Volume 5 (2019), Pages 119-124
Authors
Md. Sefaur Rahman*, A.B.M. Shafiul Alam, Md. Al Arafat Topu, Abdur Rakib and Md. Shahidul Islam
Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture (BINA), Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh
| ABSTRACT | Get Full Text PDF |
An investigation was carried out to determine the economic importance of integrated farming system in the remote cultivated areas of Gopalganj District, as well as the prosperous feasibilities in implementation of sustainable integrated farming for rural development. The whole analysis is based on primary and secondary data. The primary data gathered from field observation during 2015-2016 from 75 local farmers randomly in 6 different villages of Kashiani Upazila. Out of total 75 farmers, 15 were found practicing basic integrated farming. These randomized samples help in calculating income gap and taking decision towards better opportunities of integrated farming. Related Governmental statistics and relevant literatures were considered as secondary data source. The analysis shows a profit gap between traditional mono/double crop cultivation and integrated farming and the gap benchmarking indicates that integrated farming has greater income feasibilities than present cultivation system. The result found that the farmers in study area are more prefer their existing system of cultivation although there are high risk of economic losses due to increase in price of chemical fertilizer, High Yielding Varieties seeds (HYVs), modernization and concomitantly repeated crop damage and decrease market value of produced goods, leading farmers to face a serious challenge in terms of profit. In this regards, with some practical instances and successful application of model integrated farming, it is recommended that it can surely overcome such faced problems and help in reduce input cost, increase agricultural outputs, enhance consistency in income and provide better economic feasibility for decent livelihood and rural development.
Key words: Economic feasibility, Integrated farming System, Livelihood, Rural development.
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sefa.entom@gmail.com (Md. Sefaur Rahman)
Cite this article: Rahman, M. S., Alam, A.B.M.S., Topu, M. A. A., Rakib A. and Islam, M. S. (2019). Economic feasibility of integrated farming system in Kashiani upazila of Gopalganj district. Intl. J. Appl. Res. 5, 119-124.
INTRODUCTION
Integrated farming system or integrated agriculture is a commonly and broadly used term to explain a more integrated approach to farming as compared to monoculture approaches (MH 1986). It refers to agricultural systems that integrate livestock and crop production or integrate fish and livestock.
Continuous land degradation is endangering household food security in Bangladesh. To stop land degradation and regain productivity integrated farming system (IFS) can be the solution. This type of farming modifies the commercial farming system (CFS), which relies on rice-based monocropping, by adopting production of vegetables, trees, livestock and fish.
Farmers of Bangladesh generally practice subsistence farming where they need to produce a continuous, reliable and balanced supply of foods, as well as cash for basic needs and recurrent farm expenditure. Therefore, there is a need to develop suitable integrated farming systems for such farmers.
Integration of various agricultural enterprises viz., cropping, animal husbandry, fishery, forestry etc. in the farming system has great potentialities in agricultural economy. These enterprises not only supplement the income of the farmers but also help in increasing the family labor employment throughout the year (Singh et al., 1993 and Singh et al., 1997).
Agriculture has almost turned into a non-profitable occupation in the study area because of low market price and repeated invasion of natural calamities, although more than 75% people depend on it (Ahamed 1999). The Kashiani Upazila of Gopalganj District is bounded by Boalmari Upazila of Faridpur district on the north, Alfadanga on the East, Gopalganj sadar on the south. It has total area 299.14 km2. Kashiani has a population of 271783 where Males constituted 143981 of the population and females 127802. Muslims formed 95.27% of the population, Hindus 2.46%, Christians 0.18% and others 0.10%. Kashiani has a literacy rate of 40% (MNU 2003). Kashiani has 14 Unions/ Wards, 153 Mauzas/Mahallas. The Kashiani Upazila of Gopalganj district was selected for the study area in order to assess the feasibility to set-up and implement in Integrated Farming System. The objectives of the IFS are multiple: to enhance food production for the household, to maintain the natural resource base that contributes to food security and the well-being of the rural people, to contribute to income generation, and to be accepted by local communities.
Materials and Methods
Description of study area (Physio-socio-economic aspect)
The Kashiani Upazila of Gopalganj District is bounded by Boalmari Upazila of Faridpur district on the north, Alfadanga on the East, Gopalganj sadar on the south. It has total area 299.14 km2 Kashiani has a population of 271783 where Males constituted 143981 of the population and females 127802. Muslims formed 95.27% of the population, Hindus 2.46%, Christians 0.18% and others 0.10% (AM 1982). Kashiani has a literacy rate of 40%. Kashiani has 14 Unions/Wards, 153 Mauzas/Mahallas. The Kashiani Upazila of Gopalganj district was selected for the study area. Gopalganj is the most commencing district of West Bengal in both industrially and agriculturally (Azucena 2001). Eastern part of the district is enriched by most productive agricultural regions. It is estimated that more than 60% of its total population belongs to the agricultural population i.e. engaged in agricultural and allied activities and maximum of them belongs to rural area (Chambers 1992). The remaining 40% are counts as non- agricultural population. Excluding the eastern and south-eastern part of the district, many industries and factories are scattered here.
Data collection
The present study was an attempt to emphasize on advantages aspects on applying integrated farming in an agriculturally domain district of Gopalganj. The study was based on both primary as well as secondary sources of data (Elish 2001). Primary data were collected through random sampling method from selected farmers in 5 blocks from Kashiani upazila of the district. Primary data was collected by direct observation from the agricultural field and interview with the local farmers.
Sampling procedure
Preliminary observation was carried out in pre-sampling process in order to select the most cultivated blocks from Gopalganj district during 2015-16. After selecting the blocks, the more accessible villages were chosen. Simple random sampling method was used. Sampling procedure involved selection of blocks, selection villages and selection of respondents. Aged farmers were chosen to get responses and their views were taken into consideration for their more experiences. Thus, a total 75 respondents were taken from 5 villages of each block.
Result and discussion
Age distribution, literacy level and farm category of selected farmers
The result of the baseline survey showed that the average age of landless (52 years) higher than others farmer (Table 1). It is observed that farmers of all categories were not highly educated. Most of them were educated up to class V. The landless and medium farmers have comparatively higher family size than other categories of the farmers and average farm size of the landless farmers was 0 decimal and large farmers average farm size was 720.00 decimal.
Farming systems practiced by respondents
Most of the farmers (30%) practiced the farming system integrated with crop + livestock + poultry + fisheries followed by crop + fisheries. There were no farmers who practiced only agro-forestry, orchard and nursery (Table 2).
Table 1: Average age, educational level, family composition and farm size
| Farmer category | Age (year) | Educational level (%) | Family size (no.) | Farm size (decimal) | Number of sample farmers | ||||
| Illiterate | Class V | S.S.C | H.S.C | > H.S.C | |||||
| Landless | 52 | 32.33 | 65.67 | – | – | – | 7.3 | 0 | 10 |
| Marginal | 41 | 14.29 | 75.71 | – | – | – | 4.7 | 44.28 | 15 |
| Small | 42 | 18.18 | 68.18 | 4.55 | 9.09 | – | 4.6 | 147.27 | 15 |
| Medium | 47 | – | 38.58 | 52.14 | 7.14 | 8.14 | 5.3 | 346.07 | 20 |
| Large | 55 | – | 40.00 | 52.00 | – | – | 5.2 | 710.00 | 15 |
Table 2: Major farming systems of the farmers in the study area
| Major Farming Systems | No. of Households | Percentage (%) |
| Crops | 5 | 2 |
| Crop + Livestock + Fisheries + Poultry | 11 | 30 |
| Crop + Livestock + Poultry | 4 | 6 |
| Crop + Livestock | 7 | 4 |
| Crop + Livestock + Fisheries | 13 | 10 |
| Crop + Fisheries + Poultry | 3 | 6 |
| Crop + Poultry | 1 | 2 |
| Crop + Fisheries | 10 | 22 |
| Livestock + Fisheries + Poultry | 4 | 4 |
| Livestock + Poultry | 2 | 2 |
| Fisheries + Poultry | 8 | 6 |
| Livestock + Fisheries | 7 | 6 |
| Total | 75 | 100 |
Table 3: Major crops grown by the respondents
| Crops | HYV | Local | Sowing/Planting time | Harvesting time | |||
| Area (ha) | Yield (kg/ha) | Area (ha) | Yield (kg/ha) | ||||
| Rice | DSR (Aus) | 3 | 120 | 2 | 75 | – | – |
| T. Aus | 4 | 70 | 3 | 60 | – | – | |
| T. Aman | 6 | 160 | 45.427 | 2964 | July-August | November-December | |
| Boro | 42.42 | 5000 | 2 | 80 | November-December | March-April | |
| Potato | 1.5 | 30-35 ton | November- December | February-March | |||
Major crops produced by respondents
Rice and potato are the two major crop produced by the farmers of the study area. Among rice varieties local Aman was mostly cultivated (45.427 ha) with 2964 kg/ha yield followed by hybrid Boro (42.42) with higher yield 5000 kg/ha (Table 3).
Cropping patterns practiced by the respondents
The respondent farmers grow mainly Aman and Boro rice. Mukta and BR 21 were the common variety of Aman rice which the farmer grows. Main variety of Boro rice which farmer grows was BRRIdhan 28, BRRIdhan 29, Gazi and hybrid rice.
Cost input by farmers
The average per farm input cost for crop production of the respondent farmers is shown in Table 5. The cost for production of Aman was 13843 Tk whereas the cost for production of Boro was much higher (34243 Tk.) with cost of tillage @ 4446 Tk.
Fruit production
Average per farm homestead fruit production is shown in table 6. Banana was the most common fruit production in the study area with the average production value of 4800 Tk per farm followed by Mango and Papaya @ 400 Tk per farm.
Table 4
Major cropping patterns practiced by the farmers.
| Cropping patterns | Cropping patterns and variety in different seasons | |||
| Kharif | Robi | |||
| Crop | Variety | Crop | Variety | |
| Boro-Fallow-T. Aman | T. Aman | Kironmala,Mukta,
BR 21 |
Boro.Rice | BRRIdhan 28,BRRIdhan 29 |
| Fallow- Fallow- T. Aman | T. Aman | Kironmala,Mukta,
BR 21 |
||
| Vegetable-Fallow-T. Aman | T. Aman | Kironmala,Mukta,
BR 21 |
Potato,
Bottle gourd, Bean, Cauliflower, Cabbage |
Local,
Imported |
Table 5
Average per farm input use for crop production of the sample farmers.
| Name of crops | Input use (no. or kg/ha) | Total input cost
(Tk/ha) |
Tillage
cost (Tk/ha) |
|||||||||
| Labor
(Male+ Female) |
Seed | Urea | TSP | MP | ZnSO4 | Gypsum | Cow dung | Insecticide (Tk) | Irrigation
(Tk) |
|||
| Aman | 20 | 40 | 98 | 50 | 50 | – | – | – | 1482 | 1235 | 13843 | 4446 |
| Boro | 15 | 33 | 296 | 74 | 74 | – | 74 | – | 4446 | 11115 | 34243 | 4446 |
| Potato | 30 | 1200 | 250 | 120 | 220 | 8 | 120 | 10 | 1318 | 1235 | 22581 | 1300 |
Table 6
Average per farm homestead fruit production and disposal pattern.
| Name of fruits | Total fruits produced (no. or kg) | Fruits consumed (no. or kg) | Fruits sold (no. or kg) | Value of fruit (Tk/fruit /kg) | Market price of fruit at harvest (Tk./ pice/kg) | Total value of fruits (Tk.) |
| Banana | 110 | 40 | 80 | 40 | 40 | 4800 |
| Jackfruit | 5 | 5 | 3 | 60 | 60 | 240 |
| Mango | 120 | 40 | 60 | 4 | 4 | 400 |
| Papaya | 20 | 15 | 8 | 20 | 20 | 400 |
| Guava | 15 | 10 | 2 | 40 | 4 | 160 |
| Total | 270 | 110 | 153 | 164 | 128 | 6000 |
Cost and return of livestock and poultry
The return for Ox, Goat, Calf per farm were 5415, 1115, 3440 Tk. Respectively (Table 7). Among the poultry the highest return of 210 Tk was obtained from hen followed by duck and chicken.
Cost and return of fish culture
Fish culture was also an age old practice in the site where baseline survey was conducted. About 100 percent of the households who had pond engaged with fish culture. Fish culture was profitable in the site where baseline survey was conducted. Tilapia was the most commonly cultured fish with net return of 37574.5 Tk. Per farm (Table 8).
Cost and return of major cropping patterns
Among the cropping pattern highest net return was observed in Vegetable-Fallow-T. Aman (70800.8 Tk/ha) followed by Boro-Fallow-T. Aman (55635 Tk./ha).
Household livestock and poultry assets
The average per household livestock and poultry assets of farmers varied according to their economic condition. Poor or small farmers have more livestock to rear than the large farmers (Table 10).
Table 7: Average per farm cost and return of livestock and poultry.
| Livestock/poultry | Average Number
(present) |
Original value (Tk./animal)(1) | Feed cost (Tk./animal)(2) | Present value (Tk./animal)(3) | Total cost (Tk./animal)(1+2)=4 | Net Return (Tk./animal)(3-4) |
| Livestock | ||||||
| Ox | 0.57 | 20100 | 3185 | 22300 | 13585 | 5415 |
| Goat | 0.95 | 3115 | 855 | 5155 | 4010 | 1115 |
| Calf | 0.69 | 6300 | 1560 | 12200 | 8160 | 3440 |
| Total | 2.21 | 29515 | 5600 | 39655 | 25755 | 9970 |
| Poultry | ||||||
| Chicken | 2.78 | 50 | 75 | 220 | 155 | 125 |
| Duck | 4.34 | 180 | 87 | 390 | 235 | 155 |
| Hen | 3.27 | 300 | 150 | 620 | 430 | 210 |
| Pigeon | 0.42 | 110 | 66 | 250 | 166 | 84 |
| Total | 10.81 | 640 | 378 | 1480 | 986 | 574 |
Table 8: Per farm cost and return of fish culture
| Name of fish | Number of fishes | Area
(decimal) |
Production (kg) | Production cost
(Tk.) |
Gross return
(Tk.) |
Net return
(Tk.) |
| Tilapia | 5260 | 23 | 470 | 20115.5 | 57610 | 37574.5 |
| Others (Native sp.) | 6112 | 31 | 620 | 30100 | 75000 | 47850 |
| Total | 11372 | 54 | 1090 | 50215.5 | 132610 | 85424.5 |
*Farm gate price of fish: 120 (Tk./kg)
Table 9: Cost and return of major existing cropping patterns
| Cropping Patterns | Total cost (TC) (Tk./ha) | Gross Return (GR) (Tk./ha) | Net Return (NR) (Tk./ha) | BCR
(GR/TC) |
| Boro-Fallow-T. Aman | 53810 | 147445 | 55635 | 1.69 |
| Fallow- Fallow- T. Aman | 18279.2 | 35345 | 15165.8 | 2.83 |
| Vegetable-Fallow-T. Aman | 72089.2 | 182790 | 70800.8 | 4.52 |
Table 10: Average per household livestock and poultry assets (no.) of farmers
| Assets | Landless | Marginal | Small | Medium | Large |
| Ox | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Cow | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Calf | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Goat | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Chicken | 11 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Duck | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Total | 20 | 19 | 10 | 11 | 13 |
Table 11: Average per farm income (Tk.) of the sample farmers
| Item | Landless | Marginal | Small | Medium | Large |
| Crop | 0 | 2500 | 23011.36 | 85053.57 | 215375 |
| Livestock | 20100 | 18400 | 15700 | 16680 | 25600 |
| Fisheries | 3000 | 42942 | 93352.4 | 83128.57 | 73000 |
| Poultry | 4000 | 5500 | 3400 | 6450 | 2540 |
| Off-farm | 26080 | 30720 | 22050 | 25000 | 15000 |
| Non-farm | 15000 | 15000 | 10475 | 1050 | 2000 |
| Total | 68180 | 115062 | 167988.76 | 217362.14 | 333515 |
Average per farm income of farmers
The average per farm income of the farmers depends on the size of the farm. The highest average per farm income of 215375 Tk. was from large crop farms followed by fisheries and livestock (Table 11).
Farm expenditure of the farmers
The landless farmers spent their maximum on food. Small, medium and large categories of the farmers spent their maximum for farming practices. Medium and large farmers spent a good amount for the education of their children (Table 12).
Problem faced by the farmers
Farmers of the study area faced various types of problems on their farming practices. Majority of the farmers (95%) suggested to have problems on lack of transportation facilities followed by lack of knowledge about vaccination, de worming, feed of livestock and poultry (Table 13). Lack of knowledge about fish feed and pond management and lack of medical treatment of livestock also considerable problem faced by the respondent farmers.
Table 12: Average per farm expenditure (Tk.) of the sample farmers
| Particulars | Landless | Marginal | Small | Medium | Large |
| Food | 31050.6 | 42056 | 50400 | 38054 | 52230 |
| Cloth | 1500 | 2500 | 4000 | 6700 | 10000 |
| Shelter | 5200 | 4500 | 3450 | 10000 | 14000 |
| Education | 23000 | 24000 | 24000 | 47000 | 60000 |
| Medicine | 4500 | 3000 | 4500 | 5000 | 5600 |
| Others(farming) | 3500 | 22121 | 51334.7 | 90484.6 | 93253.4 |
| Total | 68750.6 | 98177 | 137684.7 | 197238.6 | 235083.4 |
Table 13: Problems faced by the farmers in the study areas
| Problems | % farmers suggested | Solution(s) |
| Lack of knowledge about new crop variety/technology | 40 | Providing Training facilities |
| Lack of quality seeds / fingerlings / duck links | 64 | supply of quality seed/fingerlings |
| Lack of credit facilities | 62 | Providing credit facilities |
| Lack of knowledge about fish feed and pond management | 86 | Providing training facilities |
| Lack of knowledge about vaccination, de worming, feed of livestock and poultry | 92 | Providing training facilities |
| Lack of knowledge about homestead vegetables production | 82 | Providing training facilities |
| Lack of transportation facilities | 95 | should improve transportation facilities |
| Cultivated lands are not sufficient | 35 | Require Lease in , Lease out land facilities. |
| lack of medical facilities for livestock | 83 | need veterinary clinic |
Conclusion
The PRA was conducted in the Kashiani upazila under Gopalganj district during 2015 to 2016 to know the existing cropping system of Plain land areas and adoption techniques due to increase production. The people of PRA sites were very much interested to cultivate different crops but they faced various problems and lack of irrigation facilities Agriculture in Bangladesh is at a stage where there is a need for research priority setting. Given the physical, financial and human resource base, there is a need for proper allocation of these resources for higher and sustainable growth in production and productivity. On the other hand, resource allocation is needed to be distributed based on the commodity and regional importance. The study generates indices of research priorities for the crop sector of Bangladesh in terms of commodities and regions keeping in view the national developmental goals.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful and grateful to the fisher community of the Kashiani Upazila for this kind help in collecting necessary data and information.
References
Ahamed, N. (1999). A study on socio-economic aspects of coastal fishermen in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 24(1-2): 20-26.
Ahmed, M.N.U. (2003). Fisheries sector in Bangladesh. Economy and Development of Livelihood.Mothsho Pakkho (Shoronika) 86 pp.
Ali, M.H. & Rahman, M.H. (1986).An investigation on Socio-economic and technical problems in fish culture in Bangladesh, Bangladesh J. Agrci. 8(1): 47-51.
Ali, M.Z., Murullah, M., Rahman, M.H. &Shofiquz-zaman, A.M. (1982). Level of inputs used and culture-practice of fish culture in eastern Bangladesh. Bangladesh, J. Agri. Sci. 22(2): 37-45.
Azucena, C.W.W., Oliver, M.S.S., Jonen, B.P., Viray, M.H. and Malley, S. (2001).Utilizing different aquatic resources for livelihood in Asia. A resource book, printed in Philippines, 361 pp.
Chambers, R, & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable Rural livelihood practical concepts for the 21th century. IDS-discussion papers no 246. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies. England. 148 p
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries, Oxford.
Mahbubullah M. (1986). Case study of polder and estuarine fisheries community in Bangladesh. In-Socio-Economic study of Tropical Fishing Community in Bangladesh. A report for Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Rome, pp. 12-14.
Shahriar M, Hoque MM, Haque MR, Hossain MA and Das D.R . (2010). Livelihood status of fishing community of Morgangi Beel under Melandah Upazila of Jamalpur District, MS Thesis, Department of Aquaculture, BAU Gopalganj. pp. 45-63.
Singh, K. P.; Singh, S. N.; Kumar, H.; Kadian, V. S. and Saxena, K. K. (1993). Economic analysis of different farming systems followed on small and marginal land holdings in Haryana, Haryana J. Agron., 9: 122-125.
Singh, S. N., Saxena, K. K., Singh, K. P., Kumar, H. and Kadian, V. S. (1997). Consistency in income and employment generation in various farming systems, Annals of Agril. Res., 18(3): 340-43.
