Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming


Under current trends, 60% of India’s population (>10% of people on Earth) will experience severe food deficiencies by 2050. Increased production is urgently needed, but high costs and volatile prices are driving farmers into debt. Zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) is a grassroots movement that aims to improve farm viability by reducing costs. In Andhra Pradesh alone, 523,000 farmers have converted 13% of productive agricultural area to ZBNF. However, sustainability of ZBNF is questioned because external nutrient inputs are limited, which could cause a crash in food production. Here, we show that ZBNF is likely to reduce soil degradation and could provide yield benefits for low-input farmers. Nitrogen fixation, either by free-living nitrogen fixers in soil or symbiotic nitrogen fixers in legumes, is likely to provide the major portion of nitrogen available to crops. However, even with maximum potential nitrogen fixation and release, only 52–80% of the national average nitrogen applied as fertilizer is expected to be supplied. Therefore, in higher-input systems, yield penalties are likely. Since biological fixation from the atmosphere is possible only with nitrogen, ZBNF could limit the supply of other nutrients. Further research is needed in higher-input systems to ensure that mass conversion to ZBNF does not limit India’s capacity to feed itself.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Estimated maximum and minimum supply of nitrogen from ZBNF systems compared with the national average fertilizer application rate.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. This is an analysis of existing data. All data were collated from literature sources as cited.

Code availability

The ORATOR model has been described and published previously (see Supplementary Information) and will be made available from the corresponding author on request.


  1. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. India Population Live (Worldometers, 2019);

  3. World Population Prospects, the 2012 Revision (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013);

  4. Ritchie, H., Reay, D. & Higgins, P. Sustainable food security in India—domestic production and macronutrient availability. PLoS ONE 13, e0193766 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruinsma, J. (ed.) World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. An FAO Perspective (Earthscan, 2003).

  6. Agoramoorthy, G. Can India meet the increasing food demand by 2020? Futures 40, 503–506 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith, P. Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Secur. 2, 18–23 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ray, D. K. et al. Climate change has likely already affected global food production. PLoS ONE 14, e0217148 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bhattacharyya, R. et al. Soil degradation in India: challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability 7, 3528–3570 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mythili, G. & Goedecke, J. in Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development (eds Nkonya, E. et al.) 431–469 (Springer, 2016);

  11. United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019–2028. Global Action Plan (FAO and IFAD, 2019);

  12. 52 Profiles on Agroecology: Zero Budget Natural Farming in India (FAO, 2019);

  13. Govt. should stop promoting zero budget natural farming pending proof: scientists. The Hindu (11 September 2019);

  14. Sitharaman, N. Budget 2019–2020 speech. India Ministry of Finance (5 July 2019);

  15. Sanhati Collective Farmer Suicides in India: A Policy-induced Disaster of Epic Proportions (2012).

  16. Patel, V. et al. Suicide mortality in India: a nationally representative survey. Lancet 379, 2343–2351 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kennedy, J. & King, L. The political economy of farmers’ suicides in India: indebted cash-crop farmers with marginal landholdings explain state-level variation in suicide rates. Glob. Health 10, 16 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abhilash, P. C. & Singh, N. Pesticide use and application: an Indian scenario. J. Hazard. Mater. 165, 1–12 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kumari, S. & Sharma, H. The impact of pesticides on farmer’s health: a case study of fruit bowl of Himachal Pradesh. Int. J. Sci. Res. 3, 144–148 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Zero Budget Natural Farming (RySS, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2018).

  21. Khadse, A. & Rosset, P. M. Zero budget natural farming in India—from inception to institutionalization. Agroecol. Sust. Food 43, 848–871 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Statistical Abstract Andhra Pradesh 2015 (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2016);

  23. RySS Zero Budget Natural Farming as A Nature-based Solution for Climate Action (UNEP, 2019);

  24. Report of the Global Environment Facility to the Fourteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (GEF, 2019);

  25. Patra, A. M. Accounting methane and nitrous oxide emissions, and carbon footprints of livestock food products in different states of India. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 678–686 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kumar, V. India—innovations in agroecology. Engineering transformation through zero budget natural farming (ZBNF). In Scaling Up Agroecology to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Proc. 2nd FAO International Symposium 250–251 (FAO, 2019)

  27. Palekar, S. Zero Budget Spiritual Farming (2019).

  28. Ram, R. A., Singha, A. & Vaish, S. Microbial characterization of on-farm produced bio-enhancers used in organic farming. Indian J. Agr. Sci. 88, 35–40 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. App, A. A. et al. Nonsymbiotic nitrogen fixation associated with the rice plant in flooded soils. Soil Sci. 130, 283–289 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Sreenivasa, M. N., Naik, N. & Bhat, S. N. Beejamrutha: a source for beneficial bacteria. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 22, 1038–1040 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rao, S. C. & Dao, T. H. Fertilizer placement and tillage effects of nitrogen assimilation by wheat. Agron. J. 84, 1028–1032 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Erenstein, O. & Laxmi, V. Zero tillage impacts in India’s rice–wheat systems: a review. Soil Till. Res. 100, 1–14 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Singh, A., Phogat, V. K., Dahiya, R. & Batra, S. D. Impact of long-term zero till wheat on soil physical properties and wheat productivity under rice–wheat cropping system. Soil Till. Res. 140, 98–105 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ram, A. R. Innovations in organic production of fruits and vegetables. Shodh Chintan 11, 85–98 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  35. National Crop Statistics (FAOSTAT, 2019);

  36. Fertilizer Use by Crop in India (FAO, 2005);

  37. Hamshere, P., Sheng, Y., Moir, B., Gunning-Trant, C. & Mobsby, D. What India Wants: Analysis of India’s Food Demand to 2050 Report No. 14.16 (ABARES, 2014);

  38. Montanarella, L., Scholes, R. & Brainich, A. (eds) The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES, 2018);

  39. Hati, K. M., Swarup, A., Dwivedi, A. K., Misra, A. K. & Bandyopadhyay, K. K. Changes in soil physical properties and organic carbon status at the topsoil horizon of a vertisol of central India after 28 years of continuous cropping, fertilization and manuring. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 119, 127–134 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith, J. et al. Treatment of organic resources before soil incorporation in semi-arid regions improves resilience to El Niño, and increases crop production and economic returns. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 085004 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Guidelines for Sustainable Manure Management in Asian Livestock Production Systems IAEA-TECDOC-1582 (IAEA, 2008);

  42. Bradbury, N. J., Whitmore, A. P., Hart, P. B. S. & Jenkinson, D. S. Modelling the fate of nitrogen in crop and soil in the years following application of 15N-labelled fertilizer to winter wheat. J. Agric. Sci. 121, 363–379 (1993).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration in India. Climatic Change 65, 277–296 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. FAO World Development Indicators. Agricultural Land (% of Land Area)—India (World Bank, 2019);

  45. Aggarwal, G. C. & Singh, N. T. Energy and economic returns from cattle dung manure as fuel. Energy 9, 87–90 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Saxena, K. L. & Sewak, R. Livestock waste and its impact on human health. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 6, 1084–1099 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank V. Kumar, Z. Hussain and R. Nalavade of RySS for information, support while visiting sites and discussions. Funding for this work was provided by the Newton Bhabha Virtual Centre on Nitrogen Efficiency in Whole Cropping Systems (NEWS) project no. NEC 05724, the DFID-NERC El Niño programme in project NE P004830, ‘Building Resilience in Ethiopia’s Awassa Region to Drought’ (BREAD), the ESRC NEXUS programme in project IEAS/POO2501/1, ‘Improving Organic Resource Use in Rural Ethiopia’ (IPORE), and the GCRF South Asian Nitrogen Hub (NE/S009019/1). J.Y. was supported by the Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Research and Analysis Directorate under the current Strategic Research Programme (2016–2021): Research Deliverable 1.1.3: Soils and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The input of P.S. contributes to the UKRI-funded projects DEVIL (NE/M021327/1), Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1) and N-Circle (BB/N013484/1), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme projects CIRCASA (grant agreement no. 774378) and UNISECO (grant agreement no. 773901), and the Wellcome Trust-funded project Sustainable and Healthy Food Systems (SHEFS).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



J.S. was primarily responsible for the conception and design of the work, the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data and the drafting of the manuscript. J.Y., P.S. and D.R.N. contributed towards the conception and design of the work and revision of the manuscript. D.R.N. also contributed to the creation of software used in the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jo Smith.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary notes 1–8, Tables 1–9, Figs. 1 and 2 and refs. 1–147.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, J., Yeluripati, J., Smith, P. et al. Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nat Sustain 3, 247–252 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene