Natural farming in mission mode, but is it a workable alternative?

While the government is looking to push natural farming, which is different from organic farming, contrasting studies question the scalability and viability of the practice

The Union Cabinet last month approved an ambitious National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF) with an outlay of Rs 2,481 crore by subsuming all previous efforts into this single programme. 

 

The scheme aims to bring around one crore farmers under the fold of natural farming and is targeted to cover around 0.75 million hectares of land over the next few years. 

 

In 2019-20, the Central government had started a programme on natural farming titled ‘Bhartiya Prakratik Krishi Paddhati’ (meaning Indian Natural Farming Method). Subsequently, in 2022-23, a decision was made to build a 5 km natural farming corridor along the river Ganges. The two programmes were cover about 960,000 hectares nationwide. Both these programmes will now be merged into one single scheme. 

 

As per some reports, around 0.7 million hectares of land has been brought under natural farming while roughly 3.8 million is under some sort of organic cultivation. However, this is merely a drop in the ocean, given the net sown area in the country is around 141 million hectares. Currently, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu lead in land under natural farming. State governments, too, are promoting it through various schemes.   

 

Natural farming versus Organic cultivation 

 

As per the government, natural farming is a chemical-free farming system rooted in Indian tradition supported by a modern understanding of ecology, resource recycling, and on-farm resource optimisation. 

 

The entire process is treated as an agroecology-based diversified farming system which integrates crops, trees and livestock with functional biodiversity. It is largely based on on-farm biomass recycling with major stress on biomass mulching, use of on-farm cow dung-urine formulations, maintaining soil aeration, and exclusion of all synthetic chemical inputs.  

 

The broad principle is that the soil itself contains all the nutrients essential for plant growth. Thus, the system is expected to cut dependency on purchased inputs, making it cost-effective, with scope for increasing employment and rural development 

 

It works with a few basic rules, such as no external inputs, use of indigenous seeds, on-farm produced microbial formulation for seed treatment (such as Bijamrita), on-farm made microbial inoculants (Jivamrita) for soil enrichment, cover crops, and mulching with green and dry organic matter for nutrient recycling and for creating a suitable micro-climate for maximum beneficial microbial activity in soil. 

 

The processes also include mixed cropping, managing diversity on farm through integration of trees, management of pests through diversity and local on-farm made botanical concoctions (such as neemastra, agniastra, neem ark, dashparni ark. etc), integration of livestock, especially of native breeds for cow dung and cow urine as essential inputs, and water and moisture conservation. 

 

According to this technique, plants obtain 98-98.5 percent of nutrition from air, water, and sun, and the remaining 1.5 percent from the soil. The system, therefore, can sustain and flourish even without nutrient supplementation, just like a forest ecosystem. One of the essential elements of natural farming is maintaining live crop cover throughout the year, growing 15-20 diverse crops, 

 

While organic cultivation largely pertains to use of chemical-free ingredients, natural farming is a much wider term and encompasses an integration of all things natural including soil, water, air and the entire ecosystem to produce crops. 

 

Some people also view natural farming as a more Indianised version of agriculture, while organic is seen as a European concept. 

 

There is also a difference in certification between natural farming and organic cultivation, with the latter having a well-established network of testing and certification labs across India. 

 

Natural Farming and ZBNF 

 

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) popularised by agriculturist Subhash Palekar is one of the most common processes of natural farming. Though in vogue since several years, ZBNF became popular when the 2018 Economic Survey advocated it as a lucrative livelihood option for small farmers. The very next day, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in her Budget speech mentioned it as one of the innovative models through which farmers’ income could be doubled by 2022. 

 

At its core, ZBNF involves four key components. These are:  

 

Beejamrutham, or microbial coating of seeds using cow dung- and urine-based formulations 

 

Jeevamrutham, or the application of a concoction made with cow dung, cow urine, jaggery, pulse flour, water and soil to multiply soil microbes 

 

Mulching, or applying a layer of organic material to the soil surface in order to prevent water evaporation, and to contribute to soil humus formation 

 

Waaphasa, or soil aeration through a favourable microclimate in the soil. 

 

For insect and pest management, ZBNF propagates the use of various decoctions made from cow dung, cow urine, lilac, and green chillies, called ‘kashyams’. 

 

Can ZBNF boost agricultural income?  

 

However, ZBNF-driven productivity and returns remains a matter of debate.  

 

A 2019 study by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) found that though crop yields of more than 90 percent of farmers increased after they adopted the method, an overwhelming majority, or about 87 per cent, could not get better price for their produce, even as the need for both time and manual labour increased. 

 

The study was based on a focus-group of 142 farmers and in-depth interviews with 40 farmers from about 35 villages in 10 districts of Andhra Pradesh. 

 

It also found that almost 90 per cent of the farmers who were interviewed felt that their net incomes increased as production cost went down, despite no premium being attached to their produce. 

 

On yields, farmers said that they experienced a decline in their yields for various crops in the first one or two years or seasons of transition from chemical farming to ZBNF, but subsequently after a few seasons or years, ZBNF yield became equal or increased by 5–350 per cent in two-thirds of the crop plots. 

 

“The transition period for ZBNF yield to become equal to yield from chemical-based farming was one to four years,” the report found. 

 

The rural development ministry, which promotes alternative farming methods and sustainable agriculture practices through the Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP) programme, conducted a study on ZBNF through Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in 2017-18. The study found that while ZBNF alone might not boost incomes, it could improve incomes if done in conjunction with other forms of farming and allied activities such as beekeeping in the same field, multi-crop farming etc. 

 

Rythu Sadhikaran Samstha (RySS), the implementing agency of ZBNF in Andhra Pradesh and which has the largest area under natural farming, assigned the Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS) and Institute of Development Studies-Andhra Pradesh (IDSAP) – to make regular independent assessments of the status of natural farming. 

 

While CESS conducted the assessment for two seasons (Kharif and Rabi 2018-19), IDSAP continued it for the next two seasons (Kharif and Rabi 2019-20). 

 

The findings for six main crops of the state (paddy, groundnut, cotton, Bengal gram, black gram, and maize) suggested low expenditure on biological inputs and lower paid-out costs for ZBNF farmers vis-a-vis non-ZBNF farmers. 

 

The expenditure on inputs for ZBNF practitioners was 3.54 per cent to 74.63 per cent lower than non-ZBNF practitioners, and the paid-out costs were 9.08 per cent to 35.97 per cent lower  for a majority of ZBNF crops, indicating the potential for higher savings. 

 

Interestingly, the yield was also higher in most ZBNF crops, ranging between 0.94 to 23.4 per cent. 

 

The cost-saving due to biological inputs was such that net returns were positive for all ZBNF farmers even when yields were not as high as non-ZBNF farmers. 

 

A study in contrast  

 

However, the findings of another study by the state-run Indian Council of Agricultural Research's Indian Institute of Farming Systems (IIFSR) are in complete contrast with the CESS-IDSAP results. 

 

The IIFSR tested ZBNF concoctions over basmati rice-wheat cropping system at four locations – Pantnagar (Uttarakhand), Ludhiana (Punjab), Kurukshetra (Haryana), and Modipuram (Uttar Pradesh) for three years (Rabi 2017 to Kharif 2020). 

 

The study revealed that despite the low input cost, returns for ZBNF farmers could not improve due to low yields. While rice had 22.6 per cent and wheat had 18.2 per cent lower cost of cultivation in ZBNF, the returns were 58 per cent lower. 

 

Yield outcomes for basmati rice were 37 per cent lower, while wheat saw a 53.9 percent drop compared to integrated crop management (ICM) techniques after the second year. 

 

The study also predicted a 32 per cent decline in basmati rice yields and a 59 per cent decline in wheat yields from current levels if ZBNF were to be adopted at scale. 

 

Yet another simulation study of ZBNF published by ICRIER shows that wheat production decline with ZBNF methods, compared to conventional methods, can be 17.7 per cent if 30 percent of the net sown area is covered under natural farming, 29.5 per cent in the case of 50 per cent area, and 59 per cent in case of complete conversion to ZBNF. 

 

"This sharp fall in output because of ZBNF inputs should be a cause of concern for the government as the country tries to meet the rising demand for food by 2030," the ICRIER study said. 

 

It recommended large-scale and long-term assessment of the farming method prior to recommending it for wider adoption, while also suggesting an independent evaluation in Andhra Pradesh to verify their claims by a team of independent experts. 

 

Input volumes a challenge to scale  

 

Recently, a senior scientist expressed apprehension whether the deficiency of nutrients in soil can be compensated through organic materials. 

 

The director general of Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) Himanshu Pathak said that as per established research, one tonne of paddy requires 20 kg of nitrogen, 3.5 kg of phosphorus and 20 kg of potassium. 

 

India’s average per hectare yield of paddy is around five tonnes. This means that to get the optimum average yield, farmers require to apply 100 kgs of nitrogen, around 20 kgs of phosphorus and 100 kgs of potassium. 

 

Organic carbon in soil can give only about 40 kg nitrogen, which means the balance must be supplemented either through organic manure or chemical fertiliser. Pathak pointed out that 100 kg of organic manure only gives around 0.5-1 per cent of nitrogen, which means that a farmer would need 15-20 tonnes of organic manure per hectare for the remaining 60 kg of nitrogen. 

 

Even as the government looks to push natural farming once again as an alternative to excessive use of chemicals in agriculture, the question remains whether it will go mainstream or if it will continue to be a fringe player. 

ZBNF components

 

> Beejamrutham, or microbial coating of seeds using cow dung— and urine—based formulations

> Jeevamrutham, or the application of a concoction made with cow dung, cow urine, jaggery, pulse flour, water, and soil to multiply soil microbes

> Mulching, or applying a layer of organic material to the soil surface to prevent water evaporation, and for soil humus formation

> Waaphasa, or soil aeration through a favourable microclimate

> For insect and pest management, Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) propagates use of decoctions made from cow dung, cow urine, lilac, and green chillies, called ‘kashyams’