---

Cite this article as:

 

Singh, J., Kumar, S., Sarma, K., Kumar, A., Tripathi MK and Kumar P. (2021) Animal as a Linking Component of The Integrated Farming System (IFS) For Resilient Production. Food and Scientific Reports. 2 (9) 58-61.

ABSTRACT

Integration of farming components based on a few crops, animals and related subsidiary enterprises referred as Integrated Farming System (IFS) is the need of the day. Climate change has resulted in erratic monsoon and other natural calamities. Therefore, the judicious mix of different components of agricultural enterprises suited to their agro-climatic and socio-economic condition is essential for resilience production in their agro-climatic and socio-economic situation. IFS promotes soil health naturally through recycling- residue recycling and organic farming. However, the risk associated with integration should be considered, and suitable preparedness to mitigate these risks should be instituted.

Keywords: IFS, Livestock, Sustainable Agriculture, Models, Climate-smart

 

The intensification of agriculture practices has improved productivity but had negative impacts on the environment. In the 21^st century, though our country`s growth in other sectors has bettered in terms of percentage contribution to the total economy. However, we are still predominantly rural and agriculture-oriented, with the marginal and small farmers constitute more than 70% of the farming community (FAO, 2018). With the human population pressure and shrinking per capita land availability globally and with no scope for horizontal expansion of land for farming practices, suitable modification is required in farming system practices. Climate change has resulted in erratic monsoon and other natural calamities. The judicious mix of different components of agricultural enterprises suited to their agro-climatic and socio-economic condition is essential for resilience production in their agro-climatic and socio-economic situation. In this context, sustainable development in agriculture must include integrating farming components as a `system` with efficient soil, water, crop, livestock and pest management practices. These systems should be climate-friendly, cost-effective and have mutually beneficial compo. Integration of farming components based on a few crops, animals and related subsidiary enterprises is commonly referred to as Integrated Farming System (IFS) to maximize the utilization of nutrients of each system and minimize the negative effect of these initiatives on the environment. It is an interdependent, interrelated, often interlocking production system. The concept of IFS revolves around the best utilization of primary and secondary products of one component as input of the other component, thus making them mutually beneficial and integrated as one whole system. Thus, the IFS approach stabilizes income streams through natural resource management and livelihood diversification. Integration of agriculture, aquaculture and livestock farming system is not a new concept but has been in age-old traditionally practised by farmers in India and China. However, in the last few decades, efforts focus on scientific approaches for making the IFS a popular and highly resilient venture by selecting suitable components. The basic principles involved in the IFS model of farming are best utilization of available resources getting the maximum out of synergistic effects of inter-related farm activities and farming components available with farmers, conservation of resources and the best utilization of wastes at the farm. Edwards et al (1986) explain IFS basic concept as "there is no waste" and "waste is only a misplaced resource", which can become a valuable material for another product.

The IFS links three farming sectors, agriculture, livestock and fish, and integrates into components of a whole farming system as IFS models. The integration of crops and animals (livestock with fisheries) has received considerable attention, emphasizing animal manure used as fertilizer and nutrients to promote natural feed in fish ponds. To utilize sludge and waste from livestock (piggery, dairy, poultry etc.), which otherwise could cause environmental pollution or turn into low-value mass heaped on valuable land, the IFS model has proved a boon to small and marginal low-input farmers. The integration of duck and chicken with fish poly-culture systems is amongst the most popular IFS models in our country, followed by pig-fish and livestock-fish production systems. Systematic studies have shown that the IFS model has led to a significant increase in total protein yield and profitability from a unit area of land. However, IFS need to be studied in their entirety to understand the system and not as separate components and the factors that drive farmers and influence their decisions for using particular components in the system. Also, it is crucial to select sub-systems/components in the integration so that each system is given optimal horizontal or vertical space. The choices are accordingly meticulously selected, and a fair share is provided based on model area. We attempt to signify the role of animals as components of the IFS in bringing resilience in production.

 IFS models and Animal(s) as component(s)

Global warming and the resulting adversity of climate has imperilled the prediction of agriculture crops output. Under these prevailing risks of global warming, making agriculture and allied sectors climate-smart through an integrated way is an ideal approach to ensure the food and nutrition security of the growing global population. Other important issues are small and fragmented land, land degradation, resource crunch, carbon emissions, pollution, etc. Integrated farming has immense potential to make a farmer climate-smart by cultivating different crops in the same unit area and time, using the available farm resources sustainably. An animal-based IFS can improve the efficient utilization of the land and water resources sustainably and help the communities that rely on them and, by this process, understanding the ways of reducing the effect of the vulnerability of those most likely to be negatively impacted by climate change. Many models of the IFS utilize some species of animals as a component(s) with the objective of energy recycling and bringing more resilience to the model`s output. It is considered that the animal(s) component may be more resilient to this adversity and provide sustainable output, even if few components of crops may fail. The market price of crops often depending on the produce and Government policies. However, produce from the animal sector is reasonably constant and may sometimes provide higher profit related to exceptional high demands. The market prices of eggs are higher in winter months and remain consistent in other seasons; likewise, the market price is exceptionally high for goats during festive season like Bakraid. 

Types of livestock-based IFS

1.     Crop - livestock/ poultry - fishery farming system

2.     Crop - poultry - fishery - mushroom farming system

3.     Crop – Livestock-Agroforestry farming system

4.     Crop - livestock - fishery - vermicomposting farming system

In general, the one-hectare IFS model, using livestock with crop diversification, may have a significant area under cereal production (50%), followed by horticulture crops, fodder production, and boundary plantation. However, with just 3% area, livestock components such as goatry and poultry along with mushroom and vermin-composting can be taken (Fig 1). The percentage share of net return from different components under the one-hectare model is illustrated in figure 2. However, these areas are subject to focus on the sub-systems, land topography, climate, etc.

Crop-livestock IFS

The best-known types of integrated farming are probably the case of mixed crop-livestock systems standard in traditional agriculture and are again attracting worldwide interest. The main objective of the crop-livestock farming system is to recycle wastes or by-products (faeces, urine and spillover foodstuff) generated from one unit as inputs to another unit in the form of fertilizer, feed, etc., to achieve higher productivity and to reduce the cost of production. Thus this system offers unique opportunities for maintaining and extending biodiversity and resource-based intensification of different components. In this system, more emphasis is given to optimizing resource utilization and thereby improving physical and economic access to food, fostering sustainable food security for each household.

 Recent concerns related to increasing regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations, long-term sustainability, natural resource degradation, and stability and profitability of farm income, there is considerable interest in integrated crop-livestock farming systems. Mixed crop-livestock IFS can improve nutrient cycling while reducing chemical inputs and generate economies of scope at the farm level. Diversifying production is also for farmers a way of reducing risks concerning market fluctuations. The component of crops provides the animal component with fodder and crop residues. Animals provide draught and manure for crops, while they also serve as an additional source of production (Fig 3). Animal waste can enhance soil tilth, fertility, and carbon sequestration that can improve agricultural productivity. Integration of crop, pasture, and livestock is mutually beneficial. The combined system enhances soil fertility and nutrient recycling, improves profits, intensifies land use, protects against failure of any component.

Crop-livestock-fishery IFS

Reliance only on fish farms may become risky and are not an option for resource-poor farmers in developing countries. Multi-component integrated systems with three or more linked components (crop-livestock-fish; crop-poultry-fish; crop-poultry-fish-horticulture), also utilizing commercial inorganic fertilizers and formulated pellet feed (Fig 4). In these systems, organic fertilizers are considered complementary to, or alternatives, to inorganic fertilizers and are geared to induce natural food production (i.e. planktons, algae) in the ponds. The integration also provides added advantage of CO₂ if the pond water is of low alkalinity or not limed. Nutrient-rich bottom silt and water can be utilized as fertilizers for crop production. Increased components or sub-systems diversity provides more nutrient linkages and a possibility to meet high nutrient requirements for enhanced production. However, the workforce requirement is increased.

                      Animal-based nutrients applied to ponds are classified generally into either non-livestock or livestock sources. Regarding important differences in manure quality for pond fertilization, livestock manures are further grouped according to whether they originate from poultry (mainly chickens and ducks) and ruminants (cows, buffalo, sheep, and goats) or pigs. Non-livestock sources (silkworm droppings and waste pupae are fed into fishponds and the washings) are not used in our country as utilized in China. Utilization of livestock manure for carps and offal for catfishes are frequently used in such integration. The fish species are selected based on the capability to filter and feed on the planktons that bloomed in the pond due to nutrient recycling. The feeding nature of fish is either surface, column or bottom feeder. Accordingly, the selection of fish along with the ratio is made. The most common fishes used in such integration are Catla, silver carp, rohu, mrigal, common carp and grass carp. The percentage of fish species used is standardized based on their feeding behaviour, so that all the pond area is utilized of the different fishes. Recently prawns are also integrated into the pond sub-system.

However, this system requires large amounts of manure to ensure high fish production and therefore becomes difficult for smallholder integration with limited numbers of livestock. Waste from ruminants as manure has a low carbon to nitrogen ratio and is less used as a pond input unless balanced with alternative nitrogen sources. Urine is a much better nitrogen source, but this is usually lost unless collected through the concrete floor with animals kept in confinement and provision of washing the urine directly into the pond. Khaki Campbell and White Pekin and local or desi ducks can be utilized in this integration. Approximately 300 ducks or 70 piglets or 600 chicks or 70 goats or five cattle or four buffaloes may be sufficient to produce manure to fertilize a hectare of water area for fish culture. When given a free-range over the pond surface, the ducks distribute their droppings in the whole pond, automatically manuring and aerating the pond.

 IFS models and resilient production

The production in IFS is an integrated approach to enhance total farm yield and managing resources for resilient agriculture production targeting sustainability, benefit-cost ratio and environmental health.

·  These models ensure supplementary and complementary components relationships, reducing the effective input cost.

·  It aims to provide steady and resilience in income at higher levels by optimization of yields of each component.

·  It also promotes maintaining soil health naturally through recycling- residue recycling.

·  It aims to achieve ecological balance by ameliorating systems productivity.

·  Therefore, it also aims to mitigate the negative impact of agriculture and livestock on the environment and climate change.

·  They promote organic farming by restricting ecologically harmful inputs and promoting eco-friendly activities like vermicomposting, maximum water use efficiency, etc..

·  It brings resilience in farming practice against the market price instability and natural calamities

 Risk factors and preparedness

While planning to integrate for maximal advantage, preparedness for risk to the farmer and ecology is a must. It may be possible that components in IFS contradict each other.  The pesticides applied to crops may drain off in ponds and become detrimental to fish farming. Goat reared may escape the enclosure and destroy the standing crop. Another limitation is the precision of using nutrients from one sub-system to another. For example, optimal manure of livestock will enhance fish production in the pond, but excess or inadequate may have a reverse effect. IFS may also be associated with a health threat to society. The use of compost may become a source of zoonotic pathogens and contaminate soil and agricultural produce. The possibility of circulation of other sewage bacteria and potential opportunistic bacteria becomes more apropos in IFS models due to close connectivity with sub-systems like livestock, fishery and human components. It may also result in the origin of new pathogens or the re-assortment of older ones into new forms. Some host like pig acts as a factory of mutation for viruses. Reports suggest that strains of human and avian influenza viruses mutate into more virulent and lethal influenza viruses. The hub of IFS, China, is the major source of epidemic strains of influenza and other vector-borne diseases like Japanese Encephalitis, Malaria, Dengue, etc. IFS provide a good breeding ground for the vector.

Future Suggestions

There is a need for a systematic and genetic initiative on farming systems. An organization such as ICAR should create Agroclimatic Zone wise Systems Research and Training Institutes (AZSRTI). The plan of these Institutes should be to

·  undertake delimitation of farming systems prevalent in the country and validate NARP zones,

·  initiate studies in collaboration with local institutions to understand different systems, sub-systems and their constraints,

·  refine and develop methodologies for FSR,

·  undertake modelling and system simulations at various levels for assessment, evaluation of prospective technological or other interventions and

·  undertake training in FSR methodologies, systems analysis and its application in agriculture.

 Conclusion

With the above figures and facts, we can conclude that IFS provides an opportunity to integrate livestock components with the crop-based farming system, which solely depends upon farmers` choice, preferences and location. IFS provides enhanced income with balanced nutrition for a farm family and maintains soil health in the long run if components are chosen wisely and specific to the area. Wastes/by-products of different components can be efficiently used as organic residue, which will help in improving the soil physical condition. Thereby productivity over a more extended period with lesser environmental hazards, increased profit margin and reduced farming risk. IFS model comprising crop components, dairy, poultry and fishery is the most suitable and efficient farming system model giving the highest system productivity for irrigated agro-ecosystem of North-eastern plain zone.

In contrast, a suitable IFS model for Indian Central Himalaya region is fishery + poultry + vegetable farming, which has considerable potential to provide food security, nutritional benefits, employment generation, and additional income to resource-poor small farmers. In general, IFS enables the agricultural production system to be sustainable, profitable (3-4 fold) and productive in the long term. About 90-95 per cent of nutritional requirement is self -sustained through resource recycling which curtails the cost of cultivation and increases profit margins and employment. Therefore, to sustain food and nutritional security, the IFS approach is promising and will conserve the resource base by efficiently recycling residues and wastes. Livestock based IFS models developed for different ecological ecosystems and sub-systems can be tuned through farmers` participatory trials with multilevel interventions on the farmers` fields.

 References

 

Edwards, P., Kaewpaitoon. K., McCoy, E. W., & Chantachaeng, C. (1986).  Pilot  small  scale  crop/livestock/fish  integrated  farm, AIT Research Report 184, pp.131 Bangkok, Thailand, p 131

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2018. FAO in India/India at a Glance. Available at: http://www.fao.org/india/fao-in-india/india-at-a-glance/en/ [Accessed 14/09/2021].

 

Further reading

 

Prakash, N., Roy, S. S., Ansari, M. A., & Sharma, S. K. (2015). A comprehensive manual on integrated farming system: An approach towards livelihood security and natural resource conservation. Publication No. RCM (TM), 8, 368.

Sanjeev, K., Singh, S. S., Meena, M. K., & Dey, A. (2012). Resource recycling and their management under integrated farming system for lowlands of Bihar. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 82(6), 504-510.

Sanjeev, K., Shivani, Bhatt, B, P., & Kumar, A. (2018). Enhancement in livelihood of resource poor farmers through integrated farming systems in eastern Region. Multilogic in Science VIII, Special issue (D), 11-114.

 

 

 

Get the pdf version of the article mailed to you. Click the link below

 

 

---

ANIMAL AS A LINKING COMPONENT OF THE INTEGRATED FARMING SYSTEM (IFS) FOR RESILIENT PRODUCTION_compressed.pdf