Food production potential and environmental sustainability of different integrated farming system models in northwest India

Abstract

Accelerated energy use, negative environmental outcomes, and poor economic returns questioned the sustainability of contemporary agricultural production systems globally. The task is much more daunting in the northwestern part of India where the over exploitation of natural resources is a major concern for sustainable agricultural planning. An integrated farming system (IFS) encompasses various enterprises such as crops, dairy, poultry, and fisheries can offer a myriad of benefits in terms of enhanced farm productivity, profitability, and environmental sustainability. Hence, the study hypothesized that the complementary interaction between the different enterprises would improve food production and reduce negative environmental outcomes. Therefore, production potential and environmental sustainability in terms of energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and eco-efficiency of nine IFS models, namely, crop enterprise (M2); crop + dairy (M3); crop + dairy + fishery (M4); crop + dairy + fishery + poultry (M5); crop + dairy + fishery + poultry + duckery (M6); crop + dairy + fishery + poultry + duckery + apiary (M7); crop + dairy + fishery + poultry + duckery + apiary + boundary plantation (M8); crop + dairy + fishery + poultry + duckery + apiary + boundary plantation + biogas unit (M9); crop + dairy + fishery + poultry + duckery + apiary + boundary plantation + biogas unit + vermicompost (M10), were compared with the rice–wheat system (M1; the existing system). All the IFS models were tested between 2018 and 2021. The results revealed that the highest food production (61.5 Mg ha−1) was recorded under M10 followed by M9 (59.9 Mg ha−1). Concerning environmental sustainability, the combination of crop + dairy + fishery + poultry + duckery + apiary + boundary plantation + biogas unit + vermicompost (M10) recorded considerably higher energy output (517.6 × 103 MJ ha−1), net energy gain (488.5 × 103 MJ ha−1), energy ratio (17.8), and energy profitability (16.8 MJ MJ−1) followed by M9. Furthermore, the M10 had the lowest greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity (0.164 kg CO2 eq per kg food production). However, M9 had the highest eco-efficiency index (44.1 INR per kg GHG emission) followed by M10. Hence, an appropriate combination of diversified and complementary enterprises in a form of IFS model is a productive and environmentally robust approach for sustainable food production in the northwestern part of India.

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

“…IFS farm minimizes external input dependency through the principle of nutrient recycling, optimizing resources from livestock viz. organic fertilizer, consequently reducing chemical inputs and overall improving soil health (Babu et al, 2019;Fatima et al, 2023;Hu et al, 2012;Paramesh et al, 2019). However, the degree to which the various processes and nutrient fluxes in the soil are affected is dependent on the type of crops added to the cropping system, nutrient management, and animal components (Paramesh et al, 2021).…”

“…The IFS approach has gained wide adoption and recognition by the farming community as a means of promoting sustainable development for rural households. Integration of natural resources and regulation mechanisms into farming activities aims to minimize the usage of external inputs, secure sustainable production of high-quality food and other products through sustainable ecological practices, and reduce sources of present environmental pollution generated by agriculture (Fatima et al, 2023). Therefore, IFS is considered an eco-friendly, cost-effective, and farmerfriendly approach with a blend of traditional knowledge and modern technologies, with a focus on adoption based on the specific needs of the situation (Kumar et al, 2018).…”

“…Since 1750, the concentration of methane (CH 4 ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) have risen by 150%, 40%, and 20%, respectively (IPCC, 2014) and CH 4 emissions from rice paddies contribute about 6% to the global total CH 4 emissions (IPCC, 2014), highlighting the need for a diversified agriculture system or IFS (Sheng et al, 2018). The issue of climate change due to increased greenhouse gas concentration is a serious global environmental issue, as it threatens global and regional food and nutritional security (Fatima et al, 2023;Yadav et al, 2017). Therefore, the adoption of the IFS approach as a successful strategy for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions has been reported by Oliveira et al (2018) and the reduction or reuse of biowaste is an effective approach to reducing GHG emissions as stated by Frank et al (2018).…”

“…

Food security, nutritional security, sustainability, and profitability for the burgeoning population are the major constraints of the modern agriculture scenario (Sharma et al, 2023), and environmental problems, declining resources, and poor productivity/profitability of the farms have negatively influenced the sustainability of agricultural production systems (Babu et al, 2020;Fatima et al, 2023). With the burgeoning global population, escalating food demands, and industrialization over the last century, the pursuit of high productivity has become

…”

“…The growing apprehensions regarding the negative impacts of intensive and industrialized agriculture have prompted a demand for ecologically driven sustainable practices (McKenzie et al, 2016). Therefore, to comprehensively tackle the challenges and problems emerging in agriculture, there is a need to adopt an eco-friendly holistic approach such as the integrated farming system (IFS) which serves as a multifaceted solution that not only addresses the pressing concerns related to food and nutritional security of the farmers' livelihood but also extends its benefits toward environmental conservation (Fatima et al, 2023;Paramesh et al, 2021). Mahapatra (1994) defined IFS as accessible production factors such as land, labor, capital, and management by farmers or stakeholders that are distributed to the optimum levels of qualities and quantities to the various interlinked components having complex interaction among each other.…”