Integrated Farming Systems

David W Archer, Jose G Franco, Jonathan J Halvorson, and Krishna P Pokharel, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Northern Great
Plains Research Laboratory, Mandan, ND, Unites States
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Definition 1
History 2
Drivers 3
Integrated Farming Examples 4
Challenges and Opportunities to Integrated Farming 6
References 6
Further Reading 7

Glossary
Alley cropping Planting rows of trees or shrubs with grain or forage crops planted between the tree rows. Alley cropping is
sometimes called hedgerow intercropping, and is a type of intercropping with larger spaces between rows that allows for
managing the crops separately.
Cover crop A crop planted during a fallow period to provide ecosystem benefits. These may include soil cover to reduce soil
erosion, inputs to soil organic carbon, weed suppression, nutrient retention, and pollinator benefits.
Crop rotation A sequence of crops on a field in succeeding growing seasons or years, often in a consistent and repeating
pattern. For, example in a corn-soybean rotation, corn would be grown in the first year, soybean in the second year, and corn in
the third year. However, in a dynamic crop rotation, crop choices may be selected each year or growing season based on
environmental or economic criteria, without following a consistent pattern.
Economies of scale The cost advantages enjoyed by firms that are larger in size. Among the reasons economies of scale may
occur on a farm are the ability to spread equipment and machinery costs over more units of production, use of larger
equipment which reduces labor use per unit of production, and the ability to negotiate better prices on product sales and
volume discounts on purchased inputs.
Economies of scope The cost advantages enjoyed by firms that have multiple enterprises. These occur through interactions
among the enterprises that increase efficiency of producing and marketing multiple products rather than a single product.
Ecosystem services The direct and indirect benefits humans obtain from ecosystems. The four major categories of ecosystems
services are provisioning services, supporting services, regulating services, and cultural services.
Green manure crop Plants left in the field to serve as a soil amendment. Typically these are cover crops and are often
incorporated into the soil using tillage.
Intercropping Growing two or more crops in the same field at the same time. The crops are often grown in alternating rows or
mixed within rows.
Mixed crop-livestock farming Integrated farming systems that include both crops and livestock. Also called integrated crop-
livestock systems.
Monocropping Growing the same crop on a field every growing season or year without rotating to another crop.

Definition

Integrated farming has been defined in numerous ways, and could be envisioned as encompassing a range of agricultural systems
arrayed along a continuum of possible organizational structures, and spatial and temporal scales (Bell and Moore, 2012). Some
common definitions include the agricultural production system with multiple enterprises that interact in space and /or time to get
benefits through a synergistic resource transfer among enterprises (Hendrickson et al., 2008). An emphasis in these systems is
managing interactions so that waste from one component becomes an input for another component of the system, reducing the
need for purchasing and applying expensive and potentially polluting inputs, such as fuel, fertilizers and pesticides, reducing
leakages to the environment, and increasing overall production or income. The key factors in integrated farming systems are the
inter-dependence among enterprises within the system, synergetic transfer of resources among enterprises and the flexibility in the
system to be sustainable in the long run (Hendrickson et al., 2008; Vereijken, 1989). Integrated farming systems are often assumed
to include both crop and livestock enterprises, called mixed crop-livestock farming or integrated crop-livestock systems. However,
integrated farming systems may broadly include systems where only multiple crop components interact. These include crop
rotational systems, use of annual and perennial cover crops, green manure crops, or intercropping to reduce the need for purchased
inputs by fixing or retaining nutrients and reducing weed, disease, and pest pressures.

Encyclopedia of Ecology, 2nd Edition https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.10562-7 1

2 Integrated Farming Systems

Fig. 1 Continuum of farming system integration in three interacting dimensions: temporal, spatial, and organization.

Following Bell and Moore (2012), we describe integrated farming systems using the three interacting dimensions; organization,
space, and time (Fig. 1). However, we envision a continuum for each rather than discrete classes, emphasizing the wide range of
systems that occur. The organization scale is represented by the number of enterprises ranging from specialized (n ¼ 1) to diversified
interactions (n ¼ many). The spatial integration scale is represented by the operating distance between enterprises and ranges from
segregated to co-located. Within the continuum of spatial scales, two broad scale categories that have been identified are integration
within a single farm unit and regional integration among multiple farms (Russelle et al., 2007). However, there are ranges of
integration within these categories. The temporal integration scale refers to the separation in time between cooperating enterprises
and ranges from uncoordinated independence to synchronized. Temporal separation includes sequencing of enterprises that can
occur over multiple years or even decades, also known as phase farming. Sequencing enterprises also includes the traditional idea of
crop rotation, with different crops grown each cropping season or year. With synchronized enterprises, multiple enterprises occupy
the same unit of land at the same time, or within the same growing season. For example, using grazing animals within a growing
crop, or grazing crop residues after grain crop harvest. In this representation, the most closely integrated farms are those with many
enterprises that are co-located and synchronized temporally. Two additional integration dimensions of ownership and manage-
ment have also been described (Sumberg, 2003), where ownership describes the degree to which assets are in the hands of a single
entity, and management describes the degree to which management control is in the hands of a single entity. Integration tends to
decrease when assets or management control are distributed across multiple entities. Informal integration among multiple farms or
more organized farm cooperatives are instances where integration can cross multiple ownership and management entities.
Contracts between specialist crop and livestock producers for the transfer of manures and, to a lesser extent, feed can be a
mechanism to increase the adoption rate of integrated farming (Wilkins, 2008).

History

Evidence for the development of agriculture, including both crop and livestock domestication, has been uncovered in various parts
of the world dating back some 10–12 thousand years, and has been termed the “Neolithic Revolution”. The gradual and sporadic
evolution from reliance on nomadic hunting and gathering to practices that promoted greater food security is thought to have been
influenced by several factors including environmental limitations/opportunities or socio-economic drivers. Larger and more
dependable supplies of food together with their requisite investments of time and labor ultimately resulted in the development
of permanent settlements, higher population growth with concomitant increases in societal complexity, and the emergence of new
technology. At some point there was a transition from coincidental husbandry of animals dependent on natural resources (e.g.
pasture) to purposeful integration of animals and crops such that temporal, spatial and organizational synergies between under-
utilized resources or waste products such as crop residues and animal manure were realized (Hilimire, 2011).
In integrated farming systems of the past, animals were used directly for food or to provide other services such as power (draught
animals) or transportation (horses). In addition, animals were employed indirectly to provide services such as weed and pest
control, fertilization, or pollination; or food items such as milk, eggs or honey. Animals were also a source of materials such as
manure or leather that could be sold directly or converted to a value-add product, returning cash to the enterprise (Devendra and
Thomas, 2002). The emergence of new technologies, along with the availability of abundant and cheap natural resources,
characterized the industrial revolution of the18th and 19th centuries. Important technologies that led to changes in agriculture
included mechanical transportation and power technologies. A particular watershed development was the development and
 Integrated Farming Systems 3

adoption of the tractor in the 1920s that heralded a decline in the use of animals for farm labor (Hilimire, 2011). This reduced the
need for individual farms to raise both livestock and crops, and reduced the need for production of forage crops. Transportation
technologies also allowed for regional specialization in agricultural production as goods could be cheaply transported over larger
distances. Additional technological developments included synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. These further reduced the need for
individual farms to raise both livestock and crops, and reduced the need for crop rotations and legumes for nitrogen fixation, as
fertilizers could be used to meet crop nutrient needs, and pesticides could be used to manage weed and insect pests. Continued
technological developments, including the development of high yielding, pest-resistant, and herbicide tolerant crops further
contributed to feasibility and desirability of specialized and intensified agricultural practices that accompanied global patterns of
development and have come to be termed “conventional”.
The resultant patterns of increasing specialization and decreasing integrated mixed farming systems have varied widely, perhaps
reflecting transitions between alternative sets of divergent competing paradigms that are thought to define and differentiate
conventional from non-conventional or “alternative: agriculture (Beus and Dunlap, 1990). Although many of the methods and
approaches characteristic of conventional agriculture are of ancient origin (Merrill, 1983), conventional agriculture has come to be
associated with intensively managed, specialized management systems that evolved primarily in an attempt to increase production
efficiency and economic returns. Often, the goals of increasing production or reducing the risk of crop failure were achieved by
focusing management efforts on a single or just a few factors selected to produce the greatest increases in crop growth or yield.
Emphasis on increasing productivity through management of a critical limiting resource such as water or nitrogen, guided the
development of management strategies and technology, and resulted in significant increases in productivity, but did so at the
expense of other ecosystem services. Ecosystem services can be classified into four major categories; provisioning, regulating,
supporting, or cultural services and are those indirect and direct benefits to humans obtained from ecosystems (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). For this discussion we focus on provisioning services such as food, forage, fiber and fuel; supporting
services such as biodiversity, soil fertility and nutrient cycling; and regulating services such as habitat for wildlife, insects, and
pollinators, and the regulation of water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon sequestration, and soil loss due to erosion.
Primary focus on management practices that focused on provisioning, and were highly responsive to market demand and other
economic pressures, favored economies of scale and tend to favor specialize farming systems (Peyraud et al., 2014).
Organic farms are examples of farms that are typically integrated, with producers utilizing crop rotations, cover crops, and
integration of crops and livestock to eliminate the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farming has increased
steadily in the U.S. over the last 25 years. This is associated with increased demand for organic products and resulting persistent price
premiums for organic crops that improve the profitability of organic systems. Even among farms that are not certified organic, there
has been resurgence in interest in integrated farming in the U.S. This is reflected in recent interest and emphasis on soil health, and
practices that can build soil health, such as reduced tillage and diversified crop rotations, with a particular emphasis on the use of
cover crops. Increased use of cover crops has encouraged producers to consider bringing livestock to farms that have specialized in
crop production only.

Drivers

Several types of drivers influence the adoption of integrated farming systems including economic, environmental, and social
(Hendrickson et al., 2008). Economic drivers include production complementarities, risk, and management requirements.
Integrated farming systems have economic benefits through economies of scope. Economies of scope occur when it is cheaper to
produce two or more products simultaneously than producing them separately. Integrated crop-livestock systems reduce produc-
tion costs due to complementarities in production such as use of grain screenings or crop residues for animal feed and subsequent
application of livestock manure to land as fertilizer. The benefits of economies of scope tend to be more pronounced for small farms
than for large farms, so there are stronger incentives for integration in small farms.
Farmers are generally risk averse and favor practices that reduce risk exposure. Integrated farming systems may reduce economic
risk through diversification of production across multiple enterprises, when economic returns for these enterprises are imperfectly
correlated. Integrated systems, however, increase management complexity due to the need to understand and coordinate multiple
enterprises. This can be an important barrier to the adoption of these systems, and exemplifies the concept of bounded rationality
(Simon, 1957). Productivity and economic performance can be reduced if administrative decisions are limited by managers’ ability
to process and act on complex information. Thus, if integrated systems are more complex, this can decrease productivity and create
incentives against integration (Chavas, 2008).
While integrated agricultural systems have many benefits, there is a current trend toward specialized and large scale farms,
reducing the number of farmers and increasing total assets through mergers and consolidations. This is particularly apparent in
developed countries where the benefits gained through economies of scope decrease with increased farm size. Large farms may
benefit from specialization, which is associated with economies of scale. Economies of scale exist if the per unit cost decreases with
an increased farms size by spreading incremental cost over more production units. Specialized and large scale farms characteristi-
cally use technology intensive production systems. Intensive use of technology in agriculture may lead to a transition from within-
farm integration to among-farm integration, and favor large agribusinesses that reduce cost through economies of scale and through
higher market power and market access. Policy makers and large agribusinesses may prefer large systems as it reduces the number of
stakeholders they must deal with and reduces transaction costs (Russelle et al., 2007).
4 Integrated Farming Systems

With regard to environmental drivers, two main drivers for integration in North America are environmental concerns associated
with excess nutrients produced by intensive livestock production, and high energy inputs for mono-cropping system (Russelle et al.,
2007). Integrated farming systems are relatively self-sufficient, requiring less purchased fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide inputs.
This occurs since integrated systems utilize outputs from one enterprise as inputs to other enterprises, often use legumes in rotation
reducing the need for purchased nitrogen, and include diverse crop rotations that help reduce weed, insect, and disease pressures.
These reductions in purchased inputs also help to diminish production costs for integrated systems. Improved energy efficiency,
realized with integrated systems, results from reductions in the use of purchased inputs, particularly applied nitrogen fertilizers, but,
in some cases from lower tillage use as a result of less fuel needed to power equipment.
Integrated farming systems are thought to enhance a wide range of environmental services due to the higher level of diversity in
these systems compared to specialized monocropping systems, and, in turn, reduced adverse environmental impacts. Examples of
environmental services positively impacted by integrated systems include reduced soil erosion, increased soil organic carbon,
improved soil biological function, reduced irrigation water use, and improved water quality (Sanderson et al., 2013). As a result,
these systems are considered to be better for public health (Vereijken, 1989). This is a significant social driver and may be
economically beneficial for producers since consumers are willing to pay price premiums for high quality goods that are perceived
to be more beneficial due to growing awareness and concern for health, environment, social responsibility, and animal welfare,
particularly in developed countries (USDA-ERS). In addition to the offsite effects, improved environmental services on integrated
farms include increased soil fertility, and enhanced water quantity and quality, resulting in higher crop and livestock productivity,
and increasing profitability in the long run. While the economic impacts from these farm resource conservation benefits may not be
apparent in the short-term, they are important for maintaining long-term sustainability (Russelle et al., 2007).

Integrated Farming Examples

Integrated farming is a common practice in developing countries where farmland acreage, and access to manufactured fertilizers and
agrochemicals are limited. In many developing countries land holdings are typically less than 1 ha. In comparison, average U.S.
farm size in 2011 was 95 ha (234 ac) of cropland, but the median was just 18 ha (45 ac), indicating a large number of small farms.
However, there were also many large farms with half of the cropland accounted for by farms 445 ha (1100 ac) or greater, and the
size of this ‘midpoint farm’ had nearly doubled since 1982 (MacDonald et al., 2013). For the purposes of this chapter, we define
small-scale systems as farms less than 40 ha (100 ac) in size, large-scale systems as farms between 40 ha and 800 ha (100–2000 ac),
and very large-scale systems as farms larger than 800 ha (2000 ac). The examples given here are not meant to encompass all types of
integrated approaches, but rather to highlight a few practices that are more common to or increasing in popularity within the farm
scale in question.
Out of necessity, small-scale farms lend themselves to integrated practices that rely heavily on synergistic relationships between
system components while maximizing production per unit of land. In developed countries, the local foods movement has, in part,
driven a more deliberate approach to integrated farming in small-scale systems that attempt to mimic natural ecosystem processes.
Small-scale systems, more so than large-scale, utilize manual harvesting and weeding in their operations. This allows for more
flexibility with regards to the type of and extent to which integrated practices can be applied. At this scale, intercropping, cover-
cropping, crop rotations, crop-livestock integration, and other cultural practices such as soil solarization, whereby solar energy is
trapped underneath transparent plastic to kill weed seeds and harmful soil organisms and soil-borne pathogens, and the use of on-
and off-farm sources of livestock manure and other soil amendments are all feasible. For example, low-input and organic systems, in
particular, rely more heavily on approaches such as intercropping at various spatial and temporal scales and cover cropping to
introduce biodiversity into the system.
Intercropping has long been used by small farmers around the world to satisfy dietary needs, spread labor requirements, reduce
crop failure risks and produce more food per unit of land. Prior to the 19400 s when mechanization, low-cost fertilizers and
pesticides, and improvements in plant breeding were not yet available, intercropping was also practiced in the United States and
Europe. Intercropping is the practice of growing two or more crops simultaneously so that positive plant interactions can be
exploited and available resources can be utilized more completely and efficiently. In many instances, it is also a method used to
reduce weed and insect pest pressure, and the spread and severity of disease. There are several types of intercropping, which include
mixed intercropping where crops are completely mixed, strip intercropping where crops are arranged in alternate rows, alley
cropping where crops are sown between tree rows in orchard or timber systems, and relay cropping where one crop is planted in the
same field of another crop that has completed its growth. The goal of this approach is to reduce labor and the need for external
inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides. Although not inclusive of all intercropping systems used around the world, examples of
some common intercropping systems include cassava- or banana-based systems intercropped with coffee, cocoa, rubber, or cowpea
in the tropics, maize-based intercropping with sweet potato, common bean, cowpea, or legume trees in Africa, rice-based systems
intercropped with melon or maize in Asia, and the traditional three sisters system utilized by native cultures in North America,
which consisted of maize-squash-beans. Companion crops in these types of systems are selected based complementarity of growth
forms and their function within the system, such as a nitrogen-fixation by legumes, and on harvest timing compatibility. While not
necessarily unique to small-scale systems, intercropping is not as widely practiced in large-scale systems due to management
complexities and mechanization considerations. With large-scale farms, intercropping must be specifically designed to allow for
 Integrated Farming Systems 5

mechanization. Often, this means selecting crops that mature at similar times, and thus can be harvested at the same time. Also, this
means selecting crops that can be easily separated at or after harvest, or utilized together as for food, seed, feed or forage. Also
intercropping at the large scale often includes a legume to provide nitrogen fixing benefits. Some large-scale intercropping examples
that exhibit these characteristics include canola/field pea, canola/spring wheat/field pea, winter wheat/hairy vetch, and oat/
field pea.
The adoption of cover crops has become increasingly popular regardless of farm type or farm size. Annual crop rotations and
cropping systems that integrate cover crops can provide a number of ecosystem services. Multi-species cover crop mixtures are often
promoted as a way of introducing diversity and redundancy into the system to be more resilient to abiotic stressors. The functional
diversity concept from ecology is often easiest applied to cover crops as species representing broad categories of plant types are often
included. Examples of functional group categories include warm-season grasses, warm-season legumes, cool-season legumes,
warm-season broadleaf plants, and cool-season broadleaf plants. Species are selected based on site-specific problems and priorities.
For instance, cover crops such as radish and turnip are used as a biological method of aerating soil in no-till cropping systems and as
method of increasing biological activity and nutrient cycling. Phacelia, buckwheat, and mustard are examples of crops used in
mixtures in areas where pollinator resources are a priority due to floral qualities that attract pollinators. Grass cover crops such as
rye, wheat, and millet are popular for their ability to compete with weeds and reduce weed pressure. Crops with deep rooting
characteristics such as sunflower and sorghum-sudangrass are utilized for their ability to scavenge excess nutrients from deeper soil
depths, thereby reducing soil nutrient leaching. Sorghum-sudangrass and other grasses are also examples of high-biomass cover
crops that build soil organic matter and contribute to enhanced soil fertility over the long-term. There are many other examples and
uses for cover crops, such as forage for livestock in integrated crop-livestock systems. Additionally, there may be trade-offs between
the types of crops used and the types of and extent to which ecosystem services are provided (Schipanski et al., 2014). For instance, a
cover crop mixture that is designed to maximize pollinator resources may provide poor quality forage for livestock in an integrated
system.
Another example of an integrated approach unique to small-scale farms is the increasingly popular practice of aquaponics.
Typically associated with greenhouse or other controlled environment production systems, aquaponics is the combination of fish
culture (aquaculture) and soilless plant production (hydroponics). In this type of production system, nutrients derived from fish
waste, with tilapia being the most common fish species used, are recirculated through the system and utilized by plants to meet their
nutrient requirements. Typically, large quantities of fish are raised in small volumes of water to allow an accumulation of non-toxic
nutrient concentrations (Rakocy et al., 2006). Solids from fish effluent are removed through filters and depending upon the type of
aquaponics system, effluent may go through additional treatment processes to remove toxic waste products. Microbes break down
remaining waste and convert nitrogen into a form that can then be taken up by plants. If optimal ratios are achieved, this approach
creates a balanced system that intensifies production while minimizing adverse environmental impacts and reducing production
costs.
While integration of crop-livestock is not unique to small-scale farms, small-scale systems typically allow for more diverse types
of livestock to be utilized. For instance, chickens are more easily integrated into small-scale cropping systems with the use of mobile
chicken coops that can be rotated across different areas on the farm. These so-called animal tractors, which can also include other
types of livestock rotated in pens or paddocks, allow manure to be spread throughout the farm, which supplies fertilizer for crops.
These types of systems also provide additional benefits to the system such as soil aeration through scratching and chicken pecking
behavior, weed seed and insect pest consumption, and recycling of plant materials. Although less common in large-scale farms,
additional livestock are sometimes included on a portion of the farm as available management and labor allow.
Regardless of scale, the most common form of crop-livestock integration occurs in forage systems whereby livestock graze on
crop residues, cover crops following an annual crop, annual forages, improved pastures, and forages in alley-cropping systems. In
under-developed countries, livestock commonly continue to provide energy with which to power farm equipment such as
cultivators and plows. Livestock provide additional benefits by grazing on weeds, thereby reducing reliance on herbicides. As in
animal tractor systems, livestock grazing provides direct manure application into the system, reducing the need for external fertilizer
inputs. That is not to say that externally sourced animal manures and other soil amendments may not be transferred from off farm.
For instance, many large- and very large-scale chicken, dairy, and mushroom production facilities sell composted organic waste
from their operations to nearby farms at relatively low cost. This significantly reduces waste from large- and very large-scale farms
while providing a locally-sourced, inexpensive and nutrient-dense fertilizer supply for farming operations.
In very large-scale farms, integration often tends to be less closely synchronized in time and space than in smaller-scale farms.
Examples from the U.S. Corn Belt include farms where grain and forages are produced on the farm and fed to dairy or beef cattle in a
feedlot on the farm. Often, some of the corn production is sold to a nearby plant for ethanol production, and resultant distillers’
grains are fed to the livestock. Manure from the livestock is applied to the crop fields to recycle nutrients. Methane is captured from
manure storage areas and is used to generate heat or electricity for use on the farm. This type of integration can occur on a single very
large-scale farm, or regionally across multiple farms. Often, on a very large-scale farm, there may be multiple managers to divide
management of separate enterprises. For example, the crop and livestock enterprises would often have separate managers. Integrated
systems are well suited to farms where multiple managers (often family members) have different interests and abilities, so
management of diverse enterprises can be subdivided. However, coordination among the multiple managers can represent an
additional challenge.
6 Integrated Farming Systems

Challenges and Opportunities to Integrated Farming

Despite the benefits of integrating farming, there has been a trend toward increased agricultural specialization in developed
countries, whereby crop and livestock enterprises have become increasingly disconnected (Wilkins, 2008; Hilimire, 2011).
Although mixed crop-livestock systems continue to dominate the landscape in Australia, there has been a shift toward crop-only
systems over recent decades. However, some of this trend is attributed to relative crop and livestock prices and could be slowed or
reversed if relative prices change (Bell and Moore, 2012). In places where agriculture has become more specialized, additional
capital investments may be necessary if re-integration is to occur, and this may serve as a barrier to adoption of these systems.
Integrated systems often require more labor, and may thus be challenged if there is a decreasing labor supply in agricultural sectors
or increasing labor costs. While there has been renewed interest in integrated farming systems in the U.S., it remains to be seen
whether this results in an increase in these systems. The current interest in cover crops, which serve a number of functions including
forage in crop-livestock systems, has led to research and development of new technology such as specialized equipment for
interseeding cover crops into existing cash crops. Such innovation is necessary utilize cover cropping in large scale farms, and will
help to foster adoption of these systems by allowing integration to occur while retaining scale economies. However, the costs of
these new technologies can serve as barriers to adoption.
Other technology trends in agriculture include continued advancement of precision agriculture, remote sensing, and informa-
tion technologies. These technologies promote more efficient use of purchased inputs, and have helped producers to manage larger
farms but may tend to reduce the relative benefits of integrated systems, and lead to further specialization. However, improving
information technologies could help managers deal with the complexities of integrated systems and reduce an important barrier to
their adoption. One of the many challenges for agricultural scientists will be to meld new and emerging technologies with integrated
farming approaches in order to exploit the benefits of each approach and maximize efficiency.
An important driver for the adoption of integrated systems is the desire to restore the function of degraded soils. Biological soil
amendments are an emerging technology purported to enhance soil biological function, and thereby improve nutrient cycling and
pest suppression. These amendments would replicate some of the improvements in soil health attributed to integrated agriculture
practices and might tend to reduce the incentives for integration. Other future trends that may influence adoption of integrated
systems are increasing energy costs and the emergence of pesticide resistant pests. Both may favor the adoption of integrated systems
which can reduce the use of energy intensive inputs, help reduce the development of pesticide resistance, and provide a suite of
alternative methods for managing pesticide resistant pests.
Future market demands can also have a significant effect on integrated systems. The need to meet food demands of a growing
population, but with limited land availability, will require increasing food production per unit land area in a sustainable manner.
An important component of this is the variation in the suitability of land for grain and forage production and the need to match the
mix of enterprises to land suitability. Farmers are more likely to adopt integrated crop-livestock practices in specialized cropping
areas on marginal lands where productivity is low due to natural soil or environmental factors. Integrated farming systems are well
suited to heterogeneous landscapes, where different portions of the landscape are better suited to different enterprises. While this
can result in non-integrated enterprises within a farm, such as when crops are grown on the most productive land, and livestock are
produced on less productive land, the proximity of these enterprises within a farm allow for greater opportunities to share resources
among enterprises through integration. Integrated systems can often increase productivity per unit land area, and they can also be
used to shift more livestock production toward forages, thereby freeing up grain production for human consumption (Bell and
Moore, 2012).While meeting future food needs is important, this will need to be accomplished while maintaining or enhancing
ecosystem services. The emerging market for sustainably produced foods may help provide economic incentives for integrated
systems which enhance ecosystem services.
Several methods have been proposed for overcoming challenges and increasing the adoption of integrated systems. These
include the use of environmental regulations and/or government payment to provide incentives for reducing environmental
impacts, which may reward integrated farming producers. Since integrated farming systems are complex, farmers’ ability to gain
benefits through synergies is an important factor for enhancing the adoption of integrated systems. Farmers’ management
knowledge and skill can be improved through training and research at the local level. Combining increased knowledge and skills
with technologies that help managers deal with complexity may facilitate greater adoption of these systems. Future developments in
technology, regulations, labor availability, and demands for food and ecosystem services will influence the adoption of integrated
farming systems, which may play a key role in meeting future food needs while maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services.

References
Bell LW and Moore AD (2012) Integrated crop-livestock systems in Australian agriculture: trends, drivers and implications. Agricultural Systems 111: 1–12.
Beus CE and Dunlap RE (1990) Conventional versus alternative agriculture: the paradigmatic roots of the debate. Rural Sociology 55: 590–616.
Chavas JP (2008) On the economics of agricultural production. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52(4): 365–380.
Devendra C and Thomas D (2002) Crop–animal interactions in mixed farming systems in Asia. Agricultural Systems 71: 27–40.
Hendrickson JR, Hanson JD, Tanaka DL, and Sassenrath G (2008) Principles of integrated agricultural systems: introduction to processes and definition. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems 23(04): 265–271.
Hilimire K (2011) Integrated crop/livestock agriculture in the United States: a review. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35: 376–393.
MacDonald JM, Korb P, and Hoppe RA (2013) Farm size and the organization of U.S. crop farming. ERR-152. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service.
 Integrated Farming Systems 7

Merrill MC (1983) Eco-Agriculture: a review of its history and philosophy. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 1: 181–210.
Peyraud JL, Taboada M, and Delaby L (2014) Integrated crop and livestock systems in Western Europe and South America: a review. European Journal of Agronomy 57: 31–42.
Rakocy JE, Masser MP, and Losordo TM (2006) Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: aquaponics – integrating fish and plant culture. Stoneville, MS: Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center. Publication No. 454.
Russelle MP, Entz MH, and Franzluebbers AJ (2007) Reconsidering integrated crop–livestock systems in North America. Agronomy Journal 99(2): 325–334.
Sanderson MA, Archer D, Hendrickson J, Kronberg S, Liebig M, Nichols K, Schmer M, Tanaka D, and Aguilar J (2013) Diversification and ecosystem services for conservation
agriculture: outcomes from pastures and integrated crop-livestock systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28(2): 129–144.
Schipanski ME, Barbercheck M, Douglas MR, Finney DM, Haider K, Kaye JP, Kemanian AR, Mortensen DA, Ryan MR, Tooker J, and White C (2014) A framework for evaluating
ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems 125: 12–22.
Simon HA (1957) Models of man, social and rational: mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sumberg J (2003) Toward a dis-aggregated view of crop–livestock integration in Western Africa. Land Use Policy 20: 253–264.
Vereijken P (1989) Experimental systems of integrated and organic wheat production. Agricultural Systems 30(2): 187–197.
Wilkins RJ (2008) Eco-efficient approaches to land management: a case for increased integration of crop and animal production systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences 363(1491): 517–525.

Further Reading

Lantinga E and Rabbinge R (1996) The renaissance of mixed farming systems: a way toward sustainable agriculture. In: Book of Abstracts 4th Congr. European Society for Agronomy,
pp. 428–429. Veldhoven, The Netherlands: European Society for Agronomy.
Van Keulen H and Schiere J (2004) In: Crop-livestock systems: old wine in new bottles, Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia.

Relevant Website
https://www.ers.usda.gov—United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.