Discussion Paper Program to Encourage Mixed-Farming (Budget 2015/16)

PROGRAM / PROPOSAL TO ENCOURAGE MIXED-FARMING TO DEVELOP AN AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM

TO MEET FOOD DEMAND BY 2030-2050 PERIOD
Sunil Gamage1,2
Summary
The objective of this paper is to lead to a discussion on the measures / proposals required to be taken in the budget speech of
2015/16 in view of increasing the proportion of mixed farming sector from 21% of the agricultural land holdings.
Mixed farming establishes a complementary relationship between crop and livestock enterprise and is useful in managing
farming losses experienced owing to climatic variation due to global warming, market price variability, weed growth, crop
diseases and pest attacks. Hence, livestock can play an important role in risk coping strategies (Rodriguez and Anderson.
1988; Dercon 1998 and Kinsey, Burger, and Gunning. 1998).
Mixed farming will result in an agriculture sector without subsidies.
Controlled use of imported external inputs.
Food imports use less foreign exchange than imported external inputs?
Introduce dual purpose crop production and processing sector.
To develop a system to meet food demand by 2030-2050 period.
Introduction

1
2

During the past several decades agricultural development policies and practices have successfully emphasized external inputs
as the means to increasing food production.
This has led to growth in consumption of pesticides, weedicides, inorganic fertilizer, animal feed stuff, and tractors and other
machinery using fossil fuels.
Successive governments, departments, leaders in research and the corporate sector have supported the use of external inputs
during the green revolution in the 1970s up to now, over a more sustainable agricultural system.
Gradual decrease in profit margins has resulted in many farm families adjusting their business activities as part of a survival or
accumulation strategy. Considerable attention has been paid to the nonconventional methods farm businesses employ to raise
income, being conceptualized variously as part-time farming or pluriactivity. At least in 32% of our farmers owning 42.5%
Sunilgamage2006@gmail.com

Former Deputy Director (Veterinary Research) Veterinary Research Institute, Department of Animal Production and Health, Former National Coordinator Animal Genetic Resources FAO /Sri Lanka, National
Consultant FAO/TCP/SRL/2204 Dairy Cattle & Buffalo Improvement Project (2010-2011), Livestock Specialist - JICA Survey Team (2012) for The Preparatory Survey on the Project for Improvement of
Agriculture Production and Productivity in Dry Zone Areas.

Discussion Paper Program to Encourage Mixed-Farming (Budget 2015/16)

agricultural land, farming is the secondary income source. Therefore this can result in low productivity from valuable / limited
agricultural land.

This resulted in reduced profit margins per unit of agricultural land. When the farmer profit margins decreased the middleman
margins keep increasing. The following graph is from a paper presented by the author at a Sri Lanka Veterinary Association
forum in 2002.
Percent Share of Profit Egg Industry

Farmer

Wholesaler

Retailer

Y2000
Y1998
Y1996

Y1994
Y1992
Y1990

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Hence, the basic technical challenge for those concerned with sustainable agriculture is to make better use of internal resources
without institutional support.
If institutional support for sustainable agriculture was also given, just as to external input farming it may have resulted in
o Minimizing the external inputs used,
o By regenerating internal resources more effectively, or
o By combination of both.
Some smallholder farmers have made use of resource-conserving technologies, such as integrated pest management, soil and
water conservation, integrating plant nutrition and recycling, multiple cropping, water harvesting, water recycling and mixed
farming.
2

Discussion Paper Program to Encourage Mixed-Farming (Budget 2015/16)

Therefore the objective of this discussion is on interventions required to increase the proportion of mixed farming sector from
21% of the agriculture land holdings.

Smallholder (below one hectare) consisting around 1.8 million holding units (families) utilize 75% of agricultural land in Sri
Lanka.

Where a fifth (21%) of these holdings is mixed (crop-livestock) farming and 95% of the livestock population is maintained in this
system of management.

A proportion of 10-50% of the mixed farming income is generated from these smallholder livestock activities.

Therefore interventions to encourage a substantial proportion of crop farmers to change over to this crop-livestock mixed
farming with livestock providing an important avenue for farm diversification, as this system is a risk-coping strategy, will be
beneficial to smallholder farmers.

The whole farming system with proportions is shown in annex one.

Case study on the inclusion of livestock into a predominantly crop farming system

A combined strategy can exploit this close linkage between the two sectors and would have the strongest income multipliers and
entrepreneurial development activities.

Utilization of crop residue for milk production has made a major effect on productivity and income in the mixed farming system.
In spite of the fact that milk is a major component in improving farm income, scavenging chicken contribute to family food
security by just scavenging. Goat and swine in a minor way support income generation to the farmstead. However, spiraling
mutton prices show the demand for this product.

Nevertheless livestock is given a backseat compared to rice and other field crops. Recycling crop residue by utilizing for
livestock would increase production, farm income and food security. Farmers may be unaware of interventions, without
disturbing the cropping system, to obtain better livestock production.

Annual maize production of 40,000 m. tons in 2005 increased to 160,000 m. tons by 2011 (DC&S 2012) subsequent to GoSL
decision to allow maize to be used as a livestock feed ingredient.

Discussion Paper Program to Encourage Mixed-Farming (Budget 2015/16)

Other field crops (OFC) production has dwindled over the years as farmer profit margins are low. Hence, Sri Lanka was
compelled to import a large quantity. All these products could be used as livestock feed. Thus they can be named as dual
purpose crops. Maize is used predominantly as poultry feed ingredient. However, black gram, cowpea, green gram, sweet
potato and manioc could be used as a ruminant feed ingredient.

Yet, milk and meat production in the dry zone (DZ) comes from cattle, buffalo and goats grazing poor quality annual and
perennial grasses on cropping area during the off-season and overgrazed and rapidly depleting pasture land during the cropping
season. Furthermore, DZ livestock farmers have customarily utilized measures such as feeding stored crop by-products to
livestock during these difficult periods.

The problem usually encountered with crop by-products is the seasonality of supply, especially rice straw.

Rice straw when left in fields after grain harvest conserves soil organic matter and nutrients, decreases water runoff and
increases infiltration, decreases evaporation and controls weeds and will support subsequent crop yields making them valuable
sources of nutrients.

However, excessive amounts of crop residue can tie up nutrients for the next crop. Furthermore, large amounts can hamper
tillage and planting operations, contribute chemical carryover problem, and harbor soil insects and diseases. Provision and use
4

Discussion Paper Program to Encourage Mixed-Farming (Budget 2015/16)

of chemical fertilizers and animal manure can be used and allow crop residues to be removed partially for other uses. Farmers in
DZ dispose of a large part of rice straw by burning in situ.
The main reasons for burning crop residues in field include unavailability of labor, high cost in removing the residues and use of
combine harvesters without baling facility in paddy cultivation. The problem is severe in irrigated and mechanized rice cultivation
but can be avoided.
Chart 1: Crop cultivation and Livestock Feeding Calendar for the Dry Zone
Month

Oct

Nov

Land
Cultivation

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

June

Maha - 100% cultivable land

Cattle

Restricted

movement

grazing in

harvest

Migration to inaccessible / marginal lands

area

Restricted
grazing

dry crop land

Grazing in

uncultivated moist

pasture land

harvest

Restricted grazing in uncultivated

Village

Grazing in

Stubble consumption in overgrazed

crop land

Sep

Rice-crop

Rice-crop planting and growing

Village

Grazing

Aug

Yala - 55% cultivable land

Rice-crop

Rice-crop planting and growing

Jul

crop land

Restricted

uncultivated dry
crop land and water
shortage

grazing
crop land

Residue
usage
Crop
residue

Grass and fodder residue wasted

Crop residue

in crop cultivation area

wasted

wasted

Standard

40-43

44-47

48-52

1-4

5-8

9-12

13-17

Crop residue
available for
consumption

18-19

21

Depleted amounts
of crop residue

Crop residue

available for

wasted

consumption

22-25

26-30

31-34

35-39

week

Sunil Gamage (2012)

Crop cultivation during the rainy period is the first priority of the DZ mixed farmer. At the commencement of the cropping season,
initially the livestock is restricted to paddock and then are relocated to marginal areas where they are able to graze freely. These
marginal areas are neglected pasture land with a small amount of vegetation which deprives livestock from adequate feed and
5

Discussion Paper Program to Encourage Mixed-Farming (Budget 2015/16)

water. Furthermore, disruption in the collection of milk in cattle and buffalo occurs as these remote areas fall beyond the normal
milk procurement routes. This has a marked effect on the quantity and quality of milk collected during this period. However,
when the animals are brought back to the farming areas after crop harvest, they have access to crop residues and ample supply
of water. Moreover, milk collection is normalized. See Chart above.
Data indicates that milk production in the rainy season is lower than in the dry season. The estimated loss of national milk
production 12.2% and the DZ is 67.2%. It could be estimated that a minimum loss of 36,520,000 liters annually is due to
relocation of cattle into marginal areas.
Estimated Minimum Milk Production Loss due to Seasonal Variation
Province
District
Total loss Liters / year
Loss
Province District
WZ Central
3,240,782
8.9%
DZ Eastern
13,704,604
37.5%
Ampara
2,916,789
8.0%
Batticaloa
7,768,745
21.3%
Trincomalee
2,668,773
7.3%
DZ North Central
6,388,100
17.5%
Anuradhapura
4,444,121
12.2%
Polonnaruwa
846,969
2.3%
DZ North Western
4,453,724
12.2%
Kurunegala
2,405,885
6.6%
Puttalam
1,916,890
5.2%
WZ Sabaragamuwa
482,890
1.3%
WZ Southern
1,354,125
3.7%
DZ Uva
6,896,051
18.9%
Minimum National
36,520,279
12.2%
Loss
Sunil Gamage 2012
Cattle relocated in marginal areas experience shortage of feed and water, due to the effect of poor soil quality and water levels
on the feed resource base in marginal areas. This disturbs the body physiological status with a lifetime impact. Hence, these

Discussion Paper Program to Encourage Mixed-Farming (Budget 2015/16)

animals continue to give low production. This seasonality could be prevented through proper measures taken to increase shelf
life of crop residue.
However, crop-residue utilization introduced in the 1980s to improve the quality of these has not been a success even after three
or four decades. The other is the disruption of the milk collection network due to the remoteness of the relocated areas during the
cropping season. This could be prevented if the animals are kept in cropping areas and stall fed.

Low-input smallholder food production systems are necessary to develop a system to meet food demand by 2030-2050 periods.
However under the current agricultural growth context there is a need to maintain agricultural activity as the primary income
system with better profit margins derived from mixed farming system. This will not only improve the standard of living of the
farming community but also attract youth to take up agricultural employment.

References
Rodriguez, G., and F. W. Anderson. 1988. A case study of riskreturn tradeoffs in a mixed farming system in highland Ethiopia.
Agricultural Systems 27: 161177.;
Dercon, S. 1998. Wealth, risk and activity choice: Cattle in western Tanzania. Journal of Development Economics 55: 142.;
Kinsey, B., K. Burger, and J. W. Gunning. 1998. Coping with drought in Zimbabwe: Survey evidence on responses of rural
households to risk. World Development 26 (1): 89110.