Farming System approach for Enhancing Productivity, Profitability and Climate resilience in Rainfed Smallholders

Farming System approach for Enhancing Productivity, Profitability and Climate resilience in Rainfed Smallholders | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Farming System approach for Enhancing Productivity, Profitability and Climate resilience in Rainfed Smallholders Akshay Bayskar This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9396106/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Single-commodity intensification often dominated in small holder of semi-arid region, which leads to low productivity and negative environmental impacts. The farming system approach is a holistic tool to solve multifarious problems of mono-cropping through diversification that enhances farm income, production and employment. A field study was conducted at All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth during 2023 to study the impact of rainfed integrated rainfed farming system for productivity, profitability, carbon emission and sustainability with conventional system. This IFS model produced Seed Cotton Equivalent Yield (SCEY) of 5127 kg/ha. Among the enterprises, livestock contributed the highest (54.81%) to system productivity followed by crops (24.61%) and lowest in boundary plantation (0.92). Whereas conventional system recorded system productivity of 1944 kg/ha which is 2.53 times less productive than rainfed integrated farming system. Likewise, the mean annual net return of the RIFS model was ₹2,06,009, wherein livestock component contributing the highest (62.30%) followed by crops (24.37%) along with employment generation of 248 man-days ha − 1 year − 1 . This system was 3.93 more remunerative in terms of net return and capable of generating 254.3 percentages increase in employment over conventional system. This model sequestrated about 14262.92 kg CO 2 -equivalent sink through horticulture and ALU components (9565.32 kg CO2-equivalent) with incorporated biomass/compost manures (4697.6 kg CO 2 -equivalent). Thus, RIFS achieved a 20.42-fold decrease in GHG emission. The results indicated that with diversified cropping system, horticulture, ALU, livestock, compost, kitchen garden, farm pond and boundary plantation is smart climate option for small farmers in the study area to enhance the productivity, profitability, climate resilience to bring sustainability in small holder of rainfed farming. Agronomy Conventional system Productivity Profitability Rainfed integrated farming system Small holder and Sustainability Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction One of the biggest challenges of the twenty-first century is to feed 9 billion people by 2050 in a way that is not detrimental to our planet under a changing climate and in the context of growing competition for land and other natural resources (The Wageningen Statement, 2011). In achieving global food security and poverty alleviation, smallholder farms play a significant role, as they are sthe main source of food, nutrition and livelihood security for 33% of civilization (Swarnam et al., 2024 ). The fragmentation of land resources is posing a serious threat to future sustainability, food security, and profitability of Indian farming (Siddeswaran et al., 2012 ). In India, around 85 percent are small holders having land holding less than 2 hectares contributing to 47.3% of the arable land. (GOI, 2011). The burgeoning population and land fragmentation resulted the average size of holdings in India would be 0.32 ha in 2030. (ICAR, Vision, 2011a). In terms of production, they contribute approximately 70% to the total production of vegetables, 55% to fruits, 52% to cereal production and 69% to milk production. (GOI, 2019). In spite that, these smallholders are undernourished because they are mostly net buyers of food, and their income level is insufficient to access balanced food that they do not produce themselves (IFAD, 2013). Although their income from crop cultivation is not sufficient to meet their monthly household expenditure. The declining size of landholdings without any alternative income-augmenting opportunity resulting in a fall in farm income, causing agrarian distress. Hence the future of sustainable agricultural growth and food security in India depends on the performance of these small and marginal farmers. (ICAR Vision, 2011b). In India, about 69.5% of total net sown area comes under dry and rainfed systems which contribute about 42 percent total food grain production and 80 percent of coarse grains/pulse production. (Singh et al., 2017 ). Despite crop production in dry farming regions faces numerous challenges, reluctant to invest heavily in crop production. Several biophysical and socioeconomic constraints still limit the average productivity largely due to reliance on rainfed conditions and limited resources of smallholder farmers. (Shekinah, 2002 ; Singh and Prabhakar, 2025 ). The resource-poor situation, low investment potential, and the potential for additional input limit the potential of rainfed farmers. Therefore, it is necessary to look for alternative on-farm recycling of resources. Adoption of perennial fruits crop, rainwater harvesting through farm pond, kitchen garden, suitable alternate land use systems with animal components and compost in farming systems which generates higher yield with higher economic value from same unit of land and found to be the most ideal systems to provide food, nutrition and income security in semi-arid areas. (Palsaniya et al., 2012 , 2023 ; Manoharan et al., 2023 ). Encouraging Integrated Farming Systems (IFS), which combines two or more types of farming like crops, livestock, and fish, can lead to better income, stronger resilience, and more carbon storage in the soil. Achieving this requires a shift from the centrally determined approach of single-commodity intensification to a location-specific farming systems intensification approach, which focuses on system productivity (across multiple seasons in a year) rather than season-based crop productivity. (Bayskar et al., 2025 ; NRAA, 2022). Keeping these points in view, farming system research studied to enhance resilience and foster sustainable agricultural development in small holders of rainfed regions. Material and Methods Experimental Site and Weather details The experiment was conducted at All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture (AICRPDA), Akola. It is situated in subtropical region between 22.42°N latitude and 77.02° E longitude at an altitude of 307.42 m above the mean sea level and the climate of Akola is broadly described as semi-arid; the region falls under the agro-climatic zone of Western Vidarbha as per the agro-climatic zone of Maharashtra and the Western Plateau and Hills of India. During the 2023-24 season, the total rainfall from June to September amounted to 694.9 mm, which exceeded the normal level of 656.2 mm. Additionally, the post-monsoon period recorded 94 mm of rainfall. The mean maximum and minimum temperatures were 38.8°C and 10.9°C, respectively, with relative humidity ranging from 68% to 86%. The experimental soil belonging to Vertisol has alkaline in nature with pH (7.90) and EC values (0.08 ds/m). The organic carbon content was low (4.6 g/kg) which was reflected the soil was medium in available nitrogen (163.07 kg/ha), low in available phosphorus (11.31 kg/ha), fairly high in available potassium, and moderate in organic carbon. Material and Method To evaluate productivity, economics and livelihood security designed RIFS models over the conventional system in year of 2023-24 covering a total area of 2 hectares. RIFS model and its components : The RIFS model of 1.00 ha comprise of crops with horticulture, goatery, poultry, compost, farm pond, kitchen garden and boundary plantation. The cropping systems are allocated to 0.60 ha with inclusion of fibre, millet, pulses, oilseeds and spices crops. Horticulture components consisted of custard apple and hanuman phal orchard in 0.15 ha. The Ber-based alternate land use system is cultivated on 0.15 ha, while the kitchen garden and farm pond occupy 0.02 ha and 0.03 ha respectively. RIFS model also had goatery ( Berari breed) and poultry unit (Giriraj) as livestock component. A small unit of compost pits were also established to effectively utilize available resources and farm waste. (Supplementary Table 1.). Establish moringa and glyricidia are taken as boundary plantations. In conventional cropping system each cropping system: cotton + pigeonpea (6:1) and soybean -chickpea contributed to 0.5 ha, overall occupies 1.0 ha. Productivity of components are determined on the yield of each component was converted into Seed Cotton Equivalent Yield (SCEY). SCEY = Yield of IFS component (kg) × Price of component (₹/kg) Price of pearl millet (₹/kg) Economics were assessed by analyzing gross and net monetary returns, cultivation costs, and the benefit-cost ratio. Gross return was calculated based on prevailing market price of all main and by products. Net return was calculated by deducting the cost of cultivation from gross return. The benefit cost ratio was computed by dividing the gross return by the cost of cultivation. Greenhouse gas emission of the IFS farm households was determined by subtracting the estimated carbon offset by trees from the total GHG emissions generated by all other farming system components. Net Emission (CO2-e) = IFS Total emissions (CO2-e) - offset by trees (CO2-e) Result and Discussion Productivity, profitability and employment generation: Productivity of individual components, as well as RIFS and conventional system was calculated as seed cotton equivalent yield (SCEY) for making better comparisons. The enterprises combination recorded the system productivity of 5127 SCEY kg ha − 1 . Among all the components, livestock recorded highest productivity, followed by crop components, with lowest in the boundary plantation with productivity of 3192, 1213 and 45 kg SCEY unit per area respectively. Highest percentage contribution to system productivity (kg ha − 1 ) is observed in livestock (54.81%) followed by crop components (24. 61%) and lowest in boundary plantation (0.92%). Comparing the integrated farming system to the conventional system, it was evident that the rainfed integrated farming system is 2.53 times more productive than cropping alone. Conventional system produced productivity of 1944 kg SCEY per unit area. Through intensification of crops and associated components, yield and productivity per unit area get enhanced under the IFS. The similar findings of Sahoo et al., (2017) and Layek et al., ( 2023 ) reported that attributed to better management, inclusion of profitable enterprises and efficient recycling of resources from one system to another, which reduced the total input requirement, lowering the cost of production. The rainfed integrated farming system generated gross & net returns of ₹3,52,528& ₹2,06,009 respectively with cost of production of ₹1,45,281 and B:C of 1.30. Whereas traditional system (conventional) records lower gross and net returns of ₹1,36,617 and ₹52396 respectively with B:C ratio of 1.62. (Table 1 ). Rainfed integrated farming system was 2.58 and 3.93 more remunerative in terms of gross and net return than conventional system. This finding supported the doubling of farmer income achieved in farming system research. The findings of Walia et al. ( 2016 ) and Bhargavi and Behera 2020 , indicating that net income in an integrated farming system increased three and four times, respectively, compared to the cereal-based cropping system practiced by farmers. Likewise, system productivity livestock components contributed the highest to return of ₹2,19,623 (62.30%) followed by crops ₹95,924 (24.37%) (graph 1). Meanwhile allied enterprises such as fruit crops, ALU, compost, kitchen garden, and boundary plantation amounted ₹9780, ₹9345, ₹3348, ₹2027 and ₹950 to net return which combinedly contributed to 13.33% of net return of RIFS. Thus, it is concluded that livestock serves not only as the backbone of agriculture but also as a fundamental component of the farming system approach. Total employment generated by rainfed integrated farming system was 248 Man-days ha − 1 year − 1 which 254.3 percentages increased over conventional system (70 Man-days ha − 1 year − 1 ). Livestock made the largest contribution to employment generation, accounting for 61%, followed by crop components at 21%. (graph 2.) These results clearly demonstrate that integrating livestock and compost units significantly boosts rural employment opportunities within the IFS framework that helped in engaging the labourers throughout the year. The diversified nature of multifarious activities related to different enterprises included in integrated farming system provide a lot of opportunities of employment and keeps farmers and their family members engaged for more time and helps in improving the employment for rural poor. This assured employment also helped reduce migration of agricultural labourers to urban areas. Table 1 Productivity, profitability and employment generation of IRFS and conventional model Enterprises SCEY (kg/ha) Gross return Production cost Net return Employment (Man-days) B:C ratio (₹) Cropping system 1213 85924 34738 51186 45 2.47 Horticulture 228 16020 6240 9780 11 2.56 Alternate land use system 292 17105 7760 9345 14 2.20 Livestock 3182 219623 90520 129373 137.5* 2.33 Compost 109 7656 2800 3348 1.86 Kitchen garden 60 4200 2173 2027 6 1.93 Boundary plantation 43 2000 1050 950 5 2.10 Total (RIFS) 5127 352528 145281 206009 248 2.42 Conventional system 1944 136617 84221 52396 70 1.62 * Working hours engaged in livestock caring fulfill the employment generation of compost Greenhouse gas emission Total GHG emmited from the present rainfed integrated farming system was 2624.28 kg CO2-equivalent. Livestock unit had recorded higest GHG emissions of 1241. 97 kg CO 2 -equivalent followed by cropping unit system noticed 1017. kg CO 2− equivalent of GHG emission and lowest in boundary plantation of 11.34 kg CO 2 -equivalent. (Table 2 ). The total sink sequestrated in the models 14262.92 kg CO 2 -equivalent. Of which Agro-Forestry- SINK (Fruit crop and ALU) contributed more to total sink as a 9565.32 kg CO 2 -equivalent. The total biomass/compost added in system as source contributed 4697.6 kg CO 2 -equivalent (Fig. 2). The percentage distribution of the total sink attributed to agroforestry and biomass/compost werw 67% and 33% respectively. Conventional system had record 1112 kg CO 2 -equivalent of GHG emission and sequastrated 1682 kg CO 2 -equivalent. RIFS achieved a 20.42-fold decrease in GHG emissions, signifying a transition from net emission to net sequestration relative to the traditional system. The disparity in emissions and sequestration among the systems, due to conventional cropping management, relies more on use of fertilizers and machinery resulted in heightened CO 2 emissions. Furthermore, there was a lack of synergy among the components in conventional system whereas GHG emissions in RIFS which could be offset by CO 2 sequestration primarily through the above-ground biomass of the ALU system, as well as through fruit crops and residue recycling. The studied of Kumara et al., ( 2023 ) and Meera et al. ( 2019 ), Rathore et al. ( 2019 ) also found that livestock are responsible for the high GHG emissions which could be offset by integrating them with cropping unit, trees and orchards. Table 2 Net greenhouse gas emissions in rainfed integrated farming system and conventional system Components 2023-24 GHG emission (kg CO 2 -equivalent) Cropping system 1017.58 Horticultural crops 77.32 ALU 147.07 Livestock 1241.97 compost 88.72 KG 40.48 BP 11.34 Total SOURCE 2624.48 Sequestration of GHGs (kg CO 2 -equivalent) Agro-Forestry- SINK 9565.32 Total Biomass/compost added – SINK 4697.6 Total SINK 14262.92 GHG- RIFS -11638.44 Conventional system Cropping system Total SOURCE 1682.00 Total SINK 1112.00 GHG 570.00 Conclusion Diversification through IRFS has potential to bring sustainability in small and marginal farmers, as it ensures food security, improvement in income, and promotes efficient natural resources use. The present study suggests that the judicious integration of cropping + horticulture + ALU+ Livestock+ compost + kitchen garden + farm pond + boundary plantation can ensure higher productivity and enhanced income and profitability over the conventional system. Among the components, livestock contributes the most to system productivity and net return, proving that livestock is the backbone of agriculture and farming system research. Declarations Competing Interests Authors have declared that no competing interests exist. References Bayskar, A. S., Mohod, A. A., Chorey, A. B., Ganvir, M. M., Mitkar, G. V., & Dudde, P. S. (2025). Enhancing sustainability of rainfed farming through an integrated farming system. SSRN . https://ssrn.com/abstract=5406525 Bhargavi, B., & Behera, U. (2020). Securing the livelihood of small and marginal farmers by diversifying farming systems. Current Science , 119 (5), 854–860. Government of India. (2019). Agriculture census report . Agriculture Census Division, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). (2011). ICAR vision 2011 . ICAR, New Delhi. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2013). Smallholders, food security and the environment . IFAD, Rome. Kumara, O., Kumar Naik, A. H., & Goudra, S. (2023). The long-term impact of the integrated crop–livestock system on carbon emission, sustainability and livelihood security of small and medium farmers. Environment Conservation Journal , 24 (3), 31–39. Meera, A. V., John, J., Sudha, B., Sajeena, A., Jacob, D., & Bindhu, J. S. (2019). Greenhouse gas emission from integrated farming system model: A comparative study. Green Farming , 10 (6), 696–701. Layek, J., Das, A., Ansari, M. A., Mishra, V. K., Rangappa, K., Ravisankar, N., Patra, S., Baiswar, P., Ramesh, T., Hazarika, S., Panwar, A. S., Devi, S., Ansari, M. H., & Paramanik, B. (2023). An integrated organic farming system: Innovations for farm diversification, sustainability and livelihood improvement of hill farmers. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems , 7 , 1151113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1151113 Manoharan, S., Baskar, K., Sanjivkumar, V., Manikandan, M., Guru, G., Saliha, B. B., & Gopinath, K. A. (2023). Aonla-based alternate land use system for climate resilience and sustainable income in rainfed Vertisols of Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development , 38 (2), 28–31. National Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA). (2022). Accelerating the growth of rainfed agriculture – Integrated farmers livelihood approach (draft policy) . Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare. https://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/rapfinaldraft%20%281%29_repaired_0.pdf Palsaniya, D. R., Khan, M. A., Tewari, R. K., & Bajpai, C. K. (2012). Tree–crop interactions in Psidium guajava -based agrihorticulture system. Range Management and Agroforestry , 33 (1), 32–36. Palsaniya, D. R., Kumar, S., Das, M. M., et al. (2023). Rainwater harvesting, agroforestry and goat-based intensification for livelihood resilience in drought-prone rainfed smallholder farming system: A case for semi-arid tropics. Agroforestry Systems , 97 , 1405–1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00836-0 Rathore, S. S., Shekhawat, K., Babu, S., Upadhyay, P. K., Raj, R., & Singh, R. K. (2019). Diversified farming reduces carbon and water footprints and enhances energy use efficiency in agricultural production systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy , 69 (Global Soils Conference Special Issue), S1–S9. Sahoo, H. K., & Behera, B. (2017). Integrated farming system for resource recycling and livelihood security for marginal farmers in three disadvantaged districts of Odisha. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation , 45 (2), 203–213. Shekinah, D. (2002). Integrated farming system for sustainable resource management in rainfed Vertisols of Western Zone of Tamil Nadu (Master’s thesis). Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India. Siddeswaran, K., Sangetha, S. P., & Shanmugam, P. M. (2012). Integrated farming system for the small irrigated upland farmers of Tamil Nadu. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Agronomy Congress (Vol. 3, pp. 992–993). New Delhi, India. Singh, V. K., & Prabhakar, M. (2025). Challenges and opportunities in rainfed agriculture. Indian Farming , 75 (1), 5–8. Singh, M., Tiwari, N. K., Kumar, N., Dabur, K. R., & Dehinwal, A. K. (2017). Dry and rainfed agriculture: Characteristics and issues to enhance the prosperity of Indian farming community. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences , 6 (11), 32–38. Swarnam, T. P., Velmurugan, A., Subramani, T., Ravisankar, N., Subash, N., Pawar, A. S., Perumal, P., Jaisankar, I., & Roy, S. D. (2024). Climate-smart crop–livestock integrated farming as a sustainable agricultural strategy for humid tropical islands. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability , 22 (1), 2298189. The Wageningen Statement, 2011. The Wageningen Statement. (2011). Science into Action: Wageningen Statement on Climate-Smart Agriculture, 26 th October 2011. https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Science-into- Action-Wageningen-Statement-on-Climate-Smart- Agriculture.htm. Accessed on 12 th April 2026. Walia, S. S., Aulakh, C. S., Gill, R. S., Dhawan, V., & Kaur, J. (2016). Intensive integrated farming system approach: A vaccination to cure agrarian crisis in Punjab. Indian Journal of Economics and Development , 12 (1a), 451–45. Additional Declarations The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist Supplementary Files SupplementaryTable1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9396106","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":621764824,"identity":"bf42099a-fa0c-4c3c-ae5b-87fc836c03ba","order_by":0,"name":"Akshay Bayskar","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5037-2097","institution":"Dr PDKV, Akola (M.S.)","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Akshay","middleName":"","lastName":"Bayskar","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-12 17:56:41","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":true,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9396106/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9396106/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106874093,"identity":"6dd84209-3644-4bf0-b749-52faebe01962","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-14 10:14:31","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79252,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLegend not included with this version\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9396106/v1/454edc3271bc588cbaa61c3d.jpg"},{"id":106874091,"identity":"ef363ef7-f907-4b4b-a630-8093ef96fb48","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-14 10:14:30","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":61681,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNet greenhouse gas emission (GHG) in farming system module\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9396106/v1/0b8972351acc1ee45cb5cc9e.jpg"},{"id":106961120,"identity":"f101f116-167e-4740-b2c9-7ffa712a5999","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 09:24:21","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":728656,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9396106/v1/c7a6b29c-bc83-4afb-b54d-b3b35c8c8b81.pdf"},{"id":106874092,"identity":"a180a60c-694a-47b8-b603-777fd0098531","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-14 10:14:30","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":16362,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryTable1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9396106/v1/32ceb026678828ef0b0cd44a.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare potential competing interests as follows: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist\n","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFarming System approach for Enhancing Productivity, Profitability and Climate resilience in Rainfed Smallholders\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eOne of the biggest challenges of the twenty-first century is to feed 9\u0026nbsp;billion people by 2050 in a way that is not detrimental to our planet under a changing climate and in the context of growing competition for land and other natural resources (The Wageningen Statement, 2011). In achieving global food security and poverty alleviation, smallholder farms play a significant role, as they are sthe main source of food, nutrition and livelihood security for 33% of civilization (Swarnam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The fragmentation of land resources is posing a serious threat to future sustainability, food security, and profitability of Indian farming (Siddeswaran et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In India, around 85 percent are small holders having land holding less than 2 hectares contributing to 47.3% of the arable land. (GOI, 2011). The burgeoning population and land fragmentation resulted the average size of holdings in India would be 0.32 ha in 2030. (ICAR, Vision, 2011a). In terms of production, they contribute approximately 70% to the total production of vegetables, 55% to fruits, 52% to cereal production and 69% to milk production. (GOI, 2019). In spite that, these smallholders are undernourished because they are mostly net buyers of food, and their income level is insufficient to access balanced food that they do not produce themselves (IFAD, 2013). Although their income from crop cultivation is not sufficient to meet their monthly household expenditure. The declining size of landholdings without any alternative income-augmenting opportunity resulting in a fall in farm income, causing agrarian distress. Hence the future of sustainable agricultural growth and food security in India depends on the performance of these small and marginal farmers. (ICAR Vision, 2011b).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn India, about 69.5% of total net sown area comes under dry and rainfed systems which contribute about 42 percent total food grain production and 80 percent of coarse grains/pulse production. (Singh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Despite crop production in dry farming regions faces numerous challenges, reluctant to invest heavily in crop production. Several biophysical and socioeconomic constraints still limit the average productivity largely due to reliance on rainfed conditions and limited resources of smallholder farmers. (Shekinah, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Singh and Prabhakar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The resource-poor situation, low investment potential, and the potential for additional input limit the potential of rainfed farmers. Therefore, it is necessary to look for alternative on-farm recycling of resources. Adoption of perennial fruits crop, rainwater harvesting through farm pond, kitchen garden, suitable alternate land use systems with animal components and compost in farming systems which generates higher yield with higher economic value from same unit of land and found to be the most ideal systems to provide food, nutrition and income security in semi-arid areas. (Palsaniya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Manoharan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Encouraging Integrated Farming Systems (IFS), which combines two or more types of farming like crops, livestock, and fish, can lead to better income, stronger resilience, and more carbon storage in the soil. Achieving this requires a shift from the centrally determined approach of single-commodity intensification to a location-specific farming systems intensification approach, which focuses on system productivity (across multiple seasons in a year) rather than season-based crop productivity. (Bayskar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; NRAA, 2022). Keeping these points in view, farming system research studied to enhance resilience and foster sustainable agricultural development in small holders of rainfed regions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Material and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental Site and Weather details\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment was conducted at All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture (AICRPDA), Akola. It is situated in subtropical region between 22.42\u0026deg;N latitude and 77.02\u0026deg; E longitude at an altitude of 307.42 m above the mean sea level and the climate of Akola is broadly described as semi-arid; the region falls under the agro-climatic zone of Western Vidarbha as per the agro-climatic zone of Maharashtra and the Western Plateau and Hills of India. During the 2023-24 season, the total rainfall from June to September amounted to 694.9 mm, which exceeded the normal level of 656.2 mm. Additionally, the post-monsoon period recorded 94 mm of rainfall. The mean maximum and minimum temperatures were 38.8\u0026deg;C and 10.9\u0026deg;C, respectively, with relative humidity ranging from 68% to 86%. The experimental soil belonging to Vertisol has alkaline in nature with pH (7.90) and EC values (0.08 ds/m). The organic carbon content was low (4.6 g/kg) which was reflected the soil was medium in available nitrogen (163.07 kg/ha), low in available phosphorus (11.31 kg/ha), fairly high in available potassium, and moderate in organic carbon.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMaterial and Method\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate productivity, economics and livelihood security designed RIFS models over the conventional system in year of 2023-24 covering a total area of 2 hectares.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRIFS model and its components\u003c/b\u003e: The RIFS model of 1.00 ha comprise of crops with horticulture, goatery, poultry, compost, farm pond, kitchen garden and boundary plantation. The cropping systems are allocated to 0.60 ha with inclusion of fibre, millet, pulses, oilseeds and spices crops. Horticulture components consisted of custard apple and hanuman phal orchard in 0.15 ha. The Ber-based alternate land use system is cultivated on 0.15 ha, while the kitchen garden and farm pond occupy 0.02 ha and 0.03 ha respectively. RIFS model also had goatery (\u003cem\u003eBerari\u003c/em\u003e breed) and poultry unit (Giriraj) as livestock component. A small unit of compost pits were also established to effectively utilize available resources and farm waste. (Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1.). Establish moringa and glyricidia are taken as boundary plantations. In conventional cropping system each cropping system: cotton\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;pigeonpea (6:1) and soybean -chickpea contributed to 0.5 ha, overall occupies 1.0 ha. Productivity of components are determined on the yield of each component was converted into Seed Cotton Equivalent Yield (SCEY).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSCEY\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e=\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield of IFS component (kg) \u0026times; Price of component (₹/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrice of pearl millet (₹/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEconomics were assessed by analyzing gross and net monetary returns, cultivation costs, and the benefit-cost ratio. Gross return was calculated based on prevailing market price of all main and by products. Net return was calculated by deducting the cost of cultivation from gross return. The benefit cost ratio was computed by dividing the gross return by the cost of cultivation. Greenhouse gas emission of the IFS farm households was determined by subtracting the estimated carbon offset by trees from the total GHG emissions generated by all other farming system components. Net Emission (CO2-e)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;IFS Total emissions (CO2-e) - offset by trees (CO2-e)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Result and Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProductivity, profitability and employment generation:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eProductivity of individual components, as well as RIFS and conventional system was calculated as seed cotton equivalent yield (SCEY) for making better comparisons. The enterprises combination recorded the system productivity of 5127 SCEY kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e. Among all the components, livestock recorded highest productivity, followed by crop components, with lowest in the boundary plantation with productivity of 3192, 1213 and 45 kg SCEY unit per area respectively. Highest percentage contribution to system productivity (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) is observed in livestock (54.81%) followed by crop components (24. 61%) and lowest in boundary plantation (0.92%). Comparing the integrated farming system to the conventional system, it was evident that the rainfed integrated farming system is 2.53 times more productive than cropping alone. Conventional system produced productivity of 1944 kg SCEY per unit area. Through intensification of crops and associated components, yield and productivity per unit area get enhanced under the IFS. The similar findings of Sahoo et al., (2017) and Layek et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) reported that attributed to better management, inclusion of profitable enterprises and efficient recycling of resources from one system to another, which reduced the total input requirement, lowering the cost of production.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe rainfed integrated farming system generated gross \u0026amp; net returns of ₹3,52,528\u0026amp; ₹2,06,009 respectively with cost of production of ₹1,45,281 and B:C of 1.30. Whereas traditional system (conventional) records lower gross and net returns of ₹1,36,617 and ₹52396 respectively with B:C ratio of 1.62. (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Rainfed integrated farming system was 2.58 and 3.93 more remunerative in terms of gross and net return than conventional system. This finding supported the doubling of farmer income achieved in farming system research. The findings of Walia et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and Bhargavi and Behera \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, indicating that net income in an integrated farming system increased three and four times, respectively, compared to the cereal-based cropping system practiced by farmers. Likewise, system productivity livestock components contributed the highest to return of ₹2,19,623 (62.30%) followed by crops ₹95,924 (24.37%) (graph 1). Meanwhile allied enterprises such as fruit crops, ALU, compost, kitchen garden, and boundary plantation amounted ₹9780, ₹9345, ₹3348, ₹2027 and ₹950 to net return which combinedly contributed to 13.33% of net return of RIFS. Thus, it is concluded that livestock serves not only as the backbone of agriculture but also as a fundamental component of the farming system approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal employment generated by rainfed integrated farming system was 248 Man-days ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e which 254.3 percentages increased over conventional system (70 Man-days ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e). Livestock made the largest contribution to employment generation, accounting for 61%, followed by crop components at 21%. (graph 2.) These results clearly demonstrate that integrating livestock and compost units significantly boosts rural employment opportunities within the IFS framework that helped in engaging the labourers throughout the year. The diversified nature of multifarious activities related to different enterprises included in integrated farming system provide a lot of opportunities of employment and keeps farmers and their family members engaged for more time and helps in improving the employment for rural poor. This assured employment also helped reduce migration of agricultural labourers to urban areas.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProductivity, profitability and employment generation of IRFS and conventional model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnterprises\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSCEY (kg/ha)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGross return\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduction cost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNet return\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmployment (Man-days)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB:C ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(₹)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCropping system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1213\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e85924\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e34738\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e51186\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorticulture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e228\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6240\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9780\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlternate land use system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e292\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17105\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7760\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9345\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3182\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e219623\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e90520\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e129373\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e137.5*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e109\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7656\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2800\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3348\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKitchen garden\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4200\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2173\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBoundary plantation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1050\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e950\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal (RIFS)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5127\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e352528\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e145281\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e206009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e248\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConventional system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1944\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e136617\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e84221\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52396\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e70\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e* Working hours engaged in livestock caring fulfill the employment generation of compost\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eGreenhouse gas emission\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTotal GHG emmited from the present rainfed integrated farming system was 2624.28 kg CO2-equivalent. Livestock unit had recorded higest GHG emissions of 1241. 97 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent followed by cropping unit system noticed 1017. kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u0026minus;\u003c/sub\u003eequivalent of GHG emission and lowest in boundary plantation of 11.34 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent. (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The total sink sequestrated in the models 14262.92 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent. Of which Agro-Forestry- SINK (Fruit crop and ALU) contributed more to total sink as a 9565.32 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent. The total biomass/compost added in system as source contributed 4697.6 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent (Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). The percentage distribution of the total sink attributed to agroforestry and biomass/compost werw 67% and 33% respectively. Conventional system had record 1112 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent of GHG emission and sequastrated 1682 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent. RIFS achieved a 20.42-fold decrease in GHG emissions, signifying a transition from net emission to net sequestration relative to the traditional system. The disparity in emissions and sequestration among the systems, due to conventional cropping management, relies more on use of fertilizers and machinery resulted in heightened CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e emissions. Furthermore, there was a lack of synergy among the components in conventional system whereas GHG emissions in RIFS which could be offset by CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e sequestration primarily through the above-ground biomass of the ALU system, as well as through fruit crops and residue recycling. The studied of Kumara et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and Meera et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), Rathore et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) also found that livestock are responsible for the high GHG emissions which could be offset by integrating them with cropping unit, trees and orchards.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNet greenhouse gas emissions in rainfed integrated farming system and conventional system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComponents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2023-24\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGHG emission (kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCropping system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1017.58\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHorticultural crops\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eALU\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e147.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLivestock\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1241.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecompost\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88.72\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKG\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e40.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal SOURCE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2624.48\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSequestration of GHGs (kg CO\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cb\u003e-equivalent)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgro-Forestry- SINK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9565.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal Biomass/compost added \u0026ndash; SINK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4697.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal SINK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14262.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGHG- RIFS\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-11638.44\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConventional system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCropping system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal SOURCE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1682.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal SINK\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1112.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eGHG\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e570.00\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eDiversification through IRFS has potential to bring sustainability in small and marginal farmers, as it ensures food security, improvement in income, and promotes efficient natural resources use. The present study suggests that the judicious integration of cropping\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;horticulture\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;ALU+ Livestock+ compost\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;kitchen garden\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;farm pond\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;boundary plantation can ensure higher productivity and enhanced income and profitability over the conventional system. Among the components, livestock contributes the most to system productivity and net return, proving that livestock is the backbone of agriculture and farming system research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthors have declared that no competing interests exist.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBayskar, A. S., Mohod, A. A., Chorey, A. B., Ganvir, M. M., Mitkar, G. V., \u0026amp; Dudde, P. S. (2025). Enhancing sustainability of rainfed farming through an integrated farming system. \u003cem\u003eSSRN\u003c/em\u003e. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5406525\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBhargavi, B., \u0026amp; Behera, U. (2020). Securing the livelihood of small and marginal farmers by diversifying farming systems. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e119\u003c/em\u003e(5), 854\u0026ndash;860.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGovernment of India. (2019). \u003cem\u003eAgriculture census report\u003c/em\u003e. Agriculture Census Division, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture \u0026amp; Farmers Welfare.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIndian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). (2011). \u003cem\u003eICAR vision 2011\u003c/em\u003e. ICAR, New Delhi.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInternational Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). (2013). \u003cem\u003eSmallholders, food security and the environment\u003c/em\u003e. IFAD, Rome.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumara, O., Kumar Naik, A. H., \u0026amp; Goudra, S. (2023). The long-term impact of the integrated crop\u0026ndash;livestock system on carbon emission, sustainability and livelihood security of small and medium farmers. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment Conservation Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 31\u0026ndash;39.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeera, A. V., John, J., Sudha, B., Sajeena, A., Jacob, D., \u0026amp; Bindhu, J. S. (2019). Greenhouse gas emission from integrated farming system model: A comparative study. \u003cem\u003eGreen Farming\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(6), 696\u0026ndash;701.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLayek, J., Das, A., Ansari, M. A., Mishra, V. K., Rangappa, K., Ravisankar, N., Patra, S., Baiswar, P., Ramesh, T., Hazarika, S., Panwar, A. S., Devi, S., Ansari, M. H., \u0026amp; Paramanik, B. (2023). An integrated organic farming system: Innovations for farm diversification, sustainability and livelihood improvement of hill farmers. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 1151113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1151113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManoharan, S., Baskar, K., Sanjivkumar, V., Manikandan, M., Guru, G., Saliha, B. B., \u0026amp; Gopinath, K. A. (2023). Aonla-based alternate land use system for climate resilience and sustainable income in rainfed Vertisols of Tamil Nadu. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 28\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Rainfed Area Authority (NRAA). (2022). \u003cem\u003eAccelerating the growth of rainfed agriculture \u0026ndash; Integrated farmers livelihood approach (draft policy)\u003c/em\u003e. Department of Agriculture and Farmers\u0026rsquo; Welfare. https://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/rapfinaldraft%20%281%29_repaired_0.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalsaniya, D. R., Khan, M. A., Tewari, R. K., \u0026amp; Bajpai, C. K. (2012). Tree\u0026ndash;crop interactions in \u003cem\u003ePsidium guajava\u003c/em\u003e-based agrihorticulture system. \u003cem\u003eRange Management and Agroforestry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32\u0026ndash;36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePalsaniya, D. R., Kumar, S., Das, M. M., et al. (2023). Rainwater harvesting, agroforestry and goat-based intensification for livelihood resilience in drought-prone rainfed smallholder farming system: A case for semi-arid tropics. \u003cem\u003eAgroforestry Systems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e97\u003c/em\u003e, 1405\u0026ndash;1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00836-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRathore, S. S., Shekhawat, K., Babu, S., Upadhyay, P. K., Raj, R., \u0026amp; Singh, R. K. (2019). Diversified farming reduces carbon and water footprints and enhances energy use efficiency in agricultural production systems. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Agronomy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e(Global Soils Conference Special Issue), S1\u0026ndash;S9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahoo, H. K., \u0026amp; Behera, B. (2017). Integrated farming system for resource recycling and livelihood security for marginal farmers in three disadvantaged districts of Odisha. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Soil Conservation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 203\u0026ndash;213.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShekinah, D. (2002). \u003cem\u003eIntegrated farming system for sustainable resource management in rainfed Vertisols of Western Zone of Tamil Nadu\u003c/em\u003e (Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis). Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSiddeswaran, K., Sangetha, S. P., \u0026amp; Shanmugam, P. M. (2012). Integrated farming system for the small irrigated upland farmers of Tamil Nadu. In \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 3rd International Agronomy Congress\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 3, pp. 992\u0026ndash;993). New Delhi, India.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, V. K., \u0026amp; Prabhakar, M. (2025). Challenges and opportunities in rainfed agriculture. \u003cem\u003eIndian Farming\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, M., Tiwari, N. K., Kumar, N., Dabur, K. R., \u0026amp; Dehinwal, A. K. (2017). Dry and rainfed agriculture: Characteristics and issues to enhance the prosperity of Indian farming community. \u003cem\u003eBulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(11), 32\u0026ndash;38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwarnam, T. P., Velmurugan, A., Subramani, T., Ravisankar, N., Subash, N., Pawar, A. S., Perumal, P., Jaisankar, I., \u0026amp; Roy, S. D. (2024). Climate-smart crop\u0026ndash;livestock integrated farming as a sustainable agricultural strategy for humid tropical islands. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Agricultural Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2298189. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Wageningen Statement, 2011. The Wageningen Statement. (2011). Science into Action: Wageningen Statement on Climate-Smart Agriculture, 26 th October 2011. https://www.wur.nl/en/show/Science-into- Action-Wageningen-Statement-on-Climate-Smart- Agriculture.htm. Accessed on 12 th April 2026.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalia, S. S., Aulakh, C. S., Gill, R. S., Dhawan, V., \u0026amp; Kaur, J. (2016). Intensive integrated farming system approach: A vaccination to cure agrarian crisis in Punjab. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Economics and Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1a), 451\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, (M.S.)-444104","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Conventional system, Productivity, Profitability, Rainfed integrated farming system, Small holder and Sustainability","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9396106/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9396106/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eSingle-commodity intensification often dominated in small holder of semi-arid region, which leads to low productivity and negative environmental impacts. The farming system approach is a holistic tool to solve multifarious problems of mono-cropping through diversification that enhances farm income, production and employment. A field study was conducted at All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth during 2023 to study the impact of rainfed integrated rainfed farming system for productivity, profitability, carbon emission and sustainability with conventional system. This IFS model produced Seed Cotton Equivalent Yield (SCEY) of 5127 kg/ha. Among the enterprises, livestock contributed the highest (54.81%) to system productivity followed by crops (24.61%) and lowest in boundary plantation (0.92). Whereas conventional system recorded system productivity of 1944 kg/ha which is 2.53 times less productive than rainfed integrated farming system. Likewise, the mean annual net return of the RIFS model was ₹2,06,009, wherein livestock component contributing the highest (62.30%) followed by crops (24.37%) along with employment generation of 248 man-days ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e year\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e. This system was 3.93 more remunerative in terms of net return and capable of generating 254.3 percentages increase in employment over conventional system. This model sequestrated about 14262.92 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent sink through horticulture and ALU components (9565.32 kg CO2-equivalent) with incorporated biomass/compost manures (4697.6 kg CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e-equivalent). Thus, RIFS achieved a 20.42-fold decrease in GHG emission. The results indicated that with diversified cropping system, horticulture, ALU, livestock, compost, kitchen garden, farm pond and boundary plantation is smart climate option for small farmers in the study area to enhance the productivity, profitability, climate resilience to bring sustainability in small holder of rainfed farming.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Farming System approach for Enhancing Productivity, Profitability and Climate resilience in Rainfed Smallholders","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-14 10:14:26","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9396106/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"138e9262-6fae-4255-b721-32d728d52e77","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 14th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":66163947,"name":"Agronomy"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-14T10:14:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-14 10:14:26","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9396106","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9396106","identity":"rs-9396106","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}