Natural Farming- Zero Budget Natural Farming

DARSHAN M. KADAM
Roll No. 11262
Division of Fruits & Horticultural Technology
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute
New Delhi
Credit Seminar
IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi

Current Challenges in Indian Agriculture
• Stagnation in crop productivity
• Input intensive: High production cost
• Degradation of natural resources: Land, ground water,
biodiversity and environment
• Climate change and associated challenges
• Farmers’ distress
• Subsidized fertilizers and pesticides
• Indiscriminate use of agrochemicals
Do we need new direction? Which will be more sustainable and
reverse the degradation processes.

What is Natural Farming?
“Natural Farming (NF) is a holistic ecological farming approach that is
closely observing the natural conditions in order to build a mutually
beneficial relation between the farmer and nature.” (Altieri, 2002)
NF is a closed system - No human-supplied inputs and it mimics nature.
System works along with the natural biodiversity of farmland,
encouraging the complexity of living organisms that shape each
particular climax ecosystem
Climax ecosystems are mature ecosystems that have reached a high
degree of stability, productivity and diversity
Attributes: No tillage, intercropping, crop rotation, mulching, max.
functional biodiversity, and no use of agrochemicals and fertilizers

Key Principles of NF
1. Enhanced biomass recycling
2. Strengthened ‘immune system’ through enhanced functional
biodiversity
3. Improving soil health by managing organic matter and soil biological
activity
4. Minimized loss of energy, water, and nutrients
5. Diversification of genetic resources
6. Enhanced beneficial biological interactions.
(Altieri, 1989)
Philosophy: Working with nature to produce nutritious food, to keep
human being and soil healthy
Fact: NF improves soil properties, microbial biodiversity, and enzyme
activity within different agroecosystems (Altieri, 2002; Liao et al., 2019)

Historical Perspective
Masanobu Fukuoka (1913–2008)
(Author, Philosopher and Farmer)
Philosophy of working with, rather than against
nature with minimum interference
Do Nothing Farming- “How about not doing this,
and How about not doing that?' - this was the path
I followed”.
Five Principles- No tillage, No external input, No
weeding, Soil mulch and No pruning
Trying to take the human intellect out of the
decision making
"Natural farming is not just for growing crops,
it is for the cultivation and perfection of human beings."

Citrus Orchard developed by Fukuoka
Minimum tree management- Forest like ecosystem
Upper story is tall ornamental Nitrogen fixing trees, middle- citrus and
other fruits, ground cover of white clover, and mixture of vegetables
No tillage, No pruning, Mulching
Seed ball technique
Cover crop-evaluated 36 cover crops, recommended white clover
Achieved highest productivity
Fukuoka orchard in 2010

Permaculture
Bill Mollison and David
Holmgren,1978
 Aims to maximize the functional connection of its
elements.
 It integrates crops and animals with careful water
management.
 Homes and other structures are energy efficient
 Relies on the human intellect to live abundantly and
sustainably within nature.
Biodynamic Farming
Rudolf Steiner 1861-
1925
Austrian Philosopher
 It treats soil fertility, plant growth, and livestock
care as ecologically interrelated tasks,
 Emphasizes spiritual and mystical perspectives
 Cow horn manure and quartz (silica)- "cosmic
forces in the soil
 Astrological sowing and planting calendar
Rishi-Krishi
Deshpande,1970
Four components
1. Angara- Soil from Baniyan tree trunk,
2. Amrut Pani- Ghee, honey, cow dung in water,
3. Beej sanskara
4. Achhadana
Variants of NF

Panchgavya
K Natrajan, 2003
Tamil Nadu
Mixing 5 products of cow, coconut water and cane
jaggery. Fermented for 30 days. Seed dip, soil
drench, foliar paste
Natueco culture
Dabholkar 1967
Mulching, no plowing; Amrut Mitti: compost strips
made for raising crops; Amrut-Jal: fermented cow
dung and urine with jaggary. Applied as nutrient
liquid
Agnihotra/Homa
Farming
Potdar and Paranjpe
1970-2000
Ghee, grains, milk, dried cow dung burnt in copper
pyramid
Smoke purifies the air around
Variants of NF
Bhaskar Save (1922–2015) 'Bhaskar Save Learning Centre for Natural Farming',
District Valsad, Gujarat.
L. Narayana Reddy, G. Nammalvar (1938–2013)
'Organic Farming', 'Eco Friendly Farming', 'Agro Ecological farming', 'Jaiva Krishi',
'Alternative Farming', 'Sustainable Farming', 'Saawaya Krishi', 'Aero Greens
Technology', 'Rekki Farming‘, Zero Budget Natural Farming etc.

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF)
 Indian natural farming movement centered on its founder Subhash Palekar
from Amaravati, MH
 BSc Agri. from College of Agriculture, Nagpur
 Initially worked with tribal farmers of Melghat
 1972 joined family farming
 Initially did conventional farming upto 1985
 Yield started declining
 Switched to Natural Farming
 Studied forest vegetation
 154 self financed research projects from 1985-2000
 Applied forest principles on his farm and formulated ZBNF
Padma Shri 2016

 No need to purchase inputs, all required inputs to be produced
within the village
Multiple crops- Investment in main crop is recovered from short
duration crops
ZBNF to SPSF and now SPNF
“ZBNF is a self-developing, self-nourishing and self-sufficient farming.
So, in this system, there is no any human made exploitation. There is no
any chance for it. It is a pain free, care free, loan free farming”
(Palekar 2010b: 194)
How it is zero budget natural farming?

Principles of ZBNF
 Neo-Gandhian values of self-reliance and autonomy: delinking farmers from
external input and credit markets
 Production of own seeds of indigenous varieties
 Hybrids and GM varieties not permitted, promotion of indigenous seeds
 Crop diversity, crop rotation, mixed and multiple cropping- keep ground
covered all the time
 Residue management and mulching
Nutrient recycling, increasing beneficial biological interactions
 Bhumi Annapurna- Soil innately has all the nutrients necessary for plant
growth, and thus no external inputs need to be added; instead, the existing
nutrients have to be “unlocked” and made bioavailable via jiwamruta (Palekar,
2005)

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi Maximum diversification -key of ZBNF
Increasing functional diversity is a critical
principle of ZBNF; a number of crop
combinations, with a view of increasing
functional bio-diversity
Five Layer Model (options in each layer)
First layer- Mango, Sapota, Guava, Coconut
Border – Teak, Jamun, Neem, Tamrind, Red
Sandals, Jackfruit, Rubber
Second Layer- Orange, Sweet orange, Aonla,
Clove, Fig, Silver oak, Palms, Bamboo
Third layer- Papaya, Drumstick, Black Pepper,
Banana, arecanut
Fourth layer- Cocoa, Curry leaf, Custard apple,
Lime, Alovera, Pomegranate, Coffee, Caronda
Fifth layer- Vegetable, Medicinal plants, millets,
Pulses, Oil seeds

Indigenous cow at the center - One cow can sustain 30 Acres land, and
have most and best microbes and are preferable. Less input intensive and
easier to manage for resource-poor farmers
Pest and disease management using botanical formulations like Agniastra,
Brhamastra, Dashparni Ark
Four Wheels of ZBNF

“Jiwamrita is an Amrit. Jiwamrita is a deathless, immortal beatitude of nectar.
Jiwamrita has not only a microbial saturation; it has a spiritual power, make
the food eater (naturally grown) nutrition saturated and spiritually saturated,
powerful, potent, valiant, a mighty person. Jiwamrita is not only a culture; it is
a message of God. Jiwamrita is a saver, protector of the life”. (Palekar 2013:
131)
Jivamrit and Ghanjivamrit

Beejamrita
Sreenivasa et al. (2009)

Insect Pest management in ZBNF
Dashparni Ark

Difference between ZBNF and CA
Conservation Agriculture
1. Minimum soil disturbance, permanent
soil cover and crop rotation
2. Scientifically tested and benefits
proven
3. Globally accepted
4. Moderate approach
5. Integrated nutrient and pest
management is permitted
6. Covers 124 M ha area globally
ZBNF
1. Jivamrita, Bijamrita, Achhadana
and Wafsa are four key wheels
2. Scientifically not validated
3. Globally not yet accepted
4. Radicle approach
5. Do not permit application of any
external inputs
6. Probably covers 3-5 M ha area in
India

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi ZBNF Status
 Most successful Natural Farming movements globally
 According to different estimates 3-5 million farmers’ has adopted ZBNF
(Mostly in South India)
 Farmers organizations, volunteers, farmer to farmer, NGOs – informal
network
 States like Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala are
promoting it.
Nirmala Sitharaman: Calling for a “back to the
basics” approach. She said, “We need to replicate
this innovative model through which in a few States,
farmers are already being trained in this practice.
Steps such as this can help in doubling our farmers’
income in time for our 75th year of Independence”.

Rythu Sadhikara Samstha
(not-for-profit organization- 2015)
Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture (CMSA) and PKVY
Current Status-
523000 3015 504000
Farmers Villages Area in (acres)
Target- To convert 100% area by 2024
Spent 250 Crores till now
Target – 17000 Crore
Andhra Pradesh CRZBNF
APZBNF (2018)

1. Farmer to Farmer dissemination of knowledge
(Identified 3-4 master farmers in each block- 5000 Champion Farmers)
2. >1000 input shops at village level
3. 800 women farmer SHGs
4. Involvement of NGOs
5. IT tools to track progress
6. Marginal, poor, women and youth farmer- major target
7. Support of international organizations- UNEP, Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation
Institutionalized framework

Climate resilient technology
Pre Monsoon Sowing + Ghanjivamruta and
Beejamruta
Rainfed area cropping

Community driven approach
Seed treatment with Beejamruta
Ghanjivamruta preparation
Agniastra biopesticide preparation

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi Crop diversification and Beejamruta application
Beejamruta treatmentSeeds for intrecroping

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi 365 days soil cover approach

Five tier modelIndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi

Khadse et al. (2017)
Economics of ZBNF
APZBNF (2018)
No. of
Farmers (%)
Yield Seed
diversity
Pest
attack
Seed
autonomy
Selling
price
Production
Cost
Need for
Credit
Has
decreased
12.8 12.8 84.1 4.4 7.9 90.9 92.5
No change 8.5 10.3 4.5 4.4 34.2 2.3 3.8
Has
increased
78.7 76.9 11.4 91.1 57.9 6.8 3.8
Efficacy of ZBNF in some social, economical and agroecological indicators
in Karnataka (n=97)
Comparison between net income in various food crops grown in
ZBNF vs chemical farming

1. Crises that drive the search for alternatives
2. Social organization
3.Constructivist teaching – learning processes-detailed explanation of agro-
ecological processes like carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, humus creation
4. Effective agro-ecological practices
5. Mobilizing discourse- charismatic leader and personality cult
6. External allies and favorable markets
7. Leadership and local champions
8. Self-organized training workshops
9. Simplicity of ZBNF practices
10. Political opportunities and favorable policies.
Key drivers behind the scaling up of ZBNF
Khadse et al. (2013)

Other State ZBNF scenario
State ZBNF Status
Kerala Adopted policy to support ZBNF and provide
incentives and subsidies to farmers
Karnataka 1 lakh farmers
Karnataka Rayat Rajya Sangh (KRRS)
50 Crore allotted for promotion
Maharashtra Not yet adopted as a policy
Haryana 200 Acre model ZBNF farm at Gurukul
Himachal Pradesh Adopted as a policy and strongly promoting ZBNF
throughout state
Punjab 1420 ha is currently under ZBNF
Other states Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh are
considering it.

ICAR stand
Trials on ZBNF: ICAR-IIFSR, Modipuram; GBPUAT, Pantnagar; CCSHAU,
Hissar and PAU, Ludhiana.
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) set up a committee in
April-2019 to examine ZBNF claims.
The committee’s terms of reference are
1. To review the research results of ZBNF,
2. Examine the merits and weaknesses and suggest measures for validation
of results at research farms and farmers’ fields,
3. Examine the expected impact of promoting ZBNF on a large-scale on soil
health, productivity, food production, livelihoods and sustainability of
agriculture in India,
4. Make suitable suggestions for converging scientific farming practices
with those of ZBNF.

ICAR initiative
Project- Adoption of Natural Farming and its Effect on Crop Yield and Farmers'
Livelihood in India. ICAR-NAARM and CRIDA (Sponsored by NITI Aayog)
Objective: to understand the farmers’ perception about NF for different crops
and its implication on crop yield and farmers’ income
Quick observations:
 Primary survey and soil sampling in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and
Maharashtra (April to June 2019), covering 295 NF practicing and 170 non-
practicing farmers
 Only few farmers are practicing NF in Karnataka, whereas in AP almost all
farmers in selected villages are practicing NF
 In Maharashtra farmers reported similar crop yield, however produce quality
was bit inferior.
 Overall mixed effect on yield but fetching premium price
ICAR-NAARM April-June 19, Newsletter

Limitations of ZBNF
1. No scientific validation: Microbial composition, efficacy and impact of
Jivamrut, Bijamrut, Agniastra, Brahamastra, Dashparni ark not yet tested.
2. Short and long term impact on yield and quality of produce is not known
3. Land degradation scenario- how land is Annpurna?
4. “Palekar’s prescription of 10 kg of cow dung per acre per month would
provide plants with 10 kg of nitrogen per hectare per year which is clearly
inadequate.” – Peter Carberry, ICRISAT DG
5. Hybrid varieties not permitted (proven technology for getting high yield)-
how to sustain huge population
6. Anti-science stance and dismissal of “NARS”
7. Promotion of ZBNF in large scale without scientific validation and under
political influence.

Limitations of ZBNF
8. Labour intensive
9. Weed and disease and pest management is difficult
10.Quality planting material and other proven techniques are not considered in
ZBNF
11. Produce quality gets compromised
12. Debunk established scientific theories (soil science)
13. Criticises other agro-ecological and organic farming techniques
14. Use of tractors and heavy machineries not permitted- Big farmers
15. Non availability of indigenous cow
16. Exaggerated claims
17. ZBNF is not adopted in his own state Maharashtra

GAP:
1. Research related to isolation and characterization of the beneﬁcial
attributes of the bacteria present in biodynamic preparations are few
2. Deﬁnitive proof is required whether the bacteria in such formulations
have any PGPR attributes, and if so whether they can improve plant
growth
Case Study –1
Radha and Rao (2014)

Preparation Procedure
Panchagavya
(PG)
Mixture of 5 kg fresh cow dung and 500 g clariﬁed butter
incubated for 4 days at room temp. On the 5th day, 3 l of cow
urine, 2 l of cow milk, 2 l of curd made from cow milk, 500 g
sugarcane jaggery, 3 l sugarcane juice, 12 No. of ripened
banana, 3 l of tender coconut water and 100 g Brewer’s yeast
(Saccharomyces cerevisae) were added.
BD500
(Horn manure)
Is a humus mixture prepared by ﬁlling the horn of a cow with
cow manure and burying it in the ground (40–60 cm below)
in the autumn. It is left to decompose during the winter and
recovered for use the following spring.
CPP
(Cow Pat Pit)
Fresh cow dung obtained from indigenous cows is fermented
along with crushed eggshell (source of calcium) and basalt
dust (source of silica) mixed and placed in a 12 inch deep pit
along with biodynamic preparations (BD502–BD507) for
catalyzing the composting process.
Material and Methods

Material and Methods
Luria–Bertani (LB) agar Bacteria
de ManRogosa Sharpe (MRS) agar Lactobacilli
Malt agar Yeasts
Actinomycetes isolation agar Actinomycetes
1. The biodynamic preparations were serially diluted tenfold and plated on
2. Based on morphological variations seven isolates - four from PG, two from
BD500 and one from CPP were short listed for evaluation
3. Full length 16S rRNA gene sequenced
4. BLASTn program comparing sequences: Genome identity
5. Biochemical tests, growth promoting characteristics and plant bioassay-
Nitrogen fixation, P solubalization, IAA synthesis
6. Screening against plant fungal pathogens Rhizoctonia bataticola and
Sclerotium rolfsi (dual culture technique)
7. Potential for improving plant growth was tested in vivo on maize

Results
NR: Nitrate Reduction, CH: Casein Hydrolysis, O: Oxidase,
CU: Citrate Utilization, VP: vogues-Proskauer test

Attributes of bacterial strains for promoting plant growth
None of the strain inhibit disease causing fungus Sclerotium rolfsi

Effect of bacterial strains on the growth and biomass of maize at
6 weeks
Shoot and root growth (cm) Shoot and root DW/plant (mg/plant)
PG1: Bacillus safensis, PG2: B. cereus, PG4: B. cereus, PG5: B. cereus
BD2: B. subtilis, BD3: Lysinibacillus xylanilyticus, CPP1: B.licheniformis

Inference
 Cow dung based biodynamic preparations are dominated by Bacillus spp
(capable of producing auxins and gibberellins).
 First report of the occurrence of L. xylanilyticus and B. licheniformis in
biodynamic preparations.
 Bacterial strains exhibited plant growth promoting attributes like IAA
production, P solubilization, antagonism to R. bataticola and improved
the growth of maize plants.
 Article provide a basis for understanding the beneﬁcial effects of cow
dung based biodynamic preparations

Case Study - 2
Liao et al. (2019)
How agricultural practices inﬂuence soil microbial community composition
and preferential taxa at two soil depths in diﬀerent cultivation systems
Objectives
Long-term natural farming would improve soil quality, microbial
abundance and diversity compared to conventional farming.
Hypothesis

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi Material and Methodology
Experimental field established in 2009
Plot size- 7.2m * 22.8m (each system)
Soil sampling at 0-10 cm and 10-20 cm in year 2016 (total 30 samples)
Soil quality analysis
Soil DNA extraction,
16S rRNA Sequencing (Illumina Miseq sequencer)- 985,542 sequences were
obtained from 30 samples

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi Material and Methodology
Statistical Analysis
Effect of soil depth and
cultivation system on soil
properties and microbial
community structure
Multivariate analyses – unconstrained
PCoA and PERMANOVA
Univariate analyses- Duncans Multiple
range test
Microbial community
structure assessment
Alpha diversity indices – refraction
curve, Goods coverage, Chao1,
abundance based coverage estimator
(ACE), Shannon and Simpson indices
were generated by QIIMETM and
compared using Duncan test
Correlation Spearman’s rank correlation analysis
Microbial network Cytoscape 3.2.1
 RAW Sequence analyzed using QIIMETM software package
 Quality filtering- discard low quality reads (Phred score lower than 20)
 OTUs were classified at 97% sequence identity using – UCLUST
 BLAST

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi Results

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi Identification of preferential taxa at the phylum and genus level at 0-10 cm soil
depth in each agriculture practice
CP- Bacteroidetes (C mineralization)
Chryseobacterium and Sphingobacterium (Xenobiotics decomposition)
Commonas- Degradation of complex products
Erwinia, Brenneria and Enterobacter- pathogenic activity
CF- Planctomycetes- degraders of complex C
Gemmata, Planctomyces, and Pirellula- degrade soil organic materials
Nitrospirae- Nitrifying bacteria
NF- Pedomicrobium (C cycling),
Solirubrobacter (stable aggregates)
Lentzea (plant growth-promoting)

Microbial network associations at 0-10 cm soil depth
(correlation between 50 most abundant genera)

IndianAgriculturalResearchInstitute,NewDelhi Microbial network associations at 10-20 cm soil depth
(correlation between 50 most abundant genera)

Inference
 Both soil depth and 7 years’ implementation of different agricultural
management practices significantly influence soil properties and microbial
community structure
 The topsoil (0–10 cm) exhibited more stable and complex microbial
networks in response to different agricultural practices than the deeper soil
(10–20 cm).
 NF improved soil physical, chemical, and biological properties and led to a
distinct microbial community structure compared to soils under conventional
management.
 The differential taxa in NF, such as Pedomicrobium and Solirubrobacter, have
previously been related to the improved soil conditions in originally managed
or sustainable agroecosystems.
 CP enriched the abundance of genera related to plant pathogens (e.g.,
Erwinia spp. and Brenneria spp.) and xenobiotic degraders (e.g.,
Sphingobacterium spp. and Chryseobacterium spp.)
 NF beneficially alters the soil environment and ecosystem and could be
regarded as an appropriate management for sustainable agricultural
production.

 ZBNF focusing on improving soil fertility through four key aspects
Beejamrita, Jeevamrita, Mulching and Waaphasa. Besides, number of
agroecological principles (diversification, nutrient recycling, beneficial
biological interactions) remains integral part of it.
 ZBNF is attaining wide scale in India, initially as a farmer-led social
movement, and more recently with the adoption of a significant public
policy in the state of Andhra Pradesh.
 There is ample anecdotal evidence of ZBNFs ecological benefits reported
by farmers. However, no comprehensive study has been carried out till
date.
 Since scientific validation of ZBNF practices are yet to be done, cautious
approach must be followed before promoting it on large scale through
policy measures.
Conclusion

Thank you

Natural Farming- Zero Budget Natural Farming

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Natural Farming- Zero Budget Natural Farming

Similar to Natural Farming- Zero Budget Natural Farming (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Natural Farming- Zero Budget Natural Farming