The concept of zero-budget natural farming (ZBNF) came into the spotlight in the first Budget presentation of the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in July 2019. There was a special emphasis on the implementation of zero-budget natural farming as ‘going back to basics’. But the response to the proposal has been mixed with some experts welcoming the move as a historic decision that has the potential to solve the crisis affecting the farm sector, while others casting doubts on the effectiveness of the approach.
ZBNF Method
The method of zero budget natural farming is based on traditional Indian practices and involves chemical-free agriculture that relies on manures and agro-ecology. The method was developed in the mid-1990s by the prominent agriculturist, Subash Palekar.
To enable activity of micro-organisms, all these are to be applied to maintain the right soil temperature—moisture–air balance.
The basic concept of zero-budget natural farming is that 98 per cent of the nutrients required by crops for photosynthesis—carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, and solar energy—are readily available ‘free of cost’ from the air, rains, and sun. The remaining portion of only 1.5–2 per cent is required to be taken from the soil and converted from ‘non-available’ to ‘available’ form through the action of micro-organisms.
Up to 50% Off on popular Books
The ZBNF technique stands on four pillars comprising jivamrita, bijamrita, acchadna, and whaphasa. Jivamrita (microbial culture) is a fermented microbial culture derived mainly from cow dung and urine, jaggery, pulse flour, and uncontaminated soil. Jivamrita adds nutrients to the soil, and spurs the growth and activity of micro-organisms and earthworms in the soil. According to Palekar, only one cow is needed for 30 acres of land, but the cow must be a local Indian breed—not an imported breed like Jersey or Holstein. About 200 litres of jivamrita is required to be sprayed twice a month per acre of land, and the system is said to become self-sustaining after three years. Bijamrita (seed treatment solution), is microbial coating of seed and seedlings by using cow dung, urine, and lime. The mixture of bijamrita is used to treat seeds; and concoctions involving the use of neem leaves and pulp, tobacco and green chillis are used for insect and pest management. In Acchadana, or mulching, the top soil is covered with dried straw, fallen leaves, crops and crop residues. Whaphasa (giving water outside the plant’s canopy) is the aeration in the soil. It involves giving water outside the plant’s canopy to maintain the right soil temperature-moisture-air balance.
The concept of ZBNF stresses on the importance of intercropping, minimal watering, and discourages the practice of intensive irrigation and deep ploughing.
Developments
A study prepared by agricultural scientists, agro-economists and farmers in the rain-fed area in Telangana has emphasised on returning to native farming practices to tackle challenges like seed storage and control of pests. Named ‘Interfacing Farmers’ Science with formal Science’, it covers an entire cropping cycle in various seasons, delving into ploughing, soil types, fertility and use, crops grown, and pest management. It has stressed on the inter linked aspects of emotions, collected pool of information on farming and other facets. It states that the specialised knowledge of farmers on seed selection and storage using household waste (cow-dung ash and red soil) was important in crop management of a non-chemical nature. Moreover, the cropping calendar of the farmers could ensure food security under harsh environmental conditions. Farmers also viewed the impact of pests in 2 different ways—the beneficial and the harmful impact.
Training Camp for Farmers
To highlight the significance of adopting zero-budget natural farming, a training camp was organised for farmers in Sewar, Bharatpur district, Rajasthan in September 2019. The 6-day camp was the first one set up to promote natural farming in the state. Agriculturist Subhash Palekar apprised the farmers on forest vegetation and the techniques for natural growth of trees, and his zero budget approach to chemical-free farming, involving manures and agro-ecology. Some 6,000 small and marginal farmers were informed of the techniques of reducing input costs and preparation of indigenous seeds and traditional pesticide material. The camp was organised by Bharatpur-based Lupin Foundation.
Himachal Pradesh : Reviving Natural Farming The Himachal Pradesh (HP) state government has announced plans to conserve traditional crops under the natural farming project, Prakritik kheti, khushal kisan. It was announced in September 2019 that the government will emphasise on cultivation of traditional crops that have a high demand in the market but which were not cultivated by the farmers after introduction of fertilisers and chemicals on a large scale. chemical fertilisers-based farming relies on use of hybrid or treated seeds, which are brought from the market. so when such farming became popular, farmers stopped collecting and storing seeds of traditional crops. Crops such as kodra, millet, Chinni, corn, and red rice are among the traditional crops targeted for revival. They are nutrient-rich crops that not only have a huge demand in the market but also fetch high prices.
The project involves development of seed villages in all districts of the state. The seeds would be distributed among the farmers from 2020.
Former HP governor, Acharya Devvrat introduced the natural farming project, adopting the technique propagated by agriculturist Subhash Palekar.
Natural farming is not only cheaper than chemical-based farming but also less harmful to the environment.
The Two Views The on-field studies that are being conducted in this regard have not given any definite conclusion so far. Due to lack of any definite data, two contrary views have emerged on the effectiveness of ZBNF. Some case studies show it as a more profitable method than chemical farming. Kerala, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh claim to have benefitted by ZBNF. Some reports suggest that ZBNF has failed to have a positive effect on income and productivity of farmers.
Up to 50% Off on popular Books
Certain reports of ZBNF are contrary to the expected outcomes. According to some reports from Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, and Karnataka, farmers are going back to chemical farming as the alternative has failed to increase their income and yield.
The need of the hour is a system such as zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) due to many factors relating to economic and ecological considerations. As per the Natural sample survey office (NSSO) data, about 70 per cent of agricultural households spend more than they earn and more than half of all farmers are in debts. The level of indebtedness is as high as 90 per cent in states like Andhra Pradesh and Telangana with every household having an average debt of ` 1 lakh.
ZBNF Benefits and Ways to Enhance Implementation
ZBNF offers a promising prospect in such a scenario. As the method offers to reduce farmers’ dependence on loans for purchase of inputs, it is being taken into account for realising the government’s plan of doubling farmer’s income by 2022.
As per Subash Palekar, ZBNF has the potential to bring down the production cost to zero as nothing will be required to be purchased from outside.
Moreover, practices of agro-ecology such as ZBNF are known to enhance fertility of soil by restoring soil health and biodiversity. The earth has been losing its top soil at a very rapid pace, mainly because of use of high doses of chemicals in farming and deforestation. According to the United Nations, the current rate of soil degradation will result in depletion of all the world’s soil in 60 years. India is one such country in which the occurrence of soil degradation is happening faster than its replenishment. This shows a grim future—devoid of farming and, consequently food. There is, thus, a need to ‘rebuild’ the soil, and natural farming could do it. So, a zero-cost environmentally-friendly farming method seems an appropriate alternative at a time when chemical-intensive farming is leading to adverse consequences—soil and environmental degradation, water depletion, and increase in the cost of farm inputs. A regenerative agricultural practice that places emphasis on natural processes could well be the solution to maladies affecting the sector.
As per the Economic survey 2018–19, 1.6 lakh farmers follow ZBNF in almost 1,000 villages using state support. It is already being practised in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Uttrakhand, and Chattisgarh.
Karnataka, the pioneer in ZBNF, was adopted by the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, a state farmers association. Large-scale training camps were set up to educate farmers who owned small plots with access to irrigation and at least 1 cow each. However, Sikkim was announced the first fully organic state in 2016. Andhra Pradesh announced in June 2018 that it plans to practise 100 per cent natural farming by 2024 by phasing out farming with chemical fertilisers over 80 lakh hectares of farm land.
Make Awesome videos for your project and youtube, Its super simple with this Editor – Check out
ZBNF Benefits and Ways to Improve its Implementation
As the ZBNF method involves natural farming, it promotes aeration of the soil and discourages intensive watering of fields (with comparatively reduced irrigation needs). As stated, it enhances inter-cropping and mulching of the topsoil and does away with the need for deep ploughing of fields. It also discourages certain aspects of typical organic farming which are, nevertheless, detrimental to the land resources, such as vermicomposting. This technique of introducing a composting worm, mostly the European red wiggler (Eisenia fetida), to the soil, is an important part of organic farming in the country. However, as Subhash Palekar states, the worms absorb toxic metals and end up poisoning the soil as well as ground water.
Even though many agricultural scientists dismiss ZBNF as unproven technology, it cannot be denied that ZBNF has an important role in preserving soil quality to make agriculture sustainable. Besides, a clear market is emerging for products from natural farming. As per a recent Assocham-EY study, the size of this market is estimated to touch ` 10,000–12,000 crore by 2020. There has been a steep increase in the cost of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and energy used in conventional agriculture in recent times, but crop realisations for farmers have plummeted. These factors, along with the growing consumer preference for organic products, have opened up possibilities for natural farming systems like ZBNF.
It is true that the ZBNF approach is not without pitfalls, but it is to be kept in mind that any new system has its own set of challenges in the initial stages of implementation. It was observed in Andhra Pradesh that in farmlands on which chemical farming has been practised intensively, the soil quality is poor and does not respond quickly to ZBNF. Similarly, in crops such as paddy, standing water in the field inhibits soil microbial population, which impacts the yields after farmers switch to ZBNF. As per the experts, effects of natural farming take their own time to be seen in the yield. ZBNF will certainly lead to a drop in the cost of farming, but its effect on crop yield may vary as a result of soil quality, crop, and the methods adopted by the farmer.
The cost of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, and conventional sources of energy use has steeply risen in recent years even as farmers have suffered from low crop yields and poor income. This factor, along with organic farming attracting the urban populace as a modern and ‘healthy’ option, has resulted in possibilities for natural farming.
But some fundamental aspects must be taken into account with regard to the implementation of ZBNF.
Funding To garner the benefits of ZBNF, funding is necessary. ZBNF is low-cost farming but involves expenses in labour, etc. But the allocation for ZBNF has been very little; no new announcement has been made for funding it. Subsidy extension is only on chemical fertilisers. It has been suggested that all farmers should be given a fixed sum of money per acre for buying inputs—either chemical fertilisers or engaging labour for organic farming operations. This is because ZBNF incurs huge labour costs—for farm work, maintaining cows, collecting their excretions for making jivamrita, bijamrita or neemastra concoctions, and so on. The basic input in organic agriculture is labour as against hybrid seeds and fertilisers in conventional farming. So, according to one view, government policy should leave it up to the farmers to choose their agricultural incontives and subsidies—whether they want to practise organic farming or non-organic farming or both.
The fertiliser subsidy (budgeted at ` 80,000 crore for 2019-20) can be given directly to farmers on a per hectare basis. Their sagacious use combined with practise of farming suited to local condition and lands would ensure fertiliser prices are determined by markets. They would then be efficiently used, preventing diversion of subsidy to non-agri uses.
ZBNF can be promoted by easing certain aspects of the cultivation method for farmers. This may also make it more attractive as an option. For instance, just as companies produce fertilisers, hybrid seeds and chemicals for protecting crops, firms can produce and sell organic inputs for readymade use by farmers. In that way, the labour costs to make the various concoctions for use in ZBNF would get reduced. A new industry can produce them in accordance with minimal quality standards. The government should provide support to institutions that can train farmers in organic farming.
Vested Interests and Agroecology
Agroecology is approved of as a system that aims at enhancing the environment and agricultural use of land by increasing yields even while conserving biodiversity and soil health, promoting climate resilience practices, and improving the farmers’ lot. Agricultural scientists, organisations as well as farming groups, and NGOs have affirmed agroecological practices for sustainable development. Natural farming techniques like zero-budget natural farming have yielded results as in the case of Andhra Pradesh over the last few years. However, powerful lobbies in the agricultural sector with vested interests are averse to promoting it, according to one view. These lobbies with convention to the decision-makers include fossil fuel companies, fertiliser producing firms, seed companies as well as scientists who are sponsored by scientific establishments, multination organisations, or large agribusiness companies. For them, a large-scale transition to agroecology would threaten their influence in the farming and allied sectors. In India, for instance, where a subsidy-based agricultural system is in place, the farm inputs are dependent on corporations and their elite networks.
In the case of GM foods, for instance, when scientists have published articles on the negative effects of GM food on health, corporations have threatened to pull back grants to universities and research institutes. The US company Monsanto has been accused of causing cancer through the presence of glyphosate in the GM seeds it produces; however, the GM lobby supporting GM foods has opposed such criticism. Support from corporations has become part of scientific research and recognition of members of the scientific community and its clout is closely linked to these corporations.
This is true for vital research in most industries like medicine, pharmaceuticals, food processing, health, and agriculture. Thus, it is accepted that assessment of an issue by scientists does not by itself prove its legitimacy or constitute an honest appraisal of 17.
In India, while the opposing voices like that of the agricultural scientists forum, NAAS and other major players have focused on ZBNF, the real attack may be on agroecological practices as such.
The scientific establishment has largely belittled organic models as NGO-driven and based on unscientific trends. The response against natural farming is that soils do not have enough nitrogen, potash, or phosphorous and without hybrid seeds and chemical fertilisers, the large population cannot be fed. For example, the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) technique of cultivating paddy in soil that is kept moist (rather then inundating the field with water) has been rejected by scientists. The technique involves early transplanting of 10–12 day-old seedlings and wider spacing between sowed seeds. SRI has resulted in more number of tillers per plant as compared to cultivation in knee-deep water. One of the reasons for this posturing of the scientific community is that agricultural universities in India are based on the US land grant colleges model and these universities emerged in the period of the green revolution.
The worrying matter is that policymakers do not ignore the lobbying and posturing of the vested interests—the corporation and scientists with funding links with agribusiness. The farmers are, however, supporting ZBNF and the government is keen to promote it now.
Ultimately, the tussle over agroecological methods affect biodiversity and food systems. The adverse effects of industrial farming have become too obvious to be ignored any longer. Pollution of various kinds, destruction of the natural landscape water and soil depletion, crops with high pesticide content are only a few of the effects. And as it turns out, even the farming communities have not benefited from industrial farming, with their total reliance on companies even for procuring seeds, poor income, and growing farm distress.
There is no doubt that zero-budget natural farming is environmentally sustainable but more data is required to prove its efficacy in terms of increasing farmers’ income and reducing cost of production. There has not been any independent evaluation of the income growth it can result in or its impact on productivity.
|
The AP Model The AP model was implemented in 2015. After a pilot study of the programme in 704 villages in the kharif season 2016, community resource partners (CRPs) or ‘master farmers’ were trained in every district. These farmers trained others to switch to zero-budget natural farming practices. With the programme, yields rose even as cultivation costs decreased. Funds The state has used ` 314 crore from the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana—Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and Allied Sectors Rejuvination (RKVY—RAFTAAR) since 2015–16 to develop the zero-budget natural farming project. It is not clear how 17,000 crore more would be made available to all its 60 lakh farmers to make them adopt ZBNF. As of mid-2015, about 5,80,000 farmers have been covered under the project in which the government involved the participation of self-help groups, farmer organisations, and civil society institutions. As per a limited study, conducted in Andhra Pradesh in 2017, there was considerable fall in input cost and improvement in yields by following ZBNF. A brief, prepared by the council on Energy, Environment and water (2018), reported that groundnut farmers in Andhra Pradesh had harvested 23 per cent higher yield than their non-ZBFN counterparts. It was also reported that paddy farmers employing ZBNF had an average of 6 per cent higher yield. Some data is available in respect of the crop cutting experiment (CCE) of Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS) established by Andhra Pradesh (AP) as a not-for-profit company, the process used to obtain yield on different crops. It shows that after the introduction of ZBNF, yields increased by 21 per cent for maize (irrigated), 30 per cent for ragi, and 34 per cent for groundnut. The RySS aims at extending the reach of ZBNF to all 60 lakh farmers by the year 2023–24. The unit cost of the programme is around ` 25,500 per hectare of farm land. If the programme is to cover all 60 lakh farmers in another 8–10 years, the investment cost would be about ` 17,000 crore. Though the pilot programme is increasing yields and reducing costs, there are failings but these have been related to the previous long-time use of chemical fertilisers. For instance, the soil is poor and does not respond quickly when the ZBNF method is used. ZBNF yield has been affected by the practice of standing water in paddy fields which have restricted soil microbial population over time. So overall, it takes time for ZBNF effects to be reflected. Apart from this, ZBNF yields would vary depending on soil quality, the crops grown, and the procedures used by the cultivators. And importantly, the ZBNF method is still not scientifically proven. |
Criticism of ZBNF
ZBNF sounds nice in theory but is extremely vague in specifics.
The uproar created by ZBNF is not least due to the position taken by Subash Palekar with regard to upholding it. He has drawn a distinction between ZBNF, on the one hand, and the other types of organic/non-chemical fertilisers-based farming such as permaculture or natural farming and climate resilient sustainable agriculture, on the other. He has held the latter as damaging from the viewpoint of emissions and pollution. This distinction has been criticised by experts.
It is not clear whether the package formula devised by Subash Palekar can work across all soil and climatic conditions. Large-scale testing in different regions to study the implications of zero-budget natural farming on overall production of major crops like rice and wheat is yet to be done. Whatever little information is available suggests a 30–50 per cent reduction in yield, according to Ashok Gulati, Infosys chair professor for Agriculture at International Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER). India’s food security plans would take a severe beating.
ZBNF is not really ‘zero’ input, as it is made out to be. It only means that no input needs to be bought from the market, i.e., the farmer can make his own mixture for use in his farm provided he has a lot of water and a desi (indigenous) breed of cow. The reference to ‘zero’ budget in ZBNF comes from its emphasis on inter-cropping. It is not that the farmer will incur no cost; rather, the money he spends on the major crops he grows would be compensated by the money he derives from inter-cropping.
The basic constraint to ZBNF is that though it looks easy as most inputs are available in nature, the cost of labour to prepare for ZBNF activity is very high. There is a lot of field work (sowing, harvesting, transporting the crops to the market) as well as cattle rearing, collection of their excretions (dung and urine) to prepare the innoculum (fermented microbial culture), or the concoctions (mixtures of ingredients to make bijamrita, etc.) These incur a high cost. Cattle health and feed would cost an exorbitant amount, as the quality of the concoctions used in ZBNF would depend on these factors. As less grazing land is available now and water bodies have shrunken in size or are vanishing, fodder cost has shot up in recent years (it is as costly as milk). The wholesale price index (WPI) of cattle feed increased 50 per cent, from 106.7 in April 2012 to 159.3 in November 2018. So, how can the farmer afford it?
ZBNF is also particular about farmers owning at least indigenous breed each. But the desi breed has been reducing in number. The 2019 livestock census provisional estimates state that the desi and non-descript cattle population has fallen by 8.1 per cent compared to the figure in previous 2012 census even as the population of the exotic and cross-breeds has risen by 29.5 per cent.
One view is that though ZBNF can preserve soil quality among other benefits, there is nothing to really indicate it can double farmers’ income and relieve agrarian distress. In recent years, farm income growth has been reducing: the annual income of farm households increased by 4.22 per cent in 2015–16 over 2002–03, but increased by only 1.39 per cent in 2015–16 over 2012–13.
Attempts to achieve ZBNF have to include a number of structural issues that need to be tackled: strengthening procurement mechanism of all crops and states, fixing MSP in accordance to cost of farming, doing away with a minimum export price for agricultural goods, implementing price deficiency payment system for certain crops, and a ‘right to sell at MSP’ to bring down cultivation costs that have drastically risen over the years. Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) needs to be linked with farm work.
Organic models like ZBNF are more fastidious and involve a lot of labour compared to mass farming with chemical fertilisers. They are also more knowledge-intensive. As they are used to restore ecosystems even while crops are cultivated, they require hard work that can be kept sustained over time.
To put ZBNF into practice, a farmer would need some support and advice in the first few years. For this, a self-help group network may be set up. It is to be ensured that farmers get supply of inputs, then the government has to help. For instance, not every farmer has a cow, that too a desi one (which Palekar has cited as a necessity for producing jivamrita). As it also emphasises use of desi seeds, not hybrid seeds (even though Palekar maintains that ZBNF can be used for desi, hybrid or GM crops), the farmers may not always have a stock of it. So, seed banks need to be set up in the villages to ensure their supply. crop failure in the first year after adoption of zero-budget natural farming is very likely; so, the government must support farmers’ livelihood and provide income assurance in the initial years to motivate farmers to try zero-budget natural farming. Importantly, pest management in ZBNF is only preventative; so there is susceptibility of crops to pests and diseases. This angle has been ignored in all the ZBNF talk.
Before plunging into ZBNF wholeheartedly, the government has to collect scientific data on the performance of the ZBNF technique, especially impact on yield after taking into account the impact of drought years and other external factors. The livelihood of millions of farmers as well as the food security of the country needs to be borne in mind.
India’s premier academic body of farm scientists, the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), based in New Delhi, has severely criticised ZBNF as an unproven technology that can usher in no major gains either to cultivators or to consumers. In a day-long brainstorming session, organised in August 2019, NAAS announced that it had reviewed the protocols and claims of zero-budget natural farming and found that there is nothing (no verified data or results) to indicate it as a feasible technology. Some 75 experts were involved, including scientists, policy-makers, cultivators, NGOs, and representatives from fertiliser, seed and crop protection industry. It has identified some major drawbacks of large-scale ZBNF practice.
It points out ZBNF is effective only if dung and urine from black-coloured Kapila cows is used and farmers use traditional varieties of seeds. In other words, all the high-yielding varieties and hybrids developed by scientists over the years will have to be put aside. But with the use of these seeds over time, the country’s rice yield has trebled to 116 million tonnes and wheat production has risen more than 8 times, to 102 million tonnes in the last half-century.
The critics of ZBNF, which include some experts within the central policy and planning think-tank NITI Aayog, are of the view that there should not be a full-fledged move away from the model that has been in practice since the Green Revolution. They cite the example of Sikkim, which claimed to be India’s first fully organic states in 2016, after implementing organic practices on around 75,000 hectares of agricultural land. It has experienced some decline in yields following a shift to organic farming. They caution that unless there is sufficient evidence that yields will not be negatively affected, chemical fertilisers should not be abandoned.
Role of Government
The initial implementation of ZBNF will require a lot of government support for the provision of inputs needed to practise ZBNF. Besides, only if income assurance in some form is given in the initial years, marginal farmers would be motivated enough to try ZBNF. It is interesting to note that though the finance minister caused a buzz by mentioning ZBNF in the 2019 budget speech, there has been actually no announcement from the centre regarding any new funding to promote it.
In 2018, the central government revised the norms for the flagship Green Revolution scheme, Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana-Remunerative Approaches for Agriculture and Allied Sector Rejuvenation (RKVY-RAFTAAR) allocating ` 3,745 crore for 2019 and the Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) that has been allocated ` 325 crore for promoting organic farming and soil improvement. States can use these funds to promote ZBNF, cow rearing, and traditional methods of farming.
Before adopting natural farming, the government should have sufficient data to ascertain how the zero-budget natural farming technique affects yields. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) should scientifically test the technology and demonstrate its long-term benefits successfully before it is implemented on a pan-India basis. It is also to be borne in mind that no single technology is suitable for the whole country. NITI Aayog, which is among the foremost promoter of ZBNF technique, is in favour of scientific multi-location studies of the method to validate its long-term effects and viability of the model before it is promoted on a large scale. Meanwhile, to study viability of zero-budget natural farming, the ICAR has appointed a committee under Praveen Rao Velchala, vice-chancellor of the Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University. So, the process to analyse the technique and its scalability has begun, the result will tell about its feasibility in the Indian agricultural set-up. The ICAR is examining ZBNF practices by rice and wheat farmers in northern India, especially in Ludhiaya, Pantnagar, and Kurukshetra to study its effects on productivity, economics and soil health (fertility and organic carbon). If it is found to be successful, an enabling institutional mechanism could be established to promote ZBNF.
However, it needs to be emphasised that the varied problems of Indian agriculture should be addressed by a combination of technologies.
The funds from central schemes that states can use for zero-budget natural farming is only a fraction of the spending on central government on subsidies for fertilisers, pesticides, and mass irrigation that has driven Green Revolution. The total allocation for schemes like the National Project on organic Farming, for PKVY and the National Project on Soil Health and Fertility is about ` 650 crore. The soil health card (SHC) scheme that seeks to match soil quality with cropping patterns and wants to push cultivators to engage in sustainable farming has an outlay of ` 324 crore which does not indicate the government is serious about it. there have been no efforts to convince farmers that sustainable farming is necessary and it can help in doubling their incomes. The government has been keen on reducing chemical fertilisers and pesticides subsidy and their use. The government has stated that it would halve fertiliser consumption (November 2017). But attempts cannot be drastic so as to cause serious production setbacks in the process. Such setbacks would make a transition to organic farming all the more difficult. on the other hand, top down packages to promote organic farming would not help. The farmers must be encouraged to try out what works for them.
The contradiction in the government’s stand is clear: even as it says it wants to cut fertiliser consumption by half by 2022 and promote ZBNF on a massive scale, it has been investing in new urea plants in the public sector: at Ramagundam, Andhra Pradesh; Talcher, Odisha; Sindri, Jharkhand; Barauni, Bihar; and Gorakhpur, UP.
The plants have a total capacity of about 6.35 million tonne, involving a production cost of over 8,400 per tonne.
A shift to organic farming and methods like zero-budget natural farming is welcome due to the adverse effects of chemical fertilisers and pesticides-based farming, such as soil imbalance, a huge expense on subsidies, and debt and other kinds of distress for farmers. A transition to sustainable practices, however, has to be managed in a different way without becoming hectic to implement it. Experts ask why a hurried recommendation to promote ZBNF as if it is a new fad when the empirical validity of the method remains a question for various reasons.
India has many agro-climatic zones, crops with some being high-yielding. Earlier, the government focus was on increasing yields but now the focus should be on developing an optimal model for each zone, crop and its variety, and class of farmers. Both the natural farming model and cultivation of the high-yielding varieties/hybrids that need chemical fertilisers, have their own pre-requisites and these should be borne in mind.
Also Read: Agrarian Crisis in India: An Analysis
Also Read : COVID-19: DRUGS AND TREATMENTS
Also, Read: Andhra Pradesh Passes Crop Cultivators’ Rights Bill