DeJager, A., & Van Der Werf, E. (1992) - Ecological Agriculture in South-India

A.
de Jager Mededeling 459

E.van der Werf
ECOLOGICALAGRICULTURE IN SOUTH-INDIA
AN AGRO-ECONOMIC COMPARISONAND STUDYOF
TRANSITION
J u n e 1
"2 ^ - » , ,
^i£in«% SIGN: Ln~HW
£ EX. NO: B
«BUOTHEEK MLV :
Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI-DLO)

The Hague,The Netherlands
ETC-Foundation
Leusden,The Netherlands
ABSTRACT
ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE IN SOUTH-INDIA; AN AGRO-ECONOMIC COMPARISON

ANDSTUDYOF TRANSITION
Werf, E.vander andA.deJager
Leusden / The Hague, ETC-Foundation / Agricultural Economics Research Institute,
(LEI-DLO),1992
Mededeling459
ISBN90-5242-164-1
80p., 29tables,8figuresand 6annexes
This report describestwo research programmes carried out on ecological agricul-

ture inIndia.
Experiences of twelve farmers, in transition towards ecological agriculture, are
described and analyzed. A gradual approach iscrucial for success.The duration of
the transition period isdirectly related to the previous farming system, specifically
the amounts of mineral fertilizers used. An average transition takes three to five
years.
The comparative performance of seven farm pairs, consisting of one ecological
and one conventional reference farm, is analyzed in relation to agronomic and
economic performance. Ecological farms achieve similar economic resultsasconven-
tional farms, for gross margin/ha (Rs10,620.-and Rs11,515.- respectively) aswellas
net farm income/labourday (Rs32.-).Labour input per hectare also shows nosignifi-
cant difference. In ecological farmstrees and livestock are far more numerous than
inconventional farms (respectively 7:1and4:1).
Farmingsystems/Economy/Ecology/Sustainability/Ecologicalagriculture/Agriculture/
Labour/Production/Transition/Comparison/Soilfertility/Crop protection/Income/Inte-
gratedfarming/Agroforestry/lndia
CIP-GEGEVENSKONINKLIJKE BIBLIOTHEEK,DENHAAG
Werf, E.vander
Ecologicalagriculture inSouth-India :an agro-economic

comparison andstudy oftransition/ E. vanderWerf and
A.deJager.-Leusden:ETC-Foundation;The Hague:
Landbouw-Economisch Instituut (LEI-DLO).Fig.,tab.-
(Mededelingen/ Landbouw-Economisch Instituut (LEI-DLO);
no.459)
ISBN90-5242-164-1
NUGI835
Trefw.: landbouwecologie ;India/ landbouweconomie ;
India.
Thecontentsof this report maybequoted orreproducedwithout further permis-

sion.Dueacknowledgement isrequested.
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6
SUMMARY 7
1. INTRODUCTION 9
1.1 Background 9
1.2 ResearchwithintheAgriculture,Manand
Ecologyprogramme 9
1.3 Descriptionoffarmingsystems 10
1.4 Objectives 11
1.5 Set-upofthisreport 12
2. METHODOLOGY 13
2.1 Limitations andpossibilitiesofcasestudies 13
2.2 Transitionresearch 14
2.2.1 Introduction 14
2.2.2 Anexplorativeapproach 14
2.2.3 Classificationandsampling 15
2.3 Comparative agro-economic research 16
2.3.2 Approachand institutionalsetting 17
2.3.3 Classificationandsampling 17
2.3.4 Data collection 18
2.3.5 Dataprocessing andanalysis 18
2.4 Estimating sustainabllity 19
2.4.1 Levelsofanalysis 19
2.4.2 Sustainabllity indicators 20
3. RESULTS
RESULTS 21
3.1.1 Descriptionofthesurveyed farms 21
3.1.2 Thetransitionprocess 23
3.1.3 Agriculturalchanges implemented 25
3.1.4 Farmer characteristics 27
3.2.2 Resultsofcasesstudies 28
3.2.2.1 Case study1 28
Page
3.2.3 Generalcomparison ofecologicaland

conventionalagriculture AO
3.2.3.1 Introduction 40
3.2.3.2 Comparison ofagronomic aspectsof
ecologicalandconventionalfarming 41
3.2.3.3 Comparison ofeconomic aspects
ofecologicaland conventional
agriculture 46
3.2.3.4 Relationsbetween factors studied 52
3.2.3.5 Analysisatcroplevel 52
4. EVALUATIONOFMETHODOLOGY 55
5. CONCLUSIONS 57
5.1.1 Thetransitionprocess 57
5.1.2 Agriculturalchanges implemented 58
5.1.3 Farmer characteristics 59
5.1.4 Methodology 59
5.1.5 Barriersandmethods forsuccess 59
5.2 Agro-economic research 60
5.2.1 Agronomic aspects 60
5.2.2 Economic aspects 61
5.3 Extrapolations 62
5.3.1 Transition 62
5.3.2 Agro-economics 63
REFERENCES 65
ANNEXES 69
1. List ofterms 70
2. Qualitative agro-technicalanalysisoftransition 72
3. GeneralquestionnaireAgro-Economic research 74
4. Regularagro-economic farmsurvey;input/
output records 77
5. Checklist agriculturalsustainability 79
6. Correlationmatrix 80
PREFACE
Thisreport isabout theexperiences offarmers.It

describesthechangeprocess farmerswent throughtodevelop
theirconventionalagriculturalpractices intoasustainable
farmingsystem.Furthermore,itgivesdataonthe agro-economic
performanceofthesesustainable farming systems comparedwith
conventionalsystems.Alldatainthisreportdescribethe
resultsoftheactivitiesofrealfarmers,forwhom agriculture
istheirmainincomesource.Assuch,thisreport isthefirst
onegivingdetailed dataonthecomparative performanceofeco-
logicalagricultureatfarmlevelinthetropics.Thereport
illustratesthat,underthespecificconditionsofthesefarmers,
theirshort-termneeds forfoodand cashincome cansuccessfully
becombinedwiththesociety's long-termneed forsustainability.
Thesefindingsarepublished atamomentwhenthenecessity
forsustainableagriculturaldevelopment isacceptedbyan
increasingnumber ofindividuals,organizations andgovernments.
Theexperiences ofthesefarmers illustratethat ecological
farming iseconomicallyviable,evenwithout any support suchas
thatavailabletoconventional farmers (e.g.extension,subsi-
dized inputs).However,itisthislackofsupportwhichserious-
lyhampers thespreadingand furtherdevelopment of sustainable
farming.Maytheseresultsbeaninspiration forthosewhowant
tostrengthenagricultural support systemstowards stimulating
sustainable farmingpractices.Whennumerous farmershaveproven
that itispossible,weshoulddoourutmost tohelpotherswho
want tomoveinthesamedirection.
L.C.\Zacharias8e Â.J.E.Fje
JireqtorLEI-DLO DirectorET&^Foundation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thisreport Istheresultofthefirstyearoffield
researchintotransitionandagro-economicperformance ofeco-
logicalagriculture inSouth-India.Thisresearchprogramme is
executed aspartoftheAgriculture,ManandEcology (AME)pro-
gramme,Pondlcherry,India.ETCFoundation,Leusden,TheNether-
landsisimplementing thisprogramme since 1983.TheAgricultural
EconomicsResearchInstitute (LEI-DLO),TheHague,TheNether-
lands,participates intheresearchthroughconsultancy support
ontheeconomiccomponent oftheresearch.InIndia,TheInsti-
tute forCommand Studiesand IrrigationManagement (ICSIM)is
collaboratingwiththeÂMEprogramme fortheimplementation of
thisresearchprogramme.
Theauthorswould liketoexpresstheirsincere appreciation
to:
theMinistry ofDevelopment CooperationofTheNetherlands

foritssupport totheÂMEprogramme ingeneralandthis
researchinparticular.
the staffmembersofICSIMandÂME fortheircontributionin
fieldwork,dataprocessing anddataanalysis.
studentsoftheWageningenAgriculturalUniversity fortheir
contributiontothetransitionresearch.
the farmhouseholdswhoparticipated inthisresearchand
sharedtheirexperienceswithus.
SUMMARY
InSouth-Indiatworesearchprogrammeswere carried out.One

studying theexperiences oftwelve fannersintransition towards
ecologicalagriculture,andoneanalyzing the comparative per-
formanceofsevenpairsofecologicaland conventional farms in
relationtoagronomic and economicperformance.Ecologicalagri-
cultureisdefined asatypeofagriculturewhich seeksto
optimizetheuseof localresourcesthroughcreating complex and
divers farming systems,aimingatastable,growing and long
lastingproductionlevel.
Themainreasons fortransitionaretobe found inenviron-
ment/sustalnabilltyaspectsaswellashealth and food quality.
Intransition agradualapproach ispreferable.Only incases
whereexternal-Inputapplication isvery limited,transition can
takeplacewithinoneyear.Anaveragetransition takesthree to
fiveyears.Insituationswhere theoriginalapplications of fer-
tilizerandpesticides arehigh itmight take sevenyearsto com-
pleteatransitionwithoutmajornegativeeffectson farmincome.
Themost important limiting factoristhelackof information on
transitiontowardsecologicalagriculture.Availability of exter-
nalresourcescandecrease thetimeneeded fortransition con-
siderably.Themain changes implemented arein soilfertility and
pest anddiseasemanagement.Practically, farmers focuson
decreasing applicationofpesticides and fertilizer, increasing
cultivationofperennialand leguminous cropsand intensified
applicationoforganicmanure.
Onthebasisofoneyearofmonitoring field dataonlypre-
liminary conclusions canbedrawnontheagronomic and economic
effectiveness ofecologicalagriculture.Thegreater diversityof
techniquespractised insoilfertilitymanagement aswellas in
plantmanagement and greaterdiversity ofcrops cultivated in
ecologicalversus conventional farming isstriking. Ecological
farmshave seventimesmoretreesperhectare than conventional
farms.Conventionalandecological farmsare forrespectively 65Z
and 42Zdependent onexternalnutrients.Yieldsrealized inthe
different farming systems showno significant difference.
Ecological farmmanagementhas thepotentialto achieve
similareconomic resultsasconventionalmanagement.Totalnet-
farm-incomeper labourdayamountstoRs 32.-forbothsystems.
Labour inputperhectare showsno significant difference,nor
doesthesexualdivisionoftasks.Thecashcomponent ofthe
totalcost is50Z inecological farmsagainst 67Z in conventional
farms.Inecological farmsthecost formanure arelower compared
tothe conventionalfarmsandthe costs forexternal labour are
higher.Striking isthedifference intheshareofthe livestock
inthetotalincome,27Zinecological farmsagainst only 6Zin
conventional farms.Althoughpestsanddiseasescause serious
problemsduring thetransitionphase,ontheestablishedecologi-
cal farmstheabsenceofpesticides seemstocreatenoproblems.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
'Sustainable'isthekeypre-fix inanycurrent articleon

development.What startedasasmall 'alternative'searching for
newsolutionsgotworld-wide attentionwiththepublicationof
theBrundtland report -'Ourcommon future'-in 1987.Inthe 1990
policypaper- 'Aworld ofdifference'-ofTheNetherlandsMin-
isterofDevelopment Cooperationthereisastrong focusonenvi-
ronmentalissues.Thecontinuousdegradationofthenaturalenvi-
ronment isseenasathreattotheverysurvivalofmankind.In
degradationaswellaspreservationofnature,agriculture can
and doesplayanimportant role.Farmersarethemajority ofthe
personsdirectlyresponsible forthemanagement ofnatural
resourcesatthelocallevel.'Àworld ofdifference'expectsan
important contribution fromLowExternalInputand Sustainable
Agriculture (LEISA),anameused toexpressthecombinationof
themultitudeofsustainable farmingsystems.
Solutions forthecurrentproblems cannotbe foundwithin
thelimitsofbio-physicalaspectsandpurelytechnicalalterna-
tivesonly.Solutionswillhavetobesetwithinaframeworktak-
ing intoaccount thepossibilities andlimitationsofthenatural
environment,thesocio-economic andpoliticalcontext.Itisonly
withinthisrealisticcomplexitythatworkable solutionscanbe
found.
Theunderlying researchdescribestheexperiences ofprac-
tising farmerswho,onthebasisoftheirownresources,searched
forsustainable farmingmethodswithintheactuallimitationsof
theexisting socio-economic situation.
1.2 ResearchwithintheAgriculture,ManandEcology programme
TheAgriculture,ManandEcology (AME)programme,
Pondicherry, India,aimsatthepromotionofsociallyjust,econ-
omicallyviableandecologically sound landusesystemswithin
theIndiansubcontinent.TheAMEprogramme isimplemented byETC
Foundation,Consultants forDevelopment Programmes,Leusden,The
Netherlands,with financialsupport fromTheNetherlandsGovern-
ment.In 1988,theadvisory committee totheproject suggested
TheNetherlandsGovernment tohaveresearchundertaken intothe
economicpossibilitiesofecologicalfarmingmethods.Although
researchinthisfieldhasbeenundertakeninEuropeandNorthern
America,hardlyanyresearchontheeconomicsof sustainable
agriculturehastakenplaceinthetropics.Researchundertaken
mainly focusesontheeffectsofcertaintechniques.Itis
expected thattheresultsofthisresearch,focusingonthe
farming systems level,willbeusefultoInvestigatetheeconomic
andagriculturalproductivity aswellassustainabilityofLow
External Inputand SustainableAgriculturepractices.Further-
more,itisexpected thatasimplemethodology canbedeveloped
forcomparative studyofecologicaland conventional/traditional
farming foragronomic andeconomicaspectsinatropicalsetting.
Inthethirdplaceitisexpected thatwelldocumented case
studiesonthedevelopment ofsustainableagriculture can
strengthenproject andprogrammes inthisfield.
ETCFoundationrequested theAgriculturalEconomicsResearch
Institute (LEI),TheHague,TheNetherlands,forconsultancy sup-
porttotheresearch.TheInstitute forCommand StudiesandIrri-
gationManagement (ICSIM),Bangalore,India,wascontracted for
researchimplementation incollaborationwiththeAME programme.
March 1989theresearchproposalwas formulated (Werf&Narayan,
1989), fieldworkstarted inJune1989.
1.3 Descriptionoffarming systems
Studying ecologicalagriculture inSouth-India requiresa

descriptionofthedifferent farming systemspresent.Tradi-
tional,conventionalandecologicalagriculture canbeseenas
thethreeextreme cornersofaclassificationtriangle (fig-
ure 1).
Traditional
Conventional
Ecological
Figure 1.1 The traditional, conventional and ecological farming

systems; corners of the classification triangle.
Marked area represents Low External Input and
Sustainable Agriculture
Most ofthe farmingpractised inSouthIndiacanbeplaced

onthecontinuum fromtraditionaltoconventionalagriculture.
Practicesdevelopedbygenerationsofsubsistence farmersare
combinedwithresultsofscientific researchasbroughtto
farmersbytheextensionservice.
10
Traditionalagriculture isasubsistenceoriented farming
system,usinglowlevelsoflocallyavailableinputs.Conven-
tionalagriculturemakesintensiveuseofexternalinputs,rang-
ing fromfertilizertoinformation, formarket orientedproduc-
tion.Ecologicalorsustainable agricultureseekstooptimizethe
useoflocalresourcesthroughcreating complexanddiverse
farms,aimingatastable,growingandlonglastingproduction
level.LowExternalInputandSustainableAgriculture couldbe
seenasfillinganimportant part ofthebottomcornerofthe
classificationtriangle.
Intable 1aschematic characterizationofthethreefarming
systems,asdefined forthisresearch,isgiven.
Systemvariables Conventional Ecological Traditional
Productivity high high low

Su8tainability low high moderate
Farm complexity simple complex complex
Diversity environmentuniform divers divers
Productionorienta-
tion market subsistence/ subsistence
market
External inputsseeds highyieldingimproved local local
varieties varieties varieties
Use chemicalferti-
lizer high none low
Useofbiocides high none low
Figure 1.2 Identifiable traits of three farming systems (Werf&

Narayan, 1989)
1.4 Objectives
Theresearchisundertakenwiththefollowing threeobjec-
tives:
Toidentify, qualitatively andquantitatively thesocio-

economicviability ofecologicalagricultureby itselfand
incomparisonwith conventional/traditionalagriculture.
Toidentify,qualitatively andquantitatively theproblems
encountered by farmersintransitiontoecologicalagricul-
ture.
Examinetheprospectsofecologicalagriculture onalong-
termbasis.
11
1.5 Set-upofthisreport
Thisreport coversthefirstyearoffieldwork forthecom-

parativeagro-economic researchaswellasthecompleted transi-
tion study.
Chapter 1introducestheresearchandthefarming systems
studied. Chapter2dealswiththemethodologiesused, fortran-
sitionandagro-economic research.Inchapter 3theresultsof
bothresearchprogrammes aregiven.Inchapter4themethodology
used isevaluated.Conclusionsofthetworesearchprogrammes,
themethodologyusedandindicationsontheprospectsofecologi-
calagricultureonalong-termbasisaregiveninchapter5.The
hurried readeritisadvised toreadthesummary and chapter5.
12
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Limitationsandpossibilitiesofcasestudies
Anumberofresearchmethodsareavailableforconducting
farmingsystemsresearch:rapidruralappraisal,surveys,single
andmultiplevisits,collecting secondarydata,casestudiesand
experiments.Theyallvaryincost,coverage,accuracy,timeand
statisticalvalidity (Maxwell, 1984).Sinceinthisresearchonly
alimitednumberofwellestablishedecologicalfarmsisavail-
ableintheregion,experimentsandacase-studyapproacharethe
onlyoptions.Becauseanintensivestudyisrequired togain
insight indiversityandcomplexity ofvariousecologicalfarming
techniques,thecasestudyapproachappearstobethemostappro-
priatemethodology.Lampkln (1986)seestheuseofcasestudies
speciallyofimportance inordertoidentifyproblemareasandto
identifypossible solutions,bothextremely relevant inthis
situation,considering theearlydevelopment stageofsustainable
agriculture inIndia.Maxwell (1984)recommends thecasestudy
method specially forsituationswherenotonecropbut awhole
rangeofenterprises isconcerned,whichistypically thecasein
ecologicalagriculture.Â casestudyapproach isalsoextremely
usefulwhenonenotonlywantstoknowwhat ishappening ona
farm,butalsowantstoelucidatethecauseandeffect relation-
shipsthatareofinfluence.Anotheradvantage ofthecasestudy
approachinthissituation,istheincreasedinsight inthe
farmingsystemthroughthepersonalcontactbetween researchers
and farmers.Thisgreatlyimprovesthepossibility forcorrect
interpretationofthedatacollected.
Twomaindisadvantages ofcase-studies aregenerallymen-
tioned.Inmostcase-studieslittleattentionispaidtotherep-
resentativeness oftheselected casesforthesectorstudied.A
clearselectionprocedurewherebythecharacteristics ofcase
study farmsarerelated tothecharacteristics ofthegroupthey
represent canovercomethisproblemtosomeextend
(Maxwell,1984).But ingeneralthegroupofcasesstudied isnot
largeenoughtojustifyanextrapolationoftheresultstoasec-
tor,aregion,oracountry.Secondly,whenstudying alimited
numberofcase-study farmsitisverydifficult toeliminate
effectsoffactorswhicharenotdeterminedbythesystem.For
instancelocational,farm,economic,marketingandmanagerial
factors.
13
2.2 Transition research
2.2.1 Introduction
Transitionistheprocessofconversionofafarmfroma
conventionalortraditional farming systemtoastabilizedeco-
logicalfarming system (Werf, 1990A).Fortropicalsituationsno
researchhasbeendoneonthetransitionprocessat farmlevel.
IntheUnited StatesandEuropelimited research findingsare
availableontheprocessoftransition.Mostpublications dealing
withtransitiondescribeasinglecase (Andrew, 1987;Patriquin,
1986)orgiveguidelines fortheprocessoftransition (Aubert,
1982;Kirschenmann, 1988andZeelenberg, 1989).Onlysomevery
recent studies (Macrae,1990andAndrews, 1990)giveabroad
based analysisoftheprocessoftransition.
Invariably allresearchesperceivethetransitionperiodas
acrucialbottleneck forsuccessfulintroductionofecological
agriculture.Specificproblems includeaspects suchasrotation
adjustment,biologicaltransitionandlearning (Dabbert &Madden,
1986).
2.2.2 Anexplorative approach
Nothavingthepossibility tousetheexperiences ofothers

indesigning theresearchanexplorative,step-by-step,approach
was chosen.Asafirst stepthetwelveselected farmswere
visited andthefarmerswere interviewed,makinguseofaques-
tionnaire.Aimwas togetaroughinsight inthefarmand farmer,
farmingtechniquespractised, reasons fortransition,aimof
transition,changes implemented, etcetera (seeAnnex 2). The
resultsofthis first setofvisitswereusedtodecideuponthe
next step.Thecycleofcollection,processing,analysisand
checkingofdatawas repeated threetimes.
Thequestionnaire designed forthefirst setof farmvisits
wasactuallyused asachecklist forfocusing ofthediscussions
with the farmers.Duringthevisits itappeared thattheuseofa
questionnaire directed thefarmerstoomuchintheiranswers.
Nevertheless this first stagegaveareasonableoverviewofthe
transitionprocess forthedifferent farms.Thisinformationwas
used tolist specificquestions foreachcase.Inasecondround
ofvisitsthecasespecific questionswerediscussedwiththe
farmers,resulting inabetterunderstanding ofthetransition
processoneachfarm.Analyzing thisinformationaroughdescrip-
tionofthetransitionprocessandpossibleapproaches couldbe
made.
During athird roundofinterviews contradictory information
fromthe firsttwointerviewswas checked.Simultaneously farmers
were asked fortheiradviceonasupposed transitionofa
neighbouring farm.Thisasacheckforthegeneraldescription
andthedifferent approachesofthetransitionprocessasarrived
atby theresearchers afterthesecond roundofinterviews.
14
Theresultsofthethreeroundsofinterviewsarelaiddown
InanInterimreport containingtheIndividualcasedescriptions
and ageneralized analysisoftheprocessoftransition.This
report istranslated intolocallanguageanddistributed tothe
fanners.Âtwoday farmersmeeting followed,havingthefollowing
objectives:
Exchangeofexperiencesamongst thefarmers.Severalfarmers
hadearlierexpressedafeelingofisolationintheirsearch
foranecological farmingsystemandtheinterest tomeet
anddiscusswithcolleagues.Thisaspectofthemeetingwas
greatlyappreciated byallofthem.
Increasing theinvolvement offarmwomenintheresearch.
Researchers feltthatwomenhadbeeninvolved toolittle
duringtheinterviews.Duringthemeetingwomenparticipa-
tioninthegeneralsessionswaslimited anddiffident.In
separatesessions theirparticipationwasactiveandconfi-
dent.Inthefinal (general)sessionitwasconcludedthat
'wewereabletorecognizetheroleandcapacityofour
women' (Werf, 1990C).
Checking ofresultsofthetransitionresearch.Theindivid-
ualcasedescriptionswerecheckedwiththefarmersandthe
researchersunderstanding ofthetransitionprocesswasdis-
cussedwiththem.
Furthermore thismeetingwasconducted inordertofindout
howtheAME researchprogramme couldbemademore participatory.
Farmersexpressed theirinteresttomaintainrecordsoftheir
farmoperationsand thedesiretobetrained inbasic research.
2.2.3 Classificationand sampling
OnthebasisofamailingundertakenbytheÂMEproject,
eight ecologicalfarmshavingcompleted thetransitionwere
identified. Inadditiontothis,onefarmcurrently intransition
andthreefarmsstartedasecologicalfarmswere studied.Selec-
tionof farmswasdoneaccordingtothefollowing criteria:
À. Noordecreasing applicationofchemicalfertilizers.
B. Hoordecreasingapplicationofchemicalbiocides.
C. Consciousinclusionofecological farmingpracticeslike
stimulationofdiversity andcomplexity, stimulationofsoil
lifeetc.
Selected farmswere included intheresearchafterafield
visitanddiscussionwiththefarmmanager.Farmlocationsare
indicated infigure2.1.
15
^
ANDRAPRADESH \ o 50 100
KM
Madras
Figure 2.1 Location of farms studied in South India. The numbers

one to seven are the paired case studies of the com-
parative agro-economic research, consisting of one
ecological andone reference farm. All the ecological
farms included in the comparative study (excluding no
6) as well as the numbers 8 to 13 are the farms
studied for the transition research
2.3 Comparative agro-economic research
2.3.1 Introduction
Sofarnoresearchfindingshavebeenpublished comparing
ecologicalagriculturewithconventional/traditional practicesin
atropicalsetting.However,thistypeofresearchhasbeen
undertakeninWesterncountries (Lockeretz, 1984;Vereijken,
1985).Roughly speakingthreedifferent approacheshavebeen
utilizedintheimplementationofcomparative research (Lampkin,
16
198A).Firstlyandmainly,singlefarmshavebeencomparedwith
regionalaverages,asinglepartnerfarmorahypotheticalmodel.
Heredifficulties ariseineliminating theeffectsofnon-system
factorssuchaslocation,farm,economic,productionandmana-
gerialelements.Secondly,samplesof farmsandpartner farmscan
becompared.Heretheproblemliesinthelimitedavailabilityof
ecologicalfarms,beingtoolittleforstatisticaleliminationof
non-systemfactors.Thirdly,inafewcasesacontrolled experi-
mentalapproachwaschosen,attempting toeliminatetheinflu-
encesofnon-systemelements.Inthisstudyeveryecological case
study farmislinkedtoaconventionalreference farmwitha
similarcroppingpatterninthenearsurrounding tryingtoelim-
inateasmuchaspossiblenon-system factors (soiltypes,cli-
mate,topography etc.).Itisobviousfromotherresearchthat
the farmer'smanagement ability isacriticalvariableinevalua-
ting theperformanceofecologicallymanaged farms (Lockeretz,
1989).Thisnon-systemaspect isverydifficulttoeliminate ina
case-study approach.
Considering thehugeyearlyvariations inyieldsandecon-
omicresultsonfarms,monitoringthefarmsoveralongerperiod
isnecessary foraproperevaluationofthefarming system,
includingyield stability.
2.3.2 Approachandinstitutionalsetting
Focalpointofthecomparative study istheagro-economic

viabilityofecologicalagricultureand itsperspectivesatthe
farm level.WithinthelimitsoftheAgriculture,ManandEcology
programme itseemedmost suitabletoopt forasample-of-farm-
pairsapproach,asitwould simultaneously givetheopportunity
toanalyze farmersexperiences inecologicalagriculture.
AsAME lackstheskillsandmanpowerneeded forimplementa-
tionoftheeconomiccomponent ofthestudy,awellexperienced
economic researchinstitute (ICSIM)wascontracted as
collaborative organization.
2.3.3 Classificationand sampling
Selectionofecologicalfarmsisdoneaccording tothefol-
lowing criteria:
A. Noapplicationofchemicalfertilizers.
B. Noapplicationofchemicalbiocides.
C. Consciousinclusionofecological farmingprincipleslike
stimulationofdiversity andcomplexity, stimulationofsoil
lifeetc.
D. Thefarmingsystemmusthavebeenpractised foratleast
threeyears.
Selected ecologicalfarmsareincluded intheresearchafter
afieldvisit anddiscussionwiththefarmer.Eachecological
farmispairedtoanearbyreference farm,paying specialatten-
tiontosimilarity inthefollowingaspects;soiltype,topogra-
17
phy,holdingsize,climate,croppingpattern,livestock,irri-
gated/rainfedand qualityoffarmmanagement.Reference farms
shoulddifferfromtheecologicalfarmsinuseoffertilizerand
pesticides.Farmlocationsareindicated infigure2 (paragraph
2.2.3).
2.3.4 Data collection
Thedatatobecollectedcanbeclassifiedinthreegroups:
Initialdescriptiveinformationofthefarms.
Datacollectedmonthly.
Secondarydata.
A startertourbytheresearchteamisconducted forfinal
selectionofecologicalfarms,collectionofinitialdataand
selectionofreference farms.Thedescriptiveinformationofthe
farmsincludedetailedphysicalendsocio-economic information
including soiltype,rainfall,adetailedmapoflanduseduring
theyear,familysizeand composition,livingconditionsetc.
Alsoafarminventoryofthefarmassets,includinglive-
stockisconducted inthebeginning andattheendofthestudy
period.Inventory ofstandingcrops,cashandstocksoffarmpro-
duceareomitted tolimitthecomplexityofthedatacollection.
Regulardataarecollectedmonthlybyresearchersusinga
structured schedule coveringallcropandlivestock input-output
flowsinactualquantitiesandmoneyvalue,totallabourneeds
and totalcash-flow (annex4 ) .Specialattentionispaidto
internalinputflowsbetweenlivestockandcropactivities.The
farmersplayanessentialroleintheprocessofdatacollection,
thereforeanactiveparticipationofthefarmersisrequireddur-
ingthedatacollection.Inordertoincreasemotivationa
detailedagronomic andeconomicanalysisofthefarminTamil-
languageispresented totheparticipantsaftereveryyearof
datacollection.
Secondary dataarecollected fromthevariousdepartmentsof
governmentorganizations.
2.3.5 Dataprocessingandanalysis
The followingstepsfordataanalysisareundertaken:data
validation,tabulationofresultsperpair,whole-farmanalysis,
analysisofspecificactivities,conclusionsandverification.
Thisisdoneseparately fortheagronomicandeconomicanalysis,
byAMEandICSIMrespectively.
Dataprocessing ismainlyconductedusingtheFAOdeveloped
FARMAPcomputerprogramme.Resultsaretabulatedperfarmpair
andpresented indetailedagronomicandeconomicfarmpair
descriptions.Thesedescriptions formthebasisoftwointerim
reports (Narayan, 1990andSivasubramanian&deJonge, 1990).
Inthewhole farmagronomicanalysis,thefarmsarestudied
forfarmingtechniquespractised (forsoilfertilitymanagement
18
and creatingplant diversity),nutrientbalance (atfarmgateand
formain crop),externalnutrient dependency andlanduse.Inthe
economicwhole farmanalysisthelabourinput,variablecosts,
grossincome,fixed costs,net farmincomeandcashincomeare
analyzed.Inannex 1alistofdefinitions oftheeconomic
keyfiguresused ispresented.Perfarmthebeforementioned
aspectsarecalculated separately forthemaincrop.
Asitisacasestudyapproach,conclusionsaredrawnona
pair-wisebasis,takingtheresearchers comments onthefigures
asextremely important forunderstanding andinterpretation.Con-
clusionsregarding theperspectivesofecologicalagricultureare
kept toaminimum astheanalysiscoversonlyoneyearofdata
collection.Whendataoveraperiodofatleastthreeyearare
availablethefocuscanshifttotheseperspectives.
Verificationtakesplaceatvariousstagesduringanalysis.
A firstverificationisdoneduringafieldvisitby consultants
fromLEIandETC.Â secondverification isconducted duringthe
analysiswhenthe farmpairdescriptionsmadebyAMEandICSIM
arecompared.A finalverificationtakesplaceduringameeting
with theparticipating farmersinwhichtheresultsofthefirst
yeararediscussed.
2.4 Estimatingsustainabillty
2.4.1 Levelsofanalysis
Sustainabilltyhasbecomeamajorissueinthedesign,
executionandevaluationofprojectsindeveloping countries.In
generaltermssustainabillty referstolong-termavailabilityof
certainmeanstolong-term achievementsofcertaingoals (Van
Pelt et.al,1990).Inthisstudysustainabilltymustbedefined
towardsecologicalsustainabillty.Adevelopment canbejudged
ecologically sustainablewhenlongrun (percapita)socialwel-
fareImprovement isnotimpededbyenvironmental deterioration,
eitherthroughenvironmentalamenitiesorthrough environmental
productivity,orthroughacombination ofthetwo (Munn, 1989).
Whentryingtoanalyzethesustainabillty ofafarmingsystemthe
scopeisessential fortheresultsobtained.Analysis canbecon-
ducted at farmlevel,atcommunity orregionlevel,butalso
nation-wide orworld-wide implications canbestudied.Onlyjust
recentlyattempts aremadetoincorporate sustainabillty inthe
traditionalcost-benefit analysis (Pearce, 1989;VanPelt, 1990).
That indicatesthatatthismoment itisverydifficult toana-
lyzecertaincostsandbenefitsinrelationtosustainability.
For instancehowtomeasurethereduced soilerosionwhen farmers
planttreesandshrubsaroundplots ?Anotherexampleisthe
partlyreplacement offertilizersthroughmanure.At farmlevel
itmayhavepositiveeffectsonthesoilfertility inthelong-
run,atregionalleveltradeinmanure couldbenefit other
farmersandatnationallevelthehard-currency saved canbeused
19
inotherprojects.Ontheotherhandnegativeeffectsmay occur
atthevariouslevels.Atpresentmostofthenecessary dataare
absent forconducting thistypeofanalysis thoroughly.
Inthisresearchthefarmingsystemsareanalyzed at farm-
levelsincetheagronomicandeconomicviability atthat levelis
a firstprerequisite forpossiblesuccessfulintroduction.The
positiveandnegativeeffectsatotherlevelsarenot included.
Basedonthesedataanalysesatotherlevelscanbe conducted.
Forinstancetheeffectonnationsfood-security ofapartly
introductionoflow-external-input agriculture.
2.4.2 Sustainabilityindicators
Currently, littleisknownonthemeasurement ofecological

sustainability.Thereisnotyetawidely accepted setofindica-
torsdefiningthis.Allwhat canbedoneatthemoment ismoni-
toringofproductionandtheuseofnaturalresourcesandestima-
tionoftheeffectsonenvironmentalquality.Thiscanbedoneby
monitoring thedevelopment ofafarming system overaperiod of
threetofiveyearsormore.
Itisexpected thatduringthisresearch,easilymeasurable
indicatorsofecologicalsustainability canbe selected onthe
basisofempirical findings.Theseindicators shouldhaveaclear
relationwiththeaccepted,only long-termmeasurable,definers
ofsustainability as 'maintainingorenhancing thequalityofthe
environment'and 'conservationofnaturalresources'.
Inthisstudy soilfertilitydevelopment andnutrient flow
patternsaretakenasleadingthreadsfortheanalysisofeco-
logicalsustainability.Nutrientbalancesarestudied atwhole
farm levelaswellasforthemaincrop,externaldependency for
nutrientsandnutrient flowpatternareanalyzed.Thedifferent
techniquespractised forsoilfertilitymaintenance receive
specialattention.Further,attentionispaid totheprimarypro-
ductioncycle (vegetation -cropping system)and thesecondary
production cycle (animalhusbandry -livestockmanagement).In
thecropping systemspecificattentionisgiventosoilcoverage,
roleofleguminous species,roleofperennial,croppingdiver-
sity.
20
3. RESULTS

'Transitionistheprocessofconversionofafarm froma
conventionalortraditional farming systemtoastabilized eco-
logical farming system' (Werf, 1990Â).After introductionofall
agro-technicalchangesneeded,itmight stilltakesometime
beforethetransitioniscompleted.Thisisspeciallythecase
whenperennialplayamajorroleinthenewfarming system.
InEuropeandNorth-Americathestartingpoint normallyisa
conventional farming systemwhich,inmost cases,dependson
externalinputsandismarket-oriented.InIndiahowever,transi-
tionmayalso start fromatraditional farming system,whichis
subsistence-orientedanduseslowlevelsoflocally available
inputs,possibly combinedwithlimited amountsoffertilizerand
pesticides.Forthisresearchconventionalagriculturewas
definedasusing farmingpracticesandexternalinputapplica-
tionsasadvocatedbygovernment extensionservices.Byfarthe
most common agriculturalsystem foundnowadaysinIndiaisamix-
tureofbothconventionalandtraditionalpractices.
Aimofthetransitionistoobtainastabilized ecological
farming systemwithasustainableproduction.
Takingthisdiversified situationintoaccount, transition
canbedepictedasinfigure3.1.
Traditional
Conventional
Ecological
Figure 3.1 The transition process depicted as a position change

of the farm in the classification triangle towards
the ecological corner
3.1.1 Descriptionofthesurveyed farms
Twelveecological farmsranginginsize from0.26to40hec-

tareswere studied.AllfarmsareinSouthIndia,nineinTamil
21
Nadu,twoinKeralaandoneinKarnataka.South-Indiareceivesan
averageannualrainfallof 1200mm,thetwomonsoons (July-
August,October -November)account forninetypercentofthe
totalrainfall.Eightypercent oftheholdings issmallerthan
twohectares.Lessthantwentypercent oftheland canbeirri-
gated.
Withregardtoaspectsasholding size (average size 6.8
ha), accesstowater (52Zoftheland irrigated),educationand
off-farmincomethefarmersstudied aremostlybetteroffthan
average.Theseadvantagesenabled thefarmerstotaketherisks
ofexperimentingwithanunknown farming system.
Reasonstoopt forecologicalagriculturevary greatlywith-
inthegroup.Productionofhealthy food,environmentalaspects
and 8U8tainability ofthefarming systemarementioned bymany.
Philosophicalmotivations andtheexpectationofabetter farm
incomeareimportant inseveralcases.Table3.1indicatesthe
different reasons fortransitionper farm,table3.2 totalises
the reasonsmentioned andliststhem infrequency.
Table 3.1 Main and secondary reason for transition per farm
No Holding Original Reason fortransition
size farming
inha. system Main Secondary
2 3.0 Traditional Health Environment

5 4.3 Conv.Ave. Farm income Independence
4 14.0 Conv.Ave. Farm income Environment
9 40.0 Conv.High Health Environment
1 4.2 Conv.High Farm income Environment
13 2.4 Conv.Inst. Health Environment
7 2.0 Conv.Inst. Farm income Health
10 1.2 Conventional Environment
11 0.4 Conventional Philosophy Independence
12 4.4 Wasteland Philosophy Environment
Conv.Ave.»Conventionalwithaverageuseofexternalinputs
Conv.High«Conventionalwithhighuseofexternalinputs
Conv.Inst.*Conventional institutionalfarm
Lackoftechnical informationonecological farming isa

seriousproblem forall.Morethanhalfworkwithout anyinforma-
tionandhadtodevelopanecological farming systemontheir
own.Others couldmakesomeuseofexistingextension services
and foreignliterature.InIndia,thereisonlyvery littlelit-
eratureavailable onecologicalagriculture.
22
Table 3.2 Totalized reasons for transition and frequency as men-
tloned by the twelve farmers (Werf, 1990k)
Reasonfortransition Frequency
Environment/sustainability 9
Health/foodquality 7
Philosophy 5
Farm income 4
Independence 1
Waterand labourscarcity 1
Most farmershad seventotenyearsofexperiencewitheco-

logicalagriculturewhensurveyed.Twofarmershadonlytwoyears
ofexperience,twohad respectively 13and 15years fieldknowl-
edge,average iseightyearsexperiencewithecologicalagricul-
ture.
Three farmsareconverted fromvirtuallytraditional farming
practicesandsixfarmsareconverted fromaconventional farming
system.Inallthesecasesthefarmershadagriculturalexperi-
ence.Three farmsarestartedasecologicalfarmsbythecurrent
owners,without anyoronlylimited agriculturalexperience.
3.1.2 Thetransitionprocess
Theoretically fourdifferentprocessesarepossible.A farm

maybeconverted allatonceorparcelbyparcel.Ineachof
theseapproachesonecanfollowagradualprocessor implement
allnecessary changesatonce.Theprocessoftransitionwillbe
moredistinctwhen thedifferencebetweenstarting situationand
finalsituationissubstantial.Âtransitionhasbeenconsidered
ascompleted successfullyoncethefarmersperceivetheyieldsas
having stabilizedunderthenewfertilitymanagementpractices.
Table3.3 showsthemethodsandtimeneeded fortransition.
Thethreevirtually traditional farms,usingonlylowlevels
ofchemicalsbeforetransition,converted thewhole farmatonce.
Useofpesticideswasdropped,simultaneously fertilizerswere
fullyreplacedbyorganicmanures,nomajorchangestookplacein
yields.Thetransitionwascompleted successfully inoneyear.
Twooriginally conventionalfarms,usingaverage quantities
offertilizer,adoptedagradualtransitionprocess forthewhole
farm.Withinthreetofouryearsthesetransitionswere completed
successfully.
Fouroftheoriginally conventionalfarmsconvertedthe
whole farmatonce.Twoofthese,previouslyusinghighlevelsof
chemical fertilizers,incurred severeyieldlosses (upto60Z)
and referredbacktotheuseoffertilizers inthenextyear.
23
Table 3.3 Method used and time needed for successful completion
of transition in relation to the original farming sys-
tem (Werf, 1990k)
No Holding Original Transitionmethod

size farming
inha. system Atonce Gradual
2 3.0 Traditional +(1yr)

5 A.3 Conv.Ave. +(3yrs)
4 14.0 Conv.Ave. +(4yrs)
9 40.0 Conv.High - +(4yrs)
1 4.2 Conv.High - +(7yrs)
13 2.4 Conv.Inst. +(5yrs)
7 2.0 Conv.Inst. Ongoing (2yrs)
+-completed successfully --failed

Conv.Ave."Conventionalwithaverageuseofexternalinputs
Conv.High•Conventionalwithhighuseofexternalinputs
Conv.Inst.-Conventionalinstitutionalfarm
Afterthis,thesetwoadopted agradualtransitionapproach;
yearbyyear fertilizerapplicationwasdecreased and simulta-
neously organicmanureusewasincreased.Farm 9,havingthe
meanstoinvest,completed transitioninfouryears.Farm 1,hav-
ing lessresources,tooksevenyears.
Theremainingtwo,originally conventional farms,wererun
asinstitutional farms,onebelongedtoanon-governmentalorgan-
ization,theotheroneformedpartofaleprosyhospital.In
thesecasesyieldsdecreasedupto30percentbut thiswas
acceptedwithintheinstitutionalset-up.Oneofthese farms
started transitiononlytwoyearsago,theotherone completed
transitioninfiveyears.
Three farmswere started asecological farmsby thecurrent
owners,oneofthemhadtwoyearsofagriculturalexperience,the
othershadno farmingexperience.Inthesecasestheagricultural
transitionisintensely influencedbythechangeinprofessionof
the 'farmer'involved.Thisinfluencemadeitimpossible tocon-
cludeoncompletion ofthetransition,therefore thesecaseswere
not included intable3.3.
Severalfarmers (bothConv.Ave.andConv.High)expressed
thatyieldsincreased duringtransitionalongwiththedevelop-
ment ofsoilfertilityandevenreachedbeyond conventionalpro-
ductionlevels.Inrice,averagegrainyieldsof6250kg/ha
(BreugelandBrouwer, 1990)and6320kg/ha (Subramanian, 1989)
were realizedunderecologicalcultivation.Severalfarmers
expressed thatecologicalagricultureenabled themtoreachself-
24
sufficiency Infooditemswhichearlierhadtobepartlypur-
chased.Furthermore,anumberof farmersmentioned distinct
decreasesonexpenditures forinputssuchasfertilizer,pesti-
cides,concentrateandtractortillage.
Incertaincasestransitioncouldhavebeencompleted faster
(e.g.throughextrainvestments inorganicmanures)when farmers
wouldhavebeenbetterinformed ontransitionand relatedprob-
lems.Thisaspect oflackofinformation combinedwithhavingto
learnecologicalagriculturewhileImplementingthetransition,
hadagreat Impact onthetransitionandthetimeneeded forit.
Both 'Conv.High'farmersexpressedthatwiththeexperience they
havenow (11and 15years)theyareabletodoatransitionofa
farm similartotheirsintwotothreeyearsinstead ofthefour
and sevenyearstheyneeded respectively.
3.1.3 Agriculturalchanges implemented
Farmerswereasked tolistwhat theyperceiveasthemost

important changes inagriculturalpracticesmadeduringtransi-
tion (table3.4).
Table 3.4 Most Important changes made during transition and fre-
quency of mentioning by the twelve farmers (Werf,
1990A)
Changes Frequency
Stopapplicationofpesticides 6
Stopapplicationof fertilizers 5
Increasednumber oftreesand
perennialspecies 5
Increased applicationoforganic
manure,greenmanures,compost 4
Increased cultivationof
leguminous crops 3
Improvedmanureandurinehandling 2
Initiationofmultiple cropping 1
Increaseofdeep-rooted crops 1
Site-oriented species selection 1
Soil fertility
Changes insoilfertilitymanagementwerewellprepared in
most cases.Allatonce (Trad,andConv.Inst.)orgradually
(Conv.Ave.andHigh),chemical fertilizerswerereplacedby
nitrogen-fixingcrops,green (leaf)manures,animalmanure,irri-
gationtanksiltandagro-industrialby-products orwaste.
25
Fourdifferent strategies forsoilfertility improvement
couldbedistinguished« allfocusingonincreasingtheorganic
matterproductiononthe farm.
* One farmer (no 12)practised 'naturalregeneration',allow-
ingafallowperiod fornaturalsoilimprovement ofa
degraded area.
* 'Regulatednaturalregeneration'waspractised intwocases
(no 1and 4),usinggreenmanure crops (Sesbaniaand
Crotalaria)toreclaimalkaline landsforagriculturalpur-
poses.
* 'Enhancedself-improvement'usinginternallyproduced
organicmaterialwasmost common forsoilfertility improve-
ment,asitallowed forcontinued cropping.Thiswasfre-
quently combinedwithagradualgrowthofthecattlepopula-
tion.Fodderproductionwasincreased inordertodecrease
theneed foroutsidegrazingandtherebylooselessmanure.
Inthreecasescattleurinewas collected.Composting and
green (leaf)manuring arecommonpractices.
* 'Enhanced improvementwithexternally obtainedorganic
material'waspractisedbyseveralfarmersthroughcollect-
ingorganicmatter fromoutsidethefarm (greenleafmanure)
orpurchases (e.g.manure,irrigationtanksilt,coirdust,
granite dust).
Pests and diseases
Theneed forchanges inpestanddiseasemanagementwasin

most casesnot foreseenandcaused seriousproblems inseveral
farms.Thisseemstobeduetolackofknowledgeand information.
Capability ofcopingwiththeseproblemsdiffered greatlybetween
theindividualfarmers.Adaptationsmadeincludedchangesinthe
varieties grown (insomecaseshighyieldingvarietieswere
replacedby localvarieties)anddeletionofsusceptible crops
(e.g.cotton).
Certain farmersclaimed tohavelessproblemsafterseveral
years.Theyattribute thistotheuseoforganicmanures,cre-
ationofanoverallhealthier fieldecosystemand increased
presenceofnaturalpredators.Pestcontroltechniquesweremain-
lyderived fromtraditionalagriculture.Companion planting,
decoctionsof insecticidalplants (e.g.Azadirachtaindica),
sprayingofdiluted cowurineandtheuseofoillampstocatch
night-flying insectswere frequently practised.
Cropmanagement
Striking changes incropmanagement includeincreasedgrow-

ingofleguminousand foddercrops,ahighercropping intensity
throughmultiple croppingandashifttowardslocalvarieties.
Increasing thenumber oftreesonthefarmismentionedbyfive
farmersasamajor changeandimplemented byseveralotherstoo.
Therefore,thecompleteeffects ofatransitioncanactuallybe
26
fullyestimated onlyafterthetreesarefull-grown.Inafew
casescroprotationswerewidened.Weed controlremained
unchanged,mainlyhandweeding, sometimes lntercultlvatlonwas
practised.
Livestock management
Insixoutoftwelve casesthequantityoflivestock Inthe

farmingsystemIncreasedduringthetransition.Alongwith
Increasedon-farmproductionoffodder,therebydecreasingexter-
nalgrazing,andimprovedmanure andurinemanagementmorenutri-
entscouldberecycledwithinthe farm.
Erosion control
Erosioncontrolactivitieswere increasedmainly duetothe

growthinawarenessofenvironmentalandsustainabilityaspects.
Techniquespractised showahigherpriority forincreasingveg-
etative soilcover (throughe.g.useofcovercrops,intercrop-
ping andincreasing thepercentageofperennialandtrees)than
inconventionalagriculture.Mechanicalmeasures,likedecreasing
tillage,contourbundingandmulching,werealsopractised.
Thetransitionresearchwas concludedbyafarmersmeeting.
Duringadiscussionthefollowingpointswere concludedbythe
farmersasessentialaspectsofecologicalagriculture (Werf,
1990C):
Theorganicmatter contentofthesoilhastobeincreased
inordertoreducedependency onchemicalfertilizer.This
canbeachievedby cultivationof (N-fixing)foddercrops
and greenleafmanuresandincreasing thelivestockpopula-
tion formanureproduction.
Soiltillage shouldbeminimized andwherepossible replaced
bymulching, covercrops,intercropping, andinclusionof
treesinthefield.
Weeds canbeusedas (living)mulchtoprevent soilmoisture
evaporationand canbeused incompost preparation.
Avariety ofselected treesshouldbeplanted forprovision
ofcattle fodder,improvement ofthesoil,supplyofgreen
leafmanureandasawindbreak.
Drought resistant speciesshouldbepreferred forannual
cropsaswellastrees.
Erosioncontrolby contourbundingandsoilcoverisessen-
tial.
3.1.4 Farmer characteristics
Farmercharacteristics ofimportance inrelationtothe

transitionprocesswerethoseinfluencing the self-learning
capacityofthe farmer,suchasinnovativeness,financialfree-
dom, familytraditionandplaceofresidence.Duetothealmost
27
completeabsenceofinformationeachfarmerhadtofindhis/her
ownwayout.Experience inagricultureandwillingness toexperi-
mentwere farmercharacteristicsmakingthetransitioneasier.
The financialfreedomofafarmerdirectly influenced thelength
ofthetransition.Limited investmentpossibilities (e.g.for
soil fertility improvement)directlyprolonged thetransition
period,ascouldbeseenwhencomparing thelengthofthetransi-
tionperiodofboth 'Conv.High'farms.A family traditionin
agriculturehadadirectpositive influenceonthetransition,as
traditionalagricultureproved animportant sourceofinformation
forthefarmers.InSouth-India,farmersnormally liveinvil-
lagesandnotontheland itself.However,livingonthefarm
proved tobeofmajorimportance foraneffectiveand efficient
transition.Onefarmerexpressedtheneed forcontinuousatten-
tioninecologicalagricultureasfollows:
'Transition (...) isamatterofwatchingand observing'.
3.2.1 Introduction
Inthecomparative agro-economic researchmanydifferent

typesofdatahavebeencollected at farmlevel.Inthischapter
asummary ofthemostessentialdata collected inthe7case
studiesarepresented.Formoredetailed information thereader
isreferredtoAMEandICSIMreports (AME,1990andNarayan,1990).
Sinceinanumber of casesonlyapart ofthe farmactiv-
itieshavebeenstudied,keyfiguresnormallyused inawhole-farm
analysisareinthisstudy converted into figuresperha.
Afterthedescriptionofresults ofthecasestudies,itis
triedtoextract somegeneralaspectsofecologicaland conven-
tionalfarming fromthecasestudies.Hereafter alimited analy-
sisatcroplevelispresented.
3.2.2 Resultsofcasestudies
3.2.2.1 Case study1
Theecologicalfarmisaverywelldeveloped farmandthe
farmhousehold ispractising ecological farming sincetwelve
years.Livestockplaysanessentialroleinthe farming system
forincomegeneration (milk)aswellasformanure production.
Thecropping systemisrathercomplex.Alsoonthe reference farm
the croppingpatternisrathercomplexwithmany differentcrops,
but almostnomixed cropping.Onthereference farm57Zofthe
grosscropped areaarevegetables and42Zgrains.Whereas onthe
ecological farmthese figuresarerespectively 25Zand20Z.
Pulsesmake22Zandother crops30Z.Theonlysimilarcropactiv-
ity issolepaddy.Livestockplaysalessimportant roleonthe
reference farmcompared totheecological farm.Bothfarmshave
28
1.2haeucalyptustrees«whichhavenotbeenincorporated inthe
study.Intable3.5 themaincharacteristicsare summarized.
Table 3.5 Characteristics of farms la case study 1

Characteristics Ecological Reference
State Karnataka Karnataka

Totalholdingssize (ha) 4.2 2.3
Areastudied (ha) 3.0 1.1
Totalnumberofdifferent crops 16 10
Xof studied areairrigated 71 48
Maincrops (areawise) Fruitorchard Tomato
Mulberry Paddy
Paddy Millet
Main livestock (no.wise) Cows Buffalo
Chicken
Residence On-farm Off-farm
Fromtable3.6 canbeseenthatthegrossincomeperhais
considerablyhigherontheecological farm.Morethan60Zofthe
gross incomeontheecologicalfarmisderived from silk-worm-
cocoonproduction,withahighgrossmarginperha
(Rp54000/ha).Onthereference farmtomatoaccounts for40Zof
thegrossincome,withpaddyonthesecondplace (15Z).Thegross
marginsofbothactivitiesareconsiderably lower (Rp36000
reap.Rp 17000perha)compared tococoonproduction.Itcanbe
concluded thatthedifferences incroppingpatternhaveagreat
influenceontheeconomicalresultsandacomparison ofthe
resultsofthefarmingsystems isthereforevery difficult.
Cropproduction formsonbothfarmsthemainpartofthe
grossincome,butincomefromlivestockismore important onthe
ecologicalfarm.Onbothfarmsaround 70Zoftheproduction
(measured ingrossincomeperha)issold.Thevariablecostsare
muchhigherontheecological farmduetothehighinput costsof
the cocoonproduction.Thisresultsinahighergrossmarginper
haandahighernet farmincomeperlabourday forthereference
farm inthe 1989/90season.Ontheecological farmmuchhired
labourisusedandlittle femalelabourisinvolved.Ontheeco-
logicalfarmthepercentageofchild labourisrelativelyhigh.
Despitethehighamountofhired labourthepercentageofcashin
thetotalcostsislowerontheecological farm,mainlydueto
fertilizerexpensesonthereference farm.Theexternalnutrient
dependency isthereforemuchhigheronthereference farm.Both
farmshaveapositivenutrient-balance atfarmgateforNPK.
Thehouseholdofthereference farmhasnootherssourcesof
income,whileontheecological farmaconsiderableoff-farm
Incomeisrealized (38Zoftotalincome).
29
Table 3.6 Main production characteristics in 198911990 season of
farms in case study 1
Ecological Reference
Grossincome/ha 56 183 45685

Z cropactivities 82 90
Zsold 69 74
Variablecosts/ha (Rp) 28 676 10611
Grossmargin/ha (Rp) 27 507 35074
Labourdays/ha 710 529
Z female 15 53
Zhired 70 21
Net farmIncome/labourday (Rp) 43 66
Off-farmincome (Rp) 41 400 0
Zcashoftotalcosts 42 58
Totalassets/ha (excltrees,Rp) 129 990 92254
Trees/ha 260 41
Externalnutrients/ha (kgNPK) 142 375
Externalnutrient dependency 39 67
Nutrient-balanceatfarmgate
Nitrogen (kgN/ha) +56 +51
Phosphate (kgP/ha) +8 +18
Potash (kgK/ha) +3 +14
3.2.2.2 Case study 2
The farms incase study 2have tosome extend a similar

cropping pattern. Paddy, millet, tomato, groundnut andhorsegram
are present assole crop inboth farms.Onthereference farmthe
percentage ofvegetables andoilcrops (groundnuts) ishigh
(respectively 32Zand40Zofthegross cropped a r e a ) . Ontheeco-
logical farm 'other crops' take 39Zofthegross cropped area
(sugar cane, coconut e t c . ) . Inboth farms mixed croppingis
practised andalso thetotal number ofdifferent crops cultivated
is similar.
Apart from animal traction ontheecological farm thereare
no livestock activities onboth farms. Other characteristicsare
given intable3.7.
The gross income perhaismuch higher ontheecological
farm than onthereference farm (table 9 ) .Tapioca (46Z)and
paddy (16Z) contribute most tothis gross income ontheecologi-
cal farm. Thelarge areas offinger millet andtomato givea
relatively lowgross income.Onthereference farm paddy(24Z)
has thegreatest contribution tothefarm income.Theyieldsin
kg/ha arehigher ontheecological farms forpaddy andragi,
while theyields oftomato, groundnut andhorsegram arehigheron
the reference farm.
30
Table 3.7 Characteristics of farms in case study 2
State TamilNadu TamilNadu

Totalholdings size (ha) 3.2 2.6
Area studied (ha) 3.2 2.6
Zof studied areairrigated 100 43
Maincrops (areawise) Sugarcane Groundnut
Groundnut Tomato
Tapioca
Main livestock (no.wise) Bullocks -
Thevariablecostsperhaarehigherontheecologicalfarm
duetohighercostsofseeds,wagesandhiredmechanicallabour
and feedingcosts forthebullocks.Thisresultsinahigher
grossmarginperha.Thelabour-input perhahowever isconsider-
ablyhigherontheecologicalfarmresulting inasimilarnet-
farm-incomeper labourday.
Table 3.8 Main production characteristics in 198911990 season of

farms in case study 2
Grossincome/ha (Rp) 10 986 6 118

Zcrop activities 98 100
Zsold 55 54
Variable costs/ha (Rp) 4 631 2223
Z female 45 61
Zhired 61 62
Net-f arm-income (Rp) 7 168 3796
Net farmincome/labourday (Rp) 22 20
Off-farmincome (Rp) 700 0
Z cashoftotalcosts 52 65
Totalassets/ha (excl trees,Rp) 99 208 111735
Trees/ha 86 18
Phosphate (kgF/ha) +3 +9
Potash (kgK/ha) -2 +9
31
Thetotalnet-farm-incomeontheecological farmisalmost
twicethatofthereference farm.Thecashcomponent ofthetotal
costsontheecologicalfarmislower.Alsotheexternalnutrient
dependency ismuchlowerontheecological farm.Only forpotash
a slightnegativenutrient-balance occursontheecological farm.
Thereference farmhasalargerportionofleguminous cropsin
thecroppingpattern.
3.2.2.3 Casestudy3
The farmsinthispairdifferconsiderably insizeandin

croppingpattern (table3.9).Groundnuts andsugarcanearethe
only similarcrops.Theecological farmhasrelativelymuch
rainfed grains (sorghumandmillet)whilethereference farmhas
alsopaddy,cottonandsometomatoes.Bothfarmsconcentrateon
sole croppingsystems.Livestockplaysanimportant roleonthe
ecologicalfarmandisabsentonthereference farm.


Totalnumberofdifferentcrops 7 7
Zof studied areairrigated 57 100
Main crops (areawise) Sorghum Groundnut
Groundnut Sugarcane
Sesamum Paddy
Main livestock (no.wise) Bullocks -
Buffalo
Intable3.10themainproduction characteristics ofthis

farmpairarepresented.Itappearsthatthegrossincomeperha
ofthereference farmisthreetimesthatoftheecological farm.
The resultsofthelargesugarcanearea (1.0ha)ontheref-
erence farmdeterminetheresults (57Zofthegrossincome)of
this farm,withgroundnuts (19Z)onthesecondplace.Ontheeco-
logicalfarmthelivestockactivitiescontribute forA4Zofthe
totalgrossincome,thesesamumcrop for22Zandthegroundnuts
for 1AZ.Thegroundnutyield inkg/haonthereference farmis
twicethatoftheecologicalfarm.Alsothevariable costsare
higheronthereference farm,especially duetohigher costsper
haofhired labourandhiredmechanicallabour.Thisresultsina
threetimeshighergrossmarginperhaonthereference farm.
32
Table 3.10 Main production characteristics In 198911990 season
of farms In case study 3
Grossincome/ha (Rp) 5 716 16358

Z sold 47 82
Variablecosts/ha (Rp) 2 781 6 074
Z female 42 66
Zhired 53 93
Net-farm-income (Rp) 6 051 11066
Totalassets/ha (excl tree8,Rp) 90 398 76000
Trees/ha 27 7
Nutrient-balance atfarmgate
Phosphate (kgP/ha) +1 -3
Potash (kgK/ha) +2 -7
Thetotallabour-inputhoweveris3.5 timeshigheronthe
reference farm.Thenet-farm-incomeperlabourday isstillhigher
onthereference farm,but compared tothegrossmarginperha
thedifferenceissmall.Thetotalnet-farm-income oftherefer-
ence farmis80Zhigherthanontheecological farm.Therefer-
ence farmismuchmoreoriented towardsproduction forthemarket
thantheecologicalfarm.Thefractionoffemalelabourismuch
higheronthereference farmandmostofthelabourishired.The
fractionofcashcostsinthetotalcostsontheecologicalfarm
arehalfofthatonthereference farm.Alsotheexternalnutri-
ent dependency ismuchlowerontheecological farm.Asonmost
ecologicalfarmsthenumber oftreesishigherthanonconven-
tionalfarms.Howevercompared tootherecological farmsthe
tree-density islow.
3.2.2.4 Casestudy4
Inthiscasestudyunfortunately onlyalimited areaofthe

ecologicalfarmhasbeenstudied,namelythe4.0ha irrigated
land onwhichmainly foodcropsarecultivated.Oneotherplotof
4haareunderrainfed cultivationandoneplotof4hanearthe
housethefarmerhasdeveloped atypeofagro-forestrywitha
hugevarietyoftrees.Thefigurespresented fortheecological
33
farmthereforegiveanincompletepictureofthis farm,butcon-
centrateonlyononeplot.Theecological farmerhasbeenear-
markedbythegovernment asaprogressive farmer.Hehimself
strongly advocates treeplanting fortworeasons:
conservationoftheenvironment througherosioncontroland
nutrient recycling;
alongtermprofitableinvestment forfarmers
The reference farmer isalsoaverygoodperforming farmer
andwelleducated.
Ontheplotontheecological farmgrainsandpulsesare
predominant,whileonthereference farmgrains,oilcrops,veg-
etablesandothercropsareevenlydistributed.Bothfarmscon-
centrateonsolecroppingactivities.Paddyandsunhemparethe
onlytwosimilarsolecrops.Both farmshavelivestock formanure
production,whiletheecological farmalsohasquitesomemilk
production.

Totalnumber ofdifferent crops 9 9
Zof studied area irrigated 100 80
Main crops (areawise) Paddy Paddy
Sorghum Sorghum
Main livestock (no.wise) Cows Bullocks
Bullocks Buffaloes
Goat
Sheep
Residence On-farm On-farm
Thegrossincomeperhaonthereference farmisslightly
higherthanontheecological farm (table 13).Ontheecological
farmpaddy (48Z)andmilk (24Z)determinethegrossincome,while
onthereference farmbanana/soybean (39Z),paddy (19Z)and
groundnut (13Z)arethemost important activitiescontributingto
thegrossincome.Theaveragekgyieldperhaofpaddyonthe
ecologicalandreference farmdoesnotdifferverymuch:respect-
ively 4300kgand4000kg.Thereference farmismuchmoremar-
ket-oriented thantheecological farm.Variable costsperhaare
lowerontheecological farm.Incomparisonwiththereference
farmtheextracostsonhired labourarecompensated bythesav-
ingsoncostsoffertilizerandpesticides.Highervariable costs
onthetractionanimalsresultstherefore inhighertotalvari-
ablecostsperhaonthereference farm.Thelabour-intensity on
34
both farmsiscomparable,onlyonthereference farmalmostall
labourishired.
Thecashcomponent ofthecostsishigherontheecological
farm,mainly duetohired labourinvolved.Theuseofexternal
nutrients isconsiderablyhigherontheecologicalfarmthanon
thereference farm,whiletheexternalnutrient dependencyis
lower.Thetotallevelofnutrientsuseisthereforemuchhigher
ontheecological farm,resulting inahigherpositivenutrient-
balance forN,PandK.
Table 3.12 Main production characteristics in 198911990 season

of farms in case study 4
Grossincome/ha (Rp) 11869 14323

Xcrop activities 61 91
X sold 31 70
Grossmargin/ha (Rp) 6 795 8 198
X female 66 52
Zhired 99 41
Xcashoftotalcosts 63 43
Totalasset8/ha (excltrees,Rp) 105851 97125
Trees/ha 218 62
Externalnutrients/ha (kgNPR) 222 127
Phosphate (kgP/ha) +24 +13
3.2.2.5 Case study5
Intable3.13 themaincharacteristicsofcasestudy5are
presented.Thetotalholdingsizeofthe 'ecological'farmis 4.0
haofwhich 1.0ha isstudied.Sinceonlythisplot isstudied,
and alsoonthereference farmoneplotof 1.0haistakeninto
account,thewhole farmanalysis inthiscasestudyisoflimited
value.Inbothplotsgrains (paddyandsorghum)arepredominant
inthecroppingpattern.Apart frompaddyandsorghummixedcrop-
pingisused intheecologicalfarmwhileonlysolecropping
occursonthereference farm.Thisresultsintwiceasmuchdif-
ferent cropscultivated ontheecologicalfarm.Livestockis
35
presentonbothfarms,onlyontheecological farmcowsarepres-
ent formilkproduction.


Totalnumber ofdifferent crops 12 6
Xofstudied areairrigated 100 100
Main crops (areawise) Paddy Faddy
Sorghum Sorghum
Main livestock (no.wise) Buffaloes Bullocks
Cows Buffaloes
Intable3.14 themainresultsofthe 1989/90seasonofthe

farmsarepresented.Thegrossincomeperhaontheecological
farm istwicethatofthereference farm.The0.7hapaddy
accounts formostofthisgrossmargin (62Z)withoutput from
livestock (milk,manureandnewanimals;14Z)andthemixed crop
ofcowpea/cotton/okra (9Z)assecondandthird.Onthereference
farmriceisevenmorepredominant:80Softhegrossincomecomes
frompaddy.
Theyield levelofthepaddyontheecological farmismuch
higherthanonthereference farm:4000kg/haversus 1700
kg/ha.Thesorghumyields,theothercomparable crop,showlittle
difference617kg/haversus560kg/ha.Onthereference farm
paddy andsorghumarethemainsourcesofincomeandalmost all
ofitisconsumed.Theecological farmismuchmoremarket-
oriented.Thevariablecostsontheecologicalarehigherdueto
amuchhigherlevelofuseofmanure.Thereference farmhasan
averagecostperhaonmanureand fertilizerofRp 1800,against
Rp3300onmanureonlyontheecologicalfarm.Ontheecological
farm90morelabourdaysperhaareused compared tothereference
farm.Almost allofthislabourcomesfromwithinthe family,
withmuchmorewomeninvolved intheecological farm.
Off-farmincomeishigherontheecological farmandthecash
component ofthetotalcostsisconsiderably lowerontheeco-
logicalfarmcompared tothereference farm.Onthereference
farmtheuseofexternalinputsismuchhigherthanontheeco-
logicalfarm.Bothfarmshaveapositivenutrient-balanceforN,
FandK.Thesurplusesonthereference farmarehigher,
especially fornitrogen.
36
Table 3.14 Main production characteristics In 198911990 season
Grossincome/ha (Rp) IS081 7944

Z sold 48 3
Variablecosts/ha (Rp) 5865 3533
Z female 72 52
Zhired 8 1
Totalassets/ha (excltrees,Rp) 24737 45862
Trees/ha 527 33
Nutrient-balance atfarmgate
Phosphate (kgP/ha) + 2 +29
3.2.2.6 Casestudy6
Farmpair6islocated inthestateofPondicherry.Theeco-
logicalfarmbelongstotheAuroville trust.Theowneris
entitled tousethelandaslongasheparticipates inthe
Aurovilleliving-community.Thefarmerontheecologicalfarm
workspart-timeinabakery,whilealsothroughhiringoutthe
bullockcartoff-farmincomeisgenerated.Both farmshavea
relatively simple croppingpatternwithmilletandgroundnutsas
main crops (table3.15).Ontheecological farmno irrigation
takesplace.Thereference farmhasatankirrigated areaof 0.6
haonwhichpaddyisgrown,butthisplotisnot includedinthe
study.Inbothfarmslivestockispresent formilkandmanure
production.
Sincenotthewhole farmareaisstudied theeconomickey-
figuresconcerning thewhole farmareoflimitedvalueandmust
beinterpreted asfigures forthestudiedareaonly.
Intable3.16 themainresultsofthe 1989/90seasonofboth
farmsarepresented.Thegrossincomeperhaofthereference
farmremains farbehindthatoftheecological farm.Thegross
incomeontheecological farmismainlydeterminedbythemilk
production (64Z)withcropproductionofminorImportance.With
comparablenumbers ofmilkproducing livestock,itmustbecon-
cludedthatontheecologicalfarmmilkproductionisgivenmuch
37
State Pondicherry Pondicherry

Totaldifferentnumber ofcrops 6 3
Zofstudied areairrigated 0 37
Main crops (areawise) Pearlmillet Pearlmillet
Groundnuts Groundnuts
Main livestock (no.wise) Bullocks Cows
Cows
higherpriority thanonthereference farm.Thegrossincomeper

haofthecropactivities isalsohigherontheecologicalfarm
mainly duetoahighercropping intensity.Thetwosimilarcrops
(groundnut andmillet)showbothahigheryield onthereference
farm:groundnut 750kg/haversus 1000kg/ha;millet 100kg/ha
versus 250kg/ha.Thereference farmoperatesmainly atsubsis-
tence level!whilemorethan60Zofthegrossincomeatthe


Zsold 63 5
Variable costs/ha (Rp) 8 744 2545
Grossmargin/ha (Rp) 899 -428
Z female 64 72
Zhired 92 70
Totalassets/ha (excltrees,Rp) 29813 37019
Trees/ha 349 19
Nutrient-balance at farmgate
Phosphate (kgP/ha) + 1 +11
Potash (kgR/ha) +31 +25
38
ecological farmIssold.Thevariablecostsperhaarealsomuch
higherontheecological farm ,mainlyduetoconcentratesand
fodder forthelivestock (71Zofthevariable costs).Thevari-
able costsforthecropactivitiesarecomparable,wherebythe
savingsonfertilizerandpesticidesarecompensated byhigher
labourcosts.Thegrossmarginperhaisverylowonbothfarms
and evennegativeonthereferencefarm.Thelabour-input perha
showslittledifference,wherebyespeciallyontheecological
farmmost ofthelabourishired.Thisislogicalduetotheoff-
farmactivityoftheecological farmer (reflected inthediffer-
enceinoff-farm income).Thepercentageoffemalelabouris
slightlyhigheronthereference farm.Theassetpositionofthe
reference farmisslightlybetterthantheecological farm.Â
largedifferencebetweenthenumber oftreesperhaisnotified.
Externalnutrient dependencyandthecash-part inthetotalcosts
ishigheronthereference farm.Bothfarmshaveapositive
nutrientbalance forN,FandR.
3.2.2.7 Case study7
The farmersofthe farmsinthiscasestudybothhavetheir

mainactivityoutsidethefarm.Bothhaveengaged apermanent
labourer forthefarmoperations.The farmshaveasimilarcrop-
pingpatternwithbanana,paddy, sorghumandcoconutsinsole
croppingsystems.Bothhavepossibilities forirrigating allthe
area (table3.17).Theecologicalfarmhasnolivestockwhileon
thereference farmtwobullocksarepresent.

Zof studiedareairrigated 100 100
Main crops (areawise) Paddy Paddy
Banana Banana
Main livestock (no.wise) - Bullocks
Residence Off-farm Off-farm
Thegrossincomeperhaofbothfarmsiscomparable (table
3.18).Bananaaccounts forthelargestpartoftheincome (67Zof
thegros8incomeonboth farms),withpaddyasthesecond import-
ant crop.Theaveragepaddyyield isalsocomparablewith3650
kg/haontheecologicaland3880kg/haonthereference farm.
Thevariable costsperhaareslightlyhigheronthereference
39
farm,mainlyduetohighercostsformanureand fertilizer.On
both farmsmuchlabourperhaisused,withthehighest labour
inputonthereference farm (130labourdays/hamorethanonthe
reference farm).Thenet-farm-incomeperlabourday istherefore
higherontheecologicalfarm:Rp 63versusRpA5.Thetotalnet-
farm-incomehowever is20Zhigheronthereference farm.Almost
allcostsareactualcash-costsonbothfarms.Thenumberof
treesperhaisonlyslightlyhigherontheecological farm.


Zsold 86 75
Z female 49 59
Zhired 100 100
Net-farm-income (Rp) 39 018 46665
Off-farm income (Rp) 24 000 33500
Totalassets/ha (excl trees,Rp) 118 360 100000
Trees/ha 54 46
Nitrogen (kgN/ha) *34 +129
Phosphate (kgP/ha) * 6 +33
Potash (kgK/ha) *•52 +74
Allnutrients forthecropactivitiescome fromoutsidethe

farm.Thetotaluseofnutrientsismuchhigheronthereference
farm compared totheecologicalfarm.Bothfarmshaveapositive
nutrient-balance forN,PandK.Thereference farmhoweverhasa
muchhighersurplusthantheecological farm.
3.2.3 Generalcomparison ofecologicalandconventionalagricul-

ture
3.2.3.1 Introduction
Althoughtheemphasis inthisstudyisplacedontheindi-
vidualcasestudiesitistried inthischaptertoanalyzeanum-
40
berofaspectsandresultsofthetwofarming systemsingeneral.
Thebasisforthisanalysisisformedbytheseven individual
case studies.Asmuchaspossibletheaverage figures fromthe
case studiesarecomparedtosecondary data.However,thenumber
ofavailableandusefulsecondarydataappearedtobelimited.
The analysisoftheagronomicaspectsisfollowedbyaneconomic
analysisofthetwostudiedmanagement systems.Hereafter rela-
tionsbetweenthestudied factorsareexamined.Finallyanagro-
nomic analysisatcroplevelfortwostudied cropsispresented.
3.2.3.2 Comparisonofagronomic aspectsofecologicalandcon-

ventional farming
Intable3.19theaveragesofmostoftheessential
keyfiguresdeterminingtheagronomic aspectsofthestudied
farming systemsarepresented.
Table 3.19 Averages and standard deviations of anumber of agro-

nomic keyfigures of ecological and their reference
farms
Ecological Reference t-testa)
av. st.dev. av. st.dev.
Holding size (ha)c) 3.1 0.8 2.2 0.6 8

Irrigated (Z) 75 35 73 27 ns
Different cropsperfarm 9.4 4.2 7.0 3.0 8
Farttotalgrossincome
from cropactivities (Z) 73 24 94 7 8
TotalLifeWeightUnits
(LWU)b) 6.0 3.9 2.8 2.4 8
Number oftrees/ha 217 167 32 18 8
Totalexternalnutrients
perha (kgNPK) 133 68 203 117 ns
Externalnutrient
dependencyofcrop
activities (Z) 42 28 65 17 8
Soilfertility
improvement techniques
perfarm 4.6 1.8 3.1 1.0 8
Plant diversity
techniquesperfarm 4.1 1.8 1.7 1.2 S
a)t-testat90Zreliability level;b)1LWU-250kg;c)Exclud-
ing case study4.
Theaverageholding sizeoftheecological farmsexceedsthe

holding sizeofthereference farms (inthiscalculation case
41
study 4isdroppedbecauseoftheextremeholding sizeofthe
ecological farm).Bothareconsiderablyhigherthanthestate
averageholding sizeof 1.0hainTamilNaduandFondicherry.No
difference isfound intheportionofirrigated area.Ontheeco-
logicalfarmsmoredifferent cropsperfarmarecultivated com-
paredtothereference farms.Inecological farmmanagement live-
stockactivitiesplayanessentialrole.Among othersthisis
expressed inthepercentageofthegrossincomewhichisderived
fromcropactivities.Ontheecologicalfarms73Zcomesfromcrop
activitiesand27Z fromlivestockactivities.Onthe conventional
farmsthesepercentagesarerespectively 94Zfromcropsandonly
6Zfromlivestockactivities.Theaveragenumber oflifeweight
unitsper farmisthereforehigherontheecological farms.On
theconventional farmsalsoahigherportionoftheLWU'sare
coming fromtractionanimals (88Zversus63Z).Alsothecomposi-
tionofthecropsgrownshowsadifference.Intable3.20the
average landusepergroupofcropsispresented forecological
andreference farms,includingacomparisonwithstateaverages
inTamilNadu.Themaindifferenceisfoundbetweenpulses,veg-
etablesand fodder crops.Pulsesandfoddercropshaveamuch
morepredominant positioninthecropping systemofecological
farmscompared tothereference farms.Ontheotherhandveg-
etablesarevery important inthecropping systemoftherefer-
ence farms.Also compared tothestateaverageahigherpercen-
tageofpulsesinthecropping systemofecological farmscanbe
found.
Table 3.20 Comparison of average land use per group of crops as

percentage of gross cropped area on ecological farms,
reference farms and Tamil Nadu state averages (1988-
1989)
Crop Area (Z)

group
Eco Ref TamilNadu
Grains 43 40 59
Tubers 2 1 -
Pulses 12 2 9
Oilcrops 18 19 14
Vegetables 6 25 1
Othercrops 15 13 17 *)
Fodder 4
Total 100 100 100
*)Includestubers,fodderandothercrops.
42
Oneofthemaindifferences inthetwocomparedmanagement
techniques isthenumberoftreespresent onthe farm.Onthe
ecologicalfarmsontheaverage217treesperhawerecounted
against only32perhaontheconventionalfarms (table3.19).On
theecological farmsmoretree-cropsarepartofthecropping
pattern,butalsoaroundthefarmmuchmoretreesaregrownon
bunds.ManyofthesetreesproducegreenmanureandareNitrogen
fixing.
Alltheincomingnutrientsatfarmgatearecalculated from
theincoming fertilizers,manure,fodder,concentratesetc.The
result isaslightlyhigher (butnot statistically significant)
amount oftotalexternalnutrientsImportedonthe conventional
farmscompared totheecological farms.Whenalsotheoutputof
nutrients istakenintoconsiderationanestimateofthenutrient
balanceatfarmgatecanbegiven (table 3.21).
Table 3.21 Average nutrientbalance of 7 case studies at farm

gate for N, P and K in kg per ha per year (total
input minus total output)
Nutrients Ecologicalfarm Referencefarm
kg- st.dev. kg. st.dev.
Nitrogen 50 38 76 48
Phosphate 6 8 16 11
Potash 21 20 24 23
Almostallfarmsmaintainapositivenutrientbalance for
thethreenutrients,butthestandarddeviationindicatesahuge
variationbetweenthefarmsstudied.Althoughstatisticallynot
significant,theaverageexcessofallthethreenutrientsis
higheronthereference farms.Inthesefigureslossesthrough
leachingandvolatilisationarenottakenintoaccount.Sincethe
majority ofthenutrient-inputs onconventional farmscomesfrom
fertilizers itisexpected that lossesonthese farmswillbe
higher.
That livestockplaysamoreimportant roleonecological

farmsisalsoexpressed inthesignificant differencewhichis
foundintheportionofexternalinputsforcropactivities.On
theconventionalfarms65Zofthenutrientsarefromexternal
sources,whileontheecological farmsonly42Zofthenutrients
comefromoutside.Thebreakdownofthesepercentages forN,P
andKontheecologicalfarmshowlittlevariation:40Z,45Zand
42Zrespectively.Onthereference farmthepercentages forNand
PareconsiderablyhigherthanforK (71Z,72Zand53Z
respectively).Externalnutrientsonreference farmsconsist for
43
a l i t t l e more than two-thirds out of chemical f e r t i l i z e r s (for N,
P and K t h i s i s r e s p e c t i v e l y 27Z, 25X and 40Z). Also the absolute
average n u t r i e n t i n p u t s for crop a c t i v i t i e s i s higher on t h e ref-
erence farm compared t o the ecological farms, e s p e c i a l l y for
n i t r o g e n and potash (figure 3 . 2 ) .
Nutrient
Kg perha
140
120 -
100
80
40 -
20 -
Nitrogen Phosphate Potash
|Ecologicalfarms \///A Referencefarms
*betweenbracketsthestandard deviation
Figure 3.2 Average nutrient input in kg per ha of N, P and K for

cropping activities on ecological and reference farms
Inecological farmsthenitrogen flowintothefarmismore

orlessequallydistributed amongK-fixingcrops,livestockand
organicmaterial fromthemarket.Inthereference farmmostof
thenitrogencomesinthroughfertilizers.
Thenumberofdifferent techniquesusedtoimprovethesoil
fertilityissignificantlyhigherontheecological farms.In
figure3.2thefrequencyonthestudied farmsofthedistin-
guished techniquesispresented.
44
Use of blo-fertillser
Deep-rooting crops
Green manure
Green leaf manure
Compost
Biogas/septlc tank
Mulching
Farm yard manure
Night soil
Other organic mat
Ecological Reference farms
Figure 3.3 Comparison of percentages of farms practising tech-

niques for soil fertility maintenance for ecological
and reference farms
From figure3.3 itappearsthatmakinguseof deep-rooting

crop8f farmyardmanureandgreenleafmanureiscommononeco-
logicalaswellasconventional farms.Compost,mulching anduse
ofotherorganicmaterials isspecificallypractised onecologi-
calfarms.
Thedifferences intechniquesused tocreateplant diversity
betweentheecologicalandconventionalfarmsareevengreater,
basicallybecause agreaterplantdiversity isoneofthemain
characteristicsofecologicalagriculture.
Infigure3.Athefrequency oftheoccurrenceofthedistin-
guished techniques ispresented.Mixed/intercropping,agro-for-
estryandhedges/shelterbeltscanbefound inallfarms,butis
more frequentlyused inecological farmmanagement.Multi-storey
cropping,selectiveweeding,useofcovercropsandtreenurs-
eriesareonly foundonecologicalfarms.
45
L
Mixed/intercropping
m^%m%^%^
1
Multi-storey cropping ra&8$&$taä
Agro-forestry/alley 88888888888888888888888883
Wmmmmm^ i
8888888888881
Selective weeding
Use ofcover crops 888888888888888888881
Hedges/shelterbelts
1
On-farm tree nursery S8888888888
Versatile rotation w$ri

wmr
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
88$ Ecologicalfarms Referencefarms
Figure 3.4 Comparison of percentages of farms practising tech-

niques for creating plant diversity for ecological
and reference farms (X)
3.2.3.3 Comparison ofeconomicaspectsofecologicalandconven-

tionalagriculture
Intable3.22asummary ofthemost important economic

keyfiguresarepresented.
Theoveralleconomicresultsofthefarmsstudied inthe
season 1989-1990showahighvariationandnosignificant differ-
encebetweenecologicalandreference farms.Alsothetotalnum-
beroflabourdaysperha,theassetsperhaandtheofffarm
incomeshownosignificant difference.Howevertheaverageoff-
farmincomeontheecologicalfarmsistwicethatoftherefer-
ence farms.Thepercentageoftotalproducesoldalsogivesno
significant difference,indicating thereisnogeneraldifference
inmarket-orientedne8sofecologicalandconventionalfarms.The
only significant difference isfound inthecashcomponent ofthe
totalcosts.Onthereference farms67Zofthetotalcostscon-
sistsofcashcosts,whileonecologicalfarmsthisisonly49%.
Thisiscausedbythedecreaseduseofexternalinputsoneco-
logicalfarms.Ànumber ofecological farmersalsoexpressed that
thereducedneedofcashwasanimportantmotivationtoshiftto
46
Table 3.22 Averages and standard errors of a number of economic
keyfigures of ecological and reference farms *)
Ecological Reference t-test
av. st.dev. av. st.dev.
Grossincomeperha (Rp) 20430 16700 18340 15100 ns

Variablecostsperha (Rp) 9810 8300 6830 4800 ns
Grossmarginperha (Rp) 10620 9050 11515 11900 ns
Net farmincomeper
labourday (Rp) 32 18 32 21 ns
Labourdaysperha 346 193 333 142 ns

Percentageofproducesold 57 16 52 31 ns
Cashpartoftotalcosts (Z) 49 23 67 18 ns
Assetsperha (Rp)*) 85480 38700 80000 26400 ns
Net cashincomeperha (Rp) 7600 9350 6480 7850 ns
Off-farmincomeperfarm (Rp) 15660 14700 6950 11200 ns
*)Assets calculated overtotalholdingsize.
ecological farmingpractices.Thetotalnet cash-incomeperha,

showsnosignificant difference.Sincetheaverageholding size
ofecological farmsexceedstheholding sizeofreference farms
itcanbeconcluded thatthetotalnet farmincomeonecological
farmswillbehigher thanofthereference farm.Thenetfarm
incomeperlabourdayhowevershowsnosignificant difference.
Sincenotallthefarmshavebeenstudied completely a
whole-farm-analysis isnotpossible.Howeverinordertogivean
estimationofthe situationatfarmlevel,thestudied areais
assumed tobethetotalholding sizeinthefollowing analysisof
thenet-farm-incomeandthecashincome.
Theaveragenet-farm-income and cash-income ishigherfor
theecologicalfarms,butduetotheextremelyhighvariation
bothdifferences arenot statistically significant.Againatime
seriesofresultsper farmoveranumber ofyearswillgivemore
informationthananaverageover farmswithsomany different
characteristics.
Theeconomic resultsofthecropactivitiesalonealsoshow
nosignificant difference.Theaveragegrossincomeperhaon
ecological farmsamountstoRp 16650,withanaveragegrossmar-
ginofRp9090.Forthereferencefarmsthesefiguresare
respectivelyRp 17380andRp 11190.Thereishoweveradiffer-
ence inthecomposition ofthevariable costs (table 3.24).
47
Table 3.23 Estimated net-farm-income and cash income (Rp) per
farm in the 7 case studies for ecological and refer-
ence farms (in 1990 Rs 16.50 - USD $ 1.-)
Casestudy Net-farm -Income Cash income
Eco Ref Eco Ref

1 68142 30727 81420 25989
2 7 168 3796 4896 659
3 6051 11066 5560 9 493
4 12040 20084 -594 29045
5 3928 -1026 7 100 500
6 -1702 -1886 2577 -1626
7 39018 46665 29786 18773
ÀV 19235 15632 18678 11833

Std 23382 16716 27220 11860
Seeds,manureandother costs showsimilaramountsperha.

The costsofwagesandhiredmechanicalandanimallabourare
higherontheecologicalfarms.Theuseofmanureiscomparable,
but addingthecostsoffertilizeronthereference farmthe
totalcostsforfertilizingthesoilareconsiderablyhigheron
the reference farm.Hereagainitcanbeconcluded thatthe
nutrient inputonreference farmsisconsiderablyhigher thanon
ecologicalfarms.Thecostsofpesticidesonthereference farms
makeout5Zofthevariable costsandapproximately3.5Zofthe
totalcosts.
Table 3.24 Breakdown of variable costs per ha (Rp) for crop

activities on ecological and reference farms
Rp. Z Rp. Z
Seeds 826 17 807 14

Manure 1166 24 950 17
Fertilizer 0 0 1004 18
Pesticides 0 0 260 5
Wagespaid, hiredmechanical
andanimal labour 2721 55 2383 43
Others 192 4 188 3
Total 4905 100 5 592 100
*)Excluding casestudy 1becauseofinaccuratebreakdownof
costs.
48
Inchapter3.2.2.2isalreadymentioned thatonecological
farmsahigherportionofthegrossincomecomes from livestock
activities.Morelivestockispresent» butalsomoreanimalsare
kept forproductionofmilk,eggsandmeat.Thelastaspect
resultsinahighergrossincomeperLiveWeightUnit (LWU)and
alsoahighergrossmarginperLWU ontheecological farmscom-
pared tothereference farms.Theremostoftheanimalsarekept
fortractionpurposes.Ontheecologicalfarmsthegross income
perLWUamountstoRp 1615andthegrossmarginperLWU to590.
Forthereference farmsthesefiguresamount toRp841andRp335
respectively.
Intable3.25 abreakdownofthelabour-inputintocat-
egoriesispresented forthetwogroupsoffarms.Farmpair 1has
beenexcluded fromthisbreakdownbecauseoftheextremelyhigh
labourinputperhaonthisfarmpair forsilk-worm-cocoonproduc-
tion.Thebreakdownshowsnogreatdifferencesbetweenthetwo
farmingsystems.Thehigherlabourinput forweeding andharvest-
ingonthereferencefarmsisremarkable.Itislikelythatthese
differencestoagreatextentoccurduetothelargevariation in
croppingpatterns onthestudiedfarms.
Table 3.25 Average labourdays per ha per year according to type

of activity of ecological and reference farms
Categories Ecological Reference
Days I Days Z
Ploughing/levelling 51 18 43 14
Sowing 18 6 14 5
Manure/fertilizerapplic. 23 8 18 6
Pest control 0 0 2 1
Irrigation 38 13 38 13
Transplantation 23 8 20 7
Weeding 50 17 60 20
Harvesting 45 17 73 23
Transport/bagging 10 3 5 2
Others 28 10 27 9
Total 286 100 300 100
*)Excluding farm-pair1.
Ithasbeenstatedalreadythattheaveragenumberof
labourdaysperhashownosignificant differencebetweenecologi-
calandreference farms.However sincetheaverageholding size
ofecological farmstendstobehigher,thetotallabourrequire-
ments forecologicalfarmswillalsobeconsiderablyhigher.
49
Usingtheaverageareasstudied (2.5haontheecologicalfarm
versus 2.0haonthereference farm)thetotallabourneedonthe
ecological farmamountsto715labourdaysperyearagainst 600
labourdays forthereference farms.Inthiscalculationtheaver-
ageholding sizeisnotusedascalculationbasis astheareas
not studied aremainly extensively cultivated.
Intable3.26 thesourceoflabouraccordingtosexandtype
isgivenforthetwomanagement systems.
Table 3.26 Composition of total labour (X) according to sex and

to type (family or hired) on ecological and reference
farms
Categories Ecological Reference
Female 47 57
Male 53 43
Family 25 38
Hired 75 62
Onthereference farmstheproportionof female labouris

higherthanontheecological farms.Ontheecological farmsa
higherportionofthelabourishired fromoutside.That isin
agreementwithearlierfindingsthatecologicalfarmershavein
generalmoreother sourcesofincomecompared toreference
farmers.
Aninteresting aspect isthesexualdivisionof labourover
thelabourcategories.Itappearsnodifferences existbetween
ecologicalandreference farms.Apparentlythetypeof farming
systemhasnoinfluenceonthedivisionoftasksbetweenmaleand
female.Infigure 3.5 theaverage sexualdivisionoflabourcat-
egories forallfarmsstudied isgiven.
Itappearsthatmanure/fertilizerapplication,transplanta-
tion,weeding andharvesting aremainly femaletasks.Landprep-
aration,pest control,irrigationandtransportation aremainly
tasksforthemale.Infigure3.6theaveragelabourfilmsofthe
ecologicalandreference farmarepresented.Itappearsthatthe
labourfilmthroughtheyeartakesasimilarshape forecological
aswell forreference farms.WithpeaksinJulyandAugust (weed-
ingandharvesting atthesametime)andalowperiod inMay.The
absolute labourneedper farmishigherontheecological farm,
duetothelargerarea cultivated.
50
Ploughing/levelling
Sowing
Manure/fert.appl.
Pestcontrol
Irrigation
Transplantation
Weeding
Harvesting
Transport/bagging
Others
100%
Figure 3.5 Average percentage of female and male labour per

labour categories for ecological and reference farms
together.
Labordaysperha
60
J A S O N D J F M A M
H Ecologicalfarms EXX>&Referencefarms
Figure 3.6 Average labour film of ecological and reference farms

in labourdays per ha
51
3.2.3.4 Relationsbetween factorsstudied
Inordertodiscoverpossiblerelationsbetweenthemost
importantkeyfiguresacorrelationmatrixisconstructedwith
correlation coefficients.Inannex6thiscorrelationmatrixis
presented.
Fromthiscorrelationmatrixitappearsthatthenet-farm-
incomeperhaispositively correlatedwiththe following fac-
tors:
gross-incomeperha (0.96)
variablecostsperha (0.76)
percentageofproducesold (0.66)
assetsperha (0.56)
labourdaysperha (0.82)
externalnutrientsperha (0.57)
Ahighgrossincomeperha,butalsohighvariable costsper
ha,highlabour-inputperha (intensiveproduction)correlate
withahighnet-farm-incomeperha.Aweakpositive correlation
isfoundbetweentheassetsperhaandtheexternalnutrients
used perha.
Noneoftheotherkeyfiguresshowasignificant correlation
withthenet-farm-income.
Manyoftheothersignificant correlationsbetween factors

studied arelogicalconsequencesoftheearlierdiscussed differ-
encesbetweenecologicalandreference farms.Forinstancethe
negativecorrelation foundbetweenthenumber oftreesperhaand
thepercentagecashcosts(-0.66)isaresultof significant dif-
ferent characteristicsofecologicalandreference farmseg.a
highernumberoftreesperhaandlowercashexpensesontheeco-
logicalfarmscompared tothereferencefarms.
Itwasexpectedtofindanegativecorrelationbetweenthe
number ofsoilfertilitytechniquesusedandthenumber ofplant
diversity techniquesappliedononesideandtheexternalnutri-
ent dependency forcropactivitiesontheother side.Fromthe
matrix itcanbeseenthat indeedanegativerelationexists,but
that thecorrelation isratherlow:-0.47and -0.35 respectively.
3.2.3.5 Analysisatcroplevel
Itwasplanned tomakeanthoroughagronomicand economic

analysis foranumberofcomparable cropsorcropping systemsin
ecologicalandconventionalfarms.However,sincenotalldataat
croplevelhavebeencollectedproperlyandtheagronomicanaly-
sisofAMEandtheeconomicanalysisofICSIMarenot completely
compatible (chapter4.2)onlyaverylimited agronomic analysis
atcroplevelcanbeexecuted,whereasthedata foraneconomic
analysiswerenotavailableatall.
52
Intheagronomicanalysisonemaincropinevery case-study
hasbeenstudied onaswelltheecologicalasthereference farm.
In5casessolepaddywas studiedand in2casesgroundnuts.
Table 3.27 Average yield (kgIha), average Input of N,P and K

(kgIha) and average nutrient balance at field border
for N,P and K (kgIha) for paddy on 5 ecological and
reference farms.
kg/ha st.dev. kg/ha st.dev.
Yield 4822 2124 3953 2152
N-input*) 59.6 34 93.2 44

P-input 9.4 3 22.0 10
K-input 43.3 27 45.0 28
N-balance -68.0 68 -10.1 76
F-balance - 7.2 8 + 8.3 15
K-balance -60.3 60 -46.2 57
*)Including estimatedN-fixationfromleguminouscrops.
Giventhehugevariationinyield figures,no significant

differencebetweenthepaddyyield canbefound.Ashasbeen
statedbefore,alsothemethod ofyieldmeasurementhasbeentoo
inaccuratetoarriveatreliable figures.TheN-andF-input per
haissignificantlyhigheronthereference farmcompared tothe
ecological farms.Themajority oftheinputsonthereference
farmsiscomingfromfertilizers:80ZoftheN-input,82Zofthe
P-inputand65ZoftheK-input.Ontheecological farmsallof
the inputsarecoming fromorganicmanureandN-fixation.Appar-
entlythehighernutrient-input forthereference farmsisnot
translated intoahigheroutput.However,moreaccuratestudies
arerequired todrawdefiniteconclusions.
Except forPonthereference farm,negativenutrient-bal-
ancesarefound forN,PandR.Ontheecologicalfarmsthebal-
ancesatfieldbordertendtobemorenegativethanontherefer-
ence farm.However,lossesthroughvolatilization (ofNitrogen)
and leaching,whicharemorewhenusing fertilizercompared to
organicmanures,arenottakenintoaccount.Furthermore,effects
ofinternalrecycling arenotincluded inthisstudy.Ontopof
thisithastobementioned thatthelong-termpositive effects
oforganicmanureabovechemicalfertilizers (e.gsoilstructure,
micronutrients)cannotbemeasuredwithinoneyearofresearch.
Thecombination ofthesethreeeffectsmaybeseenasexpressed
inthedifferences inyield levelsbetweenecologicalandrefer-
53
encericecultivation.However,thiscanonlybeevaluated after
severalyearsofresearch.
Intable3.28 foranumber ofsolecropstheyield figures

oftheecologicalandreference farmsarecomparedwiththedis-
trictand stateaverages Inthatseason.
Table 3.28 Average yields (kgIha) of a number of crops in 1989-

1990 season in ecological farms, reference farms and
in Karnataka state
Crop Ecological Reference State
kg/ha farms kg/ha farms
Paddy 4822 5 3953 5 1786

Groundnut 640 3 1019 5 749
Fingermillet 2000 1 2594 3 1048
Pearlmillet 730 3 250 1 565
Sorghum 845 3 560 1 677
This figuresonlygiveanIndicationoftheyield levels

compared tostateanddistrict levels.Interpretationofthese
figuresIsextremely difficult,becausethestatusofthedis-
trict and statefiguresIsnotclearandbecausetheaveragesfor
thestudied farmsarebasedonvery limitednumberoffarms.
54
4. EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGY
4.1 Transitionresearch
Twelveecological farmerswereInterviewedontheirexperi-
encesInconversionoftheir farm fromconventionalortradi-
tionaltoastabilized ecological farming system.Thesetransi-
tionexperienceswere collected andanalyzed.Themethodused
givesthestrengthsaswellasweaknesses ofthestudy.Itisan
exploratory research,inwhichexperienceswerenotanalyzed
statistically,butbythefarmersthemselves.However,toour
knowledgethisisoneofthefirst timesinatropicalsetting
that actualfield levelexperiences ontransitionwere collected,
documented indetailed casedescriptionsand analyzed.
Atthestartofthetransitionresearchonlythe firststage
wasplanned.Following stagesweredeveloped during implementa-
tionthrougharepeated cycleofcollection,processing,analysis
and checkingofdata.Thisapproachprovedtobeaneffective
workingmethodology asitgavetheopportunity toreviewthework
doneregularly and tochecktheresearchers'findings,analyses
and conclusions regularlywiththefarmers.Simultaneously the
workingmethod couldbeevaluated continuously andadapted asand
whennecessary.
Futureresearchontransitionshoulddevotespecialatten-
tiontothetranslationoftheresults insoundpolicyadvicefor
decisionmakersaswellasdirectadvice forfarmers.Forthe
farmersinvolved, oneofthemost interestingpartsofthe
researchwasthemeeting inwhichtheycouldexchangeexperi-
ences,itwould definitelybeworthwhile todevelopthisfurther.
Anotherpossibleresearchbenefit forthefarmers canbeto
receiveanumber of copiesoftheir farmdescription (inEnglish
and locallanguage),sincemanyofthemareconfrontedwithan
increasingnumber ofvisitors.Publicationofanarticledescrib-
inginteresting farmingpracticesinalocalnewspaper canbean
important stimulus andreward forthefarmerinvolved.
Thecase-study approachwithamonthly roundofdatacollec-

tionisgivingadetailed andaccurateinsight intheexisting
farming system.Theenthusiastic co-operationoftheparticipat-
ing farmershasproventobeessentialinthisapproach.Thecom-
parisonhoweverwithconventionalagriculturethrough selection
ofreference farmsandthroughcomparisonwithsecondarydata
stillneeds improvement.Notalwaysasatisfactory referencefarm
couldbe found,matching theecologicalfarmsufficiently.Also
thecroppingpatternsofthefarmsshowenormousdifferences
(manydifferentmixed cropping activities),resulting inlimited
55
possibilitiesofcomparisons at croplevel.Thealreadymentioned
managerialinfluencesalsoareaseriouslimitationinthe
methodologyused.Thesurveyshouldthereforebesupportedby
simple experiments ofanumber of similaractivitiesontheeco-
logicalandreference farm.Thiscanimprovetheanalysisatcrop
level,increasetheaccuracyofsomeofthedataandmayhelpto
eliminatethemanagerialinfluenceontheresultstosomeextend.
Thiswillresult inacombined approachofaregular surveyofa
limited sizeandanon-farm-researchprogramme.Atthispoint an
evaluationofthemethodology inrelationtothedeterminationof
theeconomicalandecologicalattainabilityofafarmingsystem
overanumber ofyearsisnotyetpossible.
Basedontheexperienceswiththismethodology inthefirst
yearanumberofimprovements areproposed:
Manyproblemsoccurredwithcropsnothavingafullcropping
cyclewithinthestudyperiod.Itisthereforenecessaryto
includestocksand standingcropsinthebalanceatthe
beginandtheendofthestudyperiod.
Althoughfarmerparticipationintheresearch isalready
high,agreaterinvolvement ofthetotalfarmhousehold in
theresearchisrequired.Sincethedatacollection istobe
continued overanumber ofyearsasimplesystem shouldbe
designed inordertoenablefarmhouseholds torecorddata
themselves.Thisisalready implemented inthe secondyear
ofresearch.
Thevariationbetweentheecologicalfarmsincroppingpat-
ternand socialcircumstances isenormous.Thisseriously
limitsthepossibilitiesofageneralanalysisofecological
agricultureandextrapolationoftheresults.Whenevera
morehomogeneousgroupofecologicalfarmscanbe identified
theseshouldbeconsidered forstudying.
Sinceyield isanessential factorintheagronomicand
economicviabilityofafarmingsystemtheyield estimation
ofthefarmhouseholdsmustbecheckedwithactualyield
measurements.
Inanumber ofcase-studiesnotthecomplete farmbutonly
oneortwoplotshavebeenstudied forvariousreasons.This
hascreated seriousproblemsintheanalysis.Inthesecond
yearofdatacollectiononlythecompleteholdingsare
studied.
Furtherdevelopment ofamethodology formeasurement ofeco-
logical8ustainabilitybasedontheuseofasetofeasily
measurableIndicators.
Preferably oneorganization shouldexecutetheresearch.The
experienceswithtwoexecutingagenciesprovethat despite
regularmeetingstheresultsofthetwoanalyses (agronomic
and economic)arenot fullycompatible.
56
5. CONCLUSIONS
Themainreasonsfortransitioncanbefoundinenviron-
ment/sustainabilityaspectsaswellashealthandfood quality.
Itisstrikingtonotethatinthis researchallbutonefarmer
mentionedatleastonereasonfortransitionwhichcanbeclas-
sifiedasideological (environment/sustainabilityorphilosophy).
WernickandLockeretz (1977)andBlobaum (1984)doing similar
researchintheUnited Stateshadonlyaboutonethirdoftheir
respondentsmentioning ideological concernasfactorinthedeci-
siontoconverttoorganicpractices.
5.1.1 Thetransitionprocess
Noneofthefarmsoptedfora 'parcelbyparcel'transition.
Althoughthispossibility seemstobemost advisable (Macrae,
1990), speciallyforfarmersworkinginuncertain situations
(lackofinformation,noassured market),itisalsohardlyused
intheWest.Apossible explanationforfarmersnotdoingso,
couldbethat oncefarmersareconvinced they should change their
farming systemtheypreferstartingnewpractices,evenonlyvery
gradual,above continuingthe'old'methodsinanypartoftheir
farm.Âgradualchangeoverthetotal farmprovedtobepre-
ferred.
Inthecaseswheretheoriginal farming systemwascloseto
the traditionalone(havingonlyalimiteduseofexternal
inputs)onecanhardly speakofaprocessofconversion.The
changes intended couldbeIntroducedwithinoneyear.
Intheothercasesfarmersreallywent throughadistinct
periodofaccelerated change.Anaverage transition tookthreeto
fiveyears,comparabletothethreetosixyearsasmentionedby
Macraeetal (1990)fortemperate zones.Insituationswherethe
originalapplicationsoffertilizerandpesticidesarehighit
might takesevenyearstocompleteatransitionwithout major
negativeeffectsonfarmincome.Whenhigh fertilizer applica-
tionswere droppedatonce,this resultedinseriousyield
decreasesatthestartofthetransition.Inthese cases farmers
were economically forcedtoswitchbacktotheuseoffertilizer
andoptforagradualdecreaseonly (cases6and7 ) .Madden
(1984)andLiebhartandCulik (1986)mentionAmerican fanners
having similarproblemswhenoptingfora 'cold turkey'transi-
tion,e.g.resultingin40Zyield reductioninmaize.Inteacul-
tivationinSouth-India,yield decreasesof21to33Zwere
experiencedinthefirstyearoftransition from conventional
(240to300kgfertilizerN/ha/year)toorganic cultivation
(Werf, 1990B).
57
5.1.2 Agricultural changes implemented
Themainchanges implementedwere insoilfertility andpest

anddiseasemanagement.Practically, farmers focused ondecreas-
ingapplicationofpesticidesand fertilizer,increasing cultiva-
tionofperennialand leguminous cropsand intensified applica-
tionoforganicmanure.Specificproblemslieinproductionof
sufficient organicmaterialonthe farmandlackofknowledge on
alternativepest controlmeasures.
The importance giventoincreasing thenumber ofperennial
cropsandtreesisremarkably different fromtheEuropeanand
North-American experiences.However,thisisfullyinlinewith
thenaturaltendency intropicalecosystemsofaccumulation and
retentionofnutrients inliving tissues.Inmost oftheEuropean
andNorth-American transitionapproachesrotation adjustment
playsamajorrole (Dabbert 1986;Patriquin1986;Kirschenmann
1988;Andrews,PetersandJanke 1990),incontrast totheresults
ofthisresearch.OnlyZeelenberg (1989)andAndrew (1987)take
soiland fertility asastartingpoint.Maybethisdifference can
beexplainedbythe factthattherotationsaspractised in
South-Indiahavenotbeenchanged asmuchasintheWest through
theintroduction ofchemicalfertilizersandpesticides.There-
fore,itisstillpossibletomaintainsoilfertilitybynatural
meansundercurrent croprotations,whichcannotbedone anymore
undertheintensive conventionalcroprotations intheWest.
Othergroupsofchanges implemented bythefarmersincluded
cropmanagement (increasing leguminous,perennialand fodder
crops), livestockmanagement (increasingthenumber oflivestock,
improvingurineandmanurecollection)anderosioncontrol
(increasingvegetative coveraswellasmechanicalmeasures).
Dabbert andMadden (1988)distinguish fiveeffectsinfluenc-

ingtransitionintheUnited States;rotationadjustment,bio-
logicaltransition,prices,learningandperennialdevelopment.
Therelative importance oftheseeffectsontransitioninSouth-
Indiaisquitedifferent fromtheexperiences inEuropeand
North-America.
Rotationadjustmentwaspractised insomecasesbutofminor
importance only.Biologicaltransitionwasthemainagro-techni-
caleffect.Wherehighlevelsof fertilizerwereapplied,these
had tobereducedverygradually toprevent considerableyield
decreases.Development ofbalanced insectpopulations isanother
majoraspect forwhichsufficient timeisneeded.Theprice
effectwasnon-existent asproductswereused forhome consump-
tionorsold inconventionalmarketsatregularprices.Aspe-
cializedmarket fororganicproductsdoesnotyetexistinIndia.
Learningwasamaineffecttoo,prolonging thetransitionmuch
beyondwhatwasagro-technicallynecessary.Theperennialeffect
wasmainlybasedontheincreasing importance ofperennialcrops
andtrees.Concluding,itcanbestatedthatlearningandbio-
logicaltransitionwerethemain factorsdetermining thelength
58
ofthetransitionperiod,followedatsomedistancebytheperen-
nialeffect.Rotationadjustment hardlyplayedaroleandthe
priceeffectwasofnoimportance.
5.1.3 Farmer characteristics
Essentialfarmercharacteristics forasuccessfultransition
were innovativeness,financialfreedom, familytraditioninagri-
cultureandresidenceonthefarm.Residenceonthefarmproved
tobecrucialforasuccessfultransition.Àhighdegreeof
innovativeneas,financial freedomand familytraditioninagri-
culturedirectly shortened thetransitionperiod.
5.1.4 Methodology
The casestudyapproachproved tobeeffectiveinidentify-

ingproblemareasaswellasstudyingmethods farmersdeveloped
toovercometheseproblems.
Structuringoftheresearchasanexplorativeonewassuit-
able inthegivencircumstances.Therepeated cycleofdatacol-
lection,processing,analysisandcheckingproved tobeefficient
aswellaseffective.However,fornewresearchtobeundertaken
inthisfield itwouldbebettertodesignitinamorepartici-
patorywayright fromthebeginning.Insuchasetupconsider-
ableattentionwillthenhavetobegiventothe (changing)role
ofwomen inthetransitionprocess.
5.1.5 Barriersandmethods forsuccess
Themost important barriertotransitionasexperiencedby

the farmerswasthelackofinformationontransitionandeco-
logicalagriculture.AlsobyAmericanorganic farmersthisis
perceived asaseriousbarriertotransition (Blobaum, 1984).
Thereforeeachfarmerhastodothetransitionalone.This
explainsthestrong influenceofthefarmercharacteristics on
thelengthandsmoothnessofthetransition.
Keyelement ofasuccessfultransitionisagradual
approach.Gradualintwoways,firstbytestingproposed changes
inasmallareabeforeintroducingatlarge,secondlybysequenc-
ingtheimplementation ofdifferent changesandnot introducing
allchanges foreseenatonce.Thepaceofnature isagood
guideline;i.e.increaseyourlivestockbyreproduction instead
ofpurchase,developyourfoddercropsbefore increasingthe
livestock,etc.
Thetimeneeded fortransitionislargelydeterminedbybio-
logicalaspects (thebiologicaltransitionandperennialdevelop-
ment effect ofDabbertandMadden (1988)).
59
5.2 Agro-economic research
5.2.1 Agronomicaspects
Althoughconclusionshavetobedrawnwith considerable
care,afewremarks canbemadeconcentrating around soilfertil-
ityand cropmanagement.
Fromtheanalysisofsoilfertilitymanagement anumberof
preliminary conclusions canbedrawn.Inecological farminga
greaternumber ofdifferent techniques forsoilfertilitymain-
tenanceispractised compared toreference farms.Theuseof com-
post,nightsoil,mulching anddeep-rooting cropsisdistinctly
more commononecological farms.Therebyecological farmsusea
widerandmorediversebaseofnutrient resourcesthantherefer-
ence farms.Nutrientbalanceat farmgateispositive forboth
farming systems.Theexportofnutrientsthroughthe farmgateis
smallerthantheImportofexternalnutrients (includingnitrogen
fixation).Forthereferencefarmsitismorepositivethanfor
theecologicalfarms.
However,lossesthroughvolatilization (ofNitrogen)and
leaching,whicharemorewhenusing fertilizer compared to
organicmanures,arenottakenintoaccount.Furthermore,effects
ofinternalrecyclingarenot included inthisstudy.Ontopof
thisithastobementionedthatthelong-termpositiveeffects
oforganicmanureabovechemicalfertilizers (e.gsoilstructure,
micronutrients)cannotbemeasuredwithinoneyearofresearch.
Ecologicalfarmsarelessdependant onexternalnutrients
thanreference farms,andhavealowerinputofnutrients for
cropactivities.Inspiteofthis,comparableyieldsarereal-
ized.Themostobviousexplanation forthisisthat thelower
nutrient inputsaremoreeffectivelyused.Ononeside,by lesser
lossescausedbyvolatilisationandleaching,becauseofnot
usingeasilydissolvablenutrientsbutalsothroughbetterman-
agement,e.g.improved compost productionandapplicationmethods
andmoreuseofN-fixingspecies.Ontheotherside,byamore
effectiveandefficientuseofnutrientsthroughinternalrecycl-
ing,amorediversified croppingpatternandtheuseofamulti-
tudeofsoilfertilitymaintenance andplant diversity tech-
niques.Thisisfurtherstrengthenedbytheadditionalbeneficial
effectsrelatedtotheuseoforganicmanure.
Lookingatthelevelofasinglecrop,inricecultivation
both farmingsystemshaveanegativenutrientbalanceat field
border.Theecologicalfarmsevenmore sothanthereference
farms,duetoalowerlevelofnutrients inputandhigherwith-
drawalfigures.Thethreeabovementioned reasons
(volatilization/leaching,internalrecycling anduseoforganic
manures)mayexplainthehigherproductionlevelsoftheecologi-
calricecultivation.Ithastobe studiedwhethertheseproduc-
tionlevelsaresustainable.
Considering cropmanagement thelandusepractices showa
strikingdifference forthehighernumber ofdifferent cropscul-
60
tivated onecologicalfarmsascompared toreference farms.The
higher Importance ofpulses inecologicalfarmsascompared to
reference farms,canbeexplained fromtheecologicalneed for
diversification andnitrogen-fixation.Techniques for creating
plant diversity are farmorepractised inecologicalthanrefer-
ence farms.This isspecially striking foractivities suchas;
mixed/intercropping,useofcovercrops,hedges/shelterbelts,
multi-storey cropping,selectiveweeding,on-farm treenurseries
andversatile rotations.Largedifferences incropping pattern
betweenthecase-studiesoccurred.One commondifference isthat
pulseshave agreatershareinthe croppingpattern ofecological
farmscompared tothereference farms.An interesting feature is
the importance oftreesontheecologicalfarms.Almost seven
timesmore treesare foundontheecological farmsthanonthe
reference farms.Anothersignificant difference isthe lesser
dependenceoftheecologicalfarming systemon cropactivities
only.Throughaconsiderable livestockcomponent, crop residues
canbeput touseand improved options fornutrient recycling
from cropstosoilare established.
Itisnotpossibletojudgetheagriculturalsustainabllity
ofa farming system onthebasisofoneyearofresearchonly.
Data available so fardonot give asufficientbasis forjudge-
ment yet.Fieldobservations indicateagenerallymore conscious
soil fertilitymanagement inrelationtopracticesat field level
inecological farmingthan inthereference farms.Ineither
situation, farmershaveonly littleawareness ofnutrient con-
tents ofproductsusedandnutrientbalance.Thus,nutrientman-
agement ismore amatterof feeling andobservation.Continuation
ofthe study overanumber ofyearshastoprovewhether soil
fertility issustainable ineither farming system.Better soil
protectionthrough increasedvegetation andvegetative diversity
isobvious intheecologicalfarms.
5.2.2 Economicaspects
The individualcase-studiesrevealconsiderable differences

ineconomicperformancebetweenecologicaland reference farms in
the studied season.Alsobetweenthecase studies largediffer-
ences occur.Aproperseparateanalysisofeachofthe casestu-
dies canonlybedonewhendataofmore seasonsbecomeavailable.
At thispointacombined analysis ofthe sevencase studies shows
no significant differences inthemost important economickeyfi-
guresbetweenecologicaland reference farms.As couldbe
expectedwith suchaheterogeneous group alargevariation
betweenthe farmsinonegroupexists.Apart fromdifferences in
individualperformanceand skillsof farmersalso the cropping
patternand livestock compositionofthe farms inonegroup show
anenormousvariation.Despitethesedifferences,a first global
conclusion fromthis firstyearofstudy isthat inSouth-India
ecological farmmanagement hasat leastthepotentialtoachieve
economicresultscomparablewithconventionalfarmingmethods.
61
Thetotalnet-farm-income perlabourdayamountstoRp32inboth
groups,whichishighcompared totheaveragepriceoflabourin
thearea (Rp 15perday forunskilledmale labour).Sincealso
theaverageholding sizeofthestudied farmsisconsiderably
higherthantheStateaverage itmaybeconcluded thatthe
studied farmscanbeclassified asawell-above averagegroupof
farmersintermsofskillsandresources.Observations fromthe
enumeratorsalsoconfirmthisconclusion.
Duetothedecreaseduseofexternalinputsonecological
farms,somesignificant generaldifferences inthecost structure
atfarmlevelare found.Most striking isthedifference inthe
cashcomponent ofthetotalcosts,which isapprox.50Zonthe
ecologicalfarm,compared to67Zonthereference farm.Fora
numberof farmersthisfeaturehasbeenareason forthetransi-
tiontoecological farming.Alsothecomposition ofthevariable
costsdiffers,whereby ontheecologicalfarmsthecostsof
manureperha (including calculatedvalueofinternaldeliveries)
are lowerandthecostsoflabourperha (includinghired
mechanization)areslightlyhighercompared tothereference
farms.Thelabour input inlabourdaysperhahowevershowsno
significant differencebetweenthetwo farming systems.Sincethe
cultivated areaonecologicalfarmsishigher,thetotallabour
inputper farmishigherontheecological farms.The labour-com-
positionalsoshowsconsiderable differenceswhereby theshareof
male labourandhired labourinthetotallabour input ishigher
ontheecological farms.Thesexualdivisionoftasksinrelation
totypeoffarmworkisequalonthetwofarming systems.The
shareoflivestock inthetotalgrossincomeismuchhigheron
theecologicalfarms (27Z)compared tothereference farms (only
6Z).
Nodifferenceisfoundinthemarket-orientednessofthe
farms,inbothgroupsapprox.55Zofthetotalproduce issold.
Howeverenormousdifferencesbetweenthecase studies occurred,
withtwo farmsatsubsistence level (only3-5Zoftheproduce
sold)andheavymarket-oriented farms (85Zoftheproduce sold).
Largedifferences incroppingpatternoccurredbetweenthecase-
studies,havingconsiderable influencesontheeconomic perform-
ance.Theaverage levelofoff-farm-incomeper farmonecological
farmsistwicethatofthereference farms.Thismay indicate
that atthismoment ecologicalfarminginIndia isinitspre-
liminary stageandthat ingeneralfarmerswith sufficient other
sourcesofincomearewilling andareabletobeartherisks
involved intheprocessoftransitionand experimentation.
5.3 Extrapolations
5.3.1 Transition
Extrapolating theresultsofthetransitionresearchwill
havetobedonewiththenecessary care.Thecase study approach
62
andthelimitednumberofcasesmakeitimpossible tocomewith
conclusiveremarksgoingbeyond thesecases.However,relating
thefindingspresentedheretotheliteratureontransition from
industrialized countriesandtodiscussionsonthistopicamongst
peopleworking inthe fieldofsustainableagriculture indevel-
oping countries,anumber ofgeneralized observations canbe
made.
Inmost casesdescribed thedecision fortransitionwas

basedonbroadenvironmentalreasoningorgeneral considerations
of familyhealthand foodquality.However,thesesituations are
tobe considered asexceptionalwhenthinkingofchangingagri-
cultureindeveloping countries towardsmoresustainableprac-
tices.
Sustainable agriculture indeveloping countries isnotlike-
lytobeachieved throughaprocessoftransitionwithaclearly
defined targetandtimeplan.Itneedstoinvolvelargenumbers
oftheagriculturalpopulation,notonlyfarmerswithastrong
conceptualmotivationasthecurrent innovators studied inthis
research.Assuchitwillnotberealistictospeakofaclear
transitionprocess,thechangewillbemuchmoregradualinall
aspects.Instead ofcomparing ittothetransitionofanindivid-
ualfarm fromconventionaltoecologicalagriculture itcanbet-
terbecompared tothedevelopment currently takingplaceincon-
ventionalagriculture inindustrialized countries.Thereagrad-
ualchangeoftheconventionalfarming systemtowardsamore
sustainable onecanbeseen.Thinkofthegrowing importanceof
Integrated PestManagement andIntegratedNutrientManagement
resulting inmoreeffectiveapplications ofpesticides andferti-
lizer,therebydecreasing thequantitiesused.Thenwhat isthe
relevanceofthisresearchandtheinformationgathered?Exactly
thesameastheroleoforganicandecological farming inindus-
trialized countries;thatofpioneer.Firstofallprovingat
field levelthat itispossibletofarmecologically andsimulta-
neously economically.Furthermore,identifyingbottlenecksand
possible solutions indeveloping andintroducing sustainable
farmingsystems.
5.3.2 Agro-economics
Thedatapresented arethefirstavailableonacomparative
agro-economicbasis forecologicalandconventionalagriculture
inadeveloping country.Onbasisofthepreliminary conclusions
someremarkscanbemadetowardstheextrapolationsofthese
resultsatnationallevel.
First ofall,itisseemsthatecological farmingmethods
canproduceasimilaroutput,using lessexternalresources,and
supplyingthefarmerwithasimilarincomeperlabourdayascon-
ventional farming.Whentranslated toanationallevelthiswould
meanthat sustainable agriculturedoesnotput theshort-term
food securityatrisk,nordoesitinfluencethe farmers'income
63
negatively.The farmingtechniquespractised under ecological
management canevenbeexpected todecrease thedepletionof soil
fertility anderosion.Thiswouldmeanthat the long-term food
security couldbebettercatered forby sustainable thanconven-
tional farmmanagement.Theloweruseofexternalresourcesmeans
a greater independence fortheindividual farmer aswellas for
thecountryat large.Nooronlylimiteduseofmineralferti-
lizersat farmlevelwillhaveadefinitepositive effect ona
developing country's foreignexchangeposition.
Furthermore,it canbe assumed that certaintechniquesprac-
tised ontheecological farms could enhancethe efficiency of
conventional farms.Forinstance,thesoil fertilitymanagement
techniquespractised result inahighernutrient efficiency.In
conventional farmsthiswouldmeanlowerexpenditure forferti-
lizer.Atnationalleveltheeffectswillbe inthe samedirec-
tion asdescribed above.
The ecological farmsstudiedhad todevelop their specific
expertise ontheir ownwithout anyoutsidehelp.Taking this into
account itcanbeexpected that thepotentialof ecological farm
management goesbeyond the resultsofthis study.If sustainable
farmingwould receive similarattention fromresearchand exten-
sion,thecurrent resultsmight even improve.
64
REFERENCES
Andrew,J.
"Hakingthetransitiontolowinputagriculture:A farmer'sper-
spective"
Americanjournalofalternative agriculture, 1, (1987)3,1987,
pp 17-18
Aubert,C.
"Conversiontobiologicalagriculture"
In:Oberwil,Hill&Ott (eds.)> BasicTechniques inecological
farming, 1982,p.22-25c
Biobaum,R.
"Barrierstoconversiontoorganic farmingpractices inthe
midwesternunitedstates"
In:NewYork,WilliamLockeretz (ed.)> Environmentally sound
agriculture, 1983p.263-278
Breugel,A.andK.Brouwer
Going forwithout; areportontransitionoftwelve farmsin
SouthIndia,Pondicherry,AME, 1990
Dabbert, S.tP.Madden
"Thetransitiontoorganicagriculture:Amulti-year simulation
modelofaPennsylvania farm"
American journalofalternativeagriculture, 1(1986)3,pp99-
107
Kirschenmann,F.
Switching toasustainablesystem
NorthernPlainsSustainableAgriculture Society,
Windsor,USA, 1988,pp18
Lampkin,N.
"Problemsofcomparisons inbiologicalfarming"
In:New farmerandgrower
198Ano.5,pp 17-20
Lampkin,N.
"Aresearchconcept forinvestigating organic farmingsystems:
casestudies"
In:Globalperspectivesofagro-ecology andsustainableagricul-
turalsystems -ProceedingsofthesixthIFOAM conference
SantaCruz,1986,pp 121-127
65
Liebhart,WandM.Culik
"Initialresultsofastudyoftheconversionprocess 1981-1983"
In:Theimportance ofbiologicalagriculture inaworld ofdimin-
ishingresources
Witzenhausen, 1986,pp201-210
Lockeretz,W.etal
"Comparisonoforganicandconventional farming intheCornBelt"
In:Organicfarming:currenttechnology anditsroleina
sustainable agriculture
Madison,ASA, 1984,pp37-48
Macrae,R.etal
"Farm-scaleagronomic andeconomic conversion from conventional
tosustainableagriculture"
Advances inagriculture,43,1990,pp 155-198
Madden,J.
Regenerative agriculture:Beyondorganicand sustainablefood
production
EastLansing,Michigancooperativeextensionservice,Michigan
StateUniversity, 1984
Maxwell,S.
Theroleofcasestudies infarming systemsresearch
Sussex,IDS,1984
Narayan,B.
Areport onecological farming inSouthIndia -economic analysis
Bangalore,ICSIM, 1990
Numm,R«
"Towards sustainabledevelopment:Anenvironmentalperspective"
In:ArchlbugiandNijkamp (Eds.)
Economyandecology:Towardssustainable development
Dordrecht,KluwerAcademicPublishers,1989
Patriquin,D.etal
"Observations onamixed farmduringthetransitiontobiological
husbandry"
BiologicalAgriculture andHorticulture,4,1986,p69-154
Pearce,D.,A.Markandya andE.Barbier
Bleuprint foragreeneconomy
London,EarthscanpublicationsLtd, 1989
Pelt,M.,A.KuyvenhovenandP.Nijkamp
Projectappraisalandsustainability:theapplicationofcost-
benefit andmulti-criteria analysis
WageningenEconomicPapers,1990
66
Sivasubramanian,K.andA.deJonge
Sustalnability analysisofecologicalagriculture inSouthIndia
Pondicherry,AME, 1990
Vereijken,P.
Theexperimental farmDevelopment Farming-Systems atNagele (pub-
lished inDutch)
Lelystad, PA6V, 1985
Wernick,S.andW.Lockeretz
"Motivationandpracticesoforganicfarmers"
In:Compost science 18(November-December),1977,pp20-24
Werf,E.vanderandB.Narayan
Asocio-economic studyofecologicalagriculture inSouth-India
Bangalore,AME &ICSIM,1989
Werf,E.vander (A)
Farmers'experiences intransitiontowardsecologicalagriculture
inSouth-India
Budapest,Paperpresented atIFOAMconference, 1990
Werf,E.vander (B)
OrganicteacultivationatSingampattigroupofB.B.T.C.,India
Leusden,TheNetherlands,ETC-Foundation, 1990
Werf,E.vander (ed.)(C)
Reportonafarmersmeetingontransitiontowards sustainable
agriculture
Pondicherry, India,Agriculture,ManandEcology, 1990
Zeelenberg,M.
Arable farming intransition
Zwolle,TheNetherlands,NetherlandsAssociation forEcological
Agriculture, (published inDutch), 1989
67
ANNEXES
69
Annex 1 LISTOF TERMS
Blofertillzer Use ofmicro-organisms to fix/solubiliseatmos-

pheric and naturally occurring plant nutrients.
Bio-gas Anaerobic decomposition of cowdung to generate

methane gasas fueland slurry asmanure.
Cropping pattern Sequence/System of cropping in apiece of land in

one year.
Compost Way of decomposing farm and animalwastes for

increasing nutrient supplying ability of the
materials.
Conventional agriculture Agricultural aiming at production maximization

throughuse ofexternal inputs such as:ferti-
lizers,pesticides,herbicides,mechanization etc.
Cover crop Growing crops (usually creeper) as an undergrowth

within the orchards orperennials.
Diversity Diversity at farm level iscreated by using many

different species ofplants and animalsto perform
one functionwithin the farming system (e.g.dif-
ferent tree and grass species to supply fodder for
animal husbandry).
Ecological agriculture Agriculture that seeks tooptimize theuse of local

resources through creating complex and divers
farms, aiming at a stable,growing and long lasting
production level.
Farmyard manure Partially decomposed farmwastes to enrichphysio-

chemical properties of soil.
Green manuring Leguminous plants grown on field and incroporated

in situ to enrich soil fertility (specially nitro-
gen).
Gross income Totalvalued output of farm activity oranumber of

farm activities.
Gross margin Gross incomeminusvariable costs.
Indigenous Emphasizes that agricultural development should

take into account theknowledge and technology
existing inagiven area.
Integrated A term derived from Integrated Pest Management and

transferred to overall agriculture; tries todevel-
opbalanced techniques and toestablish thresholds
for the economically viable and ecologically safe
use ofpesticides.
Low-external input An economic approach stressing theneed formany

farmers touse of techniques that donot require
expensive Inputs from outside the farm.
Mulching Covering the soilwith organicsto conservemois-

ture.
70
Multi-storey cropping Arrangement ofdifferent cropsintiers foreffi-
cientutilization ofsunlightand soilprofile.
Multiple cropping index Ratioofcropped areaandtotalavailable land

expressed inpercentage.
Net-cash income Total farmcash-Incomeminustotaleachcosts.
Off-farm Income Total Income from othersources than farm.
Selectiveweeding Selective removalofvoluntarily grownplants from

the crop field.
Site-oriented Developed ontheInsightthatagriculturaltechnol-

ogy shouldbebased onandthepotentials ofa
givenarea.
Sustainable development Development thatmeets theneeds of thepresent

without compromising theability of futuregener-
ations tomeet theirownneeds.
Traditional agriculture A subsistence oriented farming systemusing low

levelsof locallyavailable Inputs.
Variable cost All coststhatvaywiththesizeofa fam activity

e.g.matials,fertilizers,etc.
Versatile rotations Relativehighdiversity ofcropsgrownononeplot

withinoneyear.
71
Annex 2 QUALITATIVEAGRO-TECHNICALANALYSIS O?TRANSITION -PHASE1
CHECKLIST
1. Whenwas thetransitionperiod started?

2. What iatheultimateaimof transition?
3. Was aplan fortransitionmade (inwriting ormentally)ifso,then:
3.1 What«asthetimeperiod originally scheduled andhow isthis followed?
3.2 Howwasthetransition implemented?
- Gradualonthewhole farm
-Fullatonceonthewhole farm
-Gradualplotbyplot
-Fullatonce,oneplot afteranother
-Others,specify.
3.3 Whichwerethe fivemost important changesthatyouwould like to
make/made during transition?
3.4 Which ofthe followingwere included intransitionplan,actually changed
and gaverisetoproblems?
Part ofplan Practised Directions Problems
Yes/No Yes/No +/- Yes/No
FERTILITY MANAGEMENT
Fertilizer/use
Manureuse
N-fixing crops
Cultivation
Perenual crops
Cultivation
Soil coverage
Land protected
from erosionand run-off
Recycling organic matter
Externalinputs for soil
fertilitymaintenance -
- organic
- inorganic
Compositing method
Tillage
Others
CROP MANAGEMENT
Number ofplant
species/varieties
Crop rotation
Cropping pattern
Wind breaks
Presence ofweeds
Pest and diseases
Productivity
Others.
72
Part ofplan Practiced Directions Problems
Tea/Ho Yes/No •/- Tes/Ko
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
Number of animal
species/breeds
Fodder production
Fodder Imported
Concentrate production
Concentrate imported
Cattle shed
Manurecollectl/on
Urine collection
AnimalHealth-
diseases
veterinary costs
Livestock productivity
Livestock fertility
Number ofanimals per
areaunit
Others
HOUSEHOLD
External dependence
for food
External dependence
for fuelvood
Family health
Family Income
Labourneeds
Others
Was anyhelp received fromoutsidethe farm during:

- transitionplanning?
- transition implementation?
Ifsobywhom?
- extension service
• neighbours
- ecologicalagricultural experts
-othersi specify
Where thereanyexternalinfluencing factorsontransition implementation?
Negative Neutral Positive
Neighbours attitude
Family attitude
Neighbours farmingmethod
Loansoflocalbank
Localextension service
Others, specify
73
Annex 3 AGRO-KCONOMIC-STUDY-OF-ECOLOGICAL-FARMIHG-IN-IHDIA
GENERAL-QUESTIONNAIRE
1. State District
3. Taluk Village
5. Altitude Rainfall
7. Farmgroup: I Ecological
II Transitional
III Non-Ecological
8. Nameofthehead of household
9. Name of theRespondent and relation toHHH
10. Type of cultivation:Individual/Joint/Coperative
11. Mother tongue
12. Household information
SI. Name Relation- Sex Age Place Educa- Dura- If Marl- Occu-
No. ship to of tion tion mig- tal- pation
HHH birth of rated sta-
tus
8 10 11
13.Housing condition and amenities available:

I)House type : Pucca/SemiPucca/Katcha
II)Drinkingwater : Tes/No
III)IfNo,distance
travelled
IV)Separate bathroom: Yes/No
V)Seperate kitchen : Yes/No
VI)Electricity : Yes/No
14.Doyouknowof anyotherecologicalortransition farm?

If sowhich agro-technical information andexperiences doyou exchange?
15.Land particulars (inacres):
Cultivable Irrigated areaby source

Status Total Area
Value
Canal Well Tank Q/S Total
Owned
Leased in
Leased out
Totalland
74
16.Crop pattern
Distance Soil
Parcel Plot ofplaceof K/R/S I/UI 0/LI/LO typeA C
residence
17.Livestock
Sex Production
Type Breed Female/Bull/ group Live- Cattle- Value
Bullock Dry/Calf/ weight shed
Heifer/Adult
18.FarmAsset Position:
value expected lifetime
Implements IMachinery: I) 1Woodenplough

II) Ironplough
III) Sprayer
IV) DieselPumpset
V) Electric pumpset
VI) Tractor/Trailer
VII) PowerTiller
VIII) Crusher
IX) Farmwell
X) Others
) Perennials
SOCIALQUESTIONS
19. Whowithinthe familymainly takesthedecisions/does the taskwithin

the following fields?
Decisions Work
Male Female Male Female
Cropping pattern
Ploughing
Compost application
Manure application
Fertilizer application
Seed selection
Sowing
Transplanting
Pesticide application
75
Decisions Work
Male Female Hale Female
Biologicalplant protection
Weeding
Harvesting
Marketing
Preparation forhome consumption
LivestockDairy poultry
management goats
Education
(InterviewbothMaleandFemaleI)
20.Decisionmakers
Agri./Family Farm(yrs) Family Whether

Yes/Mo Exchange Agrl.Trg. steps
Tes/No Eco Agr
21.Reason forchangeover to (transition to)ecological agriculture
Farm income
Decrease risks
Increaseindépendance
Avoid loansandindebtness
Love and respect forland
Specific agricultural problems
e.g.animalhealth
pesticide poisoning
Philosophical/ideological reasons
Human health
76
Annex4 REGULARFARM SURVEY
INPUT/OUTPUTRECORDS
TansNo. :
GroupNo.:
Period
NameoftheRespondent:
RelationshiptoHHH :
EnumeratorsName :
A.CROPLABOORINPUT
LABOUR INPUT
Cropping — ---—-———————————.........—
Parcel Plot System Operation Family Hired Exchange Wagerate Kind
MFC M F C M F C M F C M F C
M-Male
F«Female
C-Child
AnimalLabour MechanicalLabour
No.ofdaysworked Amount Paid No.ofdays Amount
B.CROPINPUTRECORD
INPUTOFCROPS
Parcel Plot Input Type Unitof Quantity Value
Q P HP P HP
Q•Quantity
P•Purchased
HP»Home Produce
C.CROPOUTPUTRECORD
Parcel Plot Typeof OUTPUTOFCROPS

output ........ ....................—....
Totalofproduction Sales Consumption/Int.delivery
Q V Q V Q V
Q•Quantity
V»Value
D.CROP CHARACTERISTICS
Parcel Plot Crop/ Plantdensity Planting Harvesting Soil

Variety incmxcm date date CoverageZ
77
E.LIVESTOCKINPUT
Typeof Input Type Unit INPUTS Hours/day

livestock outsidefarm
Quantity Value
Q P HP P HP
LABOUR
Operation Family Hired Exchange WageKate
M F C M F C M F C M F C
F.LIVESTOCKOUTPUT
Typeof Typeof OUTPUT

livestock output
Unitof TotalProduction Sales Consumed/Int.delivery
Q Q V Q V Q V
G.LIVESTOCKPARTICULARS(mutations)
Typeof Totalnumber Additions Substractions Total

livestock (lastinventory) number(at
P H G S G D C present
P»Purchased S•Sold
H-Homebred D«Deaths
G•Gifts C-Consumed
H.FARM:FIXEDCOST
FixedCost AmountPaid
LandRevenue
Cess
Watertax
Repairs
Maintenance
Others
Total
I.INCOMEFROMOTHERSOURCES (Re) J.CONSUMPTIONPATTERN

Agriculturallabour Value
Hiringoutcart
Artisan Food
Business/Trade Non-food
Service
Non-Agriculturallabour Total
Leasingoutland
Rent
InterestfromSecurity/deposits
Others
78
ANNEX 5 CHECKLISTAGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
Anumber ofIndicators foragricultural attainabilityare included inthegen-

eralagro-economic questionnaire andtheregularagro-economic farosurveyor
canbe derived from there.Suchas thenutrient balance calculationswhich are
based onthemonthly input/output figures forcropsand livestock.Perheading
the 'derived'aspects are shortly indicated.
The follow itemswere studied at farm levelthrough fieldvisits.
1. SOILFERTILITY MANAGEMENT
1.1 Whichofthe following techniques forsoilfertilitymaintenance areprac-

tised?
Useof bio-fertilizers
Deep-rooting crops
Greenmanure
Compost (farm/urban)
Biogas/septic tank
Mulching
Farm yardmanure
Nightsoll
Otherorganic materials
1.2 Soiltestingwas done for;pH,organic carbon (X),availableN-P-Kin

(kg/ha).
1.3 Nutrient balance at farogate.
1.4 Nutrient balance ofmain crop.
1.5 Externalnutrient dependency ofthecropping system.
1.6 Nutrient flowdiagram fornitrogen.
2. CROPPING SYSTEM
2.1 Which ofthe following farmingmethods,creatingplant diversity, are

practised?
Mixed /Inter cropping
Multi-storey cropping
Agro-forestry/alley crop.
Selectiveweeding
Cover crops
Hedges/shêlterbelts
On-farotree nurseries
Versatile rotations
2.2 Land useand cropping diversity.
79
SES
"H iJ
OFINC
1.00
0.24
1.00
0.26
0.65
PDT
o s « «
co
*-• o o o
Pu
O N v t n n
o<« n n N
- - d o d o
i i
o O H M n N
-* o o o o d
i i
1
o • * oo ^ r*. en ÉM
-H o o o o o o
i
3
' H O O O O O O O l
8 o*tf *a-*4'cnaooa><<
o n o m o o N H n n p j
• • • • • • • • • • B B
^ O O O O O O O O O t - t
• • • • • • • • • • • e/3
- I O O O O O O O O O O
go o m i n « 0 i n N « H i n o D
• • • • • • • • • • • • cj
- H O O O O O O O O O O O • e al
• H M
I I I I W O -rl
• « H
O M
• • • • • • • • • • • • a U O 0,4
» H O O O O O O O O O O O O
H Sa)
« o «i
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ^ï S 3S
- i O O O O O O O O O O O O O > •O *• « H
.3
1"5 <w am
I s IJL
111-11
o o *>
u o
lï •«•
- H O O O O O O O O O O O O O © J3 « M P
O O O o
o
« o « • H U «
nS H 0
»0 M M
•j J3 •) *)
^©©oooooooooooooo el *J « « P
0 « O (3
«I O 0 0
O I O u
o « O N n n « N i n H e o - n i n O H i n n q
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •M
k> o
« h
3 "O M IJ I J H
0 0 0 0
- N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H SE O
55 N Ï E h 01
S SS iä
ES«'«>8d(!«! Sëu d4 Ü
ËSag SSH
80

DeJager, A., & Van Der Werf, E. (1992) - Ecological Agriculture in South-India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DeJager, A., & Van Der Werf, E. (1992) - Ecological Agriculture in South-India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.

de Jager Mededeling 459

Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI-DLO)

ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE IN SOUTH-INDIA; AN AGRO-ECONOMIC COMPARISON

This report describestwo research programmes carried out on ecological agricul-

Ecologicalagriculture inSouth-India :an agro-economic

Thecontentsof this report maybequoted orreproducedwithout further permis-

3.2.3 Generalcomparison ofecologicaland

Thisreport isabout theexperiences offarmers.It

theMinistry ofDevelopment CooperationofTheNetherlands

InSouth-Indiatworesearchprogrammeswere carried out.One

'Sustainable'isthekeypre-fix inanycurrent articleon

1.2 ResearchwithintheAgriculture,ManandEcology programme

1.3 Descriptionoffarming systems

Studying ecologicalagriculture inSouth-India requiresa

Figure 1.1 The traditional, conventional and ecological farming

Most ofthe farmingpractised inSouthIndiacanbeplaced

Systemvariables Conventional Ecological Traditional

Productivity high high low

Figure 1.2 Identifiable traits of three farming systems (Werf&

Toidentify, qualitatively andquantitatively thesocio-

Thisreport coversthefirstyearoffieldwork forthecom-

2.2.2 Anexplorative approach

Nothavingthepossibility tousetheexperiences ofothers

2.2.3 Classificationand sampling

Figure 2.1 Location of farms studied in South India. The numbers

2.3 Comparative agro-economic research

Focalpointofthecomparative study istheagro-economic

2.3.3 Classificationand sampling

2.3.4 Data collection

Currently, littleisknownonthemeasurement ofecological

3.1 Transition research

Figure 3.1 The transition process depicted as a position change

3.1.1 Descriptionofthesurveyed farms

Twelveecological farmsranginginsize from0.26to40hec-

2 3.0 Traditional Health Environment

Lackoftechnical informationonecological farming isa

Most farmershad seventotenyearsofexperiencewitheco-

Theoretically fourdifferentprocessesarepossible.A farm

No Holding Original Transitionmethod

2 3.0 Traditional +(1yr)

+-completed successfully --failed

3.1.3 Agriculturalchanges implemented

Farmerswereasked tolistwhat theyperceiveasthemost

Pests and diseases

Theneed forchanges inpestanddiseasemanagementwasin

Striking changes incropmanagement includeincreasedgrow-

Insixoutoftwelve casesthequantityoflivestock Inthe

Erosioncontrolactivitieswere increasedmainly duetothe

3.1.4 Farmer characteristics

Farmercharacteristics ofimportance inrelationtothe

3.2 Comparative agro-economic research

Inthecomparative agro-economic researchmanydifferent

3.2.2.1 Case study1

Table 3.5 Characteristics of farms la case study 1

State Karnataka Karnataka

Grossincome/ha 56 183 45685

3.2.2.2 Case study 2

The farms incase study 2have tosome extend a similar

State TamilNadu TamilNadu

Table 3.8 Main production characteristics in 198911990 season of

Grossincome/ha (Rp) 10 986 6 118

The farmsinthispairdifferconsiderably insizeandin