Sustainable Agriculture

Sustainable Agriculture

Ram Swaroop Meena

JRF, SRF, Ph.D., PDF, NET, Raman Fellow (MHRD, Govt. of India)
Ex-Visiting Scientist, C-MASC, USA
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Agronomy
Institute of Agricultural Sciences,
BHU, Varanasi (UP) - 221 005, India
Published by
SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS (INDIA)
5 A, New Pali Road
P.O. Box 91
Jodhpur - 342 001 INDIA
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.scientificpub.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication or the information contained herein may be
reproduced, adapted, abridged, translated, stored in a retrieval system, computer system,
photographic or other systems or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
optical, digital, by photocopying, recording or otherwise, without written prior permission from the
publisher. Any breach will attract legal action and prosecution without further notice.

Disclaimer: While every effort has been made to avoid errors and omissions, this publication is
being sold and marketed on the understanding and presumption that neither the editors (or authors)
nor the publishers nor the printers would be liable in any manner whatsoever, to any person either
for an error or for an omission in this publication, or for any action to be taken on the basis of this
work. Any inadvertent discrepancy noted may be brought to the attention of the publisher, for
rectifying it in future editions, if published.
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable
efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the editors and publisher
cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The
editors and publisher have attempted to trace and acknowledge the copyright holders of all material
reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission and
acknowledgement to publish in this form have not been obtained. If any copyright material has not
been acknowledged please write and let us know so that we may rectify it.

Trademark Notice: Publications or corporate names may be trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation in bonafide intent without intent to infringe.

ISBN: 978-93- (Hardbound)

978-93- (E-book)

© 2019, Meena, R.S.

Printed in India
Preface

Sustainable development means that the needs of the present generation

should be met without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs. Sustainability is the key to preventing or reducing
the effect of environmental issues. Agriculture sustainability is the
process of making sure current processes of interaction with the
Agriculture are pursued with the idea of keeping the environment as
pristine as naturally possible based on ideal-seeking behaviour.
Ecosystems are dynamic interactions between plants, animals, and
microorganisms, and their environment working together as a functional
unit. Ecosystems will fail if they do not remain in balance. This book
examines our current cultivation system from production to
consumption, and the urgent need to transition to long-term
sustainability. The book promotes the study and application of Agro-
ecology for developing alternatives to the complex problems of resource
depletion, environmental degradation, a narrowing of agro-biodiversity,
consolidation and industrialization of the food system, climate change,
and the loss of farm land. The book uses a food systems approach, and
seeks experiences in eco-friendly that are on-farm, participatory, change-
oriented, and backed by broad-based methodologies of sustainability
analysis and evaluation. The objectives of this book are: (1) to
understand the role sustainable agricultural productivity and its
importance to the sustainable soil managements, (2) to restore soil health
to transforming agriculture for sustainability, and (3) to understand the
matching of management rules in climatic perspective. In general, the
book will be suitable for teachers, researchers, policy makers,
undergraduate and graduate students of soil science, soil microbiology,
agronomy, ecology, and environmental sciences. Highly professional and
internationally renowned researchers has invited to contribute,
authoritative and cutting-edge scientific information on a broad range of
topics covering sustainable management of agriculture. All chapters are
well-illustrated with appropriately placed data, tables, figures, and
photographs and supported with extensive and most recent references.
vi Sustainable Agriculture

The submitted chapters are reviewed by the members of the relevant

field for further improvement and authentication of the information
provided. I am also provide a roadmap for sustainable approaches for
agriculture systems for food and nutritional security, and soil
sustainability in the ecosystem.

Ram Swaroop Meena

Contents

1. Integrated Nutrient Management for Sustainable Rice-based Cropping

Systems and Soil Quality
— B.L. Meena, R. Raja, M.L. Dotaniya and Ram Swaroop Meena 1

2. Biopesticides: An Integral Partner of Sustainable Agriculture

— Amit Yadav, Pushpa Singh, Veer Singh and Abhishek Yadav 13

3. Year Round Green Fodder Production and Conservation for Sustainable

Dairy Farming in India

— Rakesh Kumar 38

4. Green House Gas Emissions in Rice and its Mitigation Options for
Sustainability

— B. Lal, Priyanka Gautam, Teekam Singh, B.P. Meena 55

and Rachna Rana

5. Use of Wastewater for Sustainable Agriculture

— M.L. Dotaniya V.D. Meena and B.L. Meena 71

6. Biochar: An Emerging Technology for Sustainable Agriculture

— U.N. Shukla, Manju Lata Mishra, Ram Swaroop Meena, 88
A.K. Pandey and S.K. Verma

7. Enhancing Crop Competitiveness Through Sustainable Weed

Management Practices

— Kairovin Lakra, S.K. Verma, Avinash Chandra Maurya, S.B. Singh, 109
Ram Swaroop Meena and N. Shukla
viii Sustainable Agriculture

8. Carbon Sequestration for Agriculture Production System and Climate

Change

— Ram Swaroop Meena and Ekta Kumari 169

9. Biosequestration- A Sustainable Approach Towards Rejuvenation of Soil
Organic Carbon in India
— Ekta Kumari, Ram Swaroop Meena, Avijit Sen, Pravin K. Upadhyay, 190
Santosh K. Meena, Mona Nagargade and Vishal Tyagi

10. Polymers: A Potential Way to Enhance Agricultural Sustainability

— V. Tyagi, R.K. Singh, Ram Swaroop Meena and M. Nagargade 209

11. Adaptation Strategies for Enhancing Agricultural and Environmental

Sustainability under Current Climate

— Sandeep Kumar, Ram Swaroop Meena, Shish Ram Jakhar, 226

Chetan Kumar Jangir, Anshul Gupta and B.L. Meena

12. Present Status and Future Prospects of Organic Farming in India

— Raghuveer Singh, N.K. Jat, N. Ravisankar, Sudhir Kumar, 275

T. Ram and R.S. Yadav

13. Organic Farming of Vegetable Crops for Sustainability

— S.P. Kanaujia 300

14. Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity,

Resource use Efficiency, Soil Health and Livelihood Management

— Pradip Tripura 318

15. Climate Resilient Agro-Technologies for Enhanced Crop and Water
Productivity under Water Deficit Agro-Ecologies

— Anshul Gupta and Sandeep Kumar 338

16. Significance of Soil Organic Matter to Soil Quality and Evaluation of

Sustainability
— Chetan Kumar Jangir, Sandeep Kumar and Ram Swaroop Meena 357

17. Organic Farming: An Option for Food Quality and Environmental

Benefits

— Gangadhar Nanda, D.K. Singh, B.L. Meena and Uadal Singh 382
14 Integrated Crop Management
Practices for Enhancing
Productivity, Resource use
Efficiency, Soil Health and
Livelihood Management
Pradip Tripura
Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science, College of
Agriculture, JAU, Junagadh, Gujarat, India
Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
Integrated crop management (ICM) is a holistic approach to sustainable
agriculture. It considers the situation across the whole farm, including socio-
economic and environmental factors, to deliver the most suitable and safe
approach for long-term benefit. This means carefully considering site selection,
soil management, seed and planting material, crop rotation, crop nutrition, pest
management, water management and landscape management that fit the local
conditions and climate. ICM is not rigidly-defined. It is a dynamic system that
adapts to changing conditions by combining local knowledge with new research
and technologies. We often work where resources for production are limited,
and in these situations the best solution is often to focus on optimising existing
resources. In such a way, ICM delivers sustainable agricultural production that
safeguards a farm’s natural assets and surrounding community, now and in the
future.

1. INTRODUCTION
The ICM team uses a multi-stakeholder approach to work with local partners at
all levels, from governments to farming households. Together, we promote the
every-day use of ICM as a long-term strategy to improve agricultural production,
farmer livelihoods and food security. We work through steps of participatory
development, validation, implementation and finally dissemination of
economically-viable ICM solutions. Through continuous exchange of knowledge
with our local partners and experts from other CABI centres around the world,
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 319

we ensure that ICM conceptual frameworks are developed according to local

needs. Building capacity of local partners to monitor and evaluate their work
empowers them to adapt their approaches when needs change (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Integrated crop managment system.

ICMS is a method of farming that balances the requirements of running a

profitable business with environmental responsibility. It includes practices that
avoid waste, enhance energy efficiency and minimise pollution.
By combining the best of modern technology with good farming practice,
we provide a whole-farm, long-term strategy. It is not a quick fix that can be
320 Sustainable Agriculture

applied to one crop, or one field or one season. Although primarily concerned
with crop production, livestock management is equally important on mixed farms
because livestock are consumers of crops and providers of organic nutrients
(Kumar and Jain, 2005) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Integrated crop management

2. THE ROLE OF ECM’S AGRONOMIST

Our agronomists have vast experience of working in partnership with farmers to
assess, monitor and plan all of their activities in an integrated way that both
respects biodiversity and ensures profitability. Since our system involves the
whole farm and is site-specific, there are no hard and fast rules about how we
achieve this. Individual farms differ in many ways: location, climate, soil type
and cropping pattern, to name a few. Even so, we have established general
guidelines that can help all farmers and growers take practical steps to improve
their management practices. These cover everything from use of fertilisers and
crop protection products to the maintenance and enhancement of landscape feat-
ures and wildlife habitats. Whatever the farm, wherever it is located, planning,
taking action and monitoring outcomes are the vital processes in our system.
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 321

3. WHY WE NEED INTEGRATED CROP MANAGEMENT

Providing expanding population with enough to eat is a huge challenge. How we
meet this challenge and at the same time respect biodiversity and take into
account climate change are matters of the utmost importance. Our Integrated
Crop Management System allows farming to be practised in a way that
safeguards the environment. At the same time it recognises that the quality,
quantity and price of produce, the profitability of the farm and the adoption of
new technologies are all essential if the overall stability of agriculture is to be
preserved (Alam et al. 2013). The ICM is a method of farming that balances the
requirements of running a profitable business with responsibility and sensitivity
to the environment. It includes practices that avoid waste, enhance energy
efficiency and minimize pollution. ICM combines the best of modern technology
with some basic principles of good farming practice and is a whole farm, long
term strategy.
ICM is a 'whole farm approach' which is site specific and includes:
• The use of crop rotations.
• Appropriate cultivation techniques.
• Careful choice of seed varieties.
• Minimum reliance on artificial inputs such as inorganic fertilisers,
pesticides and fossil fuels.
• Maintenance of the landscape.
• The enhancement of wildlife habitats.
One of the main objectives of ICM is the reduction or replacement of
external farm inputs, such as inorganic fertilizers, pesticides and fuel, by means
of farm produced substitutes and better management of inputs. Total replacement
is not possible without significant loss of yields, but partial substitution of inputs
can be achieved by the use of natural resources, the avoidance of waste and
efficient management of external inputs. This would then lead to reduced
production cost and less environmental degradation. The principals and practices
of ICM are outlined below:

3.1. Crop protection

• Increase diversity of crop species to prevent disease and pest carry over
from crop to crop.
• Ensure effective nutrient uptake by scheduling crops with different
nitrogen demands in the correct sequences.
• Preserve soil fertility, structure and minimize erosion by ensuring
adequate crop cover, good rooting depth and reduction of compaction.
• Use of disease resistant cultivars to minimize the need for agro
chemical inputs.
322 Sustainable Agriculture

3.2. Soil protection

Minimal cultivations to:
• Reduce energy usage (i.e. fuel).
• Reduce soil erosion.
• Reduce adverse effects on soil invertebrates such as earthworms and
predatory beetles and spiders.
• However, there should be effective seedbed preparation and crop
establishment.
• Cultivations dependent on soil type, climate and topography of
individual farms.
3.3. Crop nutrition
Nutrient inputs should be carefully balanced in respect of:
• Individual crop requirements.
• Crop off takes.
• Soil residues and residues from previous crop.
• Regular soil analysis is recommended.
• Use of cover crops/green manures before spring sown crops to
minimize leaching and erosion.
3.4. Integrated pest management
• Minimal use of well selected pesticides, i.e. ones that have minimal off
target effects.
• Alternative husbandry techniques such as mechanical weeding.
• In crop monitoring systems (such as traps) to assess pest levels to scale
pesticide use to the level of the problem.
• Improve habitat for predators to increase natural level of biological
control.
3.5. Wildlife and landscape
Planning a programme for the whole farm (cropped and non-cropped areas) to
enhance biodiversity and landscape features:
• Hedges, ditches, field margins, beetle banks and conservation
headlands allowing wild species to establish and migrate, and to
provide recreational areas for people.
• A greater diversity of broad leaved weeds may be left within crops to
provide food sources for birds and insects, providing the aggressive
crop damaging weeds are contained.
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 323

3.6. Energy efficiency (Fig. 3)

• Detailed analysis of energy use, especially fossil fuels.
• Remedial action to minimize waste.
• Consider alternative energy sources.
• Change in cultivation practice, i.e. less passes.
• Replacement of high fuel consumption machinery, with more efficient
alternatives.
• Rationalization of vehicle movements.

Fig. 3. Direct energy consumption by farms

3.7. Pollution and waste

• Strict following codes of practice.
• Recycling of crop residues.
• Recycling or safe disposal of non-organic wastes.

4. ICM IN PRACTICE
The environmental benefits of ICM are difficult to quantify and are related to
longer term processes. On the long term projects, biodiversity has increased,
there have been improved bird numbers and reduced nitrate leaching and soil
erosion. Data from the experimentation, trial farms and various projects has
indicated (Roling and Wagemakers, 1998):
• Generally a 5–15 per cent yield reduction, but indications that this is
reducing as experience grows.
324 Sustainable Agriculture

• Quality of produce is generally maintained.

• Variable costs reduced by 20–30%.
• Gross margins maintained or slightly increased.
• Pesticide inputs reduced by 30–70%.
• Nitrogen inputs reduced by 16–25%.

5. ENHANCING PRODUCTIVITY AND RESOURCE USE EFFICIENCY

BY ICM
The term ‘resource use efficiency in agriculture’ may be broadly defined to
include the concepts of technical efficiency, allocative efficiency and
environmental efficiency. An efficient farmer allocates his land, labour, water
and other resources in an optimal manner, so as to maximise his income, at least
cost, on sustainable basis (Haque, 2000). However, there are countless studies
showing that farmers often use their resources sub-optimally. While some
farmers may attain maximum physical yield per unit of land at a high cost, some
others achieve maximum profit per unit of inputs used (Chaudhary and
Harrington, 1993). Also in the process of achieving maximum yield and returns,
some farmers may ignore the environmentally adverse consequences, if any, of
their resource use intensity.
A more intensive use of natural resources, causes increasing pressure on
biological systems and on production, and consumption systems in agriculture.
Due to increasing global urbanisation, the distribution of the flow of energy,
materials and waste is shifting on a large scale, and the quality of ecosystems (for
example soil and water) is under pressure (Jayanthi et al. 2000). The flow of
nutrients, residue and waste is becoming concentrated in prosperous, densely
populated urban areas, while elsewhere the soil is becoming depleted.
We are investing in the transition to a more sustainable and efficient system
of production and consumption. We are developing new knowledge and
technology to deal more efficiently with the available raw materials. We are
changing primary production streams through new combinations of various
sectors, product groups and raw materials. We are working on the intelligent
closure of previously separate cycles of energy, materials and nutrients through
the optimal use of plant and animal sources (Singh et al. 1998). In addition, we
are contributing to a high-efficiency revolution in the use of raw biological
materials through the efficient conversion and distribution of streams, raw
materials and products, as well as the prevention of waste and disposal of
nutrients (Peng et al., 2015). This transition is also accompanied by new business
opportunities and risks, which were previously unknown. For the effective
support of this transition, governance is crucial; new networks must be formed
between the most important actors in production and consumption, innovations in
institutions must be required and new practices must be developed. Socio-
economic analyses show how this transition can be shaped.
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 325

Integrated crop management (ICM) is a combination of the traditional

methods with appropriate modern technology, balancing the economic
production of crops with positive environmental management (Mishra, 2013).
Basic components of ICM are crop management, nutrient management and pest
management. Through the process of ICM, farmers make better use of on-farm
resources. One of the main objectives of ICM is the reduction of external farm
inputs, such as chemical fertilizers and chemical insecticides or pesticides
(Kumar and Singh, 2014). Total replacement is not possible without significant
loss of yields, but partial substitution of inputs can be achieved by the use of
organic inputs (Chu et al. 2016). This would then leads to reduced production
cost and less food contamination and environmental degradation (Ashby, 2001).
The major components of ICM strategies and approaches are seedling
establishment, integrated nutrient management (INM), integrated pests and
disease management (IDM/IPM) and integrated weed management (IWM)
(Kumar and Shivay, 2008). There is increasing pressure on vegetable producers
in the country to intensify their production. For the local farmers, information on
sustainable and profitable permanent vegetable production systems is of high
value. A major limitation in application of INM and IPM is the lack of trained
personnel. Many farmers are not trained adequately in use of organic fertilizer
and augmentative biological control, leading to misunderstanding of its potential
efficacy. Farmers often believe that organic fertilizer and natural enemies do not
work well. The use of bio-pesticides is limited due to moderate toxicity and slow
action. Many farmers are not yet aware of the proper usage of bio-control agents
and bio-pesticides. A number of microbial consortium and botanicals such as
neem, karanj, pongmia, mahua, garlic and tobacco, have been found to be
effective against insect pests and diseases (Mamun and Ahmed, 2011). INM and
IPM adoption is influenced by the cost versus efficacy of products, ability to
integrate new products and techniques into existing farm management practices
and managerial skills. In this way ICM enhance the resource use efficiency, the
livelihood security, increasing the productivity of oilseed and pulses crops
(Gautam et al., 2007).
Balanced application of appropriate fertilizers is a major component of
INM. Over application of fertilizers induces neither substantially greater crop
nutrient uptake nor significantly higher yields (Qin et al., 2013). Rather,
excessive nutrient applications are economically wasteful and can damage the
environment. Under application, on the other hand, can retard crop growth and
lower yields in the short term, and in the long term jeopardize sustainability
through soil mining. Balanced fertilization should also include secondary
nutrients and micronutrients, both of which are often most readily available from
organic fertilizers. Improved application and targeting of inorganic and organic
fertilizer not only conserves nutrients in the soil, but makes nutrient uptake more
efficient (Ghosh et al., 2015). This paper contributes to the improvement of
vegetable production using tools of ICM techniques like INM and IPM, leading
to more sustainable production methods and higher farmer’s incomes.
326 Sustainable Agriculture

Obtained results also showed that not only vegetable yield, but also the
efficiency of fertilizer application in vegetable production were improved with
the application of the INM system. The increase in fertiliser efficiency due to the
application of the INM technology not only reduced production costs but also the
negative effects of nutrient losses on the environment (Haque, 1998). Microbial
consortium contains N fixing, P and Zn solubilizing and plant growth promoting
microbes as a single formulation and helped in reducing N and P fertilizer
requirement by 25–30 per cent and also increases yield of 13–20 per cent in
vegetables. Foliar application of secondary and micronutrient formulation
supplied essential nutrients other than NPK and increases resistance to diseases.
These nutrients are also necessary for enhancement of fruit appearance, fruit
keeping quality and taste of vegetables. The soap spray of Neem/pongmia
reduces the insect-pests problem to a great extent. Seed treatment with
Trichoderma harzianum manages fungal pathogens, such as Fusarium species
and Phytophtora species as well as nematodes. The IVCM system provides
recommendations that are the ‘best management practices’ for vegetable
growing, based on knowledge from this on-farm trial and farming experiences.
The output recommendation serves as a criterion for the evaluation of farmers’
success in managing profitable vegetable crop establishment. Adopting improved
practices like vegetable integrated crop management (IVCM) enhanced the yield
more than 100 per cent over farmer’s practice. IVCM system with improved crop
variety, INM and IPM paid more dividends with BC ratio more than 7.0 in all the
three vegetable crops (Table 1).

Table 1. Effect of conventional, INM, IPM and ICM system on vegetable

Crop Management System Tomato Green Chilli Brinjal

Yield under conventional method ( t/ha) 60.40 32.30 35.30
Yield under INM method ( t/ha) 69.90 34.60 35.90
Yield under IPM method ( t/ha) 71.35 35.15 38.70
Yield under ICM method ( t/ha) 72.50 36.57 42.00
Yield under farmer’s practice (FC) ( t/ha) 25.50 16.00 20.40
% change of ICM over FC +190 +128 +106
Net profit of ICM (Rs. in Lakh) 5.39 4.64 3.12
Cost of cultivation of ICM (Rs. in Lakh) 0.65 0.48 0.41
B:C (ICM) 8.29 9.67 7.61
(Source: Singh and Gohain, 2017)
Information on maximum grain yield and its attributes are limited for
double-season rice crop grown under the subtropical environment. This study
was conducted to examine key characteristics associated with high yielding
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 327

double-season rice crop through a comparison between an integrated crop

management (ICM) and farmers’ practice (FP). Field experiments were
conducted in the early and late seasons in the subtropical environment of Wuxue
County, Hubei Province, China in 2013 and 2014. On average, grain yield in
ICM was 13.5 per cent higher than that in FP. A maximum grain yield of 9.40
and 10.53 t ha−1 was achieved under ICM in the early- and late-season rice,
respectively. Yield improvement of double-season rice with ICM was achieved
with the combined effects of increased plant density and optimized nutrient
management. Yield gain of ICM resulted from a combination of increase in sink
size due to more panicle number per unit area and biomass production, further
supported by the increased leaf area index, leaf area duration, radiation use
efficiency, crop growth rate, and total nitrogen uptake compared with FP. Further
enhancement in the yield potential of double-season rice should focus on
increasing crop growth rate and biomass production through improved and
integrated crop management practices (Table 2).

Table 2. Integrated crop management practices for maximizing grain yield of

double-season rice crop
Year season treatment Daily grain Total dry N uptake 1000-grain
yield weight (kg ha−1) weight
(kg ha−1 d−1) (g m−2) (g)
N0a 69.0c 1136.0c 109.4c 23.3a
FP 89.9b 1376.1b 172.2b 22.2c
Early
ICM 101.5a 1911.5a 237.9a 22.7b
Mean 86.8 1474.5 173.2 22.7
2013 a c c c
N0 73.2 1354.4 114.9 22.2a
FP 84.6b 1537.0b 145.6b 22.4a
Late
ICM 100.3a 1976.3a 212.2a 22.4a
Mean 86.0 1622.6 157.6 22.3
a c c c
N0 60.7 865.4 89.6 25.2a
FP 98.1b 1494.8b 176.4b 24.1b
Rearly
ICM 110.6a 1702.2a 205.7a 24.1b
Mean 89.8 1354.1 157.3 24.5
2014 a c c c
N0 78.8 1185.0 128.4 22.8b
FP 99.9b 1488.8b 162.8b 22.9b
Late
ICM 109.8a 1860.7a 208.3a 23.2a
Mean 96.2 1511.5 166.5 22.9
(Source: Wang et al., 2017)
Rice crops were grown in their paddies using their normal (farmer) practices
and ICM in the 2007 season. In this experiment the input costs, labour and yield
328 Sustainable Agriculture

were recorded. ICM practices increased yields and gross margins and reduced
labour and costs compared to farmer practices (Table 3).

Table 3. Yield, labour requirement, cost and gross margin between Farmer
Practice (FP) and Integrated Crop Management (ICM) in Timor-Leste.

Parameter FP ICM
Yield (ton/ha) 2.5 3.5
Labour (person day/ha) 113 91
Cost ($/ha) 462 440
Gross margin ($/ha) -$9.90 $103.70
(Source: Ogoshi et al., 2008)

The increased yield was not as high as expected due to an in-season drought
and severe locust infestation. On-farm tests conducted by the SM CRSP in 2005
produced yields as high as 5 tons/ha.

6. SOIL HEALTH BENEFITS FOR SUSTAINING CROP PRODUCTION

The terms ‘soil health’ and ‘soil quality’ are becoming increasingly familiar
worldwide. A modern consensus definition of soil health is “the continued
capacity of the soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants,
animals and humans”. In general, soil health and soil quality are considered
synonymous and can be used interchangeably, with one key distinction
conceptualized by scientists and practitioners over the last decades: soil quality
includes both inherent and dynamic quality.
The benefits of healthy soil in sustaining crop production are most evident
when growing conditions are less than ideal (Craswell, 1998). Healthy soils
increase the capacity of crops to withstand weather variability, including short
term extreme precipitation events and intra-seasonal drought. The extreme
drought in 2012 resulted in variable yield reduction to corn and soybean
production in Iowa with the worst impact on fields with conventional tillage
systems (i.e., chisel plow, deep ripping, etc.). Increasingly highly variable
weather conditions present increased risks to crops and require more careful
attention to conservation planning to mitigate impacts on soil health and crop
productivity (Selvarajan et al., 1997).
Soil health is defined by the level to which it is able to continually provide
multiple functions to sustain plants, animals, and humans’ lives. The complex
biological, physical, and chemical interlink of a healthy soil can influence plant
water availability under dry conditions, off-field nutrient losses to nearby streams
during rain events, and the availability of nutrients through nutrient cycling for
food and fibre production (Regmi et al., 2009). Furthermore, healthy soils
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 329

maintain or enhance water and air quality through the improvement of soil C
storage and water infiltration, and support human health and wildlife habitat.

6.1. What influence soil health?

Soil management practices, cropping systems, and weather conditions influence
soil health. Therefore, a healthy soil that is well managed can increase soil water
infiltration and storage, storage and supply of nutrients to plants, microbial
diversity, and soil carbon storage. Soil organic matter (SOM) is a central soil
property that is heavily affected by management practices, which in turn
influences soil physical, biological, and chemical functions.
The relationships between soil organic matter and management inputs such
as tillage and cropping systems can be documented through the evaluation of soil
health indicators (Fig. 4). Those indicators reflect the level of response of the soil
system to different management inputs. Field and laboratory evaluation of these
different indictors can aid in fine tuning management practices to optimize soil
biological, physical, and chemical functions.

Fig. 4. Soil health indicators and systems inputs

The central soil property that influences soil functions is organic matter. The
organic matter component of the soil system is only a small fraction of the topsoil
horizon (ranging from 1–5% or greater by dry weight depending on the soil type
330 Sustainable Agriculture

and other formation factors), but essential for the soil physical, biological, and
chemical functions and general soil ecosystem services. The key services for
agriculture production are: nutrient provision and cycling, pest and pathogen
protection, production of growth factors, water availability, and formation of
stable aggregates to reduce the risk of soil erosion (Solanes and Villarreal 1999).
However, these functions are sequentially influenced by each other starting with
organic matter as the building block for the well linked functions.

6.2. Tillage effects on soil health

The increased use of intensive tillage and other management practices in row
crop production systems can increase soil erosion, reduce soil health and water
quality, and the capacity to achieve sustainable agricultural production systems.
Soil erosion is always associated with tillage intensity, especially during the
spring season when soils are most vulnerable to water erosion due to lack of
vegetation or residue cover to protect the soil surface from high rain intensity.
Many factors contribute to this problem, but tillage is the prime contributing
factor. Soils under modern production agriculture have lost significant amount of
their carbon pool because of erosion, decomposition, and leaching. The
magnitude of soil organic carbon (SOC) loss from cultivated soils in the Midwest
region of the United States is estimated to be in the range of 30 per cent to 60 per
cent of the amount present under virgin soil conditions since the conversion from
prairie system in late 1800s. This loss in soil organic matter by cultivation is in
part caused by the oxidation of organic matter and CO2 release in addition to
losses through surface runoff and soil erosion.

6.3. Conservation practices improve soil health

Soil management and conservation practices that protect soil health are not only
economically and environmentally necessary, but the right approach to sustain
and increase soil resiliency. This can be achieved by adopting conservation plans
that are practical, site specific and an integral component of the overall
agriculture production system to achieve intended objectives.
These conservation plans would include no-tillage and reduced tillage (i.e.,
strip-tillage), which leave post-harvest crop residue to cover the soil surface (Fig.
5). In addition, many soil conservation plans include practices, such as cover
crops, the construction of grass waterways, terraces, buffer strips, and pasture
erosion control systems with manure application and soil testing.

Summary
• The benefits of healthy soils in sustaining crop production are most
evident when growing conditions are less than ideal. Healthy soils
increase the capacity of crops to withstand weather variability and short
term extreme precipitation events and intra-seasonal drought.
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 331

• Soil health functionality is highly influenced by soil organic matter, a

central soil property that influences soil physical, biological, and
chemical functions.
• The interrelationships between soil organic matter and management
inputs such as tillage and cropping systems can be documented through
the evaluation of soil health indicators of biological, physical, and
chemical properties.
• Best management practices that build soil health and sustain
productivity are many, and can lead to better ecosystem and societal
services. The implementation of such practices should be considered on
regional and site specific basis. Site specific adoption of different
tillage and conservation practices integrated within the overall produc-
tion system can effectively increase crop productivity and soil ecosy-
stem services. These conservation practices include, but are not limited
to, no-tillage, strip-tillage, cover crops, perennials, grass waterways,
terraces, buffer strips, and other measures for erosion control.
• A systems approach to conservation management of row cropping
systems is important to enhance soil health and improve water quality.
As an effective solution to building soil health and improving water
quality, conservation practices should be an integral and essential com-
ponent of nutrient reduction loss, sediment and nutrient loading plans.

Fig. 5. Corn grown in No-till system

332 Sustainable Agriculture

7. LIVELIHOOD MANAGEMENT
A person's livelihood refers to their "means of securing the basic necessities -
food, water, shelter and clothing of life". Livelihood is defined as a set of
activities, involving securing water, food, fodder, medicine, shelter, clothing and
the capacity to acquire above necessities working either individually or as a
group by using endowments (both human and material) for meeting the require-
ments of the self and his/her household on a sustainable basis with dignity
(Shivaji et al., 2013). The activities are usually carried out repeatedly. For insta-
nce, a fisherman's livelihood depends on the availability and accessibility of fish.
The concept of Sustainable Livelihood (SL) is an attempt to go beyond the
conventional definitions and approaches to poverty eradication.
These had been found to be too narrow because they focused only on certain
aspects or manifestations of poverty, such as low income, or did not consider
other vital aspects of poverty such as vulnerability and social exclusion. It is now
recognized that more attention must be paid to the various factors and processes
which either constrain or enhance poor people’s ability to make a living in an
economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable manner.
The SL concept offers a more coherent and integrated approach to poverty.
The sustainable livelihoods idea was first introduced by the Brundt and
Commission on Environment and Development, and the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development expanded the concept, advocating
for the achievement of sustainable livelihoods as a broad goal for poverty
eradication. In 1992, Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway proposed the
following composite definition of a sustainable rural livelihood, which is applied
most commonly at the household level: "A livelihood comprises the capabilities,
assets (stores, resources, claims and access) and activities required for a means
of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress
and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, and provide
sustainable livelihood opportunities for the next generation; and which
contributes net benefits to other livelihoods at the local and global levels and in
the short and long term." People are getting poor due to inflation.
Integrated crop management imperative to develop strategies and agricul-
tural technologies that enable adequate employment and income generation,
especially for small and marginal farmers who constitute more than 80 per cent
of the farming community (Behera et al., 2004). The integrated crop management
approach is considered to be the most powerful tool for enhancing profitability of
farming systems. These integrated crop management required to be planned,
designed, implemented and analyzed for increasing productivity and profitability
(Xue et al., 2012). These systems also need to be socially acceptable, econom-
ically viable and eco-friendly. Integration of enterprises lead to greater dividends
than single enterprise based farming, especially for small and marginal farmers.
It also leads to improvement in nutritional quality of daily diet of farmers.
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 333

7.1 Why integrated crop management for livelihood management

7.1.1. Deteriorating resource base

During post-green revolution period, our attempt to solve food problem and
attain self-sufficiency in food production through excess use of agrochemicals,
inevitable dependence on irrigation and high cropping intensity has led to
contamination of food with harmful chemicals, pollution of ground water,
degradation of soil quality and damage to agriculturally beneficial micro-
organisms. In many regions both surface and ground water are already becoming
unfit for human and animal consumption due to high concentration of pesticide
residues. Available estimates revealed that nearly 120.72 million ha of land in the
country is degraded. Intensified agriculture, coupled with indiscriminate use of
irrigation water and no judicious fertilizer application, especially in irrigated
areas of the country has led to various kinds of physical and chemical
degradation of the soil (Prasad, 2003).

7.1.2 Climate change

The increasing green-house gases resulted in global warming. The Intergover-
nmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) projections on temperature predicts an
increase of 1.8 to 4.0°C by the end of this century. Temperature and sea level
changes will affect agriculture through their direct and indirect effects on crops,
soils, livestock, fisheries and pests. The brunt of environmental changes is expe-
cted to be very high in India due to greater dependence on agriculture, limited
natural resources, alarming increase in human and livestock population, changing
pattern in land use and socio-economic factors that pose a great threat in meeting
the food, fibre, fuel and fodder requirement. Recent studies done at the Indian
Agricultural Research Institute indicated the possibility of loss of 4–5 million
tonnes in wheat production in future with every rise of 1°C temperature
throughout the growing period.

7.1.3 Narrowed biodiversity

The narrowing of genetic biodiversity occurs as traditional crop varieties and
local animal breeds are being replaced by modern ones. These new varieties/
breeds are certainly better matched to modern intensive agriculture, but rarely
any consideration is given to preserving the bio-diversity of an agricultural
ecosystem (Jirli et al., 2008). In addition, the increased farming density tends to
erode the biodiversity of flora and fauna in the agricultural ecosystems. For
example, extensive adoption of rice-wheat monoculture in the Indo-Gangetic
Plains has replaced the other traditional crops (Chand and Haque, 1997). Soil
micro-flora is also adversely influenced on account of large-scale use of agro-
chemicals and lack of recycling of crop residues in the region.
334 Sustainable Agriculture

7.1.4 Multiplicity of integrated farming systems

Very often, almost all Indian farmers, in pursuit of supplementing their needs of
food, fodder, fuel, fibre and finance resort to adopt integrated farming systems,
majority of them revolving around the crops + livestock components
(Devasenapathy et al., 1995). Livelihood of small and marginal farmers, compr-
ising more than 80 per cent of total farmers, depends mainly on crops and
livestock, which is often affected by weather aberrations (Jayanthi et al., 2009).
Under present scenario, in the absence of scientifically designed, economically
profitable and socially acceptable appropriate integrated farming systems models,
they are unable to harness the benefits of integration. An important consequence
of this has been that their farming activities remain, by and large, subsistent in
nature rather than commercial and many a times uneconomical.

7.1.5 Low rate of farm resource recycling

In the absence of adequate knowledge among farmers about techniques and
benefits of recycling of farm, industrial and municipal organic wastes in
agriculture, these remain unutilized. A vast untapped potential exists to recycle
these solid and liquid organic wastes of farm origin. Recycling of crop residues
may be a potential organic source to sustain the soil health. Incorporation of crop
residues of either rice or wheat increases the yield of rice and nutrient uptake and
also improves the physico-chemical properties of the soil, ensuring better soil
environment for crop growth (Ladha et al., 2009).

7.1.6 Technology adoption gaps

In our efforts to develop and improve upon existing technologies, involvement of
people in conceptualization and extension of technologies would appear very
important. The farm family had never been the focal point of our investigations.
This top down approach had given a poor perception of the problems that they
tried to solve. Due to poor extension mechanisms at national as well as state
levels, many farmers, especially those at lower strata of social structure, remain
uninformed about many of the development schemes and the desired impact of
such schemes is not obtained. One of the reasons for poor rate of transfer of
agricultural technologies is poor linkages between the different clientele groups
of agriculture. Practically linkages among farmers, service providers, techno-
logical and financial institutions are either weak or nonexistent (NAAS, 2009).

CONCLUSION
India’s agricultural economy and food security depend vitally on the small holder
farmers. In relation to their aggregate land holding, the holdings smaller than 1.0
ha contribute proportionately more. Despite this contribution, these farmers
comprise almost three fifth of the nation’s hungy and poor. In that time, holistic
approach of Integrated crop management (ICM) is introduce to sustainable
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 335

agriculture. It considers the situation across the whole farm, including socio-
economic and environmental factors, to deliver the most suitable and safe
approach for long-term benefit. Integrated Crop Management System is a method
of farming that balances the requirements of running a profitable business with
environmental responsibility. It includes practices that avoid waste, enhance
energy efficiency and minimise pollution. ICM is not rigidly-defined. It is a
dynamic system that adapts to changing conditions by combining local
knowledge with new research and technologies. We often work where resources
for production are limited, and in these situations the best solution is often to
focus on optimizing existing resources. In such a way, ICM delivers sustainable
agricultural production that safeguards a farm’s natural assets and surrounding
community, now and in the future.
The anthropologists and sociologists studied age-old practices again as they
survived the test of time and stated that these methods have something to offer
due to their sustainability. The recently developed systems of integrated crop
management which includes both traditional and modern technology are required
to be adopted at large-scale after its evaluation in all agro-ecological situations
(Marothia, 1997). The future of success of vegetable production lies in the
growth of crops with less environmental stress. Thus, emphasis needs to be
placed on practical aspects of such simple techniques. Yield improvement of
double-season rice with ICM was achieved with the combined effects of increas-
ed plant density and optimized nutrient management. In ICM, the problem of ma-
lnutrition of food insecurity can be solved by obtaining production and money.

REFERENCE
Alam MM, Karim Md R and Ladha JK (2013) Integrating best management practices for
rice with farmers’ crop management techniques: A potential option for minimizing
rice yield gap. Field Crops Res. 144: 62–68.
Ashby JA (2001) Integrating research on food and the environment: An exit strategy
from the rational fool syndrome in agricultural science. Ecol. Soc. 5.
Behera UK, Jha KP and Mahapatra IC (2004) Integrated management of available
resources of the small and marginal farmers for generation of income and
employment in eastern India. Crop Research 27(1): 83–89.
Chand R and Haque T (1997) Sustainability of rice wheat crop system in Indo Gangetic
region. Economic and Political Weekly 32 (13): March 29.
Chaudhary MK and Harrington LW (1993) Rice-wheat system in Haryana, Working
paper, CIMMYT, Mexico.
Chu G, Wang Z, Zhang H, Yang J and Zhang J (2016) Agronomic and physiological
performance of rice under integrative crop management. Agron. J. 108: 117–128.
Craswell ET (1998) Sustainable crop and soil management on sloping lands. Paper
presented at the International Symposium on Asian.
Devasenapathy P, Mytswamy V, Christopher Louduraj A and Rabindran R (1995)
Integrated farming systems for sustained productivity. Madras Agricultural Journal
82: 306–307.
336 Sustainable Agriculture

Gautam US, Paliwal DK and Naberia S (2007) Improvement in livelihood security for
small and marginal farmers through front line demonstrations on oilseed and pulse
crops in Central India. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 7(1): 1–5.
Ghosh BN, Singh RJ and Mishra PK (2015) Soil and input management options for
increasing nutrient use efficiency. A. Rakshit et al. (Ed.) Nutrient use efficiency:
from basics to advances, Springer. pp. 17–27.
Haque T (1998) Interaction and impact of technology, infrastructure and policy variables
on agricultural growth, (Unpublished report).
Haque T (2000) Contractual Arrangements in Land and Labour Markets in Rural India.
Jayanthi C, Rangasamy A and Chinnusamy C (2000) Water budgeting for components in
lowland integrated farming systems. Agricultural Journal 87: 411–416.
Jayanthi C, Vennila C, Nalini K and Chandrasekaran B (2009) Sustainable integrated
management of crop with allied enterprises- Ensuring livelihood security of small
and marginal farmers. Special Feature: Sustainable Agriculture.
Jirli B, Bhati DS and De D (2008) Diversifying cropping system with rapeseed mustard –
An approach to sustain livelihood. In proceedings of international seminar on
strategies for Improving Livelihood Security of Rural Poor, Goa, India, pp: 201–
202.
Kumar D and Shivay YS (2008) Integrated crop management. Modern concepts of
agriculture. Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India.
Kumar S and Jain DK (2005) Are linkages between crops and livestock important for the
sustainability of the farming system? Asian Economic Review 47(1): 90–101.
Kumar S and Singh A (2014) Biopesticides for integrated crop management: Environ-
mental and regulatory aspects. J. Biofertil. Biopestici. 5: 121. doi:10.4172/2155-
6202. 1000e121.
Ladha JK, Tirol-Padre A, Reddy CK, Cassman KG, Verma S, Powlson DS, Kessel C,
Daniel de B Richter, Chakraborty D and Pathaket H (2009) Integrating crop and
resource management technologies for enhanced productivity, profitability and
sustainability of the rice-wheat system in South Asia. In Integrated Crop and
Resource Management in the Rice-Wheat System of South Asia (eds Ladha, J. K. et
al.). pp. 69–108 (International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines.
Mamun MSA and Ahmed M (2011) Prospect of indigenous plant extracts in tea pest
management. Internat. J. Agril. Res. Innov. & Tech. 1(1 & 2): 16–23.
Marothia DK (1997) Agricultural technology and environmental quality: An institutional
prospective. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 52(3): 473–487.
Mishra M (2013) Role of eco-friendly agricultural practices in Indian agriculture
development. Internat. Agric. Food Sci. Techn. 4(2): 2249–3050.
Ogoshi R, Balasubramanian V and Jones M (2008) Integrated crop management (ICM)
implementing ICM Technology in Timor-Leste, United States Agency for
International Development (USAID)
Peng X, Khush GS, Virk P, Tang Q and Zou Y (2015) Crop management for increasing
rice yield and nitrogen use efficiency in northeast China. Agron. J. 107: 1682–1690.
Prasad R (2003). Efficient fertilizer use: The key to food security and better environment.
Fertilizer News, 48(8): 13–26.
Integrated Crop Management Practices for Enhancing Productivity, Resource.. 337

Qin J, Xiong J, Ding C, Wei G, Ding Y and Wang S (2013) Integrated nutrient, water and
other agronomic options to enhance rice grain yield and N use efficiency in double
season rice crop. Field Crops Res. 148: 15–23.
Regmi AP, Hobbs PR, Acharya GP and Giri GS (2009) Improving food security through
integrated crop and resource management in the rice-wheat system in Nepal. In
Integrated crop and resource management in the rice-wheat system of South Asia
(eds Ladha, J.K. et al.). pp. 69–108 (International Rice Research Institute, Los
Baños, Philippines).
Roling NG and Wagemakers MAE (1998) http://www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/integrated_crop_
management.htm
Selvarajan S, Aggarwal PK, Pandey S, Lansigan FP and Bandapadhaya SK (1997)
Systems approach for analysing trade-offs between income, risk and water use in
rice-wheat production in Northern India. Field Crops Research 51: 147–161.
Shivaji A, Dadabhau and Wadkar SK (2013) Sustainable rural livelihood security through
integrated farming systems - A Review, Agri. Reviews 34(3): 207–215.
Singh AK and Gohain I (2017) Integrated crop management to enhance vegetable
productivity and farm income through INM and IPM practices, The Asian Journal
of Horticulture 12(1): 165–168.
Singh S, Mittal JP and Panu CIS (1998) Frontier energy use for the cultivation of wheat
crop in Punjab. Energy Conservation and Management 39(576): 485–491.
Solanes M and Villarreal FG (1999) The dublin principles for water as reflected in a
comparative assessment of institutional and legal arrangements for integrated water
resource management. Global water partnership technical adviseory committee.
Wang D, Huang J, Nie L, Wang F, Ling X, Cui K, Li Y and Peng P (2017) Integrated
crop management practices for maximizing grain yield of double-season rice crop.
Science Report, www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Xue Y, Xue A, Duan H, Liu L, Wang Z, Yang J and Zhang J (2012) An improved crop
management increases grain yield and nitrogen and water use efficiency in rice.
Crop Science 53: 271–284.

■■■■