Sustainable integrated farming system model for small farm holders of Uttar Pradesh

Abstract

The developed IFS model is having different components which comprise of arable crops (1.04 ha), horticulture crops (0.22 ha), fishery (0.10 ha), mushroom (0.02 ha), poultry (10 birds), vermicompost (0.02 ha) and kitchen garden (20 m2). The overall productivity of model was 174.04 tonnes/ha/year in terms of sugarcane equivalent yield (SEY) during the representative years (2013–18). The farmyard manure (FYM) together with vermicompost and other farm-based by-products saved the nutrients by 338.71 kg N, 124.60 kg P, 306.22 kg K and 769.56 kg NPK (kg/year). The entire annual man-days generated were 441, 465, 473, 467 and 470 in various components during 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18, respectively. However, maximum man-days were generated by crop component (209/year) followed by dairy component (152/year) of the IFS model. The gross return/year/ha obtained was `6.12×103/ha and net returns of (`3.74×103/ha) with per day income of `1025 from 1.5 ha of the IFS model under irrigated agro-ecosystem. Inclusion of horticulture components and boundary plantations in the IFS model also tend to reduce GHG emissions.

The integrated farming system is an environmentally friendly and cost‐effective approach to the sustainability of agri‐food systems in the modern era of the changing climate: A comprehensive review

“…However, many times, farmers are unable to fully exploit the association of different agricultural components due to a lack of awareness about resource recycling and the role of organic materials in agriculture and their farming practices remain predominantly subsistence‐oriented rather than commercially profitable. Therefore, the integration of components in IFS depends upon their suitability and preferences (Kumar, Singh, et al., 2012; Kumar, Subash, et al., 2012). The gradual degradation of resources has become a problem of major concern and calls for location‐specific measures to optimize crop productivity sustainably, and IFS is a reliable means of obtaining higher productivity with a substantial nutrient economy in combination with maximum compatibility and replenishment of organic matters utilizing effective recycling of residues/wastes (Kumar et al., 2018; Kumar, Singh, et al., 2012; Kumar, Subash, et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2017; Solaniappan et al., 2007).…”

“…Nutrient recycling in an IFS is a practice of efficiently reusing and redistributing nutrients within the system as it involves the utilization of organic waste, residues, or by‐products from one component of the farming system as inputs for another ((Kumar, Singh, et al., 2012; Kumar, Subash, et al. 2012)) and efficient nutrient (resource) recycling within the farming system is a fundamental part of IFS (Kumar et al., 2018).…”

“…Kumar, Singh, et al. (2012); Kumar, Subash, et al. (2012) studied nutrient recycling in an IFS and revealed that recycling of organic manures obtained from different components of IFS added N, P 2 O 5 , and K 2 O of about 506.2, 348.5, and 341.7 kg/ha, respectively, into the farming system.…”

“…Therefore, the integration of components in IFS depends upon their suitability and preferences (Kumar, Singh, et al., 2012; Kumar, Subash, et al., 2012). The gradual degradation of resources has become a problem of major concern and calls for location‐specific measures to optimize crop productivity sustainably, and IFS is a reliable means of obtaining higher productivity with a substantial nutrient economy in combination with maximum compatibility and replenishment of organic matters utilizing effective recycling of residues/wastes (Kumar et al., 2018; Kumar, Singh, et al., 2012; Kumar, Subash, et al., 2012; Singh et al., 2017; Solaniappan et al., 2007). Improvement in soil structure and overall soil health due to nutrient recycling and livestock presence are the key characteristic that makes the farming system more remunerative and eco‐friendlier.…”

“…(2018) stated that location‐specific integration of agricultural components technically/skillfully through IFS is greatly useful for sustaining the livelihood of small‐holders and relying completely on income generated from one agricultural component is inadequate to meet the needs of small and marginal farmers (Behera et al., 2012; Kumar et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2012). Therefore, with rising consumerism in rural areas, farmers need to improve their standard of living ensuring and best means is the adoption of IFS with the allocation of best‐suited enterprises in the farm which can enhance their income and livelihood security (Kumar, Singh, et al., 2012; Kumar, Subash, et al., 2012; Puste et al., 2013). Complementarities between crops and livestock had the potential to increase input use efficiency and maintain a diversified livelihood (Afi & Parsons, 2023).…”