and wastes and supply of manures to the crop component of the system. Negative return from the buffalo unit could be attributed to longer calving interval, drier period and lesser milk productivity per animal. Through out the study period, the average milk production per calving was about 9.0 liters per day per cow and
6.5 liters per day per buffalo (Gulati et al (1994). Moreover, cost of maintenance (Table 2) was
- 2 -

higher in buffalo than crossbred cows. Due to these reasons mixed farming of crossbred cows was better in giving gross return as well as net return.
Table 1. Economics and employment days in various integrated farming systems.
Farming Systems Expenditure Net Return
(US $)
Range Av. Range
(US $)
Av.
Cost :
Return
Empl. days/ yr.
- Arable farming
On 1.0 ha irrigated land (1984-85 to 1990-91)
250-346 303 133-413 236
- *Farmer’s practice 600-760 700 110-193 153
- Mixed farming with
three crossbred cows
800-1600 1013 466-1090 710
1:1.78
1:1.22
1:1.70
182
334
559
- Mixed farming with
three murrah buffaloes
900-1333 1096 (-)50 –
656
313 1:1.29 630
On 0.6 ha (1.5 Acres) irrigated land (1991-92 to 1999-2K)
- Arable farming 266-306 286 86-103 93 1:1.33 92
- Mixed farming with one 620-710 663 146 – 256 226 1:1.34 206
crossbred cow
- Mixed farming with one
buffalo
- Mixed farming with two
576-720 650 (-)76-16
1143-1260 1200 40 – 96
(-)30
66
1:0.95
1:1.05
208
321
crossbred cows
- Mixed farming with two
buffaloes
973-1173 1073 (-) 426 –
(-)303
(-)366 1:0.66 320
On 0.4 ha (1.0 Acre) irrigated land (1991-92 to 1999-2K)
- Arable farming 183-210 196 96-120 73 1:1.37 63
- Mixed farming with 560-593 576 153 – 156 153 1:1.27 168
one crossbred cow
- Mixed farming with
one murrah buffalo
526-593 560 (-) 6.3 -
6.6
(-)26
On 1.5 ha dry land conditions (1984 to 1991)
1:0.95 171
- Arable farming 23-266 116 (-) 82 –
(-) 48
(-) 65 1:0.43 124
- Mixed farming with two
Haryana cows
366-533 490 (-) 244 -
(-) 106
(-) 166 1:0.66 287
On grazing under dry land conditions (1984-85 to 1999-2K)
- 15goats (84-85 to 90-91) 166-333 270 33-200 100 1:1.37 240
- 15 sheep(84-85 to 91-92) 160-366 256 (-) – 143 43
- 30 goats(91-92 to 99-2K) 510-546 530 (-)160- (-)130
1:1.17
1:0.75
240
365
(-)100
- 30sheep(91-92 to 99-2K) 503-560 533 (-)36 – 86 23 1:1.05 365
*Farmer’s practice includes arable farming + one milch animal (1988-89 to 1990-91)
On the holding of 0.6 ha., the mixed farming systems of two crossbred cows and two buffaloes were not self-sustainable and part of fodder had to be obtained from outside source at higher
- 3 -

costs. Therefore, these systems gave negative returns and only the system of one crossbred cow was most efficient in giving highest net return.
On 0.4 ha irrigated land also mixed farming with 1 crossbred cow was better than other systems.
The profitability of integrated mixed farming system of crossbred cows over other systems could be attributed to better productivity and more prices fetched for calves, which are in very high demand among the large as well as small farmers of India. Moreover, the expenditure on fertilizers also declined due to availability of a good amount of manure, which resulted into a saving of 50% expenditure on fertilizers as compared to arable farming. These results are in agreement with those reported by Singh and Chhiber (1977), Faroda et al (1978) and Tomer et al.
(1982). Jayanthi et.al.
(1994) reported from Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore
(south India) that integration of poultry with 20 birds of bapkok layers, fishery 300 fingerlings of polyculture and oyster mushroom with a production capacity of 2 kg. per day,
-1
with improved rice-based cropping increasing the food productivity and income of the small and marginal lowland farming.
Under dry land conditions, returns were always negative for both mixed farming systems with cattle and for arable farming system. However, grazing of small stock under dry land conditions in many cases produced positive net returns. Under these conditions due to erratic weather conditions, lesser availability of green fodder and low productivity of Hariana cows were the factors responsible for continuous loss of mixed farming unit. Failure of crop in one or the other season resulted into negative return in arable farming system too. In case of sheep and goat larger units were not profitable due to limited land available for grazing and higher maintenance cost.
Additional multi-year data on expenditure and income for two integrated mixed farming units, one with cattle and one with buffaloes, are presented in Table 2 (Gulati et. al, 1994). In all the years, the average maintenance costs of three crossbred cows and three buffaloes were US$856 and US$ 915, respectively. Among all cost items, feed (fodder and concentrate) constituted the most important item. This accounted for about 47% in the case of the crossbred cow unit, and about 40.5% in the case of the buffalo unit. Labor was the second highest cost item, accounting for nearly 31% in both units, followed by expenditures incurred in crop production (about 15% for both units). Similar results were reported by Singh and Singh (1987).
Employment generation
In the above studies, the employment potential of mixed farming systems was found higher than for arable farming system. As shown in Table 1, in mixed farming systems on 1 ha. (2.5 acres) land, employment generation was between 559 to 630 man days with almost uniform distribution throughout the year compared to 182 man days in arable farming with more labor employment during July, Oct.-Nov. and April-May periods, peak periods of agricultural operations. On smaller holdings of 0.4 ha (1.0 acre) or 0.6 ha (1.5 acres) irrigated land and 1.5 ha dry land also, mixed farming generated 2 to 3 times more employment days compared to arable farming. In mixed farming systems, there is continuous need of work force for carrying out day-to-day work in animal unit and, therefore, more and uniform employment generation during the year was possible in these farming systems. Jayanthi et al . (1994) also reported that integrated farming of
- 4 -

crop, poultry and fish culture generated 453 additional man-days over arable farming on 0.40 ha land.
Table 2. Average expenditure and income of two integrated mixed farming systems
Average of 7 years: 1984-85 to 1990-91 (Gulati et al., 1994)
Particulars 3 cattle on 1 ha land
Value (US$) %
3 buffaloes on 1 ha land
Value (US$) %
A. Expenditure
Green fodder
Dry fodder
Concentrate
180
33
260
17.76
3.26
25.66
193
30
213
17.6
2.73
19.40
Total feed cost
Labor
Other (on animals)
Total expenditure on i) Animals ii) Crops
Total cost
B. Income
Value of milk
Value of followers
Sale of animals
Appreciation of animals
Value of manures
C. Total income from
Animals
Crops
Gross income from unit
LINK RELATIVE INDEX (LRI)
473
313
70
856
150
1006
1236
153
63
13
26
1491
223
1714
46.68
30.9
6.91
84.49
14.80
-
71.73
8.87
3.65
0.75
1.50
86.50
13.50
-
436
363
116
915
166
1081
836
143
83
33
26
1121
280
1401
39.73
33.10
10.57
83.40
16.60
-
59.29
10.14
5.88
2.34
1.84
79.49
20.51
-
The farming system models developed and discussed in the preceding paragraphs were compared for their efficiency using a Link Relative Index based on the following formula:
Link Relative Index (LRI)

NI
1
NI
0
x 100
NI
0
- mean net income of arable farming/farmer’s practice on 1 ha (base 1982 prices). NI
1
- mean net income of the system (base 1982 prices).
The LRI were computed by taking either arable farming or farmer’s practice as the standard base among farming system models. The results in Table 3 reveal that highest LRI (276 and 550) was obtained with mixed farming of three crossbred cows on 1 ha land which was followed by mixed farming of buffaloes on 1 ha land (126). Conversion of prices at fixed level and then computing
LRI eliminated the factor of variation due to difference in prices in different years. CV was
- 5 -

worked out for finding goodness of fit of these LRIs in the calculations, which shows large variations in buffalo and arable units.
Table 3. Average net income (1982 base price), LRI and CV of different farming systems
Farming System Models Av. net income
(US $)
LRI
(based arable farming)
LRI
(based Farmer’s practice)
CV
(%)
- Arable farming
On 1.0 ha irrigated land
185 100
- Farmer’s practice
- Mixed farming with three CB
- Mixed farming with three B
93
512
234
51
276
126
- Arable farming
- Mixed farming with one CB
On 0.4 ha irrigated land
33 18
70 38
- Mixed farming with one B -11 -6
- Arable farming
- Mixed farming with one CB
On 0.6 ha irrigated land
43 23
93 50
- Mixed farming with two CB
- Mixed farming with one B
- Mixed farming with two B
31
-12
-165
17
-7
-89
200
100
550
251
36
76
-12
46
101
34
-14
-178
52.5
26.8
37.4
73.9
14.0
0.8
-Ve
10.0
26.5
41.0
-Ve
-Ve
CB = Crossbred cow; B = Buffalo (Murrah breed)
DISCUSSION
Small and marginal landholders face different types of problems than large farmers. They have to be dependent on farming for their household needs and majority of these farmers are resource constraint, economically poor and having low level of education. The benefits of technology developed in green, white or other agricultural revolutions in India remained confined to large and resourceful farmers. Suitable agricultural technologies are, therefore, required to be developed for small land holders for which concept of integrated farming system may prove better than specialized or single community based farming system.
Small holder farmers must try to produce food, feed, fodder, fibre, fuel, etc., on a small piece of land. Under such conditions, one alternative is to integrate more than one enterprise on the same piece of land. This study has shown that the integrated farming systems developed in Haryana and tested during the 1980s and 1990s produce more income and generate more employment than do arable farming systems which do not include animals. These results were found under irrigated as well as dry land conditions, although overall profitability of both arable and mixed farming systems was greater under irrigation. The integrated farming systems should help improve the economic conditions of resource constrained farmers and provide better opportunities for employment in the agriculture sector.
- 6 -

Though, Indian farmers are raising crops and livestock together for centuries and for them livestock has been the integral part of system (Sethi, 1991), however, there remains a significant challenge in promoting and supporting the widespread adoption of productive, remunerative, eco-friendly and self-sustaining integrated farming systems. To meet the needs of farmers for shifting to integrated farming systems requires a radical rethinking of agricultural education, research and extension. Agricultural professionals, including farmers, need a different type of orientation and training that emphasizes holistic concepts, institutional behavior, cooperation, and respect for nature, local farming systems and indigenous knowledge (Singh et al ., 1998). The author has discussed in detail the key issues involved in research-education-extension linkages and human resource development through training and education for promoting and supporting the widespread adoption of integrated farming system approach (Singh, 2002). In on-farm studies, the author observed that this approach is becoming popular among small farming community. Government and institutional supports for loaning on subsidized interest rate and developmental activities are critical factors for adopting integrated farming systems by resource constraint farmers particularly under dry land and problem areas. Training and update of knowledge to farming system agricultural professionals including farmers are key factors for adoption and continuous monitoring of integrated farming system units. In India, beginning has been made in the direction of human resource development in integrated farming system approach and various State Agriculture Universities have introduced courses having an orientation of holism and integrated farming system concept. There are other training activities; like summer institutes and short courses on farming system concepts, being carried out by various universities, institutes and other agencies to update the farming system knowledge of teachers, scientists, extension workers and others involved in such programmes (Singh et al.,
1998; Singh, 2002).
LRI, a simple and easy method of comparison of various integrated mixed farming systems may be used under every situation throughout the world.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author 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.
REFERENCES
Faroda A.S., Yadav R.S. and Pal R.N.(1978). Comparative economics of specialized dairy farming, mixed farming and arable farming. J. Res. Har. Agric. Univ. 8: 234-39.
Gulati H., Singh K.P., Singh S.N., Kadian V.S. and Dahiya S.S. (1994). Comparative productivity and economics of dairy enterprises under mixed farming systems. Haryana Agric.
Univ.J.Res. 20: 186-190.
Jayanthi C., Rangasamy A., Chinnusammy C., Purushothaman S. and Planiappan Sp. (1994).
Integrated farming systems for smallholdings. Indian J. Agron. 39:1-7.
- 7 -

Sethi R.K. (1991). Live stock production in various farming systems of Haryana. Proc. summer institute on integrated farming systems for small and marginal farmers, CCSHAU, Hisar, India.
Vol. II : 556-557.
Singh D.P., Singh K.P. and Yadavika (1998). Integrated farming system – a key issue for research-education-extension linkages. Proc. First International Agronomy Congress –
Agronomy, 23-27 November, 1998, New Delhi, India. p 474-488.
Singh G.D. and Chhiber S.S. (1971). Is dairy profitable in India. Indian Dairyman 23: 149-50.
Singh K.P. (1994). Integrated farming systems approach – concepts & scope. In resource management and crop productivity. Haryana Agronomists Association, Deptt. of Agronomy,
CCS HAU, Hisar, p 69-85.
Singh K.P. (2002). Integrated farming systems for small holders – A key issue for researcheducation-extension linkages in semi-arid tropical conditions. Paper submitted to 17 th
Symposium of the International Farming Association, Nov. 17-20, 2002 Orlando, Florida, USA.
Singh K.P., Kadian V.S., Kumar H., Saxena K.K., Singh S.N. and Kumar V. (1994).
Integrated farming systems for optimising resource use under small holding conditions of
Haryana. Haryana J. Agron. 10: 43-47.
Singh K.P., Singh S.N., Kumar H., Kadian V.S. and Saxena K.K. (1993). Economic analysis of different farming systems followed on small and marginal land holdings in
Haryana. Haryana J. Agron. 9: 122-125.
Singh, S.N., Saxena, K.K.,Singh , K.P.
, Kumar, H. and Kadian, V.S. (1997). Consistency in income and employment generation in various farming systems. Annals of Agril. Res.
18(3): 340-43.
Tomer S.P., Sai Ram R.K., Harika A.S. and Ganguly T.K. (1982). Comparative efficiency of dairy and mixed farming systems. Forage Research. 8: 93-98.
Corresponding Author Contact Information:
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
, ORAL, Small farm diversification and competitiveness.
- 8 -