Bio-intensive Farming System: Validation of ItsApproaches in Increasing Food Production, Improving Food Security and Livelihoods

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

112
Bio-intensive Farming System: Validation of Its
Approaches in Increasing Food Production, Improving
Food Security and Livelihoods

B. P. Rajbhandari
WOREC, Kathmandu, Nepal
bprajbhandari@gmail.com.np

ABSTRACT

This paper presents some insight and analysis based on 8-year participatory action
research conducted in Udayapur district of Nepal. The study has revealed positive impact
of bio-intensive farming system approach in increasing crop diversity and yield efficiency
of the farm, improving food/nutritional security and rural livelihoods. Replication of bio-
intensive farming system has been recommended as an effective participatory approach
to address the issues of land degradation, ecological degradation, food production, food
security and livelihoods dimensions in developing countries like Nepal.

Key word: Sustainability, Participatory approach, Cropping intensity, Soil fertility,
Yield efficiency, Poverty, Livelihoods

INTRODUCTION

According to the generally accepted global standards, the vast majority of people in
Nepal are very much food insecure and have been struggling hard for attaining
sustainable livelihoods. The slow growth rate implying stagnation in the agricultural
sector during the past four decades has clearly demonstrated the relative failure of past
agricultural development policies; and has indicated the urgent need for an alternative
approach. In Nepal, population is growing at an average rate of 2.5 percent while food
production is fluctuating from a high growth rate of 5 per cent in 1981-85 to 2.2 per cent
in 1991-95 and 2.5 per cent in 1996-2000. The per capita food availability, which had
been growing strongly at 2.1 per cent in 1981-85 and 3.2 per cent in 1986-90, has shown
a negative growth rate in recent decade (Mahbub ul Haq, 2011).

Due to the small size of most farms and the non- farm sector, a large proportion of
Nepal’s labor force is to be absorbed in agriculture sector through the use of labour–
intensive technologies. The choice of crops and farming methods should, therefore,
receive priority in participatory research and extension allocations. Likewise, technology
that is suited to smaller units of holdings, friendly to the environment, humans, as well as
animal, health, and soil microorganisms, and which is beneficial for the improvement of
soil fertility, is to be emphasized. Research, extension and financial support programmes
are imperative for these purposes, and these programmes need to be planned,

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

113
implemented and monitored jointly with local farming community on a partnership basis.
Organization and empowerment of farming community groups should, therefore, be the
most important component of a new approach for sustainable livelihood.

The socio-economic and political processes of dispossession and disempowerment, the
privatization and concentration of resources and income in the hands of a few "rich"
people and the consequent erosion of the common property rights and privileges, loss of
indigenous seeds and plant/animal genetic resources, the persistently increasing
insecurity of food and the increasing economic burden to acquire chemical inputs like
fertilizer and pesticides are the major factors precipitating a deep sense of displacement
among the rural communities in Nepal. The bio-intensive farming system is a concept
that emerged as a response against chemical farming, against the prevailing socio-
economic injustice in the agricultural sector, against the "culture of greed", against
hunger and poverty (Rajbhandari, 2001). The concept of sustainable bio-intensive
farming (BIF) system is based on the agro-ecological principles, indigenous technology
and knowledge, experience and need of the people; and on the analysis of the negative
impacts of chemical farming elsewhere in this planet (Rajbhandari & Gautam, 1998).
Through the BIF system innovation the targeted communities are responding
pragmatically to the issues of destruction of the environment, degradation of natural
resources, and the consequent loss of a means of livelihood (WOREC, 2009). The bio-
intensive farming system approach is an effort to create a new vision and translate that
into reality for a mode of sustainable livelihood among the farming communities. Its
mission is to transform and reconstruct the farming community with new relations and
values towards ensuring food security to the overwhelming majority of the population in
Nepal (Rajbhandari, 2002).

In areas of chemically intensive agriculture, problems of salinity, sodicity and water
logging as well as the incidence of malaria, schistosomiasis and other water-borne
diseases are becoming important. Ground water resources are being adversely affected
qualitatively by the excessive use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides (Swaminathan,
1996). It is thus clear that it is not a sustainable and eco-friendly system. As farming has
a direct relationship with food security, livelihood and poverty alleviation, our concern
about alternative sustainable farming system approaches seems quite pertinent.

POVERTY AND FOOD SECURITY

Poverty is generally defined as a state of deprivation, dependence and degradation below
physically and socio-culturally acceptable norms or standards set by a society or nation.
These norms or standards are associated with the minimum level of livelihoods. It is a
state in which “opportunities and choices most basic to human development are denied to
lead a long, healthy, creative life and to enjoy a decent standard of living, freedom,
dignity, self-respect and respect for others” (UNDP, 1997). About three quarters of these
poor, about 800 million people, live in Asia, primarily in Bangladesh, China, India and

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

114
Nepal (Swaminathan, 1996). The largest absolute number of people affected by
potentially critical shortage of land is also in Southeast Asia (Ibid). It is in this context
that the further complication likely to arise in relation to local, national and global food
security systems has to be viewed. FAO (2011) also states that food strategies must not
merely be directed at ensuring food security for all, but must also achieve the
consumption of adequate quantities of safe and good quality foods that together make up
a healthy diet. The policy leaders of SAARC states should keep this context for
formulating food security policy for this region.

Nepal is exceptionally food insecure on all of the major indicators of food security. The
growing incidence of poverty and food insecurity in Nepal is an outcome of the economic
process of a worsening income distribution pattern among the rural households. The
social and political processes of denying the marginalized and disadvantaged population
groups to having an equitable access to and control over the productive resources, various
livelihoods assets and employment opportunities have been further deteriorating the
situation of poverty, food insecurity and livelihoods. Besides these weaknesses and
challenges, Nepal has a rich natural resource base that include plant and animal genetic
diversity, agro-ecological diversity, fresh water originating from the Himalayas, hard-
working farmers with indigenous knowledge and skill in farming systems. These facts
indicate that Nepal has a good prospect of diversifying and increasing agricultural
production and agro-based industrial products for alleviating poverty and attaining
sustainable livelihoods. The concept and approach of bio-intensive farming system in
Nepal has been developed keeping these realities and scope in mind.

VALIDATION OF THE BIF APPROACH: METHODOLOGY

Who and why should validate BIFS approach? Being a concept and approach that focuses
to the needs and perspectives of small farmers, the concept and approach of bio-intensive
farming system should primarily be validated by the concerned farmers. And the
validation procedure should not be any legal documentation or declaration, rather active
engagement of the small farmers in the conceptual understanding; implementation of the
approach starting with the establishment of Model Demonstration Farm (MDF); testing
new technologies and approaches on the farm; knowledge generation through direct
observation, experience and sharing; evaluation and calculation of the
advantages/benefits from the approach. This article presents some highlights of the BIF
approach and its validation through the shifts in food production and consumption
pattern, income generation and food security situation at micro- level (household level).
Within the broader framework of the livelihoods, strengthening of social and financial
(economic) assets is also dealt with here in. Impact of bio-intensive farming system
programme on food security, food consumption pattern, and various aspects of livelihood
was assessed based on a household survey in Udayapur district. The total households
surveyed were 100, i.e. 50 households each from (a) BIF adopted farmers; and (b)

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

115
conventional farmers (taken as control) every year. Household food insecurity scale was
computed as suggested by Coates et al (2007).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Addressing livelihoods through social and financial assets building

Farmer's groups (FG) or cooperatives/ farmer's networks (FN), Model Demonstration
Farms (MDF) cum Farmer’s Field School (FFS) are the major components of BIF
system. FGs are the main implementing agencies at local level. Their cooperatives and
networks are actively engaged in extension, marketing and advocacy activities. MDF of
BIF system is a component developed by B P Rajbhandari in 1992; and that was first
implemented in Nuwakot district. It is a space for participatory action research, farmer-
to-farmer extension and promotion/development of new technologies. It has also been
serving as a FFS where local farmers learn about successful new technologies
experimented by the local farmers in their MDFs.

The following indicators of achievements and impacts have validated the appropriateness
of the BIF approach for building / strengthening social assets:

� Farmer's groups/cooperatives/networks strengthened
� FG/FN engaged in advocacy for ensuring small/marginalized farmer's rights
� MDF/FFS are attaining success in meeting its goal of extension of sustainable
technologies
� Farm household's socio-economic status upgraded
� Soil fertility improved
� Local farm level bio-diversity conserved in-situ
� Poverty and food insecurity level declining substantially
� Household livelihoods getting better

Validating the approach through impacts on access and control over quality food

Food availability and purchasing capacity are the important determinants for the food
security of the household. In this study, we have perceived food security as a continuous
access to safe (non-hazardous) and nutritious food both in terms of quality and quantity to
meet the dietary requirement and preference of each member of a HH to live a healthy
and productive life. Access of the balanced diet is ensured through consumption of
cereals, vegetables, fruits and livestock products in required amounts daily. We have
summarized the findings of the study into four major categories, viz. food sufficiency
period from own farm production; nutritional security through daily consumption of
green vegetables; food security status in terms of absence of worry about availability
food stuffs at home; and food insecurity in terms of availability or access to preferred
food items at home.

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

116
Cropping intensity and yield efficiency

Statistically significant relationships among cropping intensity, crop diversity inde (CDI),
land utilization index (LUI) and yield efficiency (YE) were reported by Rajbhandari
(2010). Postive relationship between cropping intensity and CDI was reported by Duwal
(2008) and Shahidullah et al (2006). Duwal (2008) and Sharma (2009) reported that
severity of pest damage was more in CFS than in BFS. That resulted in yield decline in
CFS. These results have shown positive impacts of bio-intensive farming system in
increasing cropping intensity an yield efficiency per unit area owing to scientific crop
rotation and IPM followed by the concerned farmers. They have also reported positive
indicators in regard to soil structure and fertility in the land where bio-intensive farming
has been practiced at least for 5 years.

Food sufficiency

Food sufficiency from own farm production was categorized into commonly used groups
like 0-3 month, 3-6 months, 6-9 months, 9-12 months and > 12 months. The results
summarized in Figure 1 revealed that, in 2007, nearly 40 percent of BIF households had
food sufficiency for 9-12 months and only 12 percent households had food sufficiency
for >12 months, i.e. they had some surplus production as well, which enabled them to
generate some income. In 2008, the situation was a little bit different among the BIF
farmers. The percentage of households with food sufficiency of 1-3, 3-6 and >12 months
had increased as compared to previous year.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge

H
H
1 to 3 3 to 6 6 to 9 9 to 12 >12
Food sufficiency months/ year
2007 2008

Figure 1 Food sufficiency from own farm production and income

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

117
This might be due to the impact of climate change, i.e. late monsoon, less amount of
rainfall, and high temperature accompanied with drought in the summer season; and
family size. Small farmers (< 0.3 hectare/household), i.e. majority of the sampled
households, were more affected by these natural phenomena; and had food sufficiency
only for 1-3 months or 3-6 months. The households with relatively larger (>1 hectares/
household) or medium (0.5 to 1 hectare/household) land size and access to other inputs,
particularly irrigation pumps, were able to cope with the adversity; and had been able to
produce food crops more than required for one year.

WOREC Nepal has been providing support for irrigation pumps. Thus BIFS has direct
impact on improving the food sufficiency situation in the study areas, where WOREC
Nepal has been implementing this programme. The situation was worse among the
households with CFS. Quite a big percentage of (55-65%) households had food
sufficiency for 1-3 and 3-6 months only.

Shift in vegetable consumption pattern

Nepali people are primarily rice eaters. Traditionally rural people have a tendency of
eating big volume of rice and taking vegetable or pulses as a supplement to help eat rice.
Indeed, green vegetables are major source of minerals and vitamins and pulse a good
source of vegetable protein. Attempt was therefore made to assess the shift in vegetable
consumption and pulse consumption patterns among the targeted populations taking them
as indicators of better nutritional security. It was found that daily consumption of the
seasonal vegetables was more among BIFS growers than CFS growers (Shrestha 2006;
Nepal 2007, and Chaudhary 2008). The data presented in Table 1 have revealed that
consumption of green vegetables per person was increasing. The percentage of
households consuming 210 g vegetables per day per person was only 9 percent in 2006
and it increased to 18% in 2007 and again to 56 percent in 2008.

Table 1 Impact of BIFS on daily HH consumption of green vegetables
Sources: (a) Shrestha (2006); (b) Nepal, 2007; (c) Chaudhary, 2008
Note: * FAO Standard for green vegetable =125 g/person/day; potatoes = 85
g/person/day

2006 (a) 2007 (b) 2008 (c) Consumption of
vegetables per HH
g/day (g/person/day)

Average
Family
members
Percent Average
Family
members
Percent Average
Family
members
Percent
300 (150) up to 3 8 up to 3 10 up to 3 8
800 (200) 4 -5 80 4 -5 70 4 -5 34
1300 (210) 6- 10 9 6 - 10 18 6 - 10 56
1800 (150) > 10 3 > 10 2 > 10 2
Total (178) (6) 100 (6) 100 (6) 100

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

118
There are two reasons for this: i. the BIFS farmers have become more aware of the
importance of vegetables in their daily diet, and ii. they have been producing varieties of
vegetables in their own farm both in the rice-based and maize-based cropping systems
and therefore have improved their access to vegetables. This should be taken as a good
impact of BIFS on nutritional security of the rural population, particularly the
marginalized small farmers and women.

Household food security status

Effect of BIFS in improving the household food security status was quite positive, which
is evident from the Figure 2. Household food security status of the farm households
engaged in BIFS was significantly higher than those engaged in mainstream conventional
farming system (CFS) in 2007 and 2009.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2007 2009
Year
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
BIFS CFS

Figure 2 Average household food security status in the study area, Udayapur

Household food insecurity status

Mildly food insecure

Those households that worry about not having enough food, and /or is unable to eat
preferred foods rarely, and/or eats a monotonous diets or eats less preferred foods rarely
are mildly food insecure. It should be noted that these households does not cut back on
the quantity nor experience any of the three most severe conditions. In 2007, it was found
that 26 percent of the households practicing the BIFS were found to be mildly food

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

119
insecure while this was found to be only 16 percent in CFS adopting farmers. In 2009,
percentage of the CFS adopting farm households had increased (Figure 3).

Moderately food insecure

Those households that sometimes or often eat monotonous diets, and/or eat less preferred
foods, and or rarely or sometimes cut back the size of meals per day but does not
experience any of the three most severe conditions are considered moderately food
insecure households. In 2007, it was found that 16 percent of the BIFS adopting farmers
and 12 percent of the CFS adopting farmers were found to be moderately food insecure.

Severely food insecure

Those households that often cut back the meal size and number of meal per day and/or
experiences (even rarely) any of the above severe cases are considered as severely food
insecure. In 2007, it was found that 22 percent of the BIFS adopting farmers and 44
percent of the CFS adopting farmers were severely food insecure, while in 2009, the
percentage of the BIFS adopting farmers had gone very low (Figure 3).

-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
M
ild
ly
M
o
de
ra
te
ly
Se
v
er
el
y
M
ild
el
y
M
o
de
ra
te
ly
Se
v
er
el
y
2007 2009
Food insecurity status by year and type
of farming system
Pe
rc
e
n
ta
ge
BIF CFS Poly. (CFS) Poly. (BIF)

Figure 3 Household food insecurity status by type of farming system and year

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

120
It was found that higher the household insecurity access scale (HFIAS) score, higher the
food insecurity and vice-versa. Thus, the BIFS adopting households (BIFSAH) with the
HFIAS score of 2.58 were found to be highly food secured as compared to the CFS
adopting households (CFSAH) with HFIAS score of 5.24 (Table 2). It is obvious from
the figures that BIF intervention has significantly (twice) improved the food insecurity
situation in targeted areas and communities.

Table 2 Average HFIAS Score of BIFS and CFS


Livelihoods

Household income from vegetable production

It was found that almost all the farmers adopting BIF used to sell the vegetables and used
that money to fulfill the basic needs of the family e.g. education, clothes, etc but very few
farmers adopting CFS used to sell their vegetables. The farmers adopting CFS said that
the cultivated vegetables were shared with their neighbors and relatives. They argued that
vegetable selling is not a tradition in their villages. However, some of the farmers
adopting CFS have started selling vegetables. About 30 percent of the respondents
adopting BIF had gross annual income of Rs 9000-12000 while 20 percent of the
respondents adopting CFS had gross annual income of Rs 1000-3000 (Shrestha 2006).
Similar results were reported by Bhandari (2006) and Chaudhary (2005). There were
certain constants that were considered during the study in which farmers did not have to
invest the money from their pockets and these constants were self produced seeds,
organic manure (OM), botanical pesticides, own implements, transportation, land, etc. It
was revealed that households with various food security status spent their income from
vegetables variously (Figure 4). Those with less months of food sufficiency spent the
income for procuring food, while those with food sufficiency of 12 or more months spent
the income more for education of the children and farming enterprise. It can be concluded
that farmers engaged in BIFS have been able to generate extra income from their farms
owing to increased cropping intensity and crop diversity to cope with the worsening food
insecurity situation or to invest more for promoting farming enterprise. This can be taken
as a good indicator towards sustainable livelihoods.






Average HFIAS Score
Year BIFSAH CFSAH
2007 2.58 5.24
2009 4.25 6.82 0

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

121
Utilisation of HH income in relation to FS status
0
10 10 10 10
0
15 15 20 20
0
5 10
15 20
100
70 65
55 50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
3 6 9 12 >12
FS status (sufficiency in months)
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
Basic needs expen. Ed. Exp.
Farming expen. Food exp.











Figure 4 Utilization of HH incomes in relation to FS status among the
BIFS adopting households


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Bio-intensive farming system promotes practice of scientific crop rotation, integrated
plant nutrient management, integrated pest management that ultimately increase the crop
biodiversity and yield efficieny along with conservation/revitalisationof the crop land.
This system also improves food security and livelihooods situation of the small farm
households.

Bio-intensive farming system is recommended to promote for widespread adoption in
other areas or districts of the country. Efforts to promote widespread adoption of BIFS
for improving livelihoods and sustainability would require an understanding of how
variability among individual, household, farm, and national-level characteristics affect
farmers’ response to incentives and disincentives.

REFERENCES

Bhandari, A., 2006. A Comparative study between Bio-intensive farming system and Subsistence
Farming System. BSc (Honours) Ag Thesis. HICAST, Purbanchal University,
Kathmandu.
Braun, J.V., Swaminath, M.S. & Rosegrant, M.W., 1991. Agriculture, Food security, Nutrition and
the Millenium Development Goals. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

122
Buzzard, I.M., Schakel, S.F. & Ditter-Johnson, J., 1995. Quality control in the use of food and
nutrient databases for epidemiologic studies. In H. Greenfield, (ed.) Quality and
accessibility of food-related data. Proceedings of the First International Food Data Base
Conference, pp. 241–252. Arlington, VA, USA, AOAC International.
Calla, A.F. & Revoredo, C.L., 2001. Prospects for Global Food Security. International Food Policy
Research Institute Washington, DC.
Carney, D., 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihood. Department for International Development,
London.
Chambers, R. & Conwy, G., 1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihood: Practical Concepts for the
Twenty-First Century. In: ISD Discussion paper 296. University of Sussex, Brighton,
UK.
Chaudhary, D., 2005. Comaparative advantage of vegetable production in bio-intensive farming
system: a case study of Udayapur district. BSc (Hons) Agriculture Thesis, HICAST,
Purbanchal University.
Coates, J., Swindale, A., & Paula., 2006. Household Food insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for
measurement of household access: Indicator guide. Washington D.C.,USA
DADO, 2005. Annual Agriculture Development Report, Pprogramme and Stastical Booklet.
DADO, Udayapur, Nepal.
DFID, 1999. Briefing on sustainable livelihood and poverty elimination. DFID, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Duwal, A., 2008, Comparative effectiveness of pest management practices under bio-intensive
farming system and conventional farming system in Udayapur district. BSc (Honours)
Agriculture Thesis, HICAST, Purbanchal University, 66 pp.
FAO, 2011. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC911E/ac911e05.htm (visited Nov. 2011)
Lupien, J.R., 1994. The FAO Food Composition Initiative. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture.
Mahbub ul Haq, 2010. Report on Human Development in South Asia, Human Development Centre.
Nepal, N & Rajbhandari, B.P., 2007. Comparison of food security situation among the farmers
adopting BIFS and CFS in Udayapur district Green field Journal, HICAST, 5(1), pp. 96-
100..
Rajbhandari, B.P., 2010. Relationship among eco-technical parameters and yield efficiency in bio-
intensive farming and conventional farming systems. Nepalese J of Agricultural Sciences,
vol 8, pp. 137-142.
Rajbhandari, B.P., 2006. Sustainable livelihood and rural development in South Asia: issues,
concern and general implications. In: Globalizing Rural Development: Competing
Paradigms and Emerging Realities (ed) M.C. Behera, SAGE Publ., India. pp.
Rajbhandari, B.P., 2004. Concept, principles and approaches of bio-intensive farming system.
Green field Journal, HICAST, Bhaktapur. 2(2):1-3.
Rajbhandari, B.P., 2002 Partnership for Sustainable Livelihoods in the Fight for Food Security.
Development Journal, SAGE publication, Rome, Italy, 45(3).
Rajbhandari, B.P., 2001. Integrated animation and bio- intensive farming system: a case study of
Nuwakot, WOREC, Kathmandu.
Rajbhandari, B.P. and Gautam B.R. 1998. Bio-intensive Farming System Manual. WOREC, Nepal.
Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods- A framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper
72: Institute of Development Studies 9 IDS. UK.
Scheer, J. A. 2008. Threat to Developing Country Food security by 2020. International food policy
research institute.
Shahidullah, S.M., Talukder, M.A., Kabir, M.S., Khan, A.H. & Nur-E-Elahi, 2006. Cropping
patterns in the south east coastal region of Bangladesh. J Agric Rural Dev., 4(1&2), pp.
53-60.

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

123
Sharma, S. 2009. Impact of bio-intensive integrated pest management on technological shift,
household income and food security in Udayapur district. BSc (Honours) Ag Thesis.
HICAST, Purbanchal University, Kathmandu.
Shrestha, S. 2006, Role of intensive vegetable production for sustainable livelihoods. BSc
(Honours) Agriculture Thesis. HICAST, Purbanchal University, Kathmandu.
Swaminathan., M.S. 1996. Sustainable agriculture towards food security. Konark Publ., ND,
India.259 pp.
Thapa, S. and Rajbhandari, B.P. 2005 Bio- intensive farming system: women’s engagement in
agro-biodiversity conservation. Green field Journal, HICAST, Bhaktapur. 3(2):164-171.
Thapa, S. and Rajbhandari, B.P. 2006. Bio-intensive farming system: an approach for evergreen
revolution. Green field Journal, HICAST, Bhaktapur. 4(2):90-94.
WOREC. 2009. Annual Report. (Ed.) B. P. Rajbhandari, WOREC Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences
2011, volume 9, ISSN 2091-042X

124