Brimming with Biodiversity
~~A Statistical Analysis of the Advantages Accrued from Millet-Based Mixed Farming
Systems
The following report is based on the data that was collected in the wake of INSIMP program, which
is a Rs.300 crore (USD 75 million) program, promulgated by the Government of India; and which
DDS and MINI implemented, across FIVE blocks in the district of Medak, Andhra Pradesh. The
program, as originally conceived, involved the extensive use of chemical inputs, hybrid seeds and
mono-cropping techniques. However, in Medak, DDS and MINI implemented the same program,
with the agreement of the Commissioner of Agriculture, GoAP, to rely entirely on organic inputs
(farm yard manure, vermicompost, bio-pesticides, et.al) and traditional seeds, and by posing faith in
mixed farming systems that had stood the farmers in the region in good stead for several
generations; and that had proved their versatility and adaptability in the modern era of erratic
weather patterns and climate change. And, as we had hoped, we are able to establish, with a
reasonable degree of confidence, that the productivity that has been achieved in these fields is
comparable to, if not higher than, that achieved in other parts of the country. There are also
indications that the economic benefits achieved from mixed farming are higher than that achieved
under the ‘conventional’ system of agriculture. Presented asunder, is an analysis of the data, covering
1000 HHs, 99% of which belong to Dalits, across FOUR mandals where the program was
implemented. The profile of the sample is asunder.
Overall Productivity in DDS Working Areas
Presented here is the productivity achieved in the locations where DDS worked with the farmers on
the INSIMP program; and across different landholding categories. In both the cases, the mean
productivity in these fields is significantly higher that the overall productivity in Medak as a whole;
and is almost on par with the yield rates witnessed in the whole of the state of AP. This is
commendable considering that most of the other places use intensive farming practices. This
strengthens our argument that even without spending fortunes on pesticides and chemical fertilizers,
and running the risk of getting indebted, it is possible to achieve yield rates that are up there with the
very best in the state.
Cropping Pattern for the year 2011-2012, in Working Areas
We can see in the graph that Jowar is the pre-dominant crop in the areas under consideration.
However, it has to be pointed out that more than 48% of the total area under organic cultivation is
under a range of crops that include pearl millet, finger millet, foxtail millet, little millet, proso millet,
barnyard millet, pulses like red gram, black gram, green gram, horse gram, oilseeds like sesame and
lin seeds and vegetables like Sorrel. Each field that has been surveyed follows this pattern, albeit with
varying proportions. What this graph does not tell is that farmers grow multiple varieties of each of
the crops; for instance, they grow five to seven varieties of Jowar alone. Same is the case with other
crops mentioned above. This system ensures that even if one crop fails, others survive and thereby
ensure that the household in question do not starve.
Inputs
One of the characteristics of the mixed farming system practiced in DDS working areas is the
complete reliance on traditional seeds and organic inputs; and the complete abstinence from the use
of hybrid seeds and chemical inputs. This helps the farmers maintain the health of her lands, meet
their nutritional needs and enjoy a robust household economy. We have tried to project the scale
and extent of the use of these inputs in the section below.
It has been seen that almost all the households that were covered under the survey used only own
seeds; there were hardly any households that used any purchased seeds. The graph given asunder
highlights this point.
More than 99% of the households covered, used only own seeds. This is for all the crops that they
grow under the mixed farming system.
HHs, on an average, deploy seeds worth Rs.467. This is a significant savings, considering that
packaged seeds purchased from private seed shops cost a lot of money. This humble figure tells
another story; unlike in other parts of the state of AP where farmers have to endure untold
humiliation and toil in order to lay their hands on government supplied seeds, and are a part of the
tragic spectacle of farmers rioting for seeds, these farmers are able to live with dignity and peace.
Hence, the figure of Rs.467 is but a curtain behind which is an entire story.
To fertilize their lands, the communities we are engaging with, rely on farm yard manure and
vermicompost. Together, these two sources ensure the upkeep of soil fertility, thus nearly
eliminating the dependence on chemical fertilizers like Urea.
On the average, 120 quintals of FYM is used by each HH in the areas under consideration. There is
another significant point with respect to FYM and vermicompost. Farmers do not have to apply
these inputs every year. In fact, in these regions, they apply them in every alternative year. This not
only ensures that soil fertility is timely replenished; it also brings down the cost of agriculture to an
even greater extent. On the other hand, studies show that chemical fertilizers have to be applied in
increasingly higher doses in each passing year, to achieve a similar result.
On an average, manure worth Rs.5700 and vermicompost more than Rs.1100 are applied by the
farmers in the areas under consideration. These figures indicate the immense wealth that is at the
disposal of these communities, for which they do not have to spend a fortune; at the same time, it
also indicates that the households applying these inputs are saving significantly on chemical
fertilizers which would cost a lot of money.
The households under consideration shun the use of chemical pesticides; and instead rely on biopesticides and decoctions to deal with pests. This ensures healthier soils; and at the same time, this
also ensures that a range of ‘friendly’ insects that usually get killed when powerful chemicals are
sprayed, survive and act as natural guardians of the crops. These factors together ensure that the
households save some money that they would have otherwise spent on account of pesticides.
It has been seen that all the households—100%--covered under the survey use bio-pesticides.
As can be seen in the graph given above, about 7 liters of bio-pesticides are used by the households
on the whole.
This graph once again indicates the wealth of resources that are at the disposal of the households;
and also the fact that the Hhs would be saving significantly on chemical pesticides thanks to these
organic inputs.
Mixed Farming—Rough Economic Benefits
This section tries to estimate the economic benefits that are accrued from mixed farming. The
estimates given here are rough, and do not include a number of factors like the valuation of
agricultural residues, irrigation and so forth; nevertheless, these estimates serve the purpose of
indicating that there is sufficient gains to be had by pursuing mixed farming.
It has been observed that the total value of produce derived from agricultural produce from mixed
farming system is close to Rs.42,000. It must be pointed out that the figures mentioned here do not
include the value of agricultural residue; nor do they take into account the ecological benefits that
are accrued by these Hhs on account of pursuing mixed farming.
For instance, the strengthened energy and nutritional cycles that result from the use of organic
inputs and that contribute, in no small measure to the enhancement of production and productivity
,and thereby livelihoods of these HHs are not accounted for, here.
Potential savings made by each HH, by not using fertilizers and pesticides:
The graph given above indicates that an average of Rs.10,000 on account of pesticides and Rs.4,300
on account of fertilizers is being saved by each HH, as they resist using these inputs.
Once again, the graphs captures only half the story, for mixed cropping systems based on millets
demand little water, thus eliminating one of the important causes for expenditure. That remains a
limitation of the study conducted.
Even a rough calculation indicates that millet based mixed farming that is refrains from using
external inputs is likely more worthwhile than one where external inputs (meaning chemical
fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and so on) are pumped in large quantities.
Talking about irrigation it needs to be pointed out that while millet-based mixed farming demands
little irrigation, mono-cropping and chemical-based agriculture demands large quantities of water. To
cover this aspect, a notional value of Rs.1000 has been assigned against irrigation costs, to all HHs.