Natural Farming Project Report-ICAR-NAARM

0
Adoption of Natural Farming and its Effect on Crop

Yield and Farmers' Livelihood in India
DISCLAIMER: ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management has received

financial assistance under the research scheme of NITI Aayog (RSNA-2018) to prepare this
report. While due care has been exercised to prepare the report using data from various sources,
NITI Aayog does not confirm the authenticity of data and accuracy of the methodology to
prepare the report. NITI Aayog shall not be held responsible for findings or opinions expressed
in the document. This responsibility completely rests with ICAR-National Academy of
Agricultural Research Management (ICAR-NAARM).
ICAR-NATIONAL ACADEMY OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

(ISO 9001:2015 CERTIFIED)
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, Telangana, India
1
Recommended Citation:
Ranjit Kumar, Sanjiv Kumar, BS Yashavanth, PC Meena, AK Indoria, Sumanta Kundu, M
Manjunath (2020) Adoption of Natural Farming and its Effect on Crop Yield and Farmers'
Livelihood in India. ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management,
Hyderabad, India.
Images on Front and Back Cover:

1) Mulching in sugarcane field 6) Soil sample collection for lab analysis
2) Jeevamritha in barrel 7) Jeevamritha application in the field
3) Indigenous cow maintained by NF farmer 8) Ghanajeevamritha used in Andhra Pradesh
4) Intercrop in NF field
5) Earthworm in NF soil sample
Published by:
Director
ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad- 500 030, Telangana, INDIA
Phone: 040-24015070, Fax: 040-24015912
2
Preface
Natural Farming or Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) has become a pivot point of
discussion among the agricultural scientists, government, farmers, and several other
informal groups engaged in agriculture. This is mainly due to the reason that there are
two diametrically opposite schools of thought on this topic co-existing in the country.
Some scientists straightaway discard the philosophy of Natural Farming. On the other
hand, its proponents are claiming the method to be a panacea for all problems causing
distress in Indian agriculture, especially for smallholders.
To get the answer to several critical questions, NITI Aayog entrusted the teams at ICAR-
NAARM and ICAR-CRIDA to carry out the present study. The study necessitated both
primary surveys as well as lab analysis of samples. The primary survey, which included
various information related to socio-economic profile, cropping pattern, input use,
output marketing, etc. from the Natural Farming adopters as well as Non-adopters was
conducted by NAARM-team. At the same time, plant and soil samples from selected
fields of the adopter and non-adopter farmers were also collected for lab analysis, which
was done by the team at CRIDA.
The study was carried out in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
The students of Andhra University, Vishakhapatnam, Agribusiness Management
College, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, and Marathwada Agricultural
University, Parbhani were engaged for the data collection in the states of Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, respectively. The project team is grateful to the
concerned colleges, the coordinating faculty, and the students for field survey. We also
duly acknowledge the sincere effort of several project staffs at CRIDA & NAARM,
especially Mr. Sharath Kumar.
We express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Ch. Srinivasa Rao, Director, ICAR-NAARM for
showing keen interest and unconditional support in carrying out the project. We are
also thankful to the Director, ICAR-CRIDA for giving all kinds of support in conducting
this collaborative study. Most importantly, we sincerely thank all the farmer-
respondents who took the time to share their information during the field survey.
We are very much thankful to NITI Aayog, Government of India for entrusting us the
study.
We hope the report would answer some of the critical questions about Natural Farming.
However, at the same time, it also opens new vistas for research with many key
researchable questions that need to be systematically investigated to understand the
causality, sustainability, and long-term impact of Natural Farming.
Hyderabad Project Team

July 2020
i
Executive Summary
A
griculture in India has witnessed several technological advancements. ‘Green
Revolution’ (GR) technology-led intensification of agriculture transformed
India from food scarce to food surplus country. However, it also led to adverse
impacts like soil degradation, biodiversity losses, rising cost of cultivation, etc. Rising
application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides with stagnating/declining crop
productivity dovetailed with uncertain market conditions and climate change effect
resulted in unremunerative agriculture. Consequently, a large number of farmers falling
into the debt trap, and distress in farming sector became pervasive. In due course,
organic farming started gaining importance. The demand for organic food products is
on constant rise worldwide. India exported organic products worth $ 515 million in
2017-18, about 40% higher than the previous year. Currently, 1.78 million hectares of
cultivated area is estimated to be under organic farming in India. Though, very high
price of organic food products vis-a-vis conventional food makes it inaccessible to low-
income population. On the other hand, the need for a large quantity of FYM/organic
fertilizers and costly certification processes makes it impossible for small farmers to
adopt it.
Natural Farming (NF) or Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), as commonly known,
is purported to be a disruptive farm practice addressing major concerns of farmers of
the rising cost of production. It envisages ecological or regenerative agriculture
approaches under which the application of any kind of chemicals to soil biosystems are
prohibited. It relies more on soil biology than soil chemistry by encouraging multi-
cropping, round-the-year soil cover, the addition of formulation made up of cow dung
and urine to trigger the microorganisms in the soil system. However, it is being dubbed
by the scientific fraternity as an unscientific and hype-created story. Contrary to it,
thousands of farmers across the states in India are using one or other components of the
NF practices. The proponents and practitioners are confident and upbeat about it, while
non-practitioners and scientific community have serious doubts about the claim. Hence,
it is imperative to study the adoption of NF practices and their effect on crop choices,
crop yield, farm income as well as scalability and sustainability at farmers’ fields.
Keeping this in view, the present study sponsored by NITI Aayog has been conducted
in three leading states- Andhra Pradesh (largest expansion of ZBNF), Karnataka (first
adopted state) and Maharashtra (State with maximum farm distress reported). The field
survey was conducted in these states during February- May 2019 and personal
interview of adopters and non-adopters of Natural Farming was conducted to
understand the perception and realization of the farmers. To supplement the socio-
economic findings, samples from the fields (soil, plant and Jeevamritha) of NF-adopter
and non-adopter were also collected and analyzed at ICAR- Central Research Institute
for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA). Thus, the present study is the first systematic study
conducted unravelling several facets of Natural Farming in India.
ii
Salient findings of the study:
Adopter-Farmers following Worth mentioning!!

ZBNF/ NF practices
• Some famers in Karnataka are
Jeevamritha- ✓✓✓✓ (all) practicing NF since past 15 years
& are satisfied with its benefits.
Beejamritha- ✓✓✓(mostly)
Mulching- ✓ (few) • NF produce has potential to
Mixed/intercrop- ✓✓ (some) attract premium price.
Wapasa-  (rarely) • However, available nutrients in
NF field and NF plants are
Moderate quantity of FYM was observed to be lower than those
used before sowing in many cases in conventional farming.
Crop Yield comparison

In general, NF has not shown
higher yield than conventional 30%
farming.
15%
Finger millet, very low input
crop under conventional 0%
Soybean
Cotton
Finger millet
Jowar
Paddy
Sugarcane
Paddy
Sugarcane
Turmeric
farming, gave better yield in NF.
-15%
When NF is supplemented with
moderate FYM, crop yield -30%
improved significantly (Annex II).
Natural Farming may not be AP KA MH
yield enhancing but helped in
improving farmers’ income by Percent change in yield over
reducing cost of cultivation, and conventional farming
attracting better product price.
Benefits perceived by NF Perception of non-NF farmers for

adopter-farmers not adopting NF
 Reduced cost of cultivation  Non-availability of readymade
 Freedom from chemicals Jeevamritha
 Better taste and product quality  Fear of poor yield
 Premium product price  Not owning indigenous cow
 Better crop during dry spell  More engagement in farming
 Improved soil quality  No gurantee of premium price
 No exposure to pesticide  Possibility of crop failure
iii
Plant & Soil
Profitability
Sample Analysis
B:C ratio is better in NF owing to less input cost and
• Mixed results were found
attracting premium price for chemical-free produce
for soil and plant
nutrients level as well as
Percent change in B:C ratio over non-NF
soil microbiological 250
counts from lab analysis. 150
Invariably, NF fields
exhibited lower level of 50
macro-nutrients. -50
Paddy
Paddy
Jowar
Cotton
Black gram
Bengal gram
Ragi
Turmeric
Soybean
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
• With limited comparable
samples from fields, it is
difficult to compare and
conclude the effect of NF
on soil and plant nutrient
AP KA MH
status.
Sustainability and Scalability Way forward…

• In the long-run, NF may lead to ✓ Natural Farming practices
exhaustion of nutrients from soil, if should be seen as one of the
practiced in monocropping. alternative options for the
• NF-farmers perceived it to be producers & the consumers
climate resilient, less irrigation for chemical-free produce.
demanding and improving soil ✓ NF produce be recognized as
quality.
niche product and may be
• NF may not be a substitute for encouraged through cluster-
conventional farming for large scale farming (FPOs) to have better
food production. Rather it may be traceability of the produce.
promoted in low-input region for
✓ Moreover, scientific evidences
smallholders.
need to be generated before
• Institutional arrangement through scaling out in different agro-
KVKs & FPOs needed for its climatic regions with different
promotion and market linkage for crop combinations for its
premium price for the NF products. long-term sustainability.
Unanswered questions...
Farmers are continuing NF since long in some regions in different forms with
satisfaction. Intuitively it echoes the possibility of regeneration of nutrients required
for plant growth under NF through activation of different micro-organisms and
addition of biomass in the soil. However, to prove this hypothesis and theory of
change, there is a need for long-term field experiments by research institutions to
understand the nutrients exchange through soil microorganisms in the soil system
under different agro-climatic conditions, soil systems and cropping systems.
iv
*******
v
Table of Contents
Chapters Page No.
Preface i
Executive Summary ii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
List of boxes xi
List of Annexures xi
List of Abbreviations xiv
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Setting the context 1
1.2 Assents and criticisms of Natural Farming 2
1.3 Organic Farming vs Natural Farming 5
1.4 Objectives of the study 7
1.5 Limitations of the study 8
2. Study Area, Data and Methodology 9

2.1 Study area and sampling methodology 9
2.2 Description of the study area 11
3. Indian Soils and Natural Farming Practices 12

3.1 Nutrient deficiency in Indian soils 12
3.2 Role of soil micro-organisms 14
3.3 Subhash Palekar’s Approach of ZBNF 16
3.4 APZBNF implementation in Andhra Pradesh state 19
3.5 Pest control solutions 21
4. Sample Farmers and their Choice of Crops 24

4.1 Demographic characteristics 24
4.2 Cropping pattern 26
4.3 Livestock ownership pattern 30
4.4 Experience of practicing Natural Farming 31
4.5 Customization in Natural Farming practices 32
vi
5. Available Nutrients in Soil and Plant Samples from the
Fields 35
5.1 Protocol for selection of soil and plant samples 35
5.2 Results of the analysis of samples from Andhra Pradesh 37
5.3 Results of the analysis of samples from Karnataka 47
5.4 Results of the analysis of samples from Maharashtra 49
5.5 Concluding observations from lab analysis 56
6. Crop Yield and Economics of Natural Farming 58

6.1 Crop Yield 58
6.2 Crop yield trend with Natural Farming 61
6.3 Benefit-cost analysis of Natural Farming 61
7. Farmers’ Perception towards Natural Farming 64

7.1 Benefits perceived by NF farmers 65
7.2 Awareness among non-NF farmers 65

7.3 Reasons for non-adoption among non-NF farmers 66
Case – 1. NPM to ZBNF: a case from Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 67

Case – 2. Natural Farming for quality fruits: a case from Vizianagaram, 68
Andhra Pradesh
Case – 3. Earning regular income through mixed farming under Natural 69
Farming: a case from Mandya, Karnataka
Case – 4. Drawing inspirations from Fukuoka: a case from Tumkur, 70
Karnataka
Case – 5. Branding of Natural Farming products: a case from 71
Maharashtra
8. Scalability and Sustainability of Natural Farming 72

8.1 Scalability of Natural Farming 73
8.2 Factors to scale up ZBNF practices 74
8.3 Sustainability with ZBNF/NF 76
8.4 Challenges in ZBNF/NF adoption 79
9. Conclusions and Way Forward 81
Frequently Asked Questions related to Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF)/ Natural
Farming (NF) 86
References 92
Annexure 101
vii
List of Tables
Table Page No.
Table 2.1 Distribution of sample farmers in the study 9
Table 2.2 Description of the study area 11
Table 5.1 Practices followed by the sample farmers in Andhra 39

Pradesh
Table 5.2 Types of mulching suggested under NF and actual 39

practices going on in the NF fields
Table 5.3 Average soil microbial population in paddy cultivated 41

fields in Vizianagaram district (Andhra Pradesh)
Table 5.4 Average soil microbial population in paddy and sugarcane 45

cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district (Andhra
Pradesh)
Table 5.5 Average nutrient and bacteria contents in jeevamritha 46-47

samples collected from Andhra Pradesh
Table 5.6 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and nutrients in 48

paddy and sugarcane cultivated fields in Mandya district
Table 5.7 Soil microbial population in paddy and sugarcane 48

cultivated fields in Mandya district (Karnataka)
Table 5.8 Practices followed by the sample farmers in Maharashtra 49
Table 5.9 Average soil microbial population in turmeric and 54

sorghum cultivated fields of Parbhani district,
Maharashtra
Table 5.10 Average soil microbial population in soybean and turmeric 54

cultivating fields of Hingoli district, Maharashtra
Table 5.11 Average nutrient content and bacterial counts in 56

jeevamritha samples collected from Maharashtra
Table 6.1 Benefit-Cost comparison for major crops in selected states 62-63
Table 7.1 Benefits perceived by Natural Farming farmers 65
Table 8.1 Benefits expected from different components of Natural 73

Farming
viii
List of Figures
Figure
Figure Title Page No.
No.
Fig.1.0 Local and Eisenia fetida species of earthworm 7
Fig.2.1 States and sample districts for study 10
Fig.3.1 Major soil types in India 12
Fig.3.2 Effect of pH on availability of micro-nutrients 13
Fig.3.3 Micro-nutrient deficiency in Indian soils 13
Fig.3.4 SOC stock map of India 14
Fig.3.5 Interdependent and interconnected network of
15
microorganisms with plants
Fig.3.6 Web of mycorrhizal fungi in healthy soil 16
Fig.3.7 Jeevamritha being prepared by the paddy grower 18
Fig.3.8 Sugarcane trashes used as mulch in the NF field in
23
Karnataka
Fig.3.9 Azolla used as mulch by paddy growers in Andhra Pradesh 23
Fig.4.1 Age of sample farmers in 3 states 24
Fig.4.2 Educational qualification of sample farmers 25
Fig.4.3 Family size of sample farmers 25
Fig.4.4 Landholding pattern of sample farmers 26
Fig.4.5 Number of crops grown by the individual sample farmers 26-27
Fig.4.6 Intercropping adopted by NF farmer in Karnataka 27
Fig.4.7 Percentage of sample farmers following mixed/intercrop 28
Fig.4.8 Cropping pattern of NF farmers in Andhra Pradesh 28
Fig.4.9 Cropping pattern of NF farmers in Karnataka 29
Fig.4.10 Cropping pattern of NF farmers in Maharashtra 30
Fig.4.11 Average no. of indigenous cow per household 30
Fig.4.12 Percent NF-farmers owning different types of livestock 31
Fig.4.13 Experience of practicing natural farming by the sample
31
farmers
Fig.4.14 Application of different components by NF adopter-
32
farmers
ix
Fig.4.15 Quantity of Jeevamritha applied by NF adopter-farmers 33
Fig.4.16 Application of FYM by NF adopter-farmers 33
Fig.4.17 Crop-wise application of FYM used by NF-adopters 34
Fig.4.18 Mulching material used in various crops 34
Fig.5.1 ICAR-CRIDA scientists interacting with the farmers and
35
state government officials in Andhra Pradesh
Fig.5.2 Different practices followed by the NF- farmers in the
38
study area
Fig.5.3 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients
in paddy cultivated fields in Vizianagaram district, Andhra 40
Pradesh
Fig.5.4 Average plant nutrient contents in paddy plants cultivated
42
under NF and Non-NF practices in Vizianagaram district
Fig.5.5 Average available nutrients status in paddy and sugarcane
cultivated soils under NF & Non-NF practices in 43
Vishakhapatnam district
Fig.5.6 Average plant nutrient contents in paddy cultivated under
46
NF and Non-NF practices in Visakhapatnam district
Fig.5.7 Average plant nutrient contents in sugarcane plants
cultivated under NF and Non-NF practices in 46
Visakhapatnam district
in turmeric and sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani 51
district
52-53
in turmeric and soybean cultivated fields in Hingoli district
Fig.5.10 Average plant nutrient contents in turmeric and sorghum
55
under NF and Non-NF conditions in Maharashtra
Fig.6.1 Yield comparison among with- and Without- FYM users of
59-60
NF farmers with non-NF farmers in study area
Fig.6.2 Trend in yield of major crops under NF in last 3 years 61
Fig.7.1 Source of information on Natural Farming 64
Fig.7.2 Training attended by NF farmers (Year wise) 64
Fig.7.3 Awareness about NF among non-NF farmers 66
Fig.7.4 Reasons for not adopting NF 66
x
List of Boxes
Topic of the box Page No.
Box 1. Microbial activity in soil and cow dung 18
Box 2. Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) for Organic Certification 75
List of Annexures
Annexure Page No.
Annexure I. State-wise percent distribution of micronutrient deficiencies in 100
India
Annexure II. Protocol of measurements for soil chemical parameters 101
Annexure III. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant 102
analysis in Vizianagaram district
Annexure IVa. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major 103
nutrients in paddy cultivated fields in Vizianagaram district
Annexure IVb. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in paddy cultivated 103
fields in Vizianagaram district
Annexure IVc. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in paddy cultivated 104
Annexure IVd. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in 104
Vizianagaram district
Annexure IVe. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in 105
Annexure IVf. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in paddy plants in Vizianagaram 105
district
Annexure V. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant 106
analysis in Visakhapatnam district
Annexure VIa. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major 107
nutrients in paddy cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district
Annexure VIb. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in paddy cultivated 106
fields in Vishakapatnam district
Annexure VIc. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in paddy cultivated 108
fields in Visakhapatnam district
Annexure VId. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major 108
nutrients in sugarcane cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district
Annexure VIe. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in sugarcane 108
cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district
Annexure VIf. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in sugarcane cultivated 109
Annexure VIg. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in 109
Annexure VIh. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in 109
xi
Annexure VIi. Plot-wise soil microbial population in sugarcane cultivated fields 110
in Visakhapatnam district
Annexure VIj. Plot-wise soil microbial population in sugarcane cultivated fields 110
Annexure VIk. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in paddy plants in 110
Annexure VIl. Plot-wise plant micro-nutrient contents in paddy plants in 111
Annexure VIm. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in sugarcane plants in 111
Annexure VIn. Plot-wise plant micro-nutrient contents in sugarcane plants in 111
Annexure VIo. Village-wise nutrient contents of jeevamritha samples collected 112
from Andhra Pradesh
Annexure VIp. Village-wise bacterial population of jeevamritha samples collected 112
from Andhra Pradesh
Annexure VII. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant 112
analysis in Mandya district
Annexure VIIIa. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant 113
analysis in Parbhani district
Annexure VIIIb. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant 114
analysis in Hingoli district
Annexure IXa. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major 115
nutrients in turmeric and sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani
district
Annexure IXb. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in turmeric and 115
sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani district
Annexure IXc. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in turmeric and 116
sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani district (Maharashtra)
Annexure IXd. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major 116
nutrients in soybean and turmeric cultivated fields in Hingoli
district
Annexure IXe. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in soybean and 117
turmeric cultivated fields in Hingoli district (Maharashtra)
Annexure IXf. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in soybean and 117
turmeric cultivated fields in Hingoli district (Maharashtra)
Annexure IXg. Plot-wise soil microbial population in turmeric and sorghum 118
cultivated fields in Parbhani district (Maharashtra)
Annexure IXh. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields 118
turmeric and sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani district
(Maharashtra)
Annexure IXi. Plot-wise soil microbial population in soybean and turmeric 119
cultivated fields in Hingoli district (Maharashtra)
Annexure IXj. Plot-wise soil microbial population in soybean and turmeric 119
xii
Annexure IXk. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in turmeric (above ground leaf) 120
and sorghum (straw) macro-nutrient contents in Parbhani and
Hingoli districts (Maharashtra)
Annexure IXl. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in turmeric (above ground leaf) 120
and sorghum (straw) micro-nutrient contents in Parbhani and
Hingoli districts (Maharashtra)
Annexure IXm. Village-wise nutrient contents of jeevamritha samples collected 121
from Maharashtra
Annexure IXn. Village-wise bacterial population of jeevamritha samples collected 121
from Maharashtra
Annexure X. ANOVA result for yield comparison under different farming 122
methods:
Annexure XI. Average yield of major crops in the selected states 129
Annexure XII. Export of organic products from India 129
xiii
List of Abbreviations
A.P. : Andhra Pradesh
APMC : Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee
ASSOCHAM : Associated Chamber of Commerce and Industry of India
ATIC : Agriculture Technology Information System
B:C : Benefit – Cost Ratio
CAGR : Compound Annual Growth Rate
CMSA : Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture
COP : Conference of Parties
CRIDA : Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture
CRZBNF : Climate Resilient Zero Budget Natural Farming
CSKHPV : Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya
FAO : Food and Agriculture Organization
FPO : Farmer Producer Organization
FYM : Farm Yard Manure
GHG : Green House Gas
GR : Green Revolution
HYV : High Yielding Varieties
ICAR : Indian Council of Agricultural Research
ICRP : Inter-Cluster Resource Person
K : Potassium
KAR : Karnataka
KRRS : Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha
KVK : Krishi Vignan Kendra
LVC : La Via Campesina
MAH : Maharashtra
NAAS : National Academy of Agricultural Sciences
NBSS&LUP : National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning
NF : Natural Farming
NGO : Non-Governmental Organization
N : Nitrogen
Non-NF : Non-Natural Farming
xiv
NPK : Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
NPM : Non-Pesticidal Management
P : Phosphorus
PGS : Participatory Guarantee system
pH : Potential of Hydrogen
PJTSAU : Professor Jaya Shankar Telangana Agricultural University
RySS : Rythu Sadhikara Samstha
S : Sulphur
SOC : Soil Organic Carbon
UN : United Nation
ZBNF : Zero Budget Natural Farming
ZBSF : Zero Budget Spiritual Farming
xv
1. Introduction
Microbes provide crucial ecosystem services …. The microbiota
… in the soils in which these grow provide nitrogen, phosphorus
and other essential nutrients. Microbes in the oceans produce
50% of the oxygen we breathe, and … remove roughly the same
proportion of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They also
remove up to 90% of the methane from the world's oceans.
Nicole et al (2015), Nature 526, 631–634.
Beneath the imprint of one’s foot, extending down into the soil,
are 300 miles of mycorrhizal fungal hyphae. In healthy soil, these
fungi together with the full coteries of soil microbes help in
regeneration, resilience and revitalization of soil system making
all needed nutrients available to the plants through fixation,
decomposition, solubilization and mineralization.
Michael Phillips (2017)
1.1 Setting the context

According to FAO, by 2050 the world needs to increase overall food production by 70
percent to keep up with the growing global population and the changes in consumption
driven by expanding the middle class. At the same time, India is expected to be the most
populous country in the world by 2030, with 1.51 billion people. Under such conditions,
ensuring food security for the populace would be one of the biggest concerns for the
country. Therefore, adopting of any farming practices or production technologies at
large scale which are not scientifically proven and/or might have a negative effect on
crop yield may pose serious concerns on the national goal of ensuring food and
nutritional security. ‘Green Revolution’ technology (intensive use of HYV seeds,
chemical fertilizer and irrigation) adopted in the mid-1960s helped in overcoming the
food shortage in the country. However, intensification of agriculture had led to
considerable adverse environmental impacts, soil degradation, eutrophication of land
and water bodies, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and biodiversity losses (Evenson
and Gollin, 2003; Canfield et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2013; IAASTD, 2009; Pingali, 2012).
Contrastingly, Natural Farming (NF) is a unique chemical-free farming method that is
considered to be an agroecology-based diversified farming system, which integrates
crops, trees and livestock, allowing functional biodiversity (LVC, 2010; Rosset and
Martinez-Torres, 2012). Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF1) was originally promoted
1Though the proponent claims it to be ‘Zero Budget Natural Farming’ assuming no purchase of
any input from market, we believe that every resource including home available human and/or
1
by an agriculturist Sh. Subhash Palekar in the mid-1990s, who have been awarded one
of the highest civilian awards of India, Padma Shri in 2016 for promoting this alternative
farming practices (Khadse et. al., 2017; Mishra, 2018; Niyogi, 2018; Economic Survey,
2019). It has resulted in widespread adoption at varying levels in many states,
especially, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh. It is
considered to drastically cut down production costs by replacing the chemical fertilizers
and pesticides with home-grown products like Jeevamritha, Beejamritha, Neemastra, etc,
and adopting intercropping and mulching (Palekar, 2005; 2006). According to him, the
method requires only one indigenous cow for 30 acres of land. It is also contemplated
to promote soil health, improves soil organic carbon even without the need of adding a
huge quantity of FYM (farmyard manure) as in the case of organic farming and thus
help in attaining sustainable agriculture with the reduced carbon footprint. The
Economic Survey (2019) emphasized the importance of Zero Budget Natural Farming
(ZBNF) as one of the alternative farming practices for improving the farmers’ income,
in the backdrop of declining fertilizer response and farm income.
Biological sciences (e.g. microbiology, ecology, soil science) with their increasingly
symbiotic (Gilbert et al., 2012) and "probiotic" (Lorimer, 2017) understandings of soil
and plant life are also an inspiration for the ecological renewal of agriculture.
Wallenstein (2017) argues that to restore soils, we need to feed the soil microbes. It can
be done by adding organic material back to soil, minimizing tillage and stopping the
use of synthetic fertilizer and chemicals. Initially, a Japanese farmer, Masanobu
Fukuoka proposed natural farming, which is based on the philosophy of working with
natural cycles and processes of the natural world (Fukuoka, 1987). It is contemplated as
a solution to end reliance on purchased inputs, improved family health & nutrition,
stable crop yield, consequently reduced indebtedness and suicides among Indian
farmers.
1.2 Assents and criticisms of Natural Farming

In India, more than 85 percent of total 146.5 million farmers are smallholders and more
than 100 million farmers (68.5% of total) are operating on an average 0.38 hectare (ha)
land (MoA&FW, 2019. Hazell and Rahman (2014) reiterated that the majority of the poor
and hungry people in the world live on small farms and struggle to subsist on too little
land with low input-low yield technologies. Under such a scenario, the use of modern
technology and innovation in Indian agriculture is being considered the only way out.
Further, a section of scientific community and critics vehemently oppose this alternative
practice condemning it is not based on scientific evidences, promoting certain beliefs
system, particularly indigenous cows, a backward-looking and chauvinistic idiom
(Shotwell, 2016; Saldanha, 2018; EPW, 2019). The National Academy of Agricultural
material resources have opportunity cost. Therefore, we considered the practice as ‘Natural
Farming’. However, the terms ZBNF and NF have been used interchangeably in the report.
2
Sciences (NAAS) in India conducted a one-day brainstorming session at Delhi and
reached a consensus that the government should not invest capital and human
resources towards promoting ZBNF. It has also criticized ZBNF calling it an “unproven”
technology that will not bring tangible gain to either farmers or consumers (Damodaran
and Biswas, 2019). On the other hand, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) has appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of Prof. V. Praveen Rao,
Vice-Chancellor, PJTSAU, Hyderabad to examine the ZBNF’s viability. The committee
is conducting experiments at five different locations in India.
Contrary to it, the protagonists of ZBNF believe that conventional agriculture or

chemical farming contributes to land degradation by adding chemicals in soil and food
systems, while agro-ecological system restores soil fertility. After having an exhaustive
study of the movement, Munster (2018) believes that the prevalent ambivalence makes
Natural Farming a valuable case for the political ecology of agriculture. Nevertheless,
the Finance Minister, Govt. of India has stressed upon the ZBNF practices and appealed
the farmers to replicate this innovative model that can help in doubling farmers’ income.
Furthermore, addressing the 14th Conference of Parties (COP) to the UN Convention to
Combat Desertification, the Prime Minister of India mentioned that ZBNF is the way for
sustainable agriculture.
The Economic Survey (2019) categorized alternative farming practices like

Natural farming or ZBNF as one of the organic farming models. It also
highlights that the main aim of ZBNF is the elimination of agro-chemical and
to sustain agricultural production with eco-friendly processes in tune with
nature. Through ZBNF, soil fertility & soil organic matter is restored, less
water is required, and it promotes climate-friendly agriculture system.
Interestingly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh took the unique initiative to improve
farmers’ livelihood through CRZBNF (Climate Resilient ZBNF), which later was
changed to Andhra Pradesh ZBNF (APZBNF) to fight climate change in drought-prone
Rayalseema region (Ananthapur, Prakasam, Kadapa, Kurnool and Chittoor) in 2015.
Initially, 50 villages across 13 districts of the state were selected for the pilot project,
however, later it has been expanded to the entire state (Niyogi, 2018). Moreover, the
state earlier adopted Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA), under
which the use of chemical pesticides was replaced with a combination of physical and
biological measures-including bio-pesticides. It also intended to reduce the use of
chemical fertilizers. The CMSA was adopted by over 3,00,000 farmers in Andhra
Pradesh state covering 1.36 million acres of farmland (Kumar et al., 2009). The same
functional structure of CMSA has been used to promote the ZBNF practices in the state
later. As per APZBNF, as on 31/12/2019, ZBNF is being practiced by 5.80 lakh farmers
in 3011 villages of Andhra Pradesh state, covering 2.60 lakh ha cultivated area
(apzbnf.in).
3
There are several variants of Natural Farming, under which the farmers do local
customization and adaptation according to their local conditions. But, the steppingstone
for ZBNF or Natural Farming in India is the advocacy by its chief proponent Sh.
Subhash Palekar, who in due course also raised several controversies. Initially, he
named the practice as ‘Zero Budget Natural Farming’ (ZBNF), which has been later
changed to ‘Zero Budget Spiritual Farming’ (ZBSF), and sometimes, it has been renamed
as ‘Subhas Palekar Natural Farming (SPNF)’. He conducts training programmes for the
farmers at different locations in different parts of the country and suggests following:
• Since nothing to be purchased from the market under ZBNF practices,

the production cost becomes zero. Therefore, it is named as ‘Zero
Budget’.
• All the needed nutrients are available in the soil, but in unavailable
form. These can be converted into available form by the micro-
organisms, which are available in plenty in the indigenous cow dung and
uncultivated soil.
• Green Revolution technologies like chemical fertilizers and pesticides
have destroyed these micro-organisms in the soil system.
• One gram of cow dung contains about 300 to 500 crore beneficial
microbes, thus Jeevamritha acts as culture.
• Only dung of local cow is effective. One can mix half cow dung and half
the dung of bullock or buffalo, but not of Jersey or Holstein at any cost.
• For one-acre land, only 10 kg/month of cow dung is sufficient.
Therefore, a farmer can cultivate 30 acres of land with only one
indigenous cow.
• The micro-organisms available in cow dung decompose the dried
biomass (mulch) on the soil and make the nutrients available to the
plants. It also increases earthworm population in the field.
• Thus, Jeevamritha is perfect and complete solution for crop cultivation.
There is no need to add FYM in bulk quantity.
• Organic farming is not suitable for poor Indian farmers, as it requires
huge quantity of FYM, making their agriculture unremunerative.
Besides, the worms Eisenia foetida used in vermi-composting convert
considerable amounts of heavy metals into bio-available form, and the
roots absorb these poisonous heavy metals which ultimately enter into
the human food chain.
Source: http://www.palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org/zbnf.aspx
4
Globally, soils contain more carbon than plants and the atmosphere combined. Losing
carbon-rich organic matter from soils releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, which
can accelerate climate warming. But by regenerating soils, we can sequester more
carbon underground and slow climate warming. In addition to protecting soil, cover
crops take carbon out of the atmosphere as they grow and funnel it into the soil. Unlike
cash crops that are harvested and removed from the soil, cover crops are left to
decompose and contribute to soil formation. While plants are the source of carbon for
soils, microbes control its fate by using it as food, thus ensuring that at least some of it
will remain in the soil (Wallenstein, 2017). Thus, it is believed that ZBNF or Natural
Farming is based on the above hypothesis. With different interventions under it- adding
microbes, adding cover crop, minimum tillage, multi-cropping, etc. it helps in soil
regeneration and ultimately would lead to sustainable agricultural growth.
1.3 Organic Farming vs Natural Farming

Despite rapidly growing market of organic food and beverages, organic farming has a
history of being contentious and is considered as an inefficient approach to food
production. Although the demand for organic food products is on constant rise
worldwide. Despite the growing trend in demand for organic products, consumers of
organic products recently witnessed periodic shortages of organic products, primarily
because supply of organic foods failed to catch up with the rapidly increasing demand
(Dimitri and Oberholtzer, 2009). Currently, India is home to 30 percent of the total
organic producers in the world, though it accounts for just 2.59 percent (1.6 million
hectares) of the total organic cultivation area of 57.8 million hectares in the world,
according to the World of Organic Agriculture 2018 report. At the same time, organic
products are usually 3-4 times more expensive due to higher labour cost, certification
costs, handling costs and comparatively lower yields. If a farmer wishes to convert to
organic farming, s/he must go through a three-year transition period during which they
are required to practice organic farming but not allowed to sell products as organic.
With the typically lower yields during this transition period, the conversion process
poses a significant financial risk to the farmers.
On the other hand, if Natural Farming (NF) gets recognition as chemical-free production
practices, farmers can sell their produce as ‘Green Product’ from the first year itself at a
little premium price. It would help in compensating the yield loss if any during initial
years. According to a study by TechSci Research, the global organic food market stood
at $110.25 billion in 2016 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 16.15 percent, to reach
$ 262.85 billion by 2022. In India, its market has been growing at a CAGR of 25 percent
and is expected to touch ₹10,000-₹12,000 crores by 2020 from the current market size of
₹4,000 crores, according to a report produced jointly by ASSOCHAM and Ernst &
Young. India exported organic products worth ₹ 5,151 crores in 2018-19, about 50%
higher than the previous year (Annexure III). Currently, 1.78 million hectares of the
cultivated area is under organic farming in India. However, very high price of organic
food products as compared to conventional food makes it inaccessible to middle-class
5
population. The high price is attributed to high input cost, labour cost, separate
handling charges, cost of certification as well as low yield during conversion period of
3 years during which farmers have to do organic farming but can’t sell the produce as
organic. The high price of organic products is also because of the cost associated with
the logistic cost involved in the procurement of organic products from certified organic
farms and the distribution within the city increases the cost of the products.
Organically grown products have higher antioxidant, lower cadmium

concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues. High concentrations
of a range of antioxidants such as polyphenolics found in organic crop-based
foods are linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases, including CVD and
neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers (Baranski et al., 2014).
However, one school of thought considers that the carrying capacity of organic
agriculture is 3–4 billion only (Connor, 2008), well below the present world population
(6.2 billion) and that projected for 2050 (9 billion). Contrary to it, Badgley et al.
(2007) showed that organic agriculture cannot only increase crop productivity in
developing countries but could feed the entire world also. Barbieri et al (2019) estimated
the possible crop substitution due to organic farming. The study indicated a decrease of
(−) 31% harvested area, with primary cereals (wheat, rice and maize) compensated by
an increase in the harvested areas with temporary fodders (+63%), secondary cereals
(+27%) and pulses (+26%) compared with the conventional situation. These changes
paired with organic-to-conventional yield gaps may lead to a −27% gap in energy
production from croplands compared with current production. Furthermore, while
assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for climate change, Searchinger et al (2018)
argued that organically farmed food has a bigger climate impact than conventionally
farmed food, due to the greater areas of land requirement. This is due to much lower
crop yield harvested, primarily because fertilizers are not used. To produce the same
amount of organic food, we need a much bigger area of land, which indirectly leads to
higher carbon emissions. Though, from consumers’ point of view, organic food seems
to be more climate-friendly.
Contrary to these arguments for organic farming, Sh. Subhash Palekar contests that
organic farming as an alternative to conventional farming is doing more harm to Indian
agriculture. Firstly, organic farming requires huge quantity of organic matter, viz. FYM,
which may not be available for most of the farmers in India. Therefore, they have to
purchase cow dung in huge quantities, adding costs and making agriculture
economically unviable. This is the reason that organic produce has become an elite
product and only rich people can purchase it at a very high price. Secondly, several
government agencies and NGOs are propagating vermicompost for organic farming, in
which they use different variety of earthworm named as ‘Eisenia foetida’ (Fig. 1a), which
is commonly known as redworm. Though it belongs to earthworm family, it is a surface
feeder and lives only on the organic matter available on surface soil, and decomposes
dried vegetation, compost or manure. They do not burrow into the soil like local
6
earthworm (Fig. 1b) and thus cannot convert the deep soil into casting, which is the
richest stock of minerals necessary for plant growth. Therefore, for Indian conditions
and Indian smallholder farmers, Natural Farming practice is more useful than that of
organic farming or conventional input-intensive farming.
Fig 1.0 Local and Eisenia fetida species of earthworm
1.4 Objectives of the study
Keeping in view the above-mentioned contemporary issues of agrarian distress and the
methods and practices suggested under Natural Farming, following research questions
emerged:
• What are the components of Natural Farming (NF) mostly adopted by the
farmers in study region?
• What crops are being cultivated by the farmers in different states/ regions using
Natural farming and its effect on the crop yields?
• Whether application of Jeevamritha increases soil microbial activities to such
extent that all the plant nutrients become available to the crops?
• What are the effects of natural farming on production ecosystem, crop yield and
farmers' livelihood?
Specific objectives:
1. To understand perception of the farmers adopting and not adopting
the Natural Farming in selected study region(s);
2. To analyze the properties of the soil and the plant parts from the
adopted farmers’ fields;
3. To estimate the cost of cultivation and income gain by the adoption of
NF practices;
4. To examine the sustainability and scalability of NF for the study
regions.
7
1.5 Limitations of the study
The study is based on field survey of farmers therefore, it has usual limitation
of survey-based study, which are as follows:
• Due to unavailability of any official list of farmers practicing Natural

Farming (NF), the survey mainly depended on self-declaration by the
farmers and/or neighbouring farmers about NF-adoption.
• The study also depended heavily on the information shared by the sample
farmers on recall basis. It is believed that the farmers have given their
information truthfully and as per their best knowledge, assuming no
incentive by distorting the facts for randomly selected farmers.
• The soil and plant samples have been collected from the farmers’ fields, for
which we don’t have any baseline information. Further, the team had no
control over different practices undertaken by the two sets of farmers, which
might influence the results of soil and plants samples from NF and non-NF
field.
• The results presented in the report mainly reflect the trend in the study area.
It may not be replicable in other locations with different agro-climatic
conditions and different cropping patterns.
8
2. Study Area, Data and Methodology
2.1 Study area and sampling methodology
Natural Farming (or ZBNF) involves the application of Jeevamritha, Beejamritha, mixed
cropping system, home-made preparations for plant protection and seed/planting
materials, and mulching. Thus, it envisages complete freedom from chemicals from
farming. Therefore, for the identification of Natural Farming (NF) adopter farmers, only
those farmers were selected for the study who is using at least Jeevamritha and not using
any chemicals (fertilizers/pesticides/growth promoters). Both the conditions together
were considered essential for terming as NF-adopter farmers. These farmers were
selected using snowball sampling in the sample districts, as there was no authentic
database available about the adopter farmers. For this, districts were identified with the
help of State Agricultural Universities located in the respective states.
The study is based on extensive field survey and interaction with adopted and non-
adopted farmers in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) and Maharashtra during
February- May 2019. In all the states, 2-3 districts having higher proportion of farmers
adopting Natural Farming were selected (Table 2.1 & Fig. 2.1). To have comparative
assessment, non-NF farmers were also selected from the same villages. In all, 120 NF-
adopted and 60 non-adopted farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra each were
surveyed using a pre-tested and structured survey schedule. In case of Karnataka,
during field survey it was very difficult to get NF-adopted farmers. Most of the villages
were having only one or two NF adopted farmers. And because of this, survey was done
extensively covering 29 villages to find NF adopted farmers. Even though only 55 NF
adopted farmers were identified and interviewed. It can be presumed that almost all the
NF farmers have been surveyed in the selected districts of Karnataka who qualified the
criteria of NF-adopters.
Table 2.1. Distribution of sample farmers in the study
State District No. of NF- Non- Total

villages adopted adopted sample
covered farmers farmers farmers
Andhra Vishakhapatnam 5 60 30 90
Pradesh Vizianagaram 5 60 30 90
Karnataka Mandya 10 32 24 56
Ramanagara 8 7 10 17
Tumakuru 11 16 16 32
Maharashtra Parbhani 6 60 30 90
Hingoli 7 60 30 90
Total sample size 52 295 170 465
9
Fig. 2.1 States and sample districts for the study
10
2.2 Description of the study area
Sy Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra
mb Vishakha- Vizia- Mandya Tumakuru Hingoli Parbhani
ol patnam nagaram
3,265 1,534 1,486 2,727 714 851
1,116.1 635.9 498.2 1059.7 466.1 631.1
304 311.6 225 582.6 382 519
100.5 147 126.2 117.8 89 132
Canal Tanks Canal Bore well Canal Canal
(≈40%) (>50%) (≈75%) (> 80%) (≈50%) (>80%)
Red clay/ Red clay, Red Black, red, Deep Deep
sandy loamy, gravel, red sandy and black, black,
loam, sandy sandy sandy shallow shallow
coastal loam soil loam, red loam soil soil soil
sandy, clay sandy soil
loam
Paddy, sugarcane, groundnut, finger millet, Soybean, cotton,
mango, vegetables sorghum, pigeon pea,
green gram, black gram,
chickpea, vegetables
cashew, green horse maize, wheat, sugarcane,
coconut gram, gram, Jowar, safflower, mango
black cowpea, pigeon turmeric,
gram, maize, pea,
sesamum, banana, banana,
maize, coconut coconut,
cashew arecanut
Ongole, Ongole Hallikar Amrithamal Gir, Khilar, Deoni, Dangi,
Deoni, Hallikar Red Kandhari
Hallikar,
Panganur
355.5 169.6 153 303 260 350

≈1,200 ≈1,100 ≈718 582.6 ≈945 ≈960
Symbols:
No. of villages Geographical area (‘000 ha) Net sown area (‘000 ha)
Net irrigated area (‘000 ha) Major Irrigation sources Major soil types
Major crops grown Major indigenous cattle breeds

Indigenous cattle population in (‘000) (2012) Annual rainfall (mm)
11
3. Indian Soils and Natural Farming Practices
Soil is a fundamental and essential natural resource for existence of all living organisms.
Soil health or quality is defined as the capacity of soil to function as a vital living
ecosystem that sustains plants and animals. Intensive crop cultivation using broadly
using imbalanced fertilizer, high nutrient mining through monoculture, decline in
organic matter status, deficiencies of secondary and micronutrients, etc. have
deteriorated the soil health across the region in India resulting into declining crop
productivity growth. There are 6 major soil types in India- Alluvial soil, Red soil, Black
soil, Laterite soil, Arid soil and Forest & mountain soil (Fig. 3.1). Each soil type has its
own characteristics in terms of physical and chemical properties, like Alluvial soil is
highly fertile, with high phosphorus and potash content. Laterite soil is acidic in nature,
while Black soil is rich in potash and magnesium, but poor in phosphorus. Red soil has
high iron and potash content but lacks phosphate.
3.1 Nutrient deficiency in Indian soils
Overall, about 59 and 36 percent of Indian soils are low and medium in available N,
respectively. Similarly, soils of
about 49 and 45 percent area are
low and medium in available P,
respectively; while soils of
around 9 and 39 percent area are
low and medium in available K,
respectively (Chaudhari et al.,
2015). Among various soil
characteristics that affect the
availability and uptake of
micronutrients, soil pH and
organic carbon content are the
two most important factors.
The availability of most

micronutrients is higher in acidic
soils as compared to alkaline soils
(Fig. 3.2). Soil pH between 6 and
7 shows the highest availability
of micronutrients (pwc, 2019).
Since 71% of Indian soils are
moderately alkaline, soil
Fig. 3.1 Major soil types in India
micronutrients tend to be Source: https://www.mapsofindia.com
deficient in them.
12
Fig. 3.2 Effect of pH on availability of micro-nutrients
Source: pwc (2019)
Analysis of more than two lakhs soil

samples during 2011-2017 revealed huge
variation in different types of
micronutrients deficiency in India soils
(Fig. 3.3 and Annexure I). On an average,
36.5, 23.4, 12.8, 11.0, 7.1 and 4.2% soils are
deficient in zinc, boron, iron, molybdenum,
manganese, and copper, respectively,
across the country (Shukla et al., 2018). Our
soils are very low in organic matter content
and thus have poor soil fertility. Organic
carbon is an index of good soil health and
application of organic manures helps in
maintaining high organic carbon content of
the soil.
Fig. 3.3 Micro-nutrient deficiency in Soil organic carbon (SOC) is the key
Indian soils constituent which dictates soil physical
Source: Shukla et al (2018) condition, chemical properties including
nutrient status and biological health of a
soil (Bhattacharyya et al., 2000). Management practices that reduce organic matter in
soils, or bypass biologically-mediated nutrient cycling also tend to reduce the size and
complexity of soil communities. Soil organisms, both animals (fauna/micro-fauna) and
13
plants (flora/micro-flora), are
important for maintaining the overall
soil quality, fertility and stability of
soil (Velayutham et al., 2000). Soil
organic matter helps soils hold onto
water and nutrients and supports soil
microbes that recycle nutrients. They
are intimately associated with
biological and biochemical
transformations occurring in soil
(NAAS, 2018). According to the
estimates by ICAR-NBSS&LUP
(2017-18), there is a huge variation in
SOC stock across states. The SOC
stock of Indian soils is 10 to 12% of
the tropical regions and about 3% of
the total carbon mass of the world
Fig. 3.4 SOC stock map of India (Fig. 3.4).
Source: ICAR-NBSSLUP (2017-18)
3.2 Role of soil micro-organisms
For sustainable farming, healthy soil is the most important factor. Soil microbiologists
believe that healthy soil means living soil, which involves trillions upon trillions of
living microorganisms consuming first organic matter, then each other, and releasing
nutrients in the process (Fig. 3.5). They have also recognized some 150 species of
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (MF) that colonize the root systems of plants. Plants offer
photosynthetic sugars to MF, which in turn assist the plant by facilitating the uptake of
mineral nutrients and water. In healthy soil, mycorrhizal fungi grow immensely which
works like sponge (Fig 3.6). It helps in improving soil aggregate stability, build soil
carbon, improve water use efficiency, increase the efficiency of nitrogen, phosphorus
and sulphur. To increase the mycorrhizal fungi, it needs to reduce/eliminate chemical
use, reduce/eliminate tillage, reduce/eliminate synthetic fertilizers and living plant
cover as long as possible. Cover crop also reduces soil temperature, which improves soil
moisture condition and in turn helps in soil bacterial growth. Thus, it also helps in
building a soil carbon sponge, which absorbs water and make available to the plants
(Phillips, 2017). Further, Jehne (2019) states that 95% of the bio-fertility of soils is about
these microbial processes, not the actual nutrient content in the soil or how much we
put on as fertilizer. The application of chemical fertilizers, biocides, tilling of lands, etc.
is detrimental to these soil micro-organisms, and consequently, roots of the plants act
simply as straw sucking mainly those nutrients, which has been supplied externally in
the forms of chemical fertilizers. While through biological processes, all kinds of
14
nutrients are made available to the plants through the decomposition of root biomass
of previous crops or mulches.
The study has shown that crop residues are good sources of plant nutrients and can
increase yield and water use efficiency while decreasing weed pressure. Long-term
studies of residue recycling have indicated improvements in the physical, chemical and
biological health of soil (Singh and Sidhu, 2014). For example, about 40% of the N, 30-
35% of the P, 80-85% of the K, and 40-50% of the S absorbed by rice remain in the
vegetative parts at maturity (Dobermann and Fairhurst, 2000; Dobermann and Witt,
2000), similarly, about 25-30% of N and P, 35-40% of S, and 70-75% of K uptake are
retained in the wheat residue.
Fig. 3.5. Interdependent and interconnected network of microorganisms with plants

(Source: Phillips, 2017)
15
Fig. 3.6. Web of mycorrhizal fungi in healthy soil (Source: Fulton, 2011)
New research suggests that microbes perform critical function in soil food webs, such
as decomposing organic materials, cycling nutrients and improving soil structure.
These microbes interact closely with each other, forming complex networks. They
work in teams to complete biochemical processes. Adding efficient microbes to soils
can enhance the percentage of plant carbon that is transformed into soil, thus soil
regeneration can be accelerated far beyond typical rates seen in nature (Wallenstein,
2017).
3.3 Subhash Palekar’s Approach of ZBNF

In the study, both the terms Natural Farming and Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF)
have been used interchangeably and the practices propagated by Sh. Subhash Palekar
has been considered as a reference point. ZBNF aims to improve soil health by
improving the soil biological activity by adding microbe inoculants and organic matter.
The practices of Natural Farming include the addition of microbial cultures to enhance
decomposition and nutrient recycling; use of local seeds; integration of crops, trees and
livestock (mainly cows of native breeds); effective spacing of crops, contouring and
bunds to conserve water; intensive mulching; extensive intercropping and crop
rotations. Moreover, mulching has huge positive effect on SOC content due to enhanced
soil and water conservation, lower average and maximum soil temperatures under
mulch than in unmulched soil surface, return of biomass to the soil, increase in soil
biodiversity, and strengthening of the nutrient cycling mechanisms (Lal and Kimble,
2000).
16
According to Sh. Subhash Palekar, the ZBNF/NF has following 4 essential
components:
•Ensuring soil •Seed

fertility through treatment
cow urine, cow with cow
dung, undisturbed dung, urine
soil, pulses flour & and lime
jaggery concotion based
Jeevamritha Beejamritha formulations
•Using polycropping Mulching Whapsa

and different •Water vapour
mulches with trees, condensation
crop biomass to through
conserve soil activating
moisture & adding available
organic carbon earthworms
1. Jeevamritha/ Jeevamrutha is a fermented microbial culture. It provides nutrients, but

most importantly, acts as a catalytic agent that promotes the activity of
microorganisms in the soil, and also increases the population of native earthworms.
• Preparation of Jeevamritha:
- Put 200 litres of water in a barrel
- Add 10 Kg fresh local cow dung
- Add 5 to 10 liters aged cow urine
- Add 2 Kg of Jaggery (a local type of brown sugar)
- Add 2 Kg of pulses flour and
- Add a handful of soil from the bund of the farm.
Stir the solution well and let it ferment for 48 hours in the shade. Jeevamritha is
ready for application. The 200 litres of Jeevamritha is sufficient for one acre of land.
During the 48-hour fermentation process, the aerobic and anaerobic bacteria
present in the cow dung and urine multiply as they eat up organic ingredients
(like pulse flour and jaggery). A handful of undisturbed soil acts as inoculate of
native species of microbes and organisms. Jeevamritha also helps to prevent fungal
and bacterial plant diseases.
• Application of Jeevamritha: It should be applied to the crops twice a month
in the irrigation water or as a 10% foliar spray. The preparation is stored
up to a maximum of 15 days and used in the field either through spray or
mixing with irrigation water. For horticultural crops, Jeevamritha is applied
17
to the individual plant. In Maharashtra, majority of the sample farmers are
applying Jeevamritha through drip irrigation method.
Fig. 3.7 Jeevamritha being prepared by the paddy grower
Box 1. Microbial activity in soil and cow dung
Proponents of Natural Farming argue that the dung of indigenous cow

and small quantity of undisturbed soil has huge number of diverse micro-
organisms which help in increasing the bio-availability of nutrients to the
plants. Soil is a complex ecosystem hosting bacteria, fungi, plants, and
animals (Bonkowski et al., 2009; Muller et al., 2016). Soil microbes
metabolize recalcitrant forms of soil-borne nutrients to liberate these
elements for plant nutrition. In natural ecosystems, most nutrients such
as N, P, and S are bound in organic molecules and are therefore
minimally bioavailable for plants. To access these nutrients, plants are
dependent on the growth of soil microbes such as bacteria and fungi,
which possess the metabolic machinery to depolymerize and mineralize
organic forms of N, P, and S (Jacoby et al., 2017).
Sawant et al. (2007) have isolated many different bacterial genera such as
Citrobacter koseri, Enterobacter aerogenes, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella oxytoca,
Klebsiella pneumoniae, Kluyvera spp., Morgarella morganii, Pasteurella spp.,
Providencia alcaligenes, Providencia stuartii and Pseudomonas spp. from cow
dung. Gupta et al. (2016) found that many cow dung microorganisms
have shown natural ability to increase soil fertility through phosphate
solubilization. Lu et al. (2013) isolated 219 bacterial strains from cow
dung, among which 59 isolates displayed nematicidal activity against
>90% of the tested nematodes. Cow dung has antifungal substance that
inhibits the growth of coprophilous fungi (Dhama et al. 2005).
18
2. Beejamritham is a treatment used for seeds, seedlings or any planting material.
Beejamritha is effective in protecting young roots from fungus as well as from soil-
borne and seed-borne diseases that commonly affect plants after the monsoon
period.
• Preparation of beejamritha- Mix local cow dung, considered to be natural

fungicide, and cow urine (as anti-bacterial liquid), lime and soil. The dung
is tied in a cloth and is kept in urine for about 12 hours. The dung is
removed from cow urine, cow dung is squeezed and urine is added with
about 50 grams of lime.
• Application as a seed treatment: Add beejamritha to the seeds of any crop; coat
them, mixing by hand; dry them well and use them for sowing. For
leguminous seeds, just dip them quickly and let them dry.
3. Acchadana - Mulching. Three types of mulching have been suggested under ZBNF:
a. Soil Mulch: This protects topsoil during cultivation and does not destroy
it by tilling. It promotes aeration and water retention in the soil. Therefore,
deep ploughing should be avoided.
b. Straw Mulch: Straw material usually refers to the dried biomass waste of
previous crops. Any type of dry organic material will decompose and form
humus through the activity of the soil biota which is activated by microbial
cultures.
c. Live Mulch: It is essential to develop multiple cropping patterns of
monocotyledons and dicotyledons grown in the same field, to supply all
essential elements to the soil and crops. Dicot group such as pulses are
nitrogen-fixing plants. Monocots such as rice and wheat supply other
elements like potash, phosphate and sulphur.
4. Whapasa- moisture: The advocates of ZBNF counter the over-reliance on irrigation
in green revolution farming. Whapasa is the condition where there are both air
molecules and water molecules present in the soil. Thus, irrigating only at noon, in
alternate furrows, may fulfill the moisture requirement of the crops, a significant
decline in the need for irrigation in ZBNF. However, rarely this practice is being
followed by any farmer.
3.3 APZBNF implementation in Andhra Pradesh state

Government of Andhra Pradesh has set up a non-profit company called Rythu Sadhikara
Samstha (RySS) in the year 2015 to implement in entire state the Andhra Pradesh Zero
Budget Natural Farming (APZBNF), earlier known as Climate Resilient ZBNF
(CRZBNF). It claims to have brought more than 5.8 lakh farmers across 3,067 villages
under Natural farming (APZBNF, n.d.). It follows the same principles as suggested by
Sh. Subhash Palekar, with few modifications or local customization depending on
19
availability of inputs and other local conditions. The CRZBNF aims to cover 80% of the
cropped area in the state. According to RySS, most of the farmers take 3 years to convert
into 100% ZBNF farmers. It also focuses on the full village to convert the whole village
into Bio-village in 5 years.
The modifications/variations in CRZBNF found during interaction with RySS officials

as well as during field survey are as follows:
a) Ghanajeevamritha, a solid form of Jeevmaritha is prepared by farmers in areas

where water availability is scarce. The farmers prepare Ghanajeevamritha during
the off-season and stored up to a maximum of
six months to be used in next crop season.
Cow dung and urine are mixed with pulse
flour, jaggery made into ball like structures
and dried under the shade. The dried product
is stored in gunny bags and finely powdered
before applying in the field. The farmers apply
the Ghanajeevmritha by broadcasting method
before sowing of the crop.
b) Pre-monsoon dry sowing (PMDS): In the rainfed and unirrigated region, the
beejamritha treated seeds are broadcasted in the field before the onset of
monsoon. Beejamritha helps in combating unpredicted and less rain for Kharif
crop and also protects seeds from being eaten by birds. The seeds germinate
whenever first rain happens for which farmer need not wait. It helps in avoiding
repeat sowing due to monsoon failure/delay.
c) Poly-cropping: 5-layer cropping in which different layers of crops comprising
of trees, fruits, vegetables, pulses and cereals are grown. These have different
levels of canopies and maturity period, thus are harvested at different point of
time. Among these crops, some may act as border crop, other as trap crop or
pulses, vegetables, cereals, etc. It thus helps in providing one or other produce
to the farmer at regular interval.
d) Navadhanya: Mixing seeds of nine millets/crops and broadcasted as green
manure before Kharif season. The grown-up plants act as manure for the Kharif
crop by the farmers.
The model followed by RySS is based on the following pillars:
20
Committment Knowledge Extension Ownership
of State (Experiential (Champion (Women
Government learning) farmer) SHGs)
APZBNF is following unique extension model, under which emphasis is being given on
farmer-to-farmer dissemination of knowledge. The RySS is working with agriculture
department of the state. At field level, it is engaging agriculture graduates as Natural
Farming Fellows (NFFs), one for 5 villages (2000 farmers), who are responsible for
giving training to the farmers for ZBNF practices. These NFFs do multiple roles-
farmers, trainers, researchers, and team leaders. Besides, the best practicing farmers are
identified as ‘Community Resource Persons’ (CRPs). One CRP is selected per 50 to 100
farmers and one senior CRP is identified per Gram Panchayat for 400 farmers.
3.4 Pest control solutions

According to ZBNF-adopter farmers, when chemical fertilizers are applied to the crops,
the vegetative growth of the crop is very good and lush green. This attracts the insects/
pests to the crops. While in case of Jeevamritha, the leaves colour is not that much green,
and therefore, menace of pests is limited. However, when infestation occurs, the farmers
prepare different types of formulations (Kashayam) made up of locally available plant
materials to control the pests. Some of these are:
1. Neemastra is the most commonly used pest controlling solution which is

prepared by the farmers. Cow dung, cow urine, neem leaves, and water are used
for preparing the neemastra. The neem leaves are grinded into paste and added
with water. The solution is directly applied to plants without any further
dilution. For this, 5 kg of neem paste is added with around 2-3kg of dung, 10-20
litres of cow urine, handful of soil. The solution is fermented for about 48 hours.
It was found that the farmers are making the solution ranging from 100-200 litres
depending upon their usage and crops grown.
21
2. Brahmastra is prepared from five types of bitter leaves. Neem leaves are used
along with the other bitter-tasting leaves, like custard apple, chillies, etc. Around
20-30 litres of cow urine is used and is boiled for about 2-3 hours. The solution
is cooled for about 12 hours and is filtered using fine cloths. The solution is
further diluted with about 15 litres of water for every 1 litre of Brahamastra. The
farmers are using 10-20 litres of cow urine and 5kg of neem leaves in preparing
Brahmastra.
3. Agniastra is prepared by adding 5 kg of neem paste with around 1 kg of tobacco
leaves, 0.5 kg of chillies and 0.5 kilo of garlic paste. These are added in about 25-
30 litres of cow urine and is cooled down for about 24 hours. The solution is then
filtered and used. The solution is diluted before applying in the field for every
half litre of Agniastra about 15 litres of water is added. Agniastra is considered
to be effective against insects like Leaf Roller, Stem Borer, Fruit borer, Pod borer.
The pest controlling solutions were also made available to the farmers at NPM
(Nutrients Pest management) shops in Andhra Pradesh. Apart from the above-
mentioned solutions, there are other pest controlling solutions being used by the
farmers. It is being used by the farmers mainly in the paddy crop.
4. Tutikada rasam is prepared from datura leaves and cow urine. The leaves are
boiled in cow urine for 2-3 hours and is cooled then it is filtered using a cloth.
5. Dashparini Kashyam It is prepared from ten types of plant leaves. The leaves of
Neem, Agele marmelos, Calotropis, Senna auriculata, Papaya, Custard apple,
Gauva, Vitex negundo, castor, Pomegranate, Nerium, Ocimum, Aloe vera,
Tobacco, Datura, Lantana camara and Pongamia pinnata are used in preparing the
solution. Green chilli and garlic are also crushed and added and mixed with 20
litres of cow urine. It is kept up to 45 days for fermentation. The solution is
filtered and sprayed after dilution. In about 8-10 litres of solution 100 litres of
water is added for dilution.
22
Fig. 3.8 Sugarcane trashes used as mulch in the NF field in Karnataka
Fig. 3.9 Azolla used as mulch by paddy growers in Andhra Pradesh
23
4. Sample Farmers and their Choice of Crops
4.1 Demographic characteristics
The sample farmers in the study area comprised both young and mid-aged farmers.
Most of the farmers belonged to mid-age (> 30 years) group with at least a decade
experience in farming, be it practicing Natural Farming (NF) or the non-Natural
Farming (Non-NF), who are practicing conventional/chemical farming. In Andhra
Pradesh, the percent of young farmers (<30 years) practicing NF is more than that of
Non-NF. This could be attributed to the promotional measures taken by the State
Government. In Karnataka, the farmers practicing NF are more than the Non-NF
farmers in the age group 30-50 years. However, the proportion of young farmers
practicing NF is minuscule. In Maharashtra, most of the farmers practicing NF belong
to the age group of 40-50 years. The distribution of farmers with respect to their age in
different study states is given in Fig. 4.1.
26 26
36
Percent farmers
39 40 47
38 36
28
40 18
22 32 23
20 35
14 18
8 6 12
NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF

Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra
20-30 years 30-40 years 40-50 years ≥50 years
Fig. 4.1 Age of sample farmers in 3 states
Looking at the educational qualifications of the NF farmers in all the three states (Fig.
4.2), majority of them have at least intermediate education up or equivalent. However,
in Karnataka, a conspicuous number of the NF farmers are graduates or above.
Illiterates take a major share among Non-NF farmers compared to NF farmers in all the
three states.
24
5 8 13
Percent farmers
33
44
54
66
72 67
65
55
46
29 20 20
2 3
Illiterate Up to 12th or equivalent Graduate and above
Fig. 4.2 Educational qualification of sample farmers
The average family size of the sampled farmers in all three states is found to be between
4-6 and the number of members engaged in farming is between 2-3 in each family. The
average family size and the average number of family members engaged in farming for
all three study states is given in Fig. 4.3.
5.6 5.7
4.9 4.9 4.9
Number
4.3
2.8 2.8
2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3

Average family size Average family members engaged in farming
Fig. 4.3 Family size of sample farmers
Fig. 4.4 depicts the average landholding of sample farmers in the three study states. The
sample farmers in Maharashtra has highest average landholding followed by Karnataka
and Andhra Pradesh for both NF and non-NF categories. The average landholding of
the farmers in Andhra Pradesh is less than 1 hectare which indicates that the farmers
are mainly belonging to the marginal category. While proportion of marginal farmers is
highest, that of small and medium farmers is more among NF farmers than among Non-
NF farmers. In Karnataka and Maharashtra, a conspicuous size of the NF farmers found
to be large farmers.
25
(1.0) (0.7) (2.8) (1.3) (3.0) (2.6)
12 12 20 18
24
31
Percent Farmers
25
35
36 23 47
80
61 27 31
40 25
18 15 10

< 1 ha 1-2 ha 2-4 ha ≥4 ha

(Figures within brackets are average landholding in hectares)
Fig. 4.4 Landholding pattern of sample farmers
4.2 Cropping pattern

The study area comprised of different agro-
Andhra Pradesh
climatic zones with varied cropping patterns.
Important crops such as paddy, sugarcane, 5
No. of crops
soybean, blackgram, sesamum, finger millet 4

and several vegetable crops were found to be 3
cultivated. Perennials like coconut, arecanut, 2
mango, cashew and banana were also
1
cultivated at some parts. Most of the farmers,
NF Non_NF
be it NF farmer or Non-NF farmer, found to
be cultivating at least 2 crops in a year.
Though, few farmers are cultivating only one Karnataka
crop, cultivating mainly either paddy or 5
sugarcane. As far as the crop diversification
No. of crops
4
is concerned, farmers in Maharashtra were
3
found to grow as many as 9 crops in a year.
Fig. 4.5 shows the number of crops grown by 2
the sampled NF farmers and Non-NF farmers 1
in a year.
NF Non_NF
26
Intercropping is one of the major
Maharashtra
recommended practices under Natural
Farming. Intercropping/ mixed cropping 9
reduces the stress in soil by reducing the 7
No. of crops
mining of only specific nutrients from the soil,
5
as in case of solo crop. In some cases,
intercrops/ mixed crops act as complement to 3
each other in terms of nutrient cycling.
1
However, despite its recommendation, only
29%, 45% and 17% of the NF farmers are NF Non_NF
following inter-/mixed crops in Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, Fig. 4.5 Number of crops grown by
respectively (Fig. 4.6 & 4.7). the individual sample farmers
The low percentage of inter-/ mixed

cropping is due to the fact that
paddy is the major crop in the study
area which is preferably cultivated
as a solo crop. Among the study
states, inter/ mixed cropping was
found to be highest in Karnataka
(45%). Sugarcane and the orchard
crops like coconut and arecanut
were found to be intercropped with
pulses and vegetables. It was
observed that there is almost same
proportion of farmers following
inter/ mixed cropping in both NF
and Non-NF in Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra. However, in
Karnataka, only 10% of the Non-NF
farmers found to be practicing inter/
mixed cropping, majority of whom
Fig. 4.6 Intercropping adopted by
are paddy farmers.
NF farmer in Karnataka
27
45%
NF Non-NF
Percent farmers
29%
27%
17% 17%
10%
Andra Pradesh Karnataka Maharashtra
Fig. 4.7 Percentage of sample farmers following mixed/intercrop
Fig. 4.8 gives the percent area and percent number of sample farmers cultivating
different crops in Andhra Pradesh. Ninety-eight percent of the sample farmers are
cultivating paddy as a sole crop, which is the staple food crop in the region. It is followed
by sugarcane, black gram, sesamum, cashew and mango. Black gram is grown both as
a solo crop and as an intercrop with sugarcane, green gram and vegetables. Area-wise
also, paddy stands first followed by sugarcane, black gram, cashew, mango and
sesamum. Sesamum is cultivated by 16% farmers, though cultivated only in 4% of the
area. The other crops like green gram, groundnut, jowar and millets are cultivated in
about 19% of the area. Paddy is the major kharif crop followed by black gram and/or
green gram in rabi. Since majority of the area is rainfed, summer crops are usually not
taken and the land is left fallow.
Andhra Pradesh
43%
Paddy
98%
10%
Sugarcane
29%
6%
Blackgram (Solo crop)
18%
7%
Black gram (Intercrop)
17%
6%
Cashew
12%
4%
Mango
11%
4%
Sesamum
16%
19%
Others
Percent Area Percent Farmer
Fig. 4.8 Cropping pattern of NF farmers in Andhra Pradesh
28
In Karnataka, paddy is the major crop cultivated by 76% of the sample NF farmers
followed by sugarcane, finger millet, banana, arecanut, tamarind and mango (Fig. 4.9).
When it comes to area, again paddy stands first followed by sugarcane and banana (20%
each). Both sugarcane and banana are grown as solo crop as well as intercrops.
Sugarcane is intercropped with pulses like cowpea and vegetables like lady’s finger,
brinjal, etc. Lady’s finger, drumstick, papaya and similar crops are also grown as border
crops in sugarcane plots. Whereas, banana is intercropped with vegetable crops and
also in coconut and arecanut orchards. These crops help earn regular income all through
the year. Since there is good water availability throughout the year from canals, paddy
is taken up in all three seasons. Finger millet is cultivated in summer following paddy
or intercropped in the orchards of arecanut and coconut. Other crops like drumstick,
papaya, lemon, medicinal plants, millets, field bean, chilli, groundnut, pigeon pea, etc.
constitute 25% of the cropped area.
Karnataka
Paddy 21%
76%
Banana (Intercrop) 17%
15%
Sugarcane (Solo crop) 11%
33%
Sugarcane (Intercrop) 9%
16%
Finger millet 4%
27%
Arecanut 4%
7%
Tamarind 3%
4%
Mango 3%
4%
Banana (Solo crop) 3%
7%
Others 25%
Percent area Percent Farmer

Fig. 4.9 Cropping pattern of NF farmers in Karnataka
Jowar, being the staple food crop in the study region, stands first as far as the number
of NF farmers are concerned in Maharashtra. It is followed by soybean, turmeric,
chickpea, wheat, cotton, green gram, pigeon pea, black gram and sugarcane (Fig. 4.10).
Area-wise, soybean stands first followed by jowar, chickpea, turmeric, wheat, cotton,
green gram, pigeon pea, black gram and sugarcane. Most of the crops are grown alone
as solo crops. However, pigeon pea is found to be intercropped with soybean.
29
Maharashtra
21%
Soyabean
51%
13%
Jowar
58%
10%
Bengal gram
43%
9%
Turmeric
48%
8%
Wheat
37%
8%
Cotton
31%
7%
Redgram + Soyabean
13%
5%
Greengram
28%
4%
Redgram
23%
1%
Blackgram
8%
1%
Sugarcane
3%
14%
Others
Percent area Percent Farmer
Fig. 4.10 Cropping pattern of NF farmers in Maharashtra
4.3 Livestock ownership pattern

Indigenous cow is the fundamental part of Natural Farming. The dung and urine of the
indigenous cow are essential in preparing jeevamritha and beejamritha, which are the two
major components of Natural Farming. The
indigenous cow breeds found in the study area
are Hallikar, Malnad Gidda and Gir. On an
average, each farmer’s household has 3, 3 and 2
indigenous cows in Karnataka, Maharashtra and
Andhra Pradesh, respectively (Fig. 4.11). The
population of indigenous cows among NF
farmers was found to be highest compared to
crossbred cows, bullocks and buffaloes in all the
three study states (Fig. 4.12). Ninety-one Fig. 4.11 Average no. of indigenous
percent of sample farmers in Karnataka have at cow per household
least one indigenous cow followed by
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.
30
91%
85%
58%
45%
40%
32%
20% 22% 25%
8% 6%
1%
Indigenous cow Crossbred cow Buffalo Bullock
Fig. 4.12 Percent NF-farmers owning different types of livestock
4.4 Experience of practicing Natural Farming

Farmers in some parts of the country are practicing natural farming since several
decades, though it has gained popularity recently. Among sampled farmers, 27% of NF
farmers in Karnataka were found to be practicing NF since more than 10 years
(Fig. 4.13). In Maharashtra, most of the NF farmers (66%) have experience of 3-6 years.
Whereas in Andhra Pradesh, most of the NF farmers are new to this practice where 85%
of them have an experience of <3 years. It clearly indicates that the farmers in Karnataka
(27%) are happy with the produce grown with Natural Farming practices. These farmers
are able to sell their natural products directly to the final consumers.
Fig. 4.13 Experience of practicing natural farming by the sample farmers
31
4.5 Customization in Natural Farming practices
There are lots of variations in NF practice being followed by sample NF farmers. As use
of jeevamritha was the criteria for selection of NF farmers, all the farmers can be found
to be using jeevamritha (Fig. 4.14). In Andhra Pradesh, a solid form of jeevamritha called
as ghanajeevamritha is used by the farmers. The farmers apply ghanajeevamritha before
sowing in the field. The ghanajeevamritha is prepared using the same components of
jeevamritha except water. It is stored for several months to be used as dry form in the
field. Beejamritha for seed treatment is used depending on the crop as well.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Paddy
Andhra
Pradesh
Sugarcane
Paddy
Karnataka
Sugarcane
Finger millet
Banana
Soybean
Maharashtra
Jowar
Cotton
Turmeric
Bengal gram
Wheat
Jeevamritha Beejamritha Mulching Ghana-jeevmritha
Fig. 4.14 Application of different components by NF adopter-farmers
There is no fixed quantity of jeevamritha used in the field. Farmers in Karnataka are
found to be using more quantity of jeevamritha than other state farmers. It is as high as
3000 litres in Paddy (Fig. 4.15). It was also found that farmers who are using farm yard
manure (FYM) in the field are applying less quantity of jeevamritha. Contrary to this, as
32
farmers in Andhra Pradesh are using ghanajeevamritha, the quantity of jeevamritha used
by farmers who are not applying FYM in the field is less. The quantity of
ghanajeevamritha is around 500 kg which is applied in the field by simply broadcasting
before sowing.
3200
Jeevamritha qty. (Litres)
2400
1600
800
0
Paddy
Paddy
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Turmeric
Soybean
Jowar
Cotton
Black gram
Finger millet
Without FYM With FYM Ghanajeevamritha (Kg)
Fig. 4.15 Quantity of Jeevamritha applied by NF adopter-farmers
NF practice does not

advocate use of FYM
in the field. But it
was found that NF
farmers are applying
FYM in the field
before sowing. In
Andhra Pradesh, Fig. 4.16 Application of FYM by NF adopter-farmers
52% farmers are
using FYM in all the crops whereas only 36% are not using in any crop (Fig. 4.16). Rest
12% farmers are using FYM in selective crops like sugarcane, paddy. In Maharashtra,
more than 52% NF farmers were found to be not using FYM in their field. Twenty
percent farmers were using FYM in selective fields. Sugarcane, being high-value crop,
more than 80% sugarcane growing NF farmers in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are
applying FYM in sugarcane field. In Maharashtra, 63% turmeric growing NF farmers
are found to be applying FYM in turmeric field (Fig. 4.17)
33
85 81
65 62 66 63
52 56
50
33
23
18
8 6 6 9 5 10
0.04 4
Bengal gram
Black gram
Jowar
Finger millet
Paddy
Sugarcane
Paddy
Sugarcane
Turmeric
Soyabean
% farmers using FYM % farmers using FYM from own source
Fig. 4.17 Crop-wise application of FYM used by NF-adopters
Mulching, an important component of NF, is found to be followed by the farmers

depending on the crops as wells as availability of mulching material. Farmers in Andhra
Pradesh are using azolla for mulching in paddy, which was not observed in Karnataka.
Live mulch crops like cow pea, other farm waste, straw, sugarcane/coconut trash are
some of the mulching materials used by the farmers as mulching material (Fig. 4.18)
Fig. 4.18 Mulching material used in various crops
34
5. Available Nutrients in Soil and Plant Samples from
the Fields
Maintenance of soil health (chemical, biological and physical) at its optimum level is
essential for sustainable crop production and rational use of natural resources without
jeopardizing their quality. Appropriate soil and crop management practices can
improve/maintain various chemical (plant nutrients, acidity, salinity, sodicity, salt
concentrations, etc.), biological (bacteria, fungal, actinomycetes population, etc.) and
physical (infiltration, bulk density, permeability, porosity, soil moisture, etc) properties
of soil up to their optimum levels to ensure the higher crop yields and sustainability
(Srinivasarao et al., 2017; Indoria et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2014).
Various soil-crop management practices are

believed to improve crop yield and overall
soil health in different agro-ecological
regions. Natural farming is also one of such
practices that may improve soil health and
crop productivity. To test this hypothesis,
the research team from ICAR-CRIDA (Fig.
5.1) visited selected farmers’ fields in
Andhra Pradesh (Visakhapatnam and
Vizianagaram districts), Karnataka (Mandya
and Tumkur districts) and Maharashtra
Fig. 5.1 ICAR-CRIDA scientists
states (Hingoli and Parbhani) and collected interacting with the farmers and state
soil and plant samples from both sets of government officials in Andhra
fields- natural farming and conventional Pradesh
farming.
5.1 Protocol for selection of soil and plant samples

For collection of soil and plant samples from the farmers’ fields, following broad criteria
were made for the better comparison of (i) natural farming adopted practices (NF) and
(ii) conventional farming practices (Non-NF):
• The type of the soil to be sampled for both the practices i.e., natural farming
adopted practices and conventional farming practices should be same.
• The crops/cropping system grown under both natural and conventional farming
practices should be same.
• The practices of natural farming should be carried out more than 2-3 years in the
same piece of land.
• For the plant sampling, both natural and conventional farming practices should
have the same crops/cropping system with more or less same growth stage.
35
5.1.1 Collection of soil and plant samples and analysis
The ICAR-CRIDA team visited the farmers' fields of Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram
districts of Andhra Pradesh, Mandya and Tumkur districts of Karnataka, and Hingoli
and Parbhani districts of Maharashtra, interacted with the farmers and collected
composite soil samples from the fields of both natural and conventional farming
practices after the harvest of crop during April and May, 2019, labeled them properly
and brought to ICAR-CRIDA laboratory for air drying, processing and analysis of
chemical parameters like organic carbon, available N, P, K, calcium, magnesium,
sulphur, available micronutrients (iron, manganese, copper, zinc and boron). Standard
protocol for soil analysis is given in Annexure 1. Another set of samples were collected
and immediately kept in ice bags for microbial analysis. Again, during the end of
August month, ICAR-CRIDA team visited the farmers' fields of Visakhapatnam and
Vizianagaram districts of Andhra Pradesh to observe the condition of the standing
crops, collected the plant and jeevamritha samples, interacted with farmers and other
district officials. Likewise, during the first week of December, the team visited farmers'
fields of Parbhani and Hingoli districts of Maharashtra to observe the condition of the
standing crops, collection of the plant and jeevamritha samples and interacted with
farmers. The natural farming and conventional farming plots were identified as told by
the farmers and state officials. All the samples were analyzed in triplicate.
5.1.2 Protocol of measurements for plant nutrient concentration

Collected plant samples (for paddy, aboveground whole plant at 40-50 days after
transplanting; for sugarcane, leaf samples of almost 120-130 days after planting; for
sorghum, above ground biomass at harvest stage; and for turmeric, leaf samples of
almost maturity stage, were oven-dried, finely ground and digested by wet digestion
method. The contents of different plant nutrients were computed. Nitrogen
concentration (%) in the plant samples was determined by micro-Kjeldahl distillation
method after destroying the organic matter by H2SO4 and H2O2 (Piper, 1966). For the
estimation of phosphorus, plant samples were digested with a di-acid mixture
comprising of HNO3: HClO4 in the ratio of 3:1. Phosphorus concentration in the diluted
di-acid digest was determined by developing yellow colour with Barton’s reagent. The
intensity of yellow colour was determined by using UV-VIS spectrophotometer at 420
nm (Piper, 1966) and expressed as percent. Potassium concentration in the diluted di-
acid digest was determined by using flame photometer (Systronic make) and expressed
as percent (Piper, 1966). Concentrations of micro-nutrient (Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn) in the diluted
di-acid digest were determined by using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer
following the method outlined by Lindsay and Norvell (1978). Boron in plant samples
were determined by DTPA-Sorbitol extraction method (Miller et al., 2001).
36
5.1.3 Protocol for enumeration of soil microorganisms
Soil dilution spread plate technique was used to record the important groups of soil
microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, free-living nitrogen-fixing
bacteria, phosphorus solubilizing bacteria, Pseudomonas sp. and Trichoderma sp. on
media such as Nutrient Agar (Seeley et al., 1991), Rose Bengal Agar (Martin, 1950),
Kenknight agar (Kenknight and Muncie, 1939), Jensen N-free agar (Jensen, 1942),
Pikovskaya Agar (Pikovskaya, 1948), King's B Agar (King et al., 1954) and Trichoderma
selective medium (Saha and Pan, 1997), respectively. Soils (10 g) were suspended in
sterile water blanks (90 ml), after making necessary dilutions, 0.1 ml of the suspension
was spread on the surface of the media plates. The plates were incubated at 28 ± 2˚C for
bacteria, free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria, Pseudomonas sp. (2-3 days) and fungi,
phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (4-6 days) and for actinomycetes (7-10 days). After the
incubation period, the colony forming units (CFU) were counted and expressed as CFU
g-1 of soil. In case of Pikovskaya Agar, formation of clear halo around the colonies was
an indication of inorganic phosphate solubilization, such colonies were counted and
expressed as colony forming units per gram of soil.
5.2 Results of the analysis of samples from Andhra Pradesh
5.2.1 Background of the study area in Andhra Pradesh

(i) The study area (Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam districts) is located near or
around Araku valley and was rich in ecological diversity. The soil types of the study
area were black, mixed black and red and mixed red.
(ii) The study area was under low chemical input agricultural practices;
a) Application of chemical fertilizer dosage (mostly N, P and K) were lower than the
recommended dosage (40-50% of the RDF).
b) Chemical methods of weed control were almost nil.
c) Only 25-35% farmers were using the chemical method of disease and pest control.
d) Farmers were applying 1-2 t ha-1 FYM in paddy and 2-4 t FYM ha-1 in sugarcane
at every/alternative year(s).
e) Most of the area (80-90%) was irrigated by bore wells, open wells, canals, etc.
5.2.2 Comparison of adopted practices under natural and conventional

farming
A broad comparison of some of the ongoing farming practices being adopted under
natural farming and conventional farming is shown in Fig. 5.2 and given in Table 5.1.
In the study area, some of the NF farmers were applying Ghanjeevamritha @ 0.5-1.0 t ha-1;
remaining farmers (40-50%) were applying FYM @ 1-2 t ha-1 in paddy and 2-4 t ha-1 in
sugarcane crop. Throughout the cropping season, the requirement of labour was quite
high in natural farming adopted practices for making and spraying of different
37
formulations in the field such as Jeevamritha, Beejamritha, neemastra, brahmastra, agniastra,
etc. Labour is also required for making the Ghanjeevamritha i.e., collection of cow dung
and urine + mixing of these ingredients + making the balls + drying under shade for 10-
15 days+ application in the field.
Jeevamritha ready for application after Green manuring by dhaincha crop

fermentation for 10-15 days adopted by both NF and Non-NF
farmers
Ghanajeevamritha preparation by NF Soil–water paste applied on maize crop

farmers to control the stem borer and caterpillar
by NF farmers
Fig. 5.2 Different practices followed by the NF- farmers in the study area
The observations on Natural Farming adopted practices (Jeevamritha, Beejamritha,

Acchadana/Mulching and Whapasa/irrigation) in study area are as follows:
(i) Jeevamritha: Most of the Natural Farming adopting (NF) farmers (≈100%) were
applying jeevamritha.
(ii) Beejamritha: 40-50% of NF farmers treated their crop seeds with Beejamritha.
(iii) Acchadana/Mulching-Three types of mulching have been suggested under Natural
Farming (Table 5.2).
(iv) Under ZBNF, it is recommended to irrigate the field only at noon, where there are
both air molecules and water molecules present in the soil. The irrigation is to be
applied in alternate furrow which helps in significantly reducing the irrigation
requirement. However, no such practice was found Wapasa: in the field under NF.
38
Table 5.1 Practices followed by the sample farmers in Andhra Pradesh
Conventional farming
Practices Natural farming adopted practices
practices
Mulching Sugarcane field with sugarcane trashes. -same-
Green With dhaincha, sunhemp and other -same-
manuring pulse crops.
Farmyard Farmyard manure and/or Only farmyard manure.
manure ghanJeevamritha.
Jeevamritha Application at every 15 days intervals. Nil
Chemical Nil Lower dose of chemical
Fertilizer fertilizers.
Tillage Tillage practices were same as Non-NF. Tillage practices were same.
practices
Azolla In paddy fields -same-
application
Weed control Mostly manual weeding. -same-
Pests and • 50-60% farmers applied the About 50-60% farmers were
diseases Neemastram, spraying at every 15 to 30 using chemical methods of
control days intervals. disease and pest control.
• Application of bund soil-water paste.
Table 5.2 Types of mulching suggested under NF and actual practices going on in the
NF fields
Recommended Descriptions Actual practices in field
mulching
practices under
NF
Soil Mulch Deep ploughing should be Tillage practices were same
avoided to protect topsoil; it under both NF and Non-NF.
enhances aeration and water
retention in the soil.
Straw Mulch Dried waste biomass of Sugarcane trashes mulching
previous crops. was very common in sugarcane
crop under both NF and Non-
NF.
Live Mulch Multiple cropping patterns of Paddy and sugarcane are grown
monocot and dicot in the same as monocrop under both the
field. Dicot fix the atmospheric farming i.e., NF and Non-NF.
N and monocot add the potash, Upland paddy intercropped
phosphate and sulphur in the with pigeonpea, at few locations
soil. under both the farming.
All the four components of the Natural Farming (NF) i.e., (i) Jeevamritha, (ii)
Beejamritha, (iii) Acchadana/Mulching and, (iv) Wapasa was not incorporated in time
sequence by NF farmers. Most of the farmers were applying only jeevamritha but didn’t
focus on other components of the natural farming.
39
5.2.3 Farming practices adopted by sample farmers in paddy in Vizianagaram
district, Andhra Pradesh
Different farming practices adopted by different farmers in all the selected villages in
Vizianagaram district are given in Annexure III.
5.2.3.1 Availability of soil organic carbon and soil nutrients status in paddy
fields in Vizianagaram district, Andhra Pradesh
The soil sample from one paddy farmer’s field each under Natural farming and
conventional farming in 11 villages of Vizianagaram district was collected for analysis
of available soil nutrients. The results related to average of all the sample plots in terms
of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients status under both the practices in
Vizianagaram district (AP) are given in Fig 5.3.
0.8 0.73 250 234

211 220
0.61
Availability (kg/ha)
200 178
0.6
150
SOC(%)
0.4
100
0.2 27 34 20.61 22.15
50
0 0
SOC N P K S
16 60
12.93 13.67 49.3 49.6
Availability (mg/kg)
Availability (meq/100
12
40
8
g)
4.46 5.05 20 14.6

11.5
4 3.92
2.82 1.08 1.45 0.68 0.71
0 0
Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
Fig 5.3 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients in paddy
cultivated fields in Vizianagaram district, Andhra Pradesh
Results showed the higher mean soil organic carbon (SOC), available macro (N, P, K,
Ca, Mg, S) in conventional farming as compared to those in natural farming in paddy
cultivated fields. Higher concentration of SOC in conventional practices as compared to
Natural Farming may be due to higher amount of carbon input through farmyard
manure and green manure applied in conventional practices. Application of N, P and K
through chemical fertilizers also might have resulted into more root growth, which
might have contributed to higher amount of carbon. Similarly, higher amounts of mean
exchangeable Ca (12.7 meq/100 g) and Mg (7.1 meq/100g) were found in conventional
farming as compared to natural farming (10.8 and 4.8 meq/100g Ca and Mg,
40
respectively). In case of micronutrients, slightly higher amounts of mean available Fe,
Mn, Cu and Zn were observed in conventional farming as compared to those in natural
farming. However, in some cases, reverse results were also observed, particularly in
case of micro-nutrients. In some villages, the micronutrients were observed to be higher
in Natural Farming field as compared to that in conventional field. The plot/village-
wise results are presented in Annexure IV(a-c).
5.2.3.2 Soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in Vizianagaram

district
The data related to average soil microbial population in both types of farming practices
(NF & Non-NF) in paddy cultivated fields in Vizianagaram (AP) are given in Table 5.3
and detailed plot-wise microbial population is given in Annexure IV(d-e). Results
showed that population of different types of microbes varied across different plots. The
average count of bacterial population and free-living nitrogen fixing bacteria was high
in Natural farming field, while conventional farming fields recorded slightly higher
mean population of fungi, phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (PSB), actinomycetes and
Pseudomonas sp.
Table 5.3 Average soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in

Vizianagaram district (Andhra Pradesh) (Log10 CFU/g soil)
Farming
Particulars Range Mean S.D.
Type
Bacteria NF 8.00 - 9.41 8.72 0.40
Non-NF 7.00 - 9.79 8.63 0.71
Fungi NF 3.18 - 4.87 4.04 0.40
Non-NF 3.18 - 4.86 4.09 0.52
Actinomycetes NF 3.70 - 4.85 4.44 0.37
Non-NF 4.00 - 4.88 4.45 0.23
Free-living Nitrogen- NF 4.00 - 5.79 5.16 0.45
fixing bacteria
Non-NF 3.70 - 5.44 4.75 0.53
Phosphorus NF 2.70 - 3.65 3.27 0.32
solubilizing bacteria
Non-NF 3.18 - 4.10 3.67 0.38
Pseudomonas sp. NF 5.00 - 6.65 6.14 0.43
Non-NF 5.70 - 7.26 6.24 0.46
n=11
Note: NF means Natural Farming field; Non-NF means Conventional Farming fields
41
5.2.3.3 Availability of plant nutrient contents in paddy plants in Vizianagaram
district
The plant samples for plant nutrients analysis were collected from one each of NF and
Non-NF from seven villages in the district. The data related to the paddy plant nutrient
contents (in whole aboveground biomass at 40-50 days after transplanting) in natural
farming practices and conventional farming in Vizianagaram (AP) are shown in Fig 5.4.
Analysis of plant samples showed that except Cu, higher mean amount of N, P, K, Fe,
Mn and Zn content were observed in conventional farming as compared to those in
natural farming. Although, there were significant variations in the trend when observed
for each village (Annexure IVf).
1 0.94 80
0.89
0.79 0.82 62
0.8 59.1
Content (mg/kg)
60
Content (%)
0.6
0.37 0.39 40 32.9 35.4
0.4 25.3 25.6 27.6 30
0.2 20
7.1 6.7
0 0
N P K Fe Mn Cu Zn B
Fig 5.4 Average plant nutrient contents in paddy plants cultivated under NF and
Non-NF practices in Vizianagaram district
5.2.4 Farming practices adopted by sample farmers in paddy and sugarcane

cultivation in Visakhapatnam district (Andhra Pradesh)
For analysis of soil samples and plant samples, one farmer each practicing natural
farming and conventional farming for paddy cultivation was selected from 8 villages
and for sugarcane cultivation was selected from 3 villages in Vishakhapatnam district
of Andhra Pradesh state. For comparison purposes, care has been taken that both the
contrasting farmers’ fields have similar soil type and farmers have cultivated similar
crop following different practices. The details of farming practices adopted by these
sample farmers are given in Annexure V. The analysis of soil and plant samples are
given below.
5.2.4.1 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients status in
paddy fields in Visakhapatnam district
The available soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients in natural farming and
conventional farming practices in paddy cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district
(Andhra Pradesh) were analyzed. Average availability of different nutrients in the soil
of paddy and sugarcane cultivated fields under two practices are given in Fig 5.5 & Fig
5.6. The detailed plot-wise results are given in Annexure VI(a-f).
42
0.8 350
0.66 0.68 298
300 274
Availability (%)
0.6 250 214
198
200
0.4
150
0.2 100
50 29 31 23.3 25
0 0
SOC N P K S
16 60
13.93
Availability (meq/100 g)
12.78
45.1 45.8
12
40
8
21.9 19.5
5.11 5.59
20
4
1.56 1.7 2.19 2.3 0.55 0.58
0 0
Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
a. Paddy (n=8)
0.8 0.72 300 265

0.65 251
250
Availability (%)
0.6 189
200 165
0.4 150
100
0.2
50 21 22 20 21.2
0 0
SOC N P K S
16 15
13 13.6
11.5
12
10
8 8
8 6.67 7.2 6.7
5
4
1.05 0.7 1.05 0.7 0.54 0.58
0 0
Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
b. Sugarcane (n=3)
Fig 5.5 Average available nutrients status in paddy and sugarcane cultivated soils
under NF & Non-NF practices in Vishakhapatnam district
43
The data revealed that comparatively higher mean soil organic carbon (SOC) was
observed in conventional farming of paddy as compared to that in natural farming. In
these areas, paddy and sugarcane based systems are the major cropping systems that
require higher amount of nutrients. Most of the farmers either practice green manuring
or add farmyard manure regularly which adds not only macro and micro nutrients, but
also add significant amount of carbon. Application of N, P and K through chemical
fertilizers also helps more root growth which contributes higher amount of carbon. In
paddy cultivated soils, higher amount of mean available N, P, K, exchangeable and Mg,
available Fe, Cu and Zn were found in conventional farming practices as compared to
natural farming practices. Slightly higher amount of mean available Mn was observed
in natural farming practices as compared to conventional farming practices.
Similarly, in sugarcane cultivated soils, higher amount of mean SOC, available N, P, K,

exchangeable Ca, Mg, Fe and Mn were found in conventional farming practices as
compared to natural farming practices. Slightly higher amount of mean available Cu
and Zn were observed in natural farming practices as compared to conventional
farming practices.
5.2.4.2 Effect of NF and Non-NF practices on soil microbial population in

paddy and sugarcane cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district
(Andhra Pradesh)
The data related to average soil microbial population in both types of farming practices
(NF & Non-NF) in paddy and sugarcane cultivated fields in Vishakhapatnam (AP) are
given in Table 5.4 and detailed plot-wise microbial population is given in Annexure
VI(g-j). It is evident from the results that the population of different types of microbes
varied across different plots.
For paddy, the average count of bacterial population and free-living nitrogen fixing
bacteria was high in Natural farming field, while conventional farming fields recorded
slightly higher mean population of fungi, phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (PSB),
actinomycetes and Pseudomonas sp. In paddy cultivated fields, the fungi, actinomycetes,
PSB and Trichoderma sp. were more in conventional farming fields than natural farming
fields. Slightly higher population of bacteria, free living nitrogen fixing bacteria and
Pseudomonas sp. were observed in natural farming fields. In case of sugarcane, the
bacteria, PSB and Pseudomonas sp. were more in conventional farming fields of
sugarcane in comparison with natural farming fields. Whereas, fungi, actinomycetes,
free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria and Trichoderma sp. were slightly higher in natural
farming fields.
44
Table 5.4 Average soil microbial population in paddy and sugarcane cultivated fields
in Visakhapatnam district (Andhra Pradesh)
(Log10 CFU/g soil)
Farming Paddy (n=8) Sugarcane (n=3)
Particulars
Type Range Mean S.D. Range Mean S.D.
Bacteria NF 8.00-9.36 8.47 0.4 8.18-8.40 8.25 0.1
Non-NF 8.00-9.15 8.35 0.32 8.00-9.24 8.33 0.05
Fungi NF 3.40-4.46 3.85 0.33 4.13-4.30 4.19 0.08
Non-NF 2.70-4.59 4.00 0.63 3.90-4.34 4.07 0.19
Actinomycetes NF 3.00-5 4.05 0.83 4.98-5.02 5.00 0.02
Non-NF 2.70-5.11 4.14 0.87 4.18-4.90 4.65 0.33
Free-living NF 4.60-5.76 5.18 0.33 5.04-5.60 5.41 0.26
Nitrogen-
Non-NF 4.00-5.79 5.01 0.52 4.70-5.32 4.93 0.28
fixing bacteria
Phosphorus NF 2.70-4.15 3.48 0.45 3.54-3.74 3.64 0.08
solubilizing Non-NF 3.30-3.90 3.51 0.19 3.54-3.74 3.66 0.09
bacteria
Pseudomonas NF 6.18-7.10 6.51 0.27 6.00-6.54 6.24 0.22
sp. Non-NF 5.70-6.70 6.39 0.32 6.18-6.81 6.46 0.26
Trichoderma NF 2.54-4.11 3.18 0.42 2.00-3.41 2.72 0.58
sp. Non-NF 2.00-4.31 3.25 0.62 2.00-3.02 2.56 0.42
Note: NF means Natural Farming field; Non-NF means Conventional Farming fields
5.2.4.3 Plant nutrient contents in the paddy and sugarcane plants in

The data pertaining to the average plant nutrient contents in paddy (in whole
aboveground biomass at 40-50 days after transplanting) are given in Fig. 5.6 and the
detailed plot-wise results are given in annexure VI(k-l). Results from the analysis
showed higher mean amount of N, Fe, Mn, Cu content in conventional farming
compared to natural farming. Similarly, mean P and K content were more or less same
in both farming practices, while Zn was slightly higher in natural farming practices.
Analysis of leaf samples of 120-130 days old sugarcane plant showed higher amount of
mean N, P, K Fe, Cu and Zn contents in conventional farming compared to natural
farming (Fig. 5.7). Slightly higher amount of Mn content were observed in natural
farming compared to conventional farming. The detailed plot-wise results are given in
annexure VI(m-n).
45
0.9 0.85 0.82 0.81 60 55.2
0.74 49.6
Content (mg/kg)
Content (%)
0.6 40
29.2 30.3
24.1 26 28.3
0.29 0.28 21.2
0.3 20
5.8 7.3
0 0
N P K Fe Mn Cu Zn B
Fig 5.6 Average plant nutrient contents in paddy cultivated under NF and Non-NF
practices in Visakhapatnam district
1 0.83 0.84 60 51.1 53.4

0.77 0.81
0.8 Content (mg/kg)
Content (%)
40
0.6 27.4 26 27.6 28.8
0.4 0.33 0.36 20.1
20 15.8
0.2 5.7 7
0 0
N P K Fe Mn Cu Zn B
Fig 5.7 Average plant nutrient contents in sugarcane plants cultivated under NF and
Non-NF practices in Visakhapatnam district
5.2.5 Nutrient & bacterial contents of jeevamritha samples collected from

Andhra Pradesh
Results of the analysis of nutrient contents of jeevamritha samples (about 2 weeks after
preparation) collected from 7 farmers is presented in Table 5.5. The results showed that
the jeevamritha contains OC, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu. In some of the
samples, few nutrients viz., Ca, Zn, Mn and Cu content were below detectable range.
The culturable bacterial population of jeevamritha samples ranged from 8.00-8.70
Log10CFU ml-1. The sample-wise results are given in annexure VI(o-p).
Table 5.5 Average nutrient and bacteria contents of jeevamritha samples collected
from Andhra Pradesh
Particulars Range Mean SD

OC (%) 0.19-0.28 0.24 0.032
N (%) 0.03-0.06 0.046 0.011
P (%) 0.017-0.021 0.019 0.002
K (%) 0.04-0.06 0.053 0.008
Ca (%) 0.03-0.05 0.04 0.008
Mg (%) 0.02-0.03 0.025 0.005
46
S (%) 0.012-0.017 0.015 0.002
Fe (mg l-1) 29.8-45.7 36.5 5.6
Zn (mg l-1) 1.6-2.1 1.8 0.2
Mn (mg l-1) 1.1-1.9 1.6 0.4
Cu (mg l-1) 1.1-1.9 1.5 0.4
Bacteria (Log10 CFU ml-1 ) 8.00-8.70 8.19 0.25
n=7
5.3 Results of the analysis of samples from Karnataka

5.3.1 Farming practices adopted by sample farmers in paddy cultivation in
Mandya and Tumkur districts (Karnataka)
The study area in Mandya district is mostly dominated by black soils. The major crops
of the study area are paddy followed by sugarcane and banana. In the study area, most
of the farmers are raising upland rice. The area is under full irrigation by borewells and
canals. Cultivation of vegetables in between banana rows was common. Mulching in
sugarcane is common practice under NF and Non-NF.
In contrast to Andhra Pradesh farmers, in this district, most of the large farmers are
adopting the natural farming practices as compared to the small farmers. As farmers
are expecting the low yield in natural farming adopted practices as compared to
conventional farming, so the small holding farmers who are exclusively depending on
agriculture for their livelihood are not following the NF practices. Under conventional
farming, farmers applied FYM 1-2 t ha-1 in paddy and 2-3 t ha-1 in sugarcane crops.
Farmers mostly applied the RDF in the paddy and sugarcane crop. A very few soil
samples qualified the criterion made in section 1.
The study area in Tumkur district is surrounded by hills with majority of the area under
horticulture crops. Major soils are red and black soils. arecanut, coconut, banana,
beetlevine and black peppers are the major crops. Although some of the samples
collected from this district but none of the soil samples found for comparison, hence, no
data has been presented from Tumkur district. The details of farming practices adopted
by the sampled farmers is given in annexure VII.
5.3.2 Availability of soil organic carbon and soil nutrients status in paddy
fields in Mandya district (Karnataka)
Data pertaining to the soil organic carbon and soil nutrients status in paddy and
sugarcane cultivated fields are shown in Table 5.6. Results showed that slightly higher
soil organic carbon (SOC), available N, P and K in conventional farming compared to
natural farming. Higher available Fe, Cu were observed in natural farming compared
to conventional farming in paddy cultivated soils. Whereas, Mn and Zn values in
conventional farming are slightly higher compared to natural farming. In sugarcane
cultivated soils higher available K and Mn in natural farming was observed compared
47
to conventional farming. Higher soil organic carbon (SOC), available N, P, available Fe,
Cu and Zn was observed in conventional farming compared to natural farming.
Table 5.6 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and nutrients in paddy and
sugarcane cultivated fields in Mandya district
Crop Paddy (n=1) Sugarcane (n=1)
NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
SOC (%) 0.6 0.77 0.85 0.87
N (kg/ha) 186 217 130 161
P (kg/ha) 31.6 33.2 16.9 25.4
K (kg/ha) 121 240 125 115
S (kg/ha) 22.3 27.4 27.2 26.4
Ca (meq/100g) 12.6 13.3 11.2 12.3
Mg (meq/100g) 5.1 4.9 5.0 6.3
Fe (mg/kg) 39.47 28.69 39.49 48.35
Mn (mg/kg) 6.16 7.73 18.33 13.02
Cu (mg/kg) 2.35 1.79 1.4 1.49
Zn (mg/kg) 4.67 5.57 5.09 5.14
B (mg/kg) 0.72 0.77 0.68 0.75
5.3.3 Availability of soil microbial population in paddy and sugarcane

cultivated fields in Mandya district (Karnataka)
Higher population of bacteria and Pseudomonas sp. were observed in samples from
conventional farming paddy and sugarcane fields of Mandya district, Karnataka than
samples from natural farming fields. No clear halo around the colonies was observed at
10-4 and 10-5 dilutions in natural farming fields of sugarcane (Table 5.7).
Table 5.7 Soil microbial population in paddy and sugarcane cultivated fields in
Mandya district (Karnataka) (Log10 CFU/g soil)
Particulars Paddy (n=1) Sugarcane (n=1)
NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
Bacteria 7.18 7.70 6.70 7.30
Fungi 3.38 2.78 3.51 2.18
Free-living Nitrogen- 5.20 4.93 5.26 5.16
fixing bacteria
Phosphorus 4.70 4.70 - 4.70
Pseudomonas sp. 5.30 4.48 5.69 5.82
Trichoderma sp. 2.65 1.70 2.60 2.70
48
5.4 Results of the analysis of samples from Maharashtra
Some of the important findings/ observations during the visit to the study area in
Parbhani and Hingoli districts (Maharashtra) are as follows:
5.4.1 Background of the study area in Maharashtra

(i) Major crops of the study region were: pigeon pea, turmeric, sugarcane, soybean,
sorghum, wheat, etc. In small areas vegetable crops (viz., tomato, ladies finger,
brinjal, ridge gourd, bitter gourd, chilly, etc.) and fruit crops (banana, papaya,
moosambi etc.) were also being grown.
(ii) Most of the area (80-90%) was irrigated by bore wells and open wells.
(iii) Chemical methods of weed control were almost nil.
(iv) 80-90% farmers were using the chemical method of disease and pest control.
(v) The soil type of the study area was deep black soil.
5.4.2 Comparison of adopted practices under NF and Non-NF

Conventional farming (Non-NF) is being practiced in the study area since many years.
The average size of the natural farming (NF) fields varied from 0.5-1.0 acre. These small
plots for natural farming were drawn out from the conventional farming fields about 2-
3 years back. A broad comparison of some of the ongoing farming practices being
adopted in natural farming and conventional farming are given in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8 Practices followed by the sample farmers in Maharashtra
Practices Natural farming adopted Conventional farming practices
practices
Mulching in No mulching in turmeric. No-mulching in turmeric
turmeric
Farmyard Application of the farmyard Application of the farmyard
manure manure manure.
Chemical Application of jeevamritha at Application of the chemical
Fertilizer every 30-40 days intervals. No fertilizers.
use of chemical fertilizers.
Tillage practices Tillage practices were same as Tillage practices were same.
Non-NF.
Weed control Traditional method of weed Traditional method of weed
control such as control such as uprooting/
uprooting/manual manual weeding/ weeding by
weeding/weeding by animal animal drawn weeder.
drawn weeder. The chemical methods for weed
control were almost negligible.
Pests and 50-60% farmers applied the 80-90% farmers were using the
diseases control neemastra (neem seed based chemical methods of disease and
formulation) pest control.
49
The findings/ observations on natural farming adopted practices in study area are as
follows:
(i) Jeevamritha: Most of the natural farming adopting (NF) farmers (≈100%) was
applying jeevamritha.
(ii) Beejamritha: 50-60% of NF farmers treated their crop seeds with beejamritha
(iii) Acchadana/Mulching (soil mulch, straw mulch and live mulch): No such practices
adopted by NF farmers
(iv) Wapasa/irrigation: No such practices were being followed in field under NF.
5.4.3 Farming practices adopted by sample farmers in Maharashtra
The details of the natural farming adopted practices and conventional farming practices
in turmeric and sorghum cultivated fields in the Parbhani district and soybean and
turmeric cultivated fields in Hingoli district are given in Annexure VIII(a-b). The soil
samples were taken from sorghum and turmeric fields and analyzed for the available
nutrients status in the soil under NF and CF practices.
Sample collection in Maharashtra
5.4.3.1 Availability of soil organic carbon and soil nutrients status in turmeric
and sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani district (Maharashtra)
The average soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients in natural farming and
conventional farming practices in turmeric and sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani
district (Maharashtra) are given in Fig 5.8. The data revealed that comparatively higher
mean SOC was observed in conventional farming of turmeric as compared to the
natural farming. Higher amount of mean available N, P, K, S exchangeable Ca and Mg,
available Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn and B were found in conventional farming practices as
compared to natural farming practices.
50
1 0.97 400
0.86 338
310 300
Availability (%) 0.8 300 252
0.6
200
0.4
100
0.2 20.7 30.5 28.05 30.38
0 0
SOC N P K S
21 20.35 8
18.38
6.6
18 5.95
6 5.44
15 4.71
12
4
g)
9 6.1 6.8
6 2 1.13 1.23
3 0.62 0.74 0.45 0.48
0 0
Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
a. Turmeric (n=4)
0.8 0.7 0.71 400 339

301
Availability (%)
0.6 300 239 256
0.4 200
0.2 100
24.9 29.6 30.9 34.17
0 0
SOC N P K S
25 23.17 24.27 8 7.3

6.26
20
6
15 3.65
4 3.11
10 6.67 7.5
2 1.221.28
5 0.64 0.71 0.39 0.41
0 0
Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
b. Sorghum (n=3)
Fig 5.8 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients in turmeric and
sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani district
51
Similarly, in sorghum cultivated soils, higher amount of mean SOC, available N, P, K,
S, exchangeable Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn and B were found in conventional farming
practices as compared to natural farming practices. Overall, SOC was more in turmeric
cultivated soils compared to sorghum cultivated soils due to higher biomass produced
by the turmeric crop and higher leaf litter irrespective of the farming practices.
Differences in terms of soil fertility with respect to major nutrients (NPK) in NF and
Non-NF were more compared to secondary and micronutrients where soils of Non-NF
fields had consistently higher available NPK. In case of micronutrients, these differences
were very narrow. The plot-wise detailed results are given in annexure IX(a-c).
5.4.3.2 Availability of soil organic carbon and soil nutrients status in soybean
and turmeric cultivated fields in Hingoli district (Maharashtra)
The data pertaining to the soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients in natural
farming and conventional farming practices in soybean and turmeric cultivated fields
in Hingoli district (Maharashtra) are given Fig 5.9. The data revealed that comparatively
higher mean SOC was observed in conventional farming of soybean as compared to
natural farming. Higher amount of mean available N, P, K, S exchangeable Ca and Mg,
available Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn and B were found in conventional farming practices as
compared to natural farming practices.
Similarly, in turmeric cultivated soils, higher amount of mean SOC, available N, P, K, S,
exchangeable Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn and B were found in conventional farming
practices as compared to natural farming practices. Overall, SOC was more in turmeric
cultivated soils compared to soybean cultivated soils due to higher biomass produced
by the turmeric crop and higher leaf litter irrespective of the farming practices.
Differences in terms of soil fertility with respect to major nutrients (NPK) in NF and
Non-NF were more compared to secondary and micronutrients where soils of Non-NF
fields had consistently higher available NPK. In case of micronutrients, these differences
were very narrow. The plot-wise detailed results are given in annexure IX(d-f).
1.2 1.05 350 313.67

297.67
280.67
0.88 300 261

Availability (%)
0.8 250
200
150
0.4 100
50 22.57 32.53 24.3 25.53
0 0
SOC N P K S
52
28 25.5 12 10.02
22.97
24 9.38
20 9
6.4 6.87
16
6
g)
12
8 4.83 5.57 3 1.93 2.17
1.17 1.21
4 0.63 0.68
0 0
Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
a. Turmeric (n=2)
1
0.8
400 335 357
0.71
Availability (%)
0.8 300 241.67 260.33

0.6
200
0.4
100
0.2 21.43 26.37 30 31
0 0
SOC N P K S
24 8 7.13
20.2 21.2
20 6
6
16
12 4 2.96
g)
2.49
8 5 5.13 1.48 1.57
2 0.57
4 0.4 0.48 0.54
0 0
Ca Mg Fe Mn Cu Zn B
b. Soybean (n=3)
Fig 5.9 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and soil nutrients in turmeric and
soybean cultivated fields in Hingoli district
5.4.3.3 Soil microbial population in the soil samples collected from Parbhani
and Hingoli districts of Maharashtra
The culturable microbial population of soil samples collected from 4 turmeric field and
3 sorghum fields each under natural (NF) and conventional farming (CF) in Parbhani
district was enumerated. Similarly, in Hingoli district, soil samples were collected from
2 turmeric and 3 sorghum fields each under NF and CF. The samples from conventional
farming turmeric as well as sorghum fields in Parbhani district recorded higher mean
population of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, free-living nitrogen-fixing bacteria,
phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (PSB), and Pseudomonas sp. as compared to samples
from natural farming fields (Table 5.9).
53
Table 5.9 Average soil microbial population in turmeric and sorghum cultivated
fields of Parbhani district, Maharashtra (Log10 CFU/g soil)
Farming Turmeric (n=4) Sorghum (n=3)

Particulars
Bacteria NF 8.18-9.00 8.59 0.36 8.00-8.48 8.29 0.21
Non-NF 8.30-9.64 8.82 0.53 8.78-8.95 8.87 0.07
Fungi NF 3.00-3.65 3.45 0.26 2.70-3.65 3.32 0.44
Non-NF 3.48-4.31 3.9 0.31 3.88-4.34 4.09 0.19
Actinomycetes NF 3.00-3.54 3.29 0.19 3.00-3.60 3.2 0.28
Non-NF 3.18-3.85 3.52 0.25 3.18-3.65 3.41 0.19
Free-living NF 4.18-5.23 4.76 0.38 4.18-5.23 4.76 0.38
Nitrogen-fixing Non-NF 4.40-5.31 4.92 0.35 4.40-5.31 4.92 0.35
bacteria
Phosphorus NF 3.00-3.93 3.51 0.34 3.00-3.93 3.51 0.34
solubilizing Non-NF 3.18-4.13 3.76 0.36 3.18-4.13 3.76 0.36
bacteria
Pseudomonas sp. NF 5.00-6.06 5.67 0.41 5.00-6.06 5.67 0.41
Non-NF 5.40-6.26 5.97 0.34 5.40-6.26 5.97 0.34
Table 5.10 Average soil microbial population in turmeric and soybean cultivating
fields of Hingoli district, Maharashtra (Log10 CFU/g soil)
Farming Turmeric (n=2) Soybean (n=3)

Particulars
Bacteria NF 4.18-4.85 4.47 0.28 7.70-8.40 8.03 0.29
Non-NF 4.18-4.88 4.53 0.29 8.00-8.88 8.45 0.36
Fungi NF 3.18-3.48 3.35 0.13 3.00-3.30 3.16 0.12
Non-NF 3.40-3.78 3.63 0.16 3.30-3.40 3.37 0.05
Actinomycetes NF 5.18-5.48 5.35 0.13 3.18-3.65 3.55 0.27
Non-NF 5.30-5.90 5.62 0.25 3.54-4.15 3.86 0.25
Free living Nitrogen NF 4.40-4.60 4.50 0.10 8.18-8.48 8.33 0.15
fixing bacteria Non-NF 5.00-5.44 5.22 0.22 8.90-8.95 8.93 0.03
Phosphorus NF 2.70-3.81 3.26 0.56 3.00-3.65 3.33 0.33
Non-NF 3.00-3.78 3.39 0.39 3.00-4.23 3.62 0.62
Pseudomonas sp. NF 5.90-6.23 6.07 0.16 3.18-3.48 3.33 0.15
Non-NF 6.11-6.36 6.24 0.12 3.65-3.78 3.72 0.06
In Hingoli district also, samples from conventional farming soybean fields and turmeric
fields recorded higher mean population of bacteria, fungi, actinomycetes, free-living
nitrogen-fixing bacteria, phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (PSB), and Pseudomonas sp.
54
as compared to samples from natural farming fields (Table 5.10). Overall, it was
observed that mean population of microorganisms were more in conventional farming
as compared to the natural farming practices. The plot-wise detailed results are given
in annexure IX(g-j).
5.4.3.4 Plant nutrient contents in the turmeric and sorghum plants in

Maharashtra
The results pertaining to the plant nutrient contents of turmeric and sorghum crop are
given in and Fig 5.10. The analysis of turmeric (above ground leaf) showed higher
amount of mean N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn and B in the conventional farming practices as
compared to the natural farming practices. Similarly, analysis of straw samples of
matured sorghum plant showed higher amount of mean N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn and B in
conventional farming practices as compared to the natural farming practices. The
detailed plot-wise results are given in annexure IX(k-l).
1.5 200
167.2182.8
1.14 1.2
Content (mg/kg)
1.2
0.91 0.97 150
Content (%)
0.9 100.6 106

100
0.6
0.31 0.33
0.3
50 26.8 30 18.2 22
5.7 6
0 0
N P K Fe Mn Cu Zn B
a. Turmeric (n=5)
1.2 1.08 1.12 200

0.98 1.02 151.3 160.3
Content (mg/kg)
150
Content (%)
0.8
100 76.3 80.3
0.4 0.31 0.33
50 34 36.3
20 21.7
6.4 6.7
0 0
N P K Fe Mn Cu Zn B
b. Sorghum (n=3)
Fig. 5.10 Average plant nutrient contents in turmeric and sorghum under NF and
Non- NF conditions in Maharashtra
55
5.4.3.5 Nutrient & bacterial contents in jeevamritha samples collected from
Maharashtra
Analysis of total nutrient contents of jeevamritha samples (about 2 weeks after
preparation) collected from 3 farmers showed the presence of nutrients and bacteria.
The mean values of the nutrients and bacteria along with range and standard deviation
are given in Table 5.11. The detailed plot-wise results are given in annexure IX(m-n).
Table 5.11 Average nutrient content and bacterial counts in jeevamritha samples
collected from Maharashtra
Particulars Range Mean SD
OC (%) 0.19- 0.24 0.21 0.03
N (%) 0.04- 0.06 0.05 0.01
P (%) 0.018- 0.021 0.02 0
K (%) 0.04- 0.06 0.05 0.01
Ca (%) 0.04- 0.05 0.045 0.01
Mg (%) 0.01- 0.03 0.023 0.01
S (%) 0.014- 0.018 0.016 0
Fe (mg l-1) 38.9- 44.1 40.73 2.92
Zn (mg l-1) 1.30- 1.80 1.57 0.25
Mn (mg l-1) 1.12- 1.84 1.59 0.41
Cu (mg l-1) 1.90- 2.30 2.10 0.20
Bacteria
8.18-8.40 8.29 0.09
(Log10 CFU ml-1 )
n=3
In case of Karnataka, we couldn’t find minimum 3 fields from Natural Farming which
were similar to Conventional Farming to compare the analysis. Therefore, soil samples
and plant samples could not be analysed for Karnataka state.
5.5 Concluding observations from Lab Analysis

The following are the conclusions drawn from the results of the laboratory analysis
of soil, plant and jeevamritham samples collected from the sample areas.
▪ In the study regions (Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka), most of the
farmers in their fields applied only some components of the natural farming viz.,
jeevamritha largely, and beejamritha and neemastra in a limited manner along with
either farmyard manure (FYM) or compost. Similarly, most of the ‘conventional
farming’ farmers also applied either FYM or compost, mulching, biofertilizers, etc.
along with chemical fertilizers and thus followed the integrated nutrient
management practices instead of doing purely chemical farming. The rate of
56
application of organic inputs and their time intervals depended upon the farmers’
economic status and availability of these organic inputs at local level under both
the farming conditions. Therefore, true comparison between conventional and
natural farming is difficult at farmers’ fields.
▪ On an average, conventional farming (Non-NF) practices tended to show better
results in terms of available nutrient status and soil organic C compared to natural
farming (NF) fields. It could be due to the reason that Non-NF practices are being
practiced for last many years in the study area. Whereas NF practices have been
adopted for last 3-4 years only. It was also observed that the populations of most
of the groups of microorganisms were higher in Non-NF fields as compared to NF
fields. Although, in some cases, level of some micro-nutrients as well as
microorganism counts were higher in case of natural farming fields.
▪ Analysis of plant samples showed higher nutrient content/concentration in plant
samples with Non-NF crops as compared to that in NF crops.
▪ Study also revealed that the Jeevamritha samples contained large microbial
population. As expected, total nutrients content in Jeevamritha solution was quite
low.
▪ Many factors such as soil types, crops, farming practices, cropping pattern, history
of soil/crop management by farmers, etc. affect the soil properties and crop
productivity. In many cases, the NF and Non-NF plots are not on the similar
parcel of land. Since baseline information of the same fields (Under study) are not
available, it is difficult to establish the causation for lower level of nutrients in
natural farming fields.
▪ In the present study, NF and Non-NF treatments were not laid out by the research
team. The NF and Non-NF plots were identified as told by the farmers and
officials. Therefore, there is a need to further validate the effect of Natural Farming
on availability of plant nutrients in the soil through systematic studies conducted
over a longer period at experimental stations/farms.
57
6. Crop Yield and Economics of Natural Farming
Effect of Natural Farming on crop yield and farm income is the most debated topic in
recent years. Though there are several studies conducted in the past, the results are
mixed. For instance, Kumbar and Devakumar (2017) reported that the experiment
conducted at UAS, Bengaluru during 2014-15 revealed that application of jeevamritha at
2000 litres/ha recorded significantly higher green pod yield of french bean, which also
had better crude protein and shelf life as well. However, when supplemented with 6%
panchagavya, then yield of french bean further improved. Shubha et al (2017) observed
higher soil microbial population and paddy yield at UAS, Bengaluru when Palekar’s
method was supplemented with panchagavya. Shyam et al. (2019) surveyed in 13 districts
of Andhra Pradesh and found ZBNF to have partially improved soil health compared
to lands of non-adopters as soil organic carbon (SOC) and total N in fields of adopters
were higher (52% and 70%, respectively) than those in non-adopters fields, though
available P and Zn declined under ZBNF practice.
Though, 47 years long-term experiment conducted by Kumar et al (2018) suggests that

the highest proportion of bacterial operational taxonomic units was recorded in
balanced fertilizer (NPK) (without FYM) and therefore, this result suggested for the first
time that continuous application of NPK encouraged the beneficial bacterial community
without compromising of grain yield and straw biomass. The study further indicated
that continuous application of NPK with or without FYM for more than four decades in
paddy soil, encouraged certain bacterial community structure.
6.1 Crop Yield

Crop yield is the most important criteria currently being discussed under Natural
Farming (NF). The yield of major crops in the three selected states have been worked
out for three categories of farm crops- farmers using Jeevamritha, Beejamritha, etc. along
with available Farm Yard Manure (NF with FYM), NF without FYM and conventional/
chemical farming (non-NF). The results are presented in the form of box plot (Fig. 6.1)
and given in Annexure II. In most of the cases, the average yield (shown as ‘x’ in box-
plot) for non-NF is higher when compared with those of NF without FYM. However,
NF with FYM has higher yield than both NF without FYM and non-NF farms in most
of the crops. For instance, in case of paddy in Andhra Pradesh, NF with FYM has
marginally higher yield (53.79 q/ha) as compared to that of Non-NF (50.86 q/ha).
Similarly, for black gram, non-NF harvested 5.4 q/ha while it is 6.4 q/ha for NF with
FYM and 3.7 q/ha for NF without FYM. However, in case of sugarcane, the average
yield is 73.33 tonnes/ha for non-NF whereas it is 66.81 tonnes/ha for NF farmers using
FYM and 55.56 tonnes/ha for NF without FYM.
In Karnataka, NF with FYM has marginally higher yield for banana (8.89 t/ha), finger
millet (38.92 q/ha) and sugarcane (104.55 t/ha). In case of paddy, non-NF has higher
58
yield with 56.08 q/ha. In Maharashtra, turmeric yield under non-NF is higher at 40.03
q/ha than NF. NF with FYM is found to give higher yield in case of soybean (20.6 q/ha),
jowar (10.51 q/ha), cotton (14.58 q/ha) and Chickpea (15.63 q/ha). It can be inferred
from the above discussion that exclusively Natural farming practices could not yield
as much as conventional farming, however when Natural Farming practices was
augmented with even smaller quantity of FYM, it invariably gave better crop yield
than those from conventional/ chemical farming.
To compare the yield of crops under non-natural farming (non-NF), natural farming
(NF) with FYM and natural farming without FYM, one-way ANOVA has been used. In
case of black gram in Andhra Pradesh, NF without FYM has significantly lower yield
than NF with FYM (At p<.1). Also, in case of paddy in Karnataka, NF without FYM has
significantly lower yield than non-NF as well as NF with FYM (At p < .05). The
difference in yield could not established in other cases. The detail is presented in
Annexure X.
59
Fig. 6.1 Yield comparison among with- and Without- FYM users of NF farmers with
non-NF farmers in study area
How to read a Box and Whisker Chart?
Box and whisker chart shows the variability Outlier

of a data set using minimum value,
maximum value and quartiles of the data Maximum
set.
Interquartile range- The middle box Whisker
represents the middle 50% data
rd
3 quartile- 75% data falls below the rd
3 quartile
rd
3 quartile
st
Mean
1 quartile- 25% data falls below the
st
1 quartile. Median
Outlier- Outliers are plotted as individual

point. These differ significantly from
other data st
1 quartile
Whisker- These represent variability outside
st rd Whisker
the 1 and 3 quartile
Minimum
60
6.2 Crop yield trend with Natural Farming
During field survey, we also asked the NF
farmers about crop yield during past 3
Andhra Pradesh
80
years. It was done to ascertain whether
Yield (per ha)

60
yield of major crops under NF in the past
is improving or otherwise. In all 3 states, 40
it was found that the yield is more or less 20
stable over the past three years for almost
0
all the crops. (Fig. 6.2).
2016 2017 2018
Paddy (q) Sugarcane (t)
Black gram (q)
Karnataka Maharashtra
120 40
Yield (per ha)
Yield (per ha)

80
20
40
0 0
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018
Paddy (q) Finger millet (q) Soybean (q) Jowar (q)
Banana (t) Sugarcane (t) Cotton (q) Turmeric (q)
Fig. 6.2 Trend in yield of major crops under NF in last 3 years
6.3 Benefit-cost analysis of Natural Farming

The study examined use of various inputs in cultivation of major crops and estimated
the paid-out cost and return for NF and non-NF farms. Table 6.1 details various costs
incurred in cultivation of major crops in the selected states. The percentage of
corresponding cost with respect to non-NF crops is also presented alongside. Material
cost includes costs incurred in seed, jeevamritha, beejamritha, FYM, pest controlling
solution for NF farmers, whereas for non-NF farmers, it is mainly seed, fertilizer, FYM
and pesticide. Operational cost includes cost on land preparation, labour including
harvesting. These two are added to arrive at total paid-out cost in both the cases.
In Andhra Pradesh, the material cost used by NF farmers in case of paddy and
sugarcane is about 85 and 96%, respectively as those for non-NF farmers. Though, it is
less than that of non-NF, it is higher than NF farms in other states. It may be because
large number of farmers are applying purchased FYM and ghanajeevamritha in their
field, as only 40 per cent of NF-farmers have indigenous cows and they depend on
purchased materials. The operational cost in case of the same crops is closer to the non-
NF counterparts. Hence, the total variable cost is lowered by only 5% in paddy and 8%
in sugarcane. In case of black gram, the NF farmers could be able to reduce the total
61
variable cost by around 55%. This could be due to reduction in material cost as only 23%
farmers are applying FYM as compared to paddy and sugarcane in which 65% and 85%
farmers are applying FYM (Fig. 6.1). Farmers are able to get marginally higher price for
NF produce than non-NF produce. Except sugarcane, the B:C ratio is found to be
improved in Andhra Pradesh for NF-farmers.
In Karnataka, NF-farmers have mostly home-made Jeevamritha and Beejamritha which

has resulted into drastic reduction in material cost to around 24% in paddy, 45% in
sugarcane and 26% in finger millet. The operational cost is little less than their non-NF
counterparts. Farmers, here could be able to get maximum 150% more price as in case
of paddy and minimum 50% more as in case on finger millet. It should be noted that NF
farmers are cultivating mostly Rajamudi, Rathnachudi, and Bangara Sanna which have
high market price. Here, the B:C ratio has increase by 3-4 times than that of non-NF.
In Maharashtra, there is a decrease in variable cost for all the major crops which is
reduced by around 13% in soybean to 24% in cotton, turmeric and Chick pea. There is
marginal increase in market price for all the crops as farmers are not getting niche
market for sale of the NF produce. The B:C ratio is also improved by more than 15% in
all the crops.
Table 6.1 Benefit-Cost comparison for major crops in selected states
Andhra Pradesh
Paddy Sugarcane Black gram
Particulars As % of As % of As % of
No. of sample farmers 118 59 35 6 22 6
Material costs
9,050 84.82 26,780 95.53 856.62 39.10
(₹/ha)
Operational costs
25,960 98.51 39,473 89.44 6,525 58.46
(₹/ha)
Total variables
35,011 94.56 66,253 91.81 7,382 55.28
cost (₹/ha)
Yield (q/ha) 53 104.2 65 88.63 4.5 81.82
Market price (₹/q) 1,525 112 2,480 99.2 3,765 104.58
B:C ratio 2.3 123.4 2.43 95.79 2.29 154.44
62
Karnataka
Paddy Sugarcane Finger millet

Particulars
As % of As % of As % of
No. of sample
42 22 18 14 15 23
farmers
Material costs
4,031 23.72 11,638 45.53 2,314 25.73
(₹/ha)
Operational
17,491 91.66 28,914 92.36 17,688 97.48
costs (₹/ha)
Total variables
21,522 59.66 40,552 71.31 20,002 73.71
cost (₹/ha)
Yield (q/ha) 47 83.65 103 103.48 38 134.9
Market price
3,945 264.51 5,200 198.7 3,700 153.14
(₹/q)
B:C ratio 8.6 370.69 13.2 270.7 6.97 279.91
Maharashtra
Soybean Jowar Cotton Turmeric Chickpea
Particulars NF As % of NF As % of NF As % of NF As % of NF As % of
Non- Non- Non- Non-NF Non-NF
NF NF NF
No. of sample
61 46 69 33 37 34 57 21 52 23
farmers
Material
6,838 65.6 3,869 55.4 6,595 37.8 45,121 68.5 4905 69.6
costs (₹/ha)
Operational
12,851 105 9,593 102.8 19,934 115 28,468 92 8241 81.2
costs (₹/ha)
Total
variables 19,689 86.9 13,462 82.5 26,529 76.2 73,589 76 13146 76.4
cost (₹/ha)
Yield (q/ha) 19 103.6 10.5 100.8 15 88.3 38 93.8 15 84.9
Market price
3,208 103.7 3,091 115.1 5,021 101.2 5,957 92.8 4576 109.8
(₹/q)
B:C ratio 3.13 123.7 2.42 140.67 2.84 117.24 3.04 114.72 4.3 122.15
63
7. Farmers’ Perception towards Natural Farming
It is quite evident from the study that in selected states, the source of information about
NF practices varied widely. In Andhra Pradesh, about 69 percent of farmers got training
support from agriculture department. It may be noted that the state government of
Andhra Pradesh were promoting Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture
(CMSA) since last 15 years. In recent years, these farmers across all the districts were
sensitized for ZBNF/ NF. In Karnataka state, mostly fellow farmers and NGOs shared
the information (Fig 7.1). In Maharashtra, it is agricultural university, which are
disseminating the information. The Agricultural Information Technology Centre (ATIC)
provides common platform and facilitates the dissemination of all types of information
among the farmers who utilizes it for propagating information on NF. Interestingly,
most of the selected farmers attended training programme on Natural farming in the
last 2-3 years (Fig. 7.2).
2% 2%
6% 4%
30% 29%
Andhra 29%
Pradesh
Karnataka 46% Maharashtra
60%
69%
2%
24%
Fellow farmers Agriculture department NGO Agriculture University Others
Fig. 7.1 Source of information on Natural Farming
2020
2015
Year
2010
2005
2000
Fig. 7.2 Training attended by NF farmers (Year wise)
64
7.1 Benefits perceived by NF farmers
Farmers perceive many benefits of NF. In Andhra Pradesh, 81% farmers believe that the
yield has increased (Table 7.1). In Karnataka, 56% farmers felt lower yield in NF. NF
practice reduces the cost of cultivation which is felt by 86% farmers in Andhra Pradesh
and more than 90% in Karnataka and Maharashtra. As far as produce quality and taste
are concerned, around 90% in all the selected states found that NF produce has better
quality than non-NF produce. In Andhra Pradesh, farmers are not getting any
designated market for sale of NF produce, hence the produce in sold in the same market
at almost same price. In Karnataka and Maharashtra, farmers are getting designated
market where produce fetches higher price.
Table 7.1 Benefits perceived by Natural Farming farmers
Percent farmers
Perceived benefits
Crop yield
High 81 22 60
Same 17 20 16
Lower 2 56 24
Cost of cultivation
High 14 7 9
Low 86 93 91
Produce quality
Better 96 89 91
Same 3 11 9
Poor 1 0 0
Taste of produce
Better 91 89 89
Same 9 11 11
Selling price
High 22 96 81
Same 69 4 19
Lower 1 0 0
Sometimes high/low 8 0 0
7.2 Awareness among non-NF farmers

Though farmers perceive several benefits out of NF practice, more than 50% farmers
among non-NF category in three selected states are not yet aware of NF. While only
2- 4% farmers discontinued and reverted to conventional system of farming owing to
no obvious benefits of NF (Fig. 7.3). Lower crop yield and no immediate control over
pests and diseases were found to be the reasons for discontinuation. Decreased
landholding and no proper support from family members were also the reasons for
discontinuation in few cases.
65
2% 4% 2%
43% 38% 46%
55% 58% 52%
Not aware Aware but not adopted Discontinued
Fig. 7.3 Awareness about NF among non-NF farmers
7.3 Reasons for non-adoption among non-NF farmers

In Andhra Pradesh, non–availability of inputs due to very low percentage of ownership
of indigenous cows was one of the major reasons for not adopting NF (Fig. 7.4). Though,
60% NF farmers also don’t have indigenous cow, but they are buying all inputs from
village’s nutrient shops, while few are collecting from fellow farmers. Expectation of
poor crop yield is also one of the reason for non-adoption of NF by non-adopted farmers
(More than 30% in Karnataka and Maharashtra). NF is perceived to be more labour
intensive and regular monitoring is required from the part of farmers. Preparation of
jeevamritha, beejamritha, as well farm operations require regular attention by the farmer.
It also discourages farmers for adopting NF. The farmers also expect higher price for
the NF produce considering as free from chemical. Hence, non-availability of
designated market for NF produce (As in case of Organic produce) drives reluctance
towards NF adoption.
37%
Non-availability of NF inputs 7%
15%
11%
Relatively less yield 30%
36%
11%
High cost of production 26%
32%
22%
More Labor Intensive 11%
18%
19%
Others* 7%
19%
*Small land holding, Market problem, resistance from family etc.

Fig. 7.4 Reasons for not adopting NF
66
Case – 1
NPM to ZBNF: a case from Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
Shri Venkatasuri Apparao aged 48 years is practicing Natural Farming since past 5
years. He has an overall experience of 30 years in farming. Since 2009, he was
practicing Non-Pesticidal Management (NPM) in Agriculture which he learnt from
one of his fellow farmer. When ZBNF was promoted by Government of Andhra
Pradesh in 2015, he was attracted to it and started practicing it in his 2 acres of
cultivated land. He has attended training programme on ZBNF in Guntur during
2015 given by Shri Subhash Palekar. He says that he has read few books on Natural
Farming also out of interest. He also worked as Inter Cluster Resource Person (ICRP)
which he left as he was not able to
concentrate on his own field. Out of 2 acres
of land, he cultivates sugarcane in 1 acre
and paddy in 0.5 acre. He has 2-year old
mango orchard in the remaining 0.5 acre
which is intercropped with brinjal and
okra. The paddy is also followed by brinjal
and okra in Rabi. In the last season, he
harvested around 35 tonnes of sugarcane
which he sold to sugar factory at ₹ 2500 per tonne.
He says that he is getting price same as that of chemical farming and feels that there
is a need for special market for Natural Farming produces. Paddy yields 10 quintals
which is being used for own consumption, whereas brinjal and okra which are sold
in nearby market are helping in getting regular income. He is producing around
200kg of okra and 300kg of brinjal which is sold at an average price of ₹ 30 per kg. He
is using seeds of his own produce even for brinjal and okra. The sugarcane trash is
used for mulching in sugarcane and the paddy straw is used for livestock. He has one
indigenous cow and one jersey cow. The indigenous cow is sufficient for practicing
Natural Farming in his land and jersey cow is reared for dairy. He applies
ghanajeevamritha during land preparation and jeevamritha once in a month, which he
applies through flooding with the irrigation water. The vegetable crops are fed
jeevamritha at plant bases once in a month. He is using neemastra to control pests and
diseases as and when they appear. He is earning a net income of around ₹ 45,000 after
incurring expenses which majorly includes labour charges. He feels that the
appearance of the vegetables is inferior when compared to the chemical farming
produce.
Farmer’s name: V. Venkatasuri Appa Rao
Village: Dibbapalem, District: Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh
67
Case – 2
Natural Farming for quality fruits: a case from Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh
Shri Singampalli Satyam (60) has an experience of 40 years in farming. He started

practicing Natural Farming 5 years ago. He says that inferior quality and taste of the
produce from chemical farming made him to shift to Natural Farming. He has keen
interest in learning new farming methods and wants to reduce use of chemical
pesticides. He learnt Natural Farming method from the officials of State Agricultural
Department. He has 5 acres of land and cultivates paddy in 2 acres, mangoes in 2
acres and cashew in 1 acre. The paddy is followed by black gram in 1.5 acres and
green gram in 0.5 acres during rabi season. He has one jersey cow for milk purpose.
He takes cow dung and cow urine from his fellow-farmers who have indigenous
cows. Two of his family members also help him in farming activities. He obtains
around 40 quintals of paddy from 2 acres of which 24 quintals is sold and the
remaining is kept for own consumption. He gets around 4 quintals of black gram and
green gram. Mango and cashew orchards are 25 years old and are yielding about 600
and 300 kgs, respectively. He applies ghanajeevamritha during land preparation and
jeevamritha to the standing crop regularly. The orchard trees are given jeevamritha at
an interval of 15 days. Weeding is done manually engaging labours. He obtains seed
material for paddy from State Agriculture Department, whereas he uses own grown
seeds for black gram and green gram. Last year, he earned a net income of around ₹
80,000 out of which ₹ 26,400 is from selling paddy. Mr. Satyam is satisfied with the
taste and quality of the produce and he says that the yield is better even if the rainfall
is low. The fruits also do not require artificial ripening. He says that other farmers are
also being attracted gradually to Natural Farming.
Farmer’s name: Singampalli Satyam
Village: Gurla, District: Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh
68
Case – 3
Earning Regular Income through Mixed farming under Natural Farming: a case
from Mandya, Karnataka
Shri Venkatesh, aged 44 years, is
practicing Natural Farming since past 13
years. He owns one acre of land and has
leased another one acre since 2013 paying
₹12,000 per year. When asked about the
motivation for taking up Natural Farming,
he said that his health took a toll few years
back and was advised by the doctor to
reduce intake of inorganic food. He learnt
about Natural Farming from Bharatiya
Kisan Sangha, an NGO. In 2005, he attended a 5-day workshop conducted by Shri
Subhash Palekar in Arsikere, Hassan district. Since then, he has attended many
workshops. He has two cows (Hallikar breed) along with 2 goats and 6 chicks. He is
cultivating paddy (Rajamudi cultivar) as a solo crop in 1 acre of land, in two seasons.
In the third season, he usually cultivates cowpea/ black gram/ sesamum. In other one-
acre land, he is cultivating sugarcane at 12 x 2 feet spacing with vegetables crops as
intercrops and banana as a border crop. These intercrops are helping him to obtain
regular income. Earlier, he cultivated sugarcane at 8’x2’ spacing which he changed to
12’x2’ to accommodate more intercrops.
He uses beejamritha for seed treatment and applies jeevamritha once in every month
through irrigation, which he is practicing since the beginning. Occasionally, he uses
neemastra to control pest and diseases when the need arises. Though his wife supports
him in some labour works, he hires labours for activities like weeding and harvesting.
He sells the produce weekly at local markets branding them as Natural Farming
produce and to several housing associations along with fellow farmers through
Bhoomithayi Belegarara Sangha. He is also very active on social media platforms which
he intelligently uses to find market for his produce. During last kharif, he obtained 14
quintals of paddy from his one-acre land which he sold to customers directly at a
premium price of ₹4,000 per quintal. He obtained net profit of ₹60,000 from paddy
alone. In the other one acre of land, he cultivated sugarcane and obtained 40 tons of
produce. He sold it at ₹4,200 per ton and obtained a net profit of ₹1,20,000. He recalls
that the expenditure is around ₹25,000 for cultivating 1 acre of sugarcane. He opines
that, though the yield is less compared to chemical farming, it is increasing gradually.
However, the quality as well as taste of the produce is high fetching better price at the
market. His only concern is that Natural Farming is more labour intensive.
Farmer’s name: Venkatesh
Village: T. Malligere, District: Mandya, Karnataka
69
Case – 4
Drawing inspirations from Fukuoka: a case from Tumkur, Karnataka
Shri Mahesh, aged 49 years, is an experienced farmer practicing Natural Farming
before it became popular. After completing his diploma, he took up farming as a
means of livelihood in his 11 acres of land. He was inspired from Fukuoka’s Natural
Farming method and practiced only mulching and zero tillage operations in his field.
Later in 2005, he became aware of Subhash Palekar’s Natural Farming method which
was promoted by Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha. Out of his 11 acres of land, he has 100
coconut and 400 arecanut trees of 30 years age in 3.5 acres. In the remaining field, he
has planted some perennial tree crops like jackfruit, guava, mango, custard apple and
lime. He intercrops them with banana, papaya, finger millet, legumes and green leafy
vegetables. He has 3 bore wells and a farm pond as source of irrigation. He also
installed drip irrigation system and supplies jeevamritha through trench. He uses
coconut and arecanut fronds, coconut husk for mulching around the base of the tree
trunks to conserve moisture.
In a year, he obtains around 18,000
coconuts and sells them as copra at
₹15,000 per quintal (q) in Tiptur APMC.
Around one thousand coconuts give 1.5
q of copra. He obtains 10-12 q of
arecanut and sells at ₹35,000/q in
APMC. Banana, papaya and other crop
produce are sold to regular customers
who visit his farm for purchasing. He
has employed one permanent labour at
₹400 per day to look after all the farm
activities. Besides, his mother and wife are also involved in farm activities. He uses
only neemastra for controlling pests and diseases as and when they appear. As per his
view, Subhash Palekar’s Natural Farming method gives quick results compared to
Fukuoka’s Natural Farming. He has seen drastic increase in arecanut yield (from 5-6
quintals earlier to 10-12 quintals now). Same is his observation on coconut yield.
He has 2 Hallikar breed cows which give net profit of around ₹15,000 per year, besides
having milk and ghee for own consumption. He also sells seedlings of lime, banana
and guava. He has a facebook account in his name and a facebook page by the name
‘Prakriti madilu’. Besides farming, he conducts camps on his farm at nominal charges
to create interest among city dwellers in Natural Farming. Till date, he has conducted
>10 workshops and trained around 1000 farmers on Natural Farming.
Farmer’s name: Mahesh
Village: Ammanaghatta, District: Tumkuru, Karnataka
70
Case – 5
Branding of Natural Farming Products: a case from Maharashtra
Shri Naresh Shinde, aged 48 years, is doing farming since last 18 years in his 17 acres
of land. Debts due to huge operational expenditure and fluctuating prices of the
produce, deterioration of health of permanent labour due to regular spray of chemical
pesticides inspired him look for an alternative to chemical farming. Being an educated
and progressive farmer, he used to attend meetings and interact with other farmers
at different places. Subsequently, he learnt about ZBNF and got fascinated with it.
Since 2014, along with his brother, he started practicing natural farming. Currently,
he is having two indigenous cows, two buffaloes and two oxen. He is cultivating
green gram, black gram and pigeon pea each in 2 acres of land, soybean in 6.5 acres
of land, soybean + pigeon pea in 2 acres and turmeric+ chillies+ pigeon pea in 2.5 acres
during kharif. In rabi, he cultivates chick pea in 4 acres, jowar in 3 acres, wheat in
around 3.5 acres, and pigeon pea in about 6.5 acres.
He is using home grown seed and uses bullocks for land preparation and intercultural
operations. He was spending around ₹ 2.0 lakhs for chemical fertilizers and pesticides
earlier. Now, the farmer is spending only ₹ 50,000/- for preparing plant protection and
nutrient solutions. He has borewell and applies Jeevamritha mainly through drip
irrigation. For pest control, he prepares Dashparnikashyam solution and sprays in the
field. Shri. Shinde, along with fellow farmers in the village, started an organic farming
group called Harithakranthi. He also procures turmeric and pulses from other farmers.
He prepares turmeric powder without boiling the turmeric fingers. The customers as
well as other producers are connected through whatsapp groups. Recently, he is
fetching a premium price by selling the produce to major cities like Pune, Mumbai
and Hyderabad. He is selling natural farming products as organic products as there
is no certification for natural farming products. The increasing health consciousness
among the people is encouraging the farmers to promote natural farming among
other farmers. He is also promoting natural farming in his village and surrounding
villages by conducting the field demonstration.
Farmer’s name: Naresh G. Shinde
Village: Sunpuri, District: Parbhani, Maharashtra
71
8. Scalability and Sustainability of Natural Farming
Natural Farming, as popularly known as Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF2) is a set
of alternative farming methods and considered to be a grassroot peasant movements,
which has spread into many states in India in sporadic manner. Currently, it is being
adopted in different forms by the farmers in most of the states in India, namely, Andhra
Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and
Telangana. Though, the movement is considered to spread first time in Karnataka state
in the year 2002, where members of Karnataka Rajya Ryathu Sangha (KRRS), a farmers’
organization invited proponent of ZBNF, Mr. Subhash Palekar to address their
members about ZBNF practices. KRRS is member of a global social movement called La
Via Campesina (LVC). The LVC has adopted agroecology as one of its key tools to
achieve food sovereignty and promotes diverse agroecology practices in Asia, Africa,
Latin America and Europe (LVC, 2013).
Narayanamoorthy and Alli (2019) expressed that ZBNF has definitely helped preserve
soil fertility, however its role in boosting crop productivity and farmers’ income is not
conclusive yet. On the other hand, according to Tripathi et al. (2018), ZBNF adopter
famers in Andhra Pradesh had harvested 23 percent higher groundnut yield than their
non-ZBNF counterparts; while adopter paddy farmers had marginal gains (6%) in yield.
There are few literatures which support that the ZBNF practices has helped the adopter
farmers in obtaining better crop yields, reducing cost of cultivation significantly and
improving soil health of the farmers’ fields. However, so far there are several articles
published mainly in newspaper suspect about the claims of higher productivity and
farm income with ZBNF practices. Though, there is no research report to prove these
counterclaims as well. A study by Smith et al. (2020) suggests that ZBNF should initially
be encouraged on only low-income farms to avoid yield penalties.
However, between these claims and counterclaims, significant number of farmers have
adopted these practices, shunning the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides,
and adopting Jeevamritha prepared with cow dung, cow urines and other locally
available materials. In most of the cases, farmers are using cow dung and cow urine of
indigenous breed, in some cases, when indigenous cow is not available, they mix with
dung and urines of bullock or buffaloes as well.
2 ‘Zero budget’ primarily means without using any credit, and without spending any money on
purchased inputs. ‘Natural farming’ refers to a farming approach that emphasizes the
importance of co-production of crops and animals, relying on easily available ‘ingredients’ to
produce crop treatments on-farm, and microorganisms or mycorrhizae to build fertility of the
soil. The practice requires most of the inputs for production (Jeevamritha, Beejamritha, concoction
for pest control) as home-grown, farmers don’t depend much on the market. Therefore, it has
been named as ZBNF, might be on the pattern of Zero Tillage (ZT) farming, wherein minimum
tillage, and not without tillage, is recommended.
72
8.1 Scalability of Natural Farming
Like any other agroecology, Natural Farming may also be considered as combination of
three aspects- a scientific discipline, set of practices and a social movement. Scientific
disciplines in the sense as it is being practiced by thousands of farmers in India since
over 10 years. Different constituents of Jeevamritha, like cow dung is host of millions of
beneficial microbes and when it is fed with pulses flour and jaggery, it multiplies very
fast. Some of these help in fixing atmospheric nitrogen, solubilizing other available
nutrients in the soil to the plants. Secondly, mulching and mixed cropping helps in
improving soil carbon content, enriching the soil physical condition, further
encouraging earthworms and other beneficial microbes to grow.
Table 8.1 Benefits expected from different components of Natural Farming

Components Expected benefits
Jeevamritha: A fermented microbial Stimulate microbial activity to synthesize/

culture derived from cow dung and urine, to make bio-available plant nutrients in
jaggery, pulse flour, and soil situ; protect against pathogens; and
promote earthworm activity
Beejamritha: a microbial coating for seeds, Protects young roots from fungus and
based on cow dung, urine, and lime seed borne or soil borne diseases
Acchadana mulching: Covering the topsoil Protects soil from direct exposure from
with cover crops and crop residues sunlight, produces humus, conserves top-
soil, increases water retention, encourages
soil fauna, prevents weeds
Whapasa: Soil aeration, a result of Increase water availability, water use

jeevamritha and acchadana- represents water efficiency, increased activity of
management through improved soil earthworm, increase resilience to drought
structure and humus content
Inter-cropping/Mixed cropping: Reduces demand of particular types of

Cultivation of combination of different plant nutrients and increases availability
types of crops with different canopy and of different types of crop produce on
maturity time simultaneously regular basis to augment farmers income
Source: Adapted from APZBNF (2018).
Scaling often refers to the imposition of solutions that have worked well elsewhere.
Changes can scale up and out, horizontally and vertically, through active processes or
as an emergent property (Rosset and Altieri 2017). The nuances and pitfalls of scaling
are of particular concern for agroecology because agroecological science and practice
are rooted in knowledge developed by indigenous and peasant farmers in relation to
specific territorial contexts (Brescia 2017; Rosset and Altieri 2017). Therefore, the vision
of agroecological scaling reinforces autonomy, biocultural diversity, spirituality, and
73
conviviality. It situates agroecology as one key element of broader societal
transformations that challenge capitalism, colonialism, standardization,
industrialization, patriarchy, and other forms of injustice (Ferguson et al., 2019). Thus,
scaling up of ZBNF/NF practices requires serious constellation of policies, institutions,
and corporations dedicated to creating and maintaining a healthy economic and policy
environment, as has happened in case of Green Revolution technologies. Cacho et al.
(2018) explains that agroecology is farmer-to-farmer movement. They proposed eight
key drivers of the process of taking agroecology to scale: 1. Recognition of a crisis that
motivates the search for alternatives, 2). Social organization, 3). Constructive learning
processes, 4). Effective agroecological practice, 5). Mobilizing discourses. 6). external
allies, 7) favourable markets, and 8) favourable policies. These factors are largely drawn
from social movement theories like Frame theory, Resource mobilization theory, and
the political opportunity framework (Parmentier 2014; Varghese and HansenKuhn
2013; Wijeratna 2018; Terán et al. 2018). In the long run, agroecology aims to reduce
dependence upon external inputs, thereby contributing to the autonomy of food-
producing families and communities (Rosset and Martínez-Torres 2012).
8.2 Factors to scale up ZBNF practices

There may be several factors influencing the large-scale expansion of adoption of ZBNF
practices.
1. Removing negativity around ZBNF/NF: Currently, there are two very strong and
diametrically opposite schools of thought co-existing in the society. The proponents
of natural farming are spreading several misgivings to create disrepute to the
agricultural scientific community and the institutions. They also attribute the large
number of farmers’ suicides and distress to green revolution technologies and
associated scientific institutions. This has antagonizing effect on scientific
community, who in turn, vehemently oppose the ZBNF practices saying it to be
unscientific and unproven practices. In fact, the National Academy of Agricultural
Sciences (NAAS), the Think Tank of agricultural sciences in India, made a
representation to the Prime Minister Office (PMO) and requested to discontinue the
support to ZBNF practices. In this confrontation, the main stakeholders viz. Indian
farmers are confused about veracity of information of both the parties. Dialogues
between two communities and evidence-based deliberation would add trust on the
new practices. Currently, there are very few systematic research studies available
to support or oppose the arguments. Under such circumstances, it is very important
to create scientific evidences from the experimental fields to check the feasibility of
the ZBNF practices in increasing the farmers’ income through reducing cost of
cultivation and/or increasing crop yield.
74
2. Institutional arrangement for capacity building and awareness creation among
the farmers: The new practice suggested under ZBNF is big departure from the
existing farming practices. Indian farmers, 85% of whom are smallholders, are also
semi-literate. Therefore, they need constant flow of same information to adopt the
new practices. It has been observed that several farmers are applying Jeevamritha as
one more additional input. Currently, they are not believing completely about its
efficacy. Once the scientific evidences are generated to support the claim, large scale
capacity building programmes need to be organized at local level. All the Krishi
Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) may be roped in to give training to a group of progressive
farmers from each village, who in turn may influence other farmers by practicing
themselves at their own fields.
3. Farmers Producers Organizations (FPOs) formation and recognition as niche
products: Unless the scientific evidences are generated, it may be left to the farmers
to adopt the ZBNF practices. However, FPO formation for ZBNF practices may be
encouraged and the produce may be categorized as niche product. Since, no
Box 2.
Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) for Organic Certification
PGS India system is based on participatory approach, a shared vision,
transparency and trust. PGS is a process in which people in similar situations
assess, inspect and verify the production practices of each other and take decision
on organic certification (PGS-Green and PGS-Organic). This process is facilitated
by the PGS group itself or in some situations a supportive NGO/ Societies, Gram
panchayaths, State/Central Govt. organization/agencies etc. Only the farmers
which have completed full conversion period without any major or serious non-
compliance be declared as “PGS-Organic”. Farmers which have one or more major
noncompliance or are under conversion period will be declared as “PGS-Green”.
If a farmer has satisfactorily completed the 3 main requirements of being certified
(Attendance at group meeting and field‐trainings, Farmer’s Pledge and Peer
Appraisal), they will most likely be certified. PGS is different from a Third Party
system where the farmer has to convince the certifier of his/her “innocence” with
huge amounts of paper “proof” as to his/ her organic integrity. In a small village,
neighbouring farmers are empowered to make a final decision as to who is and
isn’t certified. A non‐compliance by one farmer could influence the certification
status of the group as a whole, so for that reason (among others) neighbouring
farmers are more likely to: a. Deny certification to farmers known to be cheating,
b. Proactively share knowledge, materials and moral support with a struggling
farmer so they don’t feel to resort to use of prohibited substances, c. Immediately
apply reasonable sanctions to farmers for a non‐compliance. The power of local
social control is far greater than that wielded by trained Third Party inspectors
who are outsiders and further visit only a few hours in a given year.
Source: PGS-India (2015)
75
chemicals are used in ZBNF practices, the cultivation may be brought under the
ambit of Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) for certification as PGS-Green. It
would help the adopter farmers in attracting premium price from the consumers.
4. Establishing demonstration plot in each village panchayat: Seeing is believing
and learning-by-doing are one of the best strategies for peasant movement. Unless
farmers see the successful model, it is hard to believe. Therefore, for success of
ZBNF practices, at least one demonstration plot may be established either through
local NGO or at progressive farmers’ fields to demonstrate to the local farmers.
Word-of-mouth and peer-to-peer communication would help the practice to reach
to larger area in short span of time.
5. Linking ZBNF farmers to Mid-Day Meal and Anganwadi Scheme: To boost the
morale of the ZBNF farmers, policy changes may be brought in the state to
encourage procurement of chemical-free produce for Mid-Day Meal Scheme and
Anganwadi Centres. This would create huge demand for variety of produces
cultivated chemical-free.
8.3 Sustainability with ZBNF/NF

Performance of any farming practices may be examined in the light of four key
sustainability metrics: productivity, economic viability, environmental impact and
social wellbeing. Moreover, it is important to note that in the absence of any
standardized practice recommended by any agricultural research institute or university,
it is very difficult to consider the benchmark practice under ZBNF or Natural Farming.
Environmental benefits of organic/natural farming include but not limited to
elimination of chemicals use and reduced water pollution due to reduced pesticide
residues, reduced nutrient pollution, better carbon sequestration, enhanced biodiversity
(Greene, et al., 2009), improved soil condition, and more healthy food (O'Riordan and
Cobb, 2001).
The proponent of ZBNF recommended use of Jeevamritha (for multiplication and

triggering soil microorganisms) in certain formulations every month, mixed crops,
mulching, beejamritha for seed treatment, local seeds. There is no need of adding
anything extra, not even FYM. However, the farmers who are practicing Natural
Farming deviate from these recommendations. The practices varied in terms of quantity
of Jeevamritha used, some farmers applied farm yard manure (FYM), many farmers
cultivate paddy, sugarcane, etc. as solo crop, etc. Therefore, for the study two categories
of farmers were compared- First group, who don’t apply any chemical fertilizers and/or
pesticides, but uses Jeevamritha. They may be adding some more natural inputs like
azolla in paddy, ghanjeevamritha, FYM or even not doing mixed farming. Second
group, who are cultivating crops conventionally using chemical fertilizers and
pesticides, any type of seeds, irrigation, etc.
76
Productivity: The present study conducted in 3 major states- Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka and Maharashtra has not been able to suggest any conclusive evidence about
the superiority or inferiority of the Natural Farming over conventional farming in terms
of crop yield (Fig. 5.1). The reason may be that the sample farmers practicing Natural
Farming have no uniformity in adoption of different components. Invariably, crop yield
in case of Natural Farming, when FYM is not added, has declined (1 to 10%) as
compared to that in conventional farming (Annexure II). However, when application of
Jeevamritha was supplemented with moderate quantity of FYM, the crop yield has
improved significantly in most of the cases like blackgram and paddy in Andhra
Pradesh, banana, finger millet and sugarcane in Karnataka, and soybean in
Maharashtra. Smith et al. (2020) highlights the reduced production in high-input
systems at national-scale due to ZBNF systems in the short term, while reiterating the
possible yield benefits in specific conditions and over the longer term.
Economic viability: Since the NF alone failed to establish itself in improving the crop
yield, it is important to look for other parameters. The profitability from farming can be
ensured by three methods- improving crop yield, reducing the cost of cultivation and
increasing the price of the product. Barring crop yield issue, inadvertently the Natural
Farming has been successful in reducing the cost of cultivation. As far as price is
concerned, progressive farmers are able to communicate to the potential customers to
offer chemical-free crop produce at premium price. Thus, reduced cost of production
and premium product price has helped the farmers in improving the farm income.
Environmental impact: Highlighting the importance of soil micro-organism, Rao

(2007) opined that soil organisms act as primary driving agents of nutrient cycling,
regulating the dynamics of soil organic matter, soil carbon sequestration and green-
house gas emissions; modifying soil structure and water regimes; enhancing the amount
of nutrient acquisition by vegetation; conferring stress tolerance, resisting pathogens
and improving plant health. Though, Gunapala et al (1998) found that the ability of soil
microorganisms to decompose added organic matter was the same in organic or
conventional systems and that microbial diversity was not compromised by chemical
farming. Shannon et al (2002) argued that organically managed soils maintain higher
biodiversity and have been shown to have lesser incidence of soil borne diseases
compared to conventional farming. Conventional agriculture has contaminated soils,
water, and air; eroded soils and biological diversity; caused pest outbreaks; and in many
cases, led to the indebtedness of farmers (Carroll, Vandermeer, and Rosset 1990; Lappé,
Collins, and Rosset 1998). Widespread adoption of Green Revolution (GR) technologies
led to a significant shift in the food supply function, contributing to a fall in real food
prices. At the same time, it also spurred its share of unintended negative consequences,
mainly, because of the policies that were used to promote rapid intensification of
agricultural systems and increase food supplies. On one hand, GR-driven
intensification saved new land from conversion to agriculture, the unintended
consequences in water use, soil degradation, and chemical runoff have had serious
environmental impacts beyond the areas cultivated (Pingali and Rosegrant, 1994;
Pingali, 2012). Worldwide, improved seed–fertilizer technologies for wheat were less
77
widely adopted in marginal environments and had less of an impact there than in
favored environments (Byerlee and Morris, 1993).
Thus, ZBNF eliminates ecological risks related to land, organisms and water in its
surroundings. By using homegrown fertilisers, fungicides or insecticides, the technique
not only improves the ecology but also reduces production risks. it encourages the
planting of intercropping across the spectrum- such as planting legumes, roots and
tubers alongside commercial crops. It also improves nutrition absorption between
plants, manages waste cycles, reduces the risk of pest incidence across seasons through
various crops, and creates biodiversity on the farm. Finally, biodiversification critically
reduces production and market risks for farmers. If in case there are pest incidences or
failures of crops- the damage is mitigated by having multiple crops on a single farm:
either a single pest will not hit all crops or trap cropping will attract enemy pests, thus
cancelling out any outbreaks.
Social well-being: Improved farm income and diversified cropping system are the
two important components which has been influenced by the Natural farming.
Increased farm income has directly influenced the social being of the adopter-farmers.
On the other hand, mixed cropping helped the farmer-growers in increasing diversity
in the household food basket. Thus, except crop yield, the Natural Farming practice has
established itself as sustainable agricultural production system and being continued by
those adopter-farmers, despite more labour engagement and even yield penalty in some
cases.
Moreover, Smith et al. (2020) concluded that the maximum potential nitrogen supply
may likely be only 52-80 percent of the prevailing national average fertilizer application
rate, which may put yield penalties in higher input systems. According to the study,
under ZBNF practices recommended, maximum nitrogen may be supplied to the crops
as 10% from Jeevamritha (liquid and solid together), 10% from mulching of dried
biomass, 18% from nitrogen fixation by heterotrophic microbes, 24% from
intercropping/legumes in rotation, and 18% from azolla. Thus, there is need of addition
of manure to supplement 24% of nitrogen. The study suggests that although ZBNF has
a substantial role to play in improving the productivity and viability of low-income
farms, if it is strongly promoted to high-income farmers, an immediate decline in
national food production is likely. The systematic research is needed to quantify sources
of nitrogen, understand the impacts of ZBNF on soil organic matter and ensure that
higher levels of nutrients continue to be available to crops, so that crop yields can be
maintained over both the short and long term.
78
8.4 Challenges in ZBNF/NF adoption
In a such diverse country like India, one farming practice cannot suit to all kinds of soil
types, agro-climatic conditions, and all crops. The country has 146 million farmers, out
of which 100 million farmers have hardly 0.4 ha of operational holding. Their socio-
economic backgrounds are different. Therefore, it would be utopian idea to assume that
ZBNF/NF practice would be adopted by all the farmers in India, no matter how best
this practice proved to be. Following may be the major challenges in spread of this
practice at large scale:
1. Convincing the scientific community: Unless the scientific data and evidences are
created by the research institutes, it would be difficult to convince different stakeholders
to develop broad consensus for its adoption. In such situation, there will always be
suspicion among the stakeholders and farmers about its efficacy. If large network of
ICAR institutes/ agricultural universities and KVKs have different views, then farmers
would be in big confusion about this. Therefore, all aspects of Natural farming,
particularly importance of dung and urine of indigenous cows, growth and survival of
different useful micro-organisms in Jeevamritha and after its application in soil, impact
on soil microorganisms, earthworm activity, fungal and bacterial diseases, cycling of
nutrients from deep in the soil fertility, response of different crop varieties under
different cropping and agro-ecological systems, benefits due to reduced use of
chemicals in agriculture- financially, environmentally, micro- and macro-level, etc.
2. Adoption by large-size farm holding: It has been observed that ZBNF practice
requires regular monitoring of the field for monitoring of nutrient deficiency as well as
pests & weed infestation. Further, preparation of huge quantity of Jeevamritha and its
application at regular interval may require increase in labour demand, which may
increase the cost of crop cultivation. Thus, the practice may be more applicable for
smallholder farmers with 1-2 family labour available at home. Therefore, adoption by
large farm-size holding would be a herculean task.
3. Doubtful in case of high-input monocropping region: The ZBNF practice is

contemplated to be agroecological approach, in which crop/farm diversity is must. In
case of monocropping, wherein huge quantity of similar types of nutrients are applied,
this practice may not give better/same crop yield as compared to existing practices of
application of HYV, chemical fertilizers & pesticides. Therefore, in the region like Indo-
Gangetic Plains, where farmers cultivate single crop in whole field in a season may not
be interested to adopt this. It may have repercussion on total foodgrain production for
the country if adopted at large scale by most of the farmers.
4. Reduced scope of mechanization: The benefits of ZBNF can only be realized when
farmers cultivate several crops together as inter-crop or mixed crops so that demand for
specific nutrients don’t lead to nutrient exhaustion in the soil. Inter-/mixed crops can
also be harvested at different points of time. This creates big hindrance in large scale
79
adoption of farm machinery for sowing, harvesting, even other management practices.
Achieving economy of scale and farm efficiency may always be the challenge in such
case.
5. Continuous improvement in crop yield: Crop harvest is the first stage of output
realization by the farmers. Since the ZBNF practice forbids application of improved
cultivars/ hybrid seeds, it would be difficult to keep the farmers motivated to grow the
crops with this practice, as possibility of reaching yield plateau is quite imminent.
Therefore, it requires experimenting with ZBNF/NF practices with different
genotypes/ cultivars to get continuous improvement in yield.
6. Setting up institutions for recognizing ZBNF produce: It is obvious that ZBNF

products are different than conventionally produced commodities. Unless some
mechanism is developed to place this product as niche product in the market, it would
be difficult to attract premium price for ZBNF products. Therefore, different
institutional mechanism and policy change would be required for producing,
aggregating, certifying and bringing near to the final consumers. It may be appropriate
to encourage the farmers to go far this practice in collective way, so as to economize the
whole process at scale.
80
9. Conclusions and Way Forward
Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF)/Natural Farming (NF) is based on the principles
of agroecology which is founded on cultural creativity, that encourages ecological
biodiversity by improving community relations, deepening mutual aid, increasing
people’s control over their lives, and placing all tools under the control of producers. It
is polar opposite to industrial agriculture that works on one-size-fits-all concept with
sustainable intensification and monoculture in the centre overemphasizing on
productivity, and competitiveness based on neoliberal economic and scientific precepts.
Agroecology based agriculture got its legitimacy in the year 2014, when International
Symposium on Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition was organized in Rome
by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). This was
followed by the International Forum for Agroecology, held at Nyéléni, Mali in 2015
organized by the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC) to push
for food sovereignty. The social movements and civil society actors that are part of the
IPC, including La Vía Campesina (LVC), the National Coordination of Peasants’
Organizations of Mali (CNOP), the Latin American and Caribbean Agroecology
Movement (MAELA), the Latin American Scientific Society for Agroecology (SOCLA)
and others, went on record at Mali to oppose what they perceive as a move by
mainstream institutions to co-opt and reduce agroecology to a set of eco-techniques in
the toolkit of the industrialized food production model (Giraldo and Rosset, 2017).
ZBNF/NF is being promoted by the Government of India in a big way which is reflected
by the recent initiatives and announcements. Some State Governments especially
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala and Madhya
Pradesh have also joined the movement. The proponents proclaim that NF practice will
eliminate the problems of dependence on costly inputs as well as health and
environmental concerns particularly related to use of chemicals. On the other hand, the
critics call the NF practice as unproven which cannot bring any tangible benefit to either
farmer or to consumer. Keeping in view the above contrasting understanding and
interpretation, the study has been carried out in three leading NF adopted states viz.
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra by interviewing NF as well as non-NF
farmers.
Natural Farming is found to be widespread in Andhra Pradesh with majority joining
the bandwagon during the last 5 years, whereas in Karnataka and Maharashtra,
adoption of NF though started more than 15 years back, is very much sporadic. There
are farmers in Karnataka and Maharashtra who are practicing NF since more than 10
years and are still continuing. Though, there are certain practices prescribed in Natural
Farming, most adopted practices are use of Jeevamritha, Beejamritha and other plant
protection materials. Mulching and different irrigation technique (Wapasa) are not
popular practice. There is always scope for tweaking and innovation in these practices
like Ghanajeevamritha and use of Azolla in paddy field in A.P. Inter or mixed cropping,
81
as advocated in NF is found to be followed by some of the farmers, except in paddy.
Paddy is always gown as solo crop in the study area.
Owning an indigenous cow may not be a prerequisite, as the requirement of cow dung
and urine is very low (10 Kg dung and 5-10 L urine) for preparation of jeevamritha or
beejamritha. Additionally, it was clearly exhibited in Andhra Pradesh that farmers are
buying/arranging these inputs from other farmers. There seems to be a viable rural
micro-level business proposition in processing and marketing of NF inputs. It can also
be done at community level.
The lab analysis of soil and plant samples could not draw a concrete conclusion on effect
of NF on soil and plant properties. Various factors influence soil properties and soil
health, such as soil type, soil pH, cropping pattern and fertilizer applications in the past,
agro-climatic conditions, etc. The microbiological properties of NF and non-NF were
also showing mixed results. This could be due to very small sample size along with
different soil types of the collected sample. However, from farmers’ point of view, the
ZBNF has helped in improving their health (may be due to non-use of pesticides and
availability of food diversity) and soil health (as earthworm population increased).
The crop yield in NF is not higher as compared to conventional farming. However,
when supplemented with FYM/ Ghanajeevamritha, crop yield improved significantly. It
was also evident that there is substantial reduction in input cost in NF as compared to
non-NF due to non-use of expensive agro-chemicals. This is resulting into significant
reduction in cost of cultivation of all the crops. This has resulted into better profitability
(B:C ratio) for NF farmers. Thus, Natural Farming may not be looked as yield enhancing
farming practices, but definitely increases farmers’ income through cost reduction.
The benefits as perceived by NF farmers is manifold which ranges from less cost of
cultivation, better quality and taste to premium price. Though the premium price
benefit is not experienced by many farmers, it creates a new market opportunity for
tapping a middle-class customer segment, who aspire to consume chemical-free
produce, but are hesitant to pay exorbitant price for organic produce. These may be
recognized as niche product so as to attract premium price in the market. It can be done
with Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) certification as PGS-Green which will help
the farmers to convince the consumers to pay premium price.
At the same time, essentiality of NF inputs viz. jeevamritha, beejamritha etc. along with
regular engagement in farming discourages farmers for NF adoption. The apprehension
about pests and diseases also prohibit most of the farmers in adopting this practice.
Moreover, scientific evidences from the experimental field is the need of hour to explore
the possibilities of NF in increasing the yield of different types of crops under different
agro-climatic conditions under different agroecology.
82
9.1 Policy Recommendations
Natural Farming (NF) practices or Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) practices
encompass much larger perspective than the scopes visualized in common parlance.
The discussion/ debate on ‘Zero Budget’ may not be tenable, as the terminology might
be more appealing to communicate to the rural farmers, and secondly, actual practices
definitely lead to significant reduction in market dependency for farm inputs. As Soil
Microbiologists emphasize upon the important roles played by the invisible micro-
organisms in the healthy soil, the NF practice can be sustainable if it is adopted in true
spirit. It is well documented that millions of fungi, bacteria, actinomycetes, etc. available
in healthy soil make available all those nutrients which are needed for all types of plants
through fixation, solublization and mineralization, provided the soil is covered with
organic matter (mulch), and proper moisture is maintained. However, application of
chemical fertilizers and/or biocides has serious damaging effect on these
microorganisms, and therefore, plants depend mainly on the external nutrients applied
to the soil. Moreover, from operations point of view, like preparing Jeevamritha,
Beejamritha, multi-cropping, different kasayams for pest management, etc. NF require not
only regular monitoring and engagement, but also the conviction to continue these
practices. Even though, the NF practices results into better farm profitability, it would
be a humungous task to implement these practices by relatively large farm land, as poly
cropping may not be compatible with farm mechanization, particularly sowing and
harvesting. It may be quite feasible for the smallholders, which has adequate family
labour to look after the field and use these inputs on regular interval.
Having said that, following policy recommendations may be applicable for expansion
and sustainability of Natural farming practices:
1. Systematic research should be conducted at ICAR institutes/SAUs: There are
several issues related to Natural Farming, which require further refinement as well as
to create credibility for the practices. Such as i). effect of dung and urine from different
species (buffaloes/ bullocks/ crossbred, or other ruminants, etc.) for preparation of
Jeevamritha and Beejamritha, ii). quantity and frequency of jeevamritha application, iii).
composition of jeevamritha, iv). possibility of preparation of Jeevamritha concentrate
for longer shelf-life and portability, v). effect of Natural farming on different crop
combination and under different agro-climatic and irrigation conditions, etc.
2. Impact of Natural farming may be multi-faceted: Comprehensive socio-economic
study on impact of Natural Farming may be conducted to examine its implication on i).
carbon footprint due to saving of chemical fertilizers (manufacturing and distribution)
and its effect on climate change; ii). Saving of fertilizer subsidy; iii). Improvement in
soil health; iv). Increased crop diversity and food diversity at farmers’ household level;
v). improvement in farmers health- reduction in time and money spent for hospital visit;
vi). improvement in farm income, etc.
83
3. Creating awareness through training and demonstration by KVKs: Phase-wise roll-
out of capacity building of farmers and demonstration may be initiated by the selected
Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) in each agro-climatic zones and for different crops. The
KVKs may also experiment on the efficacy of the practices with improved varieties/
hybrids.
4. Certification of Natural Farming produce: Since the natural farming produce is
chemical-free, the consumers would be ready to pay premium price for the product.
Therefore, proper mechanism may be developed for certification of these products
under PGS, to create different segment in the market- between conventional products
and organic products.
5. Encouraging Farmers Producers Organization (FPOs) based on Natural farming:
Special incentives may be given to the FPOs promoting exclusively the Natural Farming
practices. Such FPOs may be given financial support for developing monitoring system
as well as value addition and marketing of NF produce.
Natural farming or ZBNF started as a grassroots movement, aiming to provide multiple
benefits, both to the environment and to farmers. Promoters of ZBNF claim that the soil
already contains all the nutrients needed for plant growth and that the action of
microbial cultures added to the soil releases these nutrients from the soil itself.
However, agricultural scientists argued that the practice would result in a sharp decline
in crop production and make soils less resilient to droughts. From the study, it may be
concluded that the Natural Farming practices may be feasible in the regions where
scope of intercropping is quite prevalent or can be promoted, and smallholder farmers
can manage their land with available family labours. In case of high input regions,
where monocropping is widely adopted, the practice may not give desired results in
terms of crop yield and profitability. The extent of indirect benefits and long-term
sustainability of the system also need further research to validate the practice. However,
if the natural farming produce is placed as niche product, it may offer an alternative
choice for the farmers as well as consumers.
84
There are lots of noises around the nomenclature of ‘Zero Budget Natural
Farming’ (ZBNF), particularly about ‘Zero budget’ and ‘Natural’. More
pertinent questions may be-
1) Whether the composition of Jeevamritha is capable of multiplying micro-

organisms to such extent that it can suffice the bio-availability of all types
of nutrients needed for different types of crops grown in the field?
2) Whether the nutrients reserves present in the soil would be maintained in

future with continuous ZBNF/NF practices?
3) What are the differences in microbial composition in the dung and urine of
indigenous cow and other animals like indigenous bullocks, cross-bred
cattle or buffaloes, which may be used for Jeevamritha preparation?
4) Can ZBNF practices be economically profitable in case of monoculture/

solo crop?
5) What would be the performance of ZBNF practices in different soil types

and under different agro-climatic conditions, and with improved seeds?
6) Can the ZBNF practices be standardized for different crop combinations?
Above and many other questions if any, can only be answered by conducting
systematic research in lab and field experiments at research institutes.
Moreover, ZBNF practices give an option of producing crops non-chemically
and without applying huge quantity of FYM and to the middle-class
consumers to have chemical-free food products at affordable price.
85
Frequently Asked Questions related to Zero Budget Natural
Farming (ZBNF)/ Natural Farming (NF)
In this study, we have used ZBNF and NF as interchangeably, as ‘Zero Budget’ is
symbolic representation about minimum expenditure to be incurred for purchase of
farm inputs from the market. As in case of ‘Zero Tillage’, it is minimum tillage, rather
than no tillage. Though, the basis of selecting ZBNF/NF farmers have been only two
components of ZBNF, viz. application of Jeevamritha and no application of any kind of
chemical fertilizer or pesticide, one may argue that they aren’t exact ZBNF farmers.
Further, entire study is based on the responses of the randomly selected farmers from
both the categories- ZBNF-adopters and non-adopters. Thus, trust in truthfulness of the
statement on recall basis has been assumed, as in the case of any social science survey.
While conducting this study, the research team confronted with several researchers,
farmers and other stakeholders, who raised several questions regarding efficacy of
ZBNF/NF. Following questions emerged during the discussion. The answers given
here are mainly intuitive and based on survey and field visits.
Q1. Can ZBNF/NF practice replace the conventional/chemical fertilizer &

pesticides-based farming in India?
A: No. It can’t replace the conventional farming practices completely, which are based
on intensive use of modern technologies, including improved cultivars/ hybrids,
chemical fertilizers, chemical pesticides, herbicides, etc. Though, ZBNF/NF is one
type of organic farming, however it may be considered as third option of farming,
placed between conventional farming and organic farming. The ZBNF practices and
the produce may be seen with different perspectives, and not as replacement of
conventional farming. Under this practice, farmers produce crops without using any
agro-chemicals unlike conventional farming, and at the same time, it does not require
huge quantity of FYM, unlike organic farming. On the other hand, consumers can
have option to purchase such food products, which are free from any chemical
residues. Since the possibility of crop yield being low through ZBNF/NF practices,
farmer-producers can get profit in two ways: firstly, by saving input costs, and
secondly, by selling the produce at premium price. It may easily fetch a bit premium
price, higher than conventional products, but lower than organic products, provided
necessary institutional ecosystem is enabled to certify these fields. While in case of
organic farming, verification of the land (conversion) is done for last three years, in
case of ZBNF/NF, it may be certified only for the current cultivation year to ensure
that no chemicals have been used in the field. Thus, as in case of any other non-food
products, different product category can be created through institutional
arrangements, so that farmer-producers as well as consumers can have more choices
and farmers can capture the optimum value. Currently, producers and consumers
86
are having two categories of agricultural produce- conventionally grown produce, in
which farmers get very low price, or organic produce for which consumers pay very
high price. The third category can easily be placed between these two, in the interests
of producers as well as urban middle-income category population. Thus, the produce
may be brought under PGS- Green certification to attract premium price.
Q2. Can ZBNF/NF practice help in ensuring food security of growing

population in India?
A: As explained earlier, ZBNF/NF should not be construed as a panacea of all the
problems, presently Indian agriculture is facing. This may be one of the alternative
farming practices. There is no conclusive evidence stating increase or decrease in
yield for all the crops in all types of agro-climatic conditions. It may or may not give
higher crop yield than conventional/ chemical farming with modern cultivars/
hybrids and monoculture. When we talk about national goal of ensuring food
security, increasing productivity and total production of similar products are the
main objectives. However, this also creates near-perfect competition market, in
which producers always compete on price, while consumers are benefitted with
extremely low product prices, provided supply chain functions efficiently. The
producers can get more than normal profit, only in case they can produce
differentiated products. Therefore, narratives around ZBNF/NF practices need to be
looked with different perspectives. The practices may be tested on 3 criteria: a.
Whether cost of crop cultivation has reduced? b. Whether the crop is being produced
without application of agro-chemicals, and finally, c. Does it require much less
quantity of cow-dung and urine, in contrast to organic farming? If answer of all three
questions are affirmative, the practice needs all support for its popularization.
Q3. How can all types of nutrients required by different types of crops be met
through Jeevamritha, as the suggested practices recommend only 10 kg of
cow dung in the form of Jeevamritha for 1-acre land?
A: This question has two parts: 1. Whether 10 kg cow-dung mixed in 200 litres of water
in the form of Jeevamritha will be adequate for 1-acre cultivation? And, secondly,
whether it will be sufficient for all types of crops to give desired yield. It may be
noted that 10 kg of cow-dung suggested for 1-acre land in the ZBNF/NF practices
can’t be sufficient on standalone basis in supplying full nutrients to the crop. The cow
dung microbial consortium includes bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes. When cow-
dung is fermented with cow urine, pulses flour and jaggery, it triggers the process of
multiplying these useful microbes available in cow-dung. These microorganisms are
contemplated to be synthesizing nutrients from atmosphere, and make several other
nutrients bio-available from soil system. However, in most of the cases, we observed
that ZBNF-farmers are also adding FYM in their fields. Regarding second part, the
proponent of ZBNF advocates for mixed cropping, and essentially not for
87
monoculture. These crop combinations may complement each other, and thus the
nutrients requirement may be less than that in case of monoculture.
Q4. From where farmers would get so much cow dung of indigenous cows?
A: From farmers’ field survey, it was evident that farmers apply much less quantity of
cow dung for cultivation of any crop as compared to that for organic farming. Thus,
even when individual farmer is not having indigenous cow, the needed quantity of
cow dung can be purchased from those farmers who are owning indigenous cows.
From the field survey, it was observed that some farmers are doing ZBNF farming
even without having indigenous cows. Either they purchase cow-dung and urine for
preparing Jeevamritha and/or mix small quantity of cow-dung/ urine with that of
other species like bullocks and buffaloes. At some places, new market potential for
making and selling of Jeevamritha/ Beejamritha in the village has emerged, as many
farmers may not like to handle cow dung and urine with their hands.
Q5. Why only indigenous cow breed and whether black indigenous cow is
needed for ZBNF?
A: The indigenous Indian cow also contain higher amount of calcium, phosphorus, zinc
and copper than the cross-breed cow (Garg and Mudgal 2007; Randhawa and
Kullar 2011). Cow dung harbours a rich microbial diversity, containing different
species of bacteria (Nene 1999). Cow dung microorganisms have shown natural
ability to increase soil fertility through phosphate solubilization. Cow dung has
antifungal substance that inhibits the growth of coprophilous fungi (Dhama et
al., 2005). It also contains 24 different minerals and micro-nutrients. The indigenous
cow also contains higher amount of calcium, phosphorus, zinc and copper than the
cross-breed cow. Cow dung harbours a rich microbial diversity, containing different
species of bacteria (Bacillus spp., Corynebacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp.), protozoa
and yeast (Saccharomyces and Candida) (Nene 1999; Randhawa and Kullar 2011). It
is certainly evident that more detailed studies of cow dung are needed. On the other
hand, it is a myth that ZBNF requires black cows. In fact, some of the farmers mix
the dung and urine of different species, and apply in the field.
Q6. How ZBNF/NF practices can help increase farmers’ income?

A: In addition to improving profitability through input cost saving and expected
premium price for the produce, the producer-farmers can gain extra profit over the
losses, if any due to reduction in crop yield. With the help of diversified/ mixed
cropping practices as suggested under ZBNF/NF practices, farmers can harvest
different types of produce at regular interval from small parcel of land and can earn
regular income. However, to realise these benefits, different institutional
arrangements are essential to identify the products under different category say with
branding of PGS-Green, as mentioned earlier.
88
Q7. Is there any standardized practice under ZBNF/NF?
A: Though, the proponent of ZBNF recommends certain fixed package of practices to
be adopted, the research team observed during the field survey that the farmers keep
tweaking/customizing the recommended practices of ZBNF/NF, proposed by Sh.
Subhas Palekar. Some of the important variations observed were; application of FYM
in the field of ZBNF farm, using of dung & urines of bullocks/ buffaloes due to
inconvenience in collection it separately, ignoring the irrigation timing (Wapsa)
completely, cultivation of mixed/ inter-crops, application of mulching, use of local
seeds, etc. Though, most of adopter-farmers apply Jeevamritha as replacement of
chemical fertilizers, though the composition of Jeevamritha also varies at farmers’
fields. Similarly, for controlling pests, different farmers adopt different materials to
prepare the concoction to be sprayed, apart from biological control. Thus, there are
no standardized practices under ZBNF/NF. Therefore, systematic research should
be conducted at ICAR research institutes and/or agricultural universities to
standardize the practices suiting to local conditions and desirable crop combinations.
Q8. Whether ZBNF/NF is suitable in diverse agro-climatic conditions and for

different crops- cereals, pulses, fruits & vegetables, plantations, etc.?
A: The field survey under the study was conducted in three different states. While two
districts of Andhra Pradesh state receive very good rainfall and have irrigation
facility with red clay/ sandy loam soil, the selected districts in Maharashtra have
entirely different situations- scanty rainfall, low irrigation facilities, and deep black
soil. Apart from this, the farmers in the selected states- Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka
and Maharashtra cultivated entirely different crop combinations- monoculture to as
diverse as 5 to 9 (Navdhanya) crops simultaneously. Several news suggested that in
Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, farmers are adopting ZBNF practices in
significant number. These observations support the argument that different crops
under different agro-climatic conditions can be grown with ZBNF practices.
Q9. Can ZBNF/NF be applicable in rice-wheat system (monoculture)?
A: Agroecology-based farming method always recommends diversity in farming, so

that crop, as well as soil biological diversity, can be maintained in the field for
sustainability. Natural farming method is also one of the agroecology farming, thus
it is always beneficial to have more than 1-2 crops simultaneously cultivated. There
are several advantages from this strategy. It can reduce stress due to excessive
mining of certain types of nutrients from the soil. It may give different types of
produce for better household nutrition as well as regular income, in case their harvest
is at different points of time. Therefore, ZBNF/NF practices may not be economically
viable for large scale rice-wheat system.
89
Q10. Should ZBNF/NF practices be promoted at large scale in India?
A: This question is similar to Q.No. 1 & 2. According to our study and assessment,
Natural Farming practices require preparation of Jeevamritha in bulk quantity and its
application in regular interval, for large farm size, the unit cost economics due to use
of hired labour may not be supportive. Secondly, it also requires monitoring of crop
field in regular interval for weeding and pests’ surveillance. In case of pest
infestation, the preparation of organic insecticides becomes cumbersome process.
Thirdly, chances of reduction in crop yield is quite imminent, in case farmers do not
apply sufficient quantity of Jeevamritha or mulching. Large scale promotion of ZBNF
practices may be counterproductive, keeping in view the increasing population and
rising household income. Both factors trigger demand of larger quantity of food
products in the country. Therefore, Natural Farming may be promoted as a sub-set
of Organic Farming, and the products may be categorized as Green Product to attract
premium price from high income households. Unless, the market and other
institutional arrangement for its separate branding is not done, success of Natural
Farming at large scale would be doubtful.
Q11. Whether ZBNF/NF farm practices are climate resilient?

A: It is interesting to learn that when asked such question to the adopting farmers, they
expressed huge satisfaction stating that in drought conditions, while the
neighbouring non-adopter farmers’ fields got badly affected, their own crops fared
well. Since ZBNF encourages mulching and addition of organic matter in the soil,
soil system is believed to be much better than that of non-adopters’ fields. Thus, it
may be considered as climate resilient farming practices.
Q12. What benefits ZBNF/NF would bring to the farmers?

A: From the field survey and available literature, it appears that ZBNF/NF helps in
increasing farm income, even when crop yield doesn’t increase. Moreover, in the
long run, if the theory of change proves to be true, it would help in a big way in
regenerative agriculture. High level of microbial activity and improved Soil Organic
Carbon, soil health would improve significantly. Apart from this, it might have
several indirect benefits, such as non-application of chemical fertilizers would reduce
the burden of fertilizer subsidy and stop nitrate leaching into the groundwater. Non-
application of chemical pesticides helps farmers directly due to its non-exposure. On
the other hand, crop diversity in the ZBNF field would also lead to better food
diversity in the farmers' household, thus improving the nutritional status of the
smallholder farmers. Therefore, non-chemical crop production with locally available
resources may give better choice for both- farmers as well as consumers.
90
300% higher price of Organic flax seed as compared to conventional produce
50% higher price for Organic peanut over normal peanut
Dedicated shelf in the organised retail store for organic foods
91
References
Adamu UK, Almu H, Adam IA and Sani SA (2014). Evaluation of nutrient composition
of some cereals and legumes crops residues as compost materials. Bayero Journal
of Pure and Applied Sciences, 7(2): 52-54.
Anusha. (2018). Effect of liquid organic manure ‘jeevamritha’ on the productivity of
wheat under zero budget natural farming system. MSc. Thesis. CSKHPKV,
Palampur.
APZBNF. (n.d.). Andhra Pradesh: India’s 1st Natural Farming State [brochure], Rythu
Sadhikara Samstha, Andhra Pradesh Zero Budget Natural Farming, n.p.
Badagley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E, Zakem E, Chappell MJ, Avilés-Vázquez K,
Samulon A, Perfecto I (2007). Organic agriculture and the global food supply.
Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 22: 86-108.
Baranski M, Srednicka-Tober D, Volakakis N, Seal C, Sanderson R, Stewart GB,
Benbrook C, Biavati B, Markellou E, Giotis C, Gromadzka-Ostrowska J,
Rembiałkowska E, Skwarło-Sonta K, Tahvonen R, Janovska D, Niggli U, Nicot P
and Leifert C (2014). Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and
lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic
literature review and meta-analyses. British Journal of Nutrition, 112: 794–811.
Barbieri P, Pellerin S, Seufert V and Nesme T (2019) Changes in crop rotations would
impact food production in an organically farmed world. Nature Sustainability, 2:
378-385.
Bhattacharyya T, Pal DK, Mandal C and Velayutham M. (2000). Organic carbon stock
in Indian soils and their geographical distribution. Current Science, 79(5): 655-660.
September 10.
Bonkowski M, Villenave C and Griffiths B. (2009). Rhizosphere fauna: the functional
and structural diversity of intimate interactions of soil fauna with plant
roots. Plant Soil 321 213–233. 10.1007/s11104-009-0013-2.
Brescia S. (2017). Fertile ground. Scaling agroecology from the ground up. Canada: Food
First Books.
Businessline. (2019). ‘Input prices have pulled down farm income’. [online] Available at:
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/input-prices-
have-pulled-down-farm-income/article9828657.ece [Accessed 31 Jul. 2019].
Byerlee D and Morris M. (1993). Research for marginal environments: Are we
underinvested? Food Policy. 1993;18:381–393.
Cacho MMTG., Giraldo OF, Aldasoro M, Moralesa H, Ferguson BG, Rosset P, Khadse
A and Camposa C. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and
92
emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, Online.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313.
Canfield D, Glazer A and Falkowski P (2010). The evolution and future of earth’s
nitrogen cycle. Science 330, 192–196.
Chandra R. (2009). Demand for food grains during 11th Plan and towards 2020. Policy
Brief 28, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New
Delhi, pp. 1–4.
Chaudhari SK, Biswas PP, Abrol IP and Acharya CL. (2015) Soil and nutrient
management policies. In: State of Indian Agriculture–Soil (Eds.) H. Pathak, S.K.
Sanyal and P.N. Takkar. National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi,
India, pp. 332-342.
Connor DJ (2008). Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field Crops Research, 106
(2): 187-190.
Damodaran H and Biswas P. (2019). Top agricultural scientists body rejects zero
budget natural farming. The Indian Express daily newspaper, Sept 10, 2019.
Devarinti SR. (2016). Natural Farming: Eco-Friendly and Sustainable? Agro technology
5:147. Doi: 10.4172/2168-9881.1000147
Dobermann A and Fairhurst TH (2002). Rice straw management. Better crops. Intern
16 (2002) (Sp. Supp. May), 7-9.
Dobermann A and Witt C (2000). The potential impact of crop intensification on
carbon and nitrogen cycling in intensive rice systems. In: Carbon and nitrogen
dynamics in flooded soils (Kirk GJD, Olk DC eds) pp. 1-25. International Rice
Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines.
Economic Survey (2019). Economic Survey 2018-19. Department of Economic Affairs,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
EPW (2019). Mirage of Zero Budget Farming (Editorials). Economic & Political Weekly,
Vol. LIV (30), July 27.
Evenson RE and Gollin D (2003) Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960–
2000. Science 300, 758–762.
FAO (2011). Current world fertilizer trends and outlook to 2015, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Ferguson BG, Maya MA, Giraldo O, Cacho MMTG, Morales H and Rosset P. (2019)
Special issue editorial: What do we mean by agroecological scaling?, Agroecology
and Sustainable Food Systems, 43:7-8, 722-723, DOI:
10.1080/21683565.2019.1630908
93
Fukuoka M. (1987). The Natural Way of Farming: The Theory and Practice of Green
Philosophy. Japan Publications. ISBN 978-0-87040-613-3.
Fulton SM. (2011). Mycorrhizal Fungi: Soil, Agriculture and Environmental Implications.
Nova Science Publication, UK.
Gilbert SF, Sapp J and Tauber AI. (2012). A symbiotic view of life: we have never been
individuals. Quarterly Review of Biology 87(4): 325–341.
Giraldo OF and Rosset PM. (2017). Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between
institutionality and social movements. The Journal of Peasant Studies, DOI:
10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496
Gunapala N, Venette RC, Ferris H and Scow KM. (1998). Effect of soil management
history on the rate of organic matter decomposition. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry 30, 1917-1927.
Gupta, KK, Aneja KR, and Rana Deepanshu (2016). Current status of cow dung as a
bioresource for sustainable development. Bioresources and Bioprocessing (28).
Online article.
Hanway JJ and Heidel H. (1952). Soil analysis methods as used in Iowa state college
soil testing laboratory. Iowa Agriculture 27: 1–13.
Hazell P. and Rahman A. (2014). New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture. Oxford
University Press.
IAASTD (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads: The Global Report. Island Press,
Washington DC, USA.
ICAR-NBSS&LUP (2017-18). Annual Report 2017-18. ICAR-National Bureau of Soil
Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur–440033, India.
Indoria AK, Sharma KL, SammiReddy K and Srinivasarao Ch. (2016). Role of soil
physical properties in soil health management and crop productivity in rainfed
systems – II. Management technologies and crop productivity. Current Science
110: 320–328.
Jacoby R, Peukert M, Succurro A, Koprivova A and Kopriva S (2017). The Role of

Soil Microorganisms in Plant Mineral Nutrition—Current Knowledge and
Future Directions. Frontiers in Plant Science. Published online 2017 Sep
19. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01617.
Jaga PK and Patel Y. (2012). An overview of fertilizers consumption in India:

Determinants and outlook for 2020 – a review. International Journal of Engineering,
Science and Technology 1: 285–291.
Jayashree R and Vasudevan N. (2007). Effect of endosulfan on soil bacteria. J.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Monit., 17(3): 295-299.
94
Jehne W. (2019). Regenerate Earth. Visited on: http://www.globalcoolingearth.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Regenerate-Earth-Paper-Walter-Jehne.pdf
Jensen HL. (1942) Nitrogen fixation in leguminous plants II: Is symbiotic nitrogen
fixation influenced by Azotobacter. Pro. Line Soc. NSW. 57, 205–212.
Kenknight G & Muncie JH (1939) Isolation of phytopathogenic actinomycetes.
Phytopathology 29: 1000–1001.
Khadse A, Rosset PM, and Ferguson BG. (2017). Taking agro ecology to scale: The zero
budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of
Peasant Studies 45:1–28.
Khadse A. and Rosset PM. (2019). Zero Budget Natural Farming in India–from
inception to institutionalization. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, pp.1-
24.
King EO, Ward MK & Raney DE. (1954). Two simple media for the demonstration of
pyocyanin and fluorescin. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 44:301–307.
Kumar Upendra, Nayak AK, Shahid M, Gupta VVSR, Panneerselvam P, Mohanty S,
Kaviraj Megha, Kumar Anjani, Chatterjee D, Lal B, Gautam P, Tripathi Rahul,
Panda BB (2018). Continuous application of inorganic and organic fertilizers
over 47 years in paddy soil alters the bacterial community structure and its
influence on rice production. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Vol
262, Pp 65-75.
Kumar Vijay T, Raidu DV, Killi J, Pillai M, Shah P, Kalavakonda V and Lakhey S.
(2009). Ecologically Sound, Economically Viable Community Managed Sustainable
Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, India. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Kumbar B and Devakumar N (2017). Influence of different levels of jeevamrutha and
panchagavya on yield and quality parameters of organic frenchbean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.). In Rahman et al. (Eds) Proceedings of the Scientific Conference on
“Innovative Research for Organic Agriculture 3.0”, 19th Organic World Congress,
New Delhi, India, November 9-11, 2017. Pp 459-462.
Lal R and Kimble JM (2000). Tropical Ecosystems and the Global C Cycle (Chapter 1).
In: Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems (Eds.) R Lal, JM Kimble and
BM Stewart. CRC Press, pp. 3-32.
Lal R. (2009). Soil degradation as a reason for inadequate human nutrition. Food
Security 1: 45-47.
Lanyon LE & Heald WR. (1982). Magnesium, calcium, strontium and barium. In
Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2 (2nd ed. SSSA Book Ser. 5.) (Eds. A.L. Page,
R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney) Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI., pp
247-262.
95
Lindsay WL & Norvell WL. (1978). Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron,
manganese, and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal 42:421–428.
Lorimer J. (2017). Probiotic environmentalities: rewilding with wolves and worms.
Theory, Culture and Society, 34(4): 27–48.
Lu Hao, Xin Wang, Ke-Qin Zhang, Youyao Xu, Liang Zhou, Guohong Li (2013)
Identification and nematicidal activity of bacteria isolated from cow dung.
Annals in Microbiology, DOI:10.1007/s13213-013-0660-7.
LVC (2010). La Via Campesina. Sustainable peasant and family farm agriculture can feed
the world. La Via Campesina, Jakarta, Indonesia.
LVC (2013). From Maputo to Jakarta: 5 years of agroecology in La Via Campesina.
Jakarta: International Commission on Sustainable Peasant Agriculture.
Martin JP. (1950) Use of acid, rose bengal and streptomycin in the plate method for
estimating soil fungi. Soil Science, 69:215–232.
Martin JP. (1950). Use of acid, rose bengal and streptomycin in the plate method for
estimating soil fungi. Soil Science 69: 215–232.
Mishra S. (2008). Risks, farmers’ suicides and agrarian crisis in India: Is there a way
out?. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(1):38-54.
Mishra S. (2018). Zero Budget Natural Farming: Are this and similar practices the answers?
Working Paper No. 70, Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development
Studies, Bhubaneswar.
MoA&FW (2019). Agriculture Census 2015-16 (Phase-I). All India Report on Number and
Area of Operational Holdings. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,
Government of India.
Muller D.B., Vogel C., Bai Y., Vorholt J.A. (2016). “The plant microbiota: systems-level
insights and perspectives,” in Annual Review of Genetics Vol. 50 ed. Bonini N. M.,
editor. Pp. 211–234.
Munster D. (2018). Performing alternative agriculture: Critique and recuperation in
Zero Budget Natural Farming, South India. Journal of Political Ecology, 25: 748-
764.
NAAS (2018). Soil Health: New Policy Initiatives for Farmers Welfare. Policy Brief No.
3, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi. 19 p.
Nandini N, Anupama BS, Pavithra S. (2009). Natural Farming in Harmony with the
Sustainable Ecosystem. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology 8(4):785-788.
Narayanamoorthy A. and Alli P. (2019) Is zero budget natural farming working? The
Hindu BusinessLine, Daily, September 13, 2019.
96
Nicole D, McFall-Ngai M and Zhao L. (2015). Microbiology: Create a global
microbiome effort. Nature 526: 631–634 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/526631a.
NITI Aayog (2018). Strategy for New India @ 75. NITI Aayog, New Delhi.
Niyogi DG. (2018). Andhra farmers taste success with Zero Budget Natural Farming.
Down to Earth, (Online). https://www.downtoearth.org.in/author/deepanwita-
gita-niyogi-2399
Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS & Dean LA. (1954). Estimation of available
phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular. 1954:
939.
Palekar S. (2005). The philosophy of spiritual farming. 2nd ed. Zero Budget Natural
Farming Research, Development & Extension Movement, Amravati,
Maharashtra, India.
Parmentier S. (2014). Scaling-up agroecological approaches: What, why and how?
Belgium: Oxfam Solidarity.
PGS-India (2015). Participatory Guarantee System for India: Operational Manual for
Domestic Organic Certification. National Centre of Organic Farming, Ministry of
Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India.
Phillips M. (2017). Mycorrhizal Planet: How Symbiotic Fungi Work with Roots to Support
Plant Health and Build Soil Fertility. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, USA.
Pikovskaya RI. (1948) Mobilization of phosphorous in soil in connection with vital
activity of some microbial species. Microbiology, 17:362–370.
Pingali PL and Rosegrant MW. (1994). Confronting the Environmental Consequences
of the Green Revolution in Asia. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Pingali PL. (2012). Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(31):12302–
12308. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912953109
Piper CS. (1966). Soil and Plant Analysis. (The University of Adelaide: Australia).
Plant Analysis 22:1985-2003.
PwC (2019). All for a good harvest: Addressing micronutrient deficiencies. PwC.
Radha TK and Rao DLN. (2018). Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria from Cow Dung
Based Biodynamic Preparations.
Rahman S. (2015). Green revolution in India: environmental degradation and impact
on livestock. Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution.12:75-80. Available
online at https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2014000700008
97
Rao AS. (2011). Soil health issues in rainfed agriculture. Indian
Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development 26: 1–20.
Rao, DLN. (2007). Microbial diversity, soil health and sustainability. Journal-Indian
Society of Soil Science, 55(4): 1-11.
Rosset PM and Altieri MA. (2017). Agroecology: Science and politics. Canada and
United Kingdom: Fernwood and Practical Action.
Rosset PM and Martinez-Torres ME. (2012). Rural social movements and agroecology:
Context, theory and process. Ecology and Society, 17(3):
Saha DK & Pan S. (1997). Qualitative evaluation of some specific media of Trichoderma
and Gliocladium spp. Journal of Mycopathological Research, 35: 7-13.
Saldanha LF. (2018). A Review of Andhra Pradesh’s Climate Resilient Zero Budget Natural
Farming, Environment Support Group, Bangalore. http://esgindia.org
Sawant AA, Hegde NV, Straley BA, Donaldson SC, Love BC, Knabel SJ, Jayarao BM.
(2007) Antimicrobial-resistant enteric bacteria from dairy cattle. Appl Environ
Microbiol, 73:156–163.
Searchinger TD, Wirsenius S, Beringer T and Dumas P. (2018). Assessing the efficiency
of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature, 564: 249-253.
Seeley HW, Van De Mark PJ & Lee JJ. (1991). Microbes in Action: A Laboratory Manual of
Microbiology, fourth ed. W.H Freeman & Co., Gordonsville, Virginia, USA.
Shannon D, Sen AM and Johnson DB. (2002). A comparative study of the microbiology
of soils managed under organic and conventional regimes. Soil Use and
Management 18, 274-283.
Sharma KL, Chandrika DS, Grace JK, Srinivas K, Mandal UK, Raju BMK, Kumar TS,
Srinivasarao Ch, SammiReddy K, Osman M, Indoria AK, Rani KU & Shankar
KS. (2014). Long-term effects of soil and nutrient management practices on soil
properties and additive soil quality indices in SAT Alfisols. Indian
Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development 29: 56–65.
Shotwell A. (2016). Against Purity: Living Ethically in Compromised Times. Minnepolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Shubha S, Devakumar N and Rao GGE. (2017). Studies on soil microbial population in
organic paddy as influenced by liquid organic manures and Palekar's method of
cultivation. In Rahman et al. (Eds) Proceedings of the Scientific Conference on
“Innovative Research for Organic Agriculture 3.0”, 19th Organic World Congress,
New Delhi, India, November 9-11, 2017. Pp 60-62.
Shukla AK, Behera SK, Pakhre A, and Chaudhari SK. (2018). Micronutrients in Soils,
Plants, Animals and Humans. Indian Journal of Fertilizers, 14(4): 30-54.
98
Shyam DM, Dixit S, Nune R, Gajanan S and Chander G. (2019). Zero Budget Natural
Farming - An empirical analysis. Green Farming, Vol 10(6): 661-667.
Singh Y and Sidhu HS (2014). Management of Cereal Crop Residues for Sustainable
Rice-Wheat Production System in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Proc Indian
Natn Sci Acad, 80(1): 95-114.
Smith J, Jagadeesh Y, Smith P and Nayak DR (2020). Potential yield challenges to
scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nature Sustainability, doi.org/10.1038/
s41893-019-0469-x.
Smith P et al. (2013) How much land based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved
without compromising food security and environmental goals? Global Change
Biology, 19 (8). https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12160
Srinivasarao Ch, Indoria AK & Sharma KL. (2017). Effective management practices for
improving soil organic matter for increasing crop productivity in rainfed
agroecology of India. Current Science 112: 1497–1504.
Subbiah BV & Asija GL. (1956). A rapid procedure for the determination of available
nitrogen in soils. Current Science 25: 259– 260.
Terán MY., Giraldo MOF., Aldasoro M., Morales H., Ferguson BG., Rosset P., Khadse
A., and Campos C. (2018). Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and
emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42 (6): 637–65.
doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2018.1443313.
Tewatia RK. (2012). Developments in fertiliser consumption in India. Indian Journal of
Agronomy, (3rd IAC: Special Issue), 57:116–122.
The Hindu. (2019). Why a price increase alone won't help farmers. [online] Available at:
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/more-to-it-than-
msp/article18966926.ece [Accessed 31 Jul. 2019].
Tripathi S, Nagbhushan S and Shahidi T. (2018). Zero Budget Natural Farming for the
Sustainable Development Goals: Andhra Pradesh, India. Council on Energy,
Environment and Water (CEEW) Issue Brief, New Delhi.
Varghese S. and Hansen-Kuhn K. (2013). Scaling Up agroecology: Towards the realization
of the right to food. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Velayutham M, Pal DK and Bhattacharyya Y. (2000). Organic Carbon Stock in Soils of
India (Chapter 4). In: Global Climate Change and Tropical Ecosystems (Eds.) R
Lal, JM Kimble and BM Stewart. CRC Press, pp. 71-95.
Walkley A and Black CA. (1934). Estimation of organic carbon by chromic acid
titration method. Soil Science 37: 29–38.
99
Wallenstein M. (2017). To restore our soils, feed the microbes. The Conversation. Online
article, visited on 22 Dec 2019. https://source.colostate.edu/restore-soils-
feed-microbes/
Wijeratna A. (2018). Agroecology: Scaling Up, Scaling Out. Action Aid.
Zafar I, Hussain A, Latif A, Asi MR and Chaudhary JA. (2001). Impact of pesticide
applications in cotton agro ecosystem and soil bioactivity studies. J. Microbial
Populations Biol. Sciences, 1(7): 640-644.
100
Annexure
Annexure I. State-wise percent distribution of micronutrient deficiencies in India
State Zinc Iron Copper Manganese Boron

Andhra Pradesh 22.92 17.24 1.33 1.63 4.08
Arunachal Pradesh 4.63 1.44 1.4 3.01 39.15
Assam 28.11 0 2.8 0.01 32.75
Bihar 45.25 12 3.19 8.77 39.39
Chhattisgarh 25.59 7.06 3.22 14.77 20.59
Goa 55.29 12.21 3.09 16.91 12.94
Gujarat 36.56 25.87 0.38 0.46 18.72
Haryana 15.42 21.72 5.13 6.16 3.27
Himachal Pradesh 8.62 0.51 1.43 6.68 27.02
Jammu & Kashmir 10.91 0.41 0.34 4.6 43.03
Jharkhand 17.47 0.06 0.78 0.26 60
Karnataka 30.7 7.68 2.28 0.13 36.79
Kerala 18.34 1.23 0.45 3.58 31.21
Madhya Pradesh 57.05 8.34 0.47 2.25 4.3
Maharashtra 38.6 23.12 0.14 3.02 20.69
Manipur 11.5 2.13 2.46 2.06 37.17
Meghalaya 3.84 1.33 1.03 2.95 47.93
Mizoram 1.96 0.49 0.98 1.22 32.76
Nagaland 4.62 2 0.53 3.05 54.31
Odisha 32.12 6.42 7.11 2.12 51.88
Punjab 19.24 13.04 4.67 26.2 18.99
Rajasthan 56.51 34.38 9.15 28.28 2.99
Tamil Nadu 63.3 12.62 12.01 7.37 20.65
Telangana 26.77 16.65 1.36 3.54 16.49
Tripura 5.51 1.57 2.36 0 23.62
Uttar Pradesh 27.27 15.56 2.84 15.82 20.61
Uttarakhand 9.59 1.36 1.51 4.82 13.44
West Bengal 14.42 0.03 1.76 0.98 37.05
All India average 36.5 12.8 4.2 7.1 23.4
Source: Shukla et al (2018)
101
Annexure II. Protocol of measurements for soil chemical parameters
S. No. Soil properties Protocol Reference
1. Organic carbon Wet digestion Walkley and Black, 1934
2. Available Kjeldahl method Subbaiah and Asija, 1956
nitrogen
3. Available 0.5 M NaHCO3 extraction Olsen et al., 1954
phosphorus
4. Available Neutral normal ammonium Hanway and Heidal, 1952
potassium extraction
5. Exchangeable Ammonium acetate Lanyon and Heald, 1982
calcium extraction
6. Exchangeable Ammonium acetate Lanyon and Heald, 1982
magnesium extraction
7. Available Turbidimetric method Chesnin and Yien, 1950
sulphur
8. Available Azomethrine-H-hot water Berger and Truog, 1939
Boron method
9. DTPA-Zinc DTPA-TEA-CaCl2 extraction, Lindsay and Norvell, 1978
AAS detection
10. DTPA-Iron DTPA-TEA-CaCl2 extraction, Lindsay and Norvell, 1978
AAS detection
11. DTPA-Copper DTPA-TEA-CaCl2 extraction, Lindsay and Norvell, 1978
AAS detection
12. DTPA- DTPA-TEA-CaCl2 extraction, Lindsay and Norvell, 1978
Manganese AAS detection
102
Annexure III. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant
analysis in Vizianagaram district
S.No. Village Farming Practices Soil
code type type
1. GRL NF Goat manure (0.5 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l ha-1/15 days interval)+ Mixed black
GM (dhaincha)
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1)+ Urea (75 kg ha-1) + DAP (25 kg ha-1)+ MOP Mixed black
(25 kg ha-1 )+ GM (dhaincha)
2. PTD NF GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l/ha-1/ 15 days interval)+ Mixed black
Beejamritha (seed treatment)
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1)+Urea (100 kg ha-1)+ DAP (50 kg)+ MOP (60 kg Mixed black
ha-1)
3. PSRP NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+GJM (0.6 t ha-1) +JM (500 l ha-1)+GM Mixed black
(dhaincha)+ Azolla application
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1)+ Urea (100 kg ha-1)+ DAP( 50 kg ha-1) +Azolla Mixed black
application+ GM (dhaincha)
4. PDSL NF GJM (0.6 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l ha1/ 15 days) + GM (dhaincha)+ Mixed black
Neemastram (every 20 days interval)+Beejamritha (seed
treatment)
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1) + Urea (100 kg ha-1 )+ DAP (50 kg ha-1)+GM Mixed black
(dhaincha)
5. KGP NF GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+JM (500 l ha-1) +Neemastram (every 20 days Mixed black
interval)
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1)+Urea (50 kg ha-1 +DAP (50 kg ha-1 ) Mixed black
6. SKR NF GJM (0.6 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l ha-1) + Neemastram (every 30 days Mixed black
interval)
Non-NF FYM (3 t ha-1)+Urea (50 kg ha-1) +DAP (75 kg ha-1) Mixed black
7. GLD NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+ GJM (0.5 t ha-1) + JM (500 l ha-1/15days Red
intervals)+ Beejamritha (seed treatment)
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1)+Urea (100 kg ha-1) + DAP (50 kg ha-1) Red
8. AGR NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l ha-1)+ Beejamritha (seed treatment) Mixed black
Non-NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+Compost (0.5 t ha- 1) +Urea (100 kg ha-1) Mixed black
+DAP (100 kg ha-1)
9. KDP NF GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+JM (500 l ha-1/ 15 days Mixed black
intervals)+Panchgavya spray+ Beejamritha (seed treatment)
Non-NF Urea (100 kg ha-1)+DAP (75 kg ha-1) +MOP (25 kg ha-1)+zinc Mixed black
sulphate (25 kg ha-1)+ Azolla application
10. PTR NF GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+GM (500 l/ha-1/ 15 days intervals)+ Azolla Mixed black
application
Non-NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+Urea (100 kg ha-1)+DAP (100 kg ha-1)+ Azolla Mixed black
application
11. GLN NF GJM (0.4 t ha-1)+GM (500 l ha-1) +GM (dhaincha)+ Azolla Mixed black
application
Non-NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+Urea (100 kg ha-1) +DAP (50 kg ha-1)+ GM Mixed black
(dhaincha)+ Azolla application
JM=Jeevamritha; GJM=GhanJeevamritha; GM=Green manuring; FYM=Farmyard manure;
DAP=Diammonium phosphate; MOP=Murate of potash
Name of Village: GRL= Gurala; PTD= Pettada; PSRP= PSR Puram; PDSL= Pidiseela; KGP=
Konda Ganga Pudi; SKR= S. Kotasita Ramapuram; GLD= Galendagond; AGR= Aaguru; KDP=
Kovvadapeta; PTR= Paturu; GLN= Golgaon
103
Annexure IVa. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major
nutrients in paddy cultivated fields in Vizianagaram district
S.No Village SOC (%) N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha) K (kg/ha)
code NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non-
NF NF NF NF
1 GRL 0.67 0.78 194 220 35 44 171 248
2 PTD 0.40 0.61 207 232 31 39 123 141
3 PSRP 0.63 0.75 157 194 20 37 188 225
4 PDSL 0.50 0.68 207 220 18 23 142 229
5 KGP 0.65 0.71 169 194 23 29 155 191
6 SKR 0.50 0.76 169 207 24 32 161 225
7 GLD 0.70 0.87 220 244 33 38 175 226
8 AGR 0.81 0.71 298 283 33 28 254 213
9 KDP 0.74 0.88 260 294 29 35 255 306
10 PTR 0.44 0.48 248 263 18 22 162 173
11 GLN 0.67 0.78 194 220 35 44 171 248
Range 0.40- 0.48- 157- 194- 18- 22- 123- 141-
(n=11) 0.81 0.88 298 294 35 44 255 306
Mean 0.61 0.73 211 234 27 34 178 220
SD 0.13 0.11 43 34 7 8 42 43
Annexure IVb. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in paddy cultivated

S.No Village S Ca Mg
Code (kg ha-1) (meq 100 g-1) (meq 100 g-1)
1 GRL 16.1 17.8 19.6 20.4 5.0 6.1
2 PTD 12.4 11.9 17.8 16.6 4.4 4.2
3 PSRP 23.5 25.9 18.0 19.0 7.2 7.8
4 PDSL 19.2 24.1 12.2 11.4 5.2 4.9
5 KGP 17.8 17.1 17.4 18.8 6.6 7.2
6 SKR 22.4 23.7 11.0 12.2 5.2 6.6
7 GLD 12.8 15.7 5.8 6.2 2.2 2.6
8 AGR 27.5 29.1 6.8 7.9 2.2 2.5
9 KDP 32.5 31.6 6.5 8.2 2.3 2.6
10 PTR 23.6 25.9 10.5 11.3 3.8 4.8
11 GLN 18.9 20.8 16.6 18.4 5.0 6.3
Range (n=11) 12.4-32.5 11.9-31.6 5.8-19.6 6.2-20.4 2.2-7.2 2.5-7.8
Mean 20.61 22.15 12.93 13.67 4.46 5.05
SD 6.09 6.04 5.17 5.13 1.71 1.91
104
Annexure IVc. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in paddy cultivated fields
in Vizianagaram district
S. Village Fe Mn Cu Zn B
No code (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
1 GRL 40.1 25.9 9.4 6.0 2.20 2.15 0.84 1.07 0.57 0.62
2 PTD 23.5 23.5 7.0 7.5 1.72 1.60 1.71 2.34 0.46 0.51
3 PSRP 26.0 23.3 8.3 6.1 1.51 1.73 1.10 2.19 0.63 0.66
4 PDSL 19.7 41.1 7.3 5.6 1.64 1.46 1.38 1.13 0.68 0.73
5 KGP 56.7 48.2 6.3 10.9 1.21 1.87 1.56 2.14 0.56 0.55
6 SKR 59.1 49.2 7.9 10.2 1.35 1.89 1.58 1.64 0.67 0.70
7 GLD 97.2 116.1 19.0 35.8 1.76 2.91 1.41 2.97 0.75 0.81
8 AGR 64.0 71.1 27.5 33.8 4.08 7.08 0.48 0.58 0.84 0.87
9 KDP 80.5 34.9 14.5 32.6 4.16 9.04 0.26 0.34 0.73 0.71
10 PTR 46.1 71.4 9.6 5.6 9.16 11.20 0.46 0.74 0.77 0.82
11 GLN 29.9 40.9 9.4 6.0 2.20 2.15 1.07 0.84 0.84 0.79
Range 19.7- 23.3- 6.3- 5.6- 1.21- 1.46- 0.26- 0.34- 0.46- 0.51-
(n=11) 97.2 116.1 27.5 35.8 9.16 11.20 1.71 2.97 0.84 0.87
Mean 49.3 49.6 11.5 14.6 2.82 3.92 1.08 1.45 0.68 0.71
SD 24.9 27.7 6.5 12.7 2.34 3.48 0.51 0.85 0.12 0.11
Annexure IVd. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in

S. Village Bacteria Fungi Actinomycetes
No. code (Log10 CFU/g soil) (Log10 CFU/g soil) (Log10 CFU/g soil)
1 GRL 8.00 8.18 4.06 4.76 4.78 4.40
2 PTD 8.85 7.00 4.06 4.86 3.70 4.00
3 PSRP 9.04 8.54 4.02 4.34 4.85 4.48
4 PDSL 8.40 8.00 3.90 4.00 4.54 4.54
5 KGP 8.54 8.40 4.19 3.18 4.40 4.40
6 SKR 8.30 8.93 4.22 4.32 3.70 4.39
7 GLD 8.40 9.79 4.24 4.24 4.65 4.40
8 AGR 9.13 9.41 3.54 4.30 4.40 4.74
9 KDP 9.41 8.81 4.87 3.81 4.54 4.88
10 PTR 9.04 9.04 4.13 3.95 4.70 4.54
11 GLN 8.78 8.85 3.18 3.18 4.54 4.18
Range 8.00- 7.00- 3.18- 3.18- 3.70- 4.00-
(n=11) 9.41 9.79 4.87 4.86 4.85 4.88
Mean 8.72 8.63 4.04 4.09 4.44 4.45
SD 0.40 0.71 0.40 0.52 0.37 0.23
105
Annexure IVe. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in
S. Village Free-living Phosphorus Pseudomonas sp.
No. code Nitrogen-fixing solublizing bacteria (Log10 CFU/g soil)
bacteria (Log10 CFU/g soil)
(Log10 CFU/g soil)
1 GRL 5.02 3.70 3.48 3.65 6.18 6.00
2 PTD 5.66 4.98 3.30 3.30 6.40 6.81
3 PSRP 5.15 4.30 3.65 3.74 6.18 6.30
4 PDSL 4.93 5.13 3.60 3.40 6.48 6.40
5 KGP 5.02 4.00 3.40 3.81 6.65 6.18
6 SKR 4.00 5.16 3.48 4.60 6.40 6.39
7 GLD 5.79 4.54 3.48 3.18 6.30 5.70
8 AGR 5.47 5.44 2.70 3.88 5.00 5.70
9 KDP 5.31 5.16 3.18 3.70 6.00 7.26
10 PTR 5.04 5.10 3.00 3.30 5.70 5.70
11 GLN 5.35 4.78 2.70 3.85 6.24 6.23
Range (n=11) 4.00-5.79 3.70-5.44 2.70-3.65 3.18-4.10 5.00-6.65 5.70-7.26
Mean 5.16 4.75 3.27 3.67 6.14 6.24
SD 0.45 0.53 0.32 0.38 0.43 0.46
Annexure IVf. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in paddy plants in Vizianagaram

district
S. No Village Fe Mn Cu Zn B
code N (%) P (%) K (%)
(mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non-
NF NF NF NF NF NF NF NF
1 GRL 0.71 0.74 0.31 0.33 1.10 1.12 52.0 54.0 40.0 51.0 6.2 8.1 21.0 24.5 23.1 24.9
2 PTD 0.68 0.76 0.36 0.40 0.71 0.82 59.0 68.0 32.0 41.0 7.2 5.1 27.5 27.9 31.3 33.2
3 PSRP 0.87 0.92 0.29 0.31 0.98 0.96 57.0 51.0 55.0 48.0 8.4 6.2 22.0 19.6 24.6 28.5
4 PDSL 0.85 0.94 0.45 0.51 0.84 0.89 67.0 62.0 26.0 24.0 5.4 6.5 31.2 28.6 17.5 19.8
5 KGP 0.76 0.74 0.46 0.42 0.79 0.92 57.0 69.0 25.0 31.0 6.5 7.8 27.1 22.4 34.9 38.0
6 SKR 0.79 0.75 0.35 0.31 0.94 0.92 68.0 77.0 28.0 32.0 8.2 6.4 26.1 31.4 24.9 28.4
7 GLD 0.89 0.88 0.36 0.42 0.87 0.96 54.0 53.0 24.0 21.0 7.6 7.1 22.1 24.5 37.2 36.9
Range 0.68- 0.74- 0.29- 0.31- 0.71- 0.82- 52.0- 51.0- 24.0- 21.0- 5.4- 5.1- 21.0- 19.6- 17.5- 19.8-
(n=7) 0.89 0.94 0.46 0.51 1.10 1.12 68.0 77.0 55.0 51.0 8.4 8.1 31.2 31.4 37.2 38.0
Mean 0.79 0.82 0.37 0.39 0.89 0.94 59.1 62.0 32.9 35.4 7.1 6.7 25.3 25.6 27.6 30.0
SD 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.09 6.1 9.8 11.2 11.6 1.1 1.0 3.7 4.0 7.0 6.5
106
Annexure V. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant
analysis in Visakhapatnam district
S. Village Farming
Practices Soil type
No code type
Paddy grower
GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+ JM 500 l ha-1/15 days intervals+ Azolla
NF Mixed black
application+ GM (dhaincha)
1. DBM
FYM (2.5 t ha-1)+100 kg urea+DAP (50 kg ha-1)+GM
Non-NF Mixed black
(dhaincha)+Azolla application
GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l ha-1/15 days intervals)+ Azolla
NF Mixed black
application+Beejamritha (seed treatment)
2. VPM
FYM (3 t ha-1)+ Urea (100 kg ha-1)+ DAP (50 kg ha-1)+ GM
Non-NF Mixed black
(dhaincha)
GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l ha-1/15days intervals)+ Azolla
NF Mixed black
aplication+GM (dhaincha)
3. KNM
FYM (1 t ha-1)+Urea (100kg ha-1)+DAP (50 kg ha-1)+ Azolla
Non-NF Mixed black
application +GM (dhaincha)
FYM (1 t ha-1)+GJM (0.4 t ha-1)+JM (500 l/15days
NF intervals)+ Nemastram every 30 days intervals+ Beejamritha Mixed black
4. JVM
(seed treatment)
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1)+Urea (75 kg ha-1) Mixed black
NF GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+JM (500 l ha-1/ 15 days intervals) Red
5. CGD Urea (100 kg ha-1)+DAP (50 kg ha-1)+MOP (50 kg ha1) +
Non-NF Red
Beejamritha (seed treatment)
FYM (1 t ha-1)+ compost (0.5 t ha-1) +JM (400 l ha-1/ 15 days
NF Black
6. MPM intervals)
Non-NF FYM (2 t ha-1)+Urea (75 kg ha-1)+DAP (75 kg ha-1) Black
Compost (0.5 t ha-1)+GJM (0.2 t ha-1) +JM (500 l ha-1/ 20
NF Black
7. CDA days intervals) + Beejamritha (seed treatment)
Non-NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+ Urea (100 kg ha-1)+DAP (50 kg ha-1) Black
NF FYM (1 t ha-1) +JM (500 l ha-1/15 days intervals) Mixed black
8. RRP
Non-NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+Urea (100 kg ha-1) +DAP (50 kg ha-1) Mixed black
Sugarcane growers
GJM (0.5 t ha-1)+ JM (500 l ha-1/15 days intervals)+ GM
NF Mixed red
(dhaincha)+ mulching with sugarcane trashes
9. VPM
FYM (3 t ha-1)+Urea (50 kg ha-1) +GM (dhaincha)+ mulching
Non-NF Mixed red
with sugarcane trashes
GJM (1 t ha-1)+JM (500 l ha-1/15days intervals)+
NF Nemastram every 60 days intervals+ mulching with Mixed red
10. JVM sugarcane trashes
FYM (3 t ha-1)+ Urea (100 kg ha-1)+DAP (50 kg ha-1)+
Non-NF Mixed red
mulching with sugarcane trashes
GJM (1 t ha-1)+JM (500 l ha-1/15days intervals)+ mulching
NF Mixed red
with sugarcane trashes
11. KPL
FYM (4 t ha-1)+Urea (100 kg ha-1)+ DAP (50 kg ha-1)
Non-NF Mixed red
+mulching with sugarcane trashes
JM=Jeevamritha; GJM=GhanJeevamritha; GM=Green manuring; FYM=Farmyard manure;
DAP=Diammonium phosphate; MOP=Murate of potash
Name of Village: DBM=Dibbapallam; VPM=Vinkpalam; KNM=Konam; JVM=Jaithavaram;

CGD=Channagogada; MPM=Mukundapuram; CDA=Cheedikada; RRP=R R Peta; KPL=Kandi Palli
107
Annexure VIa. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major
nutrients in paddy cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district
SOC (%) N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha) K (kg/ha)
Village
S.No NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non-
code
NF NF NF NF
1 DBM 0.53 0.57 141 156 25 29 125 126
2 VPM 0.52 0.47 119 106 49 46 346 373
3 KNM 0.76 0.81 220 232 24 32 310 319
4 JVM 0.64 0.68 194 219 23 32 283 312
5 CGD 0.71 0.62 220 182 27 19 360 328
6 MPM 0.64 0.72 210 240 25 29 251 325
7 CDA 0.79 0.84 266 316 23 29 327 371
8 RRP 0.65 0.7 216 260 33 35 186 232
Range 0.52- 0.47- 119- 106- 23- 19-46 125- 126-
(n=8) 0.79 0.84 266 316 49 360 373
Mean 0.66 0.68 198 214 29 31 274 298
SD 0.10 0.12 47 65 9 8 82 82
Annexure VIb. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in paddy cultivated

fields in Vishakapatnam district
S.No Village S Ca Mg
Code (kg ha )
-1 (meq 100g )
-1 (meq 100g-1)
1 DPL 22.1 24.5 11.0 13.0 4.2 5.2
2 VPL 16.5 17.8 16.4 17.1 5.1 4.9
3 KNM 27.9 30.4 11.0 12.4 5.8 6.0
4 JVM 18.2 16.9 14.4 15.5 5.2 5.6
5 CGD 18.9 21.6 9.6 11.2 6.4 7.1
6 MPM 23.4 22.6 13.8 14.2 3.4 4.0
7 CKD 32.8 37.5 14.9 16.0 6.5 6.1
8 RRP 26.3 29.0 11.1 12.0 4.3 5.8
Range (n=8) 16.5-32.8 16.9-37.5 9.6-16.4 11.2-17.1 3.4-6.5 4.0-7.1
Mean 23.3 25.0 12.78 13.93 5.11 5.59
SD 5.5 6.9 2.41 2.11 1.10 0.92
108
Annexure VIc. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in paddy cultivated fields
S.No Village Fe Mn Cu Zn B (mg/kg)
code (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
1 DBM 14.3 11.5 14.7 8.0 0.90 2.31 1.35 1.62 0.51 0.57
2 VPM 31.5 41.9 16.4 19.4 2.05 0.97 1.66 2.88 0.46 0.52
3 KNM 40.7 53.6 38.0 22.6 1.28 1.04 0.81 0.93 0.39 0.45
4 JVM 62.0 49.5 10.0 12.1 1.02 1.59 2.14 1.37 0.62 0.58
5 CGD 57.7 51.4 17.4 11.6 1.27 1.37 3.24 2.95 0.68 0.73
6 MPM 34.3 52.2 15.0 24.7 2.92 2.44 2.70 3.42 0.72 0.76
7 CDA 55.4 49.3 30.3 35.4 1.60 1.84 2.52 2.74 0.45 0.42
8 RRP 64.5 57.3 33.7 22.0 1.40 2.04 3.10 2.48 0.57 0.64
Range 14.3- 11.5- 10.0- 8.0- 0.90- 0.97- 0.81- 0.93- 0.39- 0.42-
(n=8) 64.5 57.3 38.0 35.4 2.92 2.44 3.24 3.42 0.72 0.76
Mean 45.1 45.8 21.9 19.5 1.56 1.70 2.19 2.30 0.55 0.58
SD 17.7 14.6 10.4 8.8 0.66 0.55 0.86 0.88 0.12 0.12
Annexure VId. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major
nutrients in sugarcane cultivated fields in Visakhapatnam district
S. Village SOC (%) N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha) K (kg/ha)
No code
NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
1 VPM 0.62 0.71 144 157 19 22 195 216
2 JVM 0.61 0.67 169 194 18 23 251 260
3 KPL 0.72 0.78 182 215 26 21 306 318
Range 0.61- 0.67- 144- 157- 18- 21- 195- 216-
(n=3) 0.72 0.78 182 215 26 23 306 318
Mean 0.65 0.72 165 189 21 22 251 265
SD 0.06 0.06 19 29 4 1 56 51
Annexure VIe. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in sugarcane cultivated

S.No Village Code S Ca Mg
(kg ha-1) (meq 100g-1) (meq 100g-1)
1 VPM 18.9 22.6 11.8 10.0 7.2 6.0
2 JVM 23.4 24.1 14.2 16.4 5.8 6.9
3 KPL 17.6 16.8 13.0 14.4 7.0 8.7
Range (n=3) 17.6-23.4 16.8-24.1 11.8-14.2 10-16.4 5.8-7.2 6.0-8.7
Mean 20.0 21.2 13.00 13.60 6.67 7.20
SD 3.0 3.9 1.20 3.27 0.76 1.37
109
Annexure VIf. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in sugarcane cultivated
No code (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)
1 VPM 6.7 12.5 6.9 9.3 1.11 0.69 2.16 0.85 0.45 0.49
2 JVM 10.5 13.9 7.8 10.5 1.13 0.63 3.62 2.25 0.55 0.56
3 KPL 6.8 8.1 5.4 4.2 0.90 0.79 1.16 0.49 0.62 0.68
Range (n=3) 6.7- 8.1- 5.4- 4.2- 0.90- 0.63- 1.16- 0.49- 0.45- 0.49-
10.5 13.9 7.8 10.5 1.13 0.79 3.62 2.25 0.62 0.68
Mean 8.0 11.5 6.7 8.0 1.05 0.70 1.05 0.70 0.54 0.58
SD 2.2 3.0 1.2 3.3 0.13 0.08 1.24 0.93 0.09 0.10
Annexure VIg. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in
S. No. Village Bacteria Fungi Actinomycetes
Code (Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
1 DPL 8.60 9.15 3.88 3.98 5.00 5.02
2 VPL 8.70 8.30 3.85 4.04 3.48 4.00
3 KNM 8.30 8.30 4.24 4.48 4.40 4.85
4 JVM 8.00 8.30 3.7 4.59 4.95 5.11
5 CGD 8.18 8.40 4.46 4.56 5.00 4.81
6 MPM 9.36 8.18 3.6 4.31 3.00 3.18
7 CKD 8.18 8.00 3.65 3.3 3.54 3.48
8 RRP 8.40 8.18 3.4 2.7 3.00 2.70
Range (n=8) 8.00-9.36 8.00-9.15 3.40-4.46 2.70-4.59 3.00-5.00 2.70-5.11
Mean 8.47 8.35 3.85 4.00 4.05 4.14
SD 0.40 0.32 0.33 0.63 0.83 0.87
Annexure VIh. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields in
S. Village Free-living Phosphorus Pseudomonas sp. Trichoderma sp.
No. Code Nitrogen-fixing solubilizing (Log10 CFU g-1 (Log10 CFU g-1
bacteria bacteria soil) soil)
(Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
1 DPL 5.16 5.29 2.70 3.40 6.54 6.70 3.10 3.23
2 VPL 5.04 5.02 3.93 3.90 6.18 6.48 3.36 2.81
3 KNM 4.90 5.79 3.60 3.48 6.48 6.65 3.00 3.48
4 JVM 5.49 5.51 3.74 3.48 6.30 6.18 2.93 2.00
5 CGD 5.18 4.00 3.40 3.40 6.30 6.18 2.54 3.59
6 MPM 5.76 4.90 3.30 3.74 6.60 6.65 3.18 4.31
7 CKD 5.30 4.93 4.15 3.40 7.10 6.54 4.11 3.30
8 RRP 4.60 4.60 3.00 3.30 6.60 5.70 3.18 3.30
Range (n=8) 4.60-5.76 4.00-5.79 2.70-4.15 3.30-3.90 6.18-7.10 5.70-6.70 2.54-4.11 2.00-4.31
Mean 5.18 5.01 3.48 3.51 6.51 6.39 3.18 3.25
SD 0.33 0.52 0.45 0.19 0.27 0.32 0.42 0.62
110
Annexure VIi. Plot-wise soil microbial population in sugarcane cultivated fields in
S. Village code Bacteria Fungi Actinomycetes
No. (Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 (Log10 CFU g-1
soil) soil)
NF Non- NF Non- NF Non-
NF NF NF
1 VPM 8.18 9.24 4.15 4.34 4.98 4.90
2 JVM 8.18 8.18 4.13 3.98 5.02 4.88
3 KPL 8.40 8.00 4.30 3.90 5.00 4.18
Range 8.18- 8.00- 4.13- 3.90- 4.98- 4.18-
(n=3) 8.40 9.24 4.30 4.34 5.02 4.90
Mean 8.25 8.33 4.19 4.07 5.00 4.65
SD 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.19 0.02 0.33
Annexure VIj. Plot-wise soil microbial population in sugarcane cultivated fields in

S. Village Free-living Phosphorus Pseudomonas Trichoderma
No. code Nitrogen- solubilizing sp. sp.
fixing bacteria bacteria (Log10 CFU g- (Log10 CFU g-
(Log10 CFU g-1 (Log10 CFU g- 1 soil) 1 soil)
soil) 1 soil)
NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non-

NF NF NF NF
1 VPM 5.04 4.78 3.65 3.74 6.00 6.18 3.41 3.02
2 JVM 5.60 5.32 3.74 3.70 6.54 6.40 2.00 2.00
3 KPL 5.60 4.70 3.54 3.54 6.18 6.81 2.74 2.65
Range 5.04- 4.70- 3.54- 3.54- 6.00- 6.18- 2.00- 2.00-
(n=3) 5.60 5.32 3.74 3.74 6.54 6.81 3.41 3.02
Mean 5.41 4.93 3.64 3.66 6.24 6.46 2.72 2.56
SD 0.26 0.28 0.08 0.09 0.22 0.26 0.58 0.42
Annexure VIk. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in paddy plants in Visakhapatnam

district
S.No Village N (%) P (%) K (%)
Code
1 DPM 0.69 0.76 0.21 0.26 0.77 0.72
2 VPM 0.72 0.84 0.32 0.24 0.82 0.84
3 KNM 0.86 0.98 0.34 0.26 0.82 0.91
4 JVM 0.76 0.89 0.32 0.29 0.85 0.78
5 CDA 0.68 0.79 0.27 0.34 0.86 0.79
Range (n=5) 0.68-0.86 0.76-0.98 0.21-0.34 0.24-0.34 0.77-0.86 0.72-0.91
Mean 0.74 0.85 0.29 0.28 0.82 0.81
SD 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07
111
Annexure VIl. Plot-wise plant micro-nutrient contents in paddy plants in
No. Code (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
1 DPM 51.6 48.2 26.2 24.4 6.4 6.9 21.5 19.8 23.4 26.7
2 VPM 55.3 59.5 31.1 39.5 7.1 7.8 25.4 21.4 18.8 24.3
3 KNM 41.2 57.9 29.1 36.6 4.2 7.8 22.4 26.5 29.0 27.9
4 JVM 54.3 67.5 25.2 29.4 5.4 7.4 24.5 18.7 26.5 31.7
5 CDA 45.7 43.1 34.5 21.4 5.8 6.4 26.5 19.8 32.3 30.9
Range 41.2- 43.1- 25.2- 21.4- 4.2- 6.4- 21.5- 18.7- 18.8- 24.3-
(n=5) 55.3 67.5 34.5 39.5 7.1 7.8 26.5 26.5 32.3 31.7
Mean 49.6 55.2 29.2 30.3 5.8 7.3 24.1 21.2 26.0 28.3
SD 6.0 9.6 3.8 7.7 1.1 0.6 2.1 3.1 5.2 3.0
Annexure VIm. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in sugarcane plants in

S. Village N (%) P (%) K (%)
No Code NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
1 KPL 0.82 0.86 0.37 0.34 0.74 0.81
2 VPM 0.92 0.88 0.31 0.39 0.84 0.95
3 JVM 0.75 0.77 0.31 0.36 0.74 0.68
Range (n=3) 0.75-0.92 0.77-0.88 0.31-0.37 0.34-0.39 0.74-0.84 0.68-0.95
Mean 0.83 0.84 0.33 0.36 0.77 0.81
SD 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.14
Annexure VIn. Plot-wise plant micro-nutrient contents in sugarcane plants in

Sl. Village Fe Mn Cu Zn B
No Code (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mgkg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
1 KPL 44.6 52.1 28.5 27.9 7.4 8.1 15.4 21.4 32.6 34.5
2 VPM 53.7 49.5 22.4 25.7 5.4 6.5 17.4 26.5 26.7 29.0
3 JVM 54.9 58.7 31.4 24.5 4.2 6.5 14.5 12.5 23.5 22.9
Range 44.6- 49.5- 22.4- 24.5- 4.2- 6.5- 14.5- 12.5- 23.5- 22.9-
(n=3) 54.9 58.7 31.4 27.9 7.4 8.1 17.4 26.5 32.6 34.5
Mean 51.1 53.4 27.4 26.0 5.7 7.0 15.8 20.1 27.6 28.8
SD 5.6 4.7 4.6 1.7 1.6 0.9 1.5 7.1 4.6 5.8
112
Annexure VIo Village-wise nutrient contents of jeevamritha samples collected from
Andhra Pradesh
S. Village OC N P K Ca Mg S Fe Zn Mn Cu
No. Code (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (mg/ l) (mg/ l) (mg/ l) (mg/ l)
1. KNM 0.27 0.04 0.020 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.015 34.1 2.1 1.8 1.1
2. KPL 0.28 0.06 0.021 0.05 traces 0.02 0.016 41.2 1.8 1.9 1.8
3. DPL 0.22 0.05 0.019 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.014 45.7 1.6 traces traces
4. VPM 0.24 0.04 0.017 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.017 38.6 traces traces 1.2
5. CDA 0.19 0.04 0.020 0.06 traces 0.02 0.015 34.1 traces 1.4 1.9
6. JVM 0.26 0.03 0.021 0.05 traces traces 0.012 29.8 traces traces 1.4
7. SKR 0.22 0.06 0.018 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.016 32.1 1.7 1.1 traces
Range 0.19- 0.03- 0.017- 0.04- 0.03- 0.02- 0.012- 29.8- 1.6- 1.1- 1.1-
(n=7) 0.28 0.06 0.021 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.017 45.7 2.1 1.9 1.9
Mean 0.240 0.046 0.019 0.053 0.040 0.025 0.015 36.5 1.8 1.6 1.5
SD 0.032 0.011 0.002 0.008 0.008 0.005 0.002 5.6 0.2 0.4 0.4
Annexure VIp Village-wise bacterial population of jeevamritha samples collected

from Andhra Pradesh
S. No. Village Code Bacteria
(Log10CFU ml-1 )
1. KNM 8.30
2. KPL 8.00
3. DPL 8.00
4. VPM 8.30
5. CDA 8.00
6. JVM 8.00
7. SKR 8.70
Range (n=7) 8.00-8.70
Mean 8.19
SD 0.25
Annexure VII. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant
analysis in Mandya district
Village Farming type Practices Soil type
Paddy grower
NF GJM (0.5 t ha-1+JM (500 l ha-1/every 15-20 days Black
intervals)
KK Halli
Non-NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+Urea (125 kg ha-1)+DAP (50 kg ha-1)+ Black
MOP (50 kg ha-1)
Sugarcane grower
NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+JM (500 l ha-1)+ mulching with Black
sugarcane trashes
Sollepur
Non-NF FYM (1 t ha-1)+Urea (100 kg ha-1)+DAP (50 kg ha-1)+ Black
mulching with sugarcane trashes
113
Annexure VIIIa. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant
analysis in Parbhani district
Village Farming Soil

S. No. Practices
code type type
Turmeric growers
FYM (2 t ha-1)+JM (200 l ha-1 /30-40 days intervals+
NF One time drenching with a mixture of 250 gram Black
1. KLN sulphur + 10 litre cow urine ha-1+Neemastra spray
FYM (2 t ha-1)+Urea (150 kg ha-1)+ DAP (100 kg ha- Black
Non-NF 1)+ MOP (100 kg ha-1)
FYM (4 t ha-1)+JM (300 l ha-1 /30-40 days intervals+ Black

NF
Neemastra spary
2. BGN
FYM (4 t ha-1)+ Urea (150 kg ha-1) + DAP (100 kg ha- Black
Non-NF 1)+ MOP (100 kg ha-1)
FYM (2 t ha-1)+JM (200 l ha-1/30-40 days intervals

NF
FYM (3 t ha-1)+0.5 t vermicompost+ JM ( 100 l ha-1) Black
+ Beejamritha (seed treatment)
3. SPR FYM (2 t ha-1)+ Urea (175 kg ha-1) + DAP (100 kg ha-
1)+MOP (100 kg ha-1)
Non-NF Black
FYM (3 t ha-1)+Urea (200 kg ha-1)+DAP (100 kg ha-
1)+ MOP (100 kg ha-1)
Sorghum growers
JM (100 l ha-1)+Two time drenching with a mixture Black
NF of 250 gram sulphur + 10 litre cow urine ha-
4. KLN 1+Beejamritha (seed treatment)
Urea (100 kg ha-1) +DAP (100 kg ha-1)+MOP (50 kg Black

Non-NF
ha )
-1
FYM (1 t ha-1)+JM (100 l ha-1/50 days intervals)+ Black

NF
Beejamritha (seed treatment)+Neemastra spray
5. BGN
Urea (100 kg ha-1)+DAP (75 kg ha-1)+MOP (50 kg Black
Non-NF
ha )
-1
JM (500 l ha-1)/20-30 days intervals + Beejamritha Black

NF
(seed treatment)+ Neemastra spray
6. SPR
FYM (1 t ha-1)+ Urea (75 kg ha-1)+DAP (100 kg ha- Black
Non-NF 1
)+MOP (50 kg ha-1)
JM=Jeevamritha; GJM=GhanJeevamritha; GM=Green manuring; FYM=Farmyard
manure; DAP=Diammonium phosphate; MOP=Murate of potash
Name of Village: KLN=Kalgaon; BGN=Banegaon; SPR=Sonpuri
114
Annexure VIIIb. Farming practices adopted by farmers selected for soil and plant
analysis in Hingoli district
S. Village Farming
Practices Soil type
No code type
Soybean growers
FYM (1 t ha-1)+JM (200 l ha-1)+ beejamritha (seed
1. ARL NF Black
treatment) + Neemastra spray
Non- FYM 1 t ha-1+ Urea (50 kg ha-1)+DAP (100 kg ha- Black
2.
NF 1)+MOP (50 kg ha-1)+Sulphur (30 kg ha-1)
FYM (1 t ha-1)+JM 300 l ha-1/30 days intervals + Black

3. PSD NF
beejamritha (seed treatment)
4.
Compost slurry (1 ha-1)+JM (300 l ha-1/30 days Black

5. ANT NF intervals)+ beejamritha (seed treatment)+ Neemastra
spray
6.
Turmeric growers
FYM (8 t ha-1)+Seri waste (0.5 t ha-1)+JM (300 l ha-1, Black
7. PSD NF
two times)+Neemastra spray
Non- FYM (6 t ha-1)+Urea (200 kg ha-1)+DAP (150 kg ha- Black
8.
NF 1+MOP (100 kg ha-1)
FYM (6 t ha-1)+JM (300 l ha-1)_+Beejamritha (seed Black

9. ANT NF
treatment)
10.
NF 1)+MOP (100 kg ha-1)
FYM (2 t ha-1)+JM (200 l ha-1/20 days interval) + Black

11. TLG NF
Neemastra spray
12.
NF 1)+MOP (75 kg ha-1)
115
Annexure IXa. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major nutrients
in turmeric and sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani district
S. Village SOC N P K
No Code (%) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1)
Turmeric
1 KLN 0.87 0.91 263 342 18.1 29.5 349 375
2 BGN 0.66 0.74 213 277 17.9 26.1 287 356
3 SPR 0.83 0.97 250 275 20.2 27.2 302 316
4 SPR 1.09 1.24 283 349 26.7 39.1 265 305
Range 0.66- 0.74- 213- 275- 17.9- 26.1- 265- 305-
(n=4) 1.09 1.24 283 349 26.7 39.1 349 375
Mean 0.86 0.97 252 310 20.7 30.5 300 338
SD 0.18 0.21 29.48 40.24 4.12 5.92 35.58 32.99
Sorghum
1 KLN 0.82 0.85 263 287 18.1 24.5 332 374
2 BGN 0.69 0.73 242 268 26.6 32.9 318 342
3 SPR 0.58 0.56 211 214 29.9 31.3 254 301
Range 0.58- 0.56- 211- 214- 18.1- 24.5- 254- 301-
(n=3) 0.82 0.85 263 287 29.9 32.9 332 374
Mean 0.70 0.71 239 256 24.9 29.6 301 339
SD 0.12 0.15 26.16 37.87 6.09 4.46 41.59 36.59
Annexure IXb. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in turmeric and sorghum

cultivated fields in Parbhani district
S. Village S (kg ha-1) Ca (meq 100g-1) Mg (meq 100g-1)
No code NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
Turmeric
1 KLN 26.1 29.4 19.6 21.4 5.9 6.1
2 BGN 23.4 27.5 16.4 18.1 4.8 5.6
3 SPR 34.1 36.7 15.4 17.4 5.6 6.9
4 SPR 28.6 27.9 22.1 24.5 8.1 8.6
Range (n=4) 23.4-34.1 27.5-36.7 15.4-22.1 17.4-24.5 4.8-8.1 5.6-8.6
Mean 28.05 30.38 18.38 20.35 6.10 6.80
SD 4.56 4.30 3.06 3.27 1.41 1.31
Sorghum
1 KLN 34.2 33.9 18.2 20.0 5.8 7.1
2 BGN 36.1 42.5 24.1 26.4 6.3 5.9
3 SPR 22.4 26.1 27.2 26.4 7.9 9.5
Range (n=3) 22.4-36.1 26.1-42.5 18.2-27.2 20-26.4 5.8-7.9 5.9-9.5
Mean 30.90 34.17 23.17 24.27 6.67 7.50
SD 7.42 8.20 4.57 3.70 1.10 1.83
116
Annexure IXc. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in turmeric and sorghum
No code (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
Turmeric
1 KLN 7.51 8.56
4.50 5.19 1.11 1.26 0.55 0.61 0.45 0.47
2 BGN 6.31 7.64
6.25 8.11 1.32 1.44 0.34 0.48 0.51 0.56
3 SPR 2.96 3.77
8.51 9.91 1.24 1.32 1.03 1.26 0.42 0.40
4 SPR 2.06 3.82
2.50 3.18 0.86 0.91 0.56 0.59 0.43 0.47
Range 2.06- 3.77-
2.5- 3.18- 0.86- 0.91- 0.34- 0.48- 0.42- 0.40-
(n=4) 7.51 8.56
8.51 9.91 1.32 1.44 1.03 1.26 0.51 0.56
Mean 4.71 5.95
5.44 6.60 1.13 1.23 0.62 0.74 0.45 0.48
SD 2.61 2.51
2.56 3.00 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.04 0.07
Sorghum
1 KLN 3.36 4.56 8.68 9.19 1.17 1.26 0.46 0.49 0.34 0.39
2 BGN 3.04 3.32 4.74 5.12 1.16 1.17 0.41 0.37 0.43 0.47
3 SPR 2.94 3.08 5.35 7.59 1.34 1.41 1.05 1.26 0.39 0.37
Range 2.94- 3.08- 4.74- 5.12- 1.16- 1.17- 0.41- 0.37- 0.34- 0.37-
(n=3) 3.36 4.56 8.68 9.19 1.34 1.41 1.05 1.26 0.43 0.47
Mean 3.11 3.65 6.26 7.30 1.22 1.28 0.64 0.71 0.39 0.41
SD 0.22 0.79 2.12 2.05 0.10 0.12 0.36 0.48 0.05 0.05
Annexure IXd. Plot-wise availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and major
nutrients in soybean and turmeric cultivated fields in Hingoli district
S. Village SOC (%) N (kg ha-1) P (kg ha-1) K (kg ha-1)
No Code NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
Soybean
1 KLN 0.76 0.91 238 250 25.2 28.9 502 533
2 PSD 0.73 0.77 225 262 21.3 29.7 299 316
3 PSD 0.64 0.72 262 269 17.8 20.5 204 222
Range (n=3) 0.64- 0.72- 225- 250- 17.8- 20.5- 204- 222-
0.76 0.91 262 269 25.2 29.7 502 533
Mean 0.71 0.80 241.67 260.33 21.43 26.37 335.00 357.00
SD 0.06 0.10 18.77 9.61 3.70 5.10 152.23 159.50
Turmeric
1 PSD 0.94 1.16 274 293 23.2 32.9 311 356
2 ANT 0.83 0.98 266 302 19.7 28.9 267 289
3 TLN 0.86 1.02 243 298 24.8 35.8 264 296
Range 0.83- 0.98- 243- 293- 19.7- 28.9- 264- 289-
(n=3) 0.94 1.16 274 302 24.8 35.8 311 356
Mean 0.88 1.05 261.00 297.67 22.57 32.53 280.67 313.67
SD 0.06 0.09 16.09 4.51 2.61 3.46 26.31 36.83
117
Annexure IXe. Plot-wise availability of secondary nutrients in soybean and turmeric
S. Village S (kg ha-1) Ca (meq 100g-1) Mg (meq 100g-1)
No. Code NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
Soybean
1 KLN 26.2 27.1 15.1 16.6 4.1 4.8
2 PSD 28.2 26.9 26.2 28.7 6.0 6.9
3 PSD 35.6 39.1 19.3 18.4 4.8 3.7
Range (n=3) 26.2-35.6 26.9-39.1 15.1-26.2 16.6-28.7 4.1-6.0 3.7-6.9
Mean 30.0 31.0 20.2 21.2 5.0 5.13
SD 4.95 6.99 5.60 6.53 0.96 1.63
Turmeric
1 PSD 31.2 31.8 23.0 24.9 4.5 5.1
2 ANT 22.1 21.5 24.1 26.6 5.2 5.9
3 TLN 19.6 23.3 21.8 25.0 4.8 5.7
Range (n=3) 19.6-31.2 21.5-31.8 21.8-24.1 24.9-26.6 4.5-5.2 5.1-5.9
Mean 24.30 25.53 22.97 25.50 4.83 5.57
SD 6.10 5.50 1.15 0.95 0.35 0.42
Annexure IXf. Plot-wise availability of soil micronutrients in soybean and turmeric

No. Code (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non- NF Non-
NF NF NF NF NF
Soybean
1 KLN 138 146 9.2 10.5 1.62 1.68 0.40 0.59 0.45 0.51
2 PSD 125 141 4.1 5.0 1.09 1.44 0.42 0.53 0.56 0.60
3 PSD 168 160 4.7 5.9 1.74 1.58 0.37 0.31 0.62 0.59
Range 2.15- 2.52- 4.1- 5- 1.09- 1.44- 0.37- 0.31- 0.45- 0.51-
(n=3) 2.74 3.47 9.2 10.5 1.74 1.68 0.42 0.59 0.62 0.60
Mean 2.49 2.96 6.00 7.13 1.48 1.57 0.40 0.48 0.54 0.57
SD 0.31 0.48 2.79 2.95 0.35 0.12 0.03 0.15 0.09 0.05
Turmeric
1 PSD 15.39 16.5 10.4 11.6 3.26 3.12 1.58 1.45 0.72 0.69
2 ANT 9.8 11.1 6.6 5.9 1.65 2.12 1.02 1.16 0.56 0.67
3 TLN 2.94 2.46 2.2 3.1 0.88 1.27 0.91 1.01 0.61 0.68
Range 2.94- 2.46- 2.2- 3.1- 0.88- 1.27- 0.91- 1.01- 0.56- 0.67-
(n=3) 15.39 16.5 10.4 11.6 3.26 3.12 1.58 1.45 0.72 0.69
Mean 9.38 10.02 6.40 6.87 1.93 2.17 1.17 1.21 0.63 0.68
SD 6.24 7.08 4.10 4.33 1.21 0.93 0.36 0.22 0.08 0.01
118
Annexure IXg. Plot-wise soil microbial population in turmeric and sorghum
No. code (Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
Turmeric
1 KLN 8.30 8.40 3.65 4.31 3.30 3.40
2 BGN 9.00 9.64 3.60 3.78 3.30 3.85
3 SPR 8.18 8.30 3.00 3.48 3.00 3.18
4 SPR 8.88 8.95 3.54 4.04 3.54 3.65
Range (n=4) 8.18-9.00 8.30-9.64 3.00-3.65 3.48-4.31 3.00-3.54 3.18-3.85
Mean 8.59 8.82 3.45 3.90 3.29 3.52
SD 0.36 0.53 0.26 0.31 0.19 0.25
Sorghum
1 KLN 8.40 8.95 2.70 3.88 3.00 3.40
2 BGN 8.48 8.88 3.60 4.04 3.60 3.65
3 SPR 8.00 8.78 3.65 4.34 3.00 3.18
Range (n=3) 8.00-8.48 8.78-8.95 2.70-3.65 3.88-4.34 3.00-3.60 3.18-3.65
Mean 8.29 8.87 3.32 4.09 3.20 3.41
SD 0.21 0.07 0.44 0.19 0.28 0.19
Annexure IXh. Plot-wise soil microbial population in paddy cultivated fields

turmeric and sorghum cultivated fields in Parbhani district
(Maharashtra)
S. Village Free-living Nitrogen- Phosphorus Pseudomonas sp.
No. Code fixing bacteria solubilizing bacteria (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
(Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
Turmeric
1 KLN 5.23 5.31 3.93 4.13 6.06 6.26
2 BGN 4.74 4.81 3.65 3.88 5.93 6.16
3 SPR 4.88 5.16 3.00 3.18 5.00 5.40
4 SPR 4.18 4.40 3.48 3.88 5.70 6.06
Range (n=4) 4.18-5.23 4.40-5.31 3.00-3.93 3.18-4.13 5.00-6.06 5.40-6.26
Mean 4.76 4.92 3.51 3.76 5.67 5.97
SD 0.38 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.41 0.34
Sorghum
1 KLN 4.30 4.54 3.40 3.18 5.00 5.88
2 BGN 4.30 4.48 3.78 4.24 5.65 6.15
3 SPR 4.18 5.34 3.65 3.78 4.70 5.18
Range (n=3) 4.18-4.30 4.48-5.34 3.40-3.78 3.18-4.24 4.70-5.65 5.18-6.15
Mean 4.26 4.79 3.61 3.73 5.12 5.73
SD 0.06 0.39 0.16 0.44 0.40 0.41
119
Annexure IXi. Plot-wise soil microbial population in soybean and turmeric cultivated
fields in Hingoli district (Maharashtra)
No. Code (Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil) (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
Soybean
1 KLN 7.70 8.00 3.18 3.30 3.81 4.15
2 PSD 8.40 8.88 3.30 3.40 3.65 3.54
3 PSD 8.00 8.48 3.00 3.40 3.18 3.88
Range (n=3) 7.70-8.40 8.00-8.88 3.00-3.30 3.30-3.40 3.18-3.65 3.54-4.15
Mean 8.03 8.45 3.16 3.37 3.55 3.86
SD 0.29 0.36 0.12 0.05 0.27 0.25
Turmeric
4 PSD 8.18 8.90 3.65 4.23 3.48 3.65
5 TLN 8.48 8.95 3.00 3.00 3.18 3.78
Range (n=2) 8.18-8.48 8.90-8.95 3.00-3.65 3.00-4.23 3.18-3.48 3.65-3.78
Mean 8.33 8.93 3.33 3.62 3.33 3.72
SD 0.15 0.03 0.33 0.62 0.15 0.06
Annexure IXj. Plot-wise soil microbial population in soybean and turmeric cultivated
fields in Hingoli district (Maharashtra)
S. Village Free-living Phosphorus Pseudomonas sp.
No. Code Nitrogen-fixing solubilizing bacteria (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
bacteria (Log10 CFU g-1 soil)
(Log10 CFU g soil)
-1

Soybean
1 KLN 4.40 4.18 3.18 3.40 5.18 5.30
2 PSD 4.18 4.54 3.40 3.70 5.40 5.90
3 PSD 4.85 4.88 3.48 3.78 5.48 5.65
Range (n=3) 4.18-4.85 4.18-4.88 3.18-3.48 3.40-3.78 5.18-5.48 5.30-5.90
Mean 4.47 4.53 3.35 3.63 5.35 5.62
SD 0.28 0.29 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.25
Turmeric
1 PSD 4.40 5.00 3.81 3.78 6.23 6.36
2 TLN 4.60 5.44 2.70 3.00 5.90 6.11
Range (n=2) 4.40-4.60 5.00-5.44 2.70-3.81 3.00-3.78 5.90-6.23 6.11-6.36
Mean 4.50 5.22 3.26 3.39 6.07 6.24
SD 0.10 0.22 0.56 0.39 0.16 0.12
120
Annexure IXk. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in turmeric (above ground leaf) and
sorghum (straw) macro-nutrient contents in Parbhani and Hingoli
districts (Maharashtra)
S. Village N (%) P (%) K (%)
No Code NF Non-NF NF Non-NF NF Non-NF
Turmeric
1 KLN 0.94 1.02 0.31 0.36 1.39 1.48
2 SPR 0.92 0.98 0.29 0.32 1.01 1.04
3 TLN 0.88 0.87 0.33 0.31 1.18 1.23
4 PSD 0.95 1.04 0.36 0.39 0.96 1.05
5 ANT 0.84 0.96 0.28 0.27 1.15 1.21
Range (n=5) 0.84-0.95 0.87-1.04 0.28-0.36 0.27-0.39 0.96-1.39 1.04-1.48
Mean 0.91 0.97 0.31 0.33 1.14 1.20
SD 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.17 0.18
Sorghum
1 BGN 0.81 0.84 0.29 0.28 1.14 1.16
2 KLN 1.05 1.10 0.34 0.36 1.01 1.12
3 SPR 1.08 1.11 0.31 0.35 1.09 1.08
Range (n=3) 0.81-1.08 0.84-1.11 0.29-0.34 0.28-0.36 1.01-1.14 1.08-1.16
Mean 0.98 1.02 0.31 0.33 1.08 1.12
SD 0.15 0.15 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.04
Annexure IXl. Plot-wise plant nutrient contents in turmeric (above ground leaf) and
sorghum (straw) micro-nutrient contents in Parbhani and Hingoli
districts (Maharashtra)
No (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1)
Turmeric
1 KLN 165 200 74 87 5.2 5.8 29 27 14 18
2 SPR 155 178 97 92 6.1 5.7 31 35 18 17
3 TLN 141 153 109 101 6.8 7.4 25 28 19 24
4 PSD 197 189 98 111 5.6 5.9 21 24 21 25
5 ANT 178 194 125 139 4.8 5.3 28 36 19 26
Range (n=5) 141-197 153-200 74-125 87-139 4.8-6.8 5.3-7.4 21-31 24-36 14-21 17-26
Mean 167.2 182.8 100.6 106.0 5.7 6.0 26.8 30.0 18.2 22.0
SD 21.5 18.5 18.7 20.6 0.8 0.8 3.9 5.2 2.6 4.2
Sorghum
1 BGN 130 148 69 75 6.1 6.9 32 30 17 19
2 KLN 157 154 84 81 5.6 5.4 41 44 21 18
3 SPR 167 179 76 85 7.4 7.9 29 35 22 28
Range 130- 148- 69- 75- 5.6- 5.4- 29- 30- 0.28- 0.28-
(n=3) 167 179 84 85 7.4 7.9 41 44 0.45 0.46
Mean 151.3 160.3 76.3 80.3 6.4 6.7 34.0 36.3 20.0 21.7
SD 19.1 16.4 7.5 5.0 0.9 1.3 6.2 7.1 2.6 5.5
121
Annexure IXm. Village-wise nutrient contents of jeevamritha samples collected from
Maharashtra
S. Village OC N(%) P (%) K(%) Ca Mg S (%) Fe Zn Mn Cu
Code (%) (%) (%) (mg (mg (mg (mg
No.
l-1) l-1) l-1) l-1)
1. KLN 0.21 0.05 0.019 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.018 44.1 1.6 1.81 2.1
2. SPR 0.19 0.06 0.021 0.05 traces 0.01 0.015 39.2 1.8 1.12 2.3
3. TLN 0.24 0.04 0.018 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.014 38.9 1.3 1.84 1.9
Range 0.19- 0.04- 0.018- 0.04- 0.04- 0.01- 0.014- 38.9- 1.3- 1.12- 1.9-
(n=3) 0.24 0.06 0.021 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.018 44.1 1.8 1.84 2.3
Mean 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.045 0.023 0.016 40.73 1.57 1.59 2.10
SD 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 2.92 0.25 0.41 0.20
Annexure IXn. Village-wise bacterial population of jeevamritha samples collected

from Maharashtra
Sl. No. Village Code Bacteria
(Log10CFU ml-1 )
1. KLN 8.40
2. SPR 8.30
3. TLN 8.18
Range (n=3) 8.18-8.40
Mean 8.29
SD 0.09
122
Annexure X. ANOVA result for yield comparison under different farming methods:
In order to compare the yield of crops under non-natural farming (NF), natural farming with
FYM and natural farming without FYM, one-way ANOVA is used. The details are presented
below:
1) Andhra Pradesh
i. Paddy
Yield(q/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
Non-NF 60 50.86 20.42 2.64 45.58 56.13 15.00 111.11
NF without 41 51.36 16.18 2.53 46.25 56.46 15.00 80.00
FYM
NF with 77 53.79 15.18 1.73 50.35 57.24 23.58 106.25
FYM
Total 178 52.24 17.29 1.30 49.68 54.80 15.00 111.11
ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 332.71 2 166.35 .554 .576
Within Groups 52586.21 175 300.49
Total 52918.91 177
The difference in yield among Non-NF, NF without FYM and NF with FYM in case of paddy in
Andhra Pradesh could not be established (p=0.576)
ii. Sugarcane
Yield(t/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 6 73.333 21.311 8.700 50.969 95.698 50.000 100.000
NF 3 55.557 17.346 10.015 12.467 98.646 41.670 75.000
without
FYM
NF with 17 66.814 25.101 6.088 53.908 79.719 16.667 100.000
FYM
Total 26 67.019 23.313 4.572 57.603 76.436 16.667 100.000
ANOVA
Between Groups 634.10 2 317.05 .563 .577
Within Groups 12953.47 23 563.19
Total 13587.57 25
The difference in yield among Non-NF, NF without FYM and NF with FYM in case of
sugarcane in Andhra Pradesh could not be established (p=0.577)
123
iii. Black gram
Yield(q/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
11 5.40 3.96 1.19 2.74 8.06 1.25 11.67
Non-NF
NF without 26 3.77 2.51 .49 2.75 4.78 .83 10.00
FYM
8 6.40 3.18 1.12 3.75 9.06 .37 10.00
NF with FYM
Total 45 4.64 3.15 .47 3.69 5.58 .37 11.67
ANOVA

Between Groups 50.95 2 25.48 2.778 .074
Within Groups 385.23 42 9.17
Total 436.18 44
Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Yield(q/ha)
Tukey HSD
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Std. Lower Upper
(I) Group (J) Group (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Non-NF NF without 1.63 1.09 .301 -1.01 4.28
FYM
NF with FYM -1.00 1.41 .759 -4.42 2.42
NF without Non-NF -1.63 1.09 .301 -4.28 1.01
FYM NF with FYM -2.63 1.22 .092 -5.61 .34
NF with FYM Non-NF 1.00 1.41 .759 -2.42 4.42
NF without 2.63 1.22 .092 -.34 5.61
FYM
There was a statistically significant difference between groups (At p < .1) as determined
by one-way ANOVA (F(2,42) = 2.778, p = .074). A Tukey post hoc test revealed that NF
without FYM (M=3.77, S.D.=2.51, p = 0.092) has significantly lower yield than NF with
FYM (M=6.4, S.D.=3.18). There was no statistically significant difference between Non-
NF and NF without FYM as well as Non-NF and NF with FYM.
124
2) Karnataka
i. Paddy
Yield(q/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 22 56.08 11.84 2.52 50.83 61.33 37.50 80.00
NF 16 38.78 9.38 2.35 33.78 43.78 20.00 50.00
without
FYM
NF with 26 51.92 15.66 3.07 45.60 58.25 20.00 75.00
FYM
Total 64 50.07 14.54 1.82 46.43 53.70 20.00 80.00
ANOVA
Between Groups 2924.66 2 1462.33 8.584 .001
Within Groups 10391.74 61 170.36
Total 13316.40 63
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: Yield(q/ha)
Tukey HSD
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference Std. Lower Upper
(I) Group (J) Group (I-J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
Non-NF NF without 17.30* 4.29 .000 7.00 27.61
FYM
NF with FYM 4.16 3.78 .518 -4.93 13.24
NF without Non-NF -17.30* 4.29 .000 -27.61 -7.00
FYM NF with FYM -13.15* 4.15 .007 -23.11 -3.18
NF with FYM Non-NF -4.16 3.78 .518 -13.24 4.93
NF without 13.15* 4.15 .007 3.18 23.11
FYM
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
There was a statistically significant difference between groups (At p < .05) as
determined by one-way ANOVA (F(2,61) = 8.584, p = .001). A Tukey post hoc test
revealed that NF without FYM (M=38.78, S.D.=9.38) has significantly lower yield than
non-NF (M=56.08, S.D.=11.84, p <0.000) as well as NF with FYM (M=51.92, S.D.=15.66,
p=0.007). There was no statistically significant difference between Non-NF and NF with
FYM.
125
ii. Sugarcane
Yield(t/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 15 99.94 33.36 8.61 81.47 118.42 50.00 150.00
NF 5 98.50 53.11 23.75 32.55 164.45 16.67 145.83
without
FYM
NF with 22 104.55 29.73 6.34 91.36 117.73 50.00 156.25
FYM
Total 42 102.18 33.38 5.15 91.78 112.59 16.67 156.25
ANOVA
Between Groups 265.78 2 132.89 .114 .892
Within Groups 45426.87 39 1164.79
Total 45692.64 41
sugarcane in Karnataka could not be established (p=0.892)
iii. Finger millet

Yield(q/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 23 27.92 13.87 2.89 21.92 33.91 10.00 66.67
NF 8 36.09 11.64 4.11 26.36 45.82 11.25 50.00
without
FYM
NF with 10 38.92 19.14 6.05 25.22 52.61 11.67 62.50
FYM
Total 41 32.20 15.39 2.40 27.34 37.05 10.00 66.67
ANOVA
Between Groups 994.41 2 497.20 2.229 .122
Within Groups 8477.48 38 223.09
Total 9471.88 40
Finger millet in Karnataka could not be established (p=0.122)
126
iv. Banana
Yield(t/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 2 3.44 2.21 1.56 -16.42 23.29 1.88 5.00
NF 4 2.65 1.13 .57 .85 4.45 1.43 4.17
without
FYM
NF with 6 8.89 6.14 2.51 2.45 15.33 3.33 20.00
FYM
Total 12 5.90 5.27 1.52 2.55 9.25 1.43 20.00
ANOVA
Between Groups 108.01 2 54.00 2.465 .140
Total 305.16 11
banana in Karnataka could not be established (p=0.140)
3) Maharashtra
i. Cotton
Yield(q/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 35 17.02 7.94 1.34 14.30 19.75 5.00 33.33
NF 8 13.55 3.76 1.33 10.41 16.70 8.00 18.75
without
FYM
NF with 9 14.58 5.48 1.83 10.37 18.80 8.75 25.00
FYM
Total 52 16.07 7.12 .99 14.08 18.05 5.00 33.33
ANOVA
Between Groups 102.45 2 51.23 1.010 .372
Total 2587.33 51
cotton in Maharashtra could not be established (p=0.372)
127
ii. Soyabean
Yield(t/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 53 18.23 9.17 1.26 15.70 20.76 3.13 45.00
NF 33 17.97 6.05 1.05 15.83 20.12 6.67 35.00
without
FYM
NF with 16 20.60 8.24 2.06 16.21 24.99 6.67 45.83
FYM
Total 102 18.52 8.11 .80 16.92 20.11 3.13 45.83
ANOVA
Between Groups 83.49 2 41.74 .630 .535
Total 6647.34 101
soyabean in Maharashtra could not be established (p=0.535)
iii. Jowar
Yield(t/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 32 10.46 4.60 .81 8.80 12.12 2.50 21.25
NF 42 10.38 3.69 .57 9.23 11.53 3.13 15.00
without
FYM
NF with 9 10.51 3.98 1.33 7.45 13.57 5.00 17.50
FYM
Total 83 10.42 4.05 .44 9.54 11.31 2.50 21.25
ANOVA
Between Groups .20 2 .10 .006 .994
Total 1342.51 82
jowar in Maharashtra could not be established (p=0.994)
128
iv. Turmeric
Yield(t/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 19 40.03 10.71 2.46 34.87 45.19 20.00 62.50
NF 22 36.18 11.98 2.55 30.87 41.49 18.75 56.25
without
FYM
NF with 39 38.68 6.62 1.06 36.53 40.82 25.00 53.75
FYM
Total 80 38.31 9.35 1.05 36.23 40.39 18.75 62.50
ANOVA
Between Groups 161.19 2 80.60 .921 .403
Total 6902.52 79
v. Bengal gram
Yield(t/ha)
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Non-NF 20 16.79 10.16 2.27 12.03 21.54 4.06 43.75
NF 20 15.26 5.20 1.16 12.83 17.70 6.67 30.00
without
FYM
NF with 2 15.63 6.19 4.38 -39.96 71.21 11.25 20.00
FYM
Total 42 16.00 7.87 1.21 13.55 18.46 4.06 43.75
ANOVA
Between Groups 23.59 2 11.80 .183 .833
Total 2537.37 41
turmeric in Maharashtra could not be established (p=0.833)
129
Annexure XI. Average yield of major crops in the selected states
NF
Non-NF
Crop Without FYM With FYM
Count Yield (q/ha) S.E. Count Yield (q/ha) S.E. Count Yield (q/ha) S.E.
Andhra Pradesh
Paddy 60 50.86 2.64 41 51.36 2.53 77 53.79 1.73
Sugarcane* 6 73.33 8.70 3 55.56 10.01 17 66.81 6.09
Black gram 11 5.40 1.19 26 3.77 0.49 8 6.40 1.12
Karnataka
Paddy 22 56.08 2.52 16 38.78 2.35 26 51.92 3.07
Sugarcane* 15 99.94 8.61 5 98.50 23.75 22 104.55 6.34
Finger millet 23 27.92 2.89 8 36.09 4.11 10 38.92 6.05
Banana* 2 3.44 1.56 4 2.65 0.57 6 8.89 2.51
Maharashtra
Cotton 35 17.02 1.34 8 13.55 1.33 9 14.58 1.83
Soyabean 53 18.23 1.26 33 17.97 1.05 16 20.60 2.06
Jowar 32 10.46 0.81 42 10.38 0.57 9 10.51 1.33
Turmeric 19 40.03 2.46 22 36.18 2.55 39 38.68 1.06
Bengal gram 20 16.79 2.27 20 15.26 1.16 2 15.63 4.38
*yield in t/ha
(NF- Natural Farming, FYM- Farm Yard Manure)
Annexure XII. Export of organic products from India
6000 750
Quantity of exports (Rs. cr)
Value of exports (Rs. cr)
5000 600
4000
450
3000
300
2000
1000 150
0 0
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Quantity ('000 t) Value (Rs. Cr)
130
Profile of Project Team
Principal Investigator
Dr. Ranjit Kumar is Head, Agribusiness Management Division at ICAR-NAARM. He has
an experience of around 20 years. He has undertaken several research studies on
technology adoption and marketing. His areas of interest include Rural/agricultural
transformation, Producer Companies, Value chain analysis, Policy research, Risk
management.
Co-Investigators
Dr. Sanjiv Kumar is Scientist (Agricultural Business Management) in the Division of
Agribusiness Management at ICAR-NAARM. He has experience of more than 10
years. His areas of interest include Marketing Management, Agricultural Marketing,
Value Chain Analysis, Data Visualization.
Dr. BS Yashavanth is Scientist (Agricultural Statistics) in the Division of Information

and Communication Management at ICAR-NAARM. He has experience of more than
4 years. His areas of interest include econometrics, time series analysis and
forecasting.
Dr. PC Meena is Principal Scientist (Agricultural Economics) in the Division of

Agribusiness Management at ICAR-NAARM. He has an experience of around 15
years. His areas of interest include Agricultural Marketing and Price Policy, Supply
Chain Management, Agricultural Input Marketing, Rural marketing, Contract
Farming.
Dr. AK Indoria is Scientist (Soil Physics and Soil Water Conservation) in the Division
of Resource Management at ICAR-CRIDA. He has published more than 30 research
articles in high impact journals.
Dr. Sumantha Kundu is Scientist (Agronomy) in the Division of Resource

Management at ICAR-CRIDA. He has experience of more than 7 years. His areas of
interest include Conservation agriculture, Soil health management, Climate change,
Carbon sequestration.
Dr. M. Manjunath is Scientist (Agril. Microbiology) in the Division of Crop Sciences at

ICAR-CRIDA. His research areas include Plant beneficial microorganisms, Plant
microbe interactions.
131
132

Natural Farming Project Report-ICAR-NAARM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Natural Farming Project Report-ICAR-NAARM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Natural Farming Project Report-ICAR-NAARM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0

Adoption of Natural Farming and its Effect on Crop

DISCLAIMER: ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management has received

ICAR-NATIONAL ACADEMY OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH MANAGEMENT

Images on Front and Back Cover:

Hyderabad Project Team

Adopter-Farmers following Worth mentioning!!

Crop Yield comparison

Benefits perceived by NF Perception of non-NF farmers for

Sustainability and Scalability Way forward…

2. Study Area, Data and Methodology 9

3. Indian Soils and Natural Farming Practices 12

4. Sample Farmers and their Choice of Crops 24

6. Crop Yield and Economics of Natural Farming 58

7. Farmers’ Perception towards Natural Farming 64

7.2 Awareness among non-NF farmers 65

Case – 1. NPM to ZBNF: a case from Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 67

8. Scalability and Sustainability of Natural Farming 72

9. Conclusions and Way Forward 81

Table 2.1 Distribution of sample farmers in the study 9

Table 2.2 Description of the study area 11

Table 5.1 Practices followed by the sample farmers in Andhra 39

Table 5.2 Types of mulching suggested under NF and actual 39

Table 5.3 Average soil microbial population in paddy cultivated 41

Table 5.4 Average soil microbial population in paddy and sugarcane 45

Table 5.5 Average nutrient and bacteria contents in jeevamritha 46-47

Table 5.6 Availability of soil organic carbon (SOC) and nutrients in 48

Table 5.7 Soil microbial population in paddy and sugarcane 48

Table 5.8 Practices followed by the sample farmers in Maharashtra 49

Table 5.9 Average soil microbial population in turmeric and 54

Table 5.10 Average soil microbial population in soybean and turmeric 54

Table 5.11 Average nutrient content and bacterial counts in 56

Table 7.1 Benefits perceived by Natural Farming farmers 65

Table 8.1 Benefits expected from different components of Natural 73

Box 1. Microbial activity in soil and cow dung 18

Box 2. Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) for Organic Certification 75

1.1 Setting the context

1.2 Assents and criticisms of Natural Farming

Contrary to it, the protagonists of ZBNF believe that conventional agriculture or

The Economic Survey (2019) categorized alternative farming practices like

• Since nothing to be purchased from the market under ZBNF practices,

1.3 Organic Farming vs Natural Farming

Organically grown products have higher antioxidant, lower cadmium

Fig 1.0 Local and Eisenia fetida species of earthworm

1.4 Objectives of the study

• Due to unavailability of any official list of farmers practicing Natural

Table 2.1. Distribution of sample farmers in the study

State District No. of NF- Non- Total

355.5 169.6 153 303 260 350

Major crops grown Major indigenous cattle breeds

3.1 Nutrient deficiency in Indian soils

The availability of most

Analysis of more than two lakhs soil

3.2 Role of soil micro-organisms

Fig. 3.5. Interdependent and interconnected network of microorganisms with plants

3.3 Subhash Palekar’s Approach of ZBNF

•Ensuring soil •Seed

•Using polycropping Mulching Whapsa

1. Jeevamritha/ Jeevamrutha is a fermented microbial culture. It provides nutrients, but