Biodiversity Based Organic Farming A New Paradigm for Food Security and Food Safety NAVDANYA Dr.Vandana Shiva Dr. Poonam Pandey
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
105
Biodiversity Based Organic Farming
A New Paradigmfor
Food Security and Food Safety
NAVDANYA
Dr. Vandana ShivaDr. Poonam Pandey
106
Biodiversity Based Organic Farming:A New Paradigm for Food Security and Food Safety
First Edition: September 2006
Authors: Vandana Shiva, Poonam Pandey
Published by:
NavdanyaA-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016Tel.: 011-2685 3772, 2653 2460Fax: 2685 6795E-mail: [email protected]
Printed by:Systems VisionA-199, Okhla Ph - I, New Delhi - 110 020
1
PART-1
The Need for aNew ParadigmThe Real Meaning of Sustainability
Sustainability in agriculture has two dimensions:
a. Natural Resource Sustainability
b. Socio-economic Sustainability
Natural Resource Sustainability is based on thestability of the ecology of agriculturalecosystems based on interactions between soil,water and biodiversity. This Sustainabilitymeasures the wealth of’ nature’s economy’ andthe foundation of all other economies. Nature’seconomy includes biodiversity, soil fertility andsoil and water conservation that provides theecological capital for agriculture.
Socio-economic sustainability relates to thesocial ecology of agriculture, including therelationship of society to the environment, therelationship between different social groupsengaged in agricultural production and therelationship between producers and consumers,which is invariably mediated by traders,government agencies and corporations. Socio-economic sustainability measures the health ofpeople’s economy’ or the economy ofsustenance, in which human needs of livelihoodsand nutrition are met. People’s economyincludes the diverse costs and benefits bothmaterial and financial, that farming communitiesderive from agriculture.
There are quite clearly two differentmeanings of sustainability’. The real meaningrefers to nature’s and people’s sustainability. Itin-volves a recovery of the recognition thatnature supports our lives and livelihoods, it is
the primary source of sustenance. Sustaining natureimplies maintaining the integrity of nature’sprocesses, cycles and rythmes.
There is a second kind of ‘sustainability’,which refers to the market. It involvesmaintaining supplies of raw material forindustrial production and long-distance globalconsumption. In this meaning, marketsgrow while the soils and rural communitiesare impoverished. And since industrial rawmaterials and market commodities havesubstitutes, sustainability is translated intosubstitutability of materials, which is furthertranslated into convertibility into profitsand cash.
Why Agriculture has becomeNon-sustainable
Both environmental and social sustainabilityhave been under-mined because ‘nature’seconomy’ and ‘people’s economy’ have beenneglected and hence eroded by the dominantparadigm of economic development whichonly recognises the market economy, onlymeasures growth in the market economy, eventhough this growth is often associated withdestruction and shrinkage of nature’s economyand people’s economy. The ecological base ofagriculture has been destroyed and farmersare faced by large scale displacement anduprooting. The suicides of farmers are asymptom of this crises.
Sustainability in nature involves the regenerationof nature’s processes and a
2
subservience to nature’s laws of return.Sustainability of agricultural communitiesinvolves the regeneration and revitalization ofthe culture and local economy of agriculturalproduction. Sustainability in the market placeinvolves ensuring the supplies of raw material,the flow of commodities, the accumulation ofcapital, and returns on investment. It cannotprovide the sustenance that we are losing byimpairing nature’s capacities to support life.The growth of global markets also hides thedestruction of the local economy of domesticproduction and consumption.
The transition to sustainable agriculture requiresthat the two neglected economies of nature andpeople should be made visible in the assessmentof productivity and cost-benefit analysis inagriculture. Sustainability criteria can beinternalised in agriculture only when nature’seconomy reflects the health of nature’s ecologicalprocesses and people’s economy reflects the realhealth of people’s socio-economic and nutritionalstatus. Fig. 1 illustrates how the growth of themarket economy that takes place at the cost ofnature’s economy and people’s economy andpeople’s economy creates both environmental andsocial non-sustainability.
nature’s economy. On the one hand, this generatesconflicts over natural resources; on the other handit creates an ecologically unstable constellation ofnature, people and capital.
The False Productivity of the DominantParadigm
The dominant productivity calculus neithermeasures the environmental benefits or costs ofdifferent agricultural practices, nor the fulleconomic benefits and costs that are related todifferent agricultural systems. It only measurespartial outputs which have a commercial valuefor dominant interests and financial incomesderived from them. It does not fully reflectadditional financial costs when agriculturalpractices shift from internal input to externalinput agriculture, and from diversity basedsystems to monocultures.
Cropping systems include a symbioticrelationship between soil, water, farm animalsand plants. Ecological agriculture links themtogether in sustainable ways, where each isdependent on the other and the relationshipbetween them in is thus strengthened. GreenRevolution agriculture replaces this integrationat the level of the farm with the integration ofinputs such as seeds and chemicals. Not merelydoes the seed/chemical package break ecologicalfarming interlinkages, it also sets up its owninteractions with soils and water systems.These new interactions are, however, not takeninto account in the assessment of yields.
Modern plant breeding concepts like HYVsreduce farming systems to individual crops andparts of crops (Fig. 2).
1. the real scientific comparisons should bebetween two farming systems FS1 and FS2with the full range of inputs and outputsincluded
2. this would be the comparison if FS2 was notgiven immunity from an ecological evaluation
3. in the green revolution strategy, A falsecomparison is made between PC1 and PC2
4. so while PC2> PC1 generally FS1>FS2
Development and economic growth areperceived exclusively in terms of processes ofcapital accumulation. However, the growth offinancial resources at the level of the marketeconomy often takes place by diverting naturalresources from people’s survival economy, and
The Stable Constellation
of the three Economies
Fig. 1: The Ecological Approach to Conservation
Capital
People
Nature
Capital
People
Nature
Growth of the Market
Economyat the cost of
people’seconomy &
nature’seconomy
The Unstable Constellation
Of the three Economies
Source: V. Shiva, Ecology and t/ie Politics of Survival, SAGEPublications and UNU Press, 1991.
3
Crop components of one system are thenmeasured with crop components of one another.Since the Green Revolution strategy is aimed atincreasing the output of a single component ofafarm, at the cost of decreasing other componentsand increasing external inputs, such a partialcomparison is, by definition, biased to make thenew varieties ‘high yielding’ even when, at thesystems level, they may not be.
Traditional farming systems are based on mixedand rotational cropping systems, of cereals, pulses,oilseeds with diverse varieties of each crop, whilethe Green Revolution package is based on geneticallyuniform monocultures. No realistic assessments areever made of the yield of the diverse crop outputs inthe mixed and rotational systems. Usually the yieldof a single crop like wheat or maize is singled outand compared to yields of new varieties.
Even if the yields of all the crops were included,it is difficult to convert a measure of pulse into anequivalent measure of wheat, for example, becausein the diet and in the ecosystem, they havedistinctive functions. The protein value of pulsesand the calorie value of cereals are both essentialfor a balanced diet, but in different ways and onecannot replace the other as illustrated in Table 1.
Similarly, the nitrogen fixing capacity of pulsesis an invisible ecological contribution to the yieldof associated cereals.
The complex and diverse cropping systemswhich are based on indigenous varieties aretherefore not easy to compare to the simplifiedmonocultures of HYV seeds. Such a comparisonhas to involve entire systems and cannot bereduced to a comparison of a fragment of thefarm system. In traditional farming systems,production has also involved maintaining theconditions of productivity.
The measurement of yields and productivityin the Green Revolution paradigm is divorcedfrom seeing how the processes of increasingoutput affect the processes that sustain thecondition for / agricultural production. Whilethese reductionist categories of yield andproductivity allow a higher measurement ofyields, they exclude the measurement of theecological destruction that affects future yields.They also exclude the perception of how the twosystems differ dramatically in terms of inputs (Fig.3).
Fig. 3: Internal Input Farming
Source: V.Shiva, Violence of the Green Revolution, Third World Network,Malaysia & ZED Book, London, 1991
The indigenous cropping systems are basedonly on internal organic inputs. Seeds come fromthe farm, soil fertility comes from the farm andpest control is built into the crop mixtures. Inthe Green Revolution package, yields andintimately tied to purchased inputs of seeds,chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and petroleumand to intensive and accurate irrigation. Highyields are not intrinsic to the seeds, but are a
FS1
Reduced to Reduced to
Mixed Farming System
Diverse crops of cereals,pulses millets oil sheeds
Cereal Crops of Wheator Rice
Green RevolutionMonoculture
Part of crop PC1
(Grain)Part of crop PC
2
(Grain)
FS2
Fig. 2: How the Green Revolutionmakes unfair comparisions
Source: V. Shiva, Violence of the Green Revolution, ThirdWorld Network Zed Books London.
4
function of the availability of required inputs,which in turn have ecologically destructiveimpacts (Fig. 4).
Towards a Biodiversity BasedProductivity Framework
According to the dominant paradigm ofproduction, diversity goes against productivity,which creates an imperative for uniformity andmonocultures. This has generated theparadoxical situation in which modern plantimprovement has been based on the destructionof the biodiversity which it uses as rawmaterial. The irony of plant and animalbreeding is that it destroys the very buildingblocks on which the technology depends.Forestry development schemes introducemonocultures of industrial species such aseucalyptus, and push into extinction the diversityof local species which fulfils local needs.Agricultural modernisation schemes introduce newand uniform crops into farmers’ fields and destroythe diversity of local varieties.
Modernisation of animal husbandry destroysdiverse breeds and introduces factory farming.
This strategy of basing productivity increaseon the destruction of diversity is dangerousand unnecessary. Monocultures are ecologicallyand socially non-sustainable because theydestroy both nature’s economy and people’seconomy.
In agriculture and forestry, in fisheries andanimal husbandry, production is beingincessantly pushed in the direction of diversitydestruction. Production based on uniformitythus becomes the primary threat to biodiversityconservation and to sustainability, both in itsnatural resource and its socio-economicdimensions.
Not till diversity is made the logic ofproduction can diversity be conserved. Ifproduction continues to be based on thelogic of uniformity and homogenisation,uniformity will continue to displace diversity.‘Improvement’ from the corporate viewpoint,or from the view-point of western agriculturalor forestry research, is often a loss for theThird World, especially for the poor in theThird World. There is therefore no inevitabilitythat production should act against diversity.Uniformity as a pattern of production becomes
Fig. 4: External Input Farming System
5
inevitable only in a context of control andprofitability.
Plant improvement in agriculture has beenbased on the ‘en-hancement’ of the yield ofdesired product at the expense of unwantedplant parts. The ‘desired’ product is howevernot the same for agribusiness and Third Worldpeasants. Which parts of a farming sys-tem willbe treated as ‘unwanted’ depends on whatclass and what gender one belongs to. What isunwanted for agribusiness may be wanted bythe poor, and by squeezing out those aspectsof biodiversity, agriculture ‘development’fosters poverty and ecological decline.
Overall productivity and sustainability ismuch higher in mixed systems of farming andforestry which produce diverse outputs.
Productivity of monocultures is low in the contextof diverse outputs and needs. It is high only in therestricted context of output of ‘part of a part’ of theforest and farm biomass. E.g. ‘High yield’ plantations
pick one tree species among thousands, for yields ofone part of the tree (e.g. pulpwood).
‘High yield’ green revolution croppingpatterns pick one crop among hundreds e.g.wheat for yields of one part of the wheat pknt(only grain).
These high partical yields do not translate intohigh total (including diverse) yields. Productivityis therefore different depending on whether it ismeasured in a framework of diversity oruniformity.
An article in Scientific American has developedthis approach further and has shown how theeconomic calculations of agricultural productivityof the dominant paradigm distort the realmeasure of productivity by leaving out thebenefits of internal inputs derived from biodiversityas well as the additional financial and ecologicalcosts generated by purchase of external inputs tosubstitute for internal inputs in monoculturesystems.
Fig. 5: ‘Productivity’: Monocultures vs Diverse Systems
Mixed ForestMixed Farm
Monoculture Forest Monoculture Farm
6
HO
USE
HO
LD E
CO
NO
MIC
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
OUTPUT = 100
FODDER FOR LIVESTOCK
SEED GRAIN
FOOD
FUEL
RAW MATERIALS FORCOMMODITY PRODUCTION
INPUT = 5(EXCLUDING LABOR)
SEED FROM FARM
CAPITAL GOODS(SIMPLE EQUIPMENT)
MANURE FROM FARM
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS(BEAN FIBER, NIGH SOIL
FAMILY LABORRICE
OTHER CROPS
HANDICRAFTS, ETC.
SILKWORM SEASONS
SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER
WEAVING
HARVESTIRRIGATION
TRANSPLANTING
Source : Fransisca Bray
Economic calculations of agriculturalproductivity usually take into account only theyield of a particular crop per unit of land andoverlook other uses to which the land may be put.The drawings show the result of such a calculationcomparing a polyculture (growing several differentcrops on a hectare of land) with a monoculture inwhich only rice - a dwarf, high-yielding varietycommon in Green Revolution agriculture — isgrown.
In the polyculture (Fig. 6) one hectare of landis used for several crops in a year, producing asthe main crop 1.1 tons of a cereal grain (rice) and1.6 tons of straw used for fodder and fuel, butalso producing as secondary crops quantities ofoil, beans and fiber. The monoculture (Fig. 7)produces 4 tons of rice and 2 tons of straw.Because the typical calculation of productivityapplies only to yields of a single crop, thecomparison puts the polyculture in a unfavourablelight —1.1 tons of grain per hectare as against4 tons for the monoculture crop. The other yields ofthe polyculture arc ignored.
When the external costs of additionalinputs are taken into account,/agricultural‘improvement’ is often a regression, not an
improvement, either in terms of productivity orincome. The Karnataka farmers’ experience withmultinational hybrid seeds of sorghum andsunflower in 1993 show the higher costs ofproduction and hence the lowering of farmers’incomes as compared to the cultivation of nativevarieties (Table I & II).
Other expenses incurred by the farmerinclude bank interest, commission to the agentof Agri-cultural Produce Marketing Centre atthe rate of 4% of the sale amount. The farmerthus recovers even less than 50% of hisexpenses.
The state of the farmer who opted to growsunflower foundation seeds is worse. As extremecare has to be taken, and the process of transferringthe pollen from the anthers to the stigma of thefemale flower has to be done manually, labourcosts increase, and the farmer’s expenses mountto Rs. 8000/acre. If the seeds are passed, the pricehe gets for it is Rs.2000 qtl., and with a 4 qtl.yield, the farmer can just about break even. If theseeds fail, he gets a maximum of Rs. 800/qtl. Ifthe output is low, his loss is overwhelming. Theseresing costs of production are at the root offarmers suicides.
Inputs and outputs are compared fora traditional rice-based polyculturein 16th century Southeastern Chinaand a modern Green Revolution ricemonoculture in Japan.
Figure 6:
7
HO
USE
HO
LD E
CO
NO
MIC
AC
TIV
ITIE
S
SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER
INPUT = 300(EXCLUDING LABOR)
PURCHASED HYBRID SEEDS
IRRIGATION FEES
CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS
HERBICIDES
FOSSIL FUELS
FAMILY LABOR
OUTPUT = 100
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT(FARM MACHINERY)
FOOD GRAIN
TRANSPLANTING
HARVEST
OFF-FARMWAGE WORK
RICE
Green RevolutionHigh-tech RiceMonoculture(Contemporary Japan)
Source:
Francesca Bray,
Agriculture for
Developing
Nations,
Scientific
American, July
1994, p. 33-35
The height of the labeled bars reflects the relative
amount of that input or output. The curves at the
bottom left to each diagram indicate how the people
of the farm household apportion their productive
time. In the poly culture economy the women do little
work in the fields but are heavily involved in handicrafts
such as silk production. In the monoculture economy,
women do more of the field work because many of the
men have off-site jobs.
Table I: Jowar/Sorghum
Native Hvbrid
Farm Manure/fertilizer l.Skg/acre @ Rs.5/kg 3kg/acrc @ Rs.30/kg
Labour (own) 50.00 800.00
(if plough bullocks are hired) 15 days after sowing NA 100.00
Labour (weeding) NA 30.00
Application of BHC NA 100.00
Irrigation Rainfed 100.00
Weeding (twice) NA 300.00
Endosulfan (5 times) including labour NA 500.00
Urea (2 bags) NA 300.00
Potash NA 150.00
Labour NA 100.00
Harvesting and threshing 100.00 600.00
Total expenses/acre 300.00 3230.00
Yield 2 Qtls 12 Qtls
Rate at which sold Rs. 400/Qtl Rs. 300/Qtl
Total income 3200.00 3600.00
Profits 2900.00 370.00
Figure 7:
8
Yield is not output: The myth of more food:
The most common argument for chemicals in foodand genetic engineering is that chemicals andgenetic engineering are only way to feed people.However, an analysis of the trends and impacts ofthe green revolution and genetic engineering makeit evident that chemicals and genetic engineeringin agriculture are a guarantee for creating scarcityand hence increasing food insecurity because it isevolving in the monoculture paradigm whichfocusses on single functions of single species, andfails to take the yields of diverse species anddiverse functions of species into account. In factthe genetic engineering can only displace anddestroy the diverse foods that account for foodsecurity in diverse food cultures.
The argument of increased food availabilitythrough industrial breeding including geneticengineering is illusionary on four counts.
1. Industrial breeding both in geneticengineering and the green revolutionfocusses on partial aspects of single cropsrather than total system yields of multiplecrops and integrated systems.
2. Industrial breeding focuses on yields of one ortwo globally commodities, not on the diverse
crops that people eat. Industrial breedingfocuses on quantity per acre rather thannutrition per acre. In fact nutrition peracre has come down as a result of industrialagriculture.
3. Industrial breeding including geneticengineering uses natural resourcesintensively and wastefully. If productivity isdefined on the basis of resource use,industrial agriculture has very lowproductivity and it undermines foodsecurity by using up resources that couldif not wasted in a non-sustainable system ofproduction have been directly used to producemore food.
4. Ecological alternatives can increase foodsupply through biodiversity intensificationinstead of chemical intensification andgenetic engineering.
2.1 The myth of ‘high yielding varieties
The central myth that has led to the displacementof diverse farmers’ varieties by supposedhigh yielding varieties (HYVs) is that the formerare low yielding and the latter are high yieldingand have higher productivity.
Table II: Sunflower
Cost of external inputs per acre Qty Amount in Rs.
Item
Fertiliser 4 bags 1500.00
Pesticide 200.00
Seed rate/acre 3kg 420.00
Transport 50.00
Irrigation 8.00
Labour – weeding and sowing 20 men 300.00
Tractor/ploughing 200.00
Labour – threshing 6 men 120.00
Labour – harvesting 10 men 200.00
Total 3070.00
Expected output of seed 8 Qtls/acrc
Actual output of seed 2 Qtls/acrc
Market price of sccd/Qtl 650-700
9
1. HYVs are not intrinsically high yielding. Theymerely respond well to chemicals and aremore appropriately called High RespondVarieties (HRVs)5
2. HRVs demonstrate a high partial yield becausesuch varieties have been bred only to yieldenhanced grain production with high chemicalinputs. This increase in production of grain forthe market is achieved by reducing the biomassfor internal use on the farm, both for fodder aswell as for fertiliser.
3. HRVs exhibit low total system productivity.In countries like India, the quantity of strawobtainable is important as fodder for livestockbut HRVs fail to produce enough straw thatis adequate in quality or quantity. Theincrease in marketable output of grain hasbeen achieved at the cost of decrease ofbiomass for animals and soils and thedecrease of ecosystem productivity due toover use of resources.
4. Indigenous varieties often outperform HRVsin total system yield in the realistic conditionsof the fields of small farmers. When thetotal biomass is taken into account,traditional farming systems based onindigenous varieties are not found to below yielding at all. In fact many nativevarieties have higher yields both in termsof grain output as well as in terms of totalbiomass output (grain+straw) than thesupposed HYVs that have been introducedin their place.
2.2 Diversity produces more6
Diversity has been destroyed in agriculture on theassumption that it is associated with lowproductivity. This is however, a false assumptionboth at the level of individual crops as well as atthe level of farming systems. Diverse nativevarieties are often as high yielding or more highyielding than industrially bred varieties. Inaddition, diversity in farming system has higheroutput at the total systems level than one-dimensional monocultures.
Comparative yields of native and GreenRevolution varieties in farmers fields have beenassessed by Navdanya, a National Seed &Biodiversity Conservation Programme and organicagriculture movement. Green Revolution varietiesare not higher yielding under the conditions of lowcapital availability and fragile ecosystems. Farmersvarieties are not intrinsically low yielding andGreen Revolution varieties or industrial varietiesare not intrinsically high yielding. Please seeTable-3.7
As Yegna Narayan Aiyer reports,“The possibility of obtaining phenomenal and
almost unbelievably high yields of paddy inIndia has been established as the result of thecrop competitions organized by the CentralGovernment and conducted in all states. Thuseven the lowest yield in these competitions hasbeen about 5300 Ibs/acre, 6200 Ibs/ acre in WestBengal, 6100, 7950, and 8258 Ibs/acre inThirunelveli, 6368 and 7666kg/ha in SouthArcot, 11,000 Ibs/acre in Coorg and 12,000 Ibs/acre in Salem”
The measurement of yield and productivity inthe Green Revolution as well as in the geneticengineering paradigm is divorced from seeinghow the processes of increasing single species,single function, output affect the processes thatsustain the condition for agricultural production,both by reducing species and functionaldiversity of farming systems as well as byreplacing internal inputs provided bybiodiversity with hazardous agrichemicals.While these reductionist categories of yield andproductivity allow a higher measurement ofharvestable yields of single commodities, theyexclude the measurement of the ecologicaldestruction that affects future yields and thedestruction of diverse outputs from biodiversityrich systems.
Productivity in traditional farming practiceshas always been high if it is remembered thatvery little external inputs are required. While theGreen Revolution has been projected as havingincreased productivity in the absolute sense, whenresource utilisation is taken into account, it has
10
been found to be counter productive and resourceinefficient.
Perhaps one of the most fallacious mythspropagated by Green Revolution protagonists isthe assertion that HYVs have reduced the acreage,therefore preserving millions of hectares ofbiodiversity. India’s experience tells us that insteadof more land being released for conservation, bydestroying diversity and multiple uses of land, theindustrial breeding system actually increasespressure on the land since each acre of amonoculture provides a single output and thedisplaced outputs have to be grown on additionalacres or ‘shadow’ acres.9
If we focus on land use in the Green Revolutionthe industrial breeding strategies increase grainproduction by 20% under good conditions andlead to a decline of 100% of straw. If traditionalvarieties produce 1000kg/acre grain and 1000kg/acre fodder, then industrial varieties produce1200kg/acre of grain and 0 kg. fodder. Thusanother acre has to be used for fodder production.The two acre could, without chemical inputs and
the new seeds have produced 2000kg grain+2000kgon 2 acres whereas the industrial strategy onlyprovides 1200kg grain and 1000kg of fodder on the2 acres, leading to a decline of 800kg grain and1000kg fodder.
Further, the same reductionist logic ofindustrial breeding also increases the resourceuse by cattle. Industrial livestock farmingconsumes three times more biomass thanecological livestock maintenance. Thus industriallivestock breeding would in fact require 3 timesmore acres of land for feed. In fact Europe usesseven times the area of Europe in the Third Worldcountries for cattle feed production. For fodderalone (including that used to produce foodproducts for export) the Netherlands appropriates100,000 to 140,000 square kilometres of arableland, much from the Third World. This is five toseven times the area of agricultural land in theentire country.10
The combination of industrial plant breedingand industrial animal breeding, therefore increasesthe pressure on land use by a factor of 400% while
Table III: Comparison of Yield in Green Revolution Paddy varietiesand indigenous varieties in Garhwal Himalaya (Q/ha)
Rice Yield 1992 Yield 1993
variety Grains Straw Total Grain Straw Total
Indigenous varieties
Thapachini 66 94 160 66 92 158
Hansraj 50 80 130 48 75 123
Rikhva 56 64 12 50 66 116
Jhumkia 72 104 176 66 90 156
Rekhalya 48 80 128 58 90 168
Ghiyasu 48 80 128 58 90 168
Basmati 50 80 130 42 75 117
Ramjawan 52 64 116 40 50 90
Green revolution varieties
Kasturi 40 56 96 40 54 94
Pant 6 52 40 92 50 40 90
Saket4 48 36 84 68 64 132
Saket 4 - - 48 36 84 -
Dwarf (unknown) 33 36 68 48 40 88
11
separately increasing output of grain and milk byonly a factor of 20%.11
The extra resources used by industrial systems- either by the green revolution or the newbiotechnologies could have gone to feed people.Resources wasted amount to the creation ofhunger. By being resource wasteful throughone dimensional monocultures maintainedthrough intensive external inputs, the newbiotechnologies create food insecurity andstarvation.
A study cited earlier comparing traditionalpolycultures with industrial monoculturesshows that a polyculture system can produce 100units of food from 5 units of inputs whereas anindustrial system requires 300 units of input toproduce the same 100 units. The 295 units ofwasted inputs could have provided 5900 units ofadditional food. Thus the industrial system leadsto a decline of 5900 units of food. This is a recipefor starving people, not for feeding them.12 Pleasesee Figures 6 and 7.
Figure 8:
Yield in relation to labour input based on comparison of 22 rice-growing systems
Labour input (days/ha/year of cropping)
FOO
D Y
IELD
(kg
ric
e eq
uiv
alen
t/h
a/ye
ar o
f cr
op
pin
g)
2 4 10 20 40 100 200 400 1000 2000
Pre industiral Semi industiral Full industiral
12000
10000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1500
1000
INDUSTRIALIZATION
GREENREVOLUTION
INVOLUTION
A usual argument used in promoting geneticengineering in agriculture is that only industrialagriculture and industrial breeding can keep upwith increased food productivity for feeding agrowing population. However, increased mouthsto feed implies more efficient resource use so thatthe same resources can feed more people.A sixtyfold decrease of food producing capacity is not anefficient strategy for using limited land, water andbiodiversity to feed the world.
Further, since food security is based on foodentitlements, and entitlements in peasant societiesare based of livelihoods and work, increase in foodavailability should not be based on destruction oflivelihoods.
Comparative studies of 22 rice-growingsystems have shown that indigenous systemsare more efficient in terms of yields, and interms of labour use and energy use.13 Pleasesee Figure 8 and Table 4. Both from the pointof view of food productivity and foodentitlements, industrial agriculture is deficient
Source : Bayliss-Smith, 1980
12
as compared to diversity based internal inputsystems in meeting the food needs of a growingpopulation.
Industrial breeding and agriculturalbiotechnology is also responsible for reducing
nutritional value of our food. Industrial agricultureis destroying our biodiversity. Industrial agricultureis responsible for the displacement of diverse highnutritional value crops with HRV of lowernutritional value crops. The reduced calorie intake
Table IV: Pre-industrial, semi-industrial and full-industrial systems ofrice cultivation: Inputs and outputs per hectare-year
Location Fossil fuel Labour per Labour as Total input Total outputinputs (days) crop inpur % total (GJ) (GJ)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Pre-industrial
a) Dayak, Sarawak (1951) 2% 208 44% 0.30 2.4
b) Dayak, Sarawak (1951) 2% 271 51% 0.63 5.7
c) Kilombero, Tansania (1967) 2% 170 39% 0.42 3.8
d) Kilombero, Tansania (1967) 3% 144 35% 1.44 9.9
e) Iban, Sarawak (1951) 3% 148 36% 0.27 3.1
f) Lust’un Yunnan (1938) 3% 882 70% 8.04 166.9
g) Yits’un Yunnan (1938) 2% 1293 78% 10.66 163.3
h) Yuts’un Yunnan (1938) 4% 426 53% 5.12 149.3
Semi-industrial
i) Mandya, Karnataka (1955) 23% 309 46% 3.33 23.8
j) Mandya, Karnatak (1975) 74% 317 16% 16.73 80.0
k) Philippines (1972) 86% 102 5.3% 12.37 39.9
l) Philippnes (1972) 89% 102 4.1% 16.01 51.6
m) Japan (1963) 90% 216 5.2% 30.04 73.7
n) Hongkong (1971) 83% 566 12% 31.27 64.8
o) Philippines (1965) 98% 72 13% 3.61 25.0
p) Philippines (1979) 33% 92 16% 5.48 52.9
q) Philippines (1979) 80% 84 11% 6.90 52.9
Full-industrial
r) Surinam (1972) 95% 12.6 0.2% 45.9 83.7
s) USA (1974) 95% 3.8 0.02% 70.2 88.2
t) Sacramento Calif (1977) 9% 3.0 0.04% 45.9 80.5
u) Grand prairie Ark. (1977) 95% 3.7 0.04% 52.5 58.6
v) Southwest Louisiana (1977) 95% 3.1 0.04% 48.0 50.8
w) Mississippi (Delta 1977) 95% 3.9 0.05% 53.8 55.4
x) Texas Gulf Coast (1977) 95% 3.1 0.04% 55.1 74.7
13
in our food is contributing to global food insecurityand the starvation of two-thirds of the world’spopulation.
Table 5 demonstrates the nutritional content ofvarious crop - wheat and rice contain the leastnutritional value but make up most of the world’sagriculture displacing the more nutritionallyvaluable crops.14
If measured by nutrition per acre, the GreenRevolution didn’t increase nutrition availabilityespecially for the marginal and poorest populations.
How does the decline in output get translatedinto an increase?
There are a number of strategies which allowthis inversion to take place and an illusion ofgrowth to be created. Firstly, a monocultureparadigm looks only at one element of a systemand treats an increase in the part as an increasein the whole system. Thus, by focusing only onyield increases of grain of individual cereals likerice or wheat, the reduction in straw availabilityfor fodder and nutrition from legumes and oilseeds and greens is externalized and notaccounted for. I have called this the “monocultureof the mind”.15
A second strategy is to exclude thehigher inputs from the resource equationand only focus on the single commodityoutput. Thus the resource waste is nottaken into account and low resource useproductivity is converted into high commodityproductivity.
To assess the real productivity of afarming system from the perspective of the farmerand the perspective of the soil weneed to measure the Biodiversity BasedProductivity16 not just the price or yield of singlecommodity or single output. We also need tocalculate
a) the value of diverse outputs from diversespecies and their diverse functions
b) the value of internal inputs provided bydiverse farm outputs (eg. straw for organicmanure)
c) the costs of purchased inputs such as fertilizers,pesticides, herbicides
d) the ecological costs of external chemical inputs.
In a polyculture diversity based internal inputfarming system the returns the farmers get are:
∑ Oi + Ij where Oi are the diverse outputs of thefarming system and Ij are the internalinputs provided by on farm biodiversity
In an industrial monoculture, the returns to thefarmer are
O1 — å Oi - 1 - å Ej - ò Ix ( Ej )
where O1 is the single commodity output.
Oi - 1 are the outputs lost in the shift fromdiversity based systems to monocultures
Ej are the external inputs.
Ix (Ej) are the ecological impacts of external inputs
Table V: Nutrition Content Of Different Food Crops(All values per 100 gm of edible portion)
Protein (gms) Minerals (100 gms) Calcium (mg) Iron (100 gms)
Bajra 11.6 2.3 42 5.0
Ragi 7.3 2.7 344 6.4
Jowar 10.4 1.6 25 5.8
Bengal Gram 17.1 3.6 2.2 10.2
Green Gram 24 3.5 124 7.3
Rajma 22.9 3.2 260 5.8
Wheat 11.8 0.6 23 2.5
Rice 6.8 0.6 10 3.1
14
The higher productivity of diversity basedsystems indicates that there is an alternativeto genetic engineering and industrial agriculture- an alternative that is more ecological andmore equitable. This alternative is based onbiodiversity intensification in place of chemicalintensification.
Diversity produces more than monocultures.But monocultures are profitable to industry bothfor markets and political control. The shift fromhigh yielding diversity to low yieldingmonocultures is possible because the resourcesdestroyed are taken from the poor, while the highercommodity production brings benefits to thosewith economic power. The polluter does not pay inindustrial agriculture both of the chemical era orthe biotechnological era. Ironically, while the poorgo hungry, it is the hunger of the poor which isused to justify the agricultural strategies whichdeepen their hunger.
2.3 Small farms are more productive
The Biotechnology industry often argues thatonly the industrial farms of the U.S. can feedthe world.
It is falsely assumed that small farms andsmall farmers have low production. This is totallyfalse. FAO’s analysis has shown that small farmscan be thousands of times more productive thanlarge farms.17 Please see Figure 9.
When one recognises that the small farms ofthe Third World produce diverse outputs ofnutritious crops, it becomes clear that industrialbreeding has actually reduced food security bydestroying small farms and small farmers.Protecting small farms is a food securityimperative.
The displacement of small farms has beenjustified on grounds of alleged productivity oflarge farms. In fact, as former Indian PrimeMinister Charan Singh has stated, small farms aremore productive than large ones.
“Agriculture being a life process, in actualpractice, under given conditions, yields per acredecline as the size of farm increases (in otherwords, as the application of human labour and
supervision per acre decreases). The above resultsare well-nigh universal: output per acre ofinvestment is higher on small farms than onlarge farms. Thus, if a crowded, capital scarcecountry like India has a choice between a single100 acre farm and forty 2.5 acre farms, the capitalcost to the national economy will be less if thecountry chooses the small farms.”
However, it is the small farms and small farmerswho are being destroyed by globalization and tradedriven economic reforms. Five million peasant’slivelihoods have disappeared in India since“reforms” were introduced. And in five years,140,000 farmers have committed suicide because ofthe non-sustainability of capital and chemicalintensive farming.
Organic produces more
The University of Essex, in the United Kingdom,recently completed an audit of progress towardsagricultural sustainability in 208 projects in 52developing countries (Pretty et al., 2002). Theseprojects included both integrated and near-organic systems (179 cases), and certified andnon-certified organic systems (29 cases). Theseorganic cases comprised a mix of food, fibreand beverage based systems of agriculture,with 154-742 households farming 106 197hectares (Table 6). The average area perhousehold is small (0.7 ha), as many of theprojects involve small-scale organic vegetableproduction.
This audit indicated that promisingimprovements in food production are occurringthrough one or more of four mechanisms:
• Intensification of a single component of thefarm system – such as home-gardenintensification with vegetables and trees.
• Addition of a new productive element to afarm system – such as fish in paddy rice - thatboosts the farm’s total food production, income,or both but that does not necessarily affectcereal productivity.
• Better use of natural capital to increasetotal farm production, especially water
15
Figure 9Farm Size vs. Gross Output for Selected Countries
(data from FAO Report on the 1980 World Census of Agriculture, Census Bulletins).
16
17
18
19
(by water harvesting and irrigationscheduling) and land (by reclamation ofdegraded land), enabling growth of additionalnew dryland crops, increased supply of waterfor irrigated crops, or both.
• Improvements in per-hectare yields ofstaples through introduction of newregenerative elements into farm systems(for example, integrated pest management)or locally appropriate crop varieties andanimal breeds.
In all cases where reliable data has beenreported, increases in per hectare productivityfor food crops and maintenance of existingyields for fibre have been shown. This iscounter to the popular myth that organicagriculture cannot increase agriculturalproductivity (Borlaug, 1994a, b; Avery, 1995),though what we do not yet know is whether atransition to organic agriculture, delivering greaterbenefits at the scale occurring in these projects,will result in enough food to meet the currentfood needs in developing countries, let alone thefuture needs after continued population growthand adoption of more urban and meat-rich diets.But what we are seeing is highly promising.There is also scope for additional confidence, asevidence indicates that productivity can growover time if natural, social and human assets areaccumulated. These findings are similar to thoseof McNeely and Scherr (2001b) and Parrot andMarsden (2002) whose recent review of eco-agriculture in both developing and industrializedcountries has also indicated that there are novelways both to feed the world and to savebiodiversity.
Chemical farming: The losing economy
Lockeretz et at. (1978) compared the economicperformance of 14 organic crop/ livestock farm inthe Midwest with that of 14 conventional farms.The study farms were paired on the basis ofphysical characteristics and types of farmenterprises. The market value of crops product perunit area was 11 percent less on the organic farms.
But since the cost of production was also less, thenet income per unit area was comparable for bothsystems. Berardi (1979) compared 10 organic and10 conventional farms in New York andPennsylvania for returns from wheat (Triticumaestivum) production only. When cash operatingcosts alone where included, the returns were higheron the organic farms.
A 1984 survey of the members of theRegenerative Agriculture Association offered furtherinformation on the economic performance oforganic methods compared to conventionalmethods. Of 213 respondents, 88 percent saidtheir net income either stayed the same orincreased when they began farming with fewerpurchased inputs, while 12 percent said netincome declined.
A Nebraska study (Helmers et al., 1984)attempted to measure the performance of a fullyorganic system, so the first three years of data,which represented a conversion period fromconventional to organic practices, were excludedfrom the analysis. Animal manure was available,but other aspects of the livestock operation wereexcluded from the economic analysis. Six possiblecropping systems were considered three organicrotations, two conventional rotations, andcontinuous corn (Zea mays). The organic systemshad the lowest costs of production, and allrotational systems performed better thancontinuous corn. The scenario most representativeof an organic farm assumed that straw was soldand that the cost of manure was equal to applicationcosts only. With this scenario, the returns werecomparable to those from the conventionalrotations.
During the conversion period, organicallyproduced crops are vulnerable to weeds andnitrogen deficiencies. However, once organicpractices are established, the crops are oftenless vulnerable to drought and other naturaldisasters than conventionally grown crops.Organically farmed soils absorb more of theavailable rainfall, providing protection fromdrought (Cacek, 1984). Because organic farmersgrow a greater diversity of crops, the entire
20
Table VI: Summary of scale and impacts of certified andnon-certified organic projects and initiative
Country Project Number of Area under Changes infarm households organic productivity
agriculture (ha)
Bolivia Prodinpo integrated 2000 1000 Potato yields fromdevelopment 4 to 10-15 t/haprogramme
Brazil AS-PTA alternative 15000 60000 Bean yields upagriculture 50-100%
Brazil Agroecology in 215 50 Coffee – ndZona da Mata
Cameroon Macefcoop organic 600 300 Coffee – ndcoffee
Chile CET organic 10 5 Vegetables,vegetable gardens 20-30 kg per months
Cuba Organic urban 26000 8000 Total productiongardens up from 4000 to
700000 t.yr
Dominican Plan Sierra soil 2000 1000 Maize – ndRepublic conservation
Egypt SEKEM biodynamic 150 2000 Cotton from 2.25cotton to 3.0 / t ha
Ethiopia FAO Freedom Hunger 23000 2150 Sweet potato yieldsup from 6 to 30 t/ha
Ethiopia Cheha integrated 12500 5000 Cereal yieldsrural development up 60%
Guatemala San Jose Poacil ADECCA 1450 1260 Mixed crops – nd
India SPEECH, Tamil Nadu 500 409 New rice cropin dry season
Kenya Manor House 70000 7000 Maize yield fromAgriculture Centre 2.25 to 9 t/ha; new
vegetable crops
Kenya C-MAD programme 500 409 New rice cropin dry season
Kenya Mumias Education for 2069 217 Beans/groundnutEmpowerment project yields from 300 to
600 kg/ha
Kenya Push-pull pest 300 150 Maize yields upmanagement to 60%
Lesotho Machobane farming 2000 1000 Whole systemsystems productivity improved
Malawi Small-scale aquaculture 200 10 New fish crops
Mexico ISMAM organic coffee 1200 1000 Coffee - nd
21
Country Project Number of Area under Changes infarm households organic productivity
agriculture (ha)
Mexico UCIRI fair trade and 4800 5000 Coffee yields fromorganic coffee 300-600 kg/ ha to
601-1200 kg/ha
Nepal Community welfare 600 250 Maize and riceyields up citrus upfrom 1.2 to 1.6 t/ha
Nepal Jajarkot permaculture 580 350 Maize and riceprogramme yields up (nd), new
vegetable crops
Pakistan Sindh Rural Women’s 5000 2500 Mango yields fromUplift Group 7.5 to 22.5 t/ha; citrus
up from 12 to 30 t/ha
Senegal Rodale Regenerative 2000 2000 Millet/sorghumAgriculture research yields from 0.34Centre to 0.6-1.0 t/ha
Senegal ENDA organic cotton 523 233 Cotton yields – nochange at 300 kg/ha
Tanzania GTZ organic cotton 134 778 Cotton yieldst – nochange at300 kg/ha
Zimbabwe Chivi Food Security 500 600 Sorghum/milletProject yields doubled;
new vegetable crops
Zimbabwe Silveira House 1211 735 New vegetable crops
Zimbabwe Zambezi Valley 400 2000 Cotton - ndorganic cotton
Total 154742 106197
(nd = no confirmed data on yields)
production on a farm is not vulnerable to thesame pests or seasonal weather events. If there isa total crop failure, organic farmers suffer fewereconomic losses because they have invested lessin purchased inputs
The diversity of crops on organic farmscan have other economic benefits. Diversityprovides some protection from adverse pricechanges in a single commodity. Diversifiedfarming also provides a better seasonaldistribution of inputs.
Organic farmers need to borrow less moneythan conventional farmers for two reasons. First,organic farmers buy less input such as fertilizerand pesticides. Second, costs and income are
more evenly distributed throughout the year ondiversified organic farms.
The epidemic of farmer’s suicides in India isconcentrated in regions where chemicalintensification has increased costs of productionand cash crop monocultures are facing a decline inprices and incomes due to globalization. This isleading to debt and suicides High costs ofproduction are the most significant reason forrural indebt ness.Chemicals = debt = suicidesWhile farmer’s incomes are falling, the price offood is increasing, as seen in the case of wheat. On21st August 2006, there were two news items – oneon decline in farm incomes for wheat and rice
22
producing farmers (Pioneer) and one on howwheat prices are soaring (TOI). There was also amajor news item on how our food is totallycontaminated with pesticides.
Biodiverse organic farming addresses all theseproblems of:
1. falling incomes for farmers
2. rising costs or consumers
3. increasing pollution of our food.
Biodiverse organic farming;
1. leads to increase in farm productivity andfarm incomes
2. Fair trade and just trade lowers costs toconsumers.
3. Pesticide and chemical free production andprocessing brings safe and healthy food toconsumers.
Given the rapid changes in agriculture takingplace because of liberalization, there is anurgent need to monitor the ecological costsof globalization of agriculture using abiodiversity based productivity framework toreflect the health of nature’s economy andpeople’s economy. We have developed such aframework over the past two decades. Theframework
a) provides documentation of the biodiversitystatus of a farm including crop, tree andanimal biodiversity
Table VII: Inputs of technologies used in traditional and“modern” conventional farming systems
Traditional agriculture Modern agriculture
Land Small (< 1-5 ha) Large (10-100 ha or more)
Tools Simple Complex; tractors and imple meets,threshers, combine harvesters, etc
Crops Many species (5-80), land races, no genetic Few species (1-3), improved narrowimprovement, wide genetic base genetic base
Animals Several species (2-5) Usually 1 or 2 species
Labour Manual, human energy, or animal power Mechanical, petroleum fuels, electrical energy
Soil fertility Fallows, ash, organic manures Inorganic fertilizers, sometimes manures,maintenance soil amendments, eg. Lime and gypsum
Weed control Manual, cultural Mechanical, chemicals (herbicides andpetroleum-based products)
Pest and disease Physical/cultural Mainly mechanical, chemicals, insecticides,management fungicides, bactericides, nematocides,
rodenticides
Crop management Manual Growth regulators for defoliation, controlof flowering, fruit drop, etc.
Harvesting Manual or with simple tools Mechanical, tractors plus implements:pickers, balers, threshers, combine harvesters
Post-harvest Simple sun-drying and over fires Mechanical forced-air artificial drying usinghandling and petroleum fuels, sometimes refrigerationdrying
23
Table VIII: Farmer’s Debt by Purpose of Loan, All-India
Item Percent
Capital expenditure for farm business 30.6
Current expenditure for farm business 27.8
Expenditure for non- farm business 8.8
Marriages and ceremonies 11.1
Education 0.8
Others 21
(NSSO, 59th Round)
b) indicates the contribution of biodiversity toprovisioning of internal inputs and to thebuilding and maintenance of nature’s economythrough the conservation of soil, water andbiodiversity
c) Indicates the contribution of biodiversityto the self provisioning of food needs byagricultural families and communities and to
the building and maintenance pf people’seconomy.
d) Reflects the market economy of the farm interms of incomes from sale of agriculturalproduce, and of additional costs for thepurchase of external inputs and fooditems, when benefits from biodiversity areforegone.
24
Case studies from different Agro-ecologicalzones of India
Studies carried out in diverse ecosystems ofIndia show that by conserving biodiversity andadopting organic farming, small farmers canincrease their production and incomes. Foodsovereignty, food security and food safetyrequires an urgent change in policy fromchemical intensification which is leading todebt and suicides to biodiversity intensificationwhich is creating a living economy of food.
1. Background
Before the advent of agriculture, man used tomeet his nutritional requirements and otherwelfare needs by hunting and gathering. Someten thousands years ago humans initiated cropdomestication to earn sustained and securesupply of food for ever increasing populationand also to minimize associated risks andhazards of the earlier life style. Over a periodof time a huge number of agricultural systemsevolved by different societies and a staggeringvariety of crops were domesticated, developedand produced across the globe. Agriculturewhich is a purposeful selection anddomestication of valuable varieties of plantsand animal species has increasingly met theneeds of humans. Agriculture is most commonlydefined as the science and practice of producingcrops and livestock from the natural resourcesof the earth. The primary aim of agriculture isto cause the land to produce more abundantly
and at the same time to protect it fromdeterioration and misuse.
Amongst the early people groups of peopleundertook deliberate cultivation of wild plantsand domestication of wild animals, agriculturecame into being. Cultivation of crops notablygrains, such as wheat, rice, corn, rye, barleyand millet encouraged settlement of stablefarm communities, some of which grew to becity-states in various parts of the world. Withthe passage of time and the increase inpopulation, better communications and thecommercial revolution tended to turn agricultureaway from subsistence farming towards thegrowing of crops for sale outside the community.Therefore during the 20th century expansionand intensification of agriculture took placethroughout the world at an unprecedentedscale. This period was also the time whenscientists developed many hybrid and highyielding varieties of crop plants and livestocktogether with the modern fossil fuel basedinputs. Modern agriculture therefore is a highlyenergy subsidized system of food productionand may not be necessarily sustained for alonger period time.
The modern agriculture commonly knownas green revolution was perceived to be thesaviour of humanity from hunger andmalnourishment and was considered as themedium that ushered food deficits areas intofood surplus areas. However, the reality is thatthe rise in productivity was incurred by levyinghuge environmental cost that had adverse
PART-2
Biodiversity basedorganic farming
25
effect on both the natural and domesticatedplant and animal biodiversity over a longperiod of time. Salinalisation, soil fertility loss,water-logging, increased use of harmfulchemicals in the form of pesticides andinsecticides, destruction of forest etc. are theassociated environmental costs that will takeyears to normalize due to the pursuit of somefor short term gains and gradually the biodiversefarms were converted into chemically managedmonocultures.
The chemically managed monoculturespropagated by green revolution are seen todisturb the composition and spatial structurethat significantly reduce the habitat value of afarm. It has been recorded that some of theselosses impair the performance of agricultureitself, by affecting above and below groundbiological systems that play a critical role inpollination, control of agricultural inputs andbreakdown of agricultural residues and wastes,recycling nutrients critical to plant growth(Swift and Anderson, 1999).
The need of the hour is to adopt agriculturesystems that are sustainable right from the
household to community level. Earlier too AldoLeopold, a leading ecologist had given emphasison sustainability and conceptualized ‘a thing isright when it tends to preserve the integrity,stability and beauty of the biotic communityand is wrong to when it tends to be otherwise”.To say agriculture is sustainable would meanthat the management of crops be vested withthe farmers whose wisdom and authority tomanage in the best interest of the household isrespected. Species diversity is the essence forachieving resilience, self regulation therebyresulting in stable agro eco systems. Anecologically sound agriculture must be resourceefficient in order to conserve precious resources,avoid systems toxicity by reducingdependability of external inputs.
Of late, there has been a realisation andacceptance of the fact that sustainability couldbe ensured by judicious use of farm lands. Forthis evidently, appropriate measures need to beurgently introduced in the region if thesustainability of the traditional agriculturesystem is to be achieved. The effective strategyto this end could be planning agriculture not
A typical landscape of monocropping in irrigated conditions in Uttaranchal
26
just as the production system but also as anecological system (Ramakrishnan, 1992).Fortunately, the renewed global interest intraditional agriculture system comprising ofmixed cropping practiced by traditionalcommunities indicates to a positive trend in thisdirection. Alongside being a tool to enhanceper unit area production; the traditionalagriculture is also significant for controllingweeds and pest and it is effective for therecycling of the biomass (Altieri, 1995). Infact,mixed cropping along with the strengtheningof agroforestry, effective soil and watermanagement, weed control, optimum use ofunused biomass, rehabilitation of abandonedand degraded land through resourcemanagement based on the indigenousknowledge of people offer considerablepotential for augmenting the agricultureproduction of the region on a sustainable basis.
Swift and Anderson, 1999 have characterized13 production systems based on their biologicaldiversity and spatial diversity wherein, mixedfarming systems (with perennial components)are species diverse and are also relativelystable at the variety level. Polycultures favoura more suitable environment for a broad range
of plant, soil biota, insect, and other animalspecies to flourish that not only increase the perunit utilization of land but also provideecological resilience. It has been reported inAgro-ecosystem, that higher the adoption ofmodern varieties, the lower is the spatialdiversity likely to be than that of a multiplecropping system. It has been observed that thein the current scenario traditional farmingpromotes mixed farming whereas, theconventional farming pushes monocultures.
In the present times as has been mentionedabove, when the scientists policy makersincluding other key organisations areappreciating the value of agro-biodiversity forenhancing yields and other environmentalbenefits, the traditional agro-biodiverse farmingsystem have to be redeveloped based on theexperiences and scientific knowledge. Theguiding principle of agro-biodiversity is to optfor a land use system that is ecologically sound,socially beneficial and economically viable forthe farmer. The concept is holistic and societydriven as opposed to the chemically managedmonocultures driven solely by market forcesand has a bias for uniformity andhomogenization. In the country, were most of
the holdings are marginal andsmall, traditional mixedfarming has remained thechoice of the farmingcommunity.
India has varied agro-climatic zones and each zonehas its traditional agriculturepracticed by the localcommunities. The systems thathave been developed over aperiod of time are the resultof keen observation of thefarmer’s and his selection ofpreferred traits. It has beenexperienced, that with limitedland holding of a farmer,diversity of crops when takeninto consideration, the ‘return’A typical mixed crop cultivated in rainfed condition in Uttaranchal
27
to farmer is higher from the mixed farmingthen from monocultures (Shiva, 1996). Also,with diversity in farms nutrition quotient peracre is many times higher than single cropshave been recorded (Semwal, 1999).
The rich biodiversity in India has being welldocumented and it spans across all agro-ecological zone. This phenomenon is the resultof adoption of mixed farming by the farmer. Inthe central Himalaya, in the rainfed area’s aparticular traditional cropping pattern takesplace called ‘Baranaja’ which means sowing oftwelve seeds (Shiva et.al., 1995). The seeds oftwelve different crops (often more than twelve)are mixed and then randomly sown in the fieldwhich is fertilized by the cowdung and thefarmyard manure. Relationship betweendifferent plants leads to symbiosis whichcontributes to overall increase in productivityof the crops. Similarly in the Western Ghats asmall farm typically has 1.5 acres of paddy, 0.5acres arecanut, and a kitchen garden withvegetables that include brinjal, beans, cucumber,chillies, obhea, and little gourds. Likewise, inthe eastern Himalayas especially in Sikkim, thedominant land use is the Alnus Cardamomagroforestry system. This landuse system hasbeen practiced in the state of Sikkim that isreaping benefits and that has shown to besustainable. In Rajasthan too, in the arid tractof Jodhpur and parts of western Rajasthan it isobserved that neem based agroforestry andkhejri (Prosopis cineraria) wherein crops likebajra, sorghum mung, moth, maize are growntogether and have fulfilled the nutritionalrequirement of the communities. Since thesesystems have been their for ages, they can besafely termed as sustainable systems.
In ascertaining sustainability, a componentthat has always being ignored is the diversecosts and benefits both of the material andfinance that the communities derive fromagriculture. An important aspect is to considerthe ecological recoveries in the process ofagriculture that helps in maintaining theintegrity of nature’s process, cycles and
rhythms. The computation of the farmingsystem vis-à-vis market economy needs to berevisited. To substantiate a higher degree ofproductivity in an organically managedbiodiverse farms one has to assess sustainabilityby looking beyond capital accumulation. Theproductivity calculus should be based onresources other than monetary as parameterslike soil fertility enhancement when legumesare intercropped and different crops utilizedifferent nutrients, lesser dependence onexternal resources, diverse type fodderproduction near homestead and thus helpminimize grazing and lopping pressures onsurrounding natural forests.
It has been observed that monocrops farmswork on the premise of commercial interestswhereas, biodiversity based farming takes intoaccount environmental inputs and workstowards strengthening of inter and intralinkagesof different components of agriculture systemthat includes farming communities and physicalcomponents such as soil, water etc.
To validate this premise and substantiatethat biodiversity based farming is moreproductive both in terms of ecological gainsand economic gain in comparison ofmonocropping, a rapid assessment of smallholding farms was undertaken in four differentlocations viz., Kerala, Sikkim, Uttaranchal andRajasthan. Each location was selected to givethe study a representation of the area.
2. Objective of the Study
India is amongst one of the oldest agriculturalsocieties that has maintained its rural identityinspite of major technological advances inthe field of agriculture. The stability andsustainability has to be guarded especially sowhen in this materialistic times man is luredfor short term gains in lieu of long termuncertainties. Quantification coupled withbiased interpretation of the term ‘returns’ is thesole proponent of the malice. It is being for longdebated amongst both; proponents ofmonocropping and biodiversity based farming
28
on the quantum of returns from the respectivefarming systems. The measurement of the yieldand productivity parameters at times seeksexclusion of the inputs and the outputs inagriculture thus result in biased quantification.While the high input system focus is on themeasurement of grain yields, they don’t reportthe ecological costs of fossil fuel based inputs.This creates an imbalance on the sustainabilityaspects of the two systems. Sustainabilityconsiders a patch up dynamics among the fourcurrencies i.e., ecological (agrobiodiversity, soilfertility etc); economic; social (social justice/equity) and cultural (traditional knowledge).Lop sided emphasis on gaining economicbenefits only cannot be sustained in the longterm.
The reflection of production should bebased on the sound principle of economicswherein full range of the goods and services atthe systems level be identified and that thecalculus is based on the diversity and not onlyon the yield based computation of amonocropping based agriculture system. It hasto be understood that if production is based onthe logic of uniformity and homogenization,uniformity would displace diversity and willerode the base of genetic diversity and woulddefinitely lead to crisis in years to come.
So far, less information is available on thecomparative productivity of modern andtraditional agriculture or redeveloped traditionalagriculture under identical aspects. Studiesindicate a trend wherein, several parts of thecountry abandoning traditional crops in lieu of‘cash crops’ that provide short-term returns areon the rise. Also, the government policy hasbeen selective in promoting crops andencouraged the improvement of common foodcrops such as paddy and wheat, therebyignoring the diversity and specificities ofmarginal and challenged sites of all the agro-ecological zones. This has resulted inabandoning of quiet a large number of cropsthat had evolved by the intuitive selectionprudence of the farmers over centuries for
purely economic reasons. This has led thetraditional farming systems continually ignoredby the main stream society and therefore hasresulted in far and fewer efforts on theirredevelopment.
A comprehensive study can help to bringforth the actual status of traditional farmingsystems in the country. This will provide withan opportunity to disseminate the virtues of thetraditional farming systems and the scope forredevelopment and may ensure sustainableeconomic development of a large number ofsmall and marginal farmers of the country.
The objectives of the present study are:
a. To identify existing farming systems in thevarious agro-ecological zones
b. To conduct a comparative economic analysisof traditional and modified farming systemsin different Agro-ecological zones
c. To documentation of the biodiversity statusof various traditional farm including crop,tree and animal biodiversity Agro-ecologicalzones
d. To reflect the market economy of the mixedfarming in terms of incomes
e. from sale of diverse produce.
3. Methodology
The methodology adopted for achieving thestated objective was solely field based collectionand collation of data. The methodology wasdesigned as per standard scientific proceduresthat included the formulation of a structuredquestionnaire, pre-testing and finallyinterviewing the subjects by visiting theidentified sites. The information collected wasto ascertain the present status of farmingsystem, the traditional farming system practicedand its continuation, people’s perceptionabout mixed farming vis-à-vis monocroppingpatterns. Considerable time was devoted onassessing the market potential of the producethat is coming out of the mixed farmingsystems.
29
A. Preparation of Questionnaire: A detailedquestionnaire was prepared by keeping theobjectives as the central theme. The questionswere formulated that sought information withrespect to social data, farm holding etc. Inaddition to this, a detailed account of thetopography, perception of soil fertility of thefarm by the farmers, presence of water resourcesand its adequacy was collected. An entiresection was devoted on the various aspects offarm management, wherein the performance ofcrops under mono and mixed farming werespecified. Questions on the crop agronomyincluding farm inputs, maintenance of soilfertility both in monocropping and mixedcropping were discussed in detail. A separatesection on cost benefit analysis to collect dataon various crops was present.
B. Identification and selection of sites: The scope ofthe study extended in four different sitesamong the various agro-climatic zones to givethe study a representative picture of theselected parts of the country. The regions thatwere identified and included in the projectranged from Sikkim in the north east to Keralain the southern part of India. Sikkim was
selected due to its being in the north easternpart of the country and an important componentof eastern Himalaya. The other reason foridentifying Sikkim is the strong traditionalinstitutions that exist till date and that marketforces have not yet corrupted this state. Theother hill state is Uttaranchal that is prone tomarket forces and also their traditional farmingis under immense pressure. The western Indianto take the arid region as case areas inRajasthan in and around Jodhpur was identified.In the southern part of India Kerala wasidentified as a region wherein the biodiversityin terms of plantation along with the homesteadselection was a fitting case to be exploredkeeping in mind the continuity of traditionalfarming and the lucrative trade of spices to themiddle east. The study aims to takerepresentative cases and to test the statedhypothesis.
C. Data collection: On an average about eightfarmers were chosen from the identified areaswherein, at least 75% of the farmers practicedmixed farming systems. The purpose of thestudy centered around four aspects viz., social,economic, ecological and culture related to
Farmer showing traditional seed saved in his field
30
farming communities. All the farmersinterviewed are located in the mentionedagroecological zones that expanded from themiddle Himalayas right to the south WesternGhats. It was seen that the farming variedtraditional varieties such as Elusine corcona toPearl millet in the northern India, to traditionalcrops such as large cardamom in the north eastof India in the hill state of Sikkim. It has beenseen that may be there is a large demand anda heavy market imperative as it has a a highexport volumes to the middle east it has beenseen that the farmers are mostly going for theorganic farming practices wherein mixedfarming is the integral part of the farmingsystem. The data collected was basically on thefarming inputs and seeds availability from thefarmer but the prevalent trade statistics wascollected from the regional Krishi Mandi of theregion. At times a random stop at the nearbyshops and interview with the local trader gaveus additional information that was used to co-relate the information that was given by thefarmer.
The whole process of data collection was tounderstand from the farmer, verification of theprevalent rates from the local mandi and thefluxes in the prices by speaking to the traders’involved in the trade. For this though thequestionnaire was filled by identifyingapproximately eight farmers’ but copious noteswere taken while interacting with other peopleinvolved in the supply chain. The selection ofthe farmers and the land holding of thesefarmers ranged from a minimum of 2 acres andupwards. The basis of selection was based onthe following characteristics:
• Choice of fertilizer regime
• Duration of involvement in mixed cropping/homestead style of farming
• High crop Diversity
The system currently practiced in all therespondents varied from marginal and smallfarmers to large holdings. In case of Keralamost of the farms selected had homesteadfarming as an integral part of the farmingsystem. This perspective upholds the view that
Interview in progress in Kerala, the respondent is owner of a plantation
31
a farming system is not merely acollection of various crops but acomplex multidimensional systemwherein the components makinginteract within and with itssurrounding i.e., have a strongintra and interrelationship betweensoil, water, crops perennials andannuals, livestock with specificreference to the mankind. Hencein this approach, each componentin the farm is managed in totalitywherein the farm is an integralpart of the household and thesociety at large.
Further, a differentiation wasdeliberately introduced whileselecting the respondents. Themethodology adopted was to visit twocategories of farms; one that practicemonoculture and the other that have adoptedmixed farming. The study was scattered intofour regions of the country viz., Sikkim,Rajasthan, Uttaranchal and Kerala. The selectioncriteria for the wide spread of the study is toincrease the scope of the report and assess thefarming system in national context.
During the project activities, a visit to farmwas accompanied with a detailed interview withthe farmer. A structured questionnaire asdescribed above was compiled that aimed tocollect data primarily about farming practices s/he follow in the farm and the returns that he getsfrom field. Also, it aimed to assess the farms interms of the traditional farming and analyze andassess the evolutionary pattern that wouldentail exploring the reasons for it flourishing atsome point of time and to analyze the presentoverriding factors that are instrumental inpushing the farmer’s science into the recess ofcurrent farming practices. For this, thequestionnaire aimed to collate information.
4. Review of Literature
It has been witnessed by many studiesconducted under different agro-ecological zones
that biodiversity based farms are moreecologically appropriate than farms that cropchemically managed monocultures. Agronomicresearches have shown that under specific soiland climatic conditions, planting certaincombination of crops and trees simultaneouslyand/or sequentially can increase the efficiencyof resource use (Gupta and Gupta 1993). Manyyears before the incidence of agriculture holdingwas largely fallow during medieval times(Dhir, 1982), has been replaced by extensiveagriculture due to increase in population. It hasbeen seen that the mode of farming pushingfrom mixed to monocropping has resulted inmore negative effect as these farming systemhave resulted in extensive application ofsynthetic farm inputs resulting in soildegradation.
A typical mixed farming that has beenpracticed traditionally wherein rabi pulses likechickpea, lentil, peas etc. are grown mixed withwheat and barley (Saxena, 1987). In arid regionthe intercropping of winter oil seeds such asmustard, linseed and safflower with chickpeaand lentils is widely adopted under rainfedconditions. The study carried out by variousresearchers revealed that Chickpea + mustard
Respondents being interviewed in Kerala
32
and lentil + mustard in northern plains, chickpea+ linseed in central plateau and chickpea +safflower in peninsular zone are most profitableintercrops. In this system full population of thepulse crop is maintained and oilseeds aregrown as a bonus crop. Higher productivityand monetary returns from chickpea + mustardintercropping have been reported by severalworkers (Mehta et al., 1990, Sachan and Uttam,1992, Ali, 1992).
It has been seen that intercropping a formof mixed farming helps crops that at timesperform mediocre in monocropping. It hasbeen demonstrated that frenchbean has beenfound quite compatible for intercropping withpotato. Studies at Kanpur showed thatintercropping frenchbean with potato under2:@ ratio (Potato: French bean) was highlyefficient and productive than sole crops (Aliand Lal, 1991). Also it has been seen that maizeis an ideal crop for intercropping. Legumessuch as pulses which fix the biological nitrogenand enrich the soil fertility and also helpsuppress the weed growth by smothering areideal as intercrops in maize. Varshney (1985)comparing the effects of various intercrops inmaize reported that growing of one row ofurdbean in between two rows of maize gavean increase of about 40% over the pure crop ofmaize. It has Growing of legume crops in acropping system is well –known practice forrestoring soil fertility. Legume crops have asubstantial amount of residual N which mayvary from 30 kg to 60 kg N/ha in the case ofgrain legumes and 90 kg to 120 kg/Ha in thecase of forage legumes such as berseem oralfalfa (Lal et al., 1978, Sharma et al., 1987).Legumes also improve soil fertility on accountof improved organic carbon (matter) in soil. Ina berseem-maize system, organic carbon contentafter berseem was observed as 0.52% ascompared to 0.38% , after fallow-maize (Prasadet al., 1998).
In Rajasthan, where rainfall is scanty mostpart of peal millet area is covered with 100%cropping intensity which means only one crop
is grown in one calendar year and in theseareas, therefore, pearl millet monocropping ispracticed. The pearl millet monocropping hasproved to be inferior pearl millet-legumesequential cropping (Giri and De, 1979). Thedata of three years research experimentsshowed that the grain yield of pearl millet wasincreased by 23% when grown after groundnut,24% after cowpea and 12% after pigeon pea.The earlier studies showed that promisingintercrops with pearl millet were groundnut,mung bean, pigeon pea and castor, which gave0.23-0.35 t/ha additional, yields to the growers.Most promising and remunerative mixtures indifferent agro climatic regions were pearlmillet + cowpea, pearl millet + pigeon pea, pearlmillet + groundnut, pearl millet + mung beanand pearl millet + sesame has been reported byGautam (1995).
It has been scientifically validated that thecrops that are grown under mixed farmingsystem have seen to have higher productivityand that it is seen that organic practices andmixed farming has been more feasible on smallfarms. It also concluded that livestock operationswere essential to maximize returns. Somefarmers that practice mixed farming claim theirsoils have better tilth and less compaction.They also claim that they use less power andoperate their tractors in a higher gear, therebysaving fuel. Changes in soil structure coupledwith improved ground cover, decreased runoffby about 10 to 50 percent and increasedinfiltration by about 10 to 25 percent. All thesefactors combined to reduce soil erosion onorganic fields by at least two-fifths, andsometimes over four-fifths (Cacek, 1984). Somenutrients are present in excess of crop needsand some are unavailable biochemically.
Nevertheless, there may be a significantdifference between mixed farming andconventional farms in the costs of replacingneeded nutrients and water. Farms underorganically managed biodiverse farming havetendency wherein soils absorb more of theavailable rainfall, providing protection from
33
drought (Cacek, 1984). It has also been seenthat wherever crop diversity of crops ispracticed the entire production on a farm is notvulnerable to the same pests or seasonalweather events. If there is a total crop failure,farmers suffer fewer economic losses becausethey have invested practically nothing in termsof purchased inputs under organically managedbiodiverse cropping systems. Cacek, 1984 hasin its study concluded that biodiversity farmspracticing organic farming is a superior systemfor managing soil-borne elements because ofmanure recycling and reduced soil erosion.
In the biodiversity based cropping tree is anintegral component of the farming system. Treecrops are perennial in nature and occupy thesame lands for decades. Traditional farmersthat practice biodiversity in the farm, growmiscellaneous crops in the interspaces of treecrops e.g. coconut, areca nut, cashewnut etc.,and often maintain livestock as well as poultry.The wisdom of the traditional farming system
that are mostly practicing biodiversity in theirfarms gained from such farming system hasevolved into farming system that have nowbeen defined as inter-cropping, mixed croppingand integrated farming. It has been observedthat compared to monocrop- coconut, thecoconut, pepper, cacoa-pineapple system hashigher organic carbon content compared tomonocrops of coconut. When the coconutmonocrops had 0.04% of organic matter at adepth of one meter, the coconut basin in thesystem has recorded 0.65% organic carbon(Khan and Nair, 1994). The beneficialinteractions of mixed cropping on soil fertilityhave also been reported from Sri Lanka(Liyanage and Dassanayake, 1992). Studiesconducted by Nair and Balakrishnan (1977)have revealed that microclimate inside of cropmixed is more equitable than in monocropsstands.
Agriculture practices of flood plains aregenerally characterized as a monotonous
A patch of barnyard millet in farmer’s field in Uttaranchal
34
monocropping system totally devoid ofbiodiversity and energy subsidized which areprone to may diseases and perturbation. Incontrast the hill farming systems are rich inbiodiversity. The biodiversity contributes in avariety of ways in maintaining agro ecosystemstability and resilience (Ramkrishnan et al.,1994). Recently Altierie (1995) has described indetail the role of biodiversity and its functionsin agro systems resilience and stability. TheGarhwal Himalayas are well known repositoryof many crop species and their numerousvarieties (Maikhuri et al, 1997). These arenurtured through a variety of crop compositionsand crop rotations (Semwal et al., 2001).
In a recent study of 208 agro-ecologicallybased projects and/or initiatives, Pretty andHine, 2000 documented clear increases in foodproduction over some 29 million hectares, withnearly 9 million households benefiting from
increased food diversity and security. Promotedsustainable agriculture practices led to 50-100%increases in per hectare food production (about1.71 tonnes per year per household) in rainfedareas typical of small farmers living in marginalenvironments; that is an area of about 3.58million hectares, cultivated by about 4.42million farmers. Such yield enhancements are atrue breakthrough for achieving food securityamong farmers isolated from mainstreamagricultural institutions.
5. Case studies
The study has been bifurcated into differentsections on the basis of the locations finalized.The study has been elaborated in the followingpages wherein though the results are explainedindividually but the scenario has been discussedunder one section taking into accountinformation from all the regions.
Indigenous method for protection of grains post harvest by a farmer in Rajasthan
35
Introduction
Sikkim lies at the western end of the EasternHimalaya that experiences high rainfall alongwith cold humid climate that manifest itself invariety of life forms. With a total area of 7069sq km., of which 2656 sq km. is under the forest(36.3%), Sikkim is located between latitude 270
03’ 47" to 280 07’ 34" North and longitude 880
03’ 04" to 880 57’ 19"East. With almost no flat
land, this entirely mountainous range has analtitude range of 300 m to 8586 m above meansea level. Administratively the state is dividedinto four districts and the majority of thepopulace comprises four ethnic groups ofBhutia(s), Lepcha(s), Nepalese and Limbu(s).
The forests here are relatively well protectedand the forest vegetation varies from the
Biodiversity rich landscape of Sikkim as seen in Upper Pendam Village
CASE STUDY 1
BIODIVERSITY PRODUCTIVITY – SIKKIM
36
tropical pine forests, tropical broad leavedforests, sub-tropical forests, temperate broadleaved and coniferous forests to sub-alpinescrubs-generally related to high mountain floraof the north temperate zone. The nearness ofthis Himalayan state ensures that Sikkimremains the most humid region in the entireHimalayas. The rain-fall varies from 2000-5000mm and monsoon heavy rain throughout thestate from June to September.
Biodiversity of Sikkim an Overview
Sikkim being in the tri-junction of the EasternHimalayan, Central Himalaya and Tibet, that ischaracterized by high annual rainfall 2000-5000mm rainfall, wide variation in altitude, highconstant humidity (70%) throughout the yearmakes it a one of the richest ‘hotspot’ ofbiological activity. The region is bestowedwith high forest cover having importantforest type of the Eastern Himalaya suchas the sub-Himalayan wet mixed forests, sub-tropical hill forests, wet temperate forests,eastern Oak Hemlock forests, Oak fir forestsand dry alpine scrubs are found in Sikkim(Champion 1936). The floral diversity toocomprises of a fascinating 4500 species and thatas the state is only 2% of the geographical areait is bestowed with 26% of the flowering plantsof India.
Speaking of agro-biodiversity the main landuse system that is being followed is the AlnusCardamom agro-forestry system. Largecardamom (Amomum subulatum Roxb.), a memberof the Zingiberceae family is known to be theoldest species used by the mankind. Thoughthe seed contain about two to three per centessential oil, it is used mainly as spice or forfood flavouring in India today. It has also beenrecorded that large cardamoms possessmedicinal properties.
A study to assess small farm biodiversityproductivity was carried out in the selectiveareas in the districts of Sikkim. Most of thethe villages showed mixed cropping pattern.This method of cultivation is in practice for
more than 25-30 years. The land characteristicsshowed that areas herein are having gentleto steep slopes. The soil of the region isfertile.
The farmers here monitor soil fertilityassessing yield of successive crops and colourof the soil. Mostly farmers practice rainfedfarming whereas the have tapped water fordrinking. Farmers engaged in mono-croppingpractices are the ones that have fields inlowlands of Rangit and Teesta rivers. Duringthe interview it could be concluded thatapplication of vermin-compost and bio-composting is integral part of farming. Out ofthe ten farmers interviewed about 8 farmerstold that they are maintaining soil fertility bygreen manuring.
The rich past of organic farming and thenresearch done by farmers has helped then inidentifying about 75 plants that have bio-pesticidal properties and are used extensivelyto prepare biopesticides. The farmers in thesurveyed areas are not using any high yieldingvarieties except for cabbage and Broccoli. Mostof the respondents told that food security ofthe local area can be saved by traditionalfarming systems, because of low infestationincidence as opposed to conventional farming.Majority of the farmers use crop refuge forcomposting, mulching and animal feed.
Fig 5.1.1: Farming systems of the area surveyed
37
The important crops of the region arepaddy, maize traditional varieties of the beansviz., butter beans, Mantula Beans, SingtameyBeans, Hadey buda beans, Mazi Buda beans,Tuney Buda Beans, Paheli Dalm, Kodomillet.Among vegetables the important ones areraddish, carrot, cabbage, lahi saag, spinach.Citrus in important cash crop of the region andlrge cardamom and ginger are the two importantcash crop of the surveyed villages.
Results
The data collected from villages viz., UpperPendam, CP Garhii, Buddang, West Pendam,Jhuri Bhutey, Sathukhani, Phachak, and Sagonglocated in Sikkim. Two farmers from eachvillage were selected to fill the questionnaire.The data were compiled and average of fivefarmers was taken to present the results.
The survey revealed that productivity ofmaize under monocropping in terms of financialreturn was less than 50% as compared to theproductivity as compared to mixed farmingsystems. Also, a wide range of crops undermixed farming are seen to have a widerinsurance against crop failure than in case ofmonocrops.
The data showed that though the yield perhectare of farm size was more in monocroppingof paddy but over all farm productivity wasmore both in terms of total yield per unit areaand over all income generated from theproduce from mixed farming systems.
On the issue of mono-cropping it wasinformed that if a monocropping of maize cropis practiced the returns that a farmer is able toget is Rs. 6000. On the other hand the farmer’sthat have adopted mixed farming are seen tohave incomes upto Rs. 12500 which means thatthe a doubling of income is experience if thefarmers are adopting mixed farming.
Fig. 5.1.2: Comparative productivity status of thefarming systems surveyed
Fig.5.1.3: Status of income derived from the existingfarming system
Fig 5.1.4: Comparative returns from mono andmixed cropping systems
The results indicate that though the totalyield of a monocrop (paddy) was high ie. 13Qt/acre as compared to the mixed croppingwhich accumulated a yield of 7 qtl/acre;however on calculating the inputs in the formof labour and chemicals it was found that thenet return from the mixed cropping was 75%more than that of monocropping. It is
38
noteworthy to mention that nearly morethan 70% area of the total cropped area isdevoted to subsistence food crops mainlyfor domestic consumption and local market.Commercial or cash crops occupy a verynegligible portion of the cropped area. Ithas been observed that during the Rabiseason (Oct-April) the main crops cultivated
are maize, butter beans, kodo millet in theupper Pendam Village in the eastern districts ofSikkim. In the entire region dominance of foodgrains in the cropping pattern is obiviouseverywhere. Of the total population,more than60% people of an household are engaged withagriculture and its allied practices mostly insubstince forms.
Table 5.1.1: Cost benefit analysis of mono vs. mixed crop in Upper Pandem
Monocropping Mixed cropping
Field Preparation Rs. 400 Rs. 400
Seeds, nursery and transplantation Rs. 500 Rs. 500
Fertilizers Rs. 100 –
Harvesting Rs. 600 Rs. 600
Misc. Rs. 200 Rs. 200
Yield/acre Paddy 13 Qt Maize = 4 QtButter Beans = 1 QtRaddish = 1 QtKodo millet = 1 QtTotal = 7 Qt
Market price @ Rs. 800/ Qt Maize @Rs. 12/kg= Rs. 4800Butter Beans@ Rs. 70 = Rs. 7000Raddish @ Rs. 10/kg = Rs. 1000Kodo millet @ Rs. Rs. 40/kg(sell after fermenting) = Rs. 4000
Total income Rs. 10,400 Rs. 16,800
Net Profit 10,400 – 1800 = Rs. 8600 16,800 – 1700 = Rs. 15,100
*Data collected by survey are average of five farmers.
Table 5.1.2: Cost benefit analysis of mono vs.mixed farms in Kharif Season
Monocropping Mixed cropping
Soil working Rs. 300 Rs. 300
Seeds – –
Fertilizers Rs. 150 –
Harvesting Rs. 500 Rs. 500
Misc. Rs. 100 Rs. 100
Yield (Qt /acre) 5 Qt Maize = 4 QtRaddish = 2 QtLahi Saag = 100 bundlesPeas = 2 Qt
Market price @ Rs. 1200/ Qt Maize @ Rs. 12/kg = Rs. 4800Raddish @ Rs 10/kg = Rs. 2000Lahi Saag @ Rs 8/bundle = Rs. 800Peas @ Rs. 25/kg = Rs. 5000
Total income Rs. 6000 Rs. 12,600
Net Profit 6000 – 1050 = Rs. 4950 12600 – 900 = Rs. 11,700
39
Table 5.1.2 depicts thecomparative cost benefitanalysis of the mixed andmono cropping system ofcultivation. Here kharif cropsare cultivated from Marchto September. Since most ofthe area is rainfed, irrigationis dependent on rainfallbecause of inadequateirigation facilities. Howeveran interesting trend thatshowed an reversal in trendin terms of yield. The yieldof maize was recorded about5 qtl. under mono croppingsystem, whereas undermixed cropping the totalyield registered 9 Qt. Themultitude of crops grown under mixed croppingwere Maize, Radish, Mustard leaves (saag) andPeas. Here also the net income generated bythe farmers by adopting mixed croppingpattern was about 2.3 times higher as comparedto mono cropping system. This difference isattributed to the higher return of per kilogramof commodity for the vegetable component in
a mixed farming to that of single crop whichis guided by strong market forces.
The study revealed that a more evolvedHorti-agriculture system was practiced in Sikkimwherein, Alnus-large cardmom-ginger aregrown in the same unit of land.
Orange based Horti-Agriculture sytem wasalso observed in many villages. Large cardmom
Table 5.1.3: Cost benefit analysis per acre of agri-horti based farming system
Crops Yield/acre Market price Income
Large cardamom 1.75Qt @Rs. 300/kg 52,500
Orange 20 trees (500 to 2,000 per One tree earns about 40,000tree (Avg. 1000) Rs. 2000 so 20 trees =
Radish 1 Qt Rs. 10/kg 1000
Maize 1.5 Qt Rs. 12/kg 1800
Total income Rs. 95,300
Table 5.1.4: Cost benefit analysis per acre of agri-horti based farming system
Crops Yield/acre Market price Income (Rs.)
Ginger 40 Qt./acre Rs3000/ Qt 1,20,000
Orange 20 trees One tree earns about 60,000Rs. 3000 so 20 trees =
Vegetables 0.5 Qt Rs. 7/kg 350
Total income 1,80,350
Traditional Alnus Cardamom agroforestry system in Sikkim
40
(Amomum subulatum) has been evolved andpresently is the most appropriate livlihoodoption for the mountian people.Over the years it was realized by the mountainpeople that the agronomic yield of a monocropof Cardamom yielded 250 kg per hectareper year was low and therefore a deliberatemove towards mixed farming was adopted.
Mixed croppingsystem inrespondents fieldin Sikkim
The crops undr mixed farming comprise ofMandarin Orange (Citrus reticulata), ginger(Zingiber officinale) and potato (Solanumtuberosum), radish () and maize (Zea mays).Traditional cultivation of these crops havebeen seen to generate more income ascompared to monoculture cropping system(Table 5.1.3 and 5.1.4).
41
Introduction
The state of Rajasthan is the second largest inIndia, situated in the northwestern part ofIndian Union (23030' and 30011', North latitudeand 69020' and 78017' east longitude), has sixtyper cent area in the arid zone. The productionand life support systems are constrainedby environmental limitation as low precipitation(100-420 mm/yr), extremes of temperature(maximum 45-500C during summer and minimumof 2-40C during winter, high wind speed
CASE STUDY 2
BIODIVERSITY PRODUCTIVITY – RAJASTHAN
(30-40 km/hr), high evapo-transpiration (1500-2000 mm) and sand rocky to saline soils havingpoor fertility and low water retention (Anon.,1997 and Dhir, 1997).
Biodiversity of Rajasthan
Of the 12 biogeographical zones of India (Rao,1984), the arid zone comprising of Rajasthandesert is a unique landmass both from the pointview of floristic and climate. The arid tract of
42
Bajra( Pennisetum typhoides), moong (Vigna radiate),moth (Vigna aconitifolia), Guar ( Cyamopsistetragonoloba), til (Sesamum indicum) etc.
Agroforestry practices in the arid zone
As this region experiences frequent drought,even a single crop in a year is at chance andcontained high risk and uncertainty. It has beenobserved during survey that mainly Prosopiscineraria (Khejri) based agroforestry is practiced.Farmers retain naturally growing khejri trees intheir farms at a convenient space and growagricultural crops in association. In few ofthe areas Prosopis-Zizyphus-neem basedagroforestry is more common. Zizyphus bushesare cut every year to the ground level to obtainpala (fodder).
Capparis deciduas (Kair) is another importantbush which is mainly grown on the field bunds.As most of the area in these villages is rainfed,only one crop is grown in Kharif season andfield remain fallow for remaining period of theyear for open grazing.
According to the farmers the averageproductivity of crops in agroforestry-basedfield varies as below:
India in Rajasthan is distributed in the districtsof Pali, Jalore, Jodhpur, Barmer, Bikaner andChuru district mainly. Since the biodiversitysurvives here in a fragile ecosystem underhostile environment under hostile environment,it assumes special significance. The regionunlike other parts of the country that are lushgreen, is a desolate, barren land is highlygeneric since with the slightest precipitation,the whole landscape transforms from brown togreen carpet. The biodiversity of Rajasthan isbest described as regions where topographyand traditions are unique and its faunistic andfloristic composition is diversified.
People of Rajasthan have a close linkage withthe nature over the centuries and that thepeculiar natural surroundings of this delicateecosystem has had a profound influence on theirlifestyles which have been shaped accordinglyin the environment they have lived over longperiods of struggle. The current scenario hasbeen witnessing a trend where the man landratio is fast decreasing. Traditionally the landholding in the desert are large. Farmers haveusually not cropped all their land in the sameyear. It is a genera practice that they haverotated their crop as well as the areas. With theincrease in human population more and moreland has been brought under the plough leavinglittle area to be under follow.
Inspite of all the adverse conditions one hasseen that as livestock is one of the mainoccupation in may parts of Rajasthan, it hasbeen found that a multiple tier cropping systemis practiced wherein crops have their importantplace. It has been observed that in the bundsor boundaries fast growing fodder tree speciessuch as Leucaena latisliqua, are combined withgrasses such as Cenchrus ciliaris, Cenchrus setigerus,Panicum targidum, Acacia nilotica, Prosopis cinerariaand Tecomella undulata.
Prevalent Cropping Pattern
Farmers of the arid zone of Rajasthan in non-irrigated areas follow monocropping system.Main agricultural crops grown in this area are
S.N. Crops Average yield (Qt /ha)
1. Bajra 5.0-7.0
2. Guar 2.5-3.0
3. Moong 2.0-2.5
4. Moth 2.0-2.5
5. Til 3.0-4.0
6. Mustard 10.0-12.0
7. Wheat 12.0-15.0
Based on the productivity data collectedduring the survey of farmers the annualproductivity of fuel and fodder is as follows:
According to farmers in Khejri basedagroforestry system under rainfed conditionthe average annual monetary return is about Rs.6300/ha. In irrigated condition when wheat andmustard are grown in rabi season the averageannual return increase to Rs. 11550 to 13050/ha.It has been observe that under rainfed condition
43
on an average 50% return comes from crop andremaining 50% from tree component in the formof fuel and fodder. In irrigated area wheresecond crop is grown the return from agriculturalcrop is about 70% and share from tree/bushesgets reduced to about 30%.
The farmers of these villages are also usingcrop rotations. As per the information collectedfrom the farmers the following crop rotationsare in use:
1. Guar-Bajra-Moth
2. Moong-Bajra-Fallow-Moth
3. Bajra-Til-Guar
4. Bajra-Fallow-Wheat-Guar
The crop combinations in rainfed conditionare Bajra + Moth, Bajra + Moong, Bajra + Guar,Bajra + Til, Bajra + Jowar, Moong + Moth,Moong + Til, and Guar + Til. When irrigationfacilities are available the crop combination ofwheat + Barley and Wheat + Mustard, Sesame+ pearlmillet, Sesame + mothbean, Sesame +cluster bean, Sesame + mungbean are followed.
Study Area
Jodhpur was the area that was identified forthe study. Being in the most arid part of thestate where the annual rainfall varies from 10to 40 cm, quite often erratic, so much so, thatthe entire rainfall of the year may fall on asingle day and the rest of the year may be drymade an ideal location to characterize thedesert agro-ecological study. The study areaexperiences summer temperatures are alwayshigh and the diurnal range exceeds even 20oC.During the day, the summer temperatures may
be as high as 49oC but in the night, thetemperatures may fall, to less than 20oC. Inwinters, the day temperatures are higher butthe night temperatures may be near freezingpoint. Winters are of short duration, notexceeding two months - December and January.
This is an area of not-so-developed drainagesystem where there are no flowing streams.Owing to poor rainfall, surface water resourcesdo not exist while ground water resources areoften deep and brackish. Natural vegetation istherefore, only seasonal. With the, first showersin late July, a few grass species grow and shrubsand dwarf trees become green. But, soon afterthe retreat of the monsoon in mid September,the vegetation dries up, leaving only a fewperennial shrubs and a thin pad of pale grasson the landscape.
Mostly rainfed crops like bajra, kharifpulses, guar etc. are own during the kharifseason. Rabi crops like wheat, rape-seed andmustard are grown only in areas whereirrigation water is available.
The soils are sandy and coarse textured innature and infiltration rate is very high ranging7 to 15 cm/hour. Soils are poor in organicmatter (0.02 to 0.07%) and low to medium inphosphorus content (0.05 to 0.10% analysisdone at AFRI, Jodhpur). The harsh environmentand non-availability of irrigation water makethese areas unfit for intensive agriculture.
Water resources in the identified region areclassified into two types viz. surface water andground water. In all the surveyed villagesrunoff surface water is collected into tanka(underground water storage tank) of differentsize, shape and depth. The capacity of the tankadepends upon the family size. Few villagershave tanks in their courtyard to collect rainwaterfor drinking and other purposes. The rainwaterharvesting structures are also seen in theagricultural fields. There is a river named Jojariflowing adjacent to Sangariya village, whichruns from east to west and generally remainsdry except in the rainy season. During heavyrains the water flows over banks and spread
S. N. Produce Average annual yield
1. Loong (dry leaf fodder) 10-20 kg/treefrom mature khejri tree
2. Fuel wood from mature 20-50 kg/treekhejri tree
3. Pala (dry leaves) from 100-200 kg/haZizyphus bushes
4. Fuel wood from 200-250 kg/haZizyphus bushes
44
in the adjoining area. The hydrological studyof the area indicates ground water status in Jallivillage to be poor whereas in villages asSangariya, Kudi, Salavas and Bhopalgarh havemoderate to poor ground water prospects. Theground water of this region generally containslarge quantity of dissolved salts. Due to excessirrigation with saline water the fertility of soilsdeteriorates by adding salt to the soils. Thefarmer is left with no choice but to use theavailable saline water. Farmers are forces toleave the land fallow for one or two years afteronce irrigating the fields with highly salinewater having electrical conductivity upto 20,000micromhos/cm.
The selection of the villages was done on thebasis of past studies and association with them.The irrigation pattern and the proximity to themarket were taken into account while selectingthe villages. The selected villages had avariation both in terms of irrigation as well asthe socio-economic parameters such as totalland area; households, human and cattlepopulation, literacy and average family incomeare concerned. Most of the villages that wereselected for the survey were rainfed and thatone or the farmers depending upon the rainsin that particular season took two crops.
The main occupation of the people residingin these villages is agriculture. Nearly 65% of thepopulations are totally dependent for theirlivelihood on agriculture. The land holdings iscategorized into small (1-2 ha), medium (2-10 ha)and large (over 10 ha) size; the prospects ofagriculture in these arid fragile eco-system isuncertain and of high risk. The average cropproduction ratio is 5 years of poor productionto that of one year of average crop production.The food grain production is generally insufficientto feed average large family consisting 6.3persons throughout the year. The men-folk leadnomadic life and migrate with tractors orotherwise during October to May every year toadjoining states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh orGujarat in search of labour work to supplementtheir income. Villagers keep traditionally large
livestock. The livestock population in the villageson an average equals human population.Livestock in order of magnitude comprisemostly of goats, followed by cows and sheep.They are mostly let loose for grazing. Stall-feeding traditionally not practiced.
Farmers were interviewed for the possibilityof their adoption to traditional organic farmingfrom the current fertiliser based productivityconcept. The farms were farmers adoptedmulti-cropping systems were studied to assessthe biodiversity-based productivity.
Results
The results here too showed similar trend asexperienced while interpreting results fromSikkim. In the arid tract of Rajasthan farmersonly take-up single crop not because of highereconomic return but have no choice due tovagaries of nature. It is seen that the incomederived from monocropping of pearl milletresulted in a net income of Rs. 3280. Of the totalreturn that farmer achieved 60% was spendingthe inputs only. In contrast by adopting mixedfarming system a total gain of Rs. 12,045 wasrecorded wherein the expenditure incurred wasa mere 19%. A mixed cropping in the surveyedvillages comprised of pearl millet, moth beanand sesame grown together in a unit of land.
Further exploring the more common mixedfarming wherein pearl millet is sown withmung bean. It has been observed that mixedfarming system registered more returns (69%)as compared to mono-cropping system.The increased return in mixed cropping isattributed to lower occurrence of weed andreductions in pesticides due to judicious useof inter spaces. Also at times the supplementarycrop commands a higher price than the staplecrop (Table 5.2.2). A similar study for mixedcropping was also undertaken wherein acomparison between monocrops of maizeand mixed crops of maize, cowpea combinedwas studied. The results herein were inconsonance with the findings of above twocase studies. The maize, cowpea combined
45
Table 5.2.2: Comparative study on cost benefit analysis of productivity and total returns in amonocropping (Pearl millet) vs. mixed cropping (Pearl millet + Mung bean (per acre)
Mono-cropping Mixed cropping
Land preparation Rs. 720 Rs. 720
Fertilizers – –
Seeds Rs. 100 Rs. 75
Weeding Rs. 800 (due to high intensity of weeds Rs. 200 (lower occurrence of weeds)
Harvesting Rs. 800 Rs. 800
Threshing Rs. 500 Rs. 500
Total yield 10.5 Qt Pearl millet = 10.4 QtMungbean = 1.5 QtTotal yield = 11.9 Qt
Total return 10.5 qtl. @ Rs. 450/qtl = Rs. 4725 Pearl millet = Rs. 4680Mungbean = @ Rs. 2300/Qt = Rs. 3450Total = Rs. 8130
Net Profit 4725 – 2920 = Rs. 1805 8130 – 2295 = Rs. 5835
Mono-cropping Mixed cropping
Land preparation Rs. 720 Rs. 720
Fertilizers – –
Seeds 5 kg pearl millet 3 kg pearl millet @ Rs. 20 = Rs. 60@ Rs. 20 = Rs. 100 250 g Til= Rs. 8.00
500 g Moth = Rs. 7.00
Weeding Rs. 800 (due to high intensity of weeds Rs. 200 (lower occurrence of weeds)
Harvesting Rs. 800 Rs. 800
Threshing Rs. 500 Rs. 500
Total yield 12 Qt Pearl millet = 9qtl.Moth = 3.5 qtlSesame = 40 kgTotal yield = 12.9 qtl.
Total return 12 Qt. @ Rs. 450/ Qt= Rs. 5400 Pearl millet = Rs. 4050Moth = @ Rs. 2800/ Qt = Rs. 9800Sesame = @ Rs. 12 /kg = Rs. 480Total = Rs. 14330
Net Profit 5400- 2920 = Rs. 2480 14330 – 2285 = Rs. 12045
Table 5.2.1: Comparative study on cost benefit analysis of productivity and total returns in amonocropping (Pearl millet) vs. mixed cropping (Pearl millet + Moth+ Sesame) nit
crop recorded 31% more returns than maizemonocrops.
Some of the research finding validate thedata that has been shared from the farmer invarious farming systems viz., in mono andmixed farming system in Rajasthan (Sr: R.P.Singh and C.K. Ramanathan Chetty; All-India
Coordinated Research Project for DrylandAgriculture, Hyderabad, India)
Pearl millet 0.74 t/acre
Pearl millet + pigeon-pea 0.54 t/acre + 0.28 t/acre
Pearl millet + green gram 0.54 t/acre + 0.2 t/acre
Pearl millet + Mustard 0.84 t/acre+ 0.36 t/acre
46
Maize + Green gram 0.84 t/acre + 0.2 t/acre
Sorghum (sole) 1 t/acre
Sorghum + Chick pea 0.8t/acre + 4 t/acre
Agroforestry as in other part of the countryis a potent land use system that integrates treeas well as crop cultivation in a unit of land. Thisfinds more relevance in the stress conditions asthe goods derived from these systems are
Table 5.2.3: Comparative study of productivity and returns in a monocropping(Maize) vs. mixed cropping (Maize + Cowpea) per acre
Mono-cropping Mixed cropping
Land preparation Rs. 800 Rs. 800
Fertilizers – –
Seeds Rs. 100 Rs. 100
Weeding Rs. 800 (due to high intensity of weeds Rs. 400 (lower occurrence of weeds)
Harvesting Rs. 500 Rs. 500
Total yield 14 Maize = 11 QtCowpea= 2.5 QtTotal yield = 13.5 Qt
Total return 14 @ Rs. 850/ Qt= Rs. 11900 Maize = Rs. 9350Cowpea = @ Rs. 2600/Qt= Rs. 6500Total = Rs. 15850
Net Profit 11900 -2200 = Rs.9700 15850 – 1800= Rs. 14050
Table 5.2.4: Ber based Agri-horticulture based system+ pearl millet + green gram
Activities Expenses and Gain
Land preparation Rs. 200
Fertilizers –
Seeds –
Weeding –
Harvesting Rs. 400
1. Pearl millet = 3.37 Qtl./acre2. Green gram = 1.25 Qtl./acre3. Fruits = 12.5 Qtl./acre4. Fuel wood = 2.5 Qt./acre5. Fodder = 2.5 Qt./acre
Total yield 23.3 Qt./acre
Total return Pearl millet @. 4500/Qt. = Rs. 15,165Green gram @Rs. 2300/Qt. = Rs. 2875Ber @ Rs. 700/Qt. = Rs. 8750Fuel wood @Rs. 600/Qt. = Rs. 1500Fodder @ Rs. 500/Qt. = Rs. 1250Total = Rs. 29,540
Net Profit 29,540 – 600 = Rs. 28,940
spread over more time and space. In Jodhpurto the more prevalent agroforestry systemthat is seen to replace the Kherji basedagroforestry system is the Ber based agro-forestry system.
Ber (Z. nummlaria) has been the focusspecies for CAZRI, Jodhpur and has found tobe highly accepted tree species of arid regionof Rajasthan. Ber is seen to grow as wild in
47
the agricultural fields. By adopting grafting asa procedure for improvement of varieties, ithas been widely practiced by the farmers ofRajasthan. It has been concluded Oldeman andWestra, 1980 that the trees are organisms withan ecological investment stratergy. The litterlife cycling functions by virtue oif thesestructures as a long term process with veryfew losses. To integrate trees such as ber,aonla, karonda, khejri etc. that have a high
economic value and to build a agro-forestrysystem; the farmer ensures that he immediatelyenhances in long term productivity, an increaseof accumulated production to be harvestedwith longer intervals; and a cheaper productionmethod, because of its recycling virtues. It hasbeen seen that the returns per acre of land isas high as Rs. 29,000 in a cycle which isapproximately 66% higher than monocropping(Table 5.2.4).
48
CASE STUDY 3
BIODIVERSITY PRODUCTIVITY – KERALA
Introduction
The Indian state of Kerala is located between 80
18' and 120 48' North Lat and 74052' and 72022'East Long. Kerela is flanked by the Arabian seaon the west and the mountains of the WesternGhats on the east, this land of Parasuramastretch north-south along a coast line of 580 kmwith a varying width of 35 to 120 km. Theaverage elevation of the Ghats is about 1500meters above sea level, occasionally soaring topeaks of 2000 to 2500 m. There are about 120-140 rainy days in a year. Kerala receives annualrainfall varying from 1250 to 5000 mm showingwide temporal and spatial variation. The normalannual rainfall of Kerala is 3107 mm. In the plainsand lowlands, it is generally warm and humid.
Maximum temperature is around 36.7 degree Cand the minimum is about 19.8 degree C.
Cascading delicately down the hills to thegolden coasts covered by verdant coconutgroves, the topography and physicalcharacteristics change distinctly from east towest. This strip of land on the eastern edge,close to the Ghats, comprises of steep mountainsand deep valleys, covered with dense forests.Almost all the rivers of the state originate here.Thirteen agro-climatic zones have beenidentified in Kerala. The present study hasbeen conducted in the Kottayam district fallingin the Southern midland zone is characterizedby lateritic soil.
49
The state of Kerala is famous for many cashcrops cultivation including tea, coffee, coconut,cashew nut, rubber, pepper and areca nut. Teaand coffee are cultivated extensively in thehigher altitude areas of the state since the lasttwo centuries. In the study area, the hills arenot steep, and the valleys are wide andtherefore these have been developed as paddyfields. The elevated lands and hill slopes,converted into estates of rubber, fruit trees andother cash crops like pepper, tapioca, etc.Extensive paddy fields, thick groves of coconuttrees and picturesque backwaters, inter-connected with canals and rivers, are thefeatures of Kottayam.
Agrobiodiversity of Kerala: An Overview
The landuse system of the State represents acomplex pattern with a great diversity of treesand field crops. Cropping system includeintercropping and/or mixed cropping, sequentialcropping and many other types of polyculturesinvolving a wide spectrum of crops like cereals,pulses, vegetables, latex yielding trees andother annual crops, condiments and spices,medicinal plants, and timber yielding species.
Unlike other parts of tropical India,inhabitants of the agricultural land of Keralahave not been depended on forests orcommunity-owned lands fortheir biomass requirementsbecause most of the subsistenceneeds are fulfilled fromagriculture. About 90% of thelandholding of the state ismarginal and the average sizeof the operational holdings isonly 0.36 ha. As a resultcultivation in the uplandsinvolves an assortment of treesshrubs and herbs formingspecial land use system calledhomestead farming. Theseare operational farms thatintegrate trees with field crops,livestock, poultry, and/or fish
having the basic objective of ensuring sustainedavailability of food, vegetable, fodder, fruits,timber and green leaf manure medicines and orornamental besides generating cash incomeand employment.
Other salient traditional tree based land usesystems of the state include growingmultipurpose trees (trees that yield fruits,vegetables, fodder, fuel wood, timber etc.)either on farm boundaries or as scattered treesin the fields, growing commercial crops (tea,coffee, pepper) under shade trees or trailed onto them, growing commercial crops (nutmeg,clove, cocoa) under the shade of plantedcommercial tree crops (coconut and areca nut),growing commercial crops (cardamom) underthe shade of trees in natural forests ,live fences,shelter belts etc.
The land use system of Kerala presents acomplex scenario with tremendous diversity oftrees and field crops grown in polyculturalsystems including home gardens or as solecrops .The cropping intensity is one of thehighest in India (Natural Resources of Kerala).Rice, coconut rubber, pepper, tapioca andcashew represents three fourths of the totalcropped area in Kerala. There has been steadydrift towards less labor absorbing land usesystem. In multistoried cropping system under
50
coconut, crops with varying canopies andgrowth characters are grown. For instancecocoa, pineapple and pepper intercepts solarradiation at different heights .
Hence when they are grown in garden thecoconut constitutes the top storey, cocoa thesecond, pepper trailed on coconut trunk formsthe third and pineapple the ground storey Inthis system of cropping the ground and aerialspace are fully utilized. This results also inimproving the condition of both the soil andproductivity of crops, and consequentlyincreasing the returns.
Results
Eight farmers were identified wherein six of thefarmers practiced mixed cropping and theremaining monocropping in the highlandKottayam district – the plantation belt of WesternGhats. The farmers those practice mixed farmingcultivate multiple crops with low fertiliser inputand soil fertility replenished mainly throughlocally available organic resources.
The farmers’ in general were of the view thatthe soil fertility in the farm was moderate exceptfor the two respondents (respondents Verghese,Joy). The two respondents that perceived thattheir farms had low fertility were presentlyusing chemical fertilizers to protect theirmonocrops due to its high investment made inthem. The basis of judgment by the respondents
of the fertility of their farms included parameterssuch as yield of farms, response to output, insectand pest incidence on their crops. Out of theinterviewed farmers, two respondents viz.,Joseph Mathew and Sebastian felt that mixedcropping and organic farming has improved thefertility of the soil. It is significant to note thatthe six farmers spoke in one voice on pest attacksbeing lesser in their farms when compared totheir counterparts using chemical fertilizers andmonocropping.
Homestead farming
The homestead farming system in Kerela is atraditional concept and being practicedhistorically .The traditional home garden withits highly diverse crop components has been alow input sustainable system that coevolvedwith native socio economic, ecological andcultural aspects of the state. This type offarming system has become a practical andefficient alternative to the high riskmonocropping type of farming system wherethe land holding has to be very high. Due tohigh crop diversity and fertile land, farmerhere grows many crops as intercrops. Thecategories range from vegetable, fruit cropslike banana pineapple ,mango ,jackfruit, tubercrops – tapioca, sweet potato, yam, colocasia,and other crops like – cowpea, black gram,green gram, groundnut, sesame, sugarcane,
Important cropping systems and crops
Lowlands Midlands Highlands High ranges
Perennial Coconut Coconut, rubber, cashew, Pepper, cardamom, Coffee, tea, rubber,areca nut, clove, nutmeg, coffee, tea, nutmeg, pepper cardamompepper, betel vine, cocoa coconut, rubber
Annual Tapioca and banana Tapioca, ginger, banana, Tubercrops, vanilla,yam, turmeric banana, ginger,
tapioca, turmeric
Seasonal Pulses vegetables Pulses, vegetable and Pulses vegetable, Vegetables, pulsesground-nut and sesame, groundnut, rice in rice in wetlandrice in wetland (rice–rice- wetland (rice-pulses, rice-pulses, rice–rice-vegetables, sesame, rice-vegetables,rice–sweet potato/vegetable, rice-sugarcane, rice-sweetrice-rice-fallow) potato, rice-tapioca,
rice-banana)
51
etc. While studying the traditional croppingpattern, it was understood that crops likecoconut, areca nut were grown as plantations.Lately, people have started to grown rubberunder monocrop farming.
The important crop combinations and cropsequences in the different physiographic regionsof Kerala as informed by the farmers’ is beinggiven in above in tabular form.
All the farmers practicing mixed croppingwere of the opinion that the trend is to havemore returns against less input especially whenthey adopt traditional farming. Though thecurrent in the trend in the region witness a boomof rubber plantations, this is resulting inreduction in soil fertility over a period of timethe soil is deteriorated by the application ofchemical fertilizer continuously for over 25years. It has been observed from that a highdegree of biodiversity has been practiced by thefarmers interviewed in the region. The varietiesthat have been enumerated in the tablescomprised of vanilla, coconut, areca nut, cocoa,
nutmeg along with vegetables eg. beans, brinjal,tapioca, ginger,Yaam,Colocasia. The fruits thatare grown for household purpose Mangostin,Rumputan, Butter fruit, Celon apple and Sapota.In addition to this cattle and poultry are alsogrown on farm that comprises of goats, cows,pigs, turkey, fowl etc. (Table 5.3.1 to 5.3.6).
In large farm holdings, coconut based mixedfaming system is practiced. Coconut offersshade that is beneficial for shade tolerantforage crops which in turn us helpful in raisingcattle. The general concept of raising poultry orpigs in the same unit of land generates manurethat helps various crops under mixed croppingsystem. Some of the crops that are taken up asinter-crop in this system are areca nut, pepper,betel vine, clove, cardamom, cocoa, ginger,banana, yam tapioca, pineapple, and arrowrootand guinea grass. It was informed that anadditional income of Rs.10,000/ to 15,000/ha isobtained by growing banana and Rs.30,000 to35,000 by growing pepper in Areca nut gardens.Table 5.3.1 denotes the returns gained by
52
respondent 1 who has adopted mixed farming.The data showed net revenue of Rs. 1, 49, 328from per acre of farm that included the inputsin the form of compost fertilizer, labourinvolved in field preparation, harvesting andtransportation of the produce and irrigation.The data also mentions about the total returnfrom per acre. It has been seen by adoptingmixed farming the farmer was able to maintainbiodiversity rich farm that encompassed about480 plants of pepper, 1000 plants of Vanilla, 350trees of coconut, 1619 trees of rubber, 500plants of cocoa, 125 plants of cardamom andvaried type of vegetables in his farm.
The study also indicated a high biodiversityin other farmers field where was able togenerate a revenue of Rs. 59, 650 per acre perseason by harvesting the produce that comprisedof diverse crops such as pepper, vanilla, coconut,areca nut and vegetables. It was found that sincethe produce matured during all the months, thefarmer had a constant source of income asopposed to other farmers that depended on asingle crop viz. Rubber or coconut. Similarly therespondent no. 3 who had a total farm size of12 acre was able to achieve returns upto 19 lakhsby averaging Rs.1, 65,924 per acre per year(Table 5.3.3). Other respondents also reportedhigher income from mixed farming system(Table 5.3.4, 5.3.5 and 5.3.6).
On visiting the farms it was seen that thefarmers had maintained their own irrigationfacilities. 50% of the respondents used dripirrigation as well as mist air irrigation on their
farms. The study area being predominantly arainfed area all the farmers their croppingregime centered on the monsoons. All of themhad irrigation facilities like tanks ponds andcanals to supplement their water needs in timesof Water stress which is between 14- 20 weeksin a year
On assessing the cropping cycle vis-à-viswater availability, farmers informed that thesurveyed area is blessed by plenty of rainsfrom June onwards. The crops selected formixed cropping are generally planted beforethe onset of monsoon to take advantage of therains. Of the farmers interviewed, 25% of thefarmer grew vegetable before the onset ofmonsoon. The general practice is that thebanana is harvested in September after whichbeans are sown, which is later followed bytapioca and the cycle is ended with the plantingof Chilly after which bananas are planted.Invariably all the respondents felt that organicfarming is the solution for sustaining highproductivity of traditional crops andmaintaining soil fertility.
The present scenario in whole of thesurveyed area is that the present generation ofthe farmers is in a cross-road. The erosion ofthe traditional knowledge has been attributedto loss of the traditional ecological knowledgeand that the present generation is not able torevive traditional farming. They have nowrealised the futility of monocrops, but due toignorance they desperately need information inmost of the parts of surveyed area.
Name of respondent Water Resource
1. Sebastian Pond(50,000 litre) Irrigation Canal ½ km from Home, 2 Wells
2. Joseph Mathew 1/3 acre was converted to large natural tankIn additiontwo wells are also available
3. C. Andrews 2 Large Tanks of 25,000 lites as well as one well
4. Tim Neduparath 2 Protected wells, general water supply, Rain
5. Abraham Koothottil 2 – 50,000 litres tank
6. Rosilin Well and Irrigation Canal ½ Km away from the House
7. T.C. Varghese Irrigation Canal as well as employing people for watering
8. Joy Matured Rubber does not require too much water
53
In the study, it was known that most of thefarmers converted crop residue in to compost,animal feed as well as used for surface mulchin their farms. Burning was not done in any ofthe farms and that mulching was done by allthe farmers while two of them practiced croprotation and one of them practiced terracing inaddition to mulching and crop rotation. Theweed control did not include spraying ofchemicals in mixed farming and mono-croppedfarms. The fertilization of these crops includedthe application of green manure in their farms.Among the farmers interviewed, two farmershad experienced for whom the soil fertility hasincreased notably whereas for the others thefertility built has been low.
Interestingly, farmers that had beenpracticing monocropping cultivation opined onthe decline in soil fertility. This they feel wasattributed due to the continued use of chemicalfertilizers and pesticide which was applied forprotection of crop from pests and diseases. Allthe farmers practicing multicropping systempracticed adopted mulching, use of compostand green manure for maintaining the fertilityof the soil. Those who did use chemicalfertilizer even if minimal scale adoptedrotational pattern by using organic and chemicalalternatively in rotation for their crops. All ofthem had knowledge and practice of organicfarming and most of them were second or thirdgeneration practitioners of such system. Theyfelt that there is no help or incentive forshifting to organic farming. There is minimalinput of factamphos, potash, magnesium,bordeaux mixture, pseudomonas etc. in theorganic farming group whereas the fertilizersand pesticides are used more frequently in themonocrop farms such as Rubber and somecardamom estates. Five of the farms (IC)employed casual labourers whereas 1(MC)
and the monocrop farms employed permanentlaborers as they were needed for rubbertapping on daily basis .Costing on an averagewas Rs. 125 for men and Rs. 85 for womenfolk.
The prices of inputs viz., labour, seeds,pesticides fertilizers and herbicides have goneup. As for the outputs the price of coconut andrubber has fluctuated, pepper and vanilla hasexperience a decline whereas nutmeg,cardamom, and other spices have remainedstable.
There experiences in a nutshell can besummarized as:
• Imperative for planning for improvedvariety of seeds
• Expanding organic cultivation by convertingarea of monocrop plantations
• Enhancing livestock wealth especially cowsand goats
• Access better knowledge on crop rotationbased on seasons and market
The experiences of all the farmersinterviewed can be summed up as
• Organic farms had low incidence of pestand diseases occurrence
• The common problems were abnormal leaffall, shoot rot, powdery mite in rubber,yellow leaf disease in areca nut, leaf rot andblight in pepper – wilt disease in Vanilla.
• The livestock rearing holds an impressivearray among the farms visited.It rangesfrom cows, goats (besides Malabari andJamnapari breeds from Rajasthan also werefound), pigs to poultry (turkey included),ducks, quail (produce 250 -300 eggs/year)
• Cow dung is being used extensively as FYMand compost.
54
Introduction
The Himalayan state of Uttaranchal became the27th state of republic of India just recently. It liesbetween 280 53’ 24’’ and 310 27’ 50’’ N and 770
34’ 27’’ and 810 02’ 22’’ E. Uttaranchal comprisesof two regions viz., the Garhwal and theKumaon. Uttaranchal has a long heritage ofsubsistence economy with agriculture being the
core component involving over 80% of itspopulation. Majority of the farmers are marginaland posses less than 1.0 ha of agricultural landand that too in scattered form. Owing to smalland scattered land holdings in the region,livestock supplement the income and areconsidered to be capital asset. Animal dung and
CASE STUDY 4
BIODIVERSITY PRODUCTIVITYAN ASSESSMENT REPORT – UTTARANCHAL
55
bedding material is important farm yardmanure for the crops in traditional agriculture.
Agrobiodiversity of Uttaranchal:An overview
Pant (1935) has elucidated the traditionalagriculture practices prevalent in the CentralHimalaya The traditional settled agriculture ofKumaon Himalaya exhibits a great deal ofvariability in crop diversity, crop compositionand crop rotations etc. along an altitudinaltransect due to corresponding variations in anumber of factors.
According to traditionally accepted criteria,agriculture land in the region is identifiedeither as the rainfed (locally known as ukhar/uproan) or the irrigated (known as sera/talaon). Irrigated land is often confined theriver valleys of the lower altitude and sometimes in the small chunks as terraced agriculturalfields f middle altitude where water is available.
Cropping pattern
The cropping patterns are built around twomajor cropping seasons viz. kharif (April –October) and Rabi (October – April). In Garwhal,kharif season crops occupy about 63% while rabiseason crops about 59% of the gross croppedarea of the region with the croppingintensity of 159.29% (Swarup,1993). Paddy, finger millet,barnyard millet, foxtail millet,maize and pulses are the maincrops of kharif season while rabiseason includes crops like wheat,barley, mustard, lentils and peas.
During the summer and rainyseason, since June-July till Oct.-Nov., manduwa, jowar, bajra,ramdana, urd, soyabeen, kulthi,taur, beens, etc are sown. Themillets are sown according totheir utility and potential from thesettlements to marginal parts ofthe fields. Mandua (Elusine coracana)can be grown in several crop
compositions such as; (a) manduwa (b)manduwa, urd (Vigna mungo), soybean (Glycinemax), tur (Cajanus cajan), kulthi (Macrotylomauniflorum), and bhatt (Glycine spp.), (c) ramdana(A. frumentaceus) (d) manduwa, bajra(P.typhoidnes), and urd (e) manduwa, urd,soyabeen, taur, and bajara (f) urd (g) soybean,and (h) potato (Solnum tuberum).
The diversity in the crops in this region isvery high and about 40 different species of cropscomprising cereals, pseudo cereals, millets,pulses, oilseeds etc. and their number of varietiesare cultivated throughout the altitudinalgradient. Rainfed agriculture plays a significantrole in the maintenance of crop diversity andoften 2-6 crops are cultivated in mixed conditions.
Generally, the diversity in the crops ismaintained through mixed cropping and croprotations. In the lower and middle altitudescereals and millets (paddy, wheat, maize, barley,finger millet, barnyard millet etc.) are generallycultivated while at higher altitude cash crops(potato, amaranth, kidney beans, millets andpseudocereals) find more prominence. Thefarmers of this region traditionally maintain anumber of multipurpose trees (which furtherenhance the agricultural diversity) on the marginsof their rainfed agricultural fields.
A mixed farming system in the Mantola village inmiddle altitude of Uttaranchal
56
Table 5.4.1:Agricultural crop diversity of the study area
Common name Crop species
Adjuki bean V. angularis
Amaranth Amaranthus oleracea
Amaranth A. frumentaceus
Barley Hordeum vulgare
Barnyard millet Echinochola frumentacea
Black gram Vigna mungo
Buckwheat Fagopyrum esculentum
Buckwheat F. tataricum
Finger millet Eleusine corcana
Foxtail millet Setaria italica
Ginger Zingiber officinale
Green gram V. radiate
Hemp Canabis sativa
Hog- millet Panicum miliaceum
Horse gram (Ghahat/kulth) Macrotyloma uniflorum
Jakhia Celome viscose
Kidney bean Phaseolus vulgaris
Lentil Lens esculenta
Maize Zea mays
Mustard Brassica compestris
Mustard Brassica spp.
Nacked barley Hordeum himalayens
Oat Avena sativa
Onion Allium cepa
Paddy Oryza sativa
Pea Pisum sativum
Perilla Perilla frutescense
Pigeon pea Cajanus cajan
Potato Solanum tuberosum
Sesame Sesamum indicum
Soyabean Glycine soja
Soyabean Glycine spp.
Soyabean Glycine max
Taro Colocasia himalayensis
Wheat Triticum aestivum
Source: Semwal 2001
in lower quantity. The farmers informed that ofthe traditional crops, paddy during kharifseason and wheat during rabi season arecultivated as monocrop. All other crops aretaken as mixed crop (Table ):
Cropping July to Oct. Oct. to Aprilpattern
Mono cropping Paddy Wheat
Mixed cropping Finger millet BarleyBarnyard millet MustardHorse gram LentilBlack Bhatt PeasAmaranthBuckwheat, Potato
The findings show that in Uttaranchal theagrarian systems of the region are evolved overcenturies of collective wisdom of communities.In addition to agriculture, horticulture was alsoidentified as a landuse system but still contributesless to the economy of the region.
The study also confirms that women play avital role in agriculture and the conservation ofagro biodiversity. In the surveyed region, it wasobserved that nearly 90% of the total croppedarea is devoted to subsistence food crops mainlyfor domestic consumption and sometimes thelittle surpluses to the local market. The studyshowed that in areas such as Bageshwar, Baijnathand rainfed areas of Mantola (Almora district)commercial or cash crop occupied a negligibleportion of the cropped area. Mixed croppingcomprised of rice, ragi, mandua, barnyardmillet, horse gram and Glycine occupy substantialarea under cultivation during kharif seasonwhile wheat mustard and lentil are the prominentcrops of the rabi season.
Table depicts that the cropping patternresulted in a generation of Rs. 19,600 which isbe 2.5 times more compared to paddymonocrops. This income is either utilized tofulfill his nutritional requirements butconsumption or utilizes it selling the surplus. Bypracticing the mixed cropping the farmer lowershis inputs thereby increasing his profit margin.Likewise when a farmer opts for a combinationof foxtail millet, barnyard millet and paddy he
Results
Ten farmers were chosen for the study withseven of them practicing mixed croppingpatterns and three monocrop patterns. Thefarmers selected, practiced organic farming inthe mixed cropping systems. Inorganic fertilizeris generally used for wet rice and potato albeit
57
manages to achieve 52%more returns thanmonocropping of paddy (refer Table 5.3.2).
Further, Table 5.3 denotes that a group offarmers that cultivate crops such as horsegram,amaranth, potato, barnyard millet andblackgram unser mixed farming systemgenerates a return of three times compared topotato monocrop. The yield per acre undermixed cropping is much higher (16 Qt). Similarlya combination of kidney beans and potato toogives higher returns compared to potato
monocrop. In the wheat based mixed croppingcomprising of mustard, barley, lentil and peasthe net income derived was 31% higher thanwheat monocrops.
Cost benefit analysis based on survey
Farmers were surveyed to collect data ondifferent practices involved in agriculture. Theresults showed that the farmers doing mixedcropping were getting more benefit as comparedto monocropping.
Table 5.4.2: Monocropping (Paddy) and Mixed cropping (Mandua + Jhangora + Gahat + Bhatt)
Mono cropping Mixed cropping
Field Preparation Rs. 300 Rs. 300
Seeds Rs. 180 Own (Desi seeds)
Fertilizers Rs. 200 Compost made by own material
Harvesting Rs. 400 Rs. 400
Transportation Agents procures from the village Agents procures from the village
Total Yield 12 Qt./acre Mandua = 3 QtJhangora = 2 QtGahat = 4 QtBhatt = 5 QtTotal = 14 Qt
Market price @ Rs. 650/qtl Mandua @Rs. 8/kg = Rs. 2400Jhangora @Rs 12/kg = Rs. 2400Gahat @Rs 20/kg = Rs. 8000Bhatt @Rs.25/kg = Rs. 12500
Total income Rs. 7,800 Rs. 25,300
Net Profit Rs. 7,800-1080 = 6720 25,300 – 700 = Rs 24,600
58
Table 5.4.3: Monocropping (Paddy) and mixed cropping(Mandua + Foxtail millet + French beans + Amaranth)
Field Preparation Rs. 300 Rs. 300
Seeds Rs. 180 –
Fertilizers Rs. 200 –
Harvesting Rs. 400 Rs. 400
Total yield 12 Qt /acre Mandua = 6 QtFoxtail millet = 3 QtFrench beans = 3 QtAmaranth = 2 QtTotal = 14 Qt
Market price @Rs. 650/ Qt Mandua @ Rs. 6.50/kg = Rs. 3900Foxtail millet @ Rs 12/kg = Rs. 3600French beans @ Rs 20/kg = Rs. 6000Amaranth@ Rs.15/kg = Rs. 3000
Total income Rs. 7800 Rs. 16500
Net Profit 7800- 1080 = Rs. 6720 16500 – 700 = Rs. 15,800
Table 5.4.4: Mono cropping (Potato) and mixed cropping(Barnyard millets + Black gram + Horse gram + Amaranth + Potato)
Mono cropping Mixed cropping
Field Preparation Rs. 300 Rs. 300
Seeds Rs. 500 –
Fertilizers Rs. 200 –
Harvesting Rs. 400 Rs. 400
Total yield 13 Qt /acre Barnyard Millet = 2 QtBlack gram = 6 QtHorse gram = 4 QtAmaranth = 2 QtPotato = 2 QtTotal = 16 Qt
Market price @ Rs. 500/qtl Barnyard Millet @ Rs. 6.50/kg = Rs. 1300Black gram @ Rs 12/kg = Rs. 7200Horse gram @ Rs 20/kg = Rs. 8000Amaranth @ Rs. 15/kg = Rs. 3000Potato @ Rs. 5/kg = Rs. 1000
Total income Rs. 6500 Rs. 20,500Net Profit 6500 – 1400 = Rs. 5100 20,500 – 700 = Rs. 19800
Table 5.4.5: Mono cropping (Potato) vs mixed cropping (Amaranth+Potato+Kidney beans)
Mono cropping Mixed cropping
Field Preparation Rs. 300 Rs. 300
Seeds Rs. 500 –
Fertilizers Rs. 200 –
Harvesting Rs. 400 Rs. 400
Total yield 13 Qt /acre Kidney beans = 2 QtAmaranth = 4 QtPotato = 3 QtTotal = 9 Qt
Market price @ Rs. 500/ Qt Kidney beans @Rs. 25/kg = Rs. 5000Amaranth @ Rs 15/kg = Rs. 6000Potato @ Rs 5/kg = Rs. 1500
Total income Rs. 6500 Rs. 12,500
Net Profit 6500 – 1400 = Rs. 5100 12,500 – 700 = Rs. 11,800
59
Table 5.4.6: Monocropping (Wheat) and Mixed cropping (Wheat + Mustard + Barley + Lentil)
Mono cropping Mixed cropping
Field Prep. Rs. 300 Rs. 300
Seeds Own seeds Own seeds
Fertilizers Rs. 100 –
Harvesting Rs. 400 Rs. 400
Yield/acre 10 Qt/acre Wheat = 4 QtMustard = 2 QtBarley = 2 QtPeas = 2 QtLentil = 1 QtTotal = 11 Qt
Market price @ Rs. 800/ Qt Wheat @ Rs 8/kg = 3200Mustard @ Rs. 15/kg = Rs. 3000Barley @ Rs. 8/kg = Rs. 1600Peas @ Rs. Rs. 12/kg = Rs. 2400Lentil @ Rs.15/kg = Rs. 1500
Total income Rs. 8000 Rs. 11,700
Net Profit 8000 – 800 = Rs. 7200 11,700 – 700 = Rs. 11,000
Table 5.4.7: Homestead-based cropping system in Uttaranchal
Area in .02 ha (= I nali)
Crop Production (kg) Selling price (Rs./kg) Net profit(Rs.)
Maize 25 7 175
Kheera 15 6 90
Brinjal 5 8 40
Chillie 12 12 144
Lady finger 5 9 45
Pumpkin 20 5 100
Tomato 12 10 120
Bottle gourd 10 6 60
Mint 2 20 40
Walnut 60 45 2700
French Beans 8 10 80
3594
Seeds and labour is inputs by farmer himself and is not dependent on market
Table 5.4.8: Production and market value of produce in 1.5 nali* in an year
Crop Production (kg) Selling price(Rs./kg) Net profit (Rs.)
Malta 2 tree 50 kg 10 500
Peach 1 tree 60 kg 12 720
Apricot 1 tree 30 kg 15 450
Pear 1 tree 50 kg 10 500
Garlic 2 kg 12 24
Coriander 5 kg 16 80
60
Of the current cropping that has beenreported in the earlier section of the report,interesting facts that have come on compilationof the data reveals that in addition to a farmertaking his crop, he also is engaged in raisingcrops in land that is near his dwelling. Thecrops usually cultivated are the vegetablesthat they grow not only for their personalconsumption but also for selling it in the localhaat. It happens so that the near hamlet or townis in a perpetual demand of vegetable andthat he is assured of a income that he getsimmediately, unlike his farm crop that has acomplicated mode of repayment buy the villageadati (money lender cum trader). By growingvegetable, as soon as he sells his produce hegets income once he visits the haat. The returnthat a farmer gets from a patch of land is Rs.2818 that one extrapolated gives him a returnof Rs. 37,500 approx. which happens to be 5times more remunerative than cropping.
6. Discussion
The traditional settled agriculture in the entirestudy area across all the agroecological zonesexhibits a great deal of crop diversity, cropcomposition and crop rotation which can beattributed to corresponding variations in anumber of factors. The study regions as
described had been identified in locations inSikkim, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan and Kerala.
It is noteworthy that these markedlydifferent agro climatic zones along differentelevation gradients right from the hills upto thecoastal lands had a strong element of mixedfarming system that was derived on the basisof traditional ecological knowledge. The studyarea was broadly classified into rainfed and theirrigated areas. Of the two the former ispredominant form of land use which indicatedhigh level of biodiversity as compared toirrigated zone. Specifically in the hills the areathat was rainfed was characterized by mixedfarming whereas the irrigated zones were sitesof monocropping with high chemical input.
Of the surveyed area the irrigated land wereconfined to the river valleys of the loweraltitude and sometimes in the small chunks asterraced agriculture fields of middle altitudewhere water was available (Semwal et al. 2001).Nevertheless the large area under cultivation inthe mountain state of Uttaranchal and Sikkimagriculture is practiced on the terraced andsometimes on the un-terraced gentle slopes, isentirely practiced under rainfed condition.Further, in the western region of India arid zoneof Jodhpur was identified for investigating thefarming system. The climatic conditions are
Crop Production (kg) Selling price(Rs./kg) Net profit (Rs.)
Fenugreek 2 kg 20 40
Potato 10 kg 8 80
Onion 15 kg 10 150
Turmeric 3 kg 25 75
Ginger 6 kg 20 120
Radish 12 kg 6 72
Palak 8 kg 8 64
Rai 18 kg 9 162
Tomato 20 kg 8 160
Pumpkin and lauki 30 kg 7 21
Total Input cost = Rs. 400
3218 – 400 = Rs. 2818
* (20 nali = 1 ha)
61
characterized by hot dry aridwind and erratic rainfall. The soilhas low organic content; howeverthe farmers have evolved a mixedfarming system that involvesgrowing of water prudent cropsthat not only survives the waterstress and fulfills the nutritiverequirements to the household.In Kerala too, the presentgeneration farmers have realizedthe importance of mixed farmingand are converting theirmonoculture plantation crops.
The present study validatesthe premise that the stability isachieved in farms botheconomically and ecologically byadopting the mixed farming systems that havea broad biological base. This finding is inconsonance with the studies of Salick andMerrick 1990; Altieri 1990 who had postulatedthe above hypothesis.
Till recently monocropping was propoundedas solution for all the declining in theproductivity. This premise was based whenproductivity is computed in terms of yieldsobtained from per unit of land. By identifyingthe yield as the key indicator for assessingproductivity sustainability was ignored. If onehas to fairly evaluate the productivity of thesmall and large farms one has to discard yieldper unit are as the yardstick. Yield is definedas the production per unit area of single cropeg. Metric tonnes per hectare and is widelyused to assess the productivity. Whilemonoculture may allow for high yield of asingle commodity, it subjects a farmer to ahigher risk of crop failure, more dependent oncostly inputs, higher vulnerability to marketforces and drives households to nutritionalinsecurity. Also monocropping leaves a farmerwith may be few sacs more of a singlecommodity but in turn leaves him poorer interms of resources like soil fertility, seedsecurity and at the mercy of market forces.
The present study reveals that mixedcropping in large as well as small land holdingsstill remain sustainably productive. This is onlypossible because under mixed farming systemthe agriculture system is considered to be anecological system rather than a productionsystem. Unlike monocrops that seems to beremunerative in short term do greater harm bydegrading essential resource base bothecologically and economically which invariablyresults in collapsing of the farming system(Shiva, 1997).
The study further clarifies that the mixedfarming systems are practiced and understoodby the farmers as a multidimensional conceptthat covers both natural resources (soil, waterand soil microorganisms) and livelihood aspectsof the farming communities. Sustainabilityunder a mixed farming system is best definedas the wealth of economies that include thecomponent of soil fertility, soil and waterconservation and high microbial populationthat can be considered as the ecologicalcapital for agriculture. Mixed cropping isseen to address all the above issues and has apositive relationship of the farming communitywith the environment. The findings of thestudy undertaken in the different agro-ecological
A group discussing the status of biological diversity in Sikkim farms
62
zones are discussed individually in the followingparagraphs.
1. Sikkim
Mountain people in the Sikkim Himalayanregion have either farming or tourism as theirprimary occupation. Sikkim is a small Indianstate in the eastern Himalaya where most ofthe people eke their livelihood from farming.Over the period of time it was realized thatthe green revolution was not successful in thethis Himalayan state as the people could notafford the costs and that the soils were toofragile to sustain the productivity in the eventof high chemical load (Sharma et. al., 1998).Mountain agriculture in Sikkim comprises oftraditional crops wherein one of the traditionalcrop large cardamom doubles as the cash crop.Large cardamom, along with ginger, mandarinorange, potato, maize paddy etc., is seen to bethe crops grown by the hill people. Over aperiod of time various landuse systems evolvedwherein cardamom was central to all thecultivation practices. In the recent times, thecontribution of ginger has increasedtremendously, but the net income from thelarge cardamom is still much higher. A studythat compared two systemsone dominated by thetraditional large cardamomsystem and other dominatedby the modern maize andpotato showed that the peoplethat practiced large cardamomhas higher household incomeand per person income werealmost double in the largecardamom system. Apart fromits high income value and thefact that it is not labourintensive large cardamom isalso low volume, non-perishable crop; this is agreat advantage in an areawhere accessibility andtransportation are restricted.
Further more cardamom agro-forestry isalmost a closed system that does not dependon external inputs (Sharma et al., 2000).
By adopting a traditional organicallymanaged biodiverse landuse system, it hasbeen insured that with the existing components,various requirements ranging from maintainingsoil fertility, fuel load, and enhancedproductivity are all fulfilled by the components.
For the traditional farming communities inSikkim the traditional farming communities’agriculture is the main source of earninglivelihood. Over the years, the small farmsholdings have remained sustainable productiveas the surrounding natural resource base is notallowed to degrade. With the changing socio-economic realities in the present times, thetraditional systems have attempted to beredeveloping in such a manner that they keepon nurturing the high crop diversity. Thefarmer here aims to enhance his productivityby innovative methods.
This arrangement infact acts as a regulatorof good agriculture practice as short-term gainat the risk of degrading essential resourcesplaces both the family and the farm at risk ofcollapse. Small farm land have developed,
Homestead farm in Sikkim where mixed cropping is a way of life
63
sometimes over the course of 5,000 years, avariety of unique technologies, crops andfarming systems. Perhaps most important in anera of diminishing non-renewable resources,small farmers across the Third World producebountiful harvests with minimal recourse toexpensive external inputs such as pesticides,machines or genetically modified seeds.
2. Uttaranchal
The biodiversity based traditional farmingsystems are a result of years of intenseselection, based on prevalent agro-hydrologicalregimes, inaccessibility of resources andecological fragility. These factors coupled,culminated in the genesis of subsistenceproduction systems that were sustained withthe organic matter and the nutrients derivedfrom the forests (Maikhuri et al., 1997). Studieshave indicated that biodiversity based farmingsystems evolved by the farmer’s science andunderstanding were faced with pressures viz.,population pressure, socio-cultural changes,heightened aspirations of the future generations,better opportunities of livelihood outside thefarming occupations, technological innovations,uncertainty in market due to globalization andmost important aspect of pushing the Green
Revolution by the State thatover time has resulted in poorsoil productivity. The dumpingof chemical inputs and thegreed to earn a quick buck bythe farmers lead to depletion ofalready endangered nativeland-races. For example inUttaranchal across an altitudinalgradient multitude of cropscomprising of cereals, pseudo-cereals, millets, pulses, spicesand oilseeds are cultivated.
Also since most of thecultivated area comes underrainfed agriculture, often 2-6crops are maintained in mixedconditions. The diversity in
this region is maintained through mixedcropping and crop rotations. During the survey,it was known that in the lower and middlealtitudes cereals and millets (paddy, wheat,maize barley, finge-rmillet, barnyard milletetc.) are generally cultivated at higher altitudeash crops such as potato, amaranth, kidneybean,millets and pseudocereals) find moreprominence. The farmers of the lower andmiddle altitudes (upto 1500m) traditionallymaintain a number of multipurpose trees thatfurther enhance the agricultural diversity onthe margins of their rainfed agricultural fields.These trees not only provide green fodderduring lean period but also provide fuelwood and fibre. The important traditionalagroforestry species comprises of Pears, walnut,apricot, apple, peach. The farmers also maintainstrees for fuel and fodder in the farm land viz.Grewia optiva (Bheemal), Ficus roxburghii (Timila),Celtis australis (Kharik) and Bauhinia varigata(Gwiriyal) etc.
It has been experience that the farmers oflower and middle altitude have a comparativelypoor economic condition due to high populationpressure, smaller land holding and lowaccessibility to natural resources. The maincause for there weak economic condition is the
A house in Sikkim were still seeds are saved traditionally
64
influence of modern technique which arenecessarily not suitable in the existing scenario.It has also been that by adoption of a techniquenot suitable for hill agriculture, the hill farmerhas adopted a system that is totally devoid ofbiodiversity and energy subsidized which areprone to many diseases and perturbations. Thestudy also understands that the decline in theeconomy of the hill farmers is the unscientificchange in the cropping patterns, change in thefood habits of the inhabitants, declined naturalresource base and consequently low grainproductivity, replacement of traditional cropsby so called high yielding varieties that did notperformed as per expectation as the agro-climatic were not conducive to the prevailingagro-ecological circumstances.
It has been experienced and agreed by thevillage elders that biodiversity contributes in avariety of ways in maintaining agro-ecosystemand resilience. Also, it has been adequatelyresearched and concluded that the traditionalcrops is in no way inferior or less productivethan the introduced high yielding varieties(artificial varieties) as long as the naturalresources are optimally but carefully utilized.Moreover, it is known well among theagricultural communties that the by-productyield of the traditional cropping is alwayshigher than the high (grain) yielding varieties.Also, it has been felt that the traditionalvarieties are well adapted in the localenvironmental conditions and possess thequalities to withstand the sudden out break ofdiseases, pests and natural hazards. Thisadaptability has in fact, protected the hillfarmers from used by the local people to curedifferent diseases (Maikhuri et al., 1991).
The study in Uttaranchal was aimed togenerated focused and reliable data on theyield potential of main traditional crops grownin the region. The data obtained from theinvestigation showed variation that dependedupon various factors viz. available irrigationfacility, quality and quantity of inputs applied(FYM, seed, labour etc.), altitude, climatic
factors, the rainfed agriculture of the regionsome of the crops like paddy, wheat, soybean,sesame etc. yielded higher quantity of grainsin the lower altitudinal area, barnyard millet,finger millet, foxtail millet, maize, mustard andpulses etc. in the middle altitude and Amaranth,buckwheat, kidney bean etc. in higher altitude.Across the spectrum the yield of kharif seasoncrops is generally higher than the rabi seasoncrops. Singh, 1995, in an experiment conductedin Henwal valley of Garhwal Himalaya indicatesthat the traditional land races of rice yield morethan HYVs not only in grains but also in thebyproducts.
There are ample studies that indicate theyield of traditional crops at different altitudesunder different cropping systems. The averageyield reported in the region of the Uttaranchalis 18.84 Qt ha-1 (Whittaker, 1984). There arereports that confirm the data that the mixedcropping in the area depicts that the yieldobtained on an agricultural farm across thealtitudinal gradient in a traditional agro-ecosystem comes to be 10.25 Qt ha-1 forwheat;11.0 Qt ha-1 for barley, 26.18 Qt ha-1 forthe mixed crop of paddy, barnyard millet andfoxtail millet; 18.16 Qt ha-1 for the mixed cropof finger millet and horse gram; 18.46 Qt ha-1
amaranth. Negi, 1994, conducted productivitytrails on the traditional vs. high yieldingvarieties of wheat under rainfed and irrigatedcondition and concluded that the traditionalvarieties have higher productivity under rainfedconditions than the HYVs.
With the observations and conclusions madein different research trails and the results fromthe preliminary survey it is safe to concludethat if the conditions are favourable, thetraditional varieties are in no way less in termsof productivity than the so called improvedvarieties that bank on the higher usage ofchemical inputs particularly in the hill agriculturalsites of the region.
The discussion on Kerala and Rajasthan is onthe similar line as discussed in Sikkim andUttaranchal. It has been observed though
65
geographically apart however, the principles ofsustainability and the virtues of mixed farmingunder stress conditions of Rajasthan andluxuriant condition of Kerala remains the same.
7. Summary and conclusion
The project study had the main objective tovalidate the premise that biodiversity basedagriculture is more remunerative. The surveythat was carried out in the identifiedagroecological zones indicated mixed farmingwas traditionally practiced. The traditionalmixed farming systems have higher biodiversitythat invariably resulted in higher economicreturns and indicated sustainability in thelonger run. Sustainable farming in all theregions by adoption of mixed farming wouldinsure household food security. It has beenobserved that in the small and marginal landholding in all agroecological zones a variety ofcrops were cultivated in a year that weredistributed in temporal and spatial dimension.This distribution was maintained by the farmerby adopting different crop rotations anddifferent crop compositions on a unit of land.As the agriculture in the earlier time dependedtotally on the local resources and were at themercy of vagaries of nature this distribution ofcrop in terms of crop composition and harvestingwas spread as insurance. This temporal andspatial distribution insured that in the event ofeither drought or flooding in a particularmonth affected only a part of the total croppingand eliminated the chance of total crop failuresthereby securing food security at householdlevel. It was seen that in case of surplus, theproduce was traded in the local market therebyaugmenting the farm income. This mechanismto buffer the impact of climatic oscillation is stillpracticed in many parts of the country.
One can conclude safely that family farmersregularly achieve higher and more dependableproduction from their land than large farmsoperating practicing monoculture in similarenvironments. Labour-intensive practices suchas manuring, limited tillage, ridging, terracing,
composting organic matter and recycling plantproducts into the productive process enhancesoil conservation and fertility. This provides apowerful argument that using land reform tocreate a small farm economy is not only goodfor local economic development, but is alsomore effective social policy than allowingbusiness-as-usual to keep driving the poor outof rural areas and into burgeoning cities.
Also, one has to understand that the farmthat are biodiversity rich in nature morebushels of grain are not the only goal of mostfarm production. The on farm production aimsto reduce the farmer’s dependence on marketin terms of food security and nutrition both ofthe household and the community level. Thefarm resources in most of the cases are seen togenerate wealth for the overall improvement ofrural life — including better housing, education,health services, transportation, local businessdiversification, and more recreational andcultural opportunities. In this era of globalization,the small-scale cultivation are existing to meethousehold consumption and also take part intrading that characterizes livelihoods in mostrural households. The organically managedbiodiverse farm embodies a diversity ofownership, of cropping systems, of landscapes,of biological organisation, culture andtraditions. A varied farm structure contributesto biodiversity, a diverse and aesthetically-pleasing rural landscape, and open space.
In the present system of trade consumershave little connection to agriculture and, as aconsequence, they have little connection withnature, and lack an appreciation of the farmer’srole. Through farmers’ markets and community-supported agriculture, consumers can connectwith the people growing their food. With thegrowing understanding of ecological values ofbiodiversity, the young generations of farmersfrom the state of Kerala are keen to shunmonocropping plantation crops in favour ofmixed crops. Also, a phenomenon is been seenin the rural setup that more and moreindividuals are opting for agriculture that had
66
left to look for more green pastures in the city.This may be attributed to the higher returns forthe produce that the consumers are willing topay if it is being organically grown. The majordriver is the increase in information about thetraditional crops in terms of its high nutritivevalues is catching up the imagination of manyurban societies, thus creating a market demand.
The study undertaken in the diverse agro-ecological zones of India has shown that thepresent system has diversity in all respects. Thefragility of the system, be it the Himalayas, orthe desert system intensive and monocroppingare the bane for sustainability. Under all these,the study concludes by making the followingobservations:
a. The recent study on the faming systems inthe various agro-ecological zones identifiedreveals that traditional farming systems inthe region have evolved as a result of yearsof farmer’s wisdom and to interfere withthe traditional cropping setup will lead toecological imbalance
b. The highly stress prone areas are to bechecked when economically viable andenvironmentally sound traditional croppingsystems are brought back into the practice
c. In case of intensive cropping, biodiversityin the crops should be selected keeping theterrain and climate in view
Presently, the only viable solution is torevisit the traditional farming systems ofvarious agroecological zones of India and tostrengthen the mixed farming systems bydevelopment of markets. Scientific interventions,conscious policy decisions to include lesserknown crops as priority of research institutionsetc. may be taken up on priority. Therecommendations originating from the presentstudy are detailed in the following paragraphs.
Recommendations
For promotion of mixed farming systems thestudy recommends the following points that
will strengthen the farmers resolve to carry onthis sustainable land use practice:
• To identify and create strong marketlinkages
• To evaluate and provide a just economicvalue for the lesser known crops
• To integrate the consumption of traditionalcrops of high nutritive value in themainstream consumption e.g. theincorporation of ragi and amaranth in theGerman Bread.
• To devise method for value addition of thecrops so that the lesser known high valuefood are reintegrated to the menu of hotelsand the forgotten dishes are reintroducedto dinning table
• To strengthen and enhance the feasibility ofthe mixed farming system so thattechnologies are available for reducinghuman drudgery on one hand and on theother to capitalized the rich traditionalecological knowledge to achieve the statedobjective.
An overview of the system in the selectedagro-ecological zones reveals that the mixedfarming which is a value based system has beenevolved over centuries through the process oftrail and error. Unlike modern agriculture thatgreatly relies on external inputs of energyresources, disturbs the energy equation whichcauses many environmental perturbation, thetraditional agriculture is low input based,depending solely on the renewable naturalresources and therefore, sustainable. Also thescientists and environmentalists all over theworld have started acclaiming the eloquentqualities of the traditional agriculture e.g., itsproximity and critical harmony with the naturalprocess and long term sustainability values.
Till few decades back, the agriculture of theregion surveyed was self reliant largely due tothe availability of the vast natural base.However, as of now owing to populationpressure, over exploitation of natural resources
67
in the name of economic development andrapid socio-economic changes etc., agricultureis fast heading to a disastrous future. Theobvious and pre-eminent indicators of theabove can be observed in the form of decliningproductivity, loss of crop diversity, landabandonment and degradation, migration ofthe young people. In this context, redevelopmentof agriculture would be possible only whenthe techniques built over inherited and empiricalknowledge of the local people are generatedand employed particularly to strengthen thetraditional land use system, water harvestingand value addition of the agriculture produceonly.
References
Aliteri, M 1995. Agro-ecology puts synergy tocreate self-sustaining ecosystem. Ceres FAO review,154 (27A):5-23.
Berardi, G.M. 1978. Organic and conventionalwheat production: examination of energy andeconomics. Agro-Ecosystems 4:367-376.
Blobaum, Roger. 1983. Barriers to conversion toorganic farming practices in the midwestern UnitedStates. In: Environmentally Sound Agriculture,William Lockeretz (ed.), pp. 263-278. Praeger, NewYork, N.Y.
Brusko, Mike, George DeVault, Fred Zahradnik,Craig Cramer, and Lesa Ayers. 1985. Profitablefarming now. The Regenerative AgricultureAssociation, Emmaus, Pa.
Buttel, Frederick H. and 1. Garth Youngberg. 1983.Implications of biotechnology for development ofsustainable agricultural systems. In:Environmentally Sound Agriculture, WilliamLockeretz (ed.), pp. 377400. Praeger, New York,N.Y.
Cacek, Terry. 1984. Organic farming: the otherconservation farming system. Journal of Soil andWater Conservation 39:357-360.
Clark, Edwin H. II, Jennifer A. Haverkamp, andWilliam Chapman. 1985. Eroding soils - the off-farm impacts. The Conservation Foundation,Washington, D.C.
Crosson, Pierre. 1984. New perspectives on soilconservation policy. Journal of Soil and WaterConservation 39:222-225.
Eberle, P. and D. Holland. 1979. Comparing organicand conventional grain farms in Washington. Tilth(Spring): 30-37.
Farris, Allen L. and Steven H. Cole. 1981. Strategiesand goals for wildlife habitat restoration onagricultural lands. Transactions of the Forty-sixthNorth American Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference 46: 130-136.
Helmers, Glenn A., Joseph Atwood, and Michael R.Langemeier. 1984. Economics of alternative croprotations for east-central Nebraska—a preliminaryanalysis. Dept. of Agricultural Economics StaffPaper No. 14-1984. University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
James, Sidney C. 1983. Economic consequences ofbiological farming. In: Proceedings of theManagement Alternative for Biological FarmingWorkshop, Robert B. Dahlgren, (ed.), pp. 17-26.Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, lowa StateUniversity, Ames
Judy, Robert D., Jr., Paul N. Seeley, Thomas MMurray, Susan C. Svirsky, Molly R. Whitworth, andLee S.lshinger. 1984. 1982 National FisheriesSurvey. Vol I, Technical Report: Initial Findings.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D. C.,FWS/OBS84/06.
Kraten, S.L. 1979. A preliminary examination of theeconomic performance and energy intensiveness oforganic and conventional small grain, farms in theNorthwest. M.S. Thesis. Washington StateUniversity, Pullman.
Lockeretz, William, Georgia Shearer, Robert Klepper,and Susan Sweeney. 1978. Field crop productionon organic farms in the Midwest. Journal of Soiland Water Conservation 33:130-134.
Lowdermilk, W.C. 1975. Conquest of the landthrough 7,000 years. Agricultural InformationBulletin No. 99. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,Washington,
Maikhuri, R.K. Nautiyal, S.M. and Khali, M.P.1991. Lesser known crops of food value in GarhwalHimalaya and strategy to conserve them. FAO/IBPGR Plant Genetic Resource Newsletter, 86:33-36.
68
Maikhuri, R.K., Semwal, R.K., Rao, K.S., Nautiyal,S. and Saxena, K.G. 1997. Eroding traditional cropdiversity imperils the sustainability of agriculturalsystems in the Central Himalaya. Current Science. 9:771-782.
Negi, G.C.S. 1994. High yielding vs. Traditionalcrop varieties: a socio-agronomic study in aHimalyan village in India. Mountain Research andDevelopment, 14: (3): 251-254
Oldeman, R.A.A. and Westre J.J 1980. De betekinsVan hout in de oecologie van boom en bos. Ned.Busbouw Tijdschr. 52: 39-46.
Olson, Kent D., Earl O. Heady, and James A.Langley. 1980. A national model of agriculturalproduction, land use, export potential, and farmincome under conventional and organic farmingalternative. Center for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, lowa State University, Ames.
Pant, S.D. 1935. The Socio Economic of the HimalayanRegion Based on a survey in the Kumaon Himalaya.George, Allen and Unwin Ltd.,London.
Patten, Andrea W.G. 1982. Comparison of nitrogenand phosphorus flows on an organic and chemicalfarm. M.S. Thesis. Department of Agronomy andSoils, Washington State University, Pullman.
Ramakrshnan, P.S. 1992. Shifting cultivation andAgriculture Development – An interdisciplinary studyfrom the North Eastern India. Man and BiosphereSeries, Vol. 10, UNESCO Paris, p 242.
Roberts, Kenneth J., Philip F. Warnken, and KennethC. Schneeberger. 1979. The economics of organiccrop production in the western Corn Belt.Agricultural Economics Paper No. 1979-6.University of Missouri, Columbia.
Sati. V.P. 2004. Resource utilization pattern anddevelopment in the hills – A case for the Pindarbasin of Garhwal Himalaya, India. J. of MountainSci. Vol. 1 No. 2 (2004): 155-165.
Semwal, R.L., Maikhuri, R.K. and Rao, K.S. 2001.Agriculture ecology practices and productivity, In:Garhwal Himalaya, Nature, Culture & Society,(eds. O.P. Kandari and O.P. Gusain) 261-276.
Semwal, R. L. and Maikhuri, R. K. 1996. Structureand functioning of traditional hill agro-ecosystemsof Garhwal Himalaya. Biological Agriculture andHorticulture, 13 (3) 267-289.
Singh, V. 1995. Biodiversity and farmers: experiencefrom Garhwal Himalaya, India. Paper Presented atthe Beijer Research Seminar, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia16-19 May.
Sharma, R., Singh, K.K. and Sharma, E. 1998. LargeCardamom farming: An appropriate livelihoodoption for the mountain people. Research forMountain Development: some initiative andaccomplishments, Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital
Shiva et.al. 1995. The seed keepers. New Delhi,Navdany, RFSTNRP, 156 PP
Shiva Vandana, 2001. Towards a biodiversitybased productivity framework, ILEIA NewsletterVol. 12 No. 3 p. 22.
Swarup, R. 1993. Agricultural Economy of theHimalayan Region with Special reference to GarwhalHimalaya. Vol. 2 Gyondaya Prakashan, Nainital, p. 288.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Report andRecommendations on Organic Farming.Washington,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1984. AgriculturalStatistics 1984. Washington, D.C. Citation : CacekTerry, Langner L. Linda, 1986, “The economicimplications of organic farming”, Vol. 1, pp. 25-29.
Whittaker, W. 1994. Migration and agrarian changein Garwhal district, U.P. In Bayliss-Smith T.K. andWanmalli, S. (eds.) Understanding Green Revolution:Agrarian Change and Development Planning in South-Asia, Cambridge, U.K.
69
With the introduction of high yieldingtechnology, although rice yield has increasedsubstantially in irrigated rice tracts in India,there has been no significant increase in yield,under rain fed and lowland rice ecologies thataccount for over 50 percent of area. Thetechnology supposed to be scale and resourceneutral has therefore been confined to regionsof favorable situations. Consequently, in stateslike Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh andKerala etc, the realized yield have been verylow as compared to irrigated ecologies. Thereis a strong view that the Green Revolutionparadigm adopted in these places in tune withthe National agenda has been inappropriateowing to the complete neglect of the naturalsituations.
It is argued that in states like Kerala, theincrease in productivity, with the advent ofhigh yielding technologies, was notcommensurate as compared to escalation iscost of production (Santhakumar & Rajagopal,1995).This has been partly attributed to thehigh rainfall situations, undulating topography,and water logged rice growing situations inthese places unlike that of the semi arid,irrigated areas. These situations highlight theneed for alternate technologies tailored to thelocally specific environmental conditions. Evenin regions where the technology helped improveproductivity perceptibly, the emergence ofsecond generation problems such as 1) depletionof organic status and soil fertility, due to overmining of native nutrient reserve 2) decliningfertilizer use efficiency 3) groundwater depletion4) increasing problems of salinity-alkalinity and
CASE STUDY 5
RICE-FISH ROTATION:A SUSTAINABLE FARMING MODEL
FOR COASTAL LOWLANDSK.G. Padmakumar
Regional Agricultural Research Station, Kumarakom - 686 566
5) build up of disease-pest pressure owing tovarietal uniformity, lead us to the search fortechnologies that blend productivity, economicefficiency and ecological sustainability.
In Kerala, rice is cultivated mainly in coastallowlands and valley bottom areas of highlandsand midlands classified as niloms, or wetlands.In the coastal lowlands, paddy is cultivated inlocations where nothing else can be cultivated.Being close to the sea, exposed diurnal andtidal flushing and to monsoon floods, thelowland environment is even more hostile tofor paddy in these locations. Over centuries,peasants in such locations have evolved varietiesand farming practices in consonance with everysuch conceivable agronomic conditions, fromtotally dry to floating rice under floods, rainfed to irrigated from sandy to clayey and salineto acid soils in tune with the natural climaticrhythm. A unique symbiosis of paddy duringmonsoon season and fish/prawn during highsaline months has been developed in pokkali ricelands, in tune with the nature’s rhythm. It hasbeen highlighted that the high yieldingtechnologies in rice are highly productive andprofitable only in rotation with varied cropsand cropping sequences( Siddique, 1999).
Kuttanad wetlands-the rice bowl of Kerala
Kuttanad, the low lying network of backwaters,canals and streams is coastal wetland basin thatremains waterlogged for most part of the year.Connected to the eastern mountains by therivers, Achencoil, Pampa, Manimala andMeenachil that bring in flood waters during themonsoon and to the Arabian sea on the west
70
through the Vembanad lake, the rice fields ofKuttanad were once part of this lake expanseand were created by bunding the shallow parts of the lake into ‘polders’ or Padasekharams.These padasekharams that lie below the sea levelare a highly fertile tract of land replenished bysilt brought in by the river systems and wasundoubtedly suited for rice cultivation fromthe very early days. Rice cultivation in thebeginning of the last century was only once intwo years, which became an annual cultivationduring the 1940’s and the initiative forintensification into double cropping began inthe 1950’s, when the issue of food sufficiencywas a national priority.
Kuttanad with its natural resource potentialwas one of the regions in Kerala selected forIntegrated Agricultural District Programme(IADP) popularly known as ‘packageprogramme’ for enhanced food productionunder the Green Revolution strategy(Anon,1999). A series of developmentalinterventions viz. spillways to drain off floodwaters, barrage to ward off salinity incursionand submersible ring bunds around polders forprotection from flash floods, were all facilitatedfor raising the cropping intensity of rice inKuttanad. Although all the developmentalinterventions helped, to some extent increasethe area and production of rice initially, theenvironmental consequences have not beenmarginal (Kannan, 1979; Padmakumar et al.,2001).Emergence and proliferation of new waterweeds, fall in fertility status of the soil with thecutting off of silt deposition, resurgence ofpests and diseases caused by undisciplined ricecultivation practices and non judicious use ofagro-chemicals etc increased cost of riceproduction. Aggravation of flood problems asa result of continuous reduction in waterspread owing to increased land reclamationand fall in breeding, growth and catch of fishand shellfishes were additional problemsgenerated. During 1970’s with the introductionof an efficient Public Distribution System (PDS),per capita availability of food grains increased
in the State. In consequence, rice prices declinedand rice cultivation became increasinglyuneconomical. Though the adverse impact ofthis was felt throughout the State, it was higherin this rice bowl, where cultivation necessitatedhigher investment costs. In such a scenario, allthe earlier economic interventions, facilitatedto render an appropriate environment for thehigh yielding technology and boost riceproduction were becoming not only ineffectivebut also counterproductive. Disproportionateincrease in cost of inputs without anycommensurate returns and waning of interestof farmers in rice cultivation has resulted indrastic reduction in area under rice.
Vanishing rice lands
The gross area under rice, the key to foodsecurity in Kerala, which was 8.75 lakh ha in1975 has come down to 2.78 lakh ha in 2004-05. Out of the annual rice requirement of37 lakh tons, presently, a little over 17 percent,6.00 lakh tons, is produced internally. Out ofthe major 15 rice producing states in thecountry, Kerala ranks 8th in terms of productivityand in terms of cost of production of rice,Kerala ranks first with Rs.523/qtl of rice duringthe year 2000, as against the National averageof Rs.268/ Qtl ( GOK, 1999). With theintroduction of high yielding technology, thecost of production of rice has increaseddisproportionate to the value of output(Table 1). While the cost increased 254 percentduring the 10 years immediately preceding2000, the output price of paddy increased onlyby 95 percent (Narayanan, 2003). This mismatchbetween the input cost and value of output isindicated by the Paddy Equivalence Cost(PEC)of rice cultivation. The Paddy EquivalenceCost of cultivation for the base year 1988 was1983 kg per ha, which increased to 3239 kg perha in 1998. This means that a minimum yieldof 32 quintals per ha is necessary to breakevenpaddy cultivation in Kuttanad. And out of the53 samples surveyed, only 19 samples wereobserved to conform to the level of productivity.
71
This has led to a drastic reduction in croppingintensity despite heavy investments and stateinitiatives to boost rice production. The averagecropping intensity of wetland rice in Kuttanadin Kerala is barely 114 percent, which meansthat only 14 percent of rice fields are utilizedfor more than one crop a year. These landsremain under utilized for most part of theyear (Fig. 1).
Ecological implications
Rice being the staple food of the people inKerala, and the internal production is barelyeighteen percent of the requirement, the declinein area under paddy raise concern to foodsecurity. The labor opportunity for dependentlabor is hampered as rice cultivation generatesover 70 man-days of labor per ha. Located inthe valley bottom wetlands and lowlands in thesteep and undulating topography in theseplaces the paddy lands in these places have aunique ecological function, like forest, themajor fresh water reservoirs of the state,promoting recharge of ground water. Thus,with the poor profitability of paddy cultivation,the very existence and livelihood of the farmerand the dependent labor is at stake. Theoptions available are to make paddy cultivationcompetitively profitable by technological tools
and or allow the farmers adopt a sustainableintegrated farming system, wherever possible.Such an enterprise diversification would deceasedependency of farmers on one crop alone forincome, thus reducing the risks presentlyassociated with monoculture. Integration offish along with rice is considered in thisperspective for ensuring the diversity of foodbasket with out compromising on the sociologicaland environmental functions of these wetlands.
Pokkali system: Eco-friendly
Rice and fish are the staples for the people inmost Asian countries. Over 90 percent of theworld’s area under rice is grown underflooded conditions providing home to a widerange of aquatic organisms. The practice ofutilization of rice fields for sequential farmingof fish / prawn has been an age old practice inthe pokkali fields of Kerala. These are brackishwater fields adjoining Vembenad Lake. Overcenturies, the farmers in these places haveevolved a farming strategy in harmony withthe rigid environmental conditions especiallywith respect to rainfall and saline waterincursions. Under this system, a variety of ricepopularly known as Pokkal that can toleratesalinity up to 6-8 ppt is raised during the rainyseason and the same field utilized for shrimp
Table 1: Changes in cost and return of rice cultivation in Kuttanad (Rs/ha)
Item 1988 1998 Hike Percentage increase
Input
Seed 483 1026 544 112.86
Fertilizer 1174 2249 1075 91.57
Plant protection 434 799 365 84.10
Manure 5 55 50 1000.00
Bullock power 371 101 -270 -72.78
Machine 215 1244 1029 478.60
Labour 2105 9786 7681 364.89
Other Inputs 256 871 615 240.23
Total 4560 1613 11571 253.75
Output 8129 1588 7755 95.40
Net return +3087 -247
Av. Yield(kg/ha) 3266 3320 54 1.65
72
farming during the high saline summer months.When rice and shrimps are farmed in a cyclicalmanner, the detrital supplements of straw afterthe rice crop forms the major food material forshrimps. The fertile humus accumulated in thefield consequent to shrimp farming give enoughnourishment to the paddy. No chemical fertilizeror pesticide is required for rice farming. Underthis system, shrimp seeds naturally enteringfrom the coastal seas were trapped andcultivated as a mutually beneficial andecologically efficient enterprise. Though theincome from shrimp farming is several timeshigher than that from rice, it has been reportedthat production from shrimp farming declinesin plots where rice integration is not facilitated.The outbreak of viral diseases in shrimpmonoculture farms lately, wherever rice farminghas been discontinued only highlights howimperative is the integration of a plant crop tofish/prawns, as the paddy crop effectively helpassimilate the organic residues accumulatedfrom aquaculture.
On station Model (OSM): Rice-FishIntegration
Utilization of freshwater lowlands, or punjalands for rice-fish rotation is a recentdevelopment. The pioneering studies on theselines carried out at the Kumarakom center,Kerala Agricultural University, during earlyeighties has set the pace for this change. Underthis rotational system of farming, fish/prawnsare cultivated in rice fields after the annual ricecrop. The laboratory model tested as on-stationtrials in the Research Station indicated that ascompared to simultaneous farming of rice andfish, rice-fish rotational farming model is moreadvantageous (Padmakumar et al., 1988., 1990).Different fish varieties viz., carps, cichlids andgiant freshwater prawns were tested in differentcombinations in rice fields. The general speciesmix and stocking model evolved indicated thatfish species such as Cyprinus carpio (commoncarp), Ctenopharingodon idella (grass carp) areversatile species suitable for culture in paddy
fields. Multi-size stocking of each species offish was also found useful. The ‘Kuttanadankonchu’, Macrobrachium rosenbergii wasdemonstrated to be the most economicallypromising species suited to rice field and wasfound to attain size up to 180-200g in 6-7months (Padmakumar et al., 1990).
On Farm Participatory Trials (OFPT):The Ittoop model
In the participatory on-farm trial undertakenby the Kumarakom research center, in a polderowned by an innovative farmer, Shri JoyIttoop, in Pazhayakayal in Kumarakom, whichbecame known later as Ittoop model, the rice-fishrotation yielded fish production as high as2500kg/ha/ 6 months (Padmakumar et al.,2002). This observation indicated that fishcould attain much higher potential growthwhen left to grow in larger polders. The effectof fish culture on the succeeding rice crop wasperceptible. The success of this on-farm trialsis attributed to the continuous farmer-scientistinteractions and partnership facilitated by theparticipatory research. In this farmer’s model,where in livestock and poultry were alsointegrated to the rice-fish system, the resultswere remarkable. The animal manure thatbecame available with the integration of dairycomponent not only increased fish yields butalso led to the improvement of the organicstatus of the rice fields. The multi-level farmingintegration faciltated the farmer’s personalinvolvement in farming enterprises moreintimately and with the participation of theresearchers, this led to the evolution of an on-farm Multi integrated model. This modelcomprised a variety of integrated componentsviz., rice, fish, and duck in the wetlands andcoconut and inter crops such as pineapple,banana and green fodder crops on the outerdykes. In effect, integrated fish culture becamethe starting point that promoted diversificationof farming enterprises. The net income increasedto Rs. 24057 per ha in 1998 as compared to anegative return of Rs.247 per hectare for a
73
single crop of rice prior to these interventions.The lateral diffusion of the technology fromfarmer to farmer was rapid than from scientistto farmer and the farming model got acceptanceand has been spreading continuously in theregion.
Group Fish Farming (GFF)
Since, rice cultivation is done in large paddyblock entities, padasekharams owned and operatedby several farmers, fish integration could onlybe facilitated under group approaches. UnderGroup Fish Farming( GFF) system, expensesand income are shared according to holdingsize. The residues from fish culture made thesoil richer for rice and the residues of rice suchas rice stubs and detrital supplements becomefood for the fish. In the vast rice lands it wasnot possible to remove all predatory fishspecies prior to stocking of desired species. Itwas therefore recommended to stock fishfingerlings of advanced size to ensure bettersurvival. To raise small fish seeds to desiredsize for release, an in situ fish nursery is madein the paddy blocks, padasekharam, of
approximately, 2-3 % of the size of the grow outfield. Fish seeds are raised during the rice-growing season for release into the fields justafter the rice harvest and stocking density of5000 Nos/ ha was generally recommended forgrow out stocking. Management of ‘Commonfish nurseries’ and Group Fish Farming aretaken up collectively by the farmer groups.
Environmental Superiority
In several farmer participatory studiesundertaken in Kuttanad, Kerala, it was obxervedthat introduction of herbivorous andmacrophagous fish in rice fields, help to controlweeds. Rice farming when integrated with fishculture yielded 40 percent more income ascompared to monoculture of rice (Table 2). Asignificant saving in chemical fertilizer was alsodemonstrated in rice culture when preceded byfish. Fish in rice fields not only eradicate weedflora, but also saved cost on ploughing andharrowing. Further, the mutualism of rice andfish helped to increase rice yield by as much as15-20 percent ( Fig. 2). When polyculture of fishand prawns were carried out with prawns as
Table 2: Cost of cultivation of Rice (Rs./ha) Monocropping Vs. Rice-fish system, Kuttanad
Operation Rice Monocropping % Rice-fish % Cost reductionintegration rice-fish
Land preparation 3466.88 18.51 2021.53 14.23 -41.69
Seeds and sowing 1061.88 05.67 1086.25 07.64 02.24
Fertilizers and application 3159.68 16.87 2195.50 15.45 -30.50
Plant protection 663.70 03.54 438.15 03.08 -33.98
Liming 800.00 04.27 667.25 04.70 -16.59
Weeding 3185.90 17.01 2642.43 18.60 -17.06
Post harvesting 2771.68 14.80 2190.70 15.42 -20.96
Management 2129.04 11.37 1793.22 12.62 -15.41
Miscellaneous 1490.68 07.96 1174.35 08.26 -21.22
Total 18729.44 100.00 14209.38 100.00 -24.12
Yield (Qtl./ha) 36.3 40.92 12.72
Value 24502 27621 12.72
Net Income 5774.78 13411.66 132.25
Fish kg/ha 1099
Gross Income Rice/Rice-fish 25252.5 37153.95 47.13
74
the dominant stocking component, prawn yieldranging from 937 to 1519 kg were achieved andeconomic benefits were more evident.Commercial feeds were inevitable for farmingof prawns. Beneficial effects to rice, especiallycontrol of weeds was more evident when fishwas included as dominant stocking componentas compared to prawns species.
Economic sustainability
While continuous chemical farming of rice leadto decline in soil microbial biomass andfertility, it was demonstrated that rice- fishintegration improved the soil conditions andthe net return from rice could be doubled. Inaddition, an extra income of Rs.10,000 per hawas also realized from fish. Since chemicalfertilizers are saved and used only sparingly,cultivation become more organic Rice-fishintegration has been demonstrated to generateadditional labor opportunities than a singlecrop of paddy. As net gain to the farmer issubstantial, a proportionate increase in economicbenefit to the labor is also ensured. Besides,fish culture in rotation with rice, facilitatedcontrol of pests and diseases perceptibly withsubstantial reduction in pesticide use.
The antagonists of this model however,apprehend that as the profitability of fishfarming is naturally higher, there will beeventual conversion of rice fields perpetuallyinto full time fish farms,endangering labor opportunitiesas labor absorption is poor in fishculture as compared to ricefarming. However, on a criticalanalysis, it is evident that thisapprehension is unfounded, asthe profitability in fish culture isactually dependent on the ricecomponent as the crop residuessuch as rice straw retained in thefield is the factor that contributeto high fish production. In fishmonoculture system, to produce1 kg of fish, approximately 2-3kg
of balanced compounded feed is needed. It isthis feed cost that is substantially saved by theintegration of rice. Considering this, a fish-alone system is not very much attractive ascompared to rice-fish integration. Indisputably,intensive monoculture of fish is equallyunwelcome, as rice monocropping system. Thiscalls for mandatory provisions on land use thatensure annual rice cropping.
Win-Win Model
Studies reveal that a rice based farming systeminvolving fish, can not only reverse the presenttrend of under utilization and non utilizationof rice lands but also make rice farming moreattractive, by increasing productivity andprofitability. As milch animals, poultry/ duckeryetc will form integrated components of such amulti integrated farming system, it has beendemonstrated that this system of farming couldtrigger a process of change in income andeconomic prosperity to the people leading to aneconomic resurgence in these areas. Forsocioeconomic and ecological reasons, the stateshall not allow the irreversible conversion ofwetland rice lands for other purposes.Utilization of such rice lands or padasekharamsfor fish culture do not require any majormodifications in its natural physiography. Thisalso do not foreclose the utilization of theseareas for a double crop rice in case this become
Plate 1: Multi-level integrated farming in polders
75
inevitable. Incidentally, this is a technologicalsolution to save rice lands from the reclamationspree in to real estates. Such a solution calls forradical shift in emphasis from a commodityapproach to a broad based systems approach.
The rice-fish model of Kuttanad challengesthe argument that eco friendly land use modelsare economically not profitable as conservationcompromises on productivity. On the contrary,studies in Kuttanad elucidate that suchdiversification models are not only ecologicallyharmonious but are more productive andprofitable than popular crop rotations.Incidentally, it is the most appropriate land andwater resource use model for wetlands onconsiderations of agro ecology. This model ‘OruNellum Oru Meenum., ‘One rice- One fish’developed is accredited as a strategicintervention that can protect these vanishingwetlands and sustain rice production. Waterbeing the strength of lowlands, fish integrationis an opportunity available to the farmers inthese places, in variance to their counterpartsin other places. This will also help to save theendemic biodiversity, characteristic to thesewetlands.
References
Anon,1999.Report of the Expert Committee onPaddy cultivation in Kerala, Vol.I .Main report,(Dr.K.N.S Nair committee),Report submitted toGovt.of Kerala.pp.129.
GOK.1999. Report of the Expert Committee onPaddy Cultivation in Kerala, K.N.S. Nair committee,Vol. .I Main Report. Government Of Kerala. P 129.
Kannan,K.P. 1979.Ecological and Socio-economicconsequences of water control projects in theKuttanad region of Kerala.Proc. of IndianAcad.Sci,2(4),417.
Narayanan,N.C. 2003.Against the Grain. Thepolitical Ecology of Land use in a Kerala region,India. Ph.D. Thesis. Institute of Social Studies, TheHague, The Netherlands
Padmakumar,K.G., J.R. Nair and U. Mohamedkunju,1988. Observations on the scope of Paddy cumFish culture in the rice fields of Kuttanad, Kerala.Aquatic Biology- Bull. Dept. Aquatic Biol. &Fisheries, Univ. Kerala. 7, P 161-166
Padmakumar K.G., Anuradha Krishnan and R.Raveendran Nair 1990. Rice-fish farming systemfor wetlands : a case study with special referenceto Kuttanad, Kerala. In: Nat. Symp. Rice in WetlandEcosystems, Kerala Agricultural University,Dec.1990,Kottayam; pp-268-275.
Padmakumar, K.G., Anuradha Krishnan, R.Radhika, P.S. Manu and C.K. Shiny, 2001.
Open water fishery interventions in Kuttanad,Kerala, with reference to fishery decline andecosystem changes. In: M.R.Boopendranath, B.Meena kumari, Jose Joseph, T.V. Sankar, P.Pravinand Leela Edwin (Eds.). Riverine and ReservoirFisheries of India, Society of Fisheries Technologists(India), Cochin, India, 15-24.
Padmakumar,K.G.,Anuradha Krishnan and N.C.Narayanan. 2002.Rice- Fish Farming SystemDevelopment in Kuttanad, Kerala- ChangingParadigms. Priorities and Strategies for RiceResearch in high rainfall tropics. RegionalAgricultural Research Station, Pattambi, KeralaAgricultural University,104-120
Santhakumar,V and R.Rajagopalan,1995. GreenRevolution in Kerala: A discourse on Technologyand Nature. South Asia Bulletin, ComparativeStudies of South Asia , Africa and the Middle East.Vol.XV,(2) pp109-117
Siddique,E.A.1999.Not a distant dream., Survey ofIndian Agriculture,pp39-47
76
Navdanya has evolved a comprehensive modelor the defense of seed and food sovereignty,defense of biodiversity and livelihoods of smallespecially women farmers, defense of farmersrights and farmers freedoms, promotion ofdirect marketing and fair trade and promotionof health and nutrition.
For Navdanya fair trade has to be:
1. fair to natue, hence based on ecologicalproduction
2. fair to producers by increasing their shareto ensure a dignified and decent quality oflife and recognition of their contribution toconservation of natural resources andproduction of nutrition and food quality
3. fair to co-producers (or consumers) byprong access to safe, healthy, ecologicallysustainable products at an affordable pricewithout displacing local producers.
From seed to table, we work on theprinciples of sustainability and justice and haveevolved a biodiversity and small farmercentered production, processing and tradesystem, which protects the earth, the farmersand public health.
Biodiverse Organic Farming : Having ourCake and Eating It
Industrial agriculture, as the first andsecond green revolutions, has been promotedas a solution to hunger and poverty. New seedsand chemicals are supposed to increase food
production and farm incomes. Yet hunger andpoverty have grown as capital intensiveagriculture, based on high external inputs,robs farmers of incomes, creates debt,impoverishment, landlessness, and in extremecases, farmers suicides, as witnessed in regionsin India where farmers have become dependenton hybrid and genetically engineered seeds.
The myth that industrial agriculture producesmore food and higher incomes is based on twodistortions in assessments of productivity. Thefirst distinctive is what I have described as the“Monoculture of the Mind” which ignoresdiversity, focuses on single crops and treats theincrease in single crop yield as an increase inproduction, even though overall, biodiverseoutput can often decrease. The second distortionis the externalization of costs – includingfinancial costs, environmental costs and healthcosts. Industrial farming systems have higherinput costs than prices of farm commodities,creating the necessity for subsidies. Industrialagriculture also has very high environmentaland health costs, which are always externalizedand born by society. When we move beyond“Monocultures of the Mind” and internalize allcosts, biodiverse organic farming is found toproduce more food and provide higher incomes.
There are four major reasons why the movefrom industrialized, globalised agriculture tobiodiverse organic farming has become animperative. Firstly, without moving frommonocultures to biodiversity, we will not be
PART-3
THE PRACTISE OF BIODIVERSE, ORGANICFARMING & DEMOCRATIC FAIR TRADE
77
able to produce enough food, given theconstraints of limited land and water. Biodiverseorganic farming is a solution to hunger becauseit produces more food and nutrition. Industrialagriculture is producing nutritionally emptygood. Secondly, biodiverse organic farmingtransfer more social wealth to farmers andrural communities than industrial agriculture,thus raising rural incomes and remainingpoverty. Thirdly, biodiverse organic farminguses less water and conserves more water thanindustrial chemical agriculture. It also producesclean water rather than contaminated water.Finally, biodiverse organic farming createsdecentralized food economies, reducing CO2
emissions both in production and in transport(food miles).
Biodiversity erosion, water scarcity andclimate chaos are the three biggestenvironmental threats we face. Biodiverseorganic farming addresses all threeenvironmental problems while producing morefood and higher incomes for impoverishedrural commodities. It rejuvenates biodiversity,conserves water and reduce greenhouse gasemissions while producing richer, morenutritious, more diverse crops. It allows us toliterally have our cake and eat it too.
A. FAIR TO NATURE: CONSERVATION OFBIODIVERSITY, WATER AND SOIL
Navdanya has contributed to conservation ofsoil, water and biodiversity. Biodiverse organicfarming rebuilds nature’s economy.
Conserving Biodiversity
Navdanya is a bioneer in biodiversityconservation, and seed saving. Since Navdanya’sseed saving programmes started in 1987, morethan 40 community seed banks have been set upin 16 states of India with many partners includingBeej Bachao Andolan in Uttar Pradesh, GreenFoundation, Navdarshanam and Centre forTropical Ecosystems, all three in Karnataka,Rishi Valley in Andhra Pradesh, Centre forIndian Knowledge Systems in Tamil Nadu, Vrihi
in West Bengal, Prakruti Paramparika BihanaSangarakhna Abhijan in Orissa, KisanSamvardhan Kendra in Madhya Pradesh, KisanVigyan Kendra in Banda, Uttar Pradesh, IndianNational Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage inKerala, and Hazaribagh, Jharkhand and theWomen’s Allince and Ladakh Ecology Group inJammu & Kashmir. Navdanya encouragespartners to become self sufficient and selfsupporting and self supporting to reflect ourphilosophy of seed sovereignty.
The seed, for the farmer, is not merely thesource of future plants/food; it is the storageplace of culture, of history. Seed is the ultimatesymbol of food security.
Free exchange of seed among farmers hasbeen the basis of maintaining biodiversity aswell as food security. This exchange is based oncooperation and reciprocity. A farmer whowants to exchange seed generally gives anequal quantity of seed from his field in returnfor the seed he gets.
Free exchange among farmers goes beyondmere exchange of seeds; it involves exchangeof ideas and knowledge, of culture andheritage. It is an accumulation of tradition, ofknowledge of how to work the seed. Farmersgather knowledge about the seeds they wantto grow in future by watching them actuallygrow in other farmers’ fields. This knowledgeis based on the cultural, religious, gastronomic,drought, water and disease resistance, pestresistance, and other values that the communityaccords to the seed and the crop it produces.
In saving seeds and biodiversity we areprotecting and conserving cultural diversity.Navdanya means “nine seeds”. It also means“new gift”. We bring to our farmers the newgift of life in the face of the extinction of speciesand extinction of small farmers. The Navadanyas(or the nine seeds) and their respectiveNavagrahas (nine cosmic influences) are:
1. Yava (barlet) represents Aditya (sun)
2. Shamaka (little millet) represents the moon,and is responsible for the stimulation,circulation and balancing of
78
3. Togari (pigeon pea) represents Mangala(Mars), which is responsible for thecontrolling of the nervous system
4. Madga (Mung) represents Budha (Mercury)and stimulates intelligence
5. Kadale (chickpea) represents Brihaspati(Jupiter)
6. Tandula (rice) represents Shukra (Venus)
7. Til (Sesame) represents Shani (Saturn) andis characterized by oil
8. Maasha (black gram) represents Rahu
9. Kulittha (horse gram) represents Ketu
Through our saving of heritage seeds, wehave brought back “forgotten foods”, likeJhangora (barnyard millet) Ragi (Finger Millet),Marsha (Amaranth), Naurangi Dal and GahatDal. Not only are these crops more nutritiousthan the globally traded commodities, but alsois more resource prudent, using only 200 – 300mm of rain compared to 2500 mm for chemicalrice farming. Millets could increase foodproduction 400 fold using the same amount oflimited water. These forgotten foods are foodsof the future. Farmer’s seeds are seeds of thefuture.
We have saved more than 3000 rice varietiesincluding over 30 aromatic rices. The salineresistant seeds we have savedhelped Orissa farmers recoverfrom Orissa super cyclone,which killed 30000 people in1999. The saline resistant seedswere also distributed byNavdanya in rehabilitation afterthe tsunami. We are nowcreating “Seeds of Hope” seedbanks to deal with climatechaos. Heritage seeds that cantolerate droughts, floods andcyclones will be collected, saved,multiplied and distributed.Farmers’ breeding is far aheadof scientific breeding andgenetic engineering in
providing flood resistant, drought resistant,saline resistant varieties.
Today the biodiversity conservation andsustainable agriculture programme of Navdanyais underway in 16 states of India, which includeUttaranchal, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh,Haryana, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Bihar, MadhyaPradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Karnataka, TamilNadu, Kerala. Today as a result of Navdanya’spioneering work many small groups haveentered the field of biodiversity conservationand organic farming. Our work over the pasttwo decades has also brought a shift ingovernment policy. Uttaranchal, the state whereNavdanya center is located, has become anorganic state.
Navdanya encourages its farmer membersto take part in participatory research. AtNavdanya Biodiversity Conservation Farm inRamgarh, Dehradun and Faridabad, Haryana,the farmers are trained and involved directlyin seed selection, improvement andmultiplication.
It was felt by Navdanya that it is veryessential to conserve the agro-diversity in thefields of the farmers to preserve and protect itfrom extinction. Navdanya started conservationof crops and other important plant varieties inearly nineties. The species as well as varital
79
diversity is also required by theScientists also to further their research.Navdanya’s programme of seedconservation, distribution andexchange helps in achieving thisobjective vis a vis in conservation ofindigenous seeds and plants. Farmersexchange their seeds with seed banksfor the desired seeds and variety. Inexchange they give their seeds varietiesfor conservation in Navdanya’sregional seed banks. Navdanya alsopromotes seed exchange amongst thefarmers.
Navdanya’s efforts have resulted in theconservation of more than 2000 rice varietiesfrom all over the country including indigenousrice varieties that have been adapted overcenturies to meet different ecological demands.We have also conserved 50 varieties of wheatand hundreds of millets, pseudocereals, pulses,oilseeds, vegetables, fruits orchard and multipurpose plant species including medicinal plants.Till date Navdanya’s biodiversity conservationfarm in Dehradun has conserved:
• 12 genera of cereals and millets
• 16 genera of legumes and pulses
• 50 genera of vegetables
• 7 genera of oilseeds yielding plants
• 13 genera of spices and condiments
• 20 genera of aromatic plants
• 54 genera of fruit and flower yielding plants
• 450 genera of ornamental, timber andmedicinal plants
• 365 landraces of paddy
• 31 landraces of wheat
• 11 landraces of barley
• 5 varieties of barnyard millet
• 10 varieties of oats
• 6 varieties of finger millet
• 3 varieties of foxtail millets
• 7 varieties of mustard
Navdanya pioneered the movement of seedsaving, which began in response to the crisis ofagricultural biodiversity and has established 40seed banks in 16 States across India, as webelieve in operating through a network ofcommunity seed banks in different ecozones ofthe country, and thus facilitating the rejuvenationof agricultural biodiversity, farmers self reliancein seed locally and nationally, and farmer’srights.
Conserving and Rejuvenating Water
Destruction of water resources through waterwaste is one of the biggest environmental costsof industrial agriculture and the greenrevolution. Large-scale intensive irrigation isnot related to good agriculture or more foodavailability. Organic farming methods protectthe agro ecosystem from water run off,evaporation and soil erosion.
Agriculture impacts the environment inmany ways. It uses huge amounts of water,energy, and chemicals, often with little regardto long-term adverse effects. Irrigation systemsare pumping water from reservoirs faster thanthey are being recharged. Herbicides andinsecticides are accumulating in ground andsurface waters. Chemical fertilizers are runningoff the fields into water systems where theyencourage damaging blooms of microorganisms.The overuse or misuse of water has not onlyaffected the groundwater tables but also
80
affected the quality of soil. According to theestimates of the Ministry of Water Resources,during 1990/91 about 2.46 million hectares ofland in irrigated commands suffered waterlogging and about 3.30 million hectares hadbeen affected by salinity/alkalinity (TerraGreen 2004).
It is often forgotten that 75 per cent ofagriculture is done under rain fed conditionsand only about 25 per cent uses irrigation. Itis estimated that even if all the available waterresources were developed for irrigation, about55 per cent of the cultivated area would stillcontinue to be rain fed. The Green Revolutionis based on intensive irrigation and non-sustainable water use, as the High YieldingVarieties use much more water than indigenousvarieties.
Conservation of stored moisture throughorganic farming practices
Conservation of available soil water inagriculture is important, as it helps in betterplant growth. Simple techniques can be used toreduce the consumption of water such asimproving the efficiency of water use andreducing loss due to evaporation.
Organic Farming involves many practicesthat protect the agro ecosystem against nutrientleaching, water runoff and soil erosion andimprove soil moisture. Some of them arementioned below:
Mulching
Mulching, i.e., the applicationof organic or inorganic materialsuch as plant debris, compost,etc., in agricultural fields slowsdown the surface run-off,improves the soil moisture,reduces evaporation lossesand improves soil fertility.Crop residues are vital toconservation of soil and water.Keeping a protective cover ofvegetative residues on the soil
surface is the simplest and surest way toconserve soil moisture. Vegetative residues onthe soil surface improve infiltration of waterinto the soil, reduce evaporation, and aid inmaintaining organic matter. Natural mulchconsists of dead leaves, twigs, fallen branchesand other plant debris, which accumulate on theearth’s surface. Organic mulches not onlyconserve moisture, they also feed plants,earthworms, microbes and other beneficial soillife. More species and tonnage of life occursbelow them than above the soil surface. All soilbiota needs energy. They cannot collect energydirectly as green plants do, but they feed onenergy released from decaying mulch, which istheir preferred food source.
The experiment carried out at NavdanyaFarm showed that maximum soil moisturecontent was recorded in the rice straw mulchfield (16%) as compared to non-mulched fields(9.5%).
Mulch insulates and protects soil fromdrying and hard baking caused by rapidevaporation of water from soil exposed to hotsun and winds. Mulched soils are cooler thannon-mulched soils and have less fluctuation insoil temperature. Optimum soil temperaturesand less moisture evaporation from the soilsurface enable plants to grow evenly. Plantroots find a more favourable environment nearthe soil surface where air content and nutrientlevels are conducive to good plant growth.
81
Mulches also absorb the impact of rain andirrigation water thereby preventing erosion,soil compaction and crusting. Mulched soilsabsorb water faster. Mulches prevent splashingof mud and certain plant disease organismsonto plants and flowers during rain or overheadirrigation and helps in conservation of soil.Mulch also helps conserve moisture as itreduces 10 to 25 percent soil moisture loss fromevaporation. Mulches help keep the soil wellaerated by reducing soil compaction thatresults when raindrops hit the soil. They alsoreduce water runoff and soil erosion. Studieshave shown that mulch also enhances burrowingactivity of some species of earthworms (e.g.Hyperiodrillus spp. and Eudrilus spp. (Lal,1976), which improves transmission of waterthrough the soil profile (Aina, 1984) andreduces surface crusting and runoff andimproves soil moisture storage in the rootzone. Lal (1976) reports an annual saving of 32per cent of rainfall in water runoff frommulching in humid Western Nigeria. Roose,1988, reports drastic reductions in runoff anderosion from a mulched pineapple field. (Seethe following table)
Application of Organic Manures
The spreading of manure provides not onlynutrients required for plant growth, but has amajor beneficial effect on soil tilth and particleaggregation. The organic materials containedin manure act as binding agents in stabilizingthe soil structure. Changes in structure of thisnature positively affect water infiltration, waterholding capacity and aeration, as well asresistance to wind and water erosion.
Application of farmyard manure or vermin-compost for improving soil health and waterholding capacity of the soil is an important wayto efficiently use and conserve the water thatis available in limited quantity.
Soil organic matter
Soil organic matter is a key to healthy soil andis critical to its functioning properly to supportlife naturally. Organic farms have more organicmatter as compared to chemical farms. Thisorganic matter provides structure for waterstorage where life exists. Soil organic matteracts as sponge and therefore assists in storageof water. The soils in organic farms are rich inorganic matter that preserves moisture for alonger time. Soil organic matter additionallyacts as a storehouse of plant nutrients and abinding agent that influences soil erodibility,aeration, and water storage. Soil organicmatter increases the soil nutrient- and moisture-holding capacity resulting in low soil crusting.
Research has validated the hypothesis thatthe percentage of organic content in soildirectly relates to its water holding capacity.Scientists have reported that for every 1% oforganic matter content, the soil can hold 16,500gallons of plant available water per acre of soilto one foot deep (Source: ATTRA), i.e., roughly1.5 quarts of water per cubic foot of soil or eachper cent of organic matter.
Crop Residues are a rich source oforganic matter
After a crop is harvested, roots, chaff, stem andleaves remain in the field as crop residue. Thesesubstances are the prime source of organic
Runoff (% rainfall) Erosion (t/ha/yr)
Bare Mulched Bare Mulched
Ghana 49.8 1.4 313 0.42
Nigeria 42.1 2.4 232.6 0.2
Nigeria 29.0 0.1 410 1.0
Cote d’lvoire 36.4 0.33 18.3 1.9
Source: www.fao.org
82
matter replenishment as they improve severalsoil parameters, such as water infiltration,water storage and particle aggregation and aidin soil fertility as they contain nutrients, viz.,nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, sulphur andother micronutrients.
Crop residue aids in moisture conservation.Cereals are known to produce acceptable levelof crop residue that decays at a moderate rate.According to Van Doren and Allmaras (1978),less than 1.0 Mg ha-1 of wheat straw provides30% surface cover, which in turn reduces soillosses by about 70%. Studies have shown thatsoil water storage at many semi-arid locationsincreased with increasing amounts of cropresidue maintained on the surface (Unger, 1984;Ojeniyi, 1986; Rasmussen et al., 1986; Al-Darbyet al., 1989; Nyborg and Malhi, 1989; Marleyand Littler, 1990 and Sharma et al., 1990).
Crop Selection
Crop selection is an important aspect of organicfarming for achieving high soil moistureretention. The major factors that determine theselection of crops in a cropping system are thequantity of water needed. Obviously, not allcrops (and not even all varieties of the samecrop) require the same amount of water, and notall need water over the same period of time. Inan organic farming practice the importance isgiven to the local and traditional varieties ascompared to hybrids. For example high yielding
varieties of wheat need about three times asmuch irrigation as traditional varieties. Thus,while indigenous wheat varieties need 12 inchesof irrigation, the HYV’s require at least 36inches. The comparative yields of native wheatvarieties and the HYV varieties are 3,291 and4,690 kg/ha respectively in Punjab. Theproductivity with respect to water use istherefore 620.90 and 293.1 kg/ha/cm respectively.
Crop selection greatly impacts water useefficiency. Deep-rooted stress tolerant cropstend to be much more efficient at water captureand utilisation than do other selections. Forexample under conditions of limited moisture,cotton, sorghum and wheat are more efficient inwater use than rice or soybean. The water-useefficiency of crops is also influenced by theirgenetic variation. Studies have demonstratedthat maize, sorghum, and millet convert waterinto biological matter most efficiently. Millet notonly requires less water than rice, it is alsodrought-resistant, withstanding up to 75 percentsoil moisture depletion. Also the roots of pulsesand legumes allow efficient soil moistureutilisation. Water consumption by differentcrops is presented in the graph to the right.
Green Revolution in agriculture thus,destroys water resources and distortshydrological balance at many levels. As GreenRevolution varieties and hybrid seeds arethirsty for water, planting them leads to highwater withdrawals from rivers and
underground aquifers.Green Revolution varieties are also
dwarf variety breeds that have lowerbiomass in terms of straw, whichdeprives the soil of organic matter, andhence reduces soil moisture conservationthat leads to drought and desertification.
Green Revolution monocultures andindustrial farming reduce crop cover,leading to higher soil and water loss andhigher evapo-transpiration.
The average yield, water consumptionand nutrients/mm-ha of different cropsis presented in the following table:
83
Rotation of Crops
rooted crops appear best adapted to follow adeep rooted crop because water recharge islikely to occur only near the soil surface and ashallow rooted crop will not expend energy insearch of moisture that is not there. Medium ordeep-rooted crops appear better adapted tofollow shallow rooted crops, as they are ableto take advantage of any moisture left at depth,not used by the previous shallow rooted crop.
Green Manure
Green manures are fast-growing plants (legumesand non-legumes) planted on a piece of land toimprove soil fertility and protect the soil fromerosion. They are normally low, spreadingplants that grow fast and cover the soil surfacequickly after planting. During or after thegrowing season, the green-manure plants areslashed and incorporated into the soil, wherethey decompose, releasing nutrients andimproving the soil structure. If a raindrop hitsbare soil, the splash dislodges tiny soil particles,which can be washed away easily. The impactof the raindrop also compacts the surface,
Average yield, water consumption and nutrients/mm/ha of different crops
Crop Average Water Nutrients/mm-haYield Consumption(Kg/ha) (mm)
Protein (g) Ca (Mg) P (Mg) Fe (Mg) Fibre (g)
Rice 6000 900-2500 0.03 0.04 0.76 0.12 0.002
Wheat 3534 450-650 0.18 0.63 4.70 0.81 0.01
Maize 5000 500-800 0.13 0.12 4.35 0.28 0.03
Sorghum 4500 450-650 0.16 0.38 3.41 0.21 0.02
Bajra 4000 300 0.38 1.4 9.8 2.6 0.04
Ragi 4137 400-450 0.16 0.76 6.2 0.86 0.08
Soyabean 1126 450-700 0.61 3.4 9.85 1.48 0.05
Green Gram 417 250 0.09 4.9 13.0 1.76 0.16
Black Gram 485 250 0.09 6.16 15.4 1.52 0.03
Pigeon pea (Arhar) 747 165 0.04 2.60 7.21 0.66 0.04
Mustard 1000 250 1.5 19.6 28 3.16 0.07
Sugarcane 66000 2500 0.00004 0.04 0.004 0.0006 0.39
Rotation of crops is an important practice inorganic farming system. Growing a differentcrop each year prevents organic matter loss,improves soil structure and reduces the incidenceof weeds and pests. Crop rotations lead togreater efficiency in soil water utilisation. Forexample, deep-rooted crops following shallowcrops can take advantage of the extra reservedeep moisture, which was unavailable to theshallow rooted crops.
Crop sequence
The sequence of crops in the rotation affects theavailability and use of water and, thus, cropyields. Rooting depth and time of maturity aretwo factors that should be considered whenplanning the sequence of crops in the rotation.Rooting depth depends on a number of factorssuch as depth of moist soil, amount andfrequency of precipitation, fertility and soiltemperature.
The significance of rooting depth is thatrotating between deep and shallow rootedcrops can optimize crop water use. Shallow
84
making it harder for the rainwater to seep intothe soil. Instead of seeping in, the water runsoff the surface, carrying with it the dislodgedparticles. On even gentle slopes, this can causegullying. The green manure acts as a covercrop: it breaks the fall of raindrops, sopreventing compaction and helping the waterseep in rather than running off. Its roots bindthe soil and stop running water from erodingit. The green-manure crop protects the soilfrom the direct heat of the sun, helping it retainmoisture. It breaks the wind and stops soilparticles from being blown away. The green-manure crop can be grown as a pure stand, soit enriches the soil for a cereal crop grown inthe next season. It can also be grown as anintercrop between rows of another main crop,such as maize, sorghum and millet, or beneathfruit trees.
Water Management Techniques to reducewater consumption
Improvements in soil conditions and soil waterregime to optimise crop production can beaccomplished by run-off managementtechniques. There are three main componentsfor securing the length of the growingseason to meet crop water needs. These are:
• Conserving water in the soil profile byallowing adequate opportunity time forrainwater to infiltrate into the soil, this isalso called as in-situ conservation of water.
• Shaping the land surface and grading it insuch a way that excess water receivedduring periods of high volume rainfallstorms, is safely conducted to water storagereservoirs (or tanks) within the hydrologicor watershed landscape unit.
• Augmenting groundwater recharge toensure sustainable availability of waterresources.
The following methods of irrigation canreduce the soil water demand by crops. Someof them are as follows:
a. Furrow Irrigation
Furrows are small channels, which carry waterdown the land slope between the crop rows.Water infiltrates into the soil as it moves alongthe slope. The crop is usually grown on theridges between the furrows. Furrow irrigationis suitable for a wide range of soil types, cropsand land slopes.
The following crops can be irrigated byfurrow irrigation:
– Row crops such as maize, sunflower,sugarcane, soybean
– Crops that would be damaged byinundation, such as tomato, vegetables,potatoes, beans
– Fruit Trees, Broadcast crops such as wheat
b. Paired Row Technique
It is a method in which accommodating cropgrows on both sides of furrow by increasingridge spacing; thereby a common furrow isused for irrigation of two rows. Theexperiments carried out in Tamil NaduAgriculture University on green gram, blackgram, groundnut and sunflower showed thatthere were savings of about 20% irrigationwater and 15% increase in crop yields. InCoimbatore district farmers have adopted thistechnique for planting cotton crop, and theysaved 29% of irrigation water with almost thesame yield as with a conventional furrowsystem.
85
c. Alternate Furrow System
In the water shortage areairrigation can be applied by usingalternate furrow irrigation. Thisinvolves irrigating alternatefurrows rather than everyfurrow. Small amounts appliedfrequently in this way are usually better for thecrop than large amounts applied after longerintervals of time.
Study conducted at Coimbatore Universityshowed that alternate furrow saves irrigationwater compared to all furrow irrigation. Thedata are presented in the table:
Crops Saving of irrigation water (9%)
Brinjal 24
Tomato 34
Sugarcane 34
Chillies 30.8
Ground nut 27
Country Location (kg/ha) Yield on bed (kg/ha) Yield on Flat bed vs. flat (%) Water saving using
Bangladesh Dinajpur 4710 3890 25
India Punjab 4530 4220 24Haryana 5290 5010 46
UP 4750 4550 30
Kazakhastan Almaty 5080 4900 29
Source: www.fao.org
Bed System (Raised or flat)
This system depends on the intensity of rainsand type of soil. Bed system gives higher yieldsof 54-80%. The water savings by using raisedbed methods are presented in the followingtable:
Experiment on wheat productivity (Q/acre)by using different methods of sowing wascarried out at Navdanya’s experimental field.The data showed maximum wheat productivityin Ridge method (Paired row). The maximumsoil moisture was also recorded in the Ridgemethod. The data are presented in the followingtable:
Example of Water–Efficient SugarcaneFarming from South India
Suresh Desai, a sugarcane farmer in theBelgaum district of Karnataka State, SouthIndia, has developed a series of modificationsto the conventional package of practicesassociated with sugarcane farming.
According to Sh. Desai that conventionalpractice of flooding the root zone of the cropactually damaged soil aeration, reduced soil
Sowing method Wheat Productivity (1/acre) Soil Moisture (%)
Ridge method (Paired row) 11.54 12.0
Raised bed method 10.25 11.5
Flat bed method (conventional) 7.15 8.5
86
fertility, and consequently made the plantssusceptible to diseases (Diagram 1). Heredesigned the irrigation channels and beganby reducing their number by half. This he didby eliminating every alternate channel. Thus,for every channel that he kept, one waseliminated. The channel that was eliminatedearthed up and turned into a bed of mulch inorder to facilitate the retention of moisturein the soil. He discovered that the sugarcanefield as a whole was now able to retaingreater amount of moisture. This methodreduced water supply to the field area by 50%(Diagram 2). The number of irrigations requiredalso decreased.
After three months the number of channelswere reduced to two. With this method hewas able to raise four rows of plants with onlyone channel of water. Whereas, in theconventional method other farmers maintainfour water channels for four rows of sugarcane(Diagram 3).
The modifications shown in these diagramsreduce the requirement of water in irrigatedsugarcane plantations by approximately 75%.
Conclusion
Runoff management and conservation of soilwater by organic farming practices are basedon the principles of minimizing theconcentrations of runoff volume, slowing therunoff velocity so diminishing its capacity tocause erosion. It aims to enhance surfacedetention storage, thus allowing the watermore time to soak into the soil. Biologicalcontrol measures used in organic farmingpractices combined with good agronomic andsoil management practices provides betterprotection of the soil from raindrop impact,increase surface depression storage andinfiltration capacity of soil to reduce thevolume of run off, improve soil aggregatestability to increase its resistance to erosion
87
and increase the roughness of the soil surfaceto reduce the velocity of run-off. Mulchingappears to be the effective conservationmeasures of organic farming practices.
Rebuilding Soil Health
With the growing concern for sustainabledevelopment, research efforts have beenfocused on conservation farming including theuse of biofertilizers, organic farming, combinedprotective-productive systems etc. Thechemicalised agriculture systems are highlyinefficient from overall energy point of view,as 5 to 10 units of energy inputs are requiredto produce single unit of food energy as out put(Steinhart and Steinhart, 1974).
The input of fertilizers, particularly in lowrainfall regions exposes the crop to high risk.With the increased costs of petroleum andnaphtha bound external inputs like nitrogenousfertilizers, concept of organic/conservationfarming have come to stay. A sustainableapproach aims to provide means for reducingthe susceptibility of soils to erosion and also tolower energy based inputs (Bethlenfalvay andLinderman, 1992, Peoples and Craswell, 1992).Appropriate technologies are also sought to bedeveloped to integrate the production of thecrops and woody species simultaneously fromthe same piece of land in a sustainable manner.
Management of soils under such systems isa subject of great interest. Based on scientificevidence, beneficial aspect of biofertilizers inagro-ecosystem in terms of soil fertility, nutrientcycling, soil conservation, soil physicalproperties are well recognized to ensure ahealthy soil plant system. This concept ofsustenance of productivity is dependent on theunity and interdependence of a healthy plant–soil system in the face of natural and culturablestresses, which depend on the soundness of theinterface between plant and soil, therhizosphere.
In this era of greed and adoption ofunsustainable chemicalised farming systems,Navdanya’s agro-ecological farm comes as a
fresh breath of air that has adhered to theprinciple of sustainability by taking care of thewater, soil and plant components of theecosystem. The result of this practice hasresulted in the change of inert soil systemunder the erstwhile Eucalyptus plantation to aliving and thriving soil that is teeming with lifeafter it came under the organic practices. Thequantitative improvements in soil parameterswith the adoption of organic farming have beenobserved and analyzed in this study ofNavdanya’s organic farm.
The result of the study thus indicates thatadopting traditional practices can enhance thefertility of the soil. This adoption will help inthe enhanced agricultural output and will resultin the sustained availability of natural resources.This will not only minimize the biotic pressureon agro-ecosystem but will, also ensure longterm development of the local economy.
Also in continuance, Navdanya has done astudy on the changes in percent organic matterin soil over a period of time. The soil sampleswere collected from organic farm (Navdanya),chemical farm and barren soil. The resultsshowed that in organic farming system therewas an increase in organic matter content in thesoil as compared to chemical farms. The dataare presented in the following graphs thatdepict the enhanced process organic carbonand percent organic matter from organic farmsand compares with that of chemical farms.
Interpretation and indicators of soilhealth and structureRatio of total fungal to total bacterial biomass
By examining the structure of the soil food webin a range of soils, all grassland and mostagricultural soils have ratios of total fungal tototal bacterial biomass less than one (F/B< 1).Another way to interpret this is that thebacterial biomass is greater than the fungalbiomass in these soils. In the most productiveagricultural systems, however, the ratio of totalfungal to total bacterial biomass equals one (F/B= 1) or the biomass of fungi and bacteria is
88
even. When agricultural soils become fungal-dominated, productivity will be reduced, andin most cases, liming and mixing of the soil(plowing) is needed to return the system to abacterial-dominated soil.
All conifer forest soils are fungal dominated,and the ratio in all forest soils in which seedlingregeneration occurs is above 10. In general,productive forest soils have ratios greater than100. This means that fungal biomass stronglyoutweighs the bacterial biomass in forest soils.In the case where forest soils lose this fungal-dominance, it is not possible to re-establishseedlings. When forest soil becomes bacterial-dominated, conifer seedlings are incapable ofbeing re-established.
The ratio of total fungal to total bacterialbiomass has been related to ecosystemproductivity, but numbers or length of activeand total bacteria and fungi are also indicativeof the health of soil. For different soils,vegetation and climate, the density of bacteriaor fungi indicate the past degradation of thesoil. As explained above, bacterial numbersshould be greater than one million for allagricultural soils, preferably nearer 100 millionfor the most productive soils.
Biomass of total fungi
Fungal biomass is extremely important in allsoils as a means of retaining nutrients thatplants need in the upper layers of the soil, i.e.,in the root-zone. Without these organisms totake-up nutrients, and either retain thosenutrients in their biomass, or to sequester thosenutrients in soil organic matter, nutrientswould wash through the soil and into groundor surface water. Plants would suffer from lackof nutrient cycling into forms that the roots cantake-up, if these nutrients aren’t firstimmobilized in the soil through the action offungi or bacteria.
In soil in which only fungi are present, thesoil will become more acidic, from secondarymetabolites produced by fungi. Aggregates arelarger in fungal-dominated soils than in
bacterial-dominated soils, and the major formof N is ammonium, since fungi do not nitrifyN. These conditions are more beneficial forcertain shrubs, and most trees. Total fungalbiomass varies depending on soil type,vegetation, organic matter levels, recentpesticide use, soil disturbance and a variety ofother factors, many of which have not beenresearched completely. However, for normalgrassland soils, total fungal biomass levels areusually around 50 to 500 meters per gram ofsoil. For agricultural soils, fungal biomass isaround 1 to 50 meters per gram soil, while forforest soils, fungal biomass is between 1000meters to 60 km per gram of soil. More workis necessary to establish what the optimalfungal biomass value should be for each typeof crop, soil, organic matter, climate, etc. Verylittle information is available for tropicalsystems, but that small amount of data indicatesthat temperate systems perform very differentlyfrom tropical soils.
The average diameter of hyphae in mostsoils is about 2.5 micrometers, indicatingtypical mixtures of zygomycetes, ascomyceteand basidiomycetes species. On occasion theaverage diameter may be greater than 2.5micrometers, indicating a greater than normalcomponent of basidiomycete hyphae, while onother occasions, the average diameter ofhyphae may be less than 2.5 micrometers,indicating a change in species composition ofsoil fungi to a greater proportion of lowerfungi. Actinomycetes are not usuallydifferentiated from fungi, since actinomycetesare hyphal in morphology and are rarely ofsignificant biomass. In some agricultural soils,this narrow diameter “hyphae” are ofconsiderable importance, as demonstrated byDr. A. Van Bruggan.
Numbers of total bacteria
Just as fungi are the most important players inretaining nutrients in forest soil, bacteria arethe important players in agricultural andgrassland soils. Bacteria retain nutrients first in
89
their biomass, and second, in their metabolicby-products. In soil in which only bacteria areinoculated, the soil will become more alkaline,will have small aggregates, and generally willhave nitrate/nitrite as the dominant form of N.These conditions are beneficial for grasses androw crop plants.
Numbers of total bacteria generally remainthe same regardless of soil type or vegetation.Total bacterial numbers range between 1million and 100 million per gram soil inagricultural soils and between 10 million and1,000 million in forest soils. Bacterial numberscan be above 100 million in decomposing logs,in anaerobic soils, in soil amended with sewagesludge or in soil with high amounts ofcomported material. In some instancesfollowing pesticide treatment, bacterial numberscan fall below 1 million, and this has beencorrelated with signs of severe nitrogendeficiency in plants. Bacterial numbers candrop to extremely low levels, below 100,000per gram of soil, in degraded soils wherenutrient retention is a problem.
Nematode numbers, community structure
There are four major types of nematodes,which include bacterial-feeding, fungal-feeding,root-feeding and predatory nematodes. Allnematodes are predators, and thus, reflect tosome extent the availability of their preygroups. However, other organisms prey uponthese nematodes as well and nematode numberscan also reflect the balance between theavailability of nematode prey, as well asfeeding by nematode predators.
Both bacterial-feeding and fungal-feedingnematodes mineralize N from their preygroups. Bacterial-feeding nematodes are moreimportant in bacterial-dominated soils(agriculture and grassland systems), whilefungal-feeding nematodes are more importantin fungal dominated soils (conifer and mostdeciduous forests). Between 70 and 80% of thenitrogen in rapidly growing trees has beenshown to come from interactions between
nematode predators and their prey. Between 30and 50% of the N in crop plants appears tocome form the interactions of bacterial-feedingnematodes and bacteria. Thus, the presenceand numbers of bacterial- and fungal-feedingnematodes is extremely important forproductive soils.
VAM spore numbers
Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungiare critically important for all crop plants,except species of the Brassica family (e.g.,mustards, kale). A number of researchers haveshown that the lack of VAM inoculum, or thelack of the appropriate inoculum can result inpoor plant growth, in poor competition withother plants or inability to reproduce orsurvive under certain extreme conditions.However, most crop fields have adequate VAMspores present, especially if crop residue isplaced back into the field. Only in a fewsituations where soil degradation has beensevere, such as with intensive pesticide use,fumigation, or intense fertilizer amendment,will VAM inoculum become so low that plantgrowth will be in jeopardy.
In restoration studies, the lack of appropriateinoculum is more likely to be a problem thanin other situations where sources of appropriateVAM spores are near-by. Thus, the presence ofat least 1 to 5 spores per gram of soil isadequate for most crop fields. When thenumber of spores falls below one per gram,then addition of compost containing highnumbers of VAM spores (for example from analfalfa field, or other legume), or inoculation ofVAM spores from a commercial source generallyresults in positive effects.
Percent VAM colonization
At least 12% of the root system of grasses, (i.e.,most crop plants), should be colonized by VAMin order to obtain the minimum requiredbenefits from this symbiotic relationship.Colonization upwards of 40% is usually seen inhealthy soils. VAM colonization can limit root-
90
feeding nematode attack of root systems, if thenematode burden is not too high. A great dealknowledge of the relationship between plantspecies, VAM species and soil type, includingfertility, is needed in order to fully predict theoptimal relationship between crop plant, VAMspecies and soil.
Disruption of soil fertility: Reasons of webof life being degraded
The interactions between soil organisms forma web of life, just like the web that biologistsstudy above ground. Soil biology isunderstudied, compared to the above ground,yet it is important for the health of gardens,pastures, lawns, shrublands, and forests. Ifgarden soil is healthy, there will be highnumbers of bacteria and bacterial-feedingorganisms. If the soil has received heavytreatments of pesticides, chemical fertilizers,soil fungicides or fumigants that kill theseorganisms, the tiny critters die, or the balancebetween the pathogens and beneficial organismsis upset, allowing the opportunist, disease-causing organisms to become problems.
Two measures of ecosystem processes arethe ratio of fungal to bacterial biomass (Inghamand Horton, 1987) and the Maturity Index fornematodes. Both appear to be useful predictorsof ecosystem health, although they must beproperly interpreted given the succession stagebeing examined. For example, recently disturbedsystems have nematode community structuresskewed towards opportunistic species andgenera, while the less opportunistic, more K-selected species of nematodes return as timesince-disturbance increases. Thus, healthiersoils tend to have more mature nematodecommunity structures. However, as systemsmature, nutrients tend to be more sequesteredin soil biomass and organic matter, and thus thematurity index reflects an optimal, intermediatedisturbance period in which greatest ecosystemproductivity is likely to occur.
Much work is still required at the bacterialand fungal species level. While the species of
protozoa and nematodes have been researchedin soils of this area of the west, publication ofmuch of this information has yet to occur. Up-dates will be required, as this informationbecomes available.
Over-use of chemical fertilizers andpesticides have effects on soil organisms thatare similar to over-using antibiotics. When weconsider human use of antibiotics, thesechemicals seemed a panacea at first, becausethey could control disease. But with continueduse, resistant organisms developed, and otherorganisms that compete with the disease-causing organisms were lost. We found thatantibiotics couldn’t be used willy-nilly, thatthey must be used only when necessary, andthat some effort must be made to replace thenormal human-digestive system bacteria killedby the antibiotics.
Soils are similar, in that plants grown in soilwhere competing organisms have been knockedback with chemicals are more susceptible todisease-causing organisms. If the numbers ofbacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes andarthropods are lower than they should be fora particular soil type, the soil’s “digestivesystem” doesn’t work properly. Decompositionwill be low, nutrients will not be retained in thesoil, and will not be cycled properly. Ultimately,nutrients will be lost through the groundwateror through erosion because organisms aren’tpresent to hold the soil together.
B. PRODUCTION THAT IS FAIR TO FARMERS AND THE
EARTH AND IS ALSO MORE PRODUCTIVE
FROM THE SUICIDE ECONOMY OF GMO’S AND
INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE TO BIODIVERSITY BASED
PRODUCTIVITY:
In regions where farmers have lost their seedsupply, they are in debt and are committingsuicide (Ref. Seeds of Suicide) Navdanyaundertook a “Bija Yatra” to stop farmerssuicides by rejuvenating farmers seed supply.The Bija Yatra 2006-2007 was launched on 9th ofMay to mark 150 years of our struggle forfreedom by building a movement to stop the
91
genocide of our farmers and reclaim our foodsovereignty. The yatra started from Sevagram,District Wardha, Maharashtra. The Yatra wasconcluded on 26th May in Bangalore. The Yatraconvered Amravati, Yavatmal, Nagpur inVidharbha region of Maharasthra, Adilabad,Warrangal, Karimnagar, Hyderabad in AndrhaPradesh, Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur, Hosepet,Chitradurg and Bangalore in Karnataka. Theseare the regions where farmers have becomelocked into dependence on corporate seedsupply for growing cash crops integrated toworld markets, which is leading to a collapsein farm prices due to 400 billion dollarssubsidies in rich countries. The yatra wasjointly organized by Vidharba Organic FarmersAssociation, Maharashtra Organic FarmersAssociation, Andhra Pradesh Rytu Sangham,
Cost Benefit Analysis of Bt. Cotton Vs. Other Cotton inOne Acre in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh
Bt. Cotton Non-Bt Hybrids Desi Varieties: AKA 5 & 7(Growing in ZARC, Yavatmal)
A. Expenditure on Inputs (Seeds, Rs. 9700/- Rs. 5750/- Zero ExpenditureFertilizers, Pesticides, Irrigation)
B. Total Yield 2 quintals 10 quintals 5 quintals
C. Output Value Rs. 3300 Rs. 16500 Rs. 8250/-(Rs. 1650 per quintal) (Rs. 1650 per quintal) (Rs. 1650 per quintal)
C-A Loss of Rs. 6400/- acre Saving of Rs. 10750/acre Saving of Rs. 8250/acre
Cost Benefit Analysis of Bt. Cotton Vs. Other Cotton in One Acre in Madhya Pradesh
Bt. Cotton Non-Bt Varieties
A. Expenditure on Inputs (Seeds, Fertilizers, Rs. 6675/- Rs. 7005/-Pesticides, Irrigation)
B. Total Yield 4.01 quintals 7.05 quintals
C. Output Value Rs. 7218 (Rs. 1800 per quintal) Rs. 13320 (Rs. 1800 per quintal)
C-A Saving of only Rs. 543/- acre Saving of Rs. 6315/acre
Modern Architect for Rural India, TelenganaRayatanga Samiti, All India Kisan Sabha,Karnataka Rytu Rajya Sangh, Bharat JanAndolan, Kisani Pratishta Manch, Bharat KrishakSamaj, Shetkari Sangatana (Javandia), Navdanyaand other activist and organization.
The Navdanya model for ecological/organicfarming focuses on biodiversity. Navdanyameans nine seeds as well as new gift. The mostsignificant contribution by Navdanya has beenthe promotion of Biodiversity BasedProductivity for small farmers, which combinesecological conservation with economicproduction.
At a time when GMO seeds are beingoffered as a miracle, just as the HYV seeds wereintroduced as a miracle, during the GreenRevolution, Navdanya has conserved the open
Cost Benefit Analysis of Bt. Cotton Vs. Other Cotton in One Acre in Karnataka
Bt. Cotton Non-Bt Varieties
A. Expenditure on Inputs (Seeds, Fertilizers, Rs. 8925/- Rs. 10250/-Pesticides, Irrigation)
B. Total Yield 3.82 quintals 7 quintals
C. Output Value Rs. 7640 (Rs. 2000 per quintal) Rs. 14000 (Rs. 2000 per quintal)
C-A Loss of Rs. 1285/- acre Saving of Rs. 3750/acre
92
pollinated farmers varieties, re-introduced themin production systems, and enhanced bothproductivity and rural incomes.
The industrial, corporate globalised modelof agriculture is based on the production of afew globally traded commodities with highexternal inputs. Thus farmers growing Btcotton spend more than they earn and arepushed into debt, and in extreme cases tosuicide.
On the other hand, biodiversityintensification with native seeds increases bothoutput and incomes.
Mr. Balbeer Singh, a Navdanya member inUtircha who was amongst the first farmerconverted to organic reduced the inputs in hisfield as given in the table below :
In addition to above-mentioned fertilizers,weedicides and pesticides were also used, ofwhich he was not able to tell the names. Butcost of these chemicals was around Rs. 100 /bigha, which he stopped from the first yearitself.
Yield analysis of the field of Mr. BalbeerSingh shows that there was a sharp decline inthe yield for two years initially, but from thethird year onwards the yield was at part with
Year Urea / Bigha DAP / Bigha Potash / Bigha Cow DungManure/Bigha
1994 – 1995 10 kg (100%) 10 kg (100%) 2 kg (100%) 2 qt (20%)
1995 – 1996 8 kg (80%) 8 kg (80%) 20% 3 qt (30%)
1996 – 1997 4 kg (40%) 4 kg (40%) Nil 20 qt (100%)
1997 – 1998 Nil Nil Nil 40 qt (200%)
1998 – 1999 Nil Nil Nil 20 Qt (100%)
(Source Balbeer Singh, Village Utircha and Navdanya Records)
Year Wheat Yield /Bigha Cost of Agrochemicals Rice Yield / Bigha
1994 – 1995 1.60 qt. 100 1.8
1995 – 1996 1.08 68 0.90
1996 – 1997 0.98 32 0.92
1997 – 1998 1.8 Nil 2.00
1998 – 1999 2.2 Nil 2.50
2004 – 2005 2.5 Nil 3.0
(Source : Balbeer Singh, Village Utircha, and Navdanya Records)
that of conventional farming. Cost of productionalso reduced slowly because of reduction in theexternal inputs. Initially labour was much morethan today. Now they are also able to takepulses in the field of paddy. He also added thatthe yield of black gram went down with theincrease in the chemical outputs. Slowly soilstarted responding and we got the good yieldof black gram.
Mr. Balbeer Singh also told that we knewthat the chemicals are harmful for humanbeings, animals and environment, and hybridseeds do not perform well if conserved forseeds. They actually make you dependent onmarket. Navdanya did a fabulous job ofbringing people out from the vicious cycle ofmarket dependent agriculture. Yield analysis ofhis one bigha field was done continuouslyduring his conversion period. Following tableshows that how Mr. Balbeer Singh reduced theinputs, saved the money and got better yield,which is now stable. He has more diversity inthe field as well as on the food.
Navdanya has done a study in the year2002, on the cost benefit analysis of Rice andWheat in organic and chemical farming practices.The studies showed that net profits were
93
higher in the organic farming system ascompared to chemical farming. Some of thedata are as follows:
Yield of Rice per Acre (Dehradun)
Organic Farming Chemical Farming
1. Total Expanses 3360 Total Expenses 4900
2. Total Yield = 15 Qtl. Price @ Rs. 700 10,500 Total Yield = 20 Qtl. Price @ Rs. 560 11200
3. Straw Production 5 Qtl. 1000 Straw Production NaPrice @ Rs. 200/bigha
4. Total Income 11,500 Total Income 11200
5. Net Profit 8140 Net Profit 6300
Yield of Wheat per Acre (Dehradun)
Organic Farming Chemical Farming
1. Total Expanses 4020 Total Expanses 4415
2. Total Yield = 12 Qtl.Price @ Rs. 875 10,500 Total Yield = 18 Qtl.Price @ Rs. 600 10,800
3. Straw Production 12 Qtl. 1500 Straw Production Not usedPrice Rs 125/Qtl.
4. Total income 12000 Total income 10,800
5. Net Profit 7980 Net Profit 6385
Yield of Wheat per Acre (Bihar)
Organic Farming Chemical Farming
1. Total Expanses 4020 Total Expanses 4415
2. Total Yield = 12 Qtl.Price @ Rs. 875 10,500 Total Yield = 18 Qtl.Price @ Rs. 600 10,800
3. Straw Production 12 Qtl. 1500 Straw Production Not usedPrice Rs 125/Qtl.
4. Total income 12000 Total income 10,800
5. Net Profit 7980 Net Profit 6385
Farmer’s income has also increased manyfolds. Some of the examples of diverse farmingfrom these villages are given below.
Sri Rajender Singh, Village: Pulinda, 2004-2005, Land Area: 0.5 Bigha; irrigated
S.N. Name of Crop Quantity (in kg) Market Rate (per Kg) Total cost (in Rs.)
1. Pyaj (Onion) 100.00 8.00 800.00
2. Pyaj (onion) seeds 0.500 200.00 100.00
3. Dhania (coriander) seeds 5.00 30.00 150.00
4. Dhania leaves 2.00 30.00 60.00
5. Lehsun 10.00 20.00 200.00
6. Rai 5.00 10.00 50.00
7. Palak 5.00 10.00 50.00
8. Mirch 2.500 20.00 50.00
9. Tomato 2.500 10.00 25.00
94
10. Nimbu Kagji 100.00 Rs. 1 each 100.00
11. Kela 4 x 60 = 40 (nos) Rs. 1 each 240.00
12. Papita 20.00 4.00 80.00
13. Angoor 10.00 20.00 200.00
14. Bhimal 120.00 0.50 60.00
15. Moola 20.00 5.00 100.00
16. Ogal 5.00 20.00 100.00
17. Potato 60.00 8.00 480.00
18. Chichinda 10.00 6.00 60.00
19. Godri 20.00 6.00 120.00
20. Baingan 5.00 8.00 40.00
21. Vitex Leaves 50.00 0.50 25.00
22. Bhang 1.00 40.00 40.00
23. Methi 1.00 40.00 40.00
24. Kandali (fodder) 10.00 0.50 5.00
25. Almodu 2.00 – –
26. Genda 10.00 8.00 80.00
27. Amrood 100.00 3.00 300.00
28. Bamboo 1.00 – –
29. Chanchri 1.00 – 20.00
30. Chemi 4.00 35.00 140.00
31. Chemi green 5.00 10.00 50.00
32. French bean 4.00 35.00 140.00
33. French bean green 5.00 10.00 50.00
34. Shelu from bhimal (Fibre) 4.00 15.00 60.00
35. Kaddu 50 5.00 250.00
Total 4260.00
The above table shows that a farmer in his0.5 bigha of land (12.5 bigha = 1 ha) by doingmulti cropping was able to earn a net profit ofRs. 3060. Cost of production was estimated tobe Rs. 1200.00 for one year, which includes theman-days of the farmers as well as FYM fromhis own farm, although he did not spend anymoney for cultivation.
Total Expenditure – Rs. 1200
Gross Income – Rs. 4260.00
Less: Expenditure – Rs. 1200.00
Net Income: Per Bigha – Rs. 3060 x 2 = Rs. 7200.00
Or Rs. 90,000.00 per Ha
If we calculate the net income for onehectare, farmer was able to make as much asRs. 90,000.00, which is quite high. It is not easyto earn this much profit with any type offarming.
Thus it was observed that more the diversityis more will be the income/profit of the farmer.This is just opposite what supporter of
95
conventional farming tell to the farmers topromote monocultures, which is not correct.Such examples also encouraged farmers togrow more and more crops in one field.
Another example of Mr. Yogambar Singh ofPulinda who is 65 years old tells his story withthe great interest. I have about 40-nali of landand I am solely dependent on agriculture formy livelihood. I have no other source ofincome. He told to us that he was usingextensive chemicals before 1995. After joiningNavdanya he left using all chemicals and nowhe is doing organic farming for last 9 years. Hisfather and mother were died when he was akid. He says that I am illiterate person, but Iknow how to do farming. I used chemicals for
Mr. Yogambar Singh 65 Years, Village: Pulinda, 2004-2005
Field I : Land Area – 0.75 Nali Irrigated)
S.N. Name of Crop Quantity (in kg) Market Rate (Per Kg) Total cost (in Rs.)
1. Paddy 120.00 6.00 720.00
2. Moola seed 2.00 40.00 80.00
3. Moola fresh 55.00 5.00 275.00
4. Potato 55.00 6.00 390.00
5. Kotu (Leaves) 200.00 1.50 300.00
6. Pyaj 50.00 8.00 400.00
7. Dhania leaves 2.00 30.00 60.00
8. Dhania seeds 10.00 30.00 300.00
9. Lehsun 5.00 20.00 100.00
10. Baingan 5.00 8.00 40.00
11. Palak 10.00 5.00 50.00
12. Palak seed 0.250 40.00 10.00
13. Mirch 2.00 20.00 20.00
Total 2745.00
(Source: interview with Yogambar Singh)
few years in my field, which really deterioratedthe soil fertility as well as texture of the soil ofhis fields. He also says that he married 3 ladiesbecause 2 of his earlier wives died because ofillness. He told that I was able to do 3marriages only because of the farming. He alsobought 2 taxis for his son. His annual netincome goes above 70,000.00 excluding theexpenditure, most of which is for his labour orFYM or compost made by him.
Comparative analysis of his 2 fields oneirrigated and another non-irrigated was doneduring interview with Mr. Yogambar Singh,which is given in the following tables.
The example of Mr. Yogambar Singh showsthat from un-irrigated field, farmer could earn
Cost of production – Rs 1000.00
Gross Income – Rs 2745.00
Less Expenditure – Rs 1000.00
Net Income – Rs 1745.00
Or Rs. 69500.00 per Ha
96
equal or even more than that of irrigated field.According to him, now I am convinced thatonly hard work and organic farming practicescould earn high returns, not the intensive useof agrochemicals.
On Navdanya’s organic farm, we grow 12crops, 9 crops, 7 crops, and 5 crops in mixtures.Biodiverse systems produce more food andhigher incomes than monocultures. (See Table)Monocultures produce more control not morefood. They facilitate corporate control overagriculture by making farmers dependent on
Mr. Yogambar Singh Pulinda, 2004-2005Land Area: 0.5 Nali (Un-irrigated)
S.N. Name of Crop Quantity (in kg) Market Rate (Per Kg) Total cost (in Rs.)
1. Mandua 40.00 5.00 200.00
2. Mandua straw 3.00 50.00 150.00
3. Urad 5.00 30.00 150.00
4. Gahat 5.00 25.00 125.00
5. Soyabean 4.00 20.00 80.00
6. Mirch 3.00 20.00 60.00
7. Baingan 5.00 8.00 40.00
8. Sem (Chemi) green 5.00 10.00 50.00
9. Chemi 2.00 35.00 70.00
10. Chaulai 6.00 18.00 108.00
11. Kakdi 10.00 6.00 60.00
12. Dodri 5.00 6.00 30.00
13. Kaddu 30.00 5.00 150.00
14. Wheat 80.00 7.00 560.00
15. Mustard 5.00 30.00 150.00
16. Chana 2.00 25.00 50.00
17. Masur 4.00 25.00 100.00
Total 2123.00
(Source: interview with Yogambar Singh)
Field II Un-irrigated
Cost of Production – Rs 600.00
Gross Income – Rs 2123.00
Less Expenditure – Rs 600.00
Net Income – Rs 1523.00
Or Rs. 7615.00 per Bigha
Or Rs. 951887.50 per Ha
monopoly markets and high cost and extendedinputs. They create profits for corporations,which sell costly inputs and buy cheapcommodities through contract farming. Forfarmers they translate into a negative economyof high costs and low returns, which leads todebt, suicides and landlessness.
A recent study conducted by Navdanya infour districts of West Bengal shows that multiplecropping (MC) in the same soil and climaticregimes proves economically more efficientthan modern intensive chemical farming systems
97
Average production and total amount of Baranaja, Navdanya,Septrashi and Punchranga v/s Monocroping growing at Navdanya Farm:
Year: 2004-2005
SN Name of the Crops Average production/ha. (Kg.) Average Rate/ Kg Total Amount Rs.
BARANAJA
1 Bazara 440.00 8.00 3520.00
2 Maize 1280.00 8.00 10240.00
3 Sefed Chemi 600.00 25.00 15000.00
4 Aongal 360.00 20.00 7200.00
5 Mandua 600.00 10.00 6000.00
6 Jhangora 440.00 15.00 6600.00
7 Urd 600.00 20.00 12000.00
8 Navrangi 680.00 20.00 13600.00
9 Koni No.1 280.00 10.00 2800.00
10 Lobia 600.00 20.00 12000.00
11 Till 400.00 30.00 12000.00
12 Koni No.2 340.00 10.00 3400.00
6620 1,04360/-
MONOCULTURE
1 Maize 5400 8.00 43,200/-
NAVDANYA
1 Till 400.00 30.00 12000.00
2 Sefed chemi 720.00 25.00 18000.00
3 Mandua 1120.00 10.00 11200.00
4 Dholiyia dal 640.00 20.00 12800.00
5 Sefed Bhatt 760.00 15.00 11400.00
6 Lobia 800.00 20.00 16000.00
7 Jhongora 520.00 15.00 7800.00
8 Maize 560.00 8.00 4480.00
9 Gheat 480.00 25.00 12000.00
6000.00 1,05680.00
MONOCULTURE
1 Mandua 3600.00 10.00 36000.00
SEPTRASHI
1 Urd 600.00 20.00 12000.00
2 Moong 520.00 25.00 13000.00
3 Mandua 560.00 10.00 5600.00
4 Sefed Bhatt 680.00 15.00 10200.00
5 Dohyalya Dal 560.00 20.00 11200.00
6 Maize 680.00 8.00 5440.00
7 Lobia Dal 600.00 20.00 12000.00
Total 4200.00 69440.00
MONOCULTURE
1 Urd 2400.00 20.00 48000.00
98
involving monocultures. The study shows thatthe net value of the annual production of anaverage MC farm is uniformly more than thatof an average monoculture farm. The selectedMC farms of East Medinipur district are sownto a wide range of crop diversity, both undersequential rotation and intercropping. Some ofthese farms – mostly smaller than a hectare insize – grow over 50 types of crops excludingrice. Rain fed farms of Bankura district arecomparatively less diverse, hardly exceeding14 crops a year including rice. The irrigatedmonoculture farms, by contrast, grow 2 ricevarieties in Bankura district and 3 rice varieties(all HYV) in East Medinipur district. The costof all inputs (water for irrigation, seeds,agrochemicals, labour and energy) werecalculated to compare the relative gain inoutput value of the modern monoculture farmswith that of the MC farms. Furthermore,monoculture farms of East Medinipur appear tobe less productive in spite of three rice cropsthan those of Bankura with two rice crops.Farmers explain this to reflect the “farm fatigue”from monoculture and intensive use ofagrochemicals – an essential feature of modernagriculture.
A remarkable finding is that the relativevalue of the farm produce seems to increasesignificantly with greater diversity of crops.This unimodal distribution of the value ofnet farm profit (difference between theoutput and input value) per unit area vis-a-viscrop diversity becomes clear when the net
profit and crop species numbers are bothnatural log-transformed. The regression slopeis 0.5893, which is significant at 99.9% level ofconfidence.
Regression of mean annual farm profitagainst crop diversity (all data natural log-transformed).
These data contradict the prevailingmainstream agronomic conjecture that intensivecropping of a staple crop would enhanceproductivity of the land. A majority of farmersin Bankura and Medinipur have now realizedthat over years, the yield of the monoculturefarms is unsustainable. Many of these farmershave reverted back to traditional farmingsystems involving folk crop varieties. Some ofthem have experimented with a hybrid systemof rotational cropping of a large number of“secondary” crops and a HYV rice. However,most of these MC farmers reported that “thecost of inputs eat away the extra productionof HYV rice”, and that the best means to cutdown on the extraneous inputs is to “give theland a recess” by growing vegetables andfruits for a few years before replanting it withrice (Industrial vs Ecological Agriculture byDebal Deb).
Thus conservation of native seeds andbiodiverse ecological farming has led to incomeswhich are 2-3 times higher than monoculture,and 8-9 times higher than industrial systemsusing genetically engineered seeds.
Contrary to common perception, GMO’sand chemical intensive farming systems
actually lead to negative economies,with farmers spending more than theyearn.
C. FROM UNFAIR TRADE TOFAIR TRADE
Corporate, industrialized, globalisedagriculture creates debt, uproots smallfarmers by exploiting them first throughsales of costly inputs and then throughpurchase of commodities below cost ofproduction.
99
The Potato Crisis: Freedom Fries and Slavery
Following Andhra Pradesh and Punjab,agricultural debts and farmers suicides arenow knocking on the doors of U.P. especiallypotato rowers. While the farmers are spendingRs. 255/ Quintal on production, potatoes arebeing sold for Rs. 40/Quintal, leaving farmersat a loss of Rs. 200 for every quintal produced.Per hectare the costs of production are betweenRs. 55,000/ha to Rs. 65,000/ha, of which Rs.40,000 is the cost of seed alone.
That the independent farmer is strugglingto survive against immeasurably difficult odds
is borne out by the number of suicides byfarmers throughout the country. By 2000, morethan 20,000 farmers from all over the countryhad fallen victim to the high costs of production,spurious seed, crop loss, falling farm prices,and rising debt.
The crisis for potato growers, like the crisisfor producers of tomatoes, cotton and oilseeds, and other crops is directly related toWorld Bank and W.T.O. driven tradeliberalization policies, of which the newAgricultural policies is a direct outcome.
The policies of globalization and tradeliberalization have created the farm crisis in
100
general and the potato crisis in particular at 3levels:
1. A shift from “food first” to “trade first”and “farmer first” to “corporation first”policies.
2. A shift from diversity and multi-functionality of agriculture to monoculturesand standardization, chemical and capitalintensification of production, andderegulation of the input sector, especiallyseeds leading to rising costs of production.
3. Deregulation of markets and withdrawal ofstate from effective price regulation leadingto collapse in prices of farm commodities.
From “farmer first” to “corporation first”
The new agriculture policies are based onwithdrawing support to farmers, and cratingnew subsidies for agro-processing industryand agribusiness. In a debate on the potatocrisis, the U.P. Agriculture Minister referred tosubsidies given for cold storage and transport.These subsidies do not go to farmers andproducers. They go to traders and corporations.Pepsico entry in Punjab was the first exampleof this trade first policy. When the market rateof tomatoes was Rs. 2.00 per kg., Pepsico waspaying farmers only Rs. 0.80 to 0.50 per kg, butcollecting ten times that amount as a transportsubsidy from government. Cold storage ownersin U.P. have received Rs. 50 crore in subsidies,but this is not a subsidy to farmers. A farmerpays the cold storage owner Rs. 120/sack forstorage. Cold storage owners are hiking chargesto exploit the crisis. With 1 crore 3 lac metrictonnes of potato production in U.P., this is amassive drain of financial resources fromindebted farmers to traders, from producers tobusiness and industry.
The annual budgets since liberalizationhaving been adding to the subsidies for theCorporate sector –tax holidays for buildingsilos and cold storages, incentives for exporting,subsidized transportation to the ports of thetrader’s choice. The recently announced 5 year
export policy of the government has allocatedRs. 100 crores towards aided corporationstransport grain from FIC to the ports. Inaddition, public money is used to take landaway from farmers to build transportationfacilities for agri-business to help them transportthe grain even faster.
The experience of the 2001 wheat exportexposes the government’s lack of commitmentto its people. As against an economic cost of Rs8300 per tonne to the FCI and an open marketprice of Rs. 7,000 per tonne, India was offereda price of Rs. 4,300 per tonne in internationalopen market in May 2001.
Over and above selling the wheat at the BPLrates, the government agreed to bear thefreight charge from Rajpura to Jamnagar portin Guarat and pay a commission to Cargill.Thus, wheat whose cost to the governmentincluded the MSP (Rs. 580 of 2000) as well asthe commission, market charges, levies andcess paid by FCI, increasing the real cost byanother Rs. 70 a quintal, was sold at less thanRs 420 a quintal, giving the corporation asubsidy of Rs. 130 a quintal.
In fact, since 2000, Cargill has emerged asthe biggest buyer of subsidized Indian wheatfor exports.
Monocultures and standardization
The impact of the new agriculture policy hasbeen to promote a shift from food grains tovegetables and perishable commodities. Whilegrains can be stored and consumed locally,potatoes and tomatoes must be soldimmediately. A vegetable centred policy thusdecreases food security and increases farmers’vulnerability to the market. While this promotesmonocultures of perishable commodities, theword used for these monocultures is“diversification” in typical globalizationdoublespeak.
Further, the State Minister for Agriculture,Hukamdeo Narayan Yadav, and the U.P.Agriculture Minister, Hukum Singh, both citedthe variability of size and the standardization
101
of the agro-processing industry as a reason fornot procuring potatoes from farmers in spite ofthe distress. Size does not matter for the Indiankitchen. Our “Aaloo ki sabzi” and “Aalooparatha” do not need the Russet Burbank thatMcDonald needs for its French fries (renamed“Freedom Fries” during the Iraq war becauseof France’s non-cooperation with the U.S.).
The McDonald Corporation needed theRusset Burbank because of its size. For example40% of all McDonald fries must be two to threeinches long, another 40% must be over threeinches; and the remaining 20% can be less thantwo inches – and the Russet Burbank fitsperfectly. The economic forces of food processingpush cultivation to a single crop yieldinguniformity, threatening the ecological stabilityof agriculture more than it has been in the past.Seed monopolies and genetic uniformity gohand in hand. Potatoes for processing are beingintroduced in the name of ‘diversification’: -but given the experience o potato cultivation inthe US from where PepsiCo technology is beingtransferred, it will lead to genetic uniformityand high vulnerability.
Today in the US only 12 varieties of the2,000 species of potato are cultivated. 40% ofall potato cultivation is of a single variety – theRusset Burbank. In 1970, only 28% of America’stotal potato acreage was planted with thisvariety. Acres and acres of the same kid ofpotato is ecologically very vulnerable as theIrish potato famine reminds us. The introductionof uniformity is justified as a trade-off forraising yields of horticultural cropsmiraculously. Pepsi’s promotion literature statedthat ‘yields of horticultural produce in India aresubstantially lower than international standards’.The project proposal for Pepsi Food arguedthat ‘in Mexico, Pepsi’s subsidiary, Sabritaslaunched a seed programme that increasepotato yields by 58% - from 19 to 30 tonnes perhectare in three years.’ In India, comparableyields have been achieved by farmers andagricultural scientists. Potato yields of morethan 40 tonnes per hectare have been realised
during field trials in Jalandhar by the CentralPotato Research Institute. Yields averagingabout 50-60 tonnes per hectare are also achievedby Gujarat farmers, who grow their potatoeson riverbeds in Banaskantha district. Just as inthe first Green Revolution, the existence ofindigenous high yielding varieties of rice wasdenied to justify the introduction of highresponse varieties, costly potato seeds arebeing introduced under “crop diversification”,locking farmers into dependency and debt.
This link of monocultures and monopoliesover seed explains the high cost of productionunder trade led agriculture policies.
Price Regulation
While the government does keep going throughthe gimmicks of announcing procurement pricesand procurement centres, governmentintervention in price regulation andprocurement has all out disappeared underglobalization. The government announcedRs. 195/quintal as the procurement price ofpotatoes, and opening of 8 centres forprocurement. However, no governmentprocurement is being done to support farmersand ensure a fair price. Prices have thereforefallen to Rs. 40- 100/quintal, a bonanza for theagro-processing industry which makes evenmore profits from chips, but a disaster for thegrower who is being pushed to suicides indespair. With potatoes at Rs. 0.40 a kg, theagro-processing industry is paying less than Rs.0.08 to farmers for chips they sell at Rs. 10.00for 200 gms. For 1,31,00,000 metric tonnes ofpotatoes this amounts to a transfer of Rs. 20billion from impoverished peasants of U.P. toglobal MNCs such as Pepsi and McDonald.
And the plight of potato farmers in Punjabis no different. As the Tribune reports,
• Forced to grow potato in the past few yearsunder crop diversification agricultureprogramme, the farmers have been findingit difficult to earn enough by selling theproduce to meet the cost of inputs.
102
• After incurring heavy losses for growingpotato, hundreds of farmers have decidedto sell their holding to meet liabilities ofloans of banks and commission agents.
• Mr. Chotta Singh (Name changed) of GillKalan village of this district said, “I grewpotato in 20 acres, 10 acres owned by meand 10 acres taken on lease. I spent Rs.12,000 a acre on potato cultivation andtoday if I sell my entire produce at theprevailing price of Rs. 100 a quintal, I willincur loss of Rs. 1 lac.” He added that tomeet part of his loan liability of Rs. 11 lac,he had disposed of one acre.
• Mr. Shawinder Singh, another farmer pointedout that he took to potato farming hopingthat he would replay his entire loan of Rs.3 lac in two to three years as potato wasconsidered a “paying crop”. But now hefound that his debt had crossed Rs. 5 lacbecause he failed to fetch remunerativeprice and he had to sell it a throwawayprice to get cash to meet routine liabilities.
And the plight of potato farmers in U.P. isthe same as the plight of wheat and rice farmersin Punjab and Haryana and soya farmers inM.P., cotton and groundnut farmers in A.P.
Navdanya has created alternative marketsbased on direct marketing of biodiverseproducts. Navdanya is distinctive as a fairtrade movement because:
(a) it creates markets through fair trade toproject biodiversity not just sell ourcommodity
(b) it has created local, domestic markets in theSouth
(c) it directly connects its producer membersand consumer (co producer members)
The direct marketing/fair trade initiativesof Navdanya are an alternative to the unfairtrade driven by agribusiness and enforced byWTO and the World Bank. Corporate,industrialized agriculture, globalised agriculture
creates debt, uproots small farmers by exploitingthem first through selling them costly chemicalsand non-renewable seeds and then throughpurchase of commodities below cost ofproduction. Globalised agriculture also usesuniformity and standardization to marginalizesmall farmers and biodiversity.
From Monoculture to Diversity
Navdanya, as a movement for conservation forbiodiversity, uses fair trade to create a marketfor diversity. The global market focuses onwheat and rice, corn and soya. The GMOdominated market focuses on corn, soya,canola, and cotton.
Navdanya has popularized “forgotten foods”– millets and psuedo cereals, which are resourceprudent yet highly nutritional. There populationmeans less water is used, and more nutritionis produced. India could produce 400 timesmore food using the same land and water ifpriority was given to millets like Ragi (FingerMillet) and Jhangora (Barnyard Millet).
When the edible oil market was beingreduced to soya and farmers growing oilseedswere losing their markets, Navdanya defendedand promoted indigenous oil seeds and theircold pressing on indigenous oil mills. Morethan 9 varieties of mustard were conserved inaddition to sesame, linseed and niger. Fairtrade in organic oilseeds and in cold pressededible oil has conserved biodiversity, andprotected the livelihood option of farmers inarid areas like Rajasthan both in oilseedproduction and edible oil extraction.
Navdanya has helped conserve more than3000 rice varieties, and it has created fair tradeorganic markets for unpolished brown rice, redrice, nine varieties of basmati, and ninevarieties of aromatic rices.
Navdanya has also provided an alternativeto the unhealthy monoculture of Coca Cola andPepsi with its unique range of fruit juices – bel,ginger, rhododendron, seabuckthorn, maltaand mint.
103
From Centralization/Concentration toDecentralization
The unfair trade imposes concentration inproduction, both by focusing on singlecommodities, as in India’s Agriculture ExportZones, and by promoting concentration oflandholdings by dispossessing small farmers.
Navdanya builds on the strength ofbiodiversity and small farmers. By conservingand promoting the uses of indigenousbiodiversity where the soils and agro climatebest suit it, and by transforming biodiversityinto the farmers most important capital,Navdanya has evolved horizontally organizednetwork of decentralized, diversified, producercommunities, who are simultaneouslyconservers of water and biodiversity. Navdanyabuilds on the Gandhian philosophy of everexpanding, never ascending circles. Gandhi’seconomic vision is best captured in his economicconstitution of India.
“According to me the economic constitutionof India and for the matter of that of the world,should be such that no one under it should sufferfrom want of food and clothing. In other wordseverybody should be able to get sufficient workto enable him to make the two ends meet. Andthis ideal can be universally realized only if themeans of production of the elementarynecessaries of life remain in the control of themasses. These should be freely available to allas God’s air and water are or ought to be; theyshould not be made a vehicle of traffic for theexploitation of others. Their monopolization byany country, nation or group of persons wouldbe unjust. The neglect of this simple principle isthe cause of the destitution that we witnesstoday not only in this unhappy land but in otherparts of the world too.”
From Agribusiness led to Nature andFarmer led Trade
The unfair trading system has beeninstitutionalized by corporations for therebenefits. Navdanya is building fair tradenetworks by putting nature and small farmers
at the heart of agricultural production andtrade. Nature shares of biological productionare returned to nature through organic andecological systems, and by conserving soil,water and biodiversity. The farmer’s share ofsocial wealth is returned to farmers. Fair tradethus becomes a system of wealth distributionand sharing.
Navdanya is among the few southerninitiatives which has built local and domesticorganic and fair trade markets. Our philosophyis:
• First to nature,
• Then to the household
• Then to local and domestic markets
• Then to international markets
We ensure that trade does not underminelocal food security and ecological security. Forus fair trade is fair only if it improves ecologicalsecurity and the food and nutritional securityof producer communities.
From Masculanisation of AgriculturalProduction and Processing to WomenCentred Food Production
Navdanya puts women’s knowledge andcreativity at the heart of sustainable productionand fair trade. Our “Mahila Anna Swaraj”(Women’s Food Sovereignty) units transformthere organic produce to delicious, healthy,diverse pickles, jams, vadas, papads, juices,cookies, adding value, and adding taste, whilekeeping food security in women’s hands.
The National Alliance of Women for Foodand Water Rights, and Diverse Women forDiversity are advocacy networks at nationaland global levels, which work to change theanti women rules of unfair trade to womencentred rules of fair trade.
From the Consumer-Producer Divide toCo-production
One of our seminal contributions to Fair Tradepractices has been the marketing of organic
104
agricultural produces directly from the farmersto the consumers, who through theirconsumption patterns become the co-producersof agriculture. To this end, we have two outletsin New Delhi. Our very first outlet is at DilliHaat, which is a platform where craftspeopleand artisans offer their wares to buyers in thetrue spirit of Swadeshi; recently to service bothour consumer members as well as our farmermembers whose numbers are growing, betterNavdanya opened two other outlets at HauzKhas and Vasant Kunj, New Delhi respectively.We have a similar space also in Dehradun, thecapital of Uttaranchal, a state where we havea sizeable number of farmer members and anew outlet in Member.
At our outlets, we offer a very diverserange of agricultural produce both as grainsand in a processed form. The diversity by wayof rice, wheat, millets, cracked wheat, breakfastcereals, cookies etc. reflects our commitment toconserving local seeds and biodiversity,practicing a water prudent agriculture andensuring the livelihoods of small farmers andwomen in the face of globalization.
We express our concern for the health of theEarth and its people in many other ways;through our door-to-door organic vegetablebasket delivery scheme, our annual Abir Gulalfestival to celebrate a toxic free Holi, our
indigenous cold drinks festivals throughout thescorching summer months to help you beat theheat in a healthy way, while also being respectfulto the Earth, water and people’s livelihood.
Navdanya’s fair trade networks are based increating direct consumer-producer links. We callour consumer member’s co-producers becausein making food choices they are choosingproduction and trade patterns. By joiningNavdanya they are voting for biodiversityrather than monocultures. They are voting forsmall farmers rather than agribusiness. They arevoting for safe and healthy food rather than forchemicals and GMO’s.
Through ecological fair trade, we arecombining sustainability and social justice.Through biodiversity, we are sowing the seedsof freedom, prosperity and peace, of livingeconomies and living democracies. This is realfair trade – based on freedom, for nature andfreedom for people.
Studies carried out in diverse ecosystems ofIndia show that by conserving biodiversity andadopting organic farming, small farmers canincrease their production and incomes. Foodsovereignty, food security and food safetyrequires an urgent change in policy fromchemical intensification which is leading todebt and suicides to biodiversity intensificationwhich is creating a living economy of food.
Related Documents
