research on natural farming

Advertisement

Natural farming improves crop yield in SE India when compared to conventional or organic systems by enhancing soil quality

• Research Article
• Open access
• Published: 23 March 2023
• Volume 43 , article number  31 , ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sarah Duddigan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6228-4462 1 ,
• Liz J. Shaw 1 ,
• Tom Sizmur 1 ,
• Dharmendar Gogu 2 ,
• Zakir Hussain 2 ,
• Kiranmai Jirra 2 ,
• Hamika Kaliki 2 ,
• Rahul Sanka 2 ,
• Mohammad Sohail 2 ,
• Reshma Soma 2 ,
• Vijay Thallam 2 ,
• Haripriya Vattikuti 2 &
• Chris D. Collins 1  

9429 Accesses

3 Citations

10 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a grassroot agrarian movement and a state backed extension in Andhra Pradesh, and has been claimed to potentially meet the twin goals of global food security and environmental conservation. However, there is a lack of statistically evaluated data to support assertions of yield benefits of ZBNF compared to organic or conventional alternatives, or to mechanistically account for them. In order to fill this gap, controlled field experiments were established in twenty-eight farms across six districts, spanning over 800 km, over three cropping seasons. In these experiments, we compared ZBNF (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, home-made inputs comprising desi cow dung and urine with mulch) to conventional (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and organic (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, no mulch, purchased organic inputs, e.g. farmyard manure and vermicompost) treatments, all with no tillage. Comparisons were made in terms of yield, soil pH, temperature, moisture content, nutrient content and earthworm abundance. Our data shows that yield was significantly higher in the ZBNF treatment ( z score = 0.58 ± 0.08), than the organic ( z = −0.34 ± 0.06) or conventional (−0.24 ± 0.07) treatment when all farm experiments were analysed together. However, the efficacy of the ZBNF treatment was context specific and varied according to district and the crop in question. The ZBNF yield benefit is likely attributed to mulching, generating a cooler soil, with a higher moisture content and a larger earthworm population. There were no significant differences between ZBNF and the conventional treatment in the majority of nutrients. This is a particularly important observation, as intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers comes with a number of associated risks to farmers’ finances, human health, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. However, long-term field and landscape scale trials are needed to corroborate these initial observations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Long-term conservation agriculture and best nutrient management improves productivity and profitability coupled with soil properties of a maize–chickpea rotation

Vijay Pooniya, R. R. Zhiipao, … Amlan Nath

Agronomic management strategies to increase soil organic carbon in the short-term: evidence from on-farm experimentation in the Veneto region

Vittoria Giannini, Giorgia Raimondi, … Maurizio Borin

Soil management for Sustained and Higher Productivity in the Adarsha Watershed

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The arable land area (approximately 159 Mha) in India supports the second largest volume of agricultural production in the world. This production contributes more than 15% to the national gross domestic product making it one of the most important sectors in India (Yadav et al. 2021 ). There has been a recognition that the green revolution, with its associated intensification of synthetic fertiliser and pesticide use, has increased crop yields but resulted in negative environmental (e.g. reduced water quality), health (exposure to toxic chemicals) and economic (farmers trapped in a cycle of debt) impacts (Agoramoorthy 2008 ; Bhattacharyya et al. 2015 ; Connor and Mínguez 2012 ; Mariappan and Zhou 2019 ; Pimentel 1996 ; UN 2015 ). Furthermore, the affordability and availability of synthetic inputs could be at risk as a result of rising natural gas and coal prices, sanctions and export restrictions and uncertainty around Indian fertiliser subsidies (World Bank Group 2022 ). It has been acknowledged by the United Nations (UN) that agricultural systems ‘working with nature’, that are adaptive to change and resilient, whilst minimising environmental impacts, are critical to eliminate hunger and malnutrition (UNEP 2021 ). Therefore, transition to these systems could contribute to the attainment of the UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 (SDG2)–Zero Hunger. Several such systems have been developed as sustainable alternatives to high input conventional farming (Willer and Lernoud 2017 ) including organic farming and Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF).

Hundreds of thousands of farms in India are now certified as organic, with Sikkim (NE India) being declared the first all-organic certified state in the world (Meek and Anderson 2020 ). In principle, organic farming has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of farming through reduced use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, compared to conventional agriculture, but can result in a reduction in crop yield (Ponisio et al. 2015 ) and lower temporal yield stability (Knapp and van der Heijden 2018 ). Furthermore, the escalating economic and political crisis in Sri Lanka has been attributed to the unsuccessful transition to organic agriculture and blanket ban on agro-chemicals, despite there being other contributing factors (de Guzman 2022 ). These limitations have led to critics raising the question of whether organic farming can feed the world sustainably and without expansion of croplands into natural ecosystems (Kirchmann et al. 2008 ; Röös et al. 2018 ). Increasing the cropped area is undesirable, and the potential is limited in densely populated countries such as India (Bruinsma 2003 ). In addition, the socio-economic impacts associated with conventional farming may not be alleviated by organic farming in India. Large agri-businesses exert a strong control over the market for organic food, fertilisers and seeds (Bhattacharya 2017 ), and organic farming practices are codified in regulatory and third-party certification that can become disaggregated from the underpinning environmental principles upon which they were originally conceived (Meek and Anderson 2020 ; Seufert et al. 2017 ). Codification and commercialisation of organic farming consequently favour larger farming enterprises, leaving smallholders disadvantaged and unable to access premiums for organic produce (Panneerselvam et al. 2011 ).

ZBNF is a grassroots agrarian movement which is low-cost and based on locally sourced home-made amendments. ZBNF, therefore, does not rely on the use of agrochemicals or agribusiness, and it is expected to be able to achieve the twin goals of global food security and conservation of the environment (RySS 2020 ). In Andhra Pradesh, a state in southeast India, ZNBF (more recently referred to as Andhra Pradesh Community-Managed Natural Farming, or APCNF) has been adopted enthusiastically. The Andhra Pradesh Department of Agriculture is promoting the adoption of ZBNF through the ‘not for profit’ organisation Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS). Around 580,000 farmers were engaged in ZBNF practices by 2020 (RySS 2020 ), and the local government plans to scale this up to 6 million farmers (Tripathi et al. 2018 ). It has been estimated that if ZBNF covered 25% of the total crop area in Andhra Pradesh, USD 70 million would be saved in fertiliser subsidies every year (Gupta et al. 2020 ). There are parallels between ZBNF and conservation agriculture in terms of the adoption of reduced tillage, application of crop residues and intercropping to reduce soil disturbance (Ravisankar et al. 2020 ). However, what sets ZBNF apart is the combination of these practises with unique home-made amendments. The amendments commonly used in ZBNF are as follows:

Bijamrita : a seed treatment applied either as a seed coating before sowing, or a root dip before transplanting. Common ingredients include desi cow dung and urine, CaCO 3 and water

Jjiwamrita : inoculum. Can be in solid form, usually applied as a top dressing, or in liquid form as a top dressing or foliar spray. Ingredients can include desi cow dung and urine, jaggery (unrefined cane sugar), gram (legume) flour and topsoil from a native ‘virgin’ soil (uncontaminated soil)

Achhadana : mulching using cover crops or dry crop residues applied to the soil surface. Examples include paddy straw and groundnut husks (Ghosh 2019 ; Keerthi et al. 2018 )

Adoption of ZBNF has been reported to increase yields in 79% of farmers surveyed ( n =97) in Karnataka (Khadse et al. 2018 ), and 88% of farmers surveyed ( n = 1614) in Andhra Pradesh (Bharucha et al. 2020 ) compared to ‘non-ZBNF’ management techniques. ZBNF inputs have also been observed to increase growth and yield of chilli (Gangadhar et al. 2020 ), peppers (Boraiah et al. 2017 ), rice, groundnut (Bharucha et al. 2020 ), maize (Vinay et al. 2020 ) banana, gram legumes (Galab et al. 2019 ) and cotton (Korav et al. 2020 ) compared to non-ZBNF agricultural practices. However, these studies do not always include statistical analysis to support their conclusions and do not always describe what they define as ‘non-ZBNF’. They also frequently refer to yield of total biomass rather than the economic yield. Furthermore, there is also often a lack of supporting data to mechanistically account for the benefits ZBNF can provide such as soil nutrient and moisture data. Anecdotal evidence, therefore, needs to be supported by controlled, replicated field trials (Smith et al. 2020 ). ZBNF performance also seems to vary in different locations (Biswas 2020 ) so experiments need to be conducted across the range of contexts where ZBNF is targeted. Initial work in controlled field experiments for a single season in Andhra Pradesh suggested that converting to ZBNF practices does not result in a yield penalty when compared to organic and conventional alternatives (Duddigan et al. 2022 ). However, there is currently a lack of supporting biophysical evidence to provide a mechanistic explanation for this finding, and whether these effects persist over multiple seasons. The efficacy of ZBNF amendments is considered to occur due to a number of key principles, put forward during workshop discussions [described in (Duddigan et al. 2022 )]. Workshop participants asserted the following principles:

Enhanced water holding capacity : ZBNF practices increase soil organic matter formation which in turn leads to higher water retention.

All required nutrients are in the soil : with appropriate microbial addition in ZBNF, yields can be maintained without addition of fertiliser.

Enhanced biological activity : ZBNF practices stimulate soil biological activity, and greater earthworm populations are an indicator of this.

Using the proposed key principles above as a framework to test our hypotheses, experimental design and measurements, we aimed to examine the differences in soil physico-chemical characteristics under ZBNF, organic and conventional farming systems in replicated field experiments (Fig. 1 ), over three seasons, in twenty-eight farms across six geo-climatically contrasting districts of Andhra Pradesh, India.

Two example field experiments comparing Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) to conventional and organic alternatives. a Before sowing (mulch on ZBNF treatment plots). b with crops established (yellow sticky traps on ZBNF treatment plots). Photo credit: a Ramyasree Reddymalli (RySS, Prakasam District) and b Lakshmi Bhairava Kumar (RySS, Anantapur District).

2 Materials and methods

2.1 site description and experimental design.

Full details of the site description (with maps) and experimental layout of the field experiments can be found in Duddigan et al. ( 2022 ). The most dominant soil types in Andhra Pradesh, South Eastern India, are Alfisols and Vertisols, which account for more than 90% of the total cultivatable area of the state (Rao et al. 2013 ).

Field experiments were established on twenty-eight farms across Andhra Pradesh between June 2019 and June 2020. The farms were spread across six districts in Andhra Pradesh (Anantapur, Kadapa, Krishna, Nellore, Prakasam and Visakhapatnam), representing different agro-climatic zones. Ranging from the cooler, high-rainfall Northern montane (Visakhapatnam), through the lowland valley of the River Krishna (Krishna), to the warmer coastal Southern districts which abut the Bay of Bengal (Prakasam, Nellore), moving inland (Kadapa) to the scarce rainfall zone (Anantapur). A map of the farm locations can be found in the supplementary information (Figure S1 ). Experiments were conducted during the three major cropping seasons: (1) the Kharif (monsoon) season of 2019 (June–November), (2) the cooler drier Rabi (winter) season of 2019–2020 (Dec–June), and (3) the Kharif season of 2020. Three of the farms participated in all three seasons, fifteen of the farms conducted experiments in two of the three seasons and the remaining ten participated for just one season (Table 1 ). It was our original intention that all farm experiments would participate for all three seasons. However, logistical constraints resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic meant that this was not possible. Despite this, to our knowledge, this is the most extensive on the ground assessment of ZBNF performance in the region to date.

The same experimental design was applied on each farm, which consisted of three treatments (ZNBF, organic, conventional) applied to 6 × 6 m plots, replicated three times in a Latin square design (3 treatments × 3 replicates = 9 plots). In general, treatments consisted of (i) fungicide or insecticide seed treatment (e.g. Thiaram, Mancozeb and Imidacloprid) and fertilisers such as urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP) and potash in the conventional treatment; (ii) Trichoderma seed treatment and farmyard manure, vermicompost and biofertiliser application in the organic treatment; and (iii) Bijamrita seed treatment, Jiwamrita (solid and liquid) and locally sourced organic mulch application in the ZBNF treatment. The exact amendments and application rates varied according to the crop being grown; detailed growing protocols for each crop under each treatment can be found in Duddigan et al. ( 2022 ). Crop selection for each experiment was based on suitability for the district and local trends (i.e. what neighbouring farms were growing), to be representative of local practice. As a result, crop selection was often confounded with district. Crops were hand sown/transplanted according to the spacing outlined in the growing protocol (details in Duddigan et al.  2022 ) and grown as a monocrop. The field experiment was not tilled after plots were laid out, in any treatment. Due to the size of the plots, a tillage regime was not possible.

Pest and pathogen management techniques are detailed in Duddigan et al. ( 2022 ) and varied depending on the pathogen in question. Briefly, the conventional treatment consisted of chemical pesticides such as dimethoate (insecticide) and copper oxychloride (fungicide). The organic treatment used insect traps (grease coated bottles, yellow sticky plates, etc.) and/ or purchased neem oil in place of chemical insecticides, and microbial inoculants (e.g. Trichoderma or Pseudomonas sp.) in place of fungicides. The ZBNF treatment largely used insect traps, not chemical insecticides, but also used homemade ‘Neemasthram’ (cow dung, cow urine, neem seeds and leaves as well as other bitter tasting leaves available locally (e.g. castor)) and ‘Agnasthram’ (cow urine, neem leaves, tobacco leaves, chillies and garlic) in place of purchased neem oil (Kumar et al. 2019 ) and liquid Jiwamrita as a microbial inoculant.

Experiments were implemented and managed by RySS personnel designated as Natural Farming Fellows ( NFFs )—graduates with bachelor degrees in an agricultural related subject, usually from an agricultural college. One NFF was responsible for the management of, and collection of data from, an individual experiment, approximately five per district.

2.2 Soil sampling

Soils were sampled three times per season: an initial sample taken before amendments were applied; a mid-season sample taken halfway through the growth cycle of the crop; and a post-harvest sample taken after all product and biomass has been harvested. Five soil samples were taken (0–10 cm depth) from the central 4 m × 4 m (to avoid boundary effects) in each plot in a ‘W’ formation. These were then homogenised to form one composite sample per plot for each sampling occasion.

2.3 Soil nutrient analysis

All analyses were conducted according to Ramana Reddy et al. ( 2012 ) by the Regional Agricultural Research Station at Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University (Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh). Brief methods can be found in Table 2 .

Yield was considered as the mass of produce obtained from each plot, as it would be taken to market, rather than whole plant biomass. For example, in the case of fresh vegetables, this was fresh biomass of vegetables after they were picked, and in the case of groundnut, this was the dry mass of kernels. This decision was made with stakeholders in mind, as the mass of product that can be taken to market is easy to communicate to policymakers and farmers.

2.5 Field measurements

Field measurements were intentionally simple and robust to preclude the need for sophisticated equipment. This ensured equipment could be sourced locally, and measurements could be conducted effectively with a small period of training. The majority of measurements (soil temperature, moisture, infiltration rate, bulk density and earthworm abundance) were measured three times during each growing season at the same time that soil samples were collected: initial, mid-season, and post-harvest. Every care was taken not to sample from areas that had been disturbed by previous sampling.

2.5.1 Soil moisture and temperature

Soil moisture was measured with a moisture metre (Model PMS-714, Lutron Electronic Enterprise Co., Ltd., Taiwan) and soil temperature with a pen type plastic digital thermometer (Model DT-2, HTC Instruments, Mumbai); both probes were inserted to a depth of 5–10 cm.

2.5.2 Infiltration rate

Infiltration rate was measured in the centre of each plot with a piece of PVC pipe (c. 10 cm diameter × 20 cm) with two markings 2.5 cm apart (the first 5 cm from the top of the pipe and the second 7.5 cm from the top). Using a flat piece of wood and a mallet, the pipe was driven 4 cm into the ground. A plastic bag/sheet was then placed in the bottom of the pipe (to protect the soil from capping when the water was poured in). Water was then poured into the pipe to around the halfway mark, before the plastic was removed, and then the pipe was filled to the brim. The water was left to infiltrate into the soil until the water reached the first mark (5 cm down), when a stopwatch was started. The stopwatch was stopped when the water level reached the second marker (7.5 cm down). Infiltration rate was calculated in m/s.

2.5.3 Bulk density

The bulk density of the top 5 cm of soil was measured in the centre of each plot using a simple cylinder and driving tool method. Samples were weighed, left to dry in the sun for at least 5 days and then weighed again to obtain a dry bulk density in g cm −3 .

2.5.4 Earthworm abundance

A single 20 × 20 × 20 cm soil block was excavated from the centre of each plot, and the soil was hand sorted to remove any earthworms in the block. All earthworms were counted, and when a balance was available (not all NFFs owned one), earthworms were cleaned of any soil particles and weighed, before being returned to the field. This earthworm count was then used to estimate total earthworm abundance per m 3 .

2.5.5 Plant biometrics

Plant biometrics were measured on five plants per plot, but the measurements that were taken depended on the crop selected. Fruiting crops such as tomato, aubergine and okra had all fruits removed from each of the five plants at harvest, where they were counted and weighed to give a ‘per plant’ yield. Legumes such as green gram and chickpea had all pods removed on 5 plants, and the pods were counted and weighed first; then, the pulses were removed and weighed to give a ‘per plant’ yield. In the case of groundnut, in addition to pod and pulse (kernel) measurements, pods were also categorised as mature or immature, judged by colour development and kernel development, as per FAO guidelines (Nautiyal 2002 ). Regardless of the crop in question, plant height was measured just before harvest. Dry biomass of all 5 plants after harvest was also measured for all crops.

2.6 Statistical analysis

For yield and plant biometric data, a restricted maximum likelihood (REML) mixed effects model, with interactions and Tukey’s post hoc testing, was used (Table 3 ). District, treatment and crop were classified as fixed factors, and farm as a random factor, nested within district. A number of the crops selected were used in one or two farms, without repetition across districts or seasons. Therefore, we also categorised crops according whether they were a legume or not and included this as an analytical factor, to examine whether there were any general interactions for any variables between treatment and whether they were a legume or not.

For variables where data was collected more than once in a season (initial, mid-season and post-harvest), a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with least significant difference (LSD) post hoc testing was performed. The treatment factors for repeated measures were district and treatment (conventional, organic, ZBNF) with interactions. The block structure was farm and plot number, and the time points were the point in the season (initial, mid-season, post-harvest). A separate repeated measure was conducted for each season to allow for the fact that only three farms participated for all three seasons (Table 1 ). In order to examine select variables (e.g. extractable nitrogen) in more detail, the only three farms that participated for all three season (farm A3, Ka3 and Ka4, Table 1 ) were singled out for an independent repeated measures ANOVA which combined all three seasons.

Yield data was z transformed (Eq. 1 ) before being analysed with the mixed effects model. Equation 1 shows the z score transformation.

where z is normalised yield for a single plot, \({x}_{i}\) is the plot yield for the single plot, \(\overline{x }\) is the mean yield of all 9 plots of the given farm experiment and S is the standard deviation of the yield of all 9 plots on the given farm experiment. Therefore, if a plot yield is equal to the mean yield of all 9 plots on a given experiment, then z =0. If the plot yield is below the mean yield of all 9 plots, then z <0. Finally, if the plot yield is above the mean yield of all 9 plots, then z >0.

As a result of z transformation, the mean for each district, and crop, was zero, and thus, there was no effect size resulting from district or crop selected in this model. This compromise was deemed acceptable because district and crop selected are often confounded and the aim of our research was to examine the treatment effect of farming practices (i.e. contrast conventional, organic and ZBNF), rather than district or crop type. Our interest in the district and crop selected was to investigate whether there were significant interactions between them, and treatment.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 effect on yield.

Our three seasons of data suggest that adoption of ZBNF practices provides a significant yield advantage over organic and conventional alternatives. The ZBNF treatment resulted in a significantly ( p < 0.05) higher yield, compared to organic or conventional treatments overall (Table 4 and Fig. 2 ). However, it is important to note that the longer-term impacts of ZBNF adoption are still unknown and will require comparative studies over an extended number of seasons to investigate. Our finding builds on initial observations of a significantly higher yield for ZBNF when compared with organic agriculture, but an equivalent performance when compared to conventional agriculture (Duddigan et al.  2022 ). These observations contrast with a study undertaken in Telegana state where the yield of maize in conventional farming was found to be higher than ZBNF and organic farming (Vinay et al. 2020 ) and a study by Galab et al. ( 2019 ) who found that rice yields were lower on ZBNF farms compared to non-ZBNF farms. Rice, however, was not grown in any of our experiments, and maize yield data was available for just one single experiment (Table 1 ).

Effect of farming practice on yield ( z transformed) of 44 field experiments ( All ) and grouped according to season , district and crop selected. Treatments are ZBNF (green diamond), organic (orange square) and conventional (blue circle). Numbers in brackets show the number of farms ( n = 3 per treatment, per farm). Season 1 (Kharif) data presented in Duddigan et al. ( 2022 ). Error bars represent standard error. Groups labelled with * have a significant treatment effect (ZBNF, organic, conventional) according to a REML mixed effects model ( p  < 0.05).

ZBNF is a bottom-up transition strategy where smallholders, including tenant farmers, are key stakeholders in the process of transition (FAO et al. 2021 ). This immediate yield benefit observed after adopting ZBNF practices will be of particular interest to farmers on short-term land leases, as they may not be able to farm the same land every season. Andhra Pradesh has the highest percentage (42.3%) of tenant holding farmers of all the states of India, compared to the national average of 13.7% (Government of India 2015 ). An estimated 79% of these tenant farmers in Andhra Pradesh are either landless or own less than 1 acre of land and are therefore almost entirely dependent on leased land for their income from agriculture (Rythu Swarajya Vedika 2022 ). Furthermore, tenancy agreements in Andhra Pradesh can be as short as a single season (Vijayabhinandana et al. 2019 ), and are often on a short-term informal basis due to landowners being concerned that tenants will overstay or claim permanent occupancy of the land (Vijayabhinandana et al. 2018 ). However, further research is needed to examine the mid- and long-term effects of adoption of ZBNF. Particularly, if the number of tenant farms adopting ZBNF increases in the region, we might expect to see back-to-back natural farmers working the same land.

Reduced use of purchased inputs and less involvement of agri-business could also have financial benefits whilst yields are improved or maintained. It was observed that the yield z score for the conventional treatment reduced from season 1>2>3, whereas the organic and ZBNF mean yield z score increased slightly through the three seasons (Fig. 2 ). However, it is important to note that different farms, growing different crops, participated each season (Table 1 ), so this is not necessarily an indication of temporal trends in yield in the different treatments. Furthermore, there were no significant interactions between treatment and season (Table 4 ).

Whilst, overall, ZBNF practices, when compared as a main effect across all crops, produced a significantly higher yield, this effect was dependent on crop type (Fig. 2 ). There was a significant ( p < 0.05) interaction between treatment and crop (Table 4 ), but a significant treatment effect was only observed for two crops, one legume (groundnut) and one non-legume (tomato). Hence, there were no significant interactions between treatment and whether the crop was a legume or not. However, groundnut and tomato were also among the most frequently grown in our experiments, providing more replicate farms to support the statistical analysis. Yield of groundnut kernels was ~30–40% higher in the ZBNF treatment (see supplementary material, Table S1 ). This finding is notable because groundnut is the most important oilseed crop in India (Singh et al. 2013 ) and covers 537,000 ha in Andhra Pradesh alone (Naik et al. 2020 ). To meet increased crop demands on a diminishing area of available land (16% of the land area in India remains for potential conversion to agriculture, at most), efficiency of crop production must increase (Smith et al. 2020 ). Therefore, methods that can improve groundnut productivity are particularly beneficial because, despite having the largest groundnut area in the world, India is not the largest producer of groundnut (Naik et al. 2020 ; Singh et al. 2013 ). Andhra Pradesh is also India’s largest producer of tomatoes, covering 167 thousand hectares (Yesdhanulla and Aparna 2018 ). Therefore, the benefit from the 30–40% increase in mass of fruit yield from a single plant in the ZBNF treatment compared to the organic and conventional (Table S2 ) could also be considerable.

Performance of ZBNF, in terms of crop yield, appears to be dependent on context, demonstrated by significant treatment × district interactions (Table 4 ). The northern cooler and wetter district of Visakhapatnam (Figure S1 ), for example, had higher yields in the conventional treatment (Fig. 2 ), although differences in treatments were not significant. This is in concordance with Kumar et al. ( 2020 ), who observed higher yields in conventional farms compared to natural farms in Visakhapatnam. However, our results revealed that ZBNF yield was significantly higher than both conventional and organic treatments in Prakasam, Nellore and Kadapa (Fig. 2 ), whereas in Krishna, ZBNF was significantly higher than the conventional treatment only, and in Anantapur, ZBNF was significantly higher than the organic treatment only. We will reflect more on regional differences in yield in later sections.

In the introduction, we outlined the key principles for the ability for ZBNF to improve crop yield, as highlighted during a stakeholder workshop. We adopted these perceived principles as hypotheses in our study and made measurements to test these hypotheses in replicated field experiments. Of all of the variables analysed, only six of them had a significant treatment effect in at least one of the seasons: (i) soil temperature, (ii) soil moisture content, (iii) soil pH, (iv) extractable K 2 O, (v) extractable N, and (vi) total earthworm abundance (Fig. 3 and Table S3 ). These will be discussed in the following sections. Infiltration rate also had a significant treatment effect in season 1 (see supplementary information, Table S3 ); however, post hoc testing did not reveal a significant difference between the treatments so is not included here. It is important to note in Fig. 3 that, because different farms participated in different seasons (Table 1 ), the differences between the seasons may not be a result of temporal changes in each experiment but because of a change in location of participating farms. The fact that the northern cooler and wetter region was poorly represented in season 3 would be influential in this respect. Ideally, all farms would have participated for all three seasons, but restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic meant that this was not possible. However, the data presented here still provides valuable insights into the efficacy of ZBNF farming practices.

Effect of farming practice on a soil moisture content, b soil temperature, c soil pH, d extractable K 2 O, e extractable N and f total earthworm abundance across 3 seasons. Treatments are ZBNF (green diamond), organic (orange square) and conventional (blue circle). Error bars represent standard error. Treatments that share the same letter next to symbols in a particular season are not significantly different according to repeated measures ANOVA and LSD post hoc testing.

3.2 ZBNF claim 1: enhanced water holding capacity

It has been suggested that ZBNF practices increase soil organic matter formation which, in turn, leads to higher water retention (Khadse and Rosset 2019 ). However, our findings suggest that the mulch had more of a direct effect on soil moisture maintenance than building organic matter over the timescale of study. There was no significant treatment effect on bulk density or organic carbon, suggesting that treatment has no immediate significant effect on soil organic matter content. This is to be expected as there would be a delay before belowground food webs were established, and litter derived C is stabilised into more persistent forms (Crews and Rumsey 2017 ; Kallenbach and Grandy 2011 ; Plaza et al. 2013 ; Stockmann et al. 2013 ). However, mulching with organic material in the ZBNF treatment can have immediate direct effects on regulation of soil temperature and moisture to improve crop yield (Chavan et al. 2009 ; Chen et al. 2007 ; Kader et al. 2017 ) through changes in albedo and reduced evaporation in arid regions (Liu et al. 2014 ; Tuure et al. 2021 ). ZBNF plots had a significantly higher soil moisture content (Fig. 3 a) and subsequently lower soil temperature (Fig. 3 b) compared to organic and conventional treatments. However, the difference between treatments was not significant for soil temperature in season 3 (Fig. 3 b). In addition, mulching can have other benefits for crop production, such as weed suppression (Thankamani et al. 2016 ) and thus reduced competition for water (and nutrient) uptake with the crop. Weed cover was not quantified in this experiment, but research into this in the future would be beneficial.

There was a significant negative correlation between the initial soil moisture content of each farm site, before any treatments were applied, and mean ZBNF yield ( z score) of the experiments first season (i.e. the first season they participated) (Spearman correlation coefficient −0.442, p =0.031, Figure S2 ). This correlation suggests that ZBNF has greater efficacy in drier farms. This finding builds on the observations in Duddigan et al. ( 2022 ) that the yield benefit of ZBNF was greatest in the hottest and driest regions of Andhra Pradesh. This phenomenon may also explain why the yield benefits of ZBNF got progressively greater through the seasons (Fig. 2 ), because average soil moisture content of experiments (Fig. 3 a) in season 2 overall (13.6% ± 0.69) was lower than season 1 (20.8% ± 0.42) and lower still in season 3 (10.3% ± 0.40). Paddy straw mulch (commonly used in the ZBNF treatments) has been shown to improve crop growth by buffering fluctuations in soil moisture and temperature, more so than plastic, paper and dry grass (Kader et al. 2017 ).

There were no significant ‘per plant’ biometric treatment effects for groundnut, but there was a significant ‘per plot’ treatment effect on groundnut biometrics (Table S1 ). Given that seed rates were the same in all treatments, this suggests that ZBNF increased yield due to improved germination or crop establishment (i.e. more plants) rather than improving the quality or size of the individual plants. However, we do not have plant count or emergence data to support this. It has been observed that soil surface temperature controls the rate of seedling emergence in groundnut. However, it is often observed that groundnut emergence increases with increasing temperatures (Prasad et al. 2006 ). In addition, the optimum temperature for groundnut emergence has been suggested to be between 32 and 33°C (Leong and Ong 1983 ), which is higher than the average temperature observed in any of the treatments in our research. Therefore, it is more likely that increased soil moisture content is improving emergence of groundnut directly in the ZBNF treatment. Furthermore, K, which occurs in higher concentrations in the ZBNF treatment in season 2, has been shown to alleviate adverse effects of water stress on groundnut yield (Umar 2006 ). Groundnut is capable of rooting to depths exceeding 90 cm by 70 days after sowing and could potentially extract water to 150 to 250 cm (Black et al. 1985 ). Taken together, these observations suggest that increased water retention at the soil surface through mulching in the ZBNF treatment will be less important to groundnut when the plants get larger as they can exploit deeper water reserves. This concept could account for per plant biometrics having no significant difference between treatments. Tomato plants, on the other hand, benefit from light and frequent water supply throughout the growing season to improve growth, yields and fruit size (FAO 2021 ). This difference may account for both ‘per plant’ and ‘per plot’ biometrics being significantly higher for tomatoes in the ZBNF treatment. Particularly, a light and frequent water supply will be provided through the application of liquid Jiwamrita.

3.3 ZBNF claim 2: all required nutrients are in the soil

Enhanced yield by microbial inoculants has been linked, in some cases, to enhanced nutrient uptake and improved nutrient status of plants (Calvo et al. 2014 ). The principle put forward in the workshop discussion was that, with appropriate microbial addition in ZBNF, yields can be maintained without addition of fertiliser. It is claimed that all the nutrients a crop needs are already present in the soil, and application of beneficial microorganisms present in Jiwamrita catalyses the transformation of nutrients locked up in the soil into plant-available forms (Biswas 2020 ; Keerthi et al. 2018 ; Korav et al. 2020 ). Both the solid and liquid Jiwamrita are intended to act as a microbial inoculant, increasing soil biodiversity and acting as a plant ‘biostimulant’. Plant biostimulants are substances and/or microorganisms that, rather than supplying nutrients directly, aim to stimulate a plant’s natural nutrient acquisition process, thereby enhancing plant growth, increasing tolerance to unfavourable soil and environmental conditions and improving resource use efficiency (European Union 2019 )

Given the claims of ZNBF in relation to promotion of plant availability of nutrients, our comparison of soil nutrient status across the ZNBF, organic and conventional treatments utilised chemical extractions intended to mimic plant nutrient uptake from labile soil nutrient pools (Table 2 ) and thus focussed on ‘available’ or ‘potentially available’ nutrients rather than total nutrient stocks. For P, K and micronutrients (Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn), the results suggest that nutrient availability is unaffected by treatment (Supplementary information, Table S3 ); with the exception of K 2 O in season 2 (Fig. 3 d), there was no significant difference between treatments. This is an important observation because the conventional treatment, that used synthetic fertilisers, did not increase extractable nutrient concentrations compared to organic and ZBNF treatments. When compared to the conventional treatment, yields were indeed maintained, in the case of organic, and increased in the ZBNF treatment. There are a number of mechanisms that have been suggested to be at work in the liberation of nutrients being held in the soil after Jiwamrita application: (i) nutrient supply as a consequence of mineralisation and solubilisation activity by detrital food webs, (ii) improved plant uptake of (in particular) immobile nutrients (i.e. P and Zn) via mycorrhizal fungi and (iii) microbial production of plant growth hormones that increase root area and thus nutrient uptake from soil. However, there is insufficient evidence here to suggest that microbial additions are liberating nutrients from the soil in the ZBNF treatment, as was claimed by stakeholders in the workshop discussion. Detailed analysis of the microbially mediated processes involved in mineralisation and solubilisation of nutrients to plant available forms and nutrient uptake in these systems is needed to examine these assertions further.

It has been suggested that it is likely that ZBNF systems could be more deficient in nitrogen than conventional systems (Smith et al. 2020 ). In season 3 of our experiment, there was a significantly higher extractable N content in the conventional treatment than the ZBNF or organic treatments (Fig. 3 e). Season 3, on the whole, had lower extractable N than season 1 or 2. However, as previously stated, different farms participated in each season so this observation is not necessarily an indication of temporal trends. In Table 5 , we show the temporal trends in extractable N in the three farms that participated across all three seasons. Here, we show that, although there was significantly lower extractable N in the ZBNF treatment in the final sample taken and the initial sample in one of the farms (A3), there was no significant difference between treatments, in any of the farms, indicating that extractable N decreased in all treatments on all three farms over time. Furthermore, whilst our research focussed on the amendments used in ZBNF and crops were grown as a monocrop, intercropping is also commonplace in ZBNF, particularly with legumes. This is another possible mechanisms for N provision in ZBNF that we were not able to explore and would require closer examination in the future.

3.4 ZBNF claim 3: earthworm population

The third claim put forward by ZBNF promoters is that ZBNF practices enhance the activity of soil biology, and larger earthworm populations are an indicator of this. Higher earthworm abundance has previously been observed in ZBNF fields compared to non-ZBNF fields (Bharucha et al. 2020 ). In our research, earthworm abundance was indeed significantly and considerably higher in the ZBNF treatment than the conventional or organic treatment in all three seasons (Fig. 3 f), along with earthworm biomass (Supplementary information, Figure S3 ) likely a result of mulching. Crop residue, or dead mulch, retained on the soil surface can lead to higher earthworm abundance through reduced soil temperature, moisture retention and increased food resources so that the earthworms can grow and reproduce (Paoletti 1999 ; Turmel et al. 2015 ). Temperature is known to impact the behaviour, growth and density of earthworms (Al-Maliki et al. 2021 ); therefore, the reduced temperatures observed in the ZBNF treatment, discussed above, may benefit the earthworm community. In our research, we did not record the ecological group of the earthworms (epigeic, endogeic or anecic) collected. However, it is important to note that the effects of mulching, and the subsequent effect on soil temperature and food supply, will have varying impacts on earthworms depending on their ecological niche, with surface dwelling epigeic earthworms, for example, that do not move deeper into the profile, standing to benefit the most from surface mulching (Al-Maliki et al. 2021 ; Turmel et al. 2015 ). Applications of cow dung and Jiwamrita have also been found to increase earthworm abundance during treatment of agro-industrial waste (Veeresh and Narayana 2013 ). Earthworm abundance has also been observed to be higher in organic farming than conventional in semiarid northern regions of India (Suthar 2009 ), which we also observed in season 1. Due to the size of the plots, a tillage regime was not possible; therefore, the field experiment was not tilled after plots were laid out, in any treatment. However, it is important to highlight that, ZBNF, conventional and organic farming will have different approaches to tillage in practise, which will have additional impacts on soil biota (Crittenden et al. 2014 ). This will need to be considered in future research.

The increased abundance of earthworms can have a number of indirect benefits on yield through their role in nutrient cycling, plant pathogen suppression and development of soil structure, thereby influencing aeration and drainage (Blouin et al. 2013 ; Plaas et al. 2019 ; Sharma et al. 2017 ). A meta-analysis found that presence of earthworms in agroecosystems can lead to an average 25% increase in plant production (van Groenigen et al. 2014 ). Furthermore, the positive effects of earthworms were observed to be more prominent in systems where crop residues are applied/returned to the soil (van Groenigen et al. 2014 ), suggesting that earthworms may play a larger role in ZBNF systems that involve application of crop residues in the form of mulch.

Earthworm abundance has been recognised as a potentially useful indicator of soil quality, largely due to their sensitivity to soil disturbance (Doran and Zeiss 2000 ; Falco et al. 2015 ; Ritz et al. 2009 ). Research has also suggested earthworms are good indicators of some beneficial microbial functions. For example, a study in Andhra Pradesh observed that earthworms could be a vector for translocation and dispersal of mycorrhiza in groundnut (Lee et al. 1999 ). Earthworms can contribute to the structuring of belowground microbial communities both directly through their ingestion or indirectly though comminution of substrates and increased availability of easily assimilated substances for microbes in earthworm middens (Bohlen et al. 2002 ; Edwards 2004 ; Medina-Sauza et al. 2019 ). However, the extent of this influence on the microbial community is dependent on the ecological group of earthworms in question (Medina-Sauza et al. 2019 ). We did not record earthworm ecological group in this study, or whether earthworms were juvenile or adult; future research on the link between earthworm abundance and microbial activity would benefit from this information.

4 Conclusions

The aim of this study was to provide evidence from replicated field trials to assess the performance of ZBNF compared to conventional and organic alternatives, and mechanistically account for the benefits ZBNF can provide. The three seasons of data we present here suggest that there was no yield penalty in the ZBNF treatment in any of the districts investigated, and some districts observed a yield benefit in the ZBNF treatment. We suggest that the ZBNF treatment benefits derive from higher soil moisture content, lower soil temperature and a larger earthworm population as a consequence of mulch addition. However, more research into the contribution of each of the individual ZBNF inputs (Bijamrita, solid Jiwamrita, liquid Jiwamrita and mulch) is needed to test this. Closer examination of the availability of these inputs if operated at scale will also be vital. In addition, whilst our research has focussed on the amendments used in ZBNF, there are other elements of ZBNF management in combination with the amendments that need further examination in the future, such as intercropping and reduced tillage. Initial observations that there were no significant differences between treatments in the majority of nutrients, despite ZBNF and organic treatments receiving no synthetic fertiliser inputs, is an important one if they can be replicated across Andhra Pradesh. This is a particularly important finding as intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers comes with a number of associated risks to farmer finances, human health, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity and environmental pollution. However, long-term field and landscape scale trials are needed to corroborate these observations if ZBNF is going to be adopted at scale.

Data availability

Data is available on request.

Code availability

Not applicable

Agoramoorthy G (2008) Can India meet the increasing food demand by 2020? Futures 40:503–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.10.008

Article   Google Scholar  

Al-Maliki S, Al-Taey DKA, Al-Mammori HZ (2021) Earthworms and eco-consequences: considerations to soil biological indicators and plant function: A review. Acta Ecol Sin 41:512–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chnaes.2021.02.003

Bharucha ZP, Mitjans SB, Pretty J (2020) Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. Int J Agric Sustain 18:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465

Bhattacharya N (2017) Food sovereignty and agro-ecology in Karnataka: interplay of discourses, identities, and practices. Dev Pract 27:544–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2017.1305328

Bhattacharyya R, Ghosh BN, Mishra PK et al (2015) Soil degradation in India: challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability (Switzerland) 7:3528–3570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7043528

Biswas S (2020) Zero budget natural farming in India: aiming back to the basics. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change 10:38–52. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2020/v10i930228

Black CR, Tang D-Y, Ong CK et al (1985) Effects of soil moisture stress on the water relations and water use of groundnut stands. New Phytol 100:313–328

Blouin M, Hodson ME, Delgado EA et al (2013) A review of earthworm impact on soil function and ecosystem services. Eur J Soil Sci 64:161–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12025

Bohlen PJ, Edwards CA, Zhang Q et al (2002) Indirect effects of earthworms on microbial assimilation of labile carbon. Appl Soil Ecol 20:255–261

Boraiah B, Devakumar N, Shubha S, Palanna KB (2017) Effect of panchagavya, jeevamrutha and cow urine on beneficial microorganisms and yield of Capsicum (Capsicum annuum L. var. grossum). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 6:3226–3234. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.397

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bruinsma J (ed) (2003) World agriculture: towards 2015/2030: An FAO Study. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK. ISBN: 92 5 104835 5

Calvo P, Nelson L, Kloepper JW (2014) Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant Soil 383:3–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2131-8

Chavan ML, Phad PR, Khodke UM, Jadhav SB (2009) Effect of organic mulches on soil moisture conservation and yield of rabi sorghum (M-35-1). Int J Agric Eng 2:322–328

Google Scholar  

Chen SY, Zhang XY, Pei D et al (2007) Effects of straw mulching on soil temperature, evaporation and yield of winter wheat: field experiments on the North China Plain. Ann Appl Biol 150:261–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00144.x

Connor DJ, Mínguez MI (2012) Evolution not revolution of farming systems will best feed and green the world. Glob Food Sec 1:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2012.10.004

Crews TE, Rumsey BE (2017) What agriculture can learn from native ecosystems in building soil organic matter: a review. Sustainability 9:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040578

Crittenden SJ, Eswaramurthy T, de Goede RGM et al (2014) Effect of tillage on earthworms over short- and medium-term in conventional and organic farming. Appl Soil Ecol 83:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.03.001

de Guzman C (2022) The crisis in Sri Lanka rekindles debate over organic farming. Time

Doran JW, Zeiss MR (2000) Soil health and sustainibility: managing the biotic component of soil quality. Appl Soil Ecol 15:3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-Get

Duddigan S, Collins CD, Hussain Z et al (2022) Impact of zero budget natural farming on crop yields in Andhra Pradesh, SE India. Sustainability 14:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031689

Edwards CA (2004) The importance of earthworms as key representative of the soil fauna. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology, 2nd edn. CRC Press LLC, Florida, pp 3–12

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Falco LB, Sandler R, Momo F et al (2015) Earthworm assemblages in different intensity of agricultural uses and their relation to edaphic variables. Pedobiologia (Jena) 3:1–18. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.979

FAO, UNDP, UNEP (2021) A multi-billion-dollar opportunity: repurposing agricultural support to transform food systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

FAO (2021) Land & water: tomato. In: Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/crop-information/tomato/en/#c236455 . Accessed 6 Oct 2021

Galab S, Prudhvikar Reddy P, Sree Rama Raju D et al (2019) Impact assessment of zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh: a comprehensive approach using crop cutting experiments. Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Hyderabad. http://www.cess.ac.in/ . Accessed 9 Mar 2022

Gangadhar K, Devakumar N, Vishwajith G, Lavanya G (2020) Growth, yield and quality parameters of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) as influenced by application of different organic manures and decomposers. Int J Chem Stud 8:473–482. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i1g.8299

Ghosh M (2019) Climate-smart agriculture, productivity and food security in India. J Dev Policy Pract 4:166–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455133319862404

Government of India (2015) Household ownership and operational holdings in India: NSS 70th Round (January-December 2013) Report No. 571. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, National Sample Survey Office, New Delhi

Gupta N, Tripathi S, Dholakia HH (2020) Can zero budget natural farming save input costs and fertiliser subsidies?: evidence from Andhra Pradesh. Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi

Kader MA, Senge M, Mojid MA, Nakamura K (2017) Mulching type-induced soil moisture and temperature regimes and water use efficiency of soybean under rain-fed condition in central Japan. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:302–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.08.001

Kallenbach C, Grandy AS (2011) Controls over soil microbial biomass responses to carbon amendments in agricultural systems: a meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 144:241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.020

Keerthi P, Sharma SK, Chaudhary K (2018) Zero budget natural farming: an introduction. Research trends in agriculture sciences. AkiNik Publications, New Delhi, pp 111–123

Khadse A, Rosset PM (2019) Zero budget natural farming in India–from inception to institutionalization. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 43:848–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1608349

Khadse A, Rosset PM, Morales H, Ferguson BG (2018) Taking agroecology to scale: the zero budget natural farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. J Peasant Stud 45:192–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1276450

Kirchmann H, Bergström L, Kätterer T et al (2008) Can organic crop production feed the world? In: Kirchmann H, Bergström L (eds) Organic crop production – ambitions and limitations. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 39–72

Knapp S, van der Heijden MGA (2018) A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture. Nat Commun 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05956-1

Korav S, Dhaka AK, Chaudhary A, Mamatha YS (2020) Zero budget natural farming a key to sustainable agriculture: challenges, opportunities and policy intervention, India. J Pure Appl Biosci 8:285–295. https://doi.org/10.1878/2582-2845.8091

Kumar R, Kumar S, Yashavanth BS, Meena PC (2019) Natural farming practices in India: its adoption and impact on crop yield and farmers’ income. Indian J Agric Econ 74:420–432

Kumar R, Kumar S, Yashavanth B et al (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

Lee KK, Vikram Reddy M, Balaguravaiah D et al (1999) Effect of soil management on soil micro-organisms. In: Vikram Reddy M (ed) Management of Tropical Agroecosystems and the Beneficial Soil Biota. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp 153–164

Leong SK, Ong CK (1983) The influence of temperature and water deficits on the partitioning of dry matter in groundnut (arachis hypogaea L.). J Exp Bot 34:1551–1561. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/35.5.746

Lindsay WL, Norvell WA (1978) Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J 42:421–428

Liu Y, Wang J, Liu D et al (2014) Straw mulching reduces the harmful effects of extreme hydrological and temperature conditions in citrus orchards. PLoS ONE 9:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087094

Mariappan K, Zhou D (2019) A threat of farmers’ suicide and the opportunity in organic farming for sustainable agricultural development in India. Sustainability 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082400

Medina-Sauza RM, Álvarez-Jiménez M, Delhal A et al (2019) Earthworms building up soil microbiota, a review. Front Environ Sci 7:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00081

Meek D, Anderson CR (2020) Scale and the politics of the organic transition in Sikkim, India. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst 44:653–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2019.1701171

Merwin HD, Peech M (1951) Exchangeability of soil potassium in the sand, silt, and clay fractions as influenced by the nature of the complementary exchangeable cation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 15:125–128

Naik AHK, Brunda S, Chaithra GM (2020) Comparative economic analysis of zero budget natural farming for Kharif groundnut under central dry zone of Karnataka, India. J Econ Manag Trade 26:27–34. https://doi.org/10.9734/jemt/2020/v26i630263

Nautiyal PC (2002) Groundnut: post-harvest operations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Circular US Department of Agriculture 939:19

Panneerselvam P, Hermansen JE, Halberg N (2011) Food security of small holding farmers: comparing organic and conventional systems in India. J Sustain Agric 35:48–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.530506

Paoletti M (1999) The role of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicators. Agric Ecosyst Environ 74:137–155

Pimentel D (1996) Green revolution agriculture and chemical hazards. Sci Total Environ 188:S86–S98. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-9697(96)90512-4

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Plaas E, Meyer-Wolfarth F, Banse M et al (2019) Towards valuation of biodiversity in agricultural soils: a case for earthworms. Ecol Econ 159:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.02.003

Plaza C, Courtier-Murias D, Fernández JM et al (2013) Physical, chemical, and biochemical mechanisms of soil organic matter stabilization under conservation tillage systems: a central role for microbes and microbial by-products in C sequestration. Soil Biol Biochem 57:124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.07.026

Ponisio LC, M’gonigle LK, Mace KC et al (2015) Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396

Prasad PVV, Boote KJ, Thomas JMG et al (2006) Influence of soil temperature on seedling emergence and early growth of peanut cultivars in field conditions. J Agron Crop Sci 192:168–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2006.00198.x

Ramana Reddy DV, Madhavi A, Venkata Reddy P et al (2012) Manual for soil water and plant analysis. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, Acharya N.G

Rao VUM, Rao BR, Venkateswarlu B (2013) Agroclimatic atlas of Andhra Pradesh. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (ICAR), Hyderabad

Ravisankar N, Singh R, Panwar A, Shamim M, Prusty A (2020) Comparative performance of different production systems with respect to yield, income and sustainability. Indian J Fertil 16(4):368–375

Ritz K, Black HIJ, Campbell CD et al (2009) Selecting biological indicators for monitoring soils: a framework for balancing scientific and technical opinion to assist policy development. Ecol Indic 9:1212–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.02.009

Röös E, Mie A, Wivstad M et al (2018) Risks and opportunities of increasing yields in organic farming. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0489-3

RySS (2020) Zero budget natural farming: official website of ZBNF programme of Rythu Sadhikara Samstha, Government of Andhra Pradesh. http://apzbnf.in/ Accessed 11 May 2020

Rythu Swarajya Vedika (2022) Tenant farmers study report, Andhra Pradesh: implementation of Crop Cultivar Rights Act, Inclusion of Rythu Bharosa & other schemes. Hyderabad, India.

Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Mayerhofer T (2017) What is this thing called organic? – how organic farming is codified in regulations. Food Policy 68:10–20. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0378888

Sharma DK, Tomar S, Chakraborty D (2017) Role of earthworm in improving soil structure and functioning. Curr Sci 113:1064–1071. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26494167 . Accessed 29 July 2022

Singh AL, Nakar RN, Goswami N et al (2013) Water deficit stress and its management in groundnut. Adv Plant Physiol 14:371–465

Smith J, Yeluripati J, Smith P, Nayak DR (2020) Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nat Sustain 3:247–252. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0469-x

Stockmann U, Adams MA, Crawford JW et al (2013) The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 164:80–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.10.001

Subbiah BV, Asija GL (1956) A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci 25:259–260

CAS   Google Scholar  

Suthar S (2009) Earthworm communities a bioindicator of arable land management practices: a case study in semiarid region of India. Ecol Indic 9:588–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.08.002

Thankamani CK, Kandiannan K, Hamza S, Saji K (2016) Effect of mulches on weed suppression and yield of ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). Sci Hortic 207:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.05.010

Tripathi S, Shahidi T, Nagbhushan S, Gupta N (2018) Zero budget natural farming for the sustainable development goals, 2nd edn. Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi

Turmel MS, Speratti A, Baudron F et al (2015) Crop residue management and soil health: a systems analysis. Agric Syst 134:6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.009

Tuure J, Räsänen M, Hautala M et al (2021) Plant residue mulch increases measured and modelled soil moisture content in the effective root zone of maize in semi-arid Kenya. Soil Tillage Res 209:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.104945

Umar S (2006) Alleviating adverse effects of water stress on yield of sorghum, mustard and groundnut by potassium application. Pak J Bot 38:1373–1380

UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: Sustainable Development https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda . Accessed 6 Aug 2020

UNEP (2021) Making peace with nature: a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

Union E (2019) Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 laying down rules on the making available on the market of EU fertilising products and amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and repealing Regula. Off J Eur Union L170(62):1–127

van Groenigen JW, Lubbers IM, Vos HMJ et al (2014) Earthworms increase plant production: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06365

Veeresh SJ, Narayana J (2013) Earthworm density, biomass and vermicompost recovery during agro-industrial waste treatment. Int J Pharm Bio Sci 4:1274–1280. http://www.ijpbs.net/ B - 1274. Accessed 14 Jan 2022

Vijayabhinandana B, Jyothi V, Subbaiah P (2018) Enhancing the role of tenant farmers in achieving nutrition sensitive agriculture. Indian Res J Extension Educ 18:15–21

Vijayabhinandana B, Jyothi V, Gopal PVS (2019) Types of tenancy farming in Andhra Pradesh - an inventory. J Res Angrau 47:78–83

Vinay G, Padmaja B, Malla Reddy M et al (2020) Evaluation of natural farming practices on the performance of maize. Int J Ecol Environ Sci 2:224–230

Walkley AJ, Black IA (1934) Estimation of soil organic carbon by the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38

Willer H, Lernoud J (eds) (2017) The World of Organic Agriculture: statistics and emerging trends 2017. Research Institue of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland

World Bank Group (2022) Commodity markets outlook: the impact of the war in Ukraine on commodity markets. World Bank, Washington DC

Yadav P, Jaiswal DK, Sinha RK (2021) Climate change: impact of agricultural production and sustainable mitigation. In: Srivastava KK, Singh P, Rangabhashiyam S, Singh S (eds) Global climate change. Elsevier Science, Netherlands, pp 151–174

Yesdhanulla S, Aparna B (2018) Marketing channels and price spread of tomato in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. J Pharmacogn Phytochem 7:873–876

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Natural Farming Fellows (RySS) for running field experiments in this research: Sravani Avula, Chandra Bhanu, Ahkila Byri, Ramesh Chintakunta, Abdul Basith Devanakonda, Tejaswini Dhulipala, Rani Praharsha Dubbaku, Jhansirani Duggirala, Sushmitha Gangisetty, Crissy Injeti, Manideep Jajimoggala, Sanath Kumar Kalli, Pavani Kasibabu, Vijayalakshmi Kesana, Lakshmi Bhairava Kumar Machunuru, Haleema Sadia Mohammed, Salim Syed Mohammad, Srikanth Paleti, Venkataramana Pendyala, Ambica Pentakoti, Sumanjali Policherla, Sairam Rayavaram, Bhanu Prakesh Reddy, Ramyasree Reddymalli, Apoorva Saride, Chaitanya Taviti and Ganesh Vasu. We would also like to thank Mounika Reddy (RySS) for collation and shipment of soil samples for analysis.

This work was supported by the University of Reading’s Research England Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS) and KfW Development Bank.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Soil Research Centre and Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK

Sarah Duddigan, Liz J. Shaw, Tom Sizmur & Chris D. Collins

Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

Dharmendar Gogu, Zakir Hussain, Kiranmai Jirra, Hamika Kaliki, Rahul Sanka, Mohammad Sohail, Reshma Soma, Vijay Thallam & Haripriya Vattikuti

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, all authors; methodology, all authors; project administration, all authors; formal analysis, SD; investigation, SD, KJ, HK, HV, RSa, MS, RSo; writing—original draft preparation, SD; writing—review and editing, all authors.; visualisation, SD; supervision, CC, DG, ZH, VT; funding acquisition, CC, ZH and VT. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Duddigan .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, conflict of interest.

RySS is responsible for promotion of ZBNF across Andhra Pradesh.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 330 KB)

Rights and permissions.

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Duddigan, S., Shaw, L.J., Sizmur, T. et al. Natural farming improves crop yield in SE India when compared to conventional or organic systems by enhancing soil quality. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43 , 31 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x

Download citation

Accepted : 06 March 2023

Published : 23 March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Zero budget natural farming
• Organic farming
• Conventional agriculture
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ORGANIC IS REGENERATIVE

Ofrf events, organic for climate, why organic, farmer stories, organic farming research foundation works to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming systems. ofrf cultivates organic research, education, and federal policies that bring more farmers and acreage into organic production..

Farmer Led Trials Program Spotlight: Colby Farms

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-04-08T17:27:49+00:00 April 8th, 2024 | Farmer Stories , News |

Tim and Becky Colby own Colby Farms, a 14 acre farm in Papillion, Nebraska, where they produce vegetables, fruits and some livestock products for their community. They are participating in OFRF's Farmer Led Trials (FLT) Program to research the best cover crop options for reducing soil compaction on their farm.

Growing Together, one year with the USDA Transition to Organic Partnership Program

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-04-04T20:52:45+00:00 April 4th, 2024 | Gordon's Policy Corner , News |

This month Gordon’s Policy Corner reflects on a year of achievements with the USDA Transition to Organic Partnership Program in the West/Southwest region (TOPP-W/SW, including toolkits for accessing farmer support funding, and other resources to empower farmers transitioning to organic practices.

Beyond Buzzwords: Organic is Regenerative

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-27T20:51:57+00:00 March 27th, 2024 | News |

The term ‘regenerative’ has gained widespread traction, but definitions vary widely. It has caught the attention of consumers interested in the impact of their food choices, and farmers and policymakers looking for ways to adapt to or mitigate climate change. But organic is already regenerative.

Organic Researcher Spotlight: Dr. Dil Thavarajah

Brian Geier 2024-04-01T19:10:53+00:00 March 20th, 2024 | Education , News |

New cultivars of pulse crops (lentils, chickpeas, and field peas) may soon be available to organic farmers! These improved varieties are under development through a project led by Dr Dil Thavarajah at Clemson State University (CSU).

New Toolkit Highlights How Organic Practices Lead the Way in Regenerative Agriculture

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-20T17:20:09+00:00 March 12th, 2024 | News , Press Release |

The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) is proud to announce the launch of an innovative messaging toolkit, “Organic is Regenerative,” designed to address the growing interest in sustainable food choices and climate-friendly agriculture.

Shaping Agriculture Policy for a Sustainable Future

Elizabeth Tobey 2024-03-10T17:12:04+00:00 March 10th, 2024 | Gordon's Policy Corner , News |

In this month's Policy Corner, we share all of the work we’ve been up to this year and what we’re looking forward to in the continued process of advocating for organic agriculture.

to OFRF’s current partners

Frequently Asked Questions

Comprehensive information about organic farming

We're growing our community

Want to hear about the latest organic research, learn about new educational resources, and stay up on other news related to organic agriculture?

Sign-up for our monthly newsletter! 

REVIEW article

Synergizing biotechnology and natural farming: pioneering agricultural sustainability through innovative interventions.

• 1 Department of Microbiology, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India
• 2 Centre for Geo-Informatics Research and Training, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India
• 3 Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India
• 4 Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India
• 5 National Agricultural Higher Education Project, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India

The world has undergone a remarkable transformation from the era of famines to an age of global food production that caters to an exponentially growing population. This transformation has been made possible by significant agricultural revolutions, marked by the intensification of agriculture through the infusion of mechanical, industrial, and economic inputs. However, this rapid advancement in agriculture has also brought about the proliferation of agricultural inputs such as pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation, which have given rise to long-term environmental crises. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed a concerning plateau in crop production, the loss of arable land, and dramatic shifts in climatic conditions. These challenges have underscored the urgent need to protect our global commons, particularly the environment, through a participatory approach that involves countries worldwide, regardless of their developmental status. To achieve the goal of sustainability in agriculture, it is imperative to adopt multidisciplinary approaches that integrate fields such as biology, engineering, chemistry, economics, and community development. One noteworthy initiative in this regard is Zero Budget Natural Farming, which highlights the significance of leveraging the synergistic effects of both plant and animal products to enhance crop establishment, build soil fertility, and promote the proliferation of beneficial microorganisms. The ultimate aim is to create self-sustainable agro-ecosystems. This review advocates for the incorporation of biotechnological tools in natural farming to expedite the dynamism of such systems in an eco-friendly manner. By harnessing the power of biotechnology, we can increase the productivity of agro-ecology and generate abundant supplies of food, feed, fiber, and nutraceuticals to meet the needs of our ever-expanding global population.

1 Introduction

The term “sustainability” finds its origin from the Latin word “Sustinere”, which denotes the enhancement of environmental quality and the resource base that can uphold and endure future societal development. The term “sustainable” was used for the first time at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment, Stockholm in 1972 focusing on the preservation of environment for the benefit of human beings across the globe. The major outcome of the Stockholm Conference (1972) was the establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which became the leading global environmental authority for setting the global environmental agenda. Later on in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the UN General Assembly called for the United Nations Conference on Environment Development (UNCED) commonly known as the Rio Summit or Earth Summit, 1992 with primary goals of socio-economic development while preventing environmental deterioration ( Grubb et al., 2019 ). A number of multilateral environmental agreements have taken place since 1992. However, the global environment has continued to suffer in terms of loss of biodiversity, desertification, and increasing natural disasters.

Over the past two decades, there has been a growing concern about the need for sustainable agriculture to address the food and fiber requirements of society while also providing enduring solutions for both present and future generations. A fundamental prerequisite for sustainable agriculture is to guarantee social equity and economic viability for farmers and all individuals engaged in agriculture and its associated enterprises. This will encourage them to maintain a healthy environment and support the development of climate-resilient agriculture. One of the popular approaches toward sustainable agriculture is natural farming, popularly known as Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF). The Indian civilization thrived on natural farming for ages and India was one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Traditionally, the entire agriculture was practiced using natural inputs where the fertilizers, pesticides, etc. were obtained from plant and animal products. This continued till the advent of colonial rule in India, which introduced plantation agriculture and turned the focus of farmers from self-sufficient crops to cash crops like indigo, jute, tea, and tobacco. Furthermore, the burgeoning population, the pressure to grow cash crops, and drastic climatic calamities led to the shift of the farming sector toward high-input agriculture.

The concept of natural farming was regained by the Japanese scientist Fukuoka in the 1970s through his book The One Straw Revolution: An Introduction to Natural Farming , in which he mentioned it as a do-nothing technique. The concept of natural farming revolves around the idea of self-sufficiency of the natural ecosystem without much human intervention. In India, Padma Shri recipient Mr. Subhash Palekar became the first to adopt the ZBNF system in the 1990s. His concern with the increasing indebtedness and suicide among farmers in India due to the increasing costs of fertilizers and pesticides and their long-term devastating effects on the environment compelled him to advocate the use of low-input technologies in agriculture that should be available within farmlands. He started the natural farming concept in Karnataka and subsequently converted over 50 lakh farmers into practicing ZBNF in various states of India. This method promotes soil aeration, minimal irrigation, intercropping, bunds, and topsoil mulching with crop residue and strictly prohibited intensive irrigation like flooding and deep ploughing tillage practices. However, these traditional practices will not be sufficient to provide food to the estimated 9.7 billion population in 2050. Recently, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has set guidelines for per person per day calorie intake to achieve nutritional sufficiency ( Chellamuthu et al., 2021 ). Incorporating modern biotechnological techniques into agriculture is the prerequisite to attaining this goal and mitigating the climate crisis ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1 Catalyzing sustainable growth through Zero Budget Natural Farming for India’s burgeoning population.

However, adopting biotechnology in natural farming system is not that easy. There exists an ideological war between natural farming and biotechnology-assisted farming, leading to complete incompatibility among these two systems ( Purnhagen and Wesseler, 2021 ).

Biotechnology in agriculture encompasses a diverse range of techniques, which may include traditional breeding methods that modify living organisms or their components to create or enhance products, improve plants or animals, or engineer microorganisms for particular agricultural applications. It is not exclusive but includes the tools of genetic engineering. It has emerged as a promising tool for crop improvement and led to significant enhancement in agricultural productivity in the 21st century through agricultural revolutions. Within the Indian biotech sector, agricultural biotechnology stands as the third largest segment (as reported by Business Standard in 2013). It is widely recognized as a pivotal sector that plays a significant role in driving the socio-economic development of the country ( ABLE INDIA, 2013 ; Shukla et al., 2018 ; Lima, 2022 ). A new biotechnological revolution is estimated to revolve around deciphering the gene codes of living beings leading to “gene revolution”.

Biotechnology often carries a perplexing association with industrial, commodity-based farming, monoculture practices, the extensive use of pesticides, and patented seeds. However, the most significant misinterpretation lies in conflating biotechnology—a production process—with an inherently unsafe and perilous product. This misperception forms the foundation of the stringent regulatory framework that many countries apply to biotech crops.

The current review seeks to advocate the idea that integrating biotechnology with natural farming can offer a promising solution to address key challenges in achieving sustainable agriculture. These challenges include the need to produce sufficient food within the constraints of limited arable land and finite resources, particularly in the face of stresses like drought, salinity, high temperature, and diseases. The aim is to achieve these goals while reducing reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

2 Strategies for natural farming/eco-agriculture

McNeely and Scherr (2001) have outlined six approaches to achieve the desired outcomes from natural farming. These are stated below:

Participation of local farmers for the creation of bio-diversity reserves. In Wayanad, Kerala, India, a “model” farm has been developed involving local farmers for the cultivation of a diversity of spices, medicinal plants, cash crops, and wild yet economically important trees ( Syzygium travancorium and Cinnamomum malabatrum ). The fauna in this farm consists of farm animals, honeybees, and fish. The economic sustainability of the farm is guaranteed by the consistent revenue generated from a diverse array of crops including medicinal, agricultural, and plantation crops as well as through the management of farm animals.

i. Using traditional practices of controlling pests, rain water harvesting, and soil health management using least external inputs have enabled the self-sustainability of the farm. Development of such modal farms will not only reinforce agricultural productivity but also promote the wellbeing of the ecosystem, thus helping conservation naturally.

ii. Integrating cultivated areas with natural habitats to preserve high-quality wildlife environments that are compatible with farming.

iii. Mitigating or even reversing the conversion of wild lands into agricultural use by increasing farm productivity.

iv. Minimizing agricultural pollution through the implementation of more resource-efficient methods for managing nutrients, pests, and waste.

v. Enhancing the quality of habitats in and around farms through the careful management of soil, water, and vegetation resources. Notably, the “biodiversity-rich hotspot” in Orissa, India serves as an excellent example of this approach. On the global scale, “Equator Initiative” is a worldwide movement committed to identifying and supporting innovative partnerships that alleviate poverty through the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

3 Biotechnological interventions in natural farming

Biotechnology identifies and addresses multifarious aspects of agriculture, leading to a sustainable way of improving the overall productivity of agro-ecosystems. However, we can broadly classify the aspects into three major criteria: modifying plants, modifying the soil, and development of alternatives to fuel inputs for agricultural equipments ( Figure 2 ). These aspects have been discussed in detail in the review.

Figure 2 Various approaches for integrating biotechnological tools in natural farming system.

3.1 Modifying plants

Conventional plant breeding and selection techniques take much time (six to seven generations) and effort to develop plants with desirable traits. However, when supplemented with novel biotechnological tools like genetic engineering, molecular biology, and micro-propagation, such techniques may result in desirable and stable genotypes within two to four generations ( Table 1 ).

Table 1 Some examples of successful utilization of biotechnological tools for improving plants.

3.1.1 High-yielding varieties

Intergeneric and interspecific hybridization followed by marker-assisted selection (MAS) enabled the development of semi dwarf high-yielding varieties, thus marking the advent of green revolution. Molecular biologists have identified the candidate genes influencing plant height, spike length, seed characteristics, and number of spikelets in wheat ( Albahri et al., 2023 ; Jiang et al. 2023 ), as well as DREB (dehydration-responsive element binding) genes associated with photosynthesis, nitrogen utilization and flowering in rice ( Ikeda et al., 2001 ; Chandler et al. 2022 ; Wei et al., 2022 ), male sterility, albino phenotype, and number and weight of kernels in maize ( Chen et al., 2018 ; Kelliher et al., 2019 ). Characterization and manipulation of such genes can help transfer of these into locally adapted high-yielding cultivars by hybridization followed by MAS or by genome editing technologies.

3.1.2 Enhancing physiological efficiency of plants

Genetic manipulation offers the potential to enhance critical yield-determining traits in plants, including photosynthesis, shoot-to-root biomass ratio, inflorescence architecture, stomatal regulation, nutrient acquisition, and utilization efficiency. One effective strategy for assessing and improving photosynthetic efficiency in plants involves the examination and manipulation of key enzymes. Rubisco, a pivotal enzyme responsible for converting atmospheric CO 2 into biomass and a significant player in the global carbon cycle, has been a prime target for enhancing crop production. Methods to boost Rubisco activity encompass enhancing the enzyme’s carboxylation capacity, reducing its oxygenation rates through genetic modification, and introducing the complete carbon-concentrating mechanism from cyanobacteria into crop plants via genetic engineering to enhance their photosynthetic capabilities ( Hines et al., 2021 ; Iñiguez et al., 2021 ). As an example, incorporating Rubisco activase from thermophilic cyanobacteria into plants sensitive to high temperatures has shown promising results in improving crop yield by enhancing photosynthesis under elevated temperature conditions ( Ogbaga et al., 2018 ).

Enhancing photoprotection in plants holds promise for increasing crop yield. Plants have evolved mechanisms to dissipate excess sunlight, safeguarding themselves from damage, albeit at the expense of photosynthetic efficiency ( Kromdijk et al., 2016 ). Research into genes associated with non-photochemical quenching, such as PsbS, has revealed that modifying their expression levels can bolster photoprotection, consequently improving photosynthetic efficiency ( Murchie et al., 2015 ). Likewise, optimizing a plant’s nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) involves modulating nutrient absorption, allocation, and metabolism. Employing biotechnology to manipulate key genes governing nutrient uptake and utilization efficiency is an effective strategy for creating enhanced crop varieties. Genes such as Ammonium transport (AMT), nitrate transport (NRT), glutamine synthetase (GS), and glutamate synthase (GOGAT) play pivotal roles in nitrogen metabolism. Studies have demonstrated that transgenic crops overexpressing these genes exhibit elevated tissue nitrogen levels, increased amino acids, and enhanced biomass and greater seed production ( Curatti and Rubio, 2014 ). For instance, the gene OsDREB1C, responsible for promoting nitrogen use efficiency and resource allocation while shortening growth, has led to a substantial increase in rice yield, ranging from 41.3% to 68.3% compared to wild types when overexpressed ( Wei et al., 2022 ).

3.1.3 Development of resistant plant varieties

Insect resistance: The development of insect-resistant transgenic plants stands as a remarkable achievement in agricultural biotechnology, with extensive research efforts carried out by both public and private institutions. The introduction of heterologous DNA is commonly accomplished through genetic transformation methods mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens , biolistic techniques, or a combination of both ( Tabashnik et al., 2013 ; Carrière et al., 2015 ). Among the most widely commercialized transgenic crops is cotton, which incorporates cry genes sourced from Bacillus thuringiensis ( Sanahuja et al., 2011 ). This innovation has proven highly effective in conferring insect resistance ( Tabashnik et al., 2013 ; Carrière et al., 2015 ). Furthermore, various other notable examples of introducing and expressing foreign genes in crop plants include API (arrowhead proteinase inhibitor) in wheat, tobacco, and tomato; OC-I (cysteine proteinase inhibitor: oryzacystatin -I) in rice; Vgb ( Vitreoscilla hemoglobin ) in maize and tobacco; SacB ( levansucrase -encoding gene) in tobacco, rye grass, and tobacco; JERF -36 (Jasmonic ethylene-responsive factor) in poplar trees; BADH ( betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase gene) in tobacco, maize, and tomato; and NTHK1 ( Nicotiana tabacum histidine kinase -1) in tomato and apple ( Tabashnik et al., 2008 ; Wang et al., 2018 ). Specifically, transgenic plants like cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ), soybean ( Glycine max ), and maize ( Zea mays ) have demonstrated resistance to lepidopteran and coleopteran larvae (caterpillars and rootworms), leading to substantial reductions in pesticide usage and production costs, all while enhancing crop yields.

Disease resistance: Modifying host–pathogen interactions, signaling mechanisms, and associated proteins has led to the development of disease-resistant crop varieties. In wheat, the cloning and utilization of several adult plant resistance (APR) genes have enabled the creation of transgenic lines resistant to rust and powdery mildew pathogens at both seedling and adult stages ( Krattinger et al., 2009 ; Risk et al., 2013 ; Ellis et al., 2014 ). The introduction of the Lr34 allele, which codes for resistance against leaf rust, into various crops such as rice, barley, sorghum, maize, and durum wheat, as well as Lr67 into barley, has conferred resistance to a wide range of biotrophic pathogens ( Risk et al., 2013 ; Krattinger et al., 2016 ; Sucher et al., 2017 ). Advanced techniques like Targeting Induced Local Lesions in Genomes (TILLING) and genome-editing methods such as Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFN), Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases (TALENs), and notably Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and Crisper-associated protein (Cas) have become powerful tools in functional genomics and crop breeding. Simultaneous modification of the three homeologs of EDR1 in wheat has resulted in powdery mildew-resistant plants ( Zhang Y. et al., 2017 ). Moreover, rice lines with broad-spectrum resistance to Xanthomonas have been created by editing the promoter regions of SWEET11, SWEET13, and SWEET14 genes ( Xu et al., 2019 ). Powdery mildew resistance has been achieved through editing MLO (Mildew Resistance Locus) in various plant species, including wheat ( Wang et al., 2014 ; Acevedo-Garcia et al. 2017 ), tomato ( S. lycopersicum ) ( Nekrasov et al., 2017 ), and grapevine ( Vitis vinifera ) ( Wan et al., 2020 ).

Herbicide resistance: Weeds are a persistent issue in agriculture, hindering crop growth by competing for essential resources like water, nutrients, sunlight, and space. They also act as carriers for various insects and harmful microorganisms. Uncontrolled weed growth can significantly reduce crop yields, leading farmers to use methods like herbicides containing glyphosate and glufosinate, tilling, and manual weeding to manage them. Glyphosate herbicides work by inhibiting the EPSPS enzyme, vital for producing aromatic amino acids, vitamins and other plant metabolites. However, these methods can lead to problems like groundwater contamination and environmental damage, causing declines in plant and animal species ( Mazur and Falco, 1989 ; Powles, 2018 ). Biotechnological advancements have given rise to herbicide-resistant crop varieties, such as those tolerant to glyphosate and glufosinate ( Tan et al., 2006 ). These crops are engineered with genes like CP4-EPSP synthase and GOX ( glyphosate oxidoreductase ), which produce glyphosate-tolerant EPSPs and glyphosate-degrading enzymes ( Shaner, 2000 ; Owen and Zelaya, 2005 ).

Abiotic stress resistance: The advancement of functional omics and computational biology software and tools has enabled the identification of candidate genes responsible for abiotic stress (AbS) from diverse gene pools. Techniques like RNA-Seq, random and targeted mutagenesis, gene shifting, complementation, and synthetic promoter trapping are valuable for analyzing AbS-responsive genes and understanding tolerance mechanisms, including post-translational modifications (PTM), protein degradation, and interactions with non-coding miRNA ( Chantre Nongpiur et al., 2016 ). Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have gained popularity for discovering and characterizing stress-responsive genes, which, when introduced into crop plants, enhance their tolerance to various AbS conditions ( Le et al., 2021 ). Chan et al. (2006) reported a total of 13,022 AbS-related ESTs from Hordeum vulgare , 13,058 genes from Oryza sativa , 17,189 from Sorghum bicolor , 2,641 from Secale cereale , 20,846 from Triticum aestivum , and 5,695 regulators from Z. mays using the gene index of the TIGR database ( http://www.tigr.org/tdb/tgi/ ) ( Chan et al. 2006 ). Identifying these ESTs and incorporating them into widely cultivated elite cultivars through in vitro mutagenesis, genetic transformation, tissue culture, and MAS using omics tools have resulted in the development of several abiotic stress-tolerant plant varieties ( Cassia et al., 2018 ). However, discovering and maintaining ESTs in a crop is very tedious and time-consuming as compared to maintaining cDNA libraries of the transcribed loci, the majority of which come from DREB/CBF, ERF, NAC, D-ZipI, and WRKY families ( Noor et al., 2018 ; Jeyasri et al., 2021 ). Additionally, recent research has identified and dissected the QTLs for plant height, spike length, and seed characteristics in recombinant inbred lines by combining linkage mapping and weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) ( Villalobos-López et al., 2022 ; Wei et al., 2022 ).

3.1.4 Bio-fortification

“Bio-fortification,” also known as “biological fortification,” involves enhancing the nutritional value of food crops by increasing nutrient availability to the consumer population, utilizing modern biotechnology techniques, conventional plant breeding, and agronomic practices ( Malik and Maqbool, 2020 ; Shahzad et al., 2021 ; Krishna et al., 2023 ).

Bio-fortification can be achieved by following various conventional approaches like intercropping and mixed cropping or by utilizing biotechnology in modifying rhizosphere of the crops. Intercropping or mixed cropping of cereals along with legumes employs complementation (partitioning resources or reducing competition between species) and facilitation (positive interaction between the species leading to enhanced growth, reproduction, and survival of both) as the major ecological phenomena leading to improved resource use efficiency. Complementarity of nutrient uptake (N, P, Fe, and Zn) in cereal–legume mixed-cropping/intercropping systems provides a unique advantage for the system to be sustainable in the long run ( Dissanayaka et al., 2021 ; Ebbisa, 2022 ). Furthermore, plant-growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPMs) enhance the bioavailability of nutrients like P, K, Fe, Zn, and Si to plant roots through chelation, acidification, decomposition of organic matter, and suppression of soil-borne pathogens and can replace inorganic fertilizers and pesticides ( Maitra and Ray, 2019 ; Karnwal, 2021 ).

Bio-fortification is a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable approach, especially in developing countries, as compared to alternative fortification strategies. To date, staple crops like rice, wheat, maize, sorghum, and vegetables such as common bean, potato, sweet potato, and tomato have been fortified through genetic manipulation, conventional breeding, and agronomic methods. Cassava, cauliflower, and banana have undergone bio-fortification using both transgenic and breeding techniques, while barley, soybean, lettuce, carrot, canola, and mustard have been bio-fortified through transgenic and agronomic approaches. Transgenic-based approaches offer the advantage of targeting multiple crops once a beneficial gene is identified. Notable successful examples of transgenically fortified crops include high-lysine maize, high-unsaturated-fatty-acid soybean, high-pro-vitamin A and iron-rich cassava, and pro-vitamin A-rich Golden rice. Golden rice, in particular, marked a significant breakthrough with the potential to combat vitamin A deficiency ( Burkhardt et al., 1997 ; Ye et al., 2000 ; Beyer et al., 2002 ; Datta et al., 2003 ; Paine et al., 2005 ).

3.2 Modifying soils

3.2.1 bioremediation.

Bioremediation is a process that primarily harnesses microorganisms, plants, or microbial/plant enzymes to detoxify and degrade contaminants in various environments. In modern crop production, xenobiotics are predominantly organic compounds that do not readily break down naturally. As a result, their accumulation in the environment can lead to their entry into the food chain and water resources, posing risks to the health of animals and humans ( Germaine et al., 2006 ; Chen et al., 2011 ). Plant–microbe associations, such as plant–endophytic or plant–rhizospheric partnerships, offer potential for enhancing nutrient uptake and the degradation of organic pollutants, thereby contributing to environmental restoration ( Zhang et al., 2017 ).

Bioremediation of complex hydrocarbons can be through natural attenuation/intrinsic bioremediation (using indigenous microflora for decomposing pollutants), bioaugmentation (applying potential microbes for faster decomposition), bio-stimulation (modifying the microenvironment for facilitating microbial action), and surfactant-assisted biodegradation ( Kebede et al., 2021 ).

Furthermore, rhizosphere microorganisms can be used to remove heavy metals from soils through biosorption (adsorption of heavy metals on the cell wall constituents, i.e., carbohydrates, proteins, and teichoic acids of microorganisms), bioaccumulation (accumulation of heavy metals inside the cytoplasm through an import-storage system mediated by metal transporter proteins), bioleaching (solubilizing metal sulfides and oxides from ore deposits and secondary wastes), biomineralization (conversion of complex metal ions into carbonates, sulfates, oxides, phosphates, etc. through metabolic pathways), and biotransformation (alteration of metal complexes into those with more polarity to make them water soluble) ( Tayang and Songachan, 2021 ).

Examples of successful utilization of microorganisms for biosorption of complex hydrocarbons include removal of lead and cadmium by Staphylococcus hominis strain AMB-2 ( Rahman et al., 2019 ); and cadmium, lead, and copper by fungi Phanerochaeta chrysosporium ( Say et al., 2001 ), Spirulina platensis, Chlorella vulgaris, Oscillatoria sp., and Sargassam sp. ( Leong et al., 2021 ). Bioaccumulation has been shown in Pseudomonas putida 62 BN ( Rani et al., 2013 ), Bacillus cereus M116 ( Naskar et al., 2020 ), and fungi Monodictys pelagic and Aspergillus niger ( Sher and Rehman, 2019 ). Researchers have shown that bioleaching by microorganisms is an economic as well as eco-friendly approach toward efficient extraction of metals gold, cobalt, copper, uranium, zinc, etc. from low-grade ores ( Tayang and Songachan, 2021 ). Even arsenic bioleaching has been possible with Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans and Acidithiobacillus thiooxidans ( Zhang and Gu, 2007 ). Metal immobilization through biomineralization of metals from Bacillus sp ( Zhang et al., 2019 ), Acinetobacter sp., and Micrococcus sp. oxidized toxic As(III) into harmless and less soluble As(III) and decreased its toxicity, as shown by Nagvenkar and Ramaiah (2010) .

Rhizoremediation can bolster phytoremediation by promoting the growth of microbial communities and their associated activities, facilitated by root exudation, turnover, and the possible induction of enzymes responsible for degradation due to the secretion of secondary metabolites in plants ( Didier et al., 2012 ). Certain common garden and ornamental plants, including Glandularia pulchella , Aster amellus , Portulaca grandiflora , Petunia grandiflora , and Zinnia angustifolia , have been recognized for their capacity to degrade pollutants and dyes ( Khandare and Govindwar, 2015 ) and effectively remove polychlorinated biphenyls from the soil ( Erdei, 2005 ; USEPA, 2005 ; Erakhrumen and Agbontalor, 2007 ; Passatore et al., 2014 ; Kurade et al., 2021 ).

Notably, Typha domingensis , in combination with xenobiotics effluent-degrading endophytic bacteria, achieved a substantial improvement in the removal of parameters like biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (77%), chemical oxygen demand (COD) (79%), total suspended solids (TSS) (27%), and total dissolved solids (TDS) (59%) ( Shehzadi et al., 2014 ). An efficient plant–bacterial synergistic system has been employed for treating substantial volumes of xenobiotic effluents in wastewater wetlands ( Kabra et al., 2013 ) ( Table 2 ).

Table 2 Some examples of use of biotechnologically modified microbial formulations in agriculture.

3.2.2 Restructuring soil through composting

Manure fertilization is a sustainable practice by turning harmful waste into a bioavailable resource. However, improper management can also lead to serious eco-environmental concerns through release of pathogens, toxic micro-pollutants, greenhouse gases, and nuisance odors. Composting, the process of decomposition of complex waste organic matter into the simpler readily assimilable biomolecules, is a sustainable way to address the aforesaid problem but is limited by a slow rate ( Gautam et al., 2012 ; Singh et al., 2021 ). The microorganisms effectively contributing toward composting include fungi ( Ascomycetes , Fungi imperfecti, Basidiomycetes, Trichoderma , and Phanerochaete ), bacteria ( Bacillus spp., Cellulomonas, Cytophaga , and Sporocytophaga ), and actinomycetes ( Thermoactinomyces, Streptomyces, Micromonospora , and Thermomonospora ). The process of composting is mediated by extracellular production of laccase, which facilitates humification and polymerization in livestock manure. Genetically engineered microbes that produce large amounts of extracellular laccase not only enhance the fertilizer quality of end products but also manage their eco-environmental risks by inactivating pathogens, detoxifying micro-pollutants, and stabilizing organic nutrients, but the process is quite fast, thus preventing the loss of C and N into environment ( Jiang et al., 2021 ; Niu et al., 2021 ).

3.2.3 Microbe-mediated bio-fortification

There are vitamins and minerals that are required in the human body in trace amounts, but their deficiency is manifested as several physiological disorders. Many of such vitamins and minerals are not even synthesized by plants. A good example is Vitamin B12, which cannot be synthesized by plants; hence, bio-fortification of this vitamin can be achieved by the help of microbes like bacteria and archea in the plant rhizosphere ( Ku et al., 2019 ; Krishna et al. 2023 ). Phyto-stimulation by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) benefits the plants by increasing the nutrient availability ( Kaur et al., 2020 ; Chouhan et al., 2021 ). Recent research has identified the contribution of PGPRs in the bio-fortification of iron, zinc, selenium, and other elements in several crops ( Kaur et al., 2020 ; Singh and Prasanna, 2020 ; Mushtaq et al., 2021 ; Khanna et al. 2023 ).

3.2.4 Bio-fertilizers

Bio-fertilizers are formulations containing live microbes that contribute to soil fertility enhancement by nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere, phosphorus solubilization, and decomposition of organic matter. This improves nutrient bioavailability and accessibility to plants, leading to enhanced growth and productivity ( Okur, 2018 ; Abbey et al., 2019 ). Utilizing bio-fertilizers offers several advantages, including cost-effectiveness, increased nutrient availability, improved soil health and fertility, protection against soil-borne pathogens, enhanced tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress, and reduced environmental pollution ( Chaudhary et al., 2021 ; Chaudhary et al., 2022a ). Researchers may follow diverse approaches like cultivation on selective media, metabolic analyses through high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), proteomic studies using two-dimensional electrophoresis and matrix-assisted laser desorption and ionization coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-ToF/MS), and metagenomic/metatranscriptomic tools for identifying potential plant growth-promoting microbes ( Pirttilä et al., 2021 ). Notable examples of bio-fertilizers include nitrogen-fixing microbes such as Rhizobium , Azotobacter , Bacillus , Clostridium ( Sumbul et al., 2020 ; Gohil et al., 2022 ); phosphorus-solubilizing microbes like Bacillus , Rhizobium , Aspergillus , and Penicillium ( Zhang et al., 2020 ); potassium-solubilizing microbes ( Bacillus , Clostridium , and Acidithiobacillus ) ( Ali et al., 2021 ; Chen R. Y. et al., 2022 ); sulfur-solubilizing microbes ( Bacillus , Beggiatoa , and Aquifer ) ( Kusale et al., 2021 ); zinc-solubilizing microbes ( Bacillus , Pseudomonas , and Serratia ) ( Nitu et al., 2020 ); phytohormone-producing microbes ( B. thuringiensis ) ( Batista et al., 2021 ); siderophore-producing microbes ( Pseudomonas and Bacillus ) ( Sarwar et al., 2020 ); organic matter-decomposing microbes ( Bacillus , Pseudomonas , and Trichoderma ) ( Baldi et al., 2021 ; Galindo et al. 2022 ); and PGPRs such as Rhizobium , Pseudomonas , and Bacillus ( Khati et al., 2018 ; Chaudhary et al., 2022b ). Bio-fertilizer formulation includes the mixture of selected beneficial strain/s with a suitable vehicle that preserves the viability of the microorganisms in either a dormant or metabolically active state during transport, storage, and application ( Schoebitz et al., 2013 ). A successful microbial formulation must overcome the conditions of temperature, humidity, salinity, UV radiation, and water stress present in the soil besides being effective and competitive against the native microbial populations of the soil ( Glare and Moran-Diez, 2016 ). Classically, bio-fertilizers may be formulated and applied in the form of liquid (culture broths or formulations based mainly on water, mineral, or organic oils) or solids (mixing the microorganisms with a solid support, such as vermiculite, perlite, sepiolite, kaolin, diatomaceous earth, natural zeolite, peat, or clay). However, the failure of these to protect the microbes in drastic abiotic conditions has paved the way for introduction of bio-encapsulated microorganisms. The use of encapsulating polymers like alginate, chitosan, gellan gum, gelatine, agar, bentonite, starch, and laponite has proven to be highly effective in increasing the viability of microorganisms by protecting them against the adverse abiotic conditions ( Rojas-Sánchez et al., 2022 ).

3.2.5 Bio-pesticides

Bio-pesticides are naturally occurring compounds or agents derived from animals, plants, and microorganisms, including bacteria, cyanobacteria, and microalgae. They are used for controlling agricultural pests and pathogens. Key advantages of bio-pesticides over chemical pesticides include their eco-friendly nature, target specificity, and non-lethality to non-target organisms. Bio-pesticides are highly effective even in small quantities and break down quickly without leaving problematic residues. They employ multiple modes of action, such as growth regulation, gut disruption, metabolic poisoning, neuromuscular toxins, and non-specific multi-site inhibition ( Sparks and Nauen, 2015 ; Dar et al., 2021 ). These diverse modes of action against targeted pests reduce the likelihood of resistance development, which is common with chemical pesticides.

Additionally, when microorganisms are used as bio-pesticides in the fields, they not only combat pathogens but also contribute to plant health and soil fertility maintenance through various effects.

Major examples of bio-pesticides include microorganisms like B. thuringiensis , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Yersinia , and Chromobacterium and fungi like Metarhizium , Verticillium , Hirsutella , and Paecilomyces ( Fenibo et al., 2021 ). Biochemical pesticides encompass insect pheromones ( Ghongade and Sangha 2021 ; Singh et al., 2021 ), plant-based extracts and essential oils ( Gonzalez-Coloma et al., 2013 ; Ujváry, 2001 ), insect growth regulators ( Feduchi et al., 1985 ; Arena et al., 1995 ), and genetically modified organism (GMO) products, especially RNAi-based plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) ( Parker and Sander, 2017 ; Wei et al., 2018 ; Ganapathy et al., 2021 ).

However, the wider adoption of biopesticides faces limitations such as high production costs, challenges in meeting global market demands, variations in standard preparation methods and guidelines, determination of active ingredient dosages, susceptibility to environmental factors, and relatively slower action.

3.3 Development of alternatives to petroleum-based fuels for agricultural equipments

Presently, a significant number of farmers rely heavily on non-renewable resources like diesel and gasoline to fuel their agricultural equipment. This dependence poses several challenges: (1) the depletion of a finite resource, (2) adverse environmental effects, and (3) vulnerability to unpredictable price fluctuations. Transitioning to biologically derived fuels, commonly known as bio-fuels, such as ethanol or biodiesel, could offer a viable solution. By utilizing crops like maize or soybean for bio-fuel production, farmers may not only insulate themselves from the uncertainties of fuel price hikes but also create an alternative revenue stream. This shift toward bio-fuels aligns with sustainable practices, fostering both economic resilience and environmental stewardship in the agriculture sector.

Bio-fuel is the fuel (solid, liquid, and gaseous) extracted from biomass (living organisms especially plants and microorganisms) ( Braun et al., 2008 ). For the production of bio-fuels, starch-based agrowastes are prominently exploited due to their limited utility for commercial production of animal and human consumables ( Nguyen et al., 2010 ). There are microorganisms that facilitate the production of ethanol, bio-diesel, bio-ethers, bio-gas, syngas, and bio-hydrogen from lignocelluloses degradation and subsequent glucose fermentation. These include Kluyveromyces marxianus, Clostridium shehatae, Thermoanaerobacter sp., Saccharomyces cerevisae, Escherichia coli , Zymomonas mobilis , Pichia stipitis , Candida brassicae, Mucor indicus , cyanobacteria ( Synechocystis sp., Desertifilum sp., Synechococcus sp., Phormidium corium , Synechocystis sp., Oscillatoria sp., and Anabaena sp.) ( Kossalbayev et al., 2020 ), and microalgae ( Scenedesmus obliquus , Chlamydomonas reinhardtii ) ( Martinez-Burgos et al., 2022 ).

Biotechnology is revolutionizing the production of ethanol from cellulose by harnessing genetically modified yeasts and bacteria, enhancing efficiency and sustainability. However, the major constraints experienced by engineered microbial cell factories include metabolic imbalance as a result of nutrient depletion, metabolite accumulation, evolutionary pressure, genetic instability, or other stress factors. Hence, bio-prospecting (screening native strains isolated from diverse sources for novel and functional enzymes) and analyzing their genome for gene of interest and metabolome for possible alternate pathways to enhance the biofuel production can be useful ( Kim et al., 2002 ; Adegboye et al., 2021 ). Successful examples include production of higher octane hydrocarbons (substitutes to ethanol such as 1-butanol, isobutanol, and isopentanol with improved fuel qualities), through engineering fermentative pathways, non-fermentative keto acid pathways, and isoprenoid pathways ( Lo et al., 2017 ; Adegboye et al., 2021 ).

Furthermore, genetic engineering plays a pivotal role in developing high energy-yielding plant varieties, surpassing the output of existing strains. Additionally, biotechnological advancements open doors to the conversion of agricultural waste into viable fuel sources, making the most of sustainable resources and minimizing environmental impact.

There are microbes like Gluconobacter sulfurreducens, Actinobacillus succinogenes , Proteus spp., Shewanella putrefaciens , Rhodoferax ferrireducens , and D. desulfurcans , which facilitate the production of bio-electricity ( Ieropoulos et al., 2005 ; Capodaglio et al., 2013 ).

4 Conventional vs. modern natural farming

Conventional natural farming is basically a do-nothing technique that relies totally on natural inputs for the maintenance of the agro-ecosystem, thus reducing the use of artificial fertilizers and industrial pesticides. Agricultural biotechnology also exploits the natural inputs (microbes, wild relatives of cultivated plants, and agricultural wastes) but amplifies their effects with the application of technology in them. Conventional natural farming requires minimum inputs, hence called ZBNF. On the other hand, biotechnology-assisted natural farming requires financial support in research and development, but once the variety/product is ready to be used in fields, it becomes self-sustainable.

Furthermore, biotechnology is a catalyst for introducing novel concepts, methodologies, products, and procedures essential for problem-solving, particularly addressing the specific requirements of smallholder farmers in developing nations ( Thompson, 2008 ; FAO, 2011 ; Yuan et al., 2011 ). Biotechnology-assisted breeding stands out for its unique ability to swiftly integrate advantageous traits from wild crop relatives, enhancing both yield and nutritional benefits. This approach also widens the spectrum of genes in agricultural biodiversity, enhancing crop resilience against pests, diseases, and the impacts of climate change ( Asdal, 2008 ). The heightened efficiency in selection processes significantly accelerates breeding cycles, expediting the introduction of new plant varieties. In contrast, traditional methods often necessitate years to eliminate unfavorable traits and incorporate desired ones with elite germplasm background.

Agricultural biotechnology holds the promise of addressing critical issues in the pursuit of sustainable agriculture. These challenges include the imperative to produce an ample food supply within the constraints of diminishing arable land and finite resources, notably water, all while contending with various environmental stresses like drought, salinity, and heat.

5 Impact of biotechnology-assisted natural farming on

Environmental health: Biotechnology-derived crops have often been associated with concern regarding their potential impact on species abundance and ecosystem biodiversity. However, the utilization of bio-herbicides, as opposed to chemical herbicides, can lead to a reduction in the population and variety of targeted weeds and weed seeds within agricultural systems, all the while mitigating greenhouse gas emissions ( Chamberlain et al., 2007 ).

Additionally, there have been worries about the loss of diversity within crop species ( Gepts and Papa, 2003 ). Nevertheless, research focusing on cotton and soybean varieties in the USA suggests that the introduction of transgenic varieties had little to no discernible impact on genetic diversity ( Bowman et al., 2003 ; Sneller, 2003 ). Furthermore, numerous public sector collections of germplasm from cultivated crops and their wild relatives exist with the purpose of preserving genetic diversity.

In comparison to conventional insecticide use, Bt crops demonstrate an ability to conserve non-target species, resulting in increased arthropod abundance and diversity ( Devine, 2005 ; Torres and Ruberson, 2005 ; Cattaneo et al., 2006 ). They also facilitate more effective biological control of pests that are not susceptible to Bt toxins ( Naranjo, 2005 ).

The non-restricted movements of beneficial arthropods between different cropping systems can facilitate conservation of non-target species in nearby (non-transgenic) crops ( Prasifka et al., 2009 ). One of the major threats to sustainability is the widespread evolution of resistant pest populations. However, the limited selection pressure on insect populations by insect-resistant crops can delay the phenomenon. Furthermore, incorporating the non-biotech-derived crops known as refuges provides susceptible insects to mate with any resistant individuals emerging from Bt crops, resulting in hybrid progeny that cannot survive on insect-resistant plants ( Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001 ).

Economic status: The concept of natural farming is inherently tied to the notion of economic sustainability, emphasizing the need for agricultural practices to be financially viable and capable of generating adequate income to support the livelihoods of farmers and individuals in related sectors ( Das et al., 2023 ). Economic incentives play a pivotal role in driving the widespread adoption of sustainable agricultural practices. Biotechnology-assisted natural farming, for instance, facilitates the efficient implementation of precision agriculture, ultimately leading to cost reduction. The diversification of crops and livestock offers a means to mitigate risks associated with weather extremes, market fluctuations, or disease/pest outbreaks.

Incorporating insect-resistant crops into cropping strategies diminishes the need for expensive chemical insecticides and pesticides. Modified soils aid in water conservation, thereby reducing erosion-induced damage within agro-ecosystems. The preservation of natural resources contributes to the reduction of irrigation costs and enhances long-term productivity.

Social system: Agriculture, as a sector deeply rooted in communities, fosters opportunities and collaborative relationships among farming families and community members. Natural farming, which relies on natural inputs and involves substantial human engagement, not only aligns with cultural traditions tied to farming but also safeguards the community’s cultural identity. It acts as an avenue for job creation and wealth generation and spurs economic growth within the community.

6 Conclusion

In conclusion, biotechnology in agriculture has emerged as a multifaceted tool that encompasses a diverse range of techniques, ranging from traditional breeding methods to advanced genetic engineering. This comprehensive approach has played a pivotal role in the 21st-century agricultural revolutions, contributing significantly to enhanced productivity and the socio-economic development of countries, with agricultural biotechnology standing as a key segment within the Indian biotech sector. The association of biotechnology with industrial farming practices has led to misconceptions and a stringent regulatory framework in many countries. It is crucial to distinguish between the biotechnological production process and the safety of the end product, addressing the misperception that underlies regulatory challenges. Biotechnology, when applied judiciously, addresses various aspects of agriculture, promoting sustainability in three major criteria: improving plants, modifying soil, and developing alternatives to fuel inputs for agricultural equipment.

The integration of functional omics, computational biology, and advanced techniques like RNA-Seq and GWAS to modify critical agro-morphological traits in plants besides altering host–pathogen interactions, signaling mechanisms, and associated proteins holds promise for disease-resistant high-yielding varieties. These advancements are crucial for addressing contemporary challenges, including climate change and resource constraints, in the pursuit of sustainable agriculture.

As we anticipate a new biotechnological revolution focused on deciphering gene codes and the “gene revolution,” it is imperative to foster a balanced understanding of biotechnology’s potential in synergy with natural farming practices. This synergy holds the key to pioneering agricultural sustainability through innovative interventions, encompassing microbe-mediated bio-fortification, bioremediation, restructuring soil through composting, and developing alternatives to petroleum-based fuels for agricultural equipment. By embracing these innovative approaches, we can pave the way for a sustainable future in agriculture that maximizes productivity while minimizing environmental impact and ensuring food security for generations to come.

In terms of environmental sustainability, genetically engineered crops have proven to be advantageous over conventional insecticides, conserving non-target species, enhancing arthropod abundance and diversity, and promoting more effective biological control of pests. The incorporation of insect-resistant crops not only reduces the need for expensive chemical inputs but also contributes to soil modification for water conservation, decreasing erosion-induced damage and lowering irrigation costs. The implementation of refuges alongside insect-resistant crops serves as a strategic measure to delay the evolution of resistant pest populations, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a balanced ecosystem.

The economic sustainability of natural farming is underscored by its inherent link to financial viability and income generation for farmers. Biotechnology-assisted natural farming facilitates precision agriculture, reducing costs and offering a diversified approach to mitigate risks associated with weather, market fluctuations, and disease/pest outbreaks. On a societal level, the social system surrounding agriculture is positively influenced by the adoption of natural farming practices. The alignment of natural farming with cultural traditions fosters a sense of identity and community resilience. It serves as a source of job creation, wealth generation, and economic growth within the community, reinforcing the interdependence of agriculture with social wellbeing.

In conclusion, the impact of biotechnology-assisted natural farming on environmental health, economic status, and social systems demonstrates the potential for a harmonious integration of technological advancements with sustainable agricultural practices.

Author contributions

AB: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. RM: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. RR: Funding acquisition, Resources, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. RS: Investigation, Writing – original draft. AW: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. TR: Writing – review & editing, Methodology. SM: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. DKJ: Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The authors declare financial support was received from The National Agricultural Higher Education Project-Centre for Advanced Agricultural Science and Technology (NAHEP-CAAST) on Protected Agriculture and Natural Farming for the publication of this article vide letter no. NAHEP/CAAST/2019-20/642 dated 15/07/2019. Funding body has no role in the study, data collection, analysis and manuscript writing.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abbey, L., Abbey, J., Leke-Aladekoba, A., Iheshiulo, E. M. A., Ijenyo, M. (2019). “Biopesticides and biofertilizers: types, production, benefits, and utilization,” in Byproducts from agriculture and fisheries: adding value for food, feed, pharma, and fuels , 479–500.

Google Scholar

ABLE INDIA. (2013). Biospectrum ABLE industry survey . Available online at: http://www.ableIndia.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/11th-able-biospectrum-survey-june-2013 .

Acevedo-Garcia, J., Spencer, D., Thieron, H., Reinstädler, A., Hammond-Kosack, K., Phillips, A. L., et al. (2017). Mlo -based powdery mildew resistance in hexaploid bread wheat generated by a non-transgenic TILLING approach. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15, 367–378. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12631

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adegboye, M. F., Ojuederie, O. B., Talia, P. M., Babalola, O. O. (2021). Bioprospecting of microbial strains for biofuel production: metabolic engineering, applications, and challenges. Biotechnol. Biofuels 14, 1–21. doi: 10.1186/s13068-020-01853-2.

Ahangar, M. A., Wani, S. H., Dar, Z. A., Roohi, J., Mohiddin, F., Bansal, M., et al. (2022). Distribution, etiology, molecular genetics and management perspectives of northern corn leaf blight of maize ( Zea mays L.). Phyton 91 (10), 1–23. (0031-9457).

Albahri, G., Alyamani, A. A., Badran, A., Hijazi, A., Nasser, M., Maresca, M., et al. (2023). Enhancing essential grains yield for sustainable food security and bio-safe agriculture through latest innovative approaches. Agronomy 13, 1709. doi: 10.3390/agronomy13071709.

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ali, A. M., Hegab, S. A., Abd El Gawad, A. M., Awad, M. (2021). Integrated effect of filter mud cake combined with chemical and biofertilizers to enhance potato growth and its yield. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 22, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s42729-021-00661-3

Arena, J. P., Liu, K. K., Paress, P. S., Frazier, E. G., Cully, D. F., Mrozik, H., et al. (1995). The mechanism of action of avermectins in Caenorhabditis elegans : Correlation between activation of glutamate-sensitive chloride current, membrane binding, and biological activity. J. Parasitol. 2, 286–294. doi: 10.2307/3283936.

Asdal, Å. (2008). State of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture in Norway. Oppdragsrapportfra Skog ogLandskap .

Ayadi, M., Brini, F., Masmoudi, K. (2019). Overexpression of a wheat aquaporin gene, Td PIP2; 1 , enhances salt and drought tolerance in transgenic durum wheat cv. Maali. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 2389. doi: 10.3390/ijms20102389.

Baldi, E., Gioacchini, P., Montecchio, D., Mocali, S., Antonielli, L., Masoero, G., et al. (2021). Effect of biofertilizers application on soil biodiversity and litter degradation in a commercial apricot orchard. Agronomy 11, 1116. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11061116.

Ban, Y., Mitani, N., Sato, A., Kono, A., Hayashi, T. (2016). Genetic dissection of quantitative trait loci for berry traits in interspecific hybrid grape ( Vitis labruscana × Vitis vinifera ). Euphytica 211, 295–310. doi: 10.1007/s10681-016-1737-8.

Batista, B. D., Dourado, M. N., Figueredo, E. F., Hortencio, R. O., Marques, J. P. R., Piotto, F. A., et al. (2021). The auxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis RZ2MS9 promotes the growth and modifies the root architecture of tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum cv. Micro-Tom). Arch. Microbiol. 203, 3869–3882. doi: 10.1007/s00203-021-02361-z.

Bazot, S., Lebeau, T. (2009). Effect of immobilization of a bacterial consortium on diuron dissipation and community dynamics. Bioresource Technol. 100, 4257–4261. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.067.

Bernard, A., Crabier, J., Donkpegan, A. S., Marrano, A., Lheureux, F., Dirlewanger, E. (2021). Genome-wide association study reveals candidate genes involved in fruit trait variation in Persian walnut ( Juglans regia L.). Front. Plant Sci. 11, 607213. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.607213.

Beyer, P., Al-Babili, S., Ye, X., Lucca, P., Schaub, P., Welsch, R., et al. (2002). Golden rice: introducing the β-carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. J. Nutr. 132, 506S–510S. doi: 10.1093/jn/132.3.506S.

Bouvet, L. (2022). Dissecting the genetic basis of wheat yellow rust resistance in the NIAB Elite MAGIC population (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).

Bowman, D. T., May, O. L., Creech, J. B. (2003). Genetic uniformity of the US upland cotton crop since the introduction of transgenic cottons. Crop Sci. 43, 515–518. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2003.0515.

Braun, R., Weiland, P., Wellinger, A. (2008). Biogas from energy crop digestion. IEA Bioenergy Task. 37, 1–20.

Burkhardt, P. K., Beyer, P., Wünn, J., Klöti, A., Armstrong, G. A., Schledz, M., et al. (1997). Transgenic rice ( Oryza sativa ) endosperm expressing daffodil ( Narcissus pseudonarcissus ) phytoene synthase accumulates phytoene, a key intermediate of provitamin A biosynthesis. Plant J. 11, 1071–1078. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.11051071.x.

Cao, S., Zhu, Q. H., Shen, W., Jiao, X., Zhao, X., Wang, M. B., et al. (2013). Comparative profiling of miRNA expression in developing seeds of high linoleic and high oleic safflower ( Carthamus tinctorius L.) plants. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 489. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00489.

Capodaglio, A., Molognoni, D., Dallago, E., Liberale, A., Cella, R., Longoni, P., et al. (2013). Microbial fuel cells for direct electrical energy recovery from urban wastewaters. Sci. World J. , 634738. doi: 10.1155/2013/634738

Carrière, Y., Crickmore, N., Tabashnik, B. E. (2015). Optimizing pyramided transgenic Bt crops for sustainable pest management. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 161–168. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3099.

Cassia, R., Nocioni, M., Correa-Aragunde, N., Lamattina, L. (2018). Climate change and the impact of greenhouse gasses: CO 2 and NO, friends and foes of plant oxidative stress. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 273. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00273.

Cattaneo, M. G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C. Y., Rahman, M., Olson, C., et al. (2006). Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 7571–7576. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0508312103.

Cha, M., Chung, D., Elkins, J. G., Guss, A. M., Westpheling, J. (2013). Metabolic engineering of Caldicellulosiruptor bescii yields increased hydrogen production from lignocellulosic biomass. Biotechnol. Biofuels 6, 1–8. doi: 10.1186/1754-6834-6-85.

Chamberlain, D. E., Freeman, S. N., Vickery, J. A. (2007). The effects of GMHT crops on bird abundance in arable fields in the UK. Agriculture Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 350–356. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.012.

Chan, A. P., Pertea, G., Cheung, F., Lee, D., Zheng, L., Whitelaw, C., et al. (2006). The TIGR maize database. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D771–D776. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj072.

Chandler, P. M., Marion-Poll, A., Ellis, M., Gubler, F. (2002). Mutants at the Slender1 locus of barley cv Himalaya. Molecular and physiological characterization. Plant Physiol. 129, 181–190. doi: 10.1104/pp.010917.

Chantre Nongpiur, R., Singla-Pareek, S. L., Pareek, A. (2016). Genomics approaches for improving salinity stress tolerance in crop plants. Curr. Genomics 17, 343–357. doi: 10.2174/1389202917666160331202517.

Chaudhary, P., Chaudhary, A., Bhatt, P., Kumar, G., Khatoon, H., Rani, A., et al. (2022a). Assessment of soil health indicators under the influence of nano-compounds and Bacillus spp. in field condition. Front. Environ. Sci. 9, 769871. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.769871.

Chaudhary, A., Parveen, H., Chaudhary, P., Khatoon, H., Bhatt, P. (2021). Rhizospheric microbes and their mechanism. In: Microbial Technol. Sustain. Environ. Eds. Bhatt, P. Gangola, S. Udayanga, D. Kumar, G. (Springer Singapore), 79–93. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-3840-4_6

Chaudhary, P., Singh, S., Chaudhary, A., Sharma, A., Kumar, G. (2022b). Overview of biofertilizers in crop production and stress management for sustainable agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 930340. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.930340.

Chellamuthu, L., Boratne, A. V., Bahurupi, Y. A. (2021). Changes in decade-old reference standards by the national institute of nutrition 2020. CHRISMED J. Health Res. 8, 216–220. doi: 10.4103/cjhr.cjhr_176_20

Chen, B., Chen, Z., Lv, S. (2011). A novel magnetic biochar efficiently sorbs organic pollutants and phosphate. Bio-recourses Technology. 102, 716–723. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.067.

Chen, Q., Han, Y., Liu, H., Wang, X., Sun, J., Zhao, B., et al. (2018). Genome-wide association analyses reveal the importance of alternative splicing in diversifying gene function and regulating phenotypic variation in maize. Plant Cell 30, 1404–1423. doi: 10.1105/tpc.18.00109.

Chen, R. Y., Jiang, W., Fu, S. F., Chou, J. Y. (2022). Screening, evaluation, and selection of yeasts with high ammonia production ability under nitrogen free condition from the cherry tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum var. cerasiforme) rhizosphere as a potential bio-fertilizer. Rhizosphere 23, 100580. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2022.100580

Chen, L., Xu, Z., Fan, X., Zhou, Q., Yu, Q., Liu, X., et al. (2022). Genetic dissection of quantitative trait loci for flag leaf size in bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). Front. Plant Sci. 13, 1047899. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.1047899.

Chouhan, G. K., Jaiswal, D. K., Gaurav, A. K., Mukherjee, A., Verma, J. P. (2021). “PGPM as a potential bioinoculant for enhancing crop productivity under sustainable agriculture,” in Biofertilizers (Woodhead Publishing), 221–237. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-821667-5.00009-9.

Chukwu, S. C., Rafii, M. Y., Ramlee, S. I., Ismail, S. I., Oladosu, Y., Muhammad, I. I., et al. (2020). Genetic analysis of microsatellites associated with resistance against bacterial leaf blight and blast diseases of rice ( Oryza sativa L.). Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 34, 898–904. doi: 10.1080/13102818.2020.1809520.

Curatti, L., Rubio, L. M. (2014). Challenges to develop nitrogen-fixing cereals by direct nif -gene transfer. Plant Sci. 225, 130–137. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.06.003.

Dampanaboina, L., Jiao, Y., Chen, J., Gladman, N., Chopra, R., Burow, G., et al. (2019). Sorghum MSD3 encodes an ω-3 fatty acid desaturase that increases grain number by reducing jasmonic acid levels. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 5359. doi: 10.3390/ijms20215359.

Dar, S. A., Wani, S. H., Mir, S. H., Showkat, A., Dolkar, T., Dawa, T. (2021). Biopesticides: mode of action, efficacy and scope in pest management. J. Advanced Res. Biochem. Pharmacol. 4, 1–8.

Das, S., Ray, M. K., Panday, D., Mishra, P. K. (2023). Role of biotechnology in creating sustainable agriculture. PloS Sustainability Transformation 2, e0000069. doi: 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000069.

Datta, K., Baisakh, N., Oliva, N., Torrizo, L., Abrigo, E., Tan, J., et al. (2003). Bioengineered ‘Golden’ indica rice cultivars with β-carotene metabolism in the endosperm with hygromycin and mannose selection systems. Plant Biotechnol. J. 1, 81–90. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-7652.2003.00015.x.

De Franceschi, P., Stegmeir, T., Cabrera, A., van der Knaap, E., Rosyara, U. R., Sebolt, A. M., et al. (2013). Cell number regulator genes in Prunus provide candidate genes for the control of fruit size in sweet and sour cherry. Mol. Breed. 32, 311–326. doi: 10.1007/s11032-013-9872-6.

De Mori, G., Cipriani, G. (2023). Marker-assisted selection in breeding for fruit trait improvement: A review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 24 (10), 8984. doi: 10.3390/ijms24108984

Devine, M. D. (2005). Why are there not more herbicide-tolerant crops? Pest Manage. Science: formerly Pesticide Sci. 61, 312–317. doi: 10.1002/ps.1023

Didier, T., Philippe, L. G., Sonia, H., Amar, B., Claudia, M. C., Jairo, F. (2012). Prospects of Miscanthus x giganteus for PAH phytoremediation: A microcosm study. Ind. Crops Products 36, 276–281. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.10.030.

Dissanayaka, D. M. S. B., Ghahremani, M., Siebers, M., Wasaki, J., Plaxton, W. C. (2021). Recent insights into the metabolic adaptations of phosphorus-deprived plants. J. Exp. Bot. 72, 199–223. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eraa482.

Doligez, A., Bertrand, Y., Farnos, M., Grolier, M., Romieu, C., Esnault, F., et al. (2013). New stable QTLs for berry weight do not colocalize with QTLs for seed traits in cultivated grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.). BMC Plant Biol. 13, 1–16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-13-217.

Ebbisa, A. (2022). Mechanisms underlying cereal/legume intercropping as nature-based biofortification: A review. Food Production Process. Nutr. 4, 19. doi: 10.1186/s43014-022-00096-y.

Ellis, J. G., Lagudah, E. S., Spielmeyer, W., Dodds, P. N. (2014). The past, present and future of breeding rust resistant wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 5, 641. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00641.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2001). “Insect resistance management,” in Biopesticides Registration Action Document Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants (US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC). Available at: www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/4-irm.pdf .

Erakhrumen, A. A., Agbontalor, A. (2007). Phytoremediation: an environmentally sound technology for pollution prevention, control and remediation in developing countries. Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 151–156.

Erdei, L. (2005). Phytoremediation as a program for decontamination of heavy-metal polluted environment. Acta Biologica Szegediensis 49, 75–76.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2011). Biotechnologies for agricultural development.

Feduchi, E., Cosín, M., Carrasco, L. (1985). Mildiomycin: A nucleoside antibiotic that inhibits protein synthesis. J. Antibiotics. 38, 415–419. doi: 10.7164/antibiotics.38.415.

Fenibo, E. O., Ijoma, G. N., Matambo, T. (2021). Biopesticides in sustainable agriculture: A critical sustainable development driver governed by green chemistry principles. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 619058. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.619058.

Fiyaz, R. A., Shivani, D., Chaithanya, K., Mounika, K., Chiranjeevi, M., Laha, G. S., et al. (2022). Genetic improvement of rice for bacterial blight resistance: Present status and future prospects. Rice Sci. 29, 118–132. doi: 10.1016/j.rsci.2021.08.002.

Galindo, F. S., Rodrigues, W. L., Fernandes, G. C., Boleta, E. H. M., Jalal, A., Rosa, P. A. L., et al. (2022). Enhancing agronomic efficiency and maize grain yield with Azospirillum brasilense inoculation under Brazilian savannah conditions. Eur. J. Agron. 134, 126471. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2022.126471.

Ganapathy, S., Parajulee, M. N., San Francisco, M., Zhang, H., Bilimoria, S. L. (2021). Novel-iridoviral kinase induces mortality and reduces performance of green peach aphids ( Myzus persicae ) in transgenic Arabidopsis plants. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 15, 13–25. doi: 10.1007/s11816-020-00659-w.

Gautam, S. P., Bundela, P. S., Pandey, A. K., Awasthi, M. K., Sarsaiya, S. (2012). Diversity of cellulolytic microbes and the biodegradation of municipal solid waste by a potential strain. Int. J. Microbiol. , 325907. doi: 10.1155/2012/325907

Gepts, P., Papa, R. (2003). Possible effects of (trans) gene flow from crops on the genetic diversity from landraces and wild relatives. Environ. biosafety Res. 2, 89–103. doi: 10.1051/ebr:2003009.

Germaine, K. J., Liu, X., Cabellos, G. G., Hogan, J. P., Ryan, D., Dowling, D. N. (2006). Bacterial endophyte-enhanced phytoremediation of the organochlorine herbicide 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 57, 302–310. doi: 10.1111/fem.2006.57.issue-2.

Ghongade, D. S., Sangha, K. S. (2021). Efficacy of biopesticides against the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), on parthenocarpic cucumber grown under protected environment in India. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control 31, 19. doi: 10.1186/s41938-021-00365-x

Glare, T. R., Moran-Diez, M. E. (2016). Microbial-based biopesticides: methods and protocols (Cham, Switzerland: Springer), ISBN: 9781493963652. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6367-6.

Gohil, R. B., Raval, V. H., Panchal, R. R., Rajput, K. N. (2022). Plant growth-promoting activity of Bacillus sp. PG-8 isolated from fermented panchagavya and its effect on the growth of Arachis hypogea . Front. Agron. 4, 805454. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2022.805454

Gonzalez-Coloma, A., Reina, M., Diaz, C. E., Fraga, B. M., Santana-Meridas, O. (2013). “Natural product-based biopesticides for insect control,” in Reference module in chemistry, molecular sciences and chemical engineering (Elsevier Inc. Amsterdam, The Netherlands).

Grubb, M., Koch, M., Thomson, K., Sullivan, F., Munson, A. (2019). The 'Earth summit' Agreements: A guide and assessment: an analysis of the rio'92 UN conference on environment and development Vol. 9 (Routledge). doi: 10.4324/9780429273964.

Hafeez, M., Ullah, F., Khan, M. M., Li, X., Zhang, Z., Shah, S., et al. (2021). Metabolic-based insecticide resistance mechanism and eco-friendly approaches for controlling of beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua : a review. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res. 29 (2), 1746–1762. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16974-w

Hilley, J., Truong, S., Olson, S., Morishige, D., Mullet, J. (2016). Identification of Dw1 , a regulator of sorghum stem internode length. PloS One 11, e0151271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151271.

Hines, K. M., Chaudhari, V., Edgeworth, K. N., Owens, T. G., Hanson, M. R. (2021). Absence of carbonic anhydrase in chloroplasts affects C3 plant development but not photosynthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118, e2107425118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2107425118.

Hossain, F., Jaiswal, S. K., Muthusamy, V., Zunjare, R. U., Mishra, S. J., Chand, G., et al. (2023). Enhancement of nutritional quality in maize kernel through marker-assisted breeding for vte4 , crtRB1 , and opaque2 genes. J. Appl. Genet. 64, 431–443. doi: 10.1007/s13353-023-00768-6.

Hsu, Y. C., Chiu, C. H., Yap, R., Tseng, Y. C., Wu, Y. P. (2020). Pyramiding bacterial blight resistance genes in Tainung82 for broad-spectrum resistance using marker-assisted selection. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 1281. doi: 10.3390/ijms21041281.

Ieropoulos, I. A., Greenman, J., Melhuish, C., Hart, J. (2005). Comparative study of three types of microbial fuel cell. Enzyme Microbial Technology. 37, 238–245. doi: 10.1016/j.enzmictec.2005.03.006.

Ikeda, A., Ueguchi-Tanaka, M., Sonoda, Y., Kitano, H., Koshioka, M., Futsuhara, Y., et al. (2001). Slender rice, a constitutive gibberellin response mutant, is caused by a null mutation of the SLR1 gene, an ortholog of the height-regulating gene GAI/RGA/RHT/D8 . Plant Cell 13, 999–1010. doi: 10.1105/tpc.13.5.999.

Iñiguez, C., Aguiló-Nicolau, P., Galmés, J. (2021). Improving photosynthesis through the enhancement of Rubisco carboxylation capacity. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 49, 2007–2019. doi: 10.1042/BST20201056.

Jeyasri, R., Muthuramalingam, P., Satish, L., Pandian, S. K., Chen, J. T., Ahmar, S., et al. (2021). An overview of abiotic stress in cereal crops: negative impacts, regulation, biotechnology and integrated omics. Plants 10, 1472. doi: 10.3390/plants10071472.

Jiang, X., Deng, Z., Chen, G., Hu, H., Geng, Y., Zhang, Z., et al. (2023). Genome-wide association mapping of arabinoxylan and resistant starch concentration in common wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). Cereal Res. Commun. , 1–11. doi: 10.1007/s42976-023-00465-4.

Jiang, J., Wang, Y., Yu, D., Zhu, G., Cao, Z., Yan, G., et al. (2021). Comparative evaluation of biochar, pelelith, and garbage enzyme on nitrogenase and nitrogen-fixing bacteria during the composting of sewage sludge. Bioresource Technol. 333, 125165. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125165.

Kabra, A. N., Khandare, R. V., Govindwar, S. P. (2013). Development of a bioreactor for remediation of textile effluent and dye mixture: a plant–bacterial synergistic strategy. Water Res. 47, 1035–1048. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.11.007.

Karnwal, A. (2021). Zinc solubilizing Pseudomonas spp. from vermicompost bestowed with multifaceted plant growth promoting properties and having prospective modulation of zinc biofortification in Abelmoschus esculentus L. J. Plant Nutr. 44, 1023–1038. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2020.1862199.

Kaur, T., Rana, K. L., Kour, D., Sheikh, I., Yadav, N., Kumar, V., et al. (2020). “Microbe-mediated bio-fortification for micronutrients: present status and future challenges,” in New and future developments in microbial biotechnology and bioengineering (Elsevier), 1–17.

Kebede, G., Tafese, T., Abda, E. M., Kamaraj, M., Assefa, F. (2021). Factors influencing the bacterial bioremediation of hydrocarbon contaminants in the soil: mechanisms and impacts. J. Chem. , 1–17. doi: 10.1155/2021/9823362.

Kelliher, T., Starr, D., Su, X., Tang, G., Chen, Z., Carter, J., et al. (2019). One-step genome editing of elite crop germplasm during haploid induction. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 287–292. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0038-x.

Khandare, R. V., Govindwar, S. P. (2015). Phytoremediation of textile dyes and effluents: Current scenario and future prospects. Biotechnol. Adv. 33, 1697–1714. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.09.003.

Khanna, K., Kumar, P., Ohri, P., Bhardwaj, R. (2023). Harnessing the role of selenium in soil–plant-microbe ecosystem: Ecophysiological mechanisms and future prospects. Plant Growth Regul. 100, 197–217. doi: 10.1007/s10725-022-00830-z.

Khati, P., Parul, B. P., Nisha, K. R., Sharma, A. (2018). Effect of nanozeolite and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on maize. 3Biotech 8, 141. doi: 10.1007/s13205-018-1142-1.

Kim, D., Alptekin, B., Budak, H. (2018). CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in wheat. Funct. Integr. Genomics 18, 31–41. doi: 10.1007/s10142-017-0572-x.

Kim, H. J., Park, H. S., Hyun, M. S., Chang, I. S., Kim, M., Kim, B. H. (2002). A mediator-less microbial fuel cell using a metal reducing bacterium shewanella putrefaciens . Enzyme Microbial Technology. 30, 145–152. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(01)00478-1.

Kimani, W., Zhang, L. M., Wu, X. Y., Hao, H. Q., Jing, H. C. (2020). Genome-wide association study reveals that different pathways contribute to grain quality variation in sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor ). BMC Genomics 21, 1–19. doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-6538-8.

Kossalbayev, B. D., Tomo, T., Zayadan, B. K., Sadvakasova, A. K., Bolatkhan, S. A., Suleyman, I. A. (2020). Determination of the potential of cyanobacterial strains for hydrogen production. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 45, 2627–2639. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.11.164

Krattinger, S. G., Lagudah, E. S., Spielmeyer, W., Singh, R. P., Huerta-Espino, J., McFadden, H., et al. (2009). A putative ABC transporter confers durable resistance to multiple fungal pathogens in wheat. Science 323, 1360–1363. doi: 10.1126/science.1166453.

Krattinger, S. G., Sucher, J., Selter, L. L., Chauhan, H., Zhou, B., Tang, M., et al. (2016). The wheat durable, multipathogen resistance gene Lr34 confers partial blast resistance in rice. Plant Biotechnol. J. 14, 1261–1268. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12491.

Krishna, T. A., Maharajan, T., Ceasar, S. A. (2023). The role of membrane transporters in the bio-fortification of zinc and iron in plants. Biol. Trace Element Res. 201, 464–478. doi: 10.1007/s12011-022-03159-w.

Kromdijk, J., Głowacka, K., Leonelli, L., Gabilly, S. T., Iwai, M., Niyogi, K. K., et al. (2016). Improving photosynthesis and crop productivity by accelerating recovery from photoprotection. Science 354, 857–861. doi: 10.1126/science.aai8878.

Ku, Y. S., Rehman, H. M., Lam, H. M. (2019). Possible roles of rhizospheric and endophytic microbes to provide a safe and affordable means of crop bio-fortification. Agronomy 9, 764. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9110764.

Kurade, M. B., Ha, Y. H., Xiong, J. Q., Govindwar, S. P., Jang, M., Jeon, B. H. (2021). Phytoremediation as a green biotechnology tool for emerging environmental pollution: a step forward towards sustainable rehabilitation of the environment. Chem. Eng. J. 415, 129040. doi: 10.1016/j.cej.2021.129040.

Kusale, S. P., Attar, Y. C., Sayyed, R. Z., El Enshasy, H., Hanapi, S. Z., Ilyas, N., et al. (2021). Inoculation of Klebsiella varicola alleviated salt stress and improved growth and nutrients in wheat and maize. Agronomy 11, 927. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11050927.

Lane, S., Zhang, Y., Yun, E. J., Ziolkowski, L., Zhang, G., Jin, Y. S., et al. (2020). Xylose assimilation enhances the production of isobutanol in engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Biotechnol. Bioengineering 117, 372–381. doi: 10.1002/bit.27202.

Le, T. D., Gathignol, F., Vu, H. T., Nguyen, K. L., Tran, L. H., Vu, H. T. T., et al. (2021). Genome-wide association mapping of salinity tolerance at the seedling stage in a panel of Vietnamese landraces reveals new valuable QTLs for salinity stress tolerance breeding in rice. Plants 10, 1088. doi: 10.3390/plants10061088.

Leong, Y. K., Chen, W. H., Lee, D. J., Chang, J. S. (2021). Supercritical water gasification (SCWG) as a potential tool for the valorization of phycoremediation-derived waste algal biomass for biofuel generation. J. Hazardous Materials 418, 126278. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2021.126278.

Li, J., Dundas, I., Dong, C., Li, G., Trethowan, R., Yang, Z., et al. (2020). Identification and characterization of a new stripe rust resistance gene Yr83 on rye chromosome 6R in wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 133, 1095–1107. doi: 10.1007/s00122-020-03534-y.

Liang, Z., Zhang, K., Chen, K., Gao, C. (2014). Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas system. J. Genet. Genomics 41, 63–68. doi: 10.1016/j.jgg.2013.12.001.

Lima, M. G. B. (2022). Just transition towards a bioeconomy: Four dimensions in Brazil, India and Indonesia. For. Policy Economics 136, 102684. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102684

Liu, H., Shi, Z., Ma, F., Xu, Y., Han, G., Zhang, J., et al. (2022). Identification and validation of plant height, spike length and spike compactness loci in common wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). BMC Plant Biol. 22, 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12870-022-03968-0.

Liu, Z., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, L., Zhang, L., et al. (2022). Development and cross-species transferability of novel genomic-SSR markers and their utility in hybrid identification and trait association analysis in chinese cherry. Horticulturae 8, 222. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8030222.

Lo, J., Olson, D. G., Murphy, S. J. L., Tian, L., Hon, S., Lanahan, A., et al. (2017). Engineering electron metabolism to increase ethanol production in Clostridium thermocellum . Metab. Eng. 39, 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ymben.2016.10.018.

Maitra, S., Ray, D. P. (2019). Enrichment of biodiversity, influence in microbial population dynamics of soil and nutrient utilization in cereal-legume intercropping systems: A Review. Int. J. Bioresource Sci. 6, 11–19. doi: 10.30954/2347-9655.

Malik, K. A., Maqbool, A. (2020). Transgenic crops for bio-fortification. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 571402. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.571402.

Martinez-Burgos, W. J., do Nascimento, J. J. R., Medeiros, A. B. P., Herrmann, L. W., Sydney, E. B., Soccol, C. R. (2022). Biohydrogen production from agro-industrial wastes using clostridium beijerinckii and isolated bacteria as inoculum. Bioenergy Res. 15, 987–997. doi: 10.1007/s12155-021-10358-1.

Mazur, B. J., Falco, S. C. (1989). The development of herbicide resistant crops. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 40, 441–470. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pp.40.060189.002301.

McNeely, J. S., Scherr, S. J. (2001). Common ground common future: How eco-agriculture can help feed the world and save wild biodiversity . Available online at: http://www.futureharvest.org .

Msanne, J., Kim, H., Cahoon, E. B. (2020). Biotechnology tools and applications for development of oilseed crops with healthy vegetable oils. Biochimie 178, 4–14. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2020.09.020.

Murchie, E. H., Ali, A., Herman, T. (2015). Photoprotection as a trait for rice yield improvement: status and prospects. Rice 8, 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12284-015-0065-2.

Mushtaq, Z., Asghar, H. N., Zahir, Z. A., Maqsood, M. (2021). Characterization of rhizobacteria for growth promoting traits and their potential to increase potato yield. Pakistan J. Agric. Sci. 58 (1), 61–67. doi: 10.21162/PAKJAS/21.1024

Nagvenkar, G. S., Ramaiah, N. (2010). Arsenite tolerance and bio-transformation potential in estuarine bacteria. J. Ecotoxicology 19, 604–613. doi: 10.1007/s10646-009-0429-8.

Naranjo, S. E. (2005). Long-term assessment of the effects of transgenic Bt cotton on the abundance of non-target arthropod natural enemies. Environ. entomology 34, 1193–1210. doi: 10.1093/ee/34.5.1193.

Naskar, A., Majumder, R., Goswami, M. (2020). Bioaccumulation of Ni (II) on growing cells of Bacillus sp.: response surface modeling and mechanistic insight. Environ. Technol. Innovation 20, 101057. doi: 10.1016/j.eti.2020.101057

Nekrasov, V., Wang, C., Win, J., Lanz, C., Weigel, D., Kamoun, S. (2017). Rapid generation of a transgene-free powdery mildew resistant tomato by genome deletion. Sci. Rep. 7, 482. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-00578-x.

Neneng, L. (2020). Formulation of liquid biofertilizer for enhance of soil nutrients in peatland. Budapest Int. Res. Exact Sci. (BirEx) J. 2, 314–322. doi: 10.33258/birex.v2i3.1068

Nguyen, T., Kim, K., Han, S., Cho, H., Kim, J., Park, S. (2010). Pre-Treatment of Rice Straw with ammonia and ionic liquid for lignocellulose conversion to fermentable sugars. Bioresource Technology. 101, 7432–7438. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.04.053.

Nitu, R., Rajinder, K., Sukhminderjit, K. (2020). Zinc solubilizing bacteria to augment soil fertility—A comprehensive review. Int. J. Agric. Sci. Veterinary Med. 8, 38–44.

Niu, Q., Meng, Q., Yang, H., Wang, Y., Li, X., Li, G., et al. (2021). Humification process and mechanisms investigated by Fenton-like reaction and laccase functional expression during composting. Bioresource Technol. 341, 125906. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125906.

Noor, S., Ali, S., Rahman, H., Farhatullah, F., Ali, G. M. (2018). Comparative study of transgenic (DREB1A) and non-transgenic wheat lines on relative water content, sugar, proline and chlorophyll under drought and salt stresses. Sarhad J. Agric. 34, 986–993. doi: 10.17582/journal.sja/2018/34.4.986.993.

Nykiforuk, C. L., Shewmaker, C., Harry, I., Yurchenko, O. P., Zhang, M., Reed, C., et al. (2012). High level accumulation of gamma linolenic acid (C18: 3Δ6. 9, 12 cis) in transgenic safflower ( Carthamus tinctorius ) seeds. Transgenic Res. 21, 367–381. doi: 10.1007/s11248-011-9543-5.

Ogata, T., Ishizaki, T., Fujita, M., Fujita, Y. (2020). CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of OsERA1 confers enhanced responses to abscisic acid and drought stress and increased primary root growth under non-stressed conditions in rice. PloS One 15, e0243376. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243376.

Ogbaga, C. C., Stepien, P., Athar, H. U. R., Ashraf, M. (2018). Engineering Rubisco activase from thermophilic cyanobacteria into high-temperature sensitive plants. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 38, 559–572. doi: 10.1080/07388551.2017.1378998.

Okur, N. (2018). A review-bio-fertilizers-power of beneficial microorganisms in soils. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 4, 4028–4029. doi: 10.26717/BJSTR.

Owen, M. D., Zelaya, I. A. (2005). Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manage. Science: formerly Pesticide Sci. 61 (13), 301–311. doi: 10.1002/ps.1015

Paine, J. A., Shipton, C. A., Chaggar, S., Howells, R. M., Kennedy, M. J., Vernon, G., et al. (2005). Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 482–487. doi: 10.1038/nbt1082.

Parker, K. M., Sander, M. (2017). Environmental fate of insecticidal plant-incorporated protectants from genetically modified crops: knowledge gaps and research opportunities. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03456.

Passatore, L., Rossetti, S., Juwarkar, A. A., Massacci, A. (2014). Phytoremediation and bioremediation of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): state of knowledge and research perspectives. J. Hazardous Materials 278, 189–202. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.05.051.

Pirttilä, A. M., Mohammad Parast Tabas, H., Baruah, N., Koskimäki, J. J. (2021). Biofertilizers and biocontrol agents for agriculture: How to identify and develop new potent microbial strains and traits. Microorganisms 9, 817. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9040817.

Powles, S. B. (2018). Herbicide resistance in plants: biology and biochemistry (CRC Press). doi: 10.1201/9781351073189.

Prasifka, J., Hellmich, R., Weiss, M. (2009). “Role of biotechnology in sustainable agriculture,” in Integrated pest management . Eds. Radcliffe, E. B., Hutchison, W. D., Cancelado, R. E. (Cambridge University Press).

Purnhagen, K., Wesseler, J. (2021). EU regulation of new plant breeding technologies and their possible economic implications for the EU and beyond. Appl. Economic Perspect. Policy 43, 1621–1637. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13084.

Quiroz-Sarmiento, V. F., Almaraz-Suarez, J. J., Sánchez-Viveros, G., Argumedo-Delira, R., González-Mancilla, A. (2019). Biofertilizers of rhizobacteria in the growth of Poblano chili seedlings. Rev. mexicana Cienc. agrícolas 10 (8), 1733–1745. doi: 10.29312/remexca.v10i8.1548

Rahman, Z., Thomas, L., Singh, V. P. (2019). Biosorption of heavy metals by a lead (Pb) resistant bacterium, Staphylococcus hominis strain AMB-2. J. Basic Microbiol. 59, 477–486. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201900024.

Rai, A., Han, S. S. (2023). Recent developments on the contribution of glutenin and puroindoline proteins to improve wheat grain quality. Cereal Chem. 100, 56–71. doi: 10.1002/cche.10607.

Rani, A., Souche, Y., Goel, R. (2013). Comparative in situ remediation potential of Pseudomonas putida 710A and Commamonas aquatica 710B using plant ( Vigna radiata (L.) wilczek) assay. Ann. Microbiol. 63, 923–928. doi: 10.1007/s13213-012-0545-1.

Razi, M., Amiri, M. E., Darvishzadeh, R., Doulati Baneh, H., Alipour, H., Martínez-Gómez, P. (2020). Assessment of genetic diversity of cultivated and wild Iranian grape germplasm using retrotransposon-microsatellite amplified polymorphism (REMAP) markers and pomological traits. Mol. Biol. Rep. 47, 7593–7606. doi: 10.1007/s11033-020-05827-3.

Rhodes, D. H., Hoffmann, L., Rooney, W. L., Herald, T. J., Bean, S., Boyles, R., et al. (2017). Genetic architecture of kernel composition in global sorghum germplasm. BMC Genomics 18, 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-3403-x.

Risk, J. M., Selter, L. L., Chauhan, H., Krattinger, S. G., Kumlehn, J., Hensel, G., et al. (2013). The wheat Lr34 gene provides resistance against multiple fungal pathogens in barley. Plant Biotechnol. J. 11, 847–854. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12077.

Rojas-Sánchez, B., Guzmán-Guzmán, P., Morales-Cedeño, L. R., Orozco-Mosqueda, M. D. C., Saucedo-Martínez, B. C., Sánchez-Yáñez, J. M., et al. (2022). Bioencapsulation of microbial inoculants: mechanisms, formulation types and application techniques. Appl. Biosci. 1, 198–220. doi: 10.3390/applbiosci1020013.

Sanahuja, G., Banakar, R., Twyman, R. M., Capell, T., Christou, P. (2011). Bacillus thuringiensis : a century of research, development and commercial applications. Plant Biotechnol. J. 9, 283–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2011.00595.x.

Santosh Kumar, V. V., Yadav, S. K., Verma, R. K., Shrivastava, S., Ghimire, O., Pushkar, S., et al. (2021). The abscisic acid receptor OsPYL6 confers drought tolerance to indica rice through dehydration avoidance and tolerance mechanisms. J. Of Exp. Bot. 72, 1411–1431. doi: 10.1093/jxb/eraa509.

Saranya, K., Sundaramanickam, A., Shekhar, S., Meena, M., Sathishkumar, R. S., Balasubramanian, T. (2018). Biosorption of multi-heavy metals by coral associated phosphate solubilising bacteria Cronobacter muytjensii KSCAS2. J. Environ. Manage. 222, 396–401. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.083.

Sarwar, S., Khaliq, A., Yousra, M., Sultan, T., Ahmad, N., Khan, M. Z. (2020). Screening of siderophore-producing PGPRs isolated from groundnut ( Arachis hypogea L.) rhizosphere and their influence on iron release in soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 51, 1680–1692. doi: 10.1080/00103624.2020.1791159.

Say, R., Denizli, A., Arıca, M. Y. (2001). Biosorption of cadmium (II), lead (II) and copper (II) with the filamentous fungus Phanerochaete chrysosporium . Bioresource Technol. 76, 67–70. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00071-7.

Schoebitz, M., López, M. D., Roldán, A. (2013). Bioencapsulation of microbial inoculants for better soil–plant fertilization. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 751–765. doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0142-0.

Schuppert, G. F., Tang, S., Slabaugh, M. B., Knapp, S. J. (2006). The sunflower high-oleic mutant Ol carries variable tandem repeats of FAD2-1 , a seed-specific oleoyl-phosphatidyl choline desaturase. Mol. Breed. 17, 241–256. doi: 10.1007/s11032-005-5680-y.

Sedeek, K. E. M., Mahas, A., Mahfouz, M. (2019). Plant genome engineering for targeted improvement of crop traits. Front. Plant Sci. 10. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00114

Shahzad, R., Jamil, S., Ahmad, S., Nisar, A., Khan, S., Amina, Z., et al. (2021). Bio-fortification of cereals and pulses using new breeding techniques: current and future perspectives. Front. Nutr. , 665.

Shaner, D. L. (2000). The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manage. Science: formerly Pesticide Sci. 56 (4), 320–326. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1526-4998(200004)56:4<320::AID-PS125>3.3.CO;2-2

Shehzadi, M., Afzal, M., Khan, M. U., Islam, E., Mobin, A., Anwar, S., et al. (2014). Enhanced degradation of textile effluent in constructed wetland system using Typha domingensis and textile effluent-degrading endophytic bacteria. Water Res. 58, 152–159. doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.03.064.

Sher, S., Rehman, A. (2019). Use of heavy metals resistant bacteria—a strategy for arsenic bioremediation. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 103, 6007–6021. doi: 10.1007/s00253-019-09933-6.

Shi, J., Gao, H., Wang, H., Lafitte, H. R., Archibald, R. L., Yang, M., et al. (2017). ARGOS 8 variants generated by CRISPR-Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15, 207–216. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12603.

Shukla, M., Al-Busaidi, K. T., Trivedi, M., Tiwari, R. K. (2018). Status of research, regulations and challenges for genetically modified crops in India. GM Crops Food 9, 173–188. doi: 10.1080/21645698.2018.1529518.

Shukla, V. K., Doyon, Y., Miller, J. C., DeKelver, R. C., Moehle, E. A., Worden, S. E., et al. (2009). Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 459, 437–441. doi: 10.1038/nature07992

Singh, R., Das, R., Sangwan, S., Rohatgi, B., Khanam, R., Pedda, S. K., et al. (2021). Utilization of agro−industrial waste for sustainable green production :a review. Environ. Sustainability . doi: 10.1007/s42398-021-00200-x

Singh, D., Prasanna, R. (2020). Potential of microbes in the bio-fortification of Zn and Fe in dietary food grains. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 40, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s13593-020-00619-2.

Sneller, C. H. (2003). Impact of transgenic genotypes and subdivision on diversity within elite North American soybean germplasm. Crop Sci. 43, 409–414. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2003.4090.

Somegowda, V. K., Prasad, K. V., Naravula, J., Vemula, A., Selvanayagam, S., Rathore, A., et al. (2022). Genetic dissection and quantitative trait loci mapping of agronomic and fodder quality traits in sorghum under different water regimes. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 810632. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.810632.

Song, L., Wang, R., Yang, X., Zhang, A., Liu, D. (2023). Molecular markers and their applications in marker-assisted selection (MAS) in bread wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.). Agriculture 13 (3), 642. doi: 10.3390/agriculture13030642

Sparks, T. C., Nauen, R. (2015). IRAC: Mode of action classification and insecticide resistance management. Pesticide Biochem. Physiol. 121, 122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2014.11.014.

Sucher, J., Boni, R., Yang, P., Rogowsky, P., Büchner, H., Kastner, C., et al. (2017). The durable wheat disease resistance gene Lr34 confers common rust and northern corn leaf blight resistance in maize. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15, 489–496. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12647.

Sumbul, A., Ansari, R. A., Rizvi, R., Mahmood, I. (2020). Azotobacter : A potential bio-fertilizer for soil and plant health management. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 27, 3634–3640. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.08.004.

Tabashnik, B. E., Gassmann, A. J., Crowder, D. W., Carrière, Y. (2008). Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 199–202. doi: 10.1038/nbt1382.

Tabashnik, B. E., Brévault, T., Carrière, Y. (2013). Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres. Nat. Biotechnol . 31 (6), 510–21. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2597

Tan, S., Evans, R., Singh, B. (2006). Herbicidal inhibitors of amino acid biosynthesis and herbicide-tolerant crops. Amino Acids 30, 195–204. doi: 10.1007/s00726-005-0254-1.

Tayang, A., Songachan, L. S. (2021). Microbial bioremediation of heavy metals. Curr. Sci. 120, 00113891. doi: 10.18520/cs/v120/i6/1013-1025.

Thompson, J. A. (2008). The role of biotechnology for sustainable agriculture in Africa. Philos. Translations R. Soc. Bio Sci. 363, 905–991. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2191

Torres, J. B., Ruberson, J. R. (2005). Canopy-and ground-dwelling predatory arthropods in commercial Bt and non-Bt cotton fields: patterns and mechanisms. Environ. Entomology 34, 1242–1256. doi: 10.1603/0046-225X(2005)034[1242:CAGPAI]2.0.CO;2.

Ujváry, I. (2001). “Chapter 3—Pest control agents from natural products,” in Handbook of pesticide toxicology , 2nd ed. Eds. Krieger, R. I., Krieger, W. C. (Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA), 109–179.

USEPA (2005). Use of field-scale phytotechnology, for chlorinated solvents, metals, explosives, and propellants, and pesticides phytotechnology mechanisms. Solid Waste Emergency Response (5102G) . EPA 542-R-05-002.

Usman, M., Bokhari, S. A. M., Fatima, B., Rashid, B., Nadeem, F., Sarwar, M. B., et al. (2022). Drought stress mitigating morphological, physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses of guava ( Psidium guajava L.) cultivars. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 878616. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.878616.

Villalobos-López, M. A., Arroyo-Becerra, A., Quintero-Jiménez, A., Iturriaga, G. (2022). Biotechnological advances to improve abiotic stress tolerance in crops. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23, 12053. doi: 10.3390/ijms231912053.

Wan, D. Y., Guo, Y., Cheng, Y., Hu, Y., Xiao, S., Wang, Y., et al. (2020). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of VvMLO3 results in enhanced resistance to powdery mildew in grapevine ( Vitis vinifera ). Horticulture Res. 7. doi: 10.1038/s41438-020-0339-8.

Wani, S. H., Samantara, K., Razzaq, A., Kakani, G., Kumar, P. (2022). Back to the wild: mining maize (Zea mays L.) disease resistance using advanced breeding tools. Molecular Biology Reports 49 (6), 5787–5803. doi: 10.1007/s11033-021-06815-x

Wang, Y., Cheng, X., Shan, Q., Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Gao, C., et al. (2014). Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 947–951. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2969.

Wang, G., Dong, Y., Liu, X., Yao, G., Yu, X., Yang, M. (2018). The current status and development of insect-resistant genetically engineered poplar in China. Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1408. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01408.

Wei, A., He, C., Li, B., Li, N., Zhang, J. (2011). The pyramid of transgenes TsVP and BetA effectively enhances the drought tolerance of maize plants. Plant Biotechnol. J. 9, 216–229. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00548.x.

Wei, S., Li, X., Lu, Z., Zhang, H., Ye, X., Zhou, Y., et al. (2022). A transcriptional regulator that boosts grain yields and shortens the growth duration of rice. Science 377, eabi8455. doi: 10.1126/science.abi8455.

Wei, J. Z., O'Rear, J., Schellenberger, U., Rosen, B. A., Park, Y. J., McDonald, M. J., et al. (2018). A selective insecticidal protein from Pseudomonas mosselii for corn rootworm control. Plant Biotechnol. J. 16, 649–659. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12806.

Xu, Z., Xu, X., Gong, Q., Li, Z., Li, Y., Wang, S., et al. (2019). Engineering broad-spectrum bacterial blight resistance by simultaneously disrupting variable TALE -binding elements of multiple susceptibility genes in rice. Mol. Plant 12, 1434–1446. doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2019.08.006.

Yang, X., Cai, L., Wang, M., Zhu, W., Xu, L., Wang, Y., et al. (2023). Genome-wide association study of asian and european common wheat accessions for yield-related traits and stripe rust resistance. Plant Dis. 107, 3085–3095. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-03-22-0702-RE.

Yang, P., Herren, G., Krattinger, S. G., Keller, B. (2017). Large-scale maize seedling infection with Exserohilum turcicum in the greenhouse. Bio-Protocol 7, e2567–e2567. doi: 10.21769/BioProtoc.2567.

Yazdani, M., Rouse, M. N., Steffenson, B. J., Bajgain, P., Patpour, M., Johansson, E., Rahmatov, M. (2023). Developing adapted wheat lines with broad-spectrum resistance to stem rust: Introgression of Sr59 through backcrossing and selections based on genotyping-by-sequencing data. PLoS ONE . 18 (10), e0292724. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292724

Ye, X., Al-Babili, S., Kloti, A., Zhang, J., Lucca, P., Beyer, P., et al. (2000). Engineering the provitamin A (β-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287, 303–305. doi: 10.1126/science.287.5451.303.

Yuan, D., Bassie, L., Sabalza, M., Miralpeix, B., Dashevskaya, S., Farre, G., et al. (2011). The potential impact of plant biotechnology on the Millennium Development Goals. Plant Cell Rep. 30, 249–265. doi: 10.1007/s00299-010-0987-5.

Zhang, Y., Bai, Y., Wu, G., Zou, S., Chen, Y., Gao, C., et al. (2017). Simultaneous modification of three homoeologs of Ta EDR 1 by genome editing enhances powdery mildew resistance in wheat. Plant J. 91, 714–724. doi: 10.1111/tpj.13599.

Zhang, W. M., Gu, S. F. (2007). Catalytic effect of activated carbon on bioleaching of low-grade primary copper sulfide ores. Trans. Nonferrous Metals Soc. China 17, 1123–1127. doi: 10.1016/S1003-6326(07)60236-2.

Zhang, W., Niu, Y., Li, Y. X., Zhang, F., Zeng, R. J. (2020). Enrichment of hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria with nitrate recovery as biofertilizers in the mixed culture. Bioresource Technol. 313, 123645. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123645.

Zhang, K., Xue, Y., Xu, H., Yao, Y. (2019). Lead removal by phosphate solubilizing bacteria isolated from soil through biomineralization. Chemosphere 224, 272–279. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.02.140.

Zhang, C., Yao, F. E. N. G., Liu, Y. W., Chang, H. Q., Li, Z. J., Xue, J. M. (2017). Uptake and translocation of organic pollutants in plants: A review. J. Integr. Agric. 16, 1659–1668. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61590-3.

Zhang, F., Yu, J., Johnston, C. R., Wang, Y., Zhu, K., Lu, F., et al. (2015). Seed priming with polyethylene glycol induces physiological changes in sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) seedlings under suboptimal soil moisture environments. PloS One 10, e0140620. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140620

Keywords: biotechnology, natural farming, resistance, bio-fuels, bio-fortification

Citation: Badiyal A, Mahajan R, Rana RS, Sood R, Walia A, Rana T, Manhas S and Jayswal DK (2024) Synergizing biotechnology and natural farming: pioneering agricultural sustainability through innovative interventions. Front. Plant Sci. 15:1280846. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1280846

Received: 21 August 2023; Accepted: 29 January 2024; Published: 22 March 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Badiyal, Mahajan, Rana, Sood, Walia, Rana, Manhas and Jayswal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Anila Badiyal, [email protected]

† Present address : D. K. Jayswal, Department of Horticulture (Fruit and Fruit Technology), Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bihar, India

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Agriculture articles from across Nature Portfolio

Agriculture is the cultivation of plants, animals, and some other organisms, such as fungi, for the production of food, fibre, fuel, and medicines used by society.

Reconciling trade-offs in pig farming requires a change in mitigation approach

We found trade-offs among the environmental and animal welfare impacts of pig farms — those that had low greenhouse gas emissions typically had low land use but poor animal welfare and high antimicrobial use. Some farms performed well in all four impacts, but these farms were not consistently associated with any particular farm or label type.

Contribution of fragmented croplands

Cropland fragmentation poses a significant threat to agricultural sustainability in China. Rational crop layout is required for different ecological regions to manage the fragmented croplands.

• Xiaolong Wang

Latest Research and Reviews

Differences in diacylglycerol acyltransferases expression patterns and regulation cause distinct hepatic triglyceride deposition in fish

Two diacylglycerol acyltransferases were shown to be differently regulated in large yellow croaker and rainbow trout. While DGAT1 is increased upon oleic acid treatment more in croaker than in trout, DGAT2 showed no significant expression difference.

• Xiaojun Xiang

Total irrigation by crop in the Continental United States from 2008 to 2020

• P. J. Ruess
• Megan Konar
• Marc F. P. Bierkens

A dataset for soil organic carbon in agricultural systems for the Southeast Asia region

• Federico Gomez
• Ana Carcedo
• Ignacio Ciampitti

Trade-offs in the externalities of pig production are not inevitable

Greenhouse gas emissions, antimicrobial use, land use and animal welfare data representing most global commercial pig production systems show that no single system performs well across all measures, but trade-offs may be avoidable if mitigation measures are implemented within farming systems.

• Harriet Bartlett
• Márcia Zanella
• Andrew Balmford

CARM30: China annual rapeseed maps at 30 m spatial resolution from 2000 to 2022 using multi-source data

• Hongyan Zhang

Agricultural management practices in China enhance nitrogen sustainability and benefit human health

The exact quantification of environmental and human health gains achieved through sustainable nitrogen management is often impaired by real-world data availability. Drawing on an extensive database in China, this study estimates the costs and benefits of combining organic and chemical fertilizers, straw recycling and deep placement of fertilizer.

• Jiakun Duan
• Hongbin Liu

News and Comment

A green-beauty collaboration

Dario Fornara, research director of the Davines Group–Rodale Institute European Regenerative Organic Center (EROC), talks to Nature Sustainability about the making of EROC and the benefits of an integrated partnership between the private and the non-profit sectors to advance sustainability.

• Monica Contestabile

Innovative dietary fat production

Fats and oils are crucial dietary supplements for human health. However, animal fats and palm oil dominate the food industry, with concerns over health and the environment that call for the development of fat alternatives. The fat industry offers a vast market potential, with several startups pioneering new technical solutions and attracting venture capital interest.

• Enrico Costanzo
• Giorgia Spigno

Humans and their livestock have sheltered in this Saudi Arabian cave for 10,000 years

Saudi herders have travelled the same routes for millennia, cave discovery suggests.

• Gillian Dohrn

Hybrid intelligence for reconciling biodiversity and productivity in agriculture

Hybrid intelligence — arising from the sensible, targeted fusion of human minds and cutting-edge computational systems — holds great potential for enhancing the sustainability of agriculture. Leveraging the combined strengths of both collective human and artificial intelligence helps identify and stress-test pathways towards the reconciliation of biodiversity and productivity.

Pregnancy’s effect on ‘biological’ age, polite birds, and the carbon cost of home-grown veg

We round up some recent stories from the Nature Briefing.

• Benjamin Thompson
• Flora Graham

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Jessica Rawnsley

The Rise of the Carbon Farmer

Patrick Holden strolls across the field, pausing from time to time to bend and point out a bumblebee, or a white butterfly, or a dung beetle. A wide expanse of blue sky stretches above. Beneath, undulating green hills, sprawling hedgerows, a horizon broken only by the jagged tips of Wales’ Cambrian mountain range. Sun-soaked goodness.

“Can you see that bumblebee working the clover?” he asks, voice breathy with exertion. “The bird life, insects, butterflies, small mammals, and bats ... the biodiversity of this place is unbelievable.” This is all here, he says, because he’s farming in harmony with nature.

The secret to this small oasis, Holden says, is the way he works his land. He is one of a growing number of farmers shaking off conventional methods and harnessing practices to rebuild soil health and fertility—cover crops, minimal tilling, managed grazing, diverse crop rotations. It is a reverse revolution in some ways, taking farming back to what it once was, when yield was not king, industrialization not the norm, and small farms dabbled in many things rather than specializing in one.

Holden’s main crops are oats and peas, sown in rotation with grassland to build soil fertility. These are then turned into a “muesli” used as additional feed for his grass-fed cattle and his pigs. The pigs’ manure fertilizes the land. The glossy Ayrshire cows are milked and the milk curdled into the farm’s award-winning cheddar cheese. Woven through everything is the intention to work with and mimic nature.

The purported benefits are profound: Healthy soil retains water and nutrients, supports biodiversity, reduces erosion, and produces nutritious food. But there’s one other, critical gain in our rapidly warming world: these farming methods suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it back in the soil. As well as making cheese, Holden, with his regenerative practices, farms carbon.

Soil is second only to the ocean in its carbon-absorbing capacity—it holds more than the atmosphere and all the planet’s plants and forests combined. But centuries of damaging, industrialized agriculture have left the earth depleted and spewed ton of CO 2 into the ether.

According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, many cultivated soils have lost 50 to 70 percent of their original carbon. By some counts , a third of the excess CO 2 in the atmosphere started life in the soil, having been released not by burning fossil fuels but by changing how the planet’s land is used.

“People ask, ‘Where is the excess carbon coming from?’ It’s where we’ve destroyed the soil,” says Elaine Ingham, an American soil microbiologist and the founder of Soil Food Web, an organization that teaches growers how to regenerate their soil. “Every time you till, you lose 50 percent of soil organic matter ,” she says, referring to the compounds that lock carbon into the earth.

Exactly how much carbon soils can hold isn’t agreed on, and estimates vary widely on the potential impact of regenerative farming. For instance, the Rodale Institute, a regenerative agriculture nonprofit , has looked at peer-reviewed research and agronomists’ observations and concluded that regenerative agriculture, if adopted globally, could sequester 100 percent of annual carbon emissions.

Andy Greenberg

Matt Burgess

Caroline Haskins

Amit Katwala

Other experts are more cautious in their predictions. “It’s very difficult to know for sure what’s possible in principle as well as what’s possible in practice,” says John Crawford, a professor of strategy and technology at Glasgow University in the UK and the lead of the Global Soil Health Program. “What is affordable? What kind of incentives would be required to enable farmers to farm in this way? There are a whole bunch of uncertainties.”

Nevertheless, Crawford thinks regenerative agriculture could have a big impact if widely applied. “It’s been estimated that around 20 percent of current global emissions would be very hard to abate,” he says, referring to things like heavy industry and aviation where decarbonization with renewable energy isn’t a straightforward option. He reckons better strategies for working the world’s soil could mitigate about half of these hard-to-eradicate emissions.

Even modest improvements in farming would amount to big gains. Jacqueline Glade, the former chief scientist at the UN Environment Program, has calculated that using better farming to store 1 percent more carbon in half of the world’s agricultural soils would be enough to absorb about 31 gigatons of CO 2 a year—which would pretty much plug the gap between current planned emissions reductions and what actually needs to be slashed by 2030 to stay within 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming.

Even if the exact amount of carbon that can be stored in soil isn’t clear, there would be other benefits—of that, Crawford is confident. He set out a decade ago to understand how soils function—what enables them to maintain a mixture of air and water across a wide range of climatic conditions and thus support microbial and plant life.

He discovered that soil’s secret sauce is carbon. The more in the soil, the greater its resilience to erosion, flooding, and drought, and the greater the yields for farmers. And numerous studies (from the likes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to the United Nations ) illustrate that the best way to achieve this is through regenerative methods. “People have been farming that way for millennia,” Crawford says. “You could say it’s just good practice. If you follow those principles, you will improve soil health. I see the evidence.” So does Holden, in the flourishing wildlife that calls his land home.

But a wide-scale shift to carbon-absorbing practices would be dramatic—the majority of farmers would need to change how they work. And with most farmers operating on wafer-thin margins, embattled by climate change and demands for cheap food, and the victims of price shocks passed down the supply chain, the transition remains unpalatable, or simply unfeasible, for many.

Holden, though, has a strategy for getting farmers to transition. “Pay them to be carbon stewards. Why do you think the farming system that I represent hasn’t gone to scale? Money.” Currently, he argues, industrialized, intensive systems pay better—what’s needed are redirected subsidies to ensure farming and nature can coexist in a field and homogenized annual sustainability audits that reward farmers for generating “public goods” like improvements in food quality, biodiversity, and carbon stores.

“My farm’s been farmed organically for 51 years,” says Holden. “I’ve built up soil carbon, my operation is now carbon-negative—if I was to switch to intensive methods then theoretically I could burn up that carbon stock. But if I was paid to be a carbon steward, I’m not going to do that.”

But this presents another hurdle: It’s tricky to accurately measure a soil’s carbon content—which is integral to doling out carbon credits. Various technologies exist, to varying degrees of accuracy and expense. Some companies use computer models; others, farmers’ self-reported practices.

Then there’s the concern over the potential hit to yields. “Most of the research shows that as you move to regenerative practices, there is about a three-year period where yields will drop,” says Crawford. One organization that measures this is Carbon Underground, a company created in 2014 to mitigate climate change by restoring soil blighted by industrial agriculture and rekindle its ability to absorb carbon.

Cofounder Larry Kopald says the group has found yields rarely drop by more than 5 percent and usually rebound quite quickly. Sometimes this means there is a shortfall for farmers; other times, there’s no financial loss due to the reduction of input costs, thanks to needing less fertilizer or fewer expensive bits of machinery. “The net-net to the farmer is often a better situation than they’re at now. And add to that the ability to monetize carbon drawdown,” says Kopald, referring to the potential to sell carbon offsets against sequestered carbon.

“What’s important now is not finding the solution, but scaling,” says Kopald. And this, he believes, is all about empowering the small farmer. “We think that industrial farms grow all of our food; 70 percent is grown by small farmers.”

Crawford, though, thinks what’s needed is bigger: “whole value-chain transformation”—big farmers, small farmers, and everyone that works with them. He has already set up a coalition of companies, which cumulatively had the “potential, the reach, the governance, and the resource to restore the health of 60 percent of the world’s agricultural soils,” he says, only for this to fail because of a lack of will. So in his opinion, a carrot-and-stick approach is needed—give farmers cash, but use legislation to force the rest of the supply chain to fall in line.

Carbon farming, ultimately, buys us time, Crawford believes. The world wants to get to net zero—by removing historic emissions from the atmosphere and neutralizing current ones—by 2050. None of the existing solutions for removing atmospheric carbon will scale fast enough to have an impact in the coming decades, Crawford says. This is why nature-based solutions are crucial.

“But they will run out,” he continues. Soil has a finite capacity; global soils cannot perpetually soak up carbon. “At some point, carbon stocks will be as high as they can get—anything more you add will just go back into the atmosphere. But this is the important point—we have no alternative for at least the next two decades. All I’m looking for is to buy about 20 years. We can do that with soil.”

The world needs protecting, now more than ever. But preserving the natural world and advancing human knowledge requires innovative and pioneering solutions. In this series, WIRED, in partnership with the Rolex Perpetual Planet Initiative, highlights the individuals and communities working to solve some of our most pressing environmental and scientific challenges. Through the Perpetual Planet Initiative, Rolex supports those who go above and beyond to safeguard and preserve our planet for the next generations. #PerpetualPlanet #PlanetPioneers

You Might Also Like …

Navigate election season with our Politics Lab newsletter and podcast

Think Google’s “Incognito mode” protects your privacy? Think again

Blowing the whistle on sexual harassment and assault in Antarctica

The earth will feast on dead cicadas

Upgrading your Mac? Here’s what you should spend your money on

Emily Mullin

Karen Williams

Voice of the US farmer 2023–24: Farmers seek path to scale sustainably

Since 2018, McKinsey has gone into the field to better understand farmers’ mindsets. Following our publication of “Global Farmer Insights 2022,” 1 “ Global Farmer Insights 2022 ,” McKinsey, accessed March 29, 2024. we surveyed nearly 500 US farmers in 2023 to learn about their profitability, outlook on purchasing decisions, and adoption of sustainability practices and agtech solutions. 2 Survey conducted in fourth quarter 2023. There were 485 responses through computer-assisted web interviewing. Farmers surveyed included row- and specialty-crop operations with a farm-size distribution of 60 percent with less than 1,000 acres, 33 percent with 1,000 to 5,000 acres, and 7 percent with more than 5,000 acres. The 2023 survey found that despite recent supply chain disruptions, price volatility, and inflation, many farmers are investing in adopting sustainable-farming practices and technology solutions.

The sustainable-farming environment is rapidly evolving

Sustainable-farming practices are necessary to meet decarbonization goals and broader environmental targets. 3 The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines sustainable agriculture as “farming in such a way to protect the environment, aid and expand natural resources, and to make the best use of nonrenewable resources.” “Sustainability agriculture,” National Agricultural Library, accessed March 29, 2024. Agriculture accounts for nearly a quarter of global emissions, 4 Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change: Summary for policymakers , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022. and it was identified as the industry that contributes the most to exceeding planetary boundaries in McKinsey’s 2022 report Nature in the balance . 5 Nature in the balance: What companies can do to restore natural capital , McKinsey, December 5, 2022.

About the authors

Governments, investors, and companies are taking action to promote change. For example, the US Department of Agriculture’s mandatory budget in 2023 included an estimated $7 billion dedicated to conservation, with an additional $17 billion in conservation funding mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act through 2031. 6 “CBO’s February 2023 baseline for farm programs,” Congressional Budget Office, February 2023; FY 2024 budget summary , US Department of Agriculture, 2024. Furthermore, many agriculture players and consumer goods companies have committed to regenerative farming and deforestation-free supply chains.

However, average 2021–22 global finance flows for agriculture were only $43 billion, compared with $515 billion for energy systems and $336 billion for transport. 7 Barbara Buchner et al., “Global landscape of climate finance 2023,” Climate Policy Initiative, November 2, 2023. And adoption of sustainable-farming practices is not increasing fast enough to meet the sustainability goals of food processors and consumer goods companies.

In 2022, we released The agricultural transition: Building a sustainable future , 8 The agricultural transition: Building a sustainable future , McKinsey, June 27, 2023. a report that examined on-farm decarbonization measures and laid out a path to meet decarbonization targets. As a part of our fourth quarter 2023 survey, we explored a selection of these and other practices to better understand farmer adoption and opportunities to scale it in the United States.

Adoption of sustainable-farming practices is growing, but penetration remains low

Although 90 percent of farmers expressed awareness of the selected sustainable-farming practices, holistic adoption remains low. While more than 68 percent of farmers surveyed have adopted reduced- or no-till practices, only about half are using variable-rate fertilizer application and 35 percent are using controlled-irrigation practices.

Sustainable-farming practices that require behavioral changes in agriculture lead the way in adoption (for example, reducing or eliminating tillage), followed by practices that require product changes, such as nitrogen stabilizers or inhibitors. Practices that require changes in equipment tend to have the lowest adoption levels (Exhibit 1).

Many farmers are adopting sustainable-farming practices, but they are implementing them on only a small share of their acreage—generally less than 30 percent. There is an opportunity to increase acreage penetration among current users, especially for practices such as cover cropping and use of biologicals.

There are further opportunities to increase overall adoption by educating farmers on newer practices and convincing farmers who have heard of but not used the practices to give them a try. For example, 74 percent of farmers said they had heard of on-farm renewable energy, but only 13 percent have adopted it and only 7 percent are planning to adopt it in the next two years. Furthermore, 16 percent of farmers said they had not heard of biologicals, and 46 percent had not heard of biochar as a fertilizer.

Specialty-crop farmers are leading the way on adoption of most sustainability practices (Exhibit 2). Adoption is at least 20 percent greater among specialty-crop farmers for half of the practices surveyed. For example, biologicals adoption is 11 percentage points higher for specialty crops than for row crops; 20 percent of specialty farmers said they have adopted on-farm renewable-energy generation compared with 11 percent of row-crop farmers. Moreover, a greater percentage of specialty-crop farmers said they plan to implement sustainability practices in the next two years compared with row-crop farmers.

Practice adoption is correlated with perceived ROI

Farmers adopting sustainable-farming practices say they expect a positive ROI. Adoption of practices is highly correlated with farmers’ perceived ROI. Practices with the highest perceived ROI, such as applying fertilizer based on soil sampling, reducing or eliminating tillage, and implementing variable-rate fertilization, also have the highest rates of adoption (Exhibit 3).

Farmers expect many of the practices to have positive long-term benefits, such as a 3 to 5 percent yield rise and higher land value. However, farmers said they expect costs to remain 1 to 3 percent higher for most practices after more than five years of adoption. The ROI on adoption of sustainable-farming practices is complex and depends on a combination of factors including crop yield, crop prices, land value, and input, labor, and equipment costs. Although farmers said they generally expect the use of sustainable-farming practices to raise their costs, they also expect this increase to pay dividends in higher crop yield, land value appreciation, and better crop pricing.

For example, surveyed farmers who grow cover crops said they are experiencing or expect to experience a 3 percent increase in crop yield, a 2 percent increase in crop prices, and a 3 percent increase in land value on average. They are also experiencing or expect to experience a 2 percent increase in input, labor, and equipment costs on average, but they expect the benefits to outweigh these costs. Notably, for some practices, such as reducing or eliminating tillage, farmers expect both revenue increases (through increased yields) and cost reductions.

There are a variety of barriers to adoption

Small and large farms face different barriers in adopting sustainable-farming practices. However, compensation is a major obstacle to implementation for farms of all sizes (Exhibit 4). For example, 51 percent of medium-size and large farms with more than 1,000 acres and 39 percent of small farms identified obtaining a market premium (higher price) for sustainably grown crops or commodities as a top barrier to adoption. Moreover, 45 percent of medium-size and large farms see generating additional revenue from sustainability assets (for example, carbon credits) as their biggest barrier to adoption. Farmers with less than 1,000 acres are far more likely than those with bigger holdings to face challenges in implementing sustainable-farming practices (for example, operational barriers).

The most attractive incentives to unlock the transition to sustainable-farming practices vary by farm size (Exhibit 5). Representatives of medium-size and large farms with more than 1,000 acres said that certainty on operational benefits and reliable information on expected ROI are key. On the other hand, small farms with less than 1,000 acres highlighted the availability of financial incentives and assurance of a green premium (higher price) as the top two factors necessary to promote adoption. Overall, farmers are focused on gaining confidence in the economic benefits of sustainable-farming practices before making the full transition.

Across the board, both small and large farmers highlighted crop and commodity premiums from buyers of sustainable crops as the most attractive financial lever to increase adoption of sustainable-farming practices. Generating long-term and reliable sources of economic benefit may be key to driving additional adoption.

Government programs have seen greater participation than industry programs

Government-led programs designed to boost adoption of sustainable practices have substantially greater participation among farmers than industry programs do. These initiatives, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), are helping to spur adoption among farmers.

Of surveyed farmers, 57 percent said they were participating in a government program, while only 4 percent were participating in an industry-sponsored program, including the more than 15 carbon programs launched since 2016. 9 Lisa Moore et al., Agricultural carbon programs: From program chaos to systems change , American Farmland Trust, August 19, 2023. Adoption of sustainable-farming practices was at least 20 percent greater among government program participants than among those not enrolled in any program for ten of the 13 surveyed practices (Exhibit 6). This could indicate that government programs are driving adoption and that continued programmatic support from governments and industry players may encourage more farmers to transition to sustainable-farming practices.

Industry players can take steps to support farmers

As the importance of sustainable-farming grows, winning players will partner with farmers to support them in growth and innovation. To do so, industry participants could consider the following:

• reassessing the share of value captured by the farmer and bringing transparency to consumers about the “true cost of food”
• building sustainability programs and making them accessible; practice adoption is higher among participants in programs, but most of these are small scale today
• investing in education to help farmers overcome operational challenges and generate further data points on yield and cost benefits, especially for less-adopted practices
• collaborating with smaller and specialty-crop farmers in the near term, as these farmers are more willing to adopt most practices in the next two years
• continuing to evolve and grow nutrient-related programs, such as applying variable-rate fertilizer; most farmers view these practices as ROI positive, but only about half have adopted them and only in a part of their acreage

Many agriculture players are making commitments to sustainable farming in response to the sector’s large emissions footprint. But the transition to sustainably produced food depends on changing farmers’ behaviors and operational decisions. Our survey suggests that agriculture ecosystem players should consider how they can meet farmers’ expressed need for compensation for investments in sustainable-farming practices and provide reliable information about practice implementation and operational benefits.

David Fiocco is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Minneapolis office, Vasanth Ganesan is a partner in the New York office, Maria Garcia de la Serrana Lozano is an associate partner in the San Francisco office, and Julia Kalanik and Wilson Roen are consultants in the Chicago office.

The authors wish to thank Rui Chen, Raissa Dantas, Emma Galeucia, David Greenawalt, Emmanuel Mwaka, and Asha Sharma for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

From green ammonia to lower-carbon foods

Building food and agriculture businesses for a green future

NEW PRODUCT PARTNERSHIP: GIST Impact and IBAT Alliance partner to expand investor access to world-leading biodiversity data. Learn more!

Groundbreaking Comparative Study Reveals Natural Farming Leads for Yields, Livelihoods and Health 

New Delhi, 19 July 2023 – A pioneering new study analysing the costs and benefits of different farming systems gives new evidence to support agroecological natural farming as a key approach to help feed communities and transition farmers to nature-positive outcomes in support of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This first-of-its-kind research, led by impact data and analytics provider GIST Impact and supported by the Global Alliance for the Future of Food , used True Cost Accounting methods to compare the major economic, social, and health impacts of natural farming with the three existing and still dominant farming systems in the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh – tribal farming, rainfed dryland agriculture, and chemically-intensive farming in the delta region. 

The report, “Natural Farming Through a Wide-Angle Lens: True Cost Accounting Study of Community Managed Natural Farming in Andhra Pradesh, India,” shows that farms using natural inputs achieved equal or higher yields compared to the other farming systems – on average, these farms saw an 11% increase in yields – while maintaining higher crop diversity. This effectively refutes the idea that chemically-intensive farming methods are necessary to meet the food production demands of a growing population.

As a result of lower input costs and higher incomes, community-managed natural farming in Andhra Pradesh (APCNF) also improved farmer livelihoods, with net incomes averaging 49% higher. Furthermore, it led to better health outcomes and stronger communities. Villages with a higher takeup of natural farming also had higher female workforce participation. 

The results highlight the positive return on public investment resulting from natural farming, with strong evidence that natural farming offers a better alternative to the existing farming systems. 

“Given the ongoing climate impacts, it is imperative to scale inclusive and climate-resilient agricultural models,” said Pavan Sukhdev, CEO of GIST Impact and project director. “By using a True Cost Accounting framework, policymakers can now assess the costs and benefits of different farming systems, considering economic, social, environmental and human health factors that were previously overlooked in conventional metrics focused solely on yields and profits.” 

“Our research provides a blueprint for environmentally-friendly agricultural development that supports social and economic goals while mitigating climate and biodiversity challenges,” said Sukhdev. 

The study also highlights the social impacts of natural farming. A virtuous cycle of increased economic gains, trust, cohesion, and reciprocity was observed, with women playing a significant role in enhancing social capital. Smaller farms and those practicing natural farming exhibited higher social capital scores, emphasising the importance of smallholder farmers in community development.

Additionally, those practicing natural farming experienced fewer on-farm health risks, losing 33% fewer working days to illness compared to farmers using other methods. The use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers in other practices correlated with higher health costs and productivity losses, further underscoring the benefits of natural farming on human health.

The research was possible thanks to the work of Andhra Pradesh Community-Managed Natural Farming (APCNF) – a state-wide agroecological transformation of the farming practices of its 6 million farmers over 6 million hectares and 50 million consumers. It is the largest transition to agroecology in the world, with 630,000 farmers addressing multiple development challenges: rural livelihoods, access to nutritious food, biodiversity loss, climate change, water scarcity and pollution. 

For the study, a comprehensive primary household survey was conducted between 2020 and 2022 in twelve selected villages across three different agro-ecological regions of Andhra Pradesh, encompassing a diverse range of farming households. 

“This study is a significant step forward, bringing together science and economics to deliver objective analysis and enhance our understanding of different agricultural systems. It confirms what we can see in the villages: that community-managed natural farming supports community cohesion in villages, improves farmers’ health outcomes and increases their income – especially for women,” said Vijay Kumar Thallam, Executive Vice Chairman, RySS – Andhra Pradesh Community-Managed Natural Farming (APCNF). 

“As the world grapples with the urgent need for food systems transformation, this groundbreaking research provides valuable insights for policymakers, communities, and farmers worldwide. By embracing agroecological practices like natural farming and employing frameworks like True Cost Accounting, we can transition to resilient, productive food systems at scale while promoting social and economic well-being and at the same time, reducing public expenditures,” said Lauren Baker, Deputy Director, Global Alliance for the Future of Food.

Media Contacts: 

GIST Impact 

Alexandra Downs 

[email protected]

Global Alliance for the Future of Food

Maria Elena De Matteo

[email protected]

About GIST Impact 

GIST Impact is a leading impact data and analytics provider that has been measuring and quantifying corporate impacts for more than 15 years. GIST Impact’s historic and deep expertise in the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) enriches its clients’ knowledge of their impacts and dependencies on nature. 

With a team of 100+ scientists, engineers, data scientists and ecological and environmental economists, GIST Impact codifies this experience within its market-leading impact platforms and datasets, covering 12,800+ companies with geographically precise, time-series data. 

GIST Impact works with pioneering companies across all sectors and with investors representing over $8 trillion in assets under management. GIST Impact also partners with some of the world’s largest ESG data providers, business networks, and fintech platforms to enable impact measurement across global markets. 

www.gistimpact.com

About the Global Alliance for the Future of Food 

The Global Alliance for the Future of Food is a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations working together and with others to transform global food systems now and for future generations. We believe in the urgency of transforming global food systems, and in the power of working together and with others to effect positive change. Food systems reform requires that we craft new and better solutions at all scales through a systems-level approach and deep collaboration among philanthropy, researchers, grassroots movements, the private sector, farmers and food systems workers, Indigenous Peoples, government, and policymakers. 

https://futureoffood.org

About Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming (APCNF)

Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS), a Government of Andhra Pradesh Section 8 company is implementing the Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming programme. APCNF is working towards transitioning from conventional farming to nature-based solutions ingrained with community wisdom and agroecological principles through natural farming.

With 630,000 farmers enrolled to date in 3730 villages across the state, the programme credits the social movement of women self-help groups and their federations are leading the transformation. 

https://apcnf.in

Latest Insights

Industry reveal: What is the natural capital impact of the top pharmaceutical companies?

We recently looked at the top pharmaceutical companies across developed markets to assess how successful they’ve been in reducing their natural capital impacts. Our analysis found that only 3 of…

GIST Impact and SIR partner to support companies with CSRD

April 9, 2024 – GIST Impact today announced the launch of our new partnership with Sustain It Right (SIR), a SaaS platform designed to help companies manage their CSRD journey….

Podcast: Natural Capital and Biodiversity with Pavan Sukhdev

GIST Impact CEO Pavan Sukhdev joins Nawar Alsaadi and Matt Orsagh from ED4S on the latest “Sustainability in Motion” podcast.

Key Takeaways from Natural Capital Investment EMEA

We were proud to sponsor Environmental Finance’s fifth annual 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗘𝗠𝗘𝗔 and to connect with over 400 peers to discuss the key issues related to natural capital investment,…

Exploring the nexus of AI and social impact with Microsoft

Earlier this month, we were thrilled to be invited to participate in Microsoft’s event on “Inclusive Economic Growth in the Era of AI” as part of their National Apprenticeship Week…

The Future of Social Impact: 7 Trends to Watch in 2024

In recent years, an increasing number of companies have actively sought to understand how to better track and measure the social impact they have on the communities they serve. Whether…

What Is Natural Farming? A Beginner’s Guide

Natural farming is a chemical-free approach to agriculture, which attempts to mimic nature’s processes to create a sustainable ecosystem where plants and animals can thrive without harming the environment.

It was first introduced by Mr. Masanobu Fukuoka, a Japanese Farmer, as a do-nothing approach to farming, which did not include common farming practices such as plowing, tilling, weeding, or even composting.

However, this approach has evolved quite a bit, influencing the creation of several other systems, such as Korean Natural Farming (Korea) and Zero Budget Natural Farming (India), which also avoids synthetic chemical, but allows the use of sustainable practices.

Natural farming is based on indigenous farming techniques, which have been used to produce food successfully for thousands of years, long before synthetic fertilizers and pesticides existed. 

So, if you’re ready to learn about a simple, cost-effective, and nature-friendly farming technique, you’re in for a treat. 

In this beginner’s guide, we will explore what it means to embrace natural farming, including the basics, benefits, and some practical tips to get started.

3 Basic Principles Of Natural Farming

If you wish to understand Natural Farming, we’ll first need to look at the basics. See, Natural Farming aims to provide farmers with a simple, practical farming system . 

To achieve this, you’ll need to rely on several principles. The most well-known of these are as follows:

1. Learn From Nature

By observing how the different components in nature interact, natural farmers can modify their approach to successfully farm the land without disrupting the environment’s delicate balance.

For example, we can determine the need for different types of trees, their required spacing, and other conditions by looking at nearby food forests or other successful systems.

This provides us with a model for a sustainable ecosystem that we can use as inspiration and starting point to:

2. Build Healthy Soil

As natural farmers, we seek to improve the soil, by not disturb its structure. We try to do this by not plowing the soil, but continuously adding organic material and microorganism solutions .

For example, techniques such as composting and mulching have been used by farmers for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, an are now used by some natural farmers.

In essence, our aim is to feed the soil, or more so the microorganisms within, which in turn provides nutrients for our plants . However, this is only possible if practitioners:

3. Use Little To No Chemicals

By definition, natural farming avoids using harmful pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.This protects the soil and animal life on the farm. While also ensuring that produce from the farm is free from chemical residue.

Unlike conventional practices, natural farming seeks alternatives to chemical inputs. Sometimes these include alternatives such as natural fertilizers and pesticides made from organic materials.

By using these natural inputs, farmers can provide plants with the nutrients and protection they need without negatively impacting the environment.

These basic principles allow natural farmers to create eco-friendly food production systems with little impact on the surroundings. That said, let’s take a look at:

3 Benefits of Natural Farming

Natural farming is a lot of work. So, in case you’re wondering if it’s even worth the effort, let’s explore some of the incredible benefits. 

1. Healthier Food

First, we must remember that the main reason to grow food is to get a harvest. However, the quality of this harvest will depend on how you treat your plants and what you add to them.

For example, in conventional agriculture, some residue will remain on the surface of your produce if you use harmful chemicals to protect your crop. This can find its way into your body, if not processed properly.

In contrast, you do not need to worry about chemical contamination in natural farming since synthetic chemicals are not allowed in the first place.  

As a result, you can confidently bite into food from a natural farm, knowing that it is free of harmful chemicals and other contaminants. This also: 

2. Protects the Environment

By avoiding chemical agents, you are also removing any chance of soil and water contamination.

In fact, natural farming can improve soil life and help remove existing compaction and mineral build-up created by conventional farming practices.

So, by relying on natural farming practices, you are protecting the beauty of your surroundings and reversing some of the damage done by your predecessors. 

And from a business standpoint, it also makes sense since it allows the farmer to:

3. Save Money

Farmers don’t have to waste money on expensive chemicals or certified farming inputs in natural farming. 

Instead, they use natural processes such as composting, fermentation , and biodiversity to control weeds , supply nutrients, and protect their crops.

This can cut expenses considerably since they are no longer subjected to ever-increasing prices of synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides, and other soil amendments.

However, based on your location and the size of your farm, you might end up spending quite a bit on labor. So, natural farmers must consider this when designing and operating their systems. 

Getting Started with Natural Farming

Natural farming takes a lot of effort, especially when setting up a system. 

However, you can save yourself a lot of frustration if you take the time to research and get started on the right foot. To do this, you should first:

1. Learn the Basics

There are several principles and skills you’ll want to practice until they become second nature. Notice, I said practice and not just learn. Since the most effective way to learn is by doing.

So, while researching the principles of design and operation of natural farms, you can start composting kitchen scraps, fallen leaves, and other organic materials. 

Then, you learn how to prepare nutrient solutions and microorganism solutions. These solutions will prove essential in building the foundation for your soil’s fertility. Afterward, you’ll need to:

2. Choose Your Plants

Diversity is the key to the success of natural farming systems. And how the different parts interact can make or break the system.

As a result, you must start by choosing the right combination of plants and possibly animals to create your system.

You can start by researching crops well-suited to your area’s climate. So, don’t be afraid to mix and match for a garden full of plants and animals that support each other like old friends.

However, this doesn’t happen overnight. So you’ll have to:

3. Be Patient 

Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither is a thriving natural farm. Sometimes, it can take several years for the system to become self-sustaining. 

However, this all depends on your goals and design for the system. Some farmers keep the system from advancing. So, while it may not need chemical inputs, it will require continuous use of natural solutions and other amendments to keep the system balanced.

Regardless of your goal, you have to be patient and monitor the progress. To ensure you are making the most of your journey, here are:  

3 Tips for Successful Natural Farming

Once you decide to progress with your natural farming adventure, you’ll need to focus on the basics. 

Here are some tips to ensure your success. For starters, you’ll have to remember that: 

1. Observation is Key

Nature is your best teacher. You can learn a lot by observing local forests and other natural systems. 

Also, you’ll need to monitor your plants, but more importantly, the “weeds” and pests. Remember, these are indicators of the health of your soil and ecosystem.

So, by taking a few minutes each day, you’ll be more aware of the needs of your farm and current state of natural succession. Then, be ready to make the necessary changes to your system so long as you:

2. Use Natural Resources

Nature provides all the materials you need. Collect rainwater, kitchen scraps, and other plant and animal remains to create the necessary nutrient and microorganism solutions. 

Remember, there is no such thing as waste on a farm, just a lack of knowledge on how to use it. So, learn as much as possible about using animal manures, leaf mold, grass clippings, and other leftovers.

However, this also means you’ll need to have a wide range of materials available to use. This is one of the reasons why you need to: 

3. Embrace Biodiversity

The success of a natural farming system depends on how well it creates a balanced ecosystem. Each plant, animal, and even microorganism has its role to play in this system. 

For example, some plants deter pests, while animals provide manure, and together they all help to improve the structure of the soil. 

These simple mini-systems are overflowing with complex, mutually beneficial relationships.  

Thankfully, you do not need to know all the details, so long as you provide the conditions the system needs to keep everything balanced.

Final Thoughts

In this short guide, we’ve explored the basics of Natural Farming and some things to consider before starting. We’ve discussed the benefits of the system and tips to create a successful farm.

But this is just the start of your natural farming journey. If you’re eager to learn more about this and related farming systems…

Check out our Natural Farming page . There, you’ll find several tips and inspiration to get you started on your farming adventure. Happy farming!

Related Questions

What is the meaning of natural farming.

Natural farming is an agricultural approach that imitates nature’s processes to create a sustainable ecosystem where plants and animals can thrive without harming the environment. 

What is the difference between organic farming and natural farming?

The main difference between organic and natural farming is that organic farming allows certain chemicals while natural farming does not. Instead, it relies on natural substances and solutions created using biological processes such as fermentation.

Is organic farming natural?

Organic farming is designed to use naturally occurring substances and solutions but also permits certain “safe chemicals.” This means that organic agriculture is not necessarily natural..

National Center For Organic And Natural Farming. Concept of Natural Farming. ncof.dacnet.nic.in . Accessed September 2023

University Of Reading. Zero Budget Natural Farming… research.reading.ac.uk . Accessed September 2023

About Julien

Privacy Policy

All Articles

Natural Farming

Plant Guide

Syntropic Agroforestry

Quick Links

Garden Tasks

Container Gardening

Permaculture

Jadam Organic Farming

Korean Natural Farming

Useful Links

About Author

Video Library

Copyright © 2024 Micro Farm Guide

Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.

We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.

Brief introduction to this section that descibes Open Access especially from an IntechOpen perspective

Want to get in touch? Contact our London head office or media team here

Our team is growing all the time, so we’re always on the lookout for smart people who want to help us reshape the world of scientific publishing.

Home > Books > Updates on Organic Farming [Working Title]

Perspective Chapter: Agroecology-Based Natural Farming in India

Submitted: 11 September 2023 Reviewed: 21 November 2023 Published: 22 January 2024

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.113972

Cite this chapter

There are two ways to cite this chapter:

From the Edited Volume

Updates on Organic Farming [Working Title]

Dr. Subhan Danish and Dr. Shabir Hussain

Chapter metrics overview

77 Chapter Downloads

Impact of this chapter

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

The current biospheric emergency, fueled by climate change and habitat loss, necessitates a re-evaluation of food production systems. This chapter advocates a crucial shift to natural farming, emphasizing crop diversity and interdependence. It proposes alternatives to the food production crisis, critiquing chemical-dependent conventional farming for its adverse impacts on land, yields, and sustainability. Natural farming, characterized by minimal inputs was presented as a sustainable method. Critical challenges in contemporary agriculture, including monoculture cropping and climate change, are examined. The chapter examines the evolution of natural farming in response to crises and government initiatives, delving into traditional practices, and indigenous knowledge, and exploring traditional food and seed systems for their nutritional value. Natural farming is showcased for its positive impact on soil biodiversity and its ability to counteract land degradation. The chapter highlights Andhra Pradesh\'s community-managed Natural farming for its role in generating public debates on food systems transformation. Acknowledging the urgent need for food system transformation, the chapter concludes with a call for research partnerships to guide natural farming\'s expansion, emphasizing collaborative efforts for sustainable advancement in India\'s agricultural practices.

• natural farming
• seed pelletization
• pre-monsoon dry sowing
• 365 days green cover
• traditional seeds
• biostimulants
• nutritional security

Author Information

Kodeboyina varaprasad *.

• Indo-German Global Academy for Agroecology Research and Learning, Pulivendula, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, India

Teki Visweswara Rao

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1. Introduction: Revisiting ‘Food Systems’ - India’s learnings from natural farming

Agriculture is the key component of our food supply chain, and the methods employed to produce our food have far-reaching impacts on our health, the environment, and our economies. Agroecology involves the utilization of ecological principles and methodologies to sustainably improve and oversee soil fertility and agricultural productivity over the long term [ 1 ]. Several farming systems are partly or wholly aligned with agroecology. Some of these methods are reviewed from the angle of their potential to support food security in India. These techniques encompass: (i) Natural farming, also known as “Do Nothing” farming by Fukuoka; (ii) Biodynamic agriculture by Steiner, which has been implemented in India; (iii) Vermiculture developed by Appelhof and introduced in India; (iv) Natueco-culture by Dabholkar; (v) Zero Budget Natural Farming by Palekar; (vi) Rishi-Krishi by Deshpande; (vii) Agnihotra by followers of Gajanan Maharaj from Akkalkot; (viii) Panchagavya by Natarajan; (ix) Krishi-suktis and Vrikshayurveda from the wisdom of ancient and medieval Indian sages and scholars; (x) Compost tea introduced in India by Ingham; and (xi) Bokashi tea introduced in India by Higa [ 2 ]. Other ecologically harmonious agri-food systems are Organic Farming, Regenerative Agriculture, and Sustainable Farming.

The challenges of chemical-based current agri-food systems or conventional systems are well-documented. Organic farming and Agroecology-based Natural Farming are being tested and extensively in certain locations of India as alternatives to the current food system. Natural Farming is a holistic land management practice that leverages the power of photosynthesis in plants to close the carbon cycle and build soil health, crop resilience and nutrient density. Natural Farming constitutes a collection of agroecological techniques to rejuvenate soil vitality through emulation of natural processes. This comprehensive land management approach harnesses the potential of plant photosynthesis to complete the carbon cycle, enhancing soil quality, bolstering crop durability, and improving nutrient richness [ 3 ]. It places a greater emphasis on soil biology over soil chemistry, promoting practices such as multi-cropping and year-round soil cover and and incorporating a blend composed of cow dung and urine to stimulate the microorganisms within the soil ecosystem [ 4 ]. Natural farming practices are highly location-specific and vary greatly at different locations and even within a location, sometimes specific to practicing farmers. This chapter gives an account of perceptions of practicing farmers, promoters including governmental and nongovernmental agencies, formal scientists, and academicians in India on natural farming.

As a prelude, a brief comparative analysis of three distinct agri-food systems, namely, chemical-based conventional, organic, and natural farming systems, to various parameters is presented below.

Crop yields: Conventional Agriculture aims to maximize yields, often pushing the limits of land and resources, but it comes with inherent risk factors. Organic Farming strikes a balance, optimizing yields with a dependence on premium prices to compensate for yield gaps. Natural Farming, on the other hand, consistently demonstrates that maximization is possible without compromising sustainability.

Crop Production Inputs: In Conventional Agriculture, deficient plant nutrients are supplied through chemical fertilizers and the management of pests through chemical pesticides. This practice often leads to a loss of valuable soil carbon, humus, microbes, and earthworms due to plowing and other practices. Organic Farming relies on organic inputs for plant nutrition needs and biopesticides to avoid synthetic chemicals, promoting soil and environmental health. In Natural Farming, minimal external inputs are used. Inputs made on the farm by the farmers stimulate soil biology, avoiding harmful chemicals or bulky organic inputs.

Seed is also one of the main inputs that determine crop productivity. Conventional Agriculture frequently employs improved crop varieties and hybrids released through formal research systems including GMOs or transgenic crop seeds to enhance yield and quality of crop production. Organic Farming avoids hybrids and transgenic crop seeds that often need chemical inputs for claimed performance. Natural Farming also completely abstains from the use of the improved crop varieties and hybrids including GMOs or transgenic crop seeds. Traditional/Indigenous/Farmer varieties that are known to perform in specific geographies are encouraged to be used in natural farming.

Poly-cropping and Cropping Intensity: Conventional Agriculture typically practices minimal poly-cropping but encourages two or three crops (mostly mono-crops, sometimes mixed cropping with two or three crops) in a year for higher productivity. Organic Farming also follows similar cropping systems. In contrast, Natural Farming employs intensive polyculture (many crops ranging from 9 to 30), harnessing sunlight and soil moisture efficiently at various strata, which has the potential to significantly increase biodiversity, cropping intensity, and per unit land productivity.

Water Management: Conventional and Organic Agriculture primarily rely on rainfall or external irrigation sources often uneconomically for crop production. Natural Farming considers various sources of water, including water vapor in the atmosphere and “whapsa” water in the rhizosphere, enabling cultivation independent of rainfall with innovative practices of Pre-Monsoon Dry Sowing (PMDS) and 365-day green cover systems.

Net Income: Conventional Agriculture often results in negative net incomes, pushing farmers into crises. Organic Farming generally yields nominal to moderately positive incomes, depending on price premiums. Natural Farming shows highly positive economic impacts due to local, non-bulky inputs (Ghana and Drava Jeevamurt as against bulky Farmyard Manure encouraged in organic farming), high crop diversity, and reduced cultivation costs.

Consumer Health and Food Safety: Conventional Agriculture contributes to negative health impacts due to exposure to unsafe chemicals and the consumption of residue-laden foods. Organic Farming offers betterment of consumers’ health by avoiding agrochemicals and providing residue-free foods. Similarly, Natural Farming prioritizes consumer health, ensuring residue-free, diverse, and nutrient-dense food options.

Impact on Natural Resources: Conventional Agriculture has a negative impact on natural resources, contributing to desertification, land degradation, water, and environmental pollution. Organic Farming demonstrates improvements by reducing soil, water, and air pollution and enhancing resource savings. Natural Farming stands out with a rapid and substantial improvement in natural resources such as soil health and agrobiodiversity, including conservation of the most important and dwindling resource, the water.

Demand, Consumption, Certification, and Marketing: Conventional Agriculture is commonly opted for, despite its shortcomings, in situations where no safer alternatives are available at a comparable price. Organic Farming caters to those who can afford premium pricing for certified safe foods. Natural Farming, unlike the others, lacks organized certification and relies on local trust, making it accessible to broader stakeholders, including economically disadvantaged communities.

Each food system offers unique advantages and challenges. Conventional Agriculture seeks maximum yields but faces risks and sustainability concerns. Organic Farming balances yield optimization with sustainability and safety. Natural Farming, with its minimal external inputs, showcases high productivity, sustainability, and affordability while prioritizing local trust over certification. The choice among these systems depends on various factors, including environmental goals, economic considerations, and consumer preferences.

2. India’s agriculture research and development

The Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, which operates within the framework of the Ministry of Agriculture, serves as the central entity entrusted with the advancement of India’s agricultural sector [ 5 ]. Behind the growth lies a history of India’s efforts in increasing production post-Green Revolution. Agriculture holds a significant position in India’s economic landscape, currently ranking as one of the world’s top two agricultural producers [ 6 ]. The agricultural sector in India contributes to 18% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and engages nearly 54.6% of the nation’s labor force [ 5 ]. As stated by the economic data of the financial year 2018–2019, agriculture has acquired 18% of India’s GDP. The agriculture sector of India occupies almost 43% of India’s geographical area.

The growth achieved in Indian agriculture is driven by postindependence conditions such as food insecurity, lack of rural employment, hunger, and malnutrition. On the eve of the first plan (1951–1956), agriculture was hopeless and deplorable. Farmers were in heavy debt to the village moneylenders. They had small and scattered holdings. They had neither the money nor the knowledge to use proper equipment, good seeds, and chemical manures. Except in certain areas, they were dependent upon rainfall and upon the vagaries of the monsoons. Productivity of land as well as of labor had been declining and was generally the lowest in the world. Seventy percent of the active workforce was involved in farming, and although the nation did not produce enough food grains to meet its own needs, it had grown reliant on importing food grains [ 7 ].

Efforts were specifically directed toward enhancing food and cash crop supplies. The Grow More Food Campaign in the 1940s and the Integrated Production Programme in the 1950s targeted these aspects separately. India’s 5-Year Plans [ 8 ], focused on agricultural development, quickly followed suit. Under government oversight, activities such as land reclamation, land development, mechanization, electrification, and chemical usage, particularly fertilizers, were implemented. An integrated approach to agriculture, emphasizing comprehensive actions instead of isolated aspects, was developed [ 8 ]. These government policies catapulted India into one of the world’s leading producers of wheat, edible oil, potatoes, spices, rubber, tea, fish, fruits, and vegetables. To support agricultural research, various institutions were established under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Additionally, organizations like the National Dairy Development Board (established in 1965) and the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (established in 1982) facilitated cooperative formation and improved financing [ 8 ].

The Green Revolution’s focus was on increasing the yields, increasing the acreage, and improving overall production, thereby addressing food security. In India, the initiation of Green Revolution was orchestrated under the leadership of geneticist Dr. M. S. Swaminathan [ 9 ]. It started around the 1960s and helped in increasing food production in the country. The Indian agriculture scientists from ICAR and other institutions were sent to advanced universities in the USA regarding new agricultural technologies and their application with the support of USAID and Public Law 480 (PL 480). ICAR institutions undertake aid and promote and coordinate education, research and its application in agriculture, animal science, fisheries, agroforestry, and allied sciences.

The whole ecosystem of India’s current agriculture research, extension, and partnerships (public–private) is guided and rooted in green revolution. ICAR launched the All India Coordinated Research Project -National Seeds Project (Crops) in 1979–1980 aimed at the production of basic seed with a separate project-coordinating unit dedicated exclusively to nucleus and breeder seed production and to carry out seed technological research. This was elevated to the directorate paving the way for the establishment of the Directorate of Seed Research (DSR) in 2004. Around 4500 seed varieties are developed; their multiplication is restricted to a few varieties. Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) are the centers for agriculture extensions created by ICAR to serve as knowledge resource centers at the district level. They are an integral part of the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) and serve as the link between the NARS and the farmers. KVK’s whole work such as technology assessment and demonstration for its application, capacity development, and crop advisory services is tuned to chemical farming. Farmer participation in the development and dissemination of technology has emerged as an important theme in extension practice over the years. The synthetic inputs, especially fertilizers and pesticides, are produced and distributed by private entities.

3. Crop genetic exploitation

Crop yield, quality, and pest resistance were mainly achieved through the exploitation of genetic resources and breeding approaches during the Green Revolution period. To address the intricate challenges confronting our planet, including rapidly changing climate patterns, food and nutritional insecurities, and the ever-increasing world population, modern agricultural practices turned to the development of hybrid varieties of crops. The establishment of a commercially viable system for producing hybrid seeds has profoundly impacted our contemporary scientific comprehension of crops and the agricultural industry. Hybrid crops brought significant advantages for bolstering the economic benefits primarily owing to the phenomenon of heterosis, which confers superiority over diverse parent varieties. Leveraging genetic mechanisms to harness heterosis has facilitated enhanced productivity, quality improvement (depending on the specific goals), and reduced seed production costs. It effectively achieved the goal of developing crops with higher yields and improved quality across the crops. Thus, crop yields and farmers’ incomes enhanced, ensuring food security.

Improved varieties and hybrids developed still had certain limitations of not having sources of resistance to pests and diseases in the germplasm or genetic stocks of such crops. Hence, scientists explored the possibility of using the resistant sources outside the plant genome. The first success story in India was on incorporating Bacillus thuringiensis gene (Bt gene) into cotton varieties and hybrids. Such varieties having transgressed genes from bacteria to plant are called transgenic varieties or Genetically Modified Crops (GMCs). Thus, these cotton transgenic hybrids dominated by the private industry suppliers not only enhanced the cotton yields but also initially needed very less pesticides for cotton cultivation. Currently, over 90% of cotton cultivated area is occupied by Bt hybrids. Even this approach had limitations that the same hybrid cannot resist different bollworms and races within the same pest, and thus, continuous development through gene stacking became necessary.

Seed systems in India focused largely on improved varieties, hybrids, and transgenic crops. Public institutions such as research institutions and state agricultural universities play a key role in the seed supply chain by providing foundation and breeder seeds of the improved varieties and parental lines of hybrids. A major chunk of the seed supply of these varieties is in the hands of private industry. Traditional varieties are largely ignored by the formal seed systems. A small section of NGOs, farmer networks, and a few state departments of agriculture are only involved in traditional varieties of seed supply.

The modernization of agriculture meant that newer seed varieties were continuously developed by public and private sectors independently and through partnerships. The establishment of organizations such as The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) in 1961 has introduced a regulatory environment in the name of protecting plant varieties and encouraging the development of new varieties of plants. In 2001, India became the first country worldwide to introduce the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act. Additionally, India established an implementing authority to safeguard the rights of both farmers and breeders [ 10 ]. NITI Aayog (National Institution for Transforming India) in its working paper reviewed the status of agriculture in India and observed that “Despite the noteworthy increase in per capita food production, some sections of the population still suffer from undernutrition and malnutrition. There is a significant change on the demand side, with consumer preferences shifting towards healthy, safe, trait-based and quality food and bios. These changes indicate that the future of agriculture (and those engaged within) will face profound transformation in the coming decades” [ 11 ]. Authors believe that not only the exploitation of frontiers sciences but also the promotion of natural farming will address the issues of undernutrition, malnutrition, and access to healthy safe and quality food. Further natural farming will improve the environment and soil quality through sustainable agricultural practices.

4. Challenges in the current approaches to agriculture

Monoculture farming refers to cultivating a single crop on a large percentage or all of the farm, season after season to maximize production and profitability by growing a single crop. Mono-cropping practices contribute to the depletion of biodiversity; cultivation practices such as repeated and deep plowings lead to soil compaction; chemical application reduces or kills the microbial diversity that contributes to the decline in the availability of plant nutrients in the soil. Plowing, grazing, excess irrigation, keeping lands fallow, overgrazing, wind and water erosion, burning crop residues, and, finally, the use of excessive chemical fertilizers have almost destroyed the biological processes that stabilize soil structure and maintain its fertility, temperature, and water-holding capacity.

In India, soil erosion leads to the deposition of silt in reservoirs, resulting in a gradual annual reduction in reservoir capacity estimated at 1 to 2 percent. This, in turn, adversely affects irrigation in the surrounding areas. The National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) estimates that water erosion causes an annual production loss of 13.4 million tons for major rainfed crops in India, translating to a financial loss of Rs. 205.32 billion [ 4 ]. Another area of huge concern is flood irrigation practices promoted by conventional farming. Starting from the 1970s, there has been a substantial rise in the extent of land using groundwater for irrigation. India stands as the globe’s leading consumer of groundwater, with an annual withdrawal of 250 cubic kilometers [ 12 ]. Approximately 20 million irrigation wells are scattered across India [ 13 ]. India is among the top 10 pesticide-consuming countries in the world.

Climate change also induced extreme weather events such as floods, forest fires, and heatwaves to name a few that have destroyed crops, reduced harvests, and impoverished farmers. The anticipated temperature rise of 1–2.5 degree Celsius by 2030 is expected to have profound consequences on crop yields. Increased temperatures may result in a decrease in crop duration, enable modifications in photosynthesis, raise crop respiration rates, and impact pest populations [ 4 ]. Farmers and laborers are at risk of occupational hazards that are being exacerbated by climate change. A combination of the above factors has significantly reduced the quality of food produced through chemical farming. Due to intense, mismanaged farming, soil nutrients are declining. Nitrogen stores have decreased by 42%, phosphorus by 27%, and sulfur by 33%.

According to the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) estimates, India experiences an annual soil loss rate of approximately 15.35 tons per hectare, leading to a depletion of nutrients ranging from 5.37 to 8.4 million tons [ 4 ]. The decline of biodiversity is adversely affecting the functioning and stability of ecosystems [ 14 ] and diminishing human well-being by decreasing the services that ecosystems can provide for people [ 15 ]. To quote an example, the decline of the honeybee, a major pollinator of many crops, is impacting agriculture. As per FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), bees are responsible for pollinating 71 out of the 100 crops that constitute 90% of human food, with an estimated annual economic value of up to $200 billion [ 16 ].

5. Current agriculture crisis

The green revolution that was initiated during the 1960s helped to cross the edge of famines and ensure food security in most developing countries including India. Presently, India not only fulfills its own food requirements but also maintains substantial food grain buffer reserves and holds the distinction of being the world’s largest exporter of rice [ 17 ]. Seventy years ago, the agricultural strategy centered on expanding land under cultivation, clearing additional areas for farming, and harnessing the advantages of science and technology to boost production. This has led to increased use of synthetic fertilizers and agrochemicals, modified seed varieties that produce higher yields, and reengineering of agronomy practices that manipulate soil and water systems. It has contributed to the degradation of land, soil health, and well-being of people due to the prolonged use of synthetic fertilizers and chemicals.

The extreme and indiscriminate adoption of modern agricultural technologies for higher crop yields has shown its baneful effect over the years. The consequence is deterioration of soil fertility; currently, 75% of the earth’s land is degraded, losing 36 billion tons of soil annually. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) indicated that due to soil degradation, only 60 harvesting years are left, which is a major concern for the growing population [ 18 ]. There is a significant reduction in soil organic carbon to 0.3 percent, and its magnitude of loss may be from 10 to 50 tons C/ha [ 19 , 20 ]. The soil with low soil organic carbon yields results in low agronomic yield.

Fertilizer use is highly skewed among the states in India [ 21 ], and fertilizer consumption has increased from 12.4 kg/ha in 1969 to 133.4 kg/ha in 2020. The imbalanced use resulted in a declining fertilizer crop response ratio from 123.47 kg grain/kg in 1970 to 3.70 kg grain/kg in 2005. During 2020–2021, the Government of India spent Rs. 127,921 crore on fertilizer consumption. India has the biggest pesticide industry in Asia with consumption worth Rs. 6000 crores. The extreme consumption of agrochemicals has led to water, soil, and air contamination, thereby reducing crop productivity [ 22 ].

Conventional chemical farming increased the cost of cultivation and led Indian farmers into debt trap [ 23 ]. This chemical farming method uses fossil fuel and water at an unsustainable rate, and agriculture in India consumes 90% of the water of which 80% is used in the production of rice, wheat, and sugarcane [ 24 , 25 ].

Climate change can affect agriculture in a variety of ways. Climate change induced yield loss between 4.5 to 9% leading to a loss of 1.5% of GDP on an annual basis. Climate change is a marginal negative gain over the years, and this is affecting crop production and livestock management [ 26 ]. Climate change is going to have an adverse effect on major field crops like rice, wheat, soybean, millets, and sorghum, whereas the impact on fruits and vegetables is widely varied, as it depends on the latitude and region of cultivation. In the case of the livestock sector, there is going to be a reduction in pasture productivity along with decreased growth rates of productivity [ 27 ] (Bhattacharyya et al., 2020). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stemming from the food system globally are high, notably attributed to energy consumption throughout the food supply chain [ 28 ]. In India, 14% of the total GHG emission is contributed by the agricultural sector [ 29 ]. Climate change has a significantly greater risk to the natural and human systems with 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperatures compared to 1.5°C; biodiversity can lose twice as high under this condition [ 30 ]. Elevated temperatures can disrupt plants’ capacity to obtain and utilize moisture efficiently [ 31 ]. Global warming is likely to increase rainfall; the net impact of higher temperatures on water availability is a race between higher evapotranspiration and higher precipitation. Globally, the overall impact of baseline global warming by the 2080s is a reduction in agricultural productivity (output per hectare) by 16%.

There are numerous drawbacks to the use of industrial chemicals that are not organic, especially in terms of their environmental footprint. These harmful synthetics used in massive amounts contaminate plants grown for human consumption. They also result in a vast heap of residue in the soil postharvest, which not only permeates the soil but also degrades groundwater quality. They lead to excessive fertilizer use, habitat destruction, ecological degradation, soil fertility loss, carbon emission, and so forth. Land-use change (LUC) resulting from the expansion of agriculture constitutes a significant origin of anthropogenic GHG emissions [ 32 ]. The combined contributions of agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) accounted for approximately 23% of global anthropogenic GHG emissions during the period of 2007–2016 [ 33 ]. Moreover, the variability of emissions from deforestation and from cultivated organic soils drive, on average, 42% of the variance in product agricultural GHG emissions, according to the meta-analysis conducted by Poore and Nemecek (2018). The existing conventional agri-food systems that rely heavily on chemical inputs, along with other industrial activities, have had a detrimental impact on various aspects of our ecosystem. These include causing distress to farmers, degrading the quality of food, soil, and water, and contributing to the worsening of the overall health of humans, animals, soil, and the planet as a whole.

6. Natural farming in India

Natural farming origins can be traced to when Mokichi Okada proposed the concept of “nature farming” in 1935 [ 34 ]. While Masanobu Fukuoka popularized the term shizen noho (meaning natural farming in English), Okada was the first to introduce farming without fertilizers and pesticides. Natural Farming adopts a low-input, climate-resilient farming approach that promotes the utilization of inexpensive, locally sourced materials while eliminating the need for artificial fertilizers through cost-effective cultivation methods [ 35 ]. Natural Farming helps revive soil organic matter and biomass regeneration and helps in ecosystem services.

In India, the farm-based livelihood interventions under DAY-National Rural Livelihood Mission (DAY-NRLM) were started first under Mahila Kisan Shasaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP), launched in 2010–2011 as a sub-component of DAY-NRLM. MKSP has made a significant change in the use of new scientific knowledge and practices intended to revive age-old traditional knowledge, recycle biomass, restore soil fertility, improve seed and sovereignty, protect plants, and improve storage practices and technology intervention that are easy to adopt and scale up. Since 2014–2015, India has had a National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) to promote sustainable agriculture. It consists of several programs focusing on agroforestry, rainfed areas, water and soil health management, climate impacts, and adaptation. However, the allocation for the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) within the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoAFW) budget is minimal, accounting for just 0.8%.

Natural farming has been gaining popularity in India as a sustainable farming methodology since 2015. Approximately 3.8 million hectares, equivalent to 2.7% of the total agricultural land in India, is dedicated to organic or natural farming methods [ 35 ]. The government is pushing natural farming across India, with schemes like Bhartiya Prakritik Krishi Paddati (BPKP) and Zero-Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF).The BPKP targets to cover 12 lakh ha in 600 major blocks of 2000 ha in different states over a period of 6 years. Mission LiFE was officially launched by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India on October 20, 2022. It envisions an India-led global grassroots movement aimed at inspiring both individual and collective actions for the protection and preservation of the environment [ 36 ].Mission LiFE has a comprehensive and non-exhaustive list of 75 individual LiFE actions across seven categories, and “Natural Farming” is one among them.

Starting in 2016, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GoAP) has been executing the AP Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) program through Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS), a government-owned Section 8 company. APCNF adopts an approach that is farming in harmony with nature and works with more than a million farm and farmworker families. By harnessing the social capital that exists in the form of women’s self-help groups and their federations, APCNF promotes farmer-to-farmer experiential knowledge dissemination [ 37 ].

However, some of the key challenges identified in the adoption of Natural Farming are farmers’ mindsets who are used to chemical farming for over 60 years and require hand-holding support from a credible extension system as the current extension follows a top-down approach. The state agriculture departments, the agriculture universities, and the agriculture Research system and banking are all geared toward chemical agriculture, a real hurdle in weaning farmers away from chemical farming. An account of the key approaches, science-based perceptions, traditional knowledge, and innovations that contribute to natural farming promotion in India is provided below.

7. Evolution of traditional food Systems in India

India’s agriculture has been a rich tapestry of diverse and harmonious farm practices since time immemorial. Food systems are best understood as a way of life and an experience, as they are deeply embedded in and shaped by the landscape, ecology, culture, social exchange, economy, politics, and people’s lived experiences. Agricultural systems are a part of food systems as recognized even in mainstream definitions of food systems: “This system encompasses all aspects, including the environment, individuals, resources, processes, infrastructure, institutions, markets, trade, and the activities associated with the production, processing, distribution, marketing, preparation, and consumption of food, as well as the resulting socio-economic and environmental consequences,” High-level Task Force of Global Food and Nutrition Security, October 2015 [ 38 ].

A country with a population of 1.2 billion people, India is home to 705 indigenous communities [ 39 ]. Each of these communities has its unique food system that includes a wide variety of indigenous foods, contributing to increased dietary diversity [ 40 , 41 ]. Historical records (9000–2000 BCE) from India indicate the early cultivation of wheat, barley, horse, sheep, goat, elephant, and cattle. These practices encompassed tasks such as threshing, row-based crop cultivation—either in pairs or in groups of six—and grain storage in granaries. The crops under cultivation ranged from cotton, hemp, and sugarcane, eventually transitioning to rice. The Indus Valley Civilization marked the advancement of irrigation and water storage techniques, including the creation of reservoirs that facilitated mixed farming and plowing using animal power.

Turning to the realm of agriculture, the prevalent method in earlier Indian practices, particularly within tropical regions, was “shifting agriculture” system, recognized under various local names such as “swidden,” “slash and burn agriculture,” rotational bush fallow agriculture, and commonly known as “jhum.” This comprehensive agricultural approach involves alternating short-crop phases, typically lasting one or 2 years, with periods of natural or minimally altered vegetational fallow. Rather than pursuing short-term maximization, the emphasis is on long-term yield management. Shifting agriculture methods uphold diversity in cropping phases through mixed cultivation. Perennial shrubs and trees are staggered in time and restricted to the fallow phases within the forest cycle. In this framework, agricultural ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling and pest dynamics are governed through the intricate interplay of cropping and fallow stages. The system’s stability hinges on maintaining a minimum agricultural cycle length—defining the duration of the fallow period before the return to the phase fostering soil fertility recovery, a factor directly impacting economic yield. These strategies safeguard food’s nutritional density, ensuring a wealth of minerals and vitamins. However, the abundant diversity inherent in traditional agroecosystem types, present until more recent times and still existing in numerous remote Indian locales, faces rapid depletion. Furthermore, the profound traditional ecological knowledge and technologies nurtured by these indigenous societies are fading due to the dominance of mainstream monoculture practices propagated by conventional farming.

8. Nutritional value of indigenous food systems (IFs)

India boasts a rich diversity of native foods (IFs) that hold deep cultural significance within local and ethnic communities. Recently, the FAO has emphasized the establishment of a “Global Hub on Indigenous Food Systems,” renewing global interest in IFs due to their potential to enhance food security and promote biodiversity on a global scale. These foods are esteemed for their substantial nutritional value, offering significant prospects for improving health and nutrition [ 42 ].

Indigenous communities gather and cultivate local IFs from a wide range of food sources, including edible greens (such as leaves, stems, and shoots, including marine algae), root vegetables (encompassing true roots and underground storage organs like bulbs, corms, tubers, and rhizomes), fleshy fruits (such as berries, pomes, and drupes), wild mushrooms, grains, seeds, nuts, as well as harvested fish, insects, and game [ 43 ]. In traditional practices, farmers not only conserved their own seeds but also engaged in a system of barter or exchange, sharing their seed stocks with one another.

An analysis of several articles offering scientific evidence, utilizing selective indicators, has furnished insights into the nutritional worth of indigenous foods. Documentation has been made regarding the nutritional values of 508 IFs consumed across 15 states and 1 UT of India. Jharkhand leads at 28%, followed by Meghalaya at 15% and Kerala at 11%. These IFs fall into distinct categories: (a) 63 cereals, (b) 36 nuts and legumes, (c) 154 green leafy vegetables (GLVs), (d) 98 other vegetables (including mushrooms), (e) 51 roots and tubers, (f) 66 fruits, and (g) 40 flesh foods (including livestock and wild game). Details and units were extracted from each study for all macronutrients, micronutrients, and anti-nutrients, meticulously reviewed and systematically organized according to food groups.

The extracted data created a compendium detailing the nutrient (n = 508) and antinutrient (n = 123) content of IFs, followed by calculating antinutrient-to-mineral molar ratios for 98 IFs to predict mineral bioavailability. Green leafy vegetables (n = 154) boasted the highest nutritive values, trailed by other vegetables (n = 98), fruits (n = 66), cereals (n = 63), roots & tubers (n = 51), and nuts and legumes (n = 36). Many IFs surpassed conventional foods in nutritional content and were rich (i.e., >20% of Indian recommended dietary allowances per reference food) in iron (54%), calcium (35%), protein (30%), vitamin C (27%), vitamin A (18%), zinc (14%), and folate (13%).

Within cereals, 49 local rice landraces’ nutritional values have been documented, cultivated, and consumed by various indigenous communities. Varieties of red rice (Kba-baswoit, Ladhan, Kba-bakut, Kba-Iwai, and Kba-stem) and sticky rice (Kba-shulia) in northeast India exhibit high iron (3.1–6.1 mg/100 g) and folate content (65–1203 μg/100 g). Several millet varieties also feature elevated iron (3.9–19.3 mg/100 g) and calcium (264–364 mg/100 g) content. Indigenous legumes from Jharkhand, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh serve as substantial sources of calcium (260–945.4 mg/100 g), iron (3.6–38.6 mg/100 g), and zinc (3.4–7.7 mg/100 g), respectively. Among indigenous nuts, Khasi tribe of Meghalaya consumes varieties with remarkably high calcium levels (1020–1540 mg/100 g), while Perilla (Perilla frutescens), an oilseed from Meghalaya and Manipur, boasts elevated iron (8.3–9 mg/100 g) and zinc (4.7–5.02 mg/100 g) levels.

9. Bringing traditional methods back into farming

In the current Indian food landscape, inadequate and suboptimal sustenance plagues around 14% of the roughly 900 million rural and 460 million urban residents. Reincorporating traditional methods, such as millet cultivation, aims to enhance diet diversity. Beyond health advantages, millets promote environmental health due to their minimal water and input needs. The United Nations has declared 2023 as the International Year of Millets [ 44 ], a bid backed by the Indian Government to boost millet production and consumption. To enrich food’s nutritional value, the Indian government is reviving traditional seed variations. Natural Farming methods help decrease exposure to harmful chemicals, subsequently lowering the incidence of related illnesses and the associated healthcare expenses. Furthermore, the AP Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) initiative works in partnership with villages to encourage a varied diet and guarantee access to public health and nutritional services [ 45 ]. Several studies are underway to examine both crop quality when Natural Farming principles are applied and the health outcomes of APCNF.

10. Traditional knowledge recognition and promotion

Traditional societies since centuries have accumulated a whole lot of empirical knowledge from their experiences while dealing with nature and natural resources. Traditional wisdom is rooted in the fundamental understanding that humans and nature are interconnected and constitute an inseparable unity [ 46 ]. This is widely reflected in their attitude toward plants, animals, rivers, and the earth. Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) encompasses the knowledge, innovations, and practices of indigenous and local communities across the globe. TEK is passed down orally from one generation to the next and is regarded as the intangible heritage and intellectual property of these communities [ 47 ]. It tends to be jointly closely held and sometimes takes the shape of stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community laws, native languages, and practices. Of the 3800 culturally distinct communities living in India, over 50 million tribals have significantly contributed to the traditional ecological knowledge. Over 9500 wild plants are recognized to be of ethnobotanical value, of which over 7500 are used as medicines, 3900 as edibles, 500 for fiber, 400 as fodder, and 300 as pesticides.

The concept of villas as an ecosystem among traditional societies involving agriculture, animal husbandry, and the domestic sector including forest and forest-related activities such as hunting and gathering food and fodder, fuel, and medicinal plant collection and traditional farming practices such as shifting agriculture forms the basis for “natural farming.” The manner in which traditional societies observe and interact with the biodiversity in their surroundings, considering both spatial arrangement and temporal dynamics, holds substantial importance in maintaining ecosystem stability and resilience, particularly in the context of land use management [ 46 ]. Traditional forest management hinges on the active involvement of local communities, with social justice and equity serving as fundamental principles in the management of bioresources [ 48 ]. Most indigenous natural resource management system needs little or no external input, is flexible, and evolves with time for which an in-built mechanism in the form of traditional institutions is in place.

The Apatanis of Arunachal Pradesh practice an ecologically efficient form of wet rice cultivation and have evolved practices by which varieties are determined according to nutrient status at a given location. The whole village system is largely dependent upon the recycling of village waste resources. Closer to the village, they emphasize a pure crop of high-nutrient uptake/low use of efficient rice cultivation. Combining mixed cropping strategies in space and time with traditional weed management strategies shifting agriculture farmer of northeast India ensures effective check on nutrient loss during the cropping phase. They practice weed management rather than weed control. Even the pulled-out weeds are put back into the system. They developed sophisticated wet rice cultivation systems tailored to variations in soil fertility and water resources, aligning them with traditional management practices suitable for the specific landscape [ 46 ].

A study conducted by Tiwari et al. [ 49 ] in Meghalaya underscores the role of traditional ecological knowledge held by tribal communities in promoting environmental sustainability. This knowledge has naturally evolved through their harmonious coexistence with their surroundings. The practice of allocating protected forest areas, such as “sacred groves, village restricted forests, village supply forests, clan forests, and other traditionally managed forests,” which collectively constitute approximately 90% of Meghalaya’s total forested land, empowers tribal communities to nurture and safeguard forests and trees in proximity to their settlements, near water sources, on steep slopes, and other ecologically sensitive regions [ 49 ].The cultivation of home gardens for example by traditional societies demonstrates structural variations, functional differences and spatial complexity, depending upon the social and ecological settings. Emulating a natural forest, these gardens consist of densely arranged economically significant trees, shrubs, and herbs in compact plots ranging from 0.5 to 2 hectares, often encompassing more than a hundred different species [ 46 ].

There is growing evidence of the role of traditional knowledge in responding to climate change. The IPCC’s 4th Assessment emphasized the significance of indigenous knowledge and crop varieties in the context of adaptation [ 50 ]. UNU-IAS has recently recognized over 400 instances of indigenous peoples actively participating in climate change monitoring, adaptation, and mitigation. These cases encompass a wide array of effective strategies [ 51 ]. Studies conducted by IIED and its collaborators, involving indigenous communities in Peru, Panama, China, India, and Kenya [ 52 ], have revealed a strong and intricate connection between traditional knowledge and traditional crop varieties, highlighting their mutual interdependence [ 53 ]. The maintenance and transmission of TK depends on the use of diverse biological resources (wild and domesticated), and the reintroduction of traditional varieties can revive related traditional knowledge and practices. In a significant development, the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 endorsed a decision concerning “Enhanced action on adaptation” [ 53 ]. This decision underscored the necessity of incorporating “traditional and indigenous knowledge” alongside the best available scientific knowledge in addressing climate change challenges.

Natural Farming that is being practiced and adopted has drawn 5 important lessons from traditional ecological knowledge. First, Natural Farming principles are built on knowledge about resilience against drought and pest resistance. Traditional farmers are able to identify resilient crop species and varieties for adaptation. Traditional farmers are also plant breeders actively experimenting on farms. Thirdly, farmers did seed selection for preferred and adaptive characteristics, and fourth, knowledge about wild crop relatives is borrowed from times immemorial.

In Kenya, particularly among the Mijikenda community, certain wild food plants gain popularity among farmers when conventional crops face failure [ 53 ]. The fifth and perhaps most crucial aspect is that traditional agricultural practices play a vital role in preserving essential resources necessary for resilience and adaptation, including biodiversity, water, soil, and nutrients. Traditional knowledge can assist in predicting local weather patterns, anticipating extreme events, and offering accessible information to farmers, often at a scale more pertinent and practical at the local level than advanced modeling approaches [ 53 ].

11. Natural farming in India

Natural Farming offers a viable alternative to current conventional farming practiced in India; however, it requires systemic changes in both institutional—government and private—sectors. This type of farming practices based on ecological principles and laws of nature is being advocated by the United Nation to promote sustainable food systems to enhance food and nutrition security. Natural farming is being promoted through Bhartiya Parmparagat Krishi Pariyojna (BPKP) in India to enhance production, sustainability, saving of water use, and improvement in soil health and farmland ecosystem. The government has established the National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF) as a distinct and autonomous scheme starting from 2023 to 2024. This expansion builds upon the Bhartiya Prakritik Krishi Paddati (BPKP) and is allocated a budget of Rs. 459 Crores [ 54 ].

The National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF) is set to encompass an area of 7.5 lakh hectares through the establishment of 15,000 clusters. Farmers who express their intention to practice natural farming in their fields will be enrolled as members within these clusters. Each cluster will consist of 50 or more farmers, collectively managing 50 hectares of land or more [ 55 ]. Furthermore, each cluster can encompass a single village or span across 2–3 adjacent villages within the same gram panchayat. The central government aims to establish 15,000 Bhartiya Prakritik Kheti Bio-inputs Resource Centres (BRCs) to facilitate convenient access to bio-resources, with a focus on cow dung, urine, neem, and culture as essential components. These bio-input resource centers will be established alongside the proposed 15,000 model clusters for natural farming [ 55 ]. The Ministry of Agriculture is actively engaged in the extensive training of master trainers, “champion” farmers, and practicing farmers in natural farming methods. This training is facilitated through the National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management (MANAGE) and the National Centre of Organic and Natural Farming (NCONF) [ 56 ]. The Andhra Pradesh Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) program, initiated by the Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS) under the Department of Agriculture (Natural Farming wing), Government of Andhra Pradesh, since 2016, has yielded valuable insights into extension and training, social capital, and research. APCNF model advocates for best-practicing cadres as champion farmers in taking the lead farmers and other farmers as apprentices on the journey of NF, till they take charge of their journey (over 2–3 years). An internal community resource person (1 per 100 farmers) leads the transformation in 1 or 2 clusters, each cluster covering 3–5 Gram panchayats. APCNF co-opted educated young practitioners as input shop owners, farmer entrepreneurs, and local individual and collective enterprises in extension. Natural Farming fellow (agriculture graduate with NF practice. 1 per 1–2 blocks) also extends support in transformation. A per capita cost of Rs 15,000 needs to be spent on each farmer for over 5–7 years.

To scale Natural farming based on farmers’ traditional knowledge and their innovative approaches, it requires committed funds from the Government of India. This requires mainstreaming Natural Farming in the Agriculture ecosystem of India and engaging the Indian Council for Agriculture research, the private sector, financial institutions, and others to develop digital architecture. APNCF is advocating for bringing changes in curriculum in schools and universities to introduce Natural Farming to make NF knowledge, skills, and tools available for behavioral change among farmers. Realizing the need for dedicated effort in NF research, evidence, knowledge, and learning domain, the Government of AP and RySS have set up the Indo-German Global Academy for Agroecology Research and Learning (IGGAARL, Academy) in Pulivendula. The academy has been set up by the State Government of AP, with the support of a 20 Million Euros Grant from Government of Germany. The academy aims to offer certified learning to 1,00,000 NF practitioners, 10,000 farmer scientists through NF degrees, and 1000 interns (graduates and post graduates in agriculture, microbiology, management, social work, etc.). The flagship program of the academy learning is the four-year Farmer Scientist Course. Seventy-five percent of the learning in FSC is through practical and experiential learning through their own field, own experiments, training peer farmers, and transforming their village into climate-resilient villages. This is facilitated by conceptual inputs in the classroom and supported by intense mentoring. Overall, the Indo-German Global Academy for Agroecology Research and Learning strives to transform farming practices, generate farmer-led evidence, and establish a global knowledge platform on natural farming.

The AP Community-managed Natural Farming (APCNF) has achieved recognition as a National Resource Organization (NRO) by the National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), operating under the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. This recognition positions APCNF to assist other State Rural Livelihoods Missions (SRLM) in their efforts to promote Natural Farming transformations. APCNF has entered MoUs with Madhya Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Rajasthan SRLMs and is providing technical support to 12 more states.

12. Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Climate change can have diverse impacts on agriculture. As per NITI Aayog, India confronts severe water stress, with 600 million people experiencing high to extreme levels of stress and almost 70% of the water sources being contaminated. Additionally, the Indian Space Research Organization reports that over 30% of the land is undergoing land degradation and desertification. Furthermore, average land productivity currently stands at one-fourth of its potential capacity [ 57 ]. Several studies anticipate significant reductions in global crop yields, ranging from 20% to as much as 90%, within a relatively short span of a few decades due to the combined effects of climate change, soil erosion, and the decline in critical pollinator populations [ 58 ].

APCNF has introduced pre-monsoon dry sowing, a practice to be followed for covering the soil with 20 diversified crops during pre-monsoonal season to rebuild the soil health. PMDS cropping system improves the soil’s physical, chemical, and biological properties. PMDS has not only improved crop diversity but also significantly contributed to graduating farmers to adopt 365 days of green vegetation. Farmers developed unique A-grade models that followed all important principles of natural farming—365 days of green cover, diverse live plants at all times, relay cropping, higher land equivalent ratios, minimizing tillage, crop residue mulching, pelleting seeds, use of biostimulants to activate soil biology, use of indigenous seeds, and so on. All these practices implemented in the same plot of land create an excellent model of climate-resilient farming. Around 300 model farmers are being trained to take this concept to a large number of farmers. These innovations have worked in dryland regions of Ananthapuramu district.

Natural Farming has a scientific grounding in agroecological knowledge and practice. It posits that the powers of nature can be harnessed in ways that enable humans to extract agricultural products from soil systems in a sustainable way while maintaining and improving the ecosystem services of natural resources. This requires supporting regenerative processes within soil systems that replenish the stock of soil organic carbon and sustain below- and aboveground processes that compensate for the export of nutrients in food production. Regenerative agriculture is based on management practices that leverage plants’ power of photosynthesis to restore the carbon cycle and water cycle and to build up soil health, crop resilience, and nutrient density in food. In natural farming, the existing processes are enhanced by cutting-edge research on soil biology and ecology. This hypothesis clarifies the functions of plants’ microbiomes, the importance of root exudates, and the potentials and limits of biostimulants and bioinoculants. It also sheds light on the respective roles of bacteria, fungi, and viruses in plant health.

13. Customization of pre-monsoon dry sowing (PMDS) in APCNF

In 2018, APCNF leveraged poly cropping to pioneer pre-monsoon dry sowing. This innovation allows plants under natural farming conditions to extract air moisture for growth. NF farmers practicing APCNF year-round commence with pre-monsoon dry sowing, followed by the main Kharif crop, maintaining relay cropping for a full year. “Pre-monsoon dry sowing” enables cultivation in adverse climates, providing a third crop during summer with minimal water and inputs. Navadanya, a mix of 25–30 crop varieties, comprising millets, oilseeds, pulses, vegetables, tubers, leafy greens, gourds, and flowers, are sown with mulch. In irrigated paddy areas, Navadanya seeds during Kharif reap crop diversity benefits. Extending PMDS, “365 days green cover” enhances livelihoods through diverse food maintenance. Carefully selected crops maximize biodiversity, minimize soil disruption, maintain continuous cover, and sequester carbon through green cover’s longevity.

From successful PMDS and green cover piloting, APCNF’s A-grade model integrates natural farming principles—365 days of green cover, diverse year-round plants, relay cropping, minimal tillage, mulched residue, seed pelleting, biostimulants, and indigenous seeds. All practices on the same land establish a climate-resilient farming model. 365 days of green cover meant reduced water evaporation losses, continuous living root, diverse microbes in the soil, building of soil organic carbon, and, most importantly, building of water reservoirs in the subsurface soils.

14. Landscape - integration of animals, fisheries, food crops, trees, and horticulture

Integrating animals, fisheries, crops, trees, horticulture, and agroforestry is vital in natural farming. Diverse species, crops, horticulture, trees, livestock, and fisheries are carefully integrated for sustainability. Horticulture trees and field crops together exemplify this. For instance, land divided for horticulture, field crops, and shrubs with varying root depths fulfills nutrient demand and supply. Different species foster diversity, collaboration, and succession. Agroforestry combines tree cover with crop growth, enhancing biodiversity, soil conservation, microclimate regulation, and overall resilience.

15. Cover crops’ role on soil health and sustainability

Green cover of the soil contributes directly and indirectly to sustainability and crop productivity as explained below.

Cover crops stabilize soil through diverse mechanisms—boosting infiltration via stem and leaf growth—and through root systems. The roots of cover crops, especially legumes, stimulate beneficial fungi that intertwine with soil and release glomalin, binding soil. Some cover crops counteract compaction due to tillage, machinery, and wet soil. Both roots and top growth infuse organic matter into the soil, later decomposing when rolled or tilled. Mulching various crops bolsters soil organic matter in subsurface soils, counteracting its common decline in agriculture. Cover crops are widely endorsed for raising soil organic carbon (SOC) levels, thus improving soil health and climate mitigation. Biomass production of cover crops hinges on species, agronomic management, climate (temperature, precipitation), and soil conditions (moisture, nutrients).

Microbial growth is spurred by added organic matter and growing cover crop roots. The continuous presence of green cover nurtures microorganisms year-round. These organisms suppress diseases, enhance soil structure, and decompose organic matter, freeing nutrients for plants. Diverse crops foster varied microbial populations, enriching soil nutrients. Cover crops that have narrow carbon/nitrogen ratios build bacterial populations, to begin with, followed by fungal populations. The entire soil food web is rebuilt through the promotion of cover crops. According to an internal study conducted by APCNF, the average number of earthworms per square meter in a Natural Farming plot is 46.83 as compared to in the conventional plot where it is 5.71.

Cover crops also balance soil moisture—increasing infiltration, improving structure, and boosting organic matter. They prevent excess nitrogen leaching during heavy rains, acting as “catch” or “trap” crops, releasing nutrients as they decompose for the main crop. Additionally, cover crops fix nitrogen via nodules on roots, in cooperation with Rhizobium bacteria.

Incorporating cover crops simplifies pest and disease management. They introduce organic matter, nourishing microbes that aid in disease control. Cover crops attract beneficial insects through their flowers, providing habitat and nectar. In Natural farming, cover crops serve as mulch to suppress weeds. Some covers like buckwheat densely outcompete weeds.

Regarding soil moisture, cover crops are two-edged. In dry climates, they may consume moisture required by the main crop. However, they also stabilize moisture through infiltration, structure, and organic matter. The mulch retains rainwater, even in low-rainfall areas. While benefits surface within the first year, noticeable differences in soil structure and organic matter may take 2–3 years. According to a study conducted by Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), switching from conventional to natural farming can potentially save up to an average of 1400–3500 kl of water per ha.

16. Poly cropping practices in natural farming

Since ancient times in India, farmers have embraced practices such as mixed cropping, relay cropping, poly cropping, and multistory farming to diversify crops. In plantation crops, soil vulnerability during early growth stages leads to erosion. Weed infestation poses challenges in these initial stages including fast-growing cover crops that restore soil health.

The APCNF program has, over 7 years, championed mixed crops and cover crops in both irrigation-dependent and rainfed plantation systems, yielding noteworthy results in plant diversity, microbial activity, and soil fertility enhancement. Poly cropping involves cultivating multiple crops on the same plot of land, varying based on agroclimatic zones. Farmers blend crops like vegetables, millets, oilseeds, cereals, climbers, creepers, annuals, and perennials, harmonizing rather than competing. This diversification bolsters resilience against climate-related risks.

17. Soil microbiome

The importance of soil microbiome is supported by several scientific hypotheses. Bringing back microbes into soils is one of the key elements of Natural Farming. Natural Farming practices focus on aboveground and belowground biodiversity in a crop production system throughout the year to maintain the continuous live root system. The decomposition of the above- and below-land plant litter leads to a population of microbes such as fungi, algae, bacteria, earthworms, mites, nematodes, and so forth. Mycorrhizal fungi tubular organisms selectively leach minerals and provide them to plants. One cubic meter of healthy soil has 25,000 Km of fungi. One gram of fertile soil has up to one billion bacteria, and they can swap phosphorus, sulfur, and oxidized iron and carbon. Bacteria use alkaline enzymes and fungi use acidic enzymes to break down organic matter and store nutrients and minerals. Protozoans and Nematodes at an atrophic level in turn consume bacteria and fungi and make nutrients and minerals available in a form that plants can absorb. The microbes get sugars from plants as root exudates, and in turn, microbes leach essential minerals such as manganese, and phosphorus from soils and supply them to plants in inorganic form. All this forms soil organic matter (SOM), which becomes the larger soil food web. Unlike conventional farming, there is no need for supplementing with synthetic fertilizers, which acidify soils and lead to eutrophication. An element like manganese is required for splitting water into H and OH called hydrolysis for photosynthesis, and microbes do that job of making manganese available for plants. While chemically grown food has lost 70% of its nutritional value, the diverse soil biology under Natural Farming is making all 30 to 50 elements available for the plant’s growth and sustenance. Soil microbiome and human/ animal gut microbiome are interrelated and connected, and that is where food produced through Natural Farming has all digestible key nutrients. Carbon comes from microbial respiration in the soil where bacteria and other organisms feed on the sugars and release carbon dioxide. Soil organic carbon sequestration is an important outcome of NF practices. SOC sequestration is defined as a state of the soil in which the soil C inputs exceed the soil C release, leading to an increase in SOC stocks. This process helps in fixing atmospheric carbon into soils. Each gram of organic matter when it breaks down due to the above process releases 6 grams of water and is stored in the soil structure. This is a dynamic process; the more the vegetation, the more diverse the microbes, the increased the water availability, and the healthier the plants.

18. Seed microbiome

Seed microbiome offers excellent opportunities for research. Similar to soil microbiome, there are several hypotheses that help in understanding the innovative practice of “seed pelletization” followed in natural farming. Under Natural Farming practices, farmer’s own seeds or indigenous are preferred. In conventional farming, it requires at least 17.5 mm of rainfall during 1 week to germinate; additional rainfall is necessary to form seedlings. Additionally, it requires appropriate temperature, moisture, air, and light conditions. Seed pelletization adopted by APCNF farmers treats seeds with beejamrutham (fermented solution of cow dung, cow urine, and lime), a microbial coating, and rolls them with clay and ash to retain moisture for a longer period, and this helps in germination. The pelletization ensures a good microbiome readily available around the seed to immediately get active as soon as the seed becomes physiologically active.

According to Prof James White, Rutgers University, who conducted research on rhizophagy [ 59 ] and plant endophytes, the rhizophagy cycle is a process in which microbes switch between an endophytic phase (inside plant roots) and a free-living soil phase. In the rhizophagy cycle, microbes become intracellular and are digested by the plant, releasing nutrients that the plant can use. Endophytes are nonpathogenic microbes that live inside plant tissues without causing harm to the plant. They play a crucial role in the rhizophagy cycle by providing nutrients to the plant and protecting it from pathogens. Plants manipulate bacteria by cultivating microbes on the root exudate zone near the tip of the root. Secretion of exudates in a zone proximal to the root tip facilitates microbe entry into cells of the plant meristem. Inside the plant cells, plants release reactive oxygen (superoxide), which strips the cell walls of the microbes, and nutrients are extracted. Microbes inside the plant trigger a gravitropic response in roots. Microbial protoplasts are expelled into the soil through pores located at the tips of elongating root hairs. These microbes subsequently establish colonies in the soil’s rhizosphere, where they obtain supplementary nutrients necessary for their growth and development [ 59 ].

19. Traditional crops and varieties

Currently, global crop production is predominantly centered on four staple foods: wheat, rice, maize, and potato. In some regions, this concentration has led to a decline in genetic diversity within crop production and raised concerns about increased susceptibility to diseases. In the past two decades, a staggering 75% of the genetic diversity among agricultural crops has been diminished [ 60 ], a 100- to 1000-fold decrease over time. International concerns regarding the depletion of plant diversity have been deliberated in various forums. In 1985, these concerns were addressed by the Commission for Plant Genetic Resources at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). More recently, in 2002, the issue has been revisited during the Conference of the Parties for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), leading to the establishment of GSPC (the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation). The primary goal of GSPC is to rejuvenate plant diversity as an integral part of efforts to eliminate poverty and advance sustainable development. GSPC primarily focuses on preserving seed crops through both in situ (in their natural habitat) and ex situ (outside their natural habitat) conservation methods.

Traditional varieties are public domain varieties that have a name, developed by ancient farmers, suitable to an ecosystem and farmer needs where they are cultivated and/or conserved by their successors. Farmer needs are diverse and specific to each ecosystem. Resilience to climate and pests, human and domesticated animal nutrition, and taste, cultural, and religious needs determine the selection criteria for these traditional varieties.

Indigenous seeds are better suited to specific regions or circumstances compared to hybrid varieties. Traditional seeds are open-pollinating and generate seeds true to their parent plants. Unlike hybrids, they are robust, resistant to pests, adaptable to their home environment, and require less water and nutrients. Peasant seed multipliers amplify a select few seeds to supply seed banks and fellow farmers. The West Bengal State Seed Corporation Ltd. has distributed 405 MT of desi aromatic rice seeds, marking an extensive institutional distribution of desi rice seeds in India under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) scheme. This distribution has covered 20,300 hectares and included eight different varieties of seeds. The purpose of this distribution is to provide enough seeds for seed banks and farmers to cultivate the crops. This is the largest institutional distribution of desi rice seeds in India. In conclusion, traditional agricultural practices offer promising solutions to India’s pressing food and sustainability challenges.

Globally, traditional varieties have been viewed by formal plant breeders as source material for plant breeding. Traditional varieties have been exposed over centuries to the vagaries of weather and subjected to a selection process as per the needs of the community beyond food. However, modern agricultural science gave them the status as source material only to develop new and improved varieties. Altieri and Merrick propose that traditional seeds naturally adapt to changing climates through processes like natural crossbreeding and the incorporation of genes from related plants in their local environments, even though they do not provide specific genetic evidence to support this claim. In terms of providing evidence for the resilience capacity of traditional seeds, a genetic-level experiment delved into the gene expressions of these seeds. This experiment centered on three Mexican traditional maize varieties, specifically Michoacan 21, Cajete Criollo, and 85–2, conducted within a greenhouse environment. In this study, scientists meticulously assessed their gene expressions and physiological reactions in their ability to withstand drought stress. Remarkably, the findings unveiled that two out of the three traditional maize varieties demonstrated notable tolerance to drought stress. The performance of traditional varieties in terms of yield and quality is often restricted to the geographies where they have been selected and cultivated.

Mainstreaming of traditional varieties is the need of the hour to infuse resilience to climate and pest complexes and enhance nutrient density and long-term sustainability into agri-food systems. In this direction, pioneering efforts have been made by the Department of Agriculture & Farmer’s Empowerment, Government of Odisha by not only coming up with the Standard Operating Procedures to mainstream traditional varieties but also approving the release of four traditional varieties of finger millet that performed better than released variety in terms of grain and straw yield and nutrient density with tolerance to pests and diseases. These varieties are Kundra Bati, Laxmipur Kalia, Malyabanta mami, and Gupteswar Bharati from Koraput, Mangalgiri district of Odisha. Following the example and recognizing the importance, the Department of Agriculture and Family Welfare under the ministry agriculture, Government of India is coming up with a national-level scheme to promote traditional varieties for cultivation through a locally developed seed system coupled with the promotion of natural farming.

20. Research partnerships

Traditional agricultural research has typically operated within rigid disciplinary boundaries, often focusing on narrowly defined goals. However, as there has been a growing emphasis on sustainable agricultural development over the past few decades and a greater recognition of the intricate nature of agricultural and food systems, researchers in this field have sought alternative approaches to effectively leverage scientific progress for broader societal advantages.

Transdisciplinary research emerges as a response to this challenge, as it goes beyond traditional disciplinary confines. This approach transcends and bridges various fields of study, extending even beyond established disciplines. Transdisciplinary research places a strong emphasis on participation and collaboration, facilitating the engagement of natural scientists, social scientists, and diverse stakeholders who may not belong to specific disciplines throughout the entire research process.

When it comes to scaling up practices like Natural Farming in a vast and diverse country like India, successful implementation requires collaborative research projects. These projects aim to generate evidence across various domains, including energy efficiency, water conservation, input reduction, ecosystem services, and the potential for earning carbon credits.

21. NF potential in revamping food systems approach

Food systems around the world have faced significant challenges, particularly highlighted during the COVID-19 crisis when global food supply chains were disrupted due to cross-border movement restrictions. Developing nations, in particular, encounter added difficulties because limited resources and high levels of debt hinder their ability to invest adequately in food systems capable of producing nutritious meals for all segments of society. According to estimates from the United Nations, more than 780 million individuals suffer from hunger, nearly one-third of global food production goes to waste, and nearly 3 billion people cannot afford healthy diets. [ 61 ] António Guterres, the United Nations’ leader, has urged governments to respond by supporting the UN’s call for an SDG Stimulus, which would provide a minimum of $500 billion annually to offer long-term financial assistance to countries in need [ 62 ]. Additionally, Mr. Guterres has called for collaboration between governments and businesses, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing people’s well-being over profit when building food systems. According to The Global Nutrition Report, 2016, diet is now the number-one risk factor for the global burden of disease [ 63 ].

The lessons learned from APCNF present a practical approach to addressing food system challenges. This approach involves strengthening local food supply chains and increasing awareness about the benefits of consuming natural farming (NF) food, which can lead to changes in behavior. While the foundational efforts focus on encouraging farmers to embrace natural farming, the Health and Nutrition (HN) interventions target household consumption habits. A key objective of these interventions is to ensure that the produce from natural farming translates into greater diversity on the dinner plate, enhancing the nutritional value of meals.

One effective strategy is the implementation of low-cost Nutrition Gardens, which serve as scientifically designed kitchen or homestead gardens. These gardens cultivate a variety of nutritious vegetables, fruits, and medicinal plants organically throughout the year, thereby ensuring the nutritional well-being of marginal farming families in rural areas. Women who are part of self-help groups play a pivotal role in promoting natural farming and its benefits to families, particularly targeting groups like adolescent girls, pregnant women, and lactating mothers, thereby influencing the dietary choices of households. The goal is to incorporate 5–7 food groups into the family’s diet in all the 129 villages where health and nutrition are being implemented.

APCNF is also actively promoting Nutrition Field Schools as a platform for delivering nutrition education and behavior counseling to communities, with a focus on changing attitudes toward hygiene, health, and nutrition. This initiative aims to include all landless and farmworker groups. Furthermore, APCNF is encouraging the establishment of school kitchen gardens in 178 schools to raise awareness among young children about the health advantages of NF food. The program has facilitated agreements between school management and NF farmers to supply NF food for mid-day meals, aligning with India’s commitments made during the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021 under the “School Meals Coalition” alliance. The School Meals Coalition, endorsed by 89 countries, including India, seeks to accelerate efforts to improve and expand school meal programs, ensuring that every child has access to a healthy, nutritious meal at school by 2030 [ 64 ]. These initiatives represent a commitment to providing nutritious food and promoting healthier eating habits within communities and schools. According to the True Cost Accounting (TCA) research framework used in the TEEB study, APCNF farms demonstrated 88% higher dietary diversity [ 64 ].

Seeding Natural Farming into India’s food systems requires systems change to accommodate peer-based learning and extension, revisiting agriculture policies, building institutional capacities, and influencing key stakeholders such as banks and research institutions. APCNF is currently working with the National Council for Educational, Research & Technology to bring changes in the education curriculum by introducing Natural Farming at the school level. The systems change work requires an interdisciplinary approach to mainstream Natural Farming in India’s food systems ecosystem. This includes establishing local retail chains, improving community certification processes for residue-free NF food, and revamping the public distribution system.

Acknowledgments

Authors express their sincere gratitude to Shri Vijay Kumar Thallam (Retd), IAS Exec Vice Chairman Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS) and founder of Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming, for his invaluable contribution in facilitating the authors to acquire knowledge and experience from the RySS-IGGAARL project. We are thankful to the overall guidance and support in completing this chapter. We are also thankful to Shri B Ramara Rao (Retd IAS), Chief Executive Officer, for extending support to the authors in attempting this chapter.

• 1. A Review of Agroecology and Sustainability of Agriculture in India. Journal of the Gujarat Research Society. Available from: http://www.gujaratresearchsociety.in/index.php/JGRS/article/view/5194
• 2. Nene Y. The concept and formulation of Kunapajala, the world’s oldest fermented liquid organic manure. Kunapajala - A Liquid Organic Manure of Antiquity. Asian Agri-History. 2006; 22 :1-7 DOI: 10.18311/aah/2018/v22i1/18292
• 3. Mooney, Raymond. Regenerative Grazing and the Benefits of Livestock on Soils in Northern New South Wales. 2019. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/304682625.pdf
• 4. Natural Farming – Key to Sustain Agriculture. The Public Economist. Available from: http://thepubliceconomist.com/?p=144928
• 5. Wagh R, Dongre AP. Agricultural sector: Status, challenges and it's role in Indian economy. Journal of Commerce and Management Thought. 2016; 7 :209 DOI: 10.5958/0976-478x.2016.00014.8
• 6. Arun B. Indian agriculture- status, importance and role in Indian economy. Journal for Studies in Management and Planning. 2017. Available from: https://journals.pen2print.org/index.php/JSMaP/article/view/11198
• 7. Alsop R, Farrington J. Nests, Nodes and Niches: A System for Process Monitoring, Information Exchange and Decision Making for Multiple Stakeholders. Davis, California: World Development; 1998; 26 :249-260. DOI: 10.1016/s0305-750x(97)10054-7
• 8. History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent. Wikipedia. 2023. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
• 9. Somvanshi PS, Pandiaraj T, Singh RP. An unexplored story of successful green revolution of India and steps towards ever green revolution. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020; 9 :1270-1273. Available from: https://www.phytojournal.com/archives/2020/vol9issue1/PartU/9-1-256-412.pdf
• 10. History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent. Wikimedia Foundation Electronically. 2023. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
• 11. Chand R, Singh J. From Green Revolution to Amrit Kaal Lessons and Way Forward for Indian Agriculture. New Delhi: National Institution for Transforming India (NITI); 2023. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24291.12320
• 12. Aeschbach-Hertig W, Gleeson T. Regional strategies for the accelerating global problem of groundwater depletion. Nature Geoscience. 2012; 5 :853. DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1617
• 13. GOI. Report of the 5th Census of Minor Irrigation Schemes. New Delhi, India: New Delhi Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation, Minor Irrigation (Statistics Wing); 2017. Available from: http://jalshakti-dowr.gov.in/sites/default/files/5th-MICensusReport_0.pdf
• 14. Naeem S, Bunker D, Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C. Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, and Human Wellbeing an Ecological and Economic Perspective. 2009
• 15. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005
• 16. Woteki, C. The road to pollinator health. Science. 2013; 341 (6147):695-695. DOI: 10.1126/science.1244271
• 17. Varaprasad KS, Kumari VS. Agroecology-based biodiversity management. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources. 2022. DOI: 10.5958/0976-1926.2022.00040.7
• 18. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture. 2016. Available from: https://www.fao.org/3/i6030e/i6030e.pdf
• 19. Lal R. Sequestering carbon in soils of agro-ecosystems. Food Policy. 2011; 36 :S33-S39
• 20. Dar MUD, Bhat SA, Meena RS, Shah AI. Carbon footprint in eroded soils and its impact on soil health. In: Soil Health Restoration and Management. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 1-30
• 21. Chand R, Pavithra S. Fertiliser use and imbalance in India: Analysis of states. Economic and Political Weekly. 2015; 50 :98-104
• 22. Smith P, Gregory PJ. Climate change and sustainable food production. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2013; 72 (1):21-28
• 23. Khurana A, Halim MA, Singh AK. Evidence (2004-20) on Holistic Benefits of Organic and Natural Farming in India. 2022
• 24. Shah M, Vijayshankar PS, Harris F. Water and agricultural transformation in India: A symbiotic relationship-I. Economic and Political Weekly. 2021; 56 (29):109-152
• 25. Jain R, Kishore P, Singh DK. Irrigation in India: Status, Challenges and Options. 2019
• 26. Qazlbash SK, Zubair M, Manzoor SA, ul Haq A, Baloch MS. Socioeconomic determinants of climate change adaptations in the flood-prone rural community of Indus Basin, Pakistan. Environmental Development. 2021; 37 :100603
• 27. Bhattacharyya P, Pathak H, Pal S. Impact of climate change on agriculture: Evidence and predictions. In: Climate Smart Agriculture. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 17-32
• 28. Tubiello F, Rosenzweig C, Conchedda G, Karl K, Gütschow J, Xueyao P, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: Building the evidence base. Environmental Research Letters. 2021; 16 :65007. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac018e
• 29. Padhee AK, Whitbread A. Indian Agriculture: The Route Post-CoP 26. DownToEarth; 2022. Available from: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/author/anthony-whitbread-205854
• 30. Anonymous. Biodiversity and Climate Change, Subsidiary Body on Scientific. Canada: Technical And Technological Advice, Twenty-third meeting Montreal; 2019, 2019
• 31. Sudhirahluwalia I. Will Climate Change Destroy the World’s Ability to Produce Food? Sudhirahluwalia, Inc; 2022 Available from: https://www.sudhirahluwalia.com/business-analyst/will-climate-change-destroy-the-worlds-ability-to-produce-food/
• 32. Houghton RA, House JI, Pongratz J, van der Werf GR, DeFries RS, Hansen MC, et al. Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change. Biogeosciences. 2012; 9 :5125-5142. DOI: 10.5194/bg-9-5125-2012
• 33. Shukla PR, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner HO, Roberts DC, et al. IPCC, 2019: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems
• 34. Yamada K, Xu HL. Properties and applications of an organic fertilizer inoculated with effective microorganisms. Journal of Crop Production. 2001; 3 (1):255-268
• 35. Paliath S, Paliath S. Explained: What is Natural Farming? Indiaspend. 2022. Available from: https://www.indiaspend.com/explainers/what-is-natural-farming-827994
• 36. India: PM & UNSG Launch Mission LiFE at Statue of Unity, Gujarat. MENA Report. New Delhi: Government News Website; 2022
• 37. Chand R, Pandey LM. Fertiliser use, nutrient imbalances and subsidies. Margin: The Journal of Applied Economic Research. 2009;3(4):409-432. DOI: 10.1177/097380100900300404
• 38. Compendium—Final Report, Zero Hunger Challenge Working Groups. 2015
• 39. Census. Census of India Website: Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. 2011. Available from: http://censusindia.gov.in/ (accessed September 29, 2019)
• 40. Misra S, Maikhuri RK, Kala CP, Rao KS, Saxena KG. Wild leafy vegetables: A study of their subsistence dietetic support to the inhabitants of Nanda Devi biosphere reserve, India. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine. 2008; 4 :15. DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-4-15
• 41. Ghosh-Jerath S, Kapoor R, Singh A, Downs S, Barman S, Fanzo J. Leveraging traditional ecological knowledge and access to nutrient-rich indigenous foods to help achieve SDG 2: An analysis of the indigenous foods of sauria paharias, a vulnerable tribal community in Jharkhand, India. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2020a; 7 :61. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2020.00061
• 42. Kuhnlein H, Eme P, Larrinoa YF de. “Indigenous food systems: Contributions to sustainable food systems and sustainable diets,” In: Sustainable Diets: Linking Nutrition and Food Systems, editors B. Burlingame and S. Dernini Wallingford: CABI 64-78. 2019. DOI: 10.1079/9781786392848.0064
• 43. Kapoor R, Sabharwal M, Ghosh-Jerath S. Indigenous foods of India: A comprehensive narrative review of nutritive values, antinutrient content and mineral bioavailability of traditional foods consumed by indigenous communities of India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2022; 6 :6, 696228. DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.696228
• 44. Tamil Nadu Women’s Collective Continues their Journey of Empowerment and Agroecology. IATP. Available from: https://www.iatp.org/tamil-nadu-womens-collective-empowerment-agroecology
• 45. Andhra Pradesh Community-Managed Natural Farming Programme. Available from: https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-examples/andhra-pradesh-community-managed-natural-farming
• 46. Ramakrishnan PS. Increasing Population and Declining Biological Resources in the Context of Global Change and Globalization. 2001. DOI: 10.1007/BF02704747
• 47. Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Available from: http://www.envjustice.org/2013/02/traditional-ecological-knowledge/
• 48. Geronimo MC, Cabansag MGS, Reyes AS. Indigenous utilization of resources and conservation practices of the Agta of Lupigue, Iligan City, Isabela, Philippines. Journal of Studies in International Education. 2016; 8 (2). Available from: www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare
• 49. Tiwari BK, Tynsong H, Lynser MB. Forest management practices of the tribal people of Meghalaya North-East India. Journal of Tropical Forest Science. 2010; 22 (3):329-342
• 50. Expert reviewers of the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Climate Change 2022 - Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; 2022:2965-3004. DOI: 10.1017/9781009325844.032
• 51. Galloway Mclean K. Advance Guard: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, Mitigation and Indigenous Peoples.A Compendium of Case Studies. UNU- IAS; 2010
• 52. IIED, ANDES, FDY, Ecoserve, CCAP, ICIPE and KEFRI. Protecting Community Rights over Traditional Knowledge: Implications of Customary Laws and Practices. IIED London; 2009
• 53. Swiderska K et al. Traditional Knowledge and Crop Varieties As Adaptation to Climate Change in South-West China, the Bolivian Andes and Coastal Kenya2018. DOI: 10.1017/9781316481066.012
• 54. Everything you Need to Know about Indian government’s National Mission on Natural Farming. Krishak Jagat; Available from: https://www.en.krishakjagat.org/india-region/everything-you-need-to-know-about-indian-governments-national-mission-on-natural-farming/
• 55. National Mission on Natural Farming. Available from: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/national-mission-on-natural-farming
• 56. News of. Available from: https://agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/news/NewsSearch.aspx?newsid=48752
• 57. Stepping Back from an Ecological Abyss. The Hindu. Available from: https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/stepping-back-from-an-ecological-abyss/article65777479.ece
• 58. Gourdji SM et al. Environmental Research Letters. 2013; 8 :024041. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024041
• 59. Unlocking Plant Root Potential: A Conversation with Dr. James White (Part 3). U.S. Borax; Available from: https://agriculture.borax.com/blog/september-2020/james-white-rhizophagy-cycle
• 60. Agro-Biodiversity. Available from: https://www.business-biodiversity.eu/en/knowledge-pool/agro-biodiversity
• 61. United Nations. Hunger afflicts one in ten globally, UN report finds. UN news. United Nations; Available from: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/07/1138612
• 62. United Nations. Guterres Calls for G20 to Agree $500 Billion Annual Stimulus for Sustainable Development. UN news. United Nations; Available from: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/02/1133637
• 63. Ifpri.org. Available from: https://www.ifpri.org/publication/global-nutrition-report-2016-promise-impact-ending-malnutrition-2030
• 64. A healthy meal every day for every child. School Meals Coalition. 2023. Available from: https://schoolmealscoalition.org/

© 2024 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

US bets on climate friendly farming; experts doubt it is climate friendly enough

• Medium Text

• Company Climate Follow

IT ALL DEPENDS

Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.

Reporting by Leah Douglas; Editing by David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

Washington-based award-winning journalist covering agriculture and energy including competition, regulation, federal agencies, corporate consolidation, environment and climate, racial discrimination and labour, previously at the Food and Environment Reporting Network.

The United States will unveil in the coming days guidelines for the use of carbon offsets inside and outside of government to build confidence in the market and ensure credits reflect real emissions cuts, the top U.S. climate diplomat said on Friday.

Business Chevron

Wells Fargo bond saleswoman sues over 'unapologetically sexist' workplace

Wells Fargo was accused of sex discrimination in a lawsuit by a bond saleswoman who said the fourth-largest U.S. bank denied pay and promotions available to men and tolerated an "unapologetically sexist" workplace.

Virginia Tech expertise to support sustainable agriculture and fishing in Tunisia

Rich Mathieson

19 Apr 2024

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Copy address link to clipboard

Virginia Tech is joining the U.S. State Department and the nonprofit development organization  FHI 360  to support Tunisian farmers, fishers, and their communities in building resilience against the challenges posed by climate change.

The Sharing Underutilized Resources with Fishers and Farmers (SURF) project supports the government of Tunisia in protecting essential resources such as agricultural lands, coastal regions, and forests, which these rural communities rely on for their survival. Additionally, SURF aims to involve these communities in Tunisia’s national disaster risk management programs, ensuring they can contribute to and benefit from these initiatives.

Another objective is to foster connections between Virginia Tech, which is the sole U.S. university partner in the project, and Tunisian institutions involved in agriculture, marine biology, and forestry.

“SURF is a testament to the U.S. government’s commitment to support collaboration between American and Tunisian experts to build a more resilient future for communities living with the reality of climate change,” said Larry Vaughan, director of program development at Virginia Tech’s Center for International Research, Education, and Development (CIRED). “By bringing together the expertise and resources of academia, government, and local stakeholders, we are not only addressing the immediate challenges posed by climate change but also fostering long-term partnerships that will drive innovation and positive change for generations to come.”

SURF aims to enhance the operations of over 9,000 small farmers, fishers, startups, and cooperatives in the agriculture and fishing sectors. It will support these small businesses in adopting and mastering new practices to mitigate the anticipated effects of climate change and improve product yields.

During a kickoff event, the American ambassador to Tunisia, Joey Hood, said that “as part of SURF, … Virginia Tech, a cutting-edge U.S. university, will share best practices in research and development to advance Tunisia’s capacities in regenerative agriculture, sustainable fisheries, and forest conservation.”

The research addresses global challenges through forging diverse partnerships and interdisciplinary collaboration, supporting the  Virginia Tech Global Distinction priority, a commitment to strengthen the university’s capacity to act as a force for positive change.

Vaughan joined Khaled Hassouna, CIRED’s associate director for curricula development, and Francesco Ferretti , assistant professor of fish and wildlife conservation in the College of Natural Resources and Environment , at the kickoff event. Other collaborators from across the university will be brought on board as the project progresses.

Along with Virginia Tech, project partners include the National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia; the Tunisian Union of Agriculture and Fisheries; Action Positive; and the Ministry of Agriculture, Water Resources, and Fisheries.

CIRED, a part of Outreach and International Affairs , is a universitywide center that supports Virginia Tech’s international mission by identifying and pursuing partnerships and funding opportunities for research, teaching, and development around the world.

“This project exemplifies the true spirit of Ut Prosim (That I May Serve), as we work hand in hand with our Tunisian partners to protect essential resources, empower rural communities, and create a brighter, more sustainable future for all,” Vaughan said.

540-231-4691

• Center for International Research, Education, and Development
• Climate Action
• College of Natural Resources and Environment
• Fish and Wildlife Conservation
• International Research
• Outreach and International Affairs
• Virginia Tech Global Distinction
• Virginia Tech's international presence
• Zero Hunger

Related Content

• Contact DTN

• World & Policy
• Business & Inputs

Oil Retreats After Overnight Spike Following IDF Attack

West Texas Intermediate futures closest to expiration on the New York Mercantile Exchange and Brent crude on the Intercontinental Exchange...

Oil Drops to 3-Week Lows on Stock Build and Easing Tensions

Oil futures lower as eia confirms crude build, oil futures drop after api reports outsized crude build, daisy to invest in new iowa plant.

Daisy Brand to Invest in Iowa Dairy Processing Plant

Daisy Brand LLC will build a 75,000-square-foot facility in Boone, Iowa, that could expand to employ as many as 255 people. State officials approved...

Biden Administration Grants Summer E15 Waiver

Biden administration grants e15 emergency waiver to continue summer sales, selling more european food to americans, eu looks for trendy americans to give european foods a taste, pastures can thrive even after drought, tips to help extend your pastures for cattle during and after droughts, view from the range.

Silver Spur Ranch Success Comes From Ensuring Good Health for Cattle and Cowboys

DTN's View From the Range series looks this time at how having a proper vaccination program helps keep good health in the cattle. Communication...

Our Rural Roots

Tips to a (temporarily) tidy life, protect your farm from eclipse visitors, prepare for extra traffic, trespassers from solar eclipse visitors, labor4learning looking for applicants; beginning farmers earn money, gain skills, labor program connects beginning farmers with experienced iowa farmers.

• Special Sections
• Past Issues
• LOG IN or JOIN OUR COMMUNITY

Research Helps Bins Resist Weather

New unl research aims to strengthen grain bins against natural disasters such as derechos.

OMAHA (DTN) -- If anyone has lived in the Midwest for long, you know the region sees high winds. Many days have seen high winds whip through the region's farms, many of which have grain bins. This makes grain storage structures vulnerable to severe weather.

To combat that vulnerability, a researcher from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) is studying the structural engineering of grain bins against dangerous weather.

NEW GRAIN BIN RESEARCH

Christine Wittich, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at UNL, began her career in California where she became interested in earthquake damage to statues. After she moved to Nebraska in 2017, she noticed agricultural structures such as grain bins and center pivot irrigation units were often vulnerable to weather challenges.

"I was pretty quickly introduced to wind storms ... I got interested in rural damage. These structures seemed fairly vulnerable," she stated in an UN-L press release.

Wittich was recently awarded a five-year, $615,387 Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) award grant from the National Science Foundation to research grain bins. The award supports pre-tenured faculty who exemplify the role of teacher-scholars through outstanding research, excellent education and the integration of education and research.

Wittich aims to improve the resilience of rural infrastructure and communities in the face of natural disasters. The CAREER award includes an educational component to encourage rural students to see opportunities in engineering as a possible career.

The project stems from Wittich's earlier research in the wake of a derecho that struck several states -- South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio -- on Aug. 10, 2020. A derecho is a widespread straight-line windstorm associated with fast-moving thunderstorms. The 14-hour 770-mile storm in 2020 caused an estimated $11 billion in damages in total, making it the most damaging thunderstorm in American history.

Iowa's grain bins were especially hit hard. In October, 2020, DTN reported that the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship estimated 120 million bushels of grain storage were damaged or destroyed on- and off-farm in the state from that August derecho. Iowa's grain storage capacity was 2.1 billion bushels on-farm and 1.52 bb off-farm before the derecho hit, according to USDA.

There are an estimated 750,000 grain bins across the U.S. and they are designed to withstand internal pressures but not high winds. These bins are a key component of rural infrastructure in the nation's ag economy and the food security of people across the nation and the world, Wittich said.

WATCH THOSE WINDS

Wittich told DTN her research project will focus broadly on natural hazards, but wind is a major consideration. The work will be both experimental and computational.

Experimental tests will be conducted at the Wall of Wind facility at the Florida International University, she said. Winds up to 150 miles per hour can be created and imparted to near full-scale structures. (A Category 5 hurricane is 157 mph or higher.)

"I'll be testing a few different bin configurations as part of that experimental campaign," Wittich said. "The bins will be tested at both low and higher wind speeds up to failure."

Results will be captured from attached sensors to understand the wind pressure and the structural response as the bin approaches failure, she said. Data will also be recorded with high-resolution, frame-rate video to best visualize the mechanisms. Wittich said this will help update computational models to simulate how different grain bins will perform under various wind scenarios.

CHANGES TO GRAIN BINS?

Wittich's research results could lead to different construction standards for grain bin construction.

"One of the most significant predictors of enhanced performance were vertical stiffeners along the bin walls," she said. "This will be something further explored in the experimental and computational tests."

Wittich has met with several grain bin manufacturers regarding her research.

They seem interested in this type of work and are open to the enhancing performance of their structures, she said. However, the project will be conducted independently and without corporate sponsorship through the National Science Foundation.

Wittich also wants to promote awareness in rural communities through educational models and a citizen-science initiative for post-disaster reports. Since researchers can't go to every storm-affected area, her project will include an app that farmers or other community members can access to look at past storm damage data and enter new information.

This information can help drive further research, she said.

Future research will include other types of agricultural infrastructure and other natural disasters. For example, a recent hurricane devastated poultry housing in Florida, Wittich said. Hurricane Idalia made landfall Aug. 30, 2023 as a Category 3 storm.

For perspective on the change in damaging winds in the Corn Belt, see DTN Ag Meteorologist Emeritus Bryce Anderson's blog here: https://www.dtnpf.com/…

To see more on DTN's special coverage of the derecho from 2020, see https://spotlights.dtnpf.com/…

Russ Quinn can be reached at [email protected]

Follow him on social platform X @RussQuinnDTN

(c) Copyright 2024 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• © 2024 DTN, all rights reserved. "DTN" and the degree symbol logo are trademarks of DTN. All other trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.
• Magazine Home
• Columns Home

• MyDTN ™
• The Progressive Farmer

Recommended Browsers:

• Internet Explorer 10 or above
• iPad 2 or above
• iPhone 4 or above
• Google Chrome for Android
• Join Our Community
• Start your free MyDTN demo

Please correct the following errors and try again:

• Remember Me

University of Missouri

College of agriculture, food and natural resources, jay thelen honored with 2024 distinguished research award .

Thelen is a professor of biochemistry.

April 17, 2024

Written by Shannon Beck

Jay Thelen, professor, Biochemistry, has received the 2024 Distinguished Research Award.  

Thelen’s career highlights include establishing a successful research program focusing on understanding the regulation of de novo fatty acid biosynthesis in plants and algae. His research program excels in grantsmanship, scholarly activity and entrepreneurship, with notable achievements including over $18 million in extramural grants, 150 research publications and four licensed patents.

Thelen’s pioneering work in phosphoproteomics, particularly the development of the Kinase Client assay, has garnered international attention and significantly advanced understanding of plant signal transduction. Additionally, his research on fatty acid biosynthesis has practical implications for improving crop seed oil content. 

“Jay publishes in high impact journals including his most recent research on the regulation of de novo fatty acid biosynthesis in plants which was published in Nature Communications and demonstrates a novel form of regulation for the committed step for this pathway,” said nominator Gary Stacey, Curators’ Distinguished Professor, Plant Science and Technology. “Coupled with some of his other recent breakthroughs on the important enzyme complex, acetyl-CoA carboxylase, he is very close to making substantial, heritable increases in leaf and seed oil accumulation in crop plants. 

“Jay has been a key player in MU’s and CAFNR’s international reputation in Plant Biochemistry/Plant Biology. He exemplifies all aspects for which the Distinguished Research Professor Award stands. Jay Thelen is one of if not best scientists and researchers in the field of plant biochemistry in the world,” said Douglas Randall, professor emeritus, Biochemistry. 

College of Agriculture & Natural Resources Faculty & Staff

Li receives canr research fellow career award.

April 19, 2024

Hui Li, Ph.D., to be honored with CANR 2023 Research Fellow Career Award

Hui Li, Ph.D., of the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, will be honored with the 2023 CANR Research Fellow Career Award on May 2.

The CANR Excellence in Research Award program recognizes the outstanding contributions of CANR researchers to the research mission of Michigan State University (MSU). In particular, the awards focus on the impact that their achievements have had on academic and/or external stakeholder communities. The Research Fellow (Career) Award recognizes individuals with 15 or more years of research experience.

Hui Li, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences, as well as a member of the Center for PFAS Research. An expert in the areas of environmental soil chemistry and contaminants in plant-soil-water systems, Li’s research focuses on fate, transformation, bioavailability and impacts of pharmaceuticals, personal care products and pesticides in the environment. His work furthers the understanding of fundamental environmental processes in water and soil at molecular scales and the development of innovative environmental remediation technology. Li’s research program has been funded by the United States Department of Agriculture, National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health.  

In 2017, Li served as chair of the Soils and Environmental Quality Division, Soil Science Society of America. He additionally received the Jackson Soil Chemistry and Mineralogy Award from Soil Science Society of America in 2017 and was subsequently selected to be a Soil Science Society of America Fellow in 2018. Li received a Ph.D. degree in Environmental Soil Chemistry from Purdue University.

Did you find this article useful?

new - method size: 3 - Random key: 0, method: tagSpecific - key: 0

You Might Also Be Interested In

Farmer Culture & Field Stories

Published on March 15, 2023

Homeownership Education Webinar (MSHDA) - October 25, 2023

Financial disaster preparedness and recovery ~ webinar february 20, 2024, savvy tips for starting a small business - november 6, 2023 (webinar), wealth building ~ (webinar) - november 7, 2023, canning class is my jam.

• 2024 research awards
• 2024 research awards,
• faculty staff