Livestock Research for Rural Development 18 (7) 2006 Guidelines to authors LRRD News

Citation of this paper

Crop-livestock integrated farming system for the Marginal farmers in rain fed regions of Chhattisgarh in Central India

W Y Ramrao, S P Tiwari and P Singh

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anjora, Durg (Chhattisgarh) 491001-India
drspt_an@yahoo.com


Abstract

Investigations were carried out in Durg district to find out a sustainable mixed farming model which is economically viable integrating the different component like crop, livestock, poultry and duck on 1.5 acre land holding. Different viable modules viz. (T1) arable, (T2) crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow, (T3) crop + 2 bullocks + 1 buffaloes, (T4) crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1buffaloes, (T5) crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1 buffaloes + 10 goats and (T6) crop + 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1 buffaloes + 10 goats + 10 poultry + 10 ducks were developed to find out the best package on the land holding of 1.5 acre suitable for the tribal region.

A model having 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1 buffaloes + 10 goats + 10 poultry + 10 ducks along with crop cultivation was the best with a net income of Rs 33076 per year against arable farming (crop farming) alone (7843 per year) with a cost returns of 1: 2.238 and employment generation of 316 days.

Key words: Arable, cost returns, employment, land holding, mixed farming, module, et income


Introduction

Chhattisgarh is a tribal state of India. It is located between 17046' to 2406' N and 80015' to 84051' E. The state has diversified agroclimatic zones viz. plains, plateau and hills. Types of natural vegetation, crops and resources available with the tribals varied to a great extent. Similarly, size and population of livestock inhabited in the different agroclimatic zones also varied largely.

This study was conducted in the Chhattisgarh Plains having average rainfall of 1024mm. The staple food of tribals are mainly rice (Oryza sativa), rice byproducts, corn (Zea mays) grains, Wheat (Triticum aestivum) sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), kodo millet (Paspalun scrobiculatum) and finger millet (Eleusine coracana) are the main feed ingredient produced during mansoon. Oil cakes (Mustard (Brassica campestris), Sunflower (Helianthus sp.) and pulses (Lakhdi (Lathyrus sp.), Soyabean (Glycine max.) are the feed ingredients mainly included in the ration of livestock. Rice straw, pulse straw and locally available green grasses served as the source of roughage for livestock feeding. Farmers did not supplement vitamins and minerals in the diet of livestock. Animals are small sized and low producer (2 to 3 kg milk), bullocks are used for draft purpose and dung as a source of fuel for cooking their meals and manure to fertilize soil. The average family size is 5. Besides crop farming which is mainly for 4 months in a year, tribals are survived with livestock-poultry-duck-fish or with their subsidiary occupations (basket making, bee keeping etc.). The farming being followed by the tribals is very unscientific and income generated through such farming is hardly sufficient to meet out their livelihood. However, using the existing resources the farming system can be made viable, sustainable and income generating with great opportunities of employment potential. Since this area is dominated by the small holding tribals, different modules have been structured to utilize and recycle the available resources to level out their socio-economic status.

Chhattisgarh state is mainly a mono-cropped state with rice (Oryza Sativa) being the main crop cultivated in 3/5th of total area during Kharif season. More than 80 per cent of the population is dependent upon agriculture for its livelihood. Due to mono-crop cultivation, this portion of the population remained unemployed during eight months of the year. Because of limited irrigation facility, it makes the farmers vulnerable to drought, which threatens the harvest of paddy.

The concept of man - land - livestock ecosystem is gaining momentum to maximize food production and to elevate economic status of the farmers by multifarious farm activities particularly by incorporating livestock enterprises.

For human need, the livestock provides food, fiber, skin, traction, fertilizer and fuel. Livestock also constitutes "living bank" providing flexible financial reserve in times of emergency and serve as "insurance" against crop failure for survival.

Farmers keep cows, buffaloes, sheep and goats including small numbers of poultry in backyard to meet their domestic needs. Therefore, livestock became an integral part of farming system as such. Other agricultural components like horticulture, plantation, vegetables, sericulture, agro-forestry are also prevalent in the homesteads. These units are operated either alone or in combination depending upon the size of the farm holdings and other available resources.

In this system, animals are raised on agricultural waste. The animal power is used for agricultural operation and the dung is used as manure and fuel. It may be possible to reach the some level of yield with proportionately less input in the integrated farming and the yield would be inherently more sustainable because the waste of one enterprise becomes the input of another leaving almost no waste to pollute the environment or to degrade the resource base. To put this concept into practice efficiently, it is necessary to study linkage and complementary of different enterprises will help to develop integrated farming system in which the waste of one enterprise is more efficiently used as input to another within the system.


Materials and methods

The present study was conducted in Chhattisgarh plains of Durg district comprising 12 blocks. Three villages were randomly selected from each block. In this way, 36 villages were randomly selected from each block. Average farm size holding in Durg district is about 1.5 acre. Therefore, the same fragmented area of land (1.5 acre) was chosen for small farmers. A family size of 5 members parallel and identical to that of Durg tribals has been considered in this model. To ascertain the best model suitable to 1.5 acre farm size holding a set of 6 combinations with crop (grains, fodder) livestock (cow, buffalo, bullock, goat poultry and duck) farming's were considered. The crop farming consisted of grains and fodder cultivation in Kharif (June - August) and rabi (September - November) season under rainfed condition.

Study Methodology

Information was collected by personal interview, the details regarding land holdings, size and kind of livestock, family labour size, expenditure for crop farming and livestock enterprise and annual income from agriculture and from livestock was gathered from the randomly selected respondents.

To calculate the net margin, various cost concepts used for the livestock and crop farming were as follows.

- Livestock farming - Paid out expenses like feed cost, hired labour, medicines, computed value of family labour and miscellaneous recurring expenses.

- Crop farming - Paid out expenses like hired human labour, bullock labour, tractor hour, cost of seed, manure, fertilizer and computed value of family labour.

The modularly treatments formed under marginal farmers having 1.5 acre land holding are given in Table 1.

Table 1.  The different treatments

S.No.

Treatment

T1

Crop (1.5 Acre)

T2

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow

T3

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Buffalo

T4

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo

T5

Crop+2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo + 10 Goats

T6

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo + 10 Goats + 10 Poultry + 10 Ducks

The numbers of livestock including poultry and ducks have not been put to different modules as per the existing practices of farmers, rather they were put on the basis, required to make the mixed farming module viable to achieve the maximum returns. Livestock comprised of cows, buffaloes, bullock, pigs and goats besides poultry and ducks. The livestock and poultry birds included in the present study were local and desi type.
 

Results and Discussion

The results of this study have indicated that integration of various enterprises on 1.5 acre size of land holding were viable (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.  Income and expenditure due to Crop Farming (Mean SE)

S.No.

Crop

Area,

Acre

Expenditure,

Rs

Gross Income,

Rs

Net Income

(Rs)

Cost : return ratio

Employment days

1

Rice (Swarna)

(Oryza sativa)

1

609242.75

9965  24.78

3873 51.25

1.63  0.012

800.74

2

Wheat (Sujata)

(Triticum aestivum)

1

430045.11

6863  13.41

2563 46.03

1.59  0.017

410.65

3

Lakhdi

(Lathyrus sp.)

1

217234.97

3528  31.52

1356 44.43

1.62  0.02

300.50

 

Table 3.  Income and expenditure due to Livestock Farming (Mean SE)

S.No

Particulars

Cow

Buffalo

Bullock

Goats

Poultry

Ducks

1

No.of Animal

1

1

1

10

10

10

2

Expenditure, Rs

215310.96

24217.16

21854.91

19538.53

6515.75

9537.86

3

Gross Income, Rs

535410.74

969917.15

37559.16

98914.91

22506.98

30305.27

4

Net Income, Rs

320114.04

727710.59

157010.14

79381.57

15996.83

207710.2

5

Cost return : ratio

2.480.01

4.000.01

1.710.01

4.680.01

3.450.03

3.180.03

6

Employment days

35.20.23

35.20.57

450.55

35.20.55

80.29

80.25


Further, better utilization of land, water, input and output resources have been observed in the mixed farming model with bullocks, cows, buffaloes and goats as compared to arable farming alone (Table 4 and Figure 1).


Table 4.  Income and expenditure of different mixed farming modules for Marginal Holder  (Mean SE)

S.No

Treatment

Expenditure,

Rs

Gross Income,

Rs

Net Income,

Rs

Cost :

return ratio

Employment days

T1

Crop (1.5 Acre)

12396a83.37

20239a63.42

7843a93.29

1.63 a 0.01

165 a1.55

T2

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow

18920b81.74

33104b52.90

14184b93.25

1.75 b0.007

273 b1.15

T3

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Buffalo

19188 c85.27

37449c54.47

18260c92.76

1.95 c0.008

273 b1.02

T4

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo

21341d82.60

42803d51.26

21462d92.04

2.00 d0.007

291 c0.99

T5

Crop+2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo + 10 Goats

23294 e80.56

52695e51.56

29400e89.96

2.26 e0.007

308 d0.98

T6

Crop + 2 Bullocks + 1 Cow + 1 Buffalo + 10 Goats + 10 Poultry + 10 Ducks

24899f79.40

57975f54.69

33076f90.84

2.23 f0.007

316 e0.90

Values with different superscript in the same column differ from each other significantly (P<0.01)



Figure 1.  Income and expenditure in different mixed farming models for marginal small-holder


An attempt was made to prepare a schematic model representing the various combinations of the mixed farming system based on the present study (Figure 2).


Figure 2.   An ideal model of mixed farming for marginal farmer (1.5 acre)


Mixed farming of 2 bullocks + 1 cow + 1 buffaloes + 10 goats + 10 poultry + 10 ducks gave a net return of Rs 33076 compared to Rs 7843 from arable farming.

Singh (1994) reported that 1ha canal irrigated land gave net return ranging from Rs 14000 to Rs 32700 in different years in mixed farming with 3 crossbred cows. Where as, it was observed to be ranging from negative to Rs 19700 in mixed farming with 3 buffaloes. Comparative figures for arable farming were between Rs 3300 and Rs 12400 (Singh 1994).

Madhava Swamy (1985) observed that the net returns were higher by Rs 620, 5198 and 1598 in diversified farms of farming, poultry and sheep rearing, respectively over the crop enterprise farm in Karnool district of Andhra Pradesh. Singh (1994) compared three types of farming system and found that the mixed farming with 3 cross bred cows gave the highest net return of about Rs 21,000 and also generated highest mandays of employment.

Agriculture is still considered the major sector providing employment in India (Singh 1994). However, the small and marginal farmer families and agricultural laborers have to face employment and under employment due to seasonal work in crop production (Swaminathan 1981) and also due to the natural calamities occurring at one or the other seasons of the year. In this study too, the mixed farming system suggested better means for providing regular employment to these sections of rural mass in tribal area. The study revealed that employment potential of mixed farming system was higher than arable farming. In a mixed farming system of 1.5 acre land, the employment generation was 316 mandays with almost uniform distribution throughout the year compared to 165 mandays in arable farming with more labour employment only during July-August period of agriculture operations.

Ramrao et al (2005) developed a mixed farming (crop-livestock) module of 1.5 acre small scale holders with the employment generation of 571 mandays, net income of Rs. 58456 per year against crop farming alone with employment generation of 385 mandays and net returns of Rs. 18300 per year only.

The conservation of ecosystem and recycling of energy and mineral matter in soil-plant-animal/human- atmosphere have been followed by Singh (1994). The recycling of precious organic manurial wastes (energy/mineral matter) might have been responsible for conserving ecosystem and thus increasing the fertility of soil and keeping the environment free from pollution hazards. In view of the pressure of population on land there is no alternative to meet the demand for food and other agricultural raw materials except through increase in agriculture- animal production per unit land per unit time on one hand and concern of humanity regarding pollution and environment on other.

Good amount of feed for animals was also available from the system itself.  The farmyard manure available from the animal was used for manuring of crops and 30-35% savings in fertilizer use could be affected in mixed farming system.
 

Conclusions


References

Madhava Swamy G 1985 Effect of diversified farming on income and employment. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 40(3): 333.

 

Ramrao W Y, Tiwari S P and Singh P 2005 Crop-livestock integrated farming system for augmenting socio-economic status of smallholder tribal of Chhattisgarh in central India. Livestock Research for Rural development. Volume 17, Article# 90 Retrieved May 17, 2006, from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/8/ramr17090.htm

 

Singh K P 1994 Integrated Farming System - Concept and Scope, Symposium of Resource Management and Crop Productivity. February 16-18 at the CCSHAU, Hissar, India. Pp.69-85.

 

Swaminathan M S 1981 Indian agriculture - Challenges for the Eighties, Agriculture Situation of India. 36(6): 349-59.

 


Received 6 May 2006; Accepted 30 May 2006; Published 28 July 2006

Go to top