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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

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

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. 1.

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

  2. 2.

    India Population Live (Worldometers, 2019); https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/india-population/

  3. 3.

    World Population Prospects, the 2012 Revision (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2013); https://go.nature.com/37N2olc

  4. 4.

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

  5. 5.

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

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

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

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

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

  10. 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); https://go.nature.com/2FERCkZ

  11. 11.

    United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019–2028. Global Action Plan (FAO and IFAD, 2019); https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ca4672en.pdf

  12. 12.

    52 Profiles on Agroecology: Zero Budget Natural Farming in India (FAO, 2019); http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl990e.pdf

  13. 13.

    Govt. should stop promoting zero budget natural farming pending proof: scientists. The Hindu (11 September 2019); https://go.nature.com/2FrKSH1

  14. 14.

    Sitharaman, N. Budget 2019–2020 speech. India Ministry of Finance (5 July 2019); https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budgetspeech.php

  15. 15.

    Sanhati Collective Farmer Suicides in India: A Policy-induced Disaster of Epic Proportions http://sanhati.com/excerpted/4504/ (2012).

  16. 16.

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

  17. 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).

  18. 18.

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

  19. 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).

  20. 20.

    Zero Budget Natural Farming http://apzbnf.in (RySS, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2018).

  21. 21.

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

  22. 22.

    Statistical Abstract Andhra Pradesh 2015 (Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2016); https://desap.cgg.gov.in/jsp/website/gallery/Statistical%20Abstract%202015.pdf

  23. 23.

    RySS Zero Budget Natural Farming as A Nature-based Solution for Climate Action (UNEP, 2019); https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/28895?show=full

  24. 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); https://go.nature.com/2tzvntM

  25. 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).

  26. 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) http://www.fao.org/3/BU710EN/bu710en.pdf

  27. 27.

    Palekar, S. Zero Budget Spiritual Farming http://palekarzerobudgetspiritualfarming.org (2019).

  28. 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).

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

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

  31. 31.

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

  32. 32.

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

  33. 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).

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

    National Crop Statistics (FAOSTAT, 2019); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

  36. 36.

    Fertilizer Use by Crop in India (FAO, 2005); http://www.fao.org/tempref/agl/agll/docs/fertuseindia.pdf

  37. 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); http://agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications

  38. 38.

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

  39. 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).

  40. 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).

  41. 41.

    Guidelines for Sustainable Manure Management in Asian Livestock Production Systems IAEA-TECDOC-1582 (IAEA, 2008); https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/TE_1582_web.pdf

  42. 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).

  43. 43.

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

  44. 44.

    FAO World Development Indicators. Agricultural Land (% of Land Area)—India (World Bank, 2019); https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS?locations=IN

  45. 45.

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

  46. 46.

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

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

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.

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

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). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0469-x

Download citation