Natural farming towards crop and economic resilience

1. Introduction

According to the United Nations World Hunger Report global hunger reached 828 million in 2021, with a rise of 46 million since 2020 and 150 million since 2019, which signified that the world still has a long way to end hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition by 2030. The commencement of green revolution upsurged the agricultural production over the past 50 years (Anand & Kumar, 2020) through increased use of fertilizers and agro-chemicals, which ultimately led to sustain the growing global population (Stokstad, 2002; Liao et al. 2019). However, it also had negative effects, such as soil deterioration (Singh, 2000), loss in biodiversity (DeFries et al. 2010; Armanda et al. 2019), rise in agriculture costs (Stevenson et al. 2013), etc. The projections of soil degradation intensity and vulnerability around the world are concerning (Kaiser, 2004; Reich & Eswaran, 2004). Besides, agriculture has become unsustainable due to increased use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, sluggish or declining agriculture production, erratic competitive dynamics, and the consequences of climate change (Sathish et al. 2022). The use of chemical fertilizers has posed a significant threat to the ecosystem, as their frequent use have also resulted in the eradication of beneficial soil microflora (Shaikh and Gachande 2015). Furthermore, the widespread use of inorganic agrochemicals has contaminated soil, surface and underground aquifers with toxic compounds, resulting in heavy metal accumulation (Lena et al. 1997; Devarinti, 2016). As a result of increased agricultural costs, countless farmers plunged into a financial pitfall, and the farming industry encountered widespread distress (Posani, 2009). No tillage, restricted traffic agriculture, and organic farming are three methods that have recently drawn increasing attention for their potential to improve soil health and fertility, save soil resources, and establish an environmentally friendly agricultural model (Liao et al. 2019). Besides, overtime organic farming became more prominent as the demand for organic food items rose exponentially on a global scale (Lohr, 2001; Iqbal, 2015; Shahabi Ahangarkolaee & Gorton, 2021). In 2020-21, India exported organic goods of 8,88,179.68 MT worth INR 7,07,849.52 lakhs (APEDA, 2021). At present, agricultural land in organic farming in India is estimated to cover an area of 26,57,889.33 ha (APEDA, 2021). Despite this, low-income populations cannot afford organic food due to its extremely high price compared to conventional food products (Sathish et al. 2022). Small farmers struggle to adopt it since it calls for a substantial amount of FYM/organic fertiliser and expensive certification processes (Mzoughi, 2011).

Natural Farming (NF) is a chemical-free farming method that integrates crops, trees, and livestock, allowing functional biodiversity through agroecology (Rosset and Martinez-Torres 2012). NF is also known as Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), which is regarded as a disruptive farming approach that addresses farmers’ biggest concerns about the mounting cost of production. The natural farming ideology is based on the concept of harnessing natural cycles and functioning in balance with the environment to provide safer and healthier food while preserving the wellbeing of the soil, people, and livestock (Bana et al. 2022). It can be used as an innovative approach to develop both conventional and modern agricultural techniques with the objective of preserving the environment, communities, and the general public’s health (Mishra, 2013). It is also known as ‘do nothing farming’ because the farmer is merely seen as a conduit for Nature, who does the actual labour (Devarinti, 2016). The cardinal rule is to increase the amount of organic matter in the soil since this promotes microbial activity, which enhances soil fertility (Rashid et al. 2016). Furthermore, it promotes soil health (Zuraini et al. 2010), improves soil organic carbon without requiring a large quantity of FYM like organic farming (Devarinti, 2016) and thus helps to reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture (Hedayati et al. 2019; Skinner et al. 2019). In order to break the debt cycle for vulnerable farmers, ZBNF claims to stop relying on loans and dramatically reduce production expenses (La Via Campesina, 2016). The scientific community, however, has labelled it as an unscientific and fuss story. Despite popular belief, thousands of farmers in various Indian states use some aspect of NF practices. Numerous NF management techniques are being adopted namely, crop rotation, intercropping and minimal tillage, mulching with crop residues, application of biofertilizers and limiting the use of agro-chemicals (Liao et al. 2019). By promoting multiple cropping, year-round soil coverage, and the use of a mixture comprised of cow dung and urine to stimulate the microorganisms in the soil system, it relies more on soil biology than soil chemistry. Several states in India, especially Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Himachal Pradesh, have adopted this model at varying levels with the goal to make farming a viable and aspirational endeavor by increasing farmers’ net incomes.

2. Chemical vs Natural Farming

Natural resources are vital for the production of food on this planet. It is imperative to maintain these resources to ensure the food availability and nutritional security. As per the reports, a substantial portion of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) comes from the agricultural sector, which generates 16.77 per cent of the total and contributes approximately US $0.44 trillion annually (Constant, 2015) with annual growth of 3.27 per cent (World Bank, 2021). Although agricultural intensification has been a crucial aspect of Indian agricultural growth and development, the sector remains highly resource inefficient in terms of inorganic fertilizer use, water utilization, mechanization and cropping intensity (Huimin et al. 2014; Nath et al. 2015). In most cases, fertilizers are applied imprecisely, resulting in little crop uptake. As a result, there is little increment in yield, and a large amount of fertiliser is emitted as pollutants into the air, soil, and water. Soil micro and macrofauna is also diminished, altering carbon to nitrogen ratio in soil and the nitrification process (Shaikh & Gachande, 2015).

Increased use of agrochemicals, inorganic fertilizers and pesticides has led to agricultural pollution and heavy metal buildup in the soil which has negatively impacted ecosystems and the environment (Malik et al. 2017). The accumulation of heavy metal ions and other chemical pollutants potentially induce nutrient depletion in the soil (Rani & Saxena, 2021). Furthermore, the enzymatic activity of bacteria can be hampered by heavy metals, which results in a decrease in soil organic matter (Shun-hong et al. 2009). In addition to causing negative impacts on the environment, industrialization has led to dramatic increases in production and release of hazardous metals into the environment over the last century (Burger, 2008; Gallego et al. 2012). Heavy metals like zinc and copper are important for plant growth, but when present in high amounts, they are toxic and can lead to plant death. As a result of heavy metal contamination, soil bacterial species richness declines, soil actinomycetes increase and as a result, biomass and diversity of bacterial communities in soil decrease (Karaca et al. 2010). The numerous negative effects of these toxic elements have also been reported in human system as a result of their metabolization and bioaccumulation in body fat (Alewu & Nosiri, 2011; Pirsaheb et al. 2015). Generally, human exposure to these metals occurs via contaminated food or water. Nonetheless, intensification of agriculture has had extensive adverse environmental impacts, including soil degradation, eutrophication, as well as a loss of biodiversity (Pingali, 2012; Foote et al. 2015). Numerous studies have also demonstrated that pesticides destroy necessary soil microbial fauna (Iqbal et al. 2001). Large-scale chemical use also makes farming unprofitable, which is why an increasing number of individuals are abandoning the agricultural farming. Pesticides and chemical fertilizers result in the emergence of harmful and destructive insects, which require toxic insecticides/pesticides that cause insects to develop even more resistance to them (Xu, 2000). A catastrophe is looming over the planet, as the global population of over 8 billion people poses an increasingly difficult challenge to sustain life. A healthy lifestyle under the motto “Back to Nature” represents a way of life for the global community (Fitrah, 2022). As an alternative to chemical fertilizers with high input costs, ZBNF has been hailed as a sustainable environment friendly agricultural system. The symbiotic and probiotic insights (Gilbert et al. 2012; Lorimer, 2017) of soil and plant life developed by biological sciences namely, microbiology, ecology, and soil science are source of idea for the ecological regeneration of agriculture (Kumar et al. 2019). With this method, food plants thrive along with the natural biodiversity of each farmed area, encouraging the species diversity of living organisms, including both plants and animals. Furthermore, by following this method, natural cycles in the soil are restored and rebuilt, and water demand is reduced. Soil is home to a microbial consortium of indigenous bacteria that has the potential to improve soil fertility (Rani & Saxena, 2021). In NF, as organic matter decomposes on the soil surface through microbes and earthworms, it gradually adds nutrition to the soil (Chandel & Jangilwad, 2021). So, by adopting NF, the quality of the produce can be improved, with minimized adverse effects on soil and environmental health by using low-cost natural resources. Moreover, if NF is acknowledged as a chemical-free method of production, farmers can begin selling their products as Green Products at a premium price from the very first year (Kumar et al. 2020).

3. Climate Resilience

Meteorological parameters might have strong influence on the geographical distribution of agricultural crops (Malla, 2008). Climate change, including rising temperatures, shifting rainfall patterns, and an increase in frequently occurring climatic extremes, has affected ecosystem functioning, crop production, and water accessibility, which has in turn affected food security (IPCC, 2014; Troy et al. 2015). It has been projected that crop yield and production efficiency in low-income countries will be severely impacted by climate change (Reed et al. 2017; Arshad et al. 2018). Agricultural farming is highly impaired by climate variabilities such as flood and drought, resulting in a reduction in farm production (Mendelsohn & Wang, 2017). Globally, a decrease in crop production of 17 per cent is projected without accounting for CO₂ fertilization caused by climate change (Nelson et al. 2014). The production of GHGs is a major free-rider problem of intensive Indian agriculture (Chadha et al. 2004). Burning agricultural waste can release large amounts of atmospheric pollutants such as CO₂, N₂O, and CH₄, which contribute to global warming, nutrient loss, and soil damage (Naresh et al. 2018). India generates 87 per cent of its agricultural-related emissions from primary production inputs and on-farm production (Pathak et al. 2010). The impact of climate change and global warming is most pronounced on fruit production, whilst perennial crops are more vulnerable to rapid temperature fluctuations (Saygi, 2020). Extreme weather conditions during bud development, flowering and winter rest are a few recent prevalent phenomena, directly impacting the production and quality of fruit.

In light of a changing climate, it is now commonly acknowledged that a significant change of food systems is required to ensure global food and nutrition security (Sinclair et al. 2019). This will have a significant impact on what people consume as well as how food is grown, processed, transported, and sold. By switching to natural inputs from chemical fertilizers, farmers may be able to withstand extreme weather events due to lower input costs, decreased reliance on resources, and increased soil quality (Naresh et al. 2018). When compared to traditional agriculture, the use of ZBNF will result in better climate adaptation because farming systems will already be tailored to the local climatic conditions (Kumar, 2022). Reducing use of chemical fertilisers via ZBNF ensures good water quality and availability during severe weather conditions by reducing runoff into rivers and wetlands. Furthermore, reduced tillage, constant vegetation cover on the fields, and bioinoculants application leads to improvement in soil fertility which contribute to greater carbon sequestration and decreased carbon loss in ZBNF soils (UNEP, 2019). The dramatic rise in SOM under ZBNF boosts the soil’s capacity to hold water, improving the crops’ resistance to harsh weather conditions and assisting in sustaining food production under water-stressed instances (Hati et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2020). In India, Government of Andhra Pradesh has adopted Climate Resilient Zero Budget Natural Farming (CRBZBNF) as a farming practise that asserts in the natural cultivation of crops without supplying any chemical fertilizers/pesticides, as well as any external inputs for combating extreme climate vulnerabilities (Kumar et al. 2019).

4. Myth or Reality

In order for India to achieve and sustain 8 per cent GDP growth rate, we must produce 457 MT of food grains by 2050 (NAAS, 2019). This would involve a six-fold rise in labour productivity, a four-fold growth in land productivity, a three-fold increase in water use efficiency, doubling of energy consumption efficiency, with around half of that efficiency coming from labour and capital substitution (Chand, 2012). To meet the demand for increasing food, there is an urgent need to improve the nutrition quality of soils and crops. Soil nutrient stocks are depleted by continuous crop cultivation, and soils must be supplied with essential plant nutrients. Later, a shortage of secondary and micronutrients also develops and may reduce output; which needs to be rectified. However, considering a limited capacity of soil for delivering nutrients, ZBNF cannot meet this demand and hence crop productivity remains low. ZBNF is a form of organic farming which forbids the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. The only difference implies is ZBNF intended to lower cultivation costs to zero, whereas organic farming did not include such measures (Smith, 2020). There are several myths related to ZBNF namely, poor quality of food products produced via natural farming, use of poisonous pesticides, food poisoning, high produce costs, inefficiency of natural products to feed global population, threat to animal welfare and zero budget farming (Prajapati, 2019).

But in reality, these myths have been invalidated as the crops produced via use of on-farm inputs in natural farming contains no or minor number of contaminants. These inputs are meant to boost soil health, improve microbial activity and nutrient cycling leading to better produce and even more nutritious food (Bharucha & Mitjans, 2020). Secondly, the elimination of chemical fertilizers in natural farming and adoption of readily available homemade amendments (Duddigan et al. 2022) reduce the risk of food poisoning (Devarinti, 2016). Regarding the usage of pesticides, it is clear that natural farming practises prioritize the prevention rather than minimising its need. Also, the cost efficiency of organic produce is more compared to conventional farming due to cut down on extravagant expenses over chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Duddigan et al. 2022). Besides, use of multiple cropping systems, crop rotations, substitution of cow dung and urine for pesticides has contributed to the lower cost of producing organic food (Korav et al. 2020). The food products produced from natural farming, however is inefficient to produce higher yields but are highly nutritious to contribute to global nutritional security and even eliminate the hidden hunger faced by today’s society. Studies have also found that naturally grown plants are higher in antioxidant content, essential minerals such as, potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, iron, calcium, and copper (Baranski et al. 2014). Another myth regarding animal welfare is dissolved as natural livestock standards place a premium on the welfare of animals and their ability to behave as nature intended. To address the myth of zero cost of cultivation, it has been devised that the phrase “zero budget” does not actually imply that costs are zero, but instead that there is no need for external financing of agriculture. Moreover, although using family labour, on-field produced fertilizers and pesticides may reduce the cost of production, it will never be completely zero (Prajapati, 2019).

5. Sustenance through Natural Inputs

It has been estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations in 2015 that only 60 harvesting years remain as a result of soil degradation according to National Centre for Organic and Natural Farming. Sustainable agriculture is globally seen as a means of solving problems and constraints that threaten the economic, environmental and social problems of agricultural production systems (Renagold et al. 1990). It is defined by the Agricultural Research Service of USDA as agriculture that will strive to be profitable, competitive, and productive for the foreseeable future while preserving natural resources, safeguarding the environment, and improving public health, food quality, and safety (Parr et al. 1994). Sustainable intensification, which entails producing more food from the same amount of land while minimising environmental impacts, has been proposed in recent times as a solution to the problem of feeding 9 billion people by 2050 according to Royal Society of London (2009). Agricultural intensification causes soil degradation and water shortages, increasing water use and reducing soil fertility, which threaten long-term crop productivity (Gomiero et al. 2011). Nowadays, chemical-based agriculture has increased production costs and reduced crop yields (Korav et al. 2020), due to reduced soil fertility and vitality, soil erosion, groundwater contamination and overgrazing (Sreenivasa et al. 2010; Singh et al. 2011). Currently, soil erosion is causing major modifications to the biogeochemical cycles that regulate carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus (Quinton et al. 2010). The stabilizing effect of organic matter and vegetation cover is closely related to soil erosion resistance (Gomiero et al. 2011). The top soil layer that contains organic matter comprises of around 95 per cent of the soil’s N and 25-50 per cent of its P (Lal, 2010). Where, intensive use of chemical fertilizers leads to oxidation of organic matter in soil and thus increased soil erosion (Montgomery, 2007). Natural farming practices including no-till agriculture, or minimum tillage can cut down incidences of soil loss and restore soil fertility (NRC, 2010). Additionally, it promotes soil aeration, bunding and topsoil mulching, and intercropping. These practises do not immediately increase productivity but instead help farmers increase their income by creating self-sustaining systems after at least three years of the conversion period (Ranjan & Sow 2021).

Currently, 70 per cent of 3,800 km³ of water use is directed towards agriculture, which is expected to rise by 13 per cent by 2050 (Molden, 2007). Agro-intensive irrigation can cause waterlogging and salinization (Gomiero et al. 2011) as well as the depletion and contamination of surface and groundwater resources (Pimental et al. 2004; Moss, 2008). As a result of avoiding chemical fertilizer application in natural farming, water quality is improved and water availability is increased during extreme weather events (Korav et al. 2020). Another serious impact on environment is the residual effects of chemical fertilizers which can be drastically altered through natural farming, leading to improved soil and environmental health. The use of on-farm inputs with indigenous cow breed products have led to maintain soil health, increase microbial activity and nutrient cycling without any need to purchase inputs such as chemical or organic fertilizers and pesticides (Ranjan & Sow, 2021). The utilization of chemical fertilizers has also showed a direct effect on local biodiversity leading to even outbreak of more diseases and pests due to development of resistance (Xu, 2000). Bee activity, in particular, is being negatively affected by chemical use (Gomiero et al. 2011). The biodiversity richness can be obtained through the system that mimics natural ecosystem (Scherr & McNeely, 2007), as nature is inclined to establish more biodiversity compared to humans. A productive hectare of agricultural land is home to approximately thousands of species weighing as much as 10 tons (Pimentel, 2006). In this way, natural management of farms can conserve biodiversity when managed correctly.

6. Philosophical, Social and Economic Approach

Mokichi Okada (1993) declared that ‘Kyusei Nature Farming’ was an environmentally friendly method for growing high-quality food crops. This technique, known from even before the green revolution, harnesses the resources that are already accessible to produce high yields in a sustainable way. Diverse plant colonies develop in a healthy condition in forests, on plains, in or near lakes and marshes, and they retain productivity without being significantly harmed by pests and diseases. Nature has the ability to support all living forms, including humans. Moreover, it continually incorporates plants and animals into a diverse environment without making any distinctions between the various life forms in the planet, thus maintaining natural biodiversity. Besides, humans are continually persisted in their conflict with nature over biodiversity to eliminate weeds and insects by employing pesticides. During the initial periods of adoption of natural farming, many scientists, decision-makers, and farmers thought that utilising pesticides would eradicate insects and diseases and put an end to famines. As a result, the nature farming idea put forth at the time received criticism and was even referred to as an evil philosophy. Okada claimed that because people were unaware of the strength of soil, they significantly undermined it by using chemical fertilisers. He stated that in order to retain the strength of soil, it was vital to keep the soil clean by only incorporating natural composts. He also found that crops cultivated under natural conditions are less prone to wind damage as plants grown under naturally have longer and a greater number of roots compared to chemically cultivated plants.

Fukuoka pioneered natural farming in Japan by experimenting with nature and using organic methods of crop multiplication, where without soil erosion, he produced yields comparable to those of chemical farming (Fukuoka, 1978; Devarinti, 2016). With the similar principle Subash Palekar in India has developed Zero-Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) by using local supplements (Palekar, 2010). Thus, the natural farming philosophy strives to promote the growth of beneficial microorganisms without relying on external manure or chemical pesticides (Devarinti, 2016). As per FAO (2012), agriculture development that preserves land, water, plant, and animal genetic resources is both economically and socially feasible. In terms of social aspect, low input and reduced cultivation costs allow farmers to have consistent crop yields to sell in the market, enhancing the security of their livelihoods (Korav et al. 2020). In India, agricultural production costs and credit rates are high, crop prices are volatile, and fossil fuel-based inputs and private seed costs are rising (Koner and Laha 2020). Consequently, Indian farmers (particularly smallholders) are increasingly in debt. There have been more than a quarter of a million suicides among farmers in India over the past two decades (Parvathamma, 2016). ZBNF system cuts off the use of external inputs like synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, and herbicides, especially from large corporations, and generating employment to locals and thus uplifting their socio-economic status (APZBNF 2018). According to some studies, every dollar spent to encourage a farmer to use ZBNF yields immediate advantages of 13 dollars. As a result, there is a reduction in cultivation costs, a higher yield, more income from intercrops, and a slight price increase. Other social and environmental advantages include the security of food, nutrition, and health, employment generation, soil and water security, coastal ecosystem regeneration, climate resilience, biodiversity protection, and reduced risk (Korav et al. 2020).

7. Components of Natural Farming

Natural farming has several successful implementations around the world. Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), developed by Subhash Palekar in India, is one of them. With the help of natural farming practises and locally accessible farm-based resources, even commercial-level farming can be carried out on essentially with zero budget. This can be achieved by following five different components of natural farming:

7.1 Bijamrit

It is a treatment applied to any planting material, including seeds and seedlings. It is made up of 20 L of water, 5 kg of cow dung, 5 L of urine, 50 g of lime, and a handful of soil, which are all deeply mixed together and kept in a tank. Cow dung is rich in naturally occurring beneficial microbes, which are used as an inoculum for the seeds (Devarinti, 2016). Through bijamrit application, young roots are well shielded against fungus, as well as from soil-borne and seed-borne pathogens that frequently harm plants. In addition, it also serves as a source of important growth regulators namely Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and Gibberellic acid (GA₃) (Sreenivasa et al. 2010). Any crop’s seeds can be coated with bijamrita by hand mixing, then properly dried before being used for sowing (Asokan et al. 2020).

7.2 Jivamrit

It is a type of bio-fertilizer that enriches the soil with nutrients for healthy plant growth, as well as stimulates earthworm and soil microbial activity. It is composed of some important classes of microbes namely, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), cyanobacteria, phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB), nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and mycorrhizal fungi (Chen et al. 1995). Inoculating jivamrita into soil helps the microbes convert non-available forms of nutrients to dissolved forms and also exhibits antagonistic effects on harmful pathogens (Glick & Bashan, 1997; Korav et al. 2020). It is composed of a mixture of 20 kg cow dung, 5-10 L urine, 2 kg dicot flour (besan), which is kept in a tank and allowed to ferment. The aerobic and anaerobic bacteria found in the cow dung and urine grow enormously during the 48-hour fermentation process as they consume organic ingredients. Then, 2 kg jaggery, handful of soil, and 200 L of water is also added, stirred and stored in shade. 200 L of Jivamrita is required for 1 acre of land, applied twice a month as 10 per cent foliar spray or along with irrigation water.

7.3 Acchadan/Mulching

Mulching is covering the soil with plant or dust debris, which has a number of benefits. It increases soil aeration and maintains soil moisture by reducing water evaporation and decreases the incidence of weed emergence (Ranjan & Sow, 2021). Based on ZBNF model, it is generally of three types: straw mulch, soil mulch and live mulch (Asokan et al. 2020). Straw mulching is composed of the dead remains of any living organism which implies that dry organic matter will eventually decompose and turn into humus through the action of the soil microflora activated by microbial cultures. Soil mulching encourages aeration and soil water retention while protecting topsoil during cultivation and preventing its destruction by tilling. Live mulching suggest that it is essential to develop multiple cropping patterns of monocotyledons and dicotyledons grown in the same field to supply all essential elements to the soil and crops. Cover crops, such as legumes can help control weed growth, improve water infiltration and increase N fixation through root nodules (Korav et al. 2020).

7.4 Whapasa/Moisture

Water conservation and precise water application based on crop water requirements are the key issues at hand. Whapasa describes soil conditions where both air and water molecules are present. As only a limited amount of water (in the form of vapour) is required for crop growth, Whapasa aims to improve water use efficiency by reducing irrigation frequency and quantity (Ranjan & Sow 2021). In soil, water and air make up an equal proportion of soil mineral and organic matter. It is possible that plants suffer from oxygen deficiency and eventually die if higher amounts of water are applied and air space is confined in the soil. Plant growth is also highly dependent on soil aeration, so the interval between applications should be extended (Korav et al. 2020).

7.5 Plant Protection

Pests and diseases cause high yield losses to crops, followed by weeds. The protection against such losses can be made through application of biological concoctions. Plant extracts are used to create a compound capable of killing or controlling pests in crops (Korav et al. 2020). Bio-pesticides namely, Neemaster, Agniaster, Bramhaster made from natural or organic or bio-products is only permitted to be used in ZBNF during the times of pests and diseases outbreaks to prevent economic injury to plants. Pests such as aphids, jassids, mealybugs, white flies, etc., are effectively controlled by them (Ranjan & Sow, 2021).

7.6 Biological Factories

Inorganic fertilizers and agrochemicals are increasingly being used, resulting in agricultural pollution and degradation of the environment (Pankaj et al. 2016; Malik et al. 2017; Bhatt et al. 2019). The soil contamination through chemicals and heavy metals alters the soil structure as well as nutrient concentration. Heavy metal pollution adversely affects the size, composition, and activity of the microbial community, as well as the yield and quality of plants (Wang et al. 2016). Organic matter is the major indicator of soil quality, which considerably decreases in soil due to heavy metal interference with microbe enzymatic activity (Shun-hong et al. 2009). As part of the ongoing agricultural crisis, the novel microbial practices aim to restore soil health at low cost (Munster, 2021). A healthy soil consists of fungi and soil microbes that fix, decompose, solubilize and mineralize all nutrients needed by plants through fixation, decomposition, and solubilization (Phillips, 2017). Plants provide soils with carbon, but microbes control its fate by converting it to food and ensuring that at least some remains in the soil (Wallenstein, 2017). The soil is inhabited by indigenous microbial consortiums with the power to boost soil fertility. Natural farming is based on the premise that nature is in an exquisite state of balance, with everything interdependent and dependent on each other (Fukuda, 2018). Consequently, organic or synthetic fertilizers are not required, instead the biological entities such as microorganisms and enzymes, should be allowed to carry out their usual functions. According to Kawaguchi (2014), plants grow best in natural soil, though neutralization of chemicals may take some time.

Soil serves as a habitat to billions of micro and macroscopic organisms (Xu, 2006). Jivamrit does not function as a fertiliser when put to the soil, hence plants are not able to absorb it. Instead, it nourishes and stimulates the activity of the soil’s microbes leading to bio-diversitical saturation of soil (Palekar, 2010). In a gram of cow dung, there are an estimated 300 to 500 billion beneficial microorganisms. These microorganisms act as catalysts and break down the dried biomass in the soil and turn it into plant accessible nutrients (Asokan et al. 2020). ZBNF is an alternative agronomy that relies on reviving purportedly “old farming practises” along with modern scientific advancements to stimulate microbial life in the soil. With the aid of microbial agents, ZBNF strives to build and maintain soil fertility and health (Munster, 2021). Humans, plants, cows, and microorganisms must all coexist harmoniously in order to maintain healthy soil. Organic matter placed as mulch cover on the ground feeds earthworms and microbes. During this process, humus is produced near the root zone and nutrients are supplied to the plants. In addition, ZBNF emphasizes the importance of natural biomes (seeds, microbes, earthworms and cows) in the recovery of India’s rural health and prosperity.

Numerous bacteria in the rhizosphere have positive effects on crop productivity including, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and cyanobacteria which promote plant growth as well as protect them from pathogens (Devarinti, 2016). Despite the fact that chemical pollution may take years to neutralize, nature makes the best soil for growing plants, in which living things (microbes and enzymes) should be enabled to carry out their regular functions normally (Kawaguchi, 2014; Fukuda, 2018). By enriching the organic matter level in the soil, microbial life can flourish, thus increasing soil fertility (Paul et al. 2021). Among the soil’s functions related to greenhouse effect mitigation, the most important is the process of plant uptake of CO₂ and the emission of O₂ by photosynthetic microbes. Innately, it reflects the potential for the activation of various microbes and the addition of biomass to the soil to regenerate the nutrients needed for plant growth under NF (Kumar, 2020).

A total of 150 species of AM fungi has been identified which colonize plant roots (Kumar, 2020). Plants furnish AM fungi with photosynthetic sugars, and the fungi benefit the plants in return by accelerating the water and nutrients uptake. Aside from stabilizing soil aggregation and soil carbon accumulation, it improves water use efficiency as well as N, P and S uptake. The use of NF practices such as non-usage of synthetic fertilizers and use of cover crop results in decreasing soil temperature, improving soil moisture and thereby stimulating soil bacterial growth. In this way, it also aids in building a soil C sponge that soaks up water and makes it available to the plants (Phillips, 2017). Jehne (2019) contends that 95 per cent of soil fertility depends on microbial processes rather than the actual nutrient content of soil or fertilizer applications.

8. Nutri-Food Model

As the world’s population increases, its resources are strained, resulting in environmental degradation, health risks, and food shortages (TERI, 2014). According to United Nation’s FAO, food production will need to increase 70 per cent by 2050 to feed 2.3 billion additional people (FAO, 2009). In the long run, this shortage in meeting food demands ultimately impacts the nutritional status of the population. Due to this nearly 30 per cent of the world’s population suffers from malnutrition, a condition that contradicts the idea of a healthy lifestyle. Malnutrition includes both undernutrition and overnutrition; undernutrition is typically found in rural and developing areas of the world, which threatens both human development and economic development. It is imperative to meet the nutritive food requirements at farm level only. In addition to addressing nutritional needs, it also contributes to the income of farming families by reducing food expenditures and medical expenses (Singh et al. 2020). As a way to address the lack of access to diverse and nutritious diets, the term ‘nutri-gardens’ was introduced which utilize land to grow vegetables and fruits that can support the nutritional needs of the community? Through income generation, nutri-gardens can enhance diet quality by complementing on-farm production, increasing access to diverse foods for household consumption, and facilitating the impact of nutrition behaviour change communication on market purchases of nutrient-dense foods. It is cheap and convenient to grow a nutri-garden, which provides a regular supply of fresh vegetables, which is a key component of good health. It focuses more on long-term health and productivity by enhancing soil fertility.

Natural farming is encouraged in India as part of the Bharatiya Prakritik Krishi Paddhati (BPKP) under Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) of Government of India. Consuming fruits and vegetables from Agri-Nutri Gardens, which are cultivated without the use of pesticides, is anticipated to contribute to the development of a society that is healthier and more resilient (Roshni, 2022). The strategic approach for constructing organic carbon in sufficient quantities in soils would be centred on the proposed nutritional and ecological models that can re-establish soil organic carbon equilibrium and its subsistence by appropriate management techniques. Therefore, nutri-gardens may be seen as a straightforward alternative to: a) reduce the disparity between the available resources and sustainable use of resources b) address issues like malnutrition c) create more chances for farming communities, particularly women, to generate income d) introduce healthy eating habits. This ensures nutrition rich food while reducing the cost incurred by marginal households for health care and vegetable consumption. With this in mind, Government of India had emphasized and launched the ‘National Nutrition Mission’ (NNM) or ‘Poshan Abhiyaan’ with the aim to ensure development of malnutrition-free India by 2022 (Suri, 2020). Nutri-gardens can improve the diet of the family and offer a number of other advantages for small and marginal farmers, especially for women. With a focus on “nutrition-sensitive, and women-controlled approach to household food production,” this idea, also known as Integrated Homestead Food Production (IHFP), entails the cultivation of small-scale plots that are frequently next to households for improved food security and nutrition. In hilly areas, malnutrition is a major problem due to small and scattered land holdings, low soil fertility, and primarily rain-fed agriculture. Apple, pear, peach, plum, citrus, apricot, and walnut are examples of temperate and subtropical fruit crops that can be successfully grown in the hill region due to its geographical and climatic characteristics (Mamgai et al. 2021). These can be successfully cultivated in nutri-gardens to ensure nutrient-rich food availability and diversified dietary intake. Thus, several nutri-gardens have been established in different parts of the country including low-cost techniques to raise the nutritional levels with minimum investment.

9. Organic vs Natural Farming: A Regenerative Farming

In both of these approaches, farmers are discouraged from using chemical fertilizers and pesticides on plants and in any agricultural practices. Despite the organic food market’s rapid expansion, organic farming has a questionable history and is viewed as an ineffective method of food production. Consumers of organic goods have recently experienced frequent shortages of these goods despite the growing trend in demand, partly because the supply of organic foods was unable to keep up with the sharply rising demand (Dimitri & Oberholtzer, 2009). Based on data from 2022, the reports of ‘The world of Organic Agriculture’ shows that organic farmland increased in India by 15.6 per cent which accounted for almost 359 thousand ha of the world’s agricultural land (Willer et al. 2022). In addition, due to increased labour expenses, certification fees, handling fees, and often lower yields, organic products are typically 3-4 folds more expensive (Rao, 2019). A farmer who wants to switch to organic farming must go through a three-year transition phase during which time they must practise organic farming but are not authorised to label their produce as organic. The high cost of organic goods is partly a result of the logistical expenses required in obtaining them from farms that have earned their organic certification. These expenses, along with the cost of distribution inside the city, drive up the price of the goods (Kumar, 2020).

All India Network Project on Organic Farming (AI-NPOF) project demonstrates that using an organic technique has a greater cost of cultivation. According to the CSE research, the high cost is driven by the market-based predominance of organic and bio-inputs used in AI-NPOF. According to Connor (2008), organic agriculture can only support 3-4 billion people, much lower than the current and projected global population in 2050. However, Badgley et al. (2007) argued that it has the potential to improve crop productivity in developing countries as well as feed the entire planet. Searchinger et al. (2018) exemplified that organically grown crops have a bigger climatic impact than conventional systems due to larger land requirements. This might be linked to the significantly larger area of land used to produce the same amount of organic food as that of conventional practices, which indirectly contributes to higher carbon emissions. Additionally, the requirement of external inputs such as FYM in huge quantities leads to increased costs, making it economically unviable. Also, in organic farming through Eisenia foetida is commonly used, that feeds solely on the soil surface organic matter, and thus the soil at lower surfaces remains undisturbed which is the richest source of mineral nutrients (Rose et al. 2021).

In contrast, if NF is recognized as a chemical-free method of production, farmers can market their output as “Green Product” from the very first year at lower prices. It is a low-cost venture, with minimized emissions and thus economically more viable system than organic farming. In this, there is no need for excessive chemical use as biofertilizers, rhizobium, and acetobacter may improve soil health to some extent. Additionally, this would assist the government in reducing its expenditure on fertiliser subsidies, which are expected to cost Rs 1.1 lakh crore in 2023, with the potential for a rise to Rs 2.5 lakh crore because of greater inflationary pressures (Paliath, 2022). The primary reason for farmers to adopt ZBNF is health benefits (due to reduced chemical exposure), food self-sufficiency, environmental considerations, reduced costs, and economic independence (Khadse et al. 2018). In addition, better farm incomes through intercrops fringe benefit in NF (Kumar et al. 2020).

10. Sustainable and Local Food Systems

In response to the food price spikes and anxiety about climate change and key resource pressures, the concept of food security has resurfaced in international debate (Ambler-Edwards et al. 2009; MacMillan & Dowler 2011). Such constrained perspectives on food security and the global food crises have detrimental effects on the function and growth of local food systems, whereas more comprehensive perspectives may also provide important insights for them (Kirwan & Maye, 2013). In public discourse, local food systems are increasingly connected to sustainability (Friedmann, 2007). A local food system refers to the production, processing and retailing of foods within a defined geographical area in which the local is always perceived and understood in relation to regional, national, and global scales (Kneafsey et al. 2013). Therefore, ‘local’ refers to the smallest unit of origin, and consumers are acquainted with the place in which the food is produced and can distinguish between ‘local’ and ‘regional’ food origins (Markuszewska et al. 2012). Sustainability of local food systems encompasses the environmental, social and economic aspects. A sustainable agriculture is explicitly dependent on localization as ‘food miles’ are associated with fossil fuels and climate change (Najam et al. 2007). Consequently, local food is more sustainable because it requires fewer transportation efforts (Stein & Santini, 2021). This notion may seem logical at first, but it ignores the fact that there are several factors other than transportation that have a greater impact on a product’s carbon footprint, including land usage, manufacturing techniques, and storage (Ritchie & Roser, 2020). Moreover, in terms of carbon footprint, consumers’ eating choices have a much bigger influence on food systems than the localness of the food (Benis & Ferrao, 2017; Ritchie, 2020).

Natural farming implies avoidance of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and using natural processes and inputs to increase the health of the soil and thereby improving the nutritional quality of the crop. In contrast with contemporary farming, NF emphasizes close relationships between land, farmer, and consumer. The consumers demand related to health benefits can be optimally fulfilled through naturally grown crops along with reduced carbon footprints. Additionally, the use of practices like no-tillage and intercropping (Devarinti, 2016) to fulfil the consumers demand ensures reduced environmental stresses with improved quality of produce (Stein & Santini, 2021). In addition to improving the ecology, the technique reduces production risks by using homegrown fertilisers, fungicides, and insecticides (Kumar et al. 2020). In this day and age, people are reconnecting to their community through food by building local food networks (Duram, 2010). Local food systems involve short supply chains which are environment friendly due to direct contact between customers and producers as they might need less packaging and experience fewer food losses during the manufacturing and retail phases (Galli & Brunori, 2015; Tasca et al. 2017). Furthermore, the local food systems have a much bigger impact on social and economic benefits. In order to produce shared value for farms, localising food systems at a regional level requires the development of a competitive strategy, especially for small family farms that find it difficult to work with conventional food systems (Gibbons, 2020). Farming profitability can be achieved by improving crop yield, reducing cultivation costs, and increasing product prices. In spite of crop yield issues, NF has inadvertently reduced cultivation costs, thus being economically sustainable. Consequently, a higher farm income directly impacts the social well-being of the adopter-farmers (Kumar et al. 2020). By building local food networks, people are getting reconnected to their community through food (Duram, 2010).

10.1 Carbon Sequestration and Climate Resilience

Climate change is considered by many environmental activists as the greatest environmental challenge of our time, both because of its irreversibility and wide-ranging impact on people and ecosystems (Tal, 2018). Global temperatures are predicted to rise by 1.8 to 4.0 °C by 2100 as a result of climate change. A 100-fold increase in carbon dioxide is also anticipated by the year 2100 (Rajan et al. 2020). The dynamic change in climate results in alteration in crop productivity by severely affecting flowering, growth physiology and disease pest incidence, etc. Farmers in the nation are already dealing with the consequences of climate change in addition to the consequences from agricultural policies that were rescinded. Maintenance of soil health is crucial as changes in land use pattern and conventional farming methods have significantly degraded the soil, which has decreased India’s GDP (Reddy, 2003; Bhattacharyya et al. 2015). According to forecasts, agricultural demand will increase by 50 per cent as compared to 2013, which calls for a transformation in our approach towards holistic practices, such as agro-ecology, conservative agriculture and climate-smart agriculture (FAO, 2017).

Carbon sequestration refers to the process of effectively lowering or completely removing CO₂ emissions from the atmosphere and storing it in another form that is productive for the ecosystem (IPCC, 2018). The removal of carbon from atmosphere by the plants occurs through the process of photosynthesis, in which CO₂ is stored in various photosynthetic or non-photosynthetic plant elements viz., trunk, stems, leaves, and roots. Approximately 416.14 ppm of GHGs in the atmosphere are attributed to CO₂ (NOAA, 2021). Land management practices (Lal 2018) and anthropogenic activities namely, fuel burning, agriculture and land use pattern (Friedlingstein et al. 2020) are the factors directly linked to the alteration in the carbon balance of the planet (Sharma et al. 2021). Net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB), ranging from 0.6 to 5.9 ton C/ha/year, suggests the possibility of carbon sequestration through long-lasting woody, leaf, fruit, and root structures (Scandellari et al. 2016). Furthermore, the decomposition of these components leads to carbon addition to soil C-pool, where it is stored and retained in the form of humus (Patil & Kumar, 2017; Cotrufo et al. 2019). As atmospheric CO₂ and global temperatures continue to rise, soil carbon inputs may be affected in a variety of ways, including changes in photosynthetic rates and respiration and decomposition. Plant respiration from increased root biomass and accelerated SOM decomposition may result in carbon loss (Hungate et al. 1997; Zak et al. 2000). Similarly, higher temperatures may affect the carbon balance by reducing the water availability and lowering photosynthetic rates (Ontl & Schulte, 2012).

Commercial fruit tree orchards can be used in both agricultural and degraded sites for carbon sequestration since they are recurrent crops that remain productive for decades (Rajan et al. 2020). Fruit trees are good at capturing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it as cellulose due to their heavy bearing ability (Patil & Kumar, 2017; Zade et al. 2020). According to Bhatnagar et al. (2016), fruit crops could accumulate carbon at a rate of 32-41 per cent, whereas, only about 25 per cent is stored in branches, stems, and twigs. Avocado, banana, citrus, mangosteen, and mango trees stimulate photosynthesis to increase biomass leading to enhanced carbon sequestration (Sharma et al. 2021). Farmers benefit from the effects of NF by imparting resilience to their crops against weather extremes. According to the studies, ZBNF can reduce groundwater extraction, recharge aquifers, and increase water levels. With the aid of organic carbon, minimal or no tillage, and plant diversity, soil structure has changed in a way that supports plant growth even in the face of extreme conditions like prolonged periods of drought and the ability to withstand severe flood damage and wind damage during cyclones (ICRAF-RySS, 2020). This is proved by the studies in Vishakhapatnam in which it was reported that ZBNF based paddy cultivation fared better against cyclonic winds than non-ZBNF paddy (Tripathi et al. 2018). In addition, ZBNF could reduce sediment and fertiliser runoff due to year-round soil coverage and lower chemical inputs, which would lessen eutrophication and enhance the quality of water (Rose et al. 2022). Intercropping is also recommended by ZBNF to boost crop diversification, which can enhance soil quality and mitigate pest risk (Sharma et al. 2017). Farmers also perceived that ZBNF plants had deeper roots that penetrated deeper into the soil, making them relatively stronger in comparison to other plants (Khurana & Kumar, 2020).

The impact of large-scale ZBNF adoption on GHG emissions is uncertain, however, a cut-back in fuel consumption, decrease in emissions linked to manufactured inputs, and lowering of N₂O production through reduced fertilizer use lead to reduced agricultural emissions per unit of cultivated area (Rose et al. 2021). The Life Cycle Analysis performed by Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) found that ZBNF systems reduce water usage by 50-60 per cent, energy usage by 45-70 per cent, and GHGs emission by 55-85 per cent (CSTEP, 2020). In India, the Government of Andhra Pradesh (GOAP) promotes ZBNF primarily because of the potential benefits it may bring in terms of adaptation and mitigation to climate change. In Andhra Pradesh, there are six agro-climatic zones and 13 districts characterized by varying rainfall, soil degradation, and cyclonic vulnerability. Reduced rainfall and higher temperatures are the main causes of Andhra Pradesh’s agricultural sector’s climate vulnerability, with each district’s susceptibility depending on the projected consequences of climate change as well as its own climate sensitivity and ability to adapt. Agricultural practices such as excessive tillage, deforestation, imbalanced fertilizer use, and other unsustainable practices have contributed to soil degradation (Bhattacharyya et al. 2015). ZBNF proponents assert that it can aid farmers in reducing soil degradation caused by rainfall variability and can mitigate effects of climate change through reduced use of synthetic fertilizers and increased carbon sequestration. With 9.76 million USD spent on fertiliser subsidies in 2018-19, the GOAP is prompted to reduce water and fertiliser subsidies (Gupta et al. 2020). In the long run, ZBNF could result in healthier soil through soil carbon sequestration, increased soil water holding capacity, and by following climate resilient farming systems.

10.2 Case Studies

It is estimated that 1.71 lakh farmers in Himachal Pradesh are partially or fully engaged in natural farming (IANS 2022). A project report on revealed that ‘Effect of SPNF inputs on growth performance, flowering and yield of strawberry cv. Sweet Charlie in coriander and fenugreek-based cropping system was published by Dr. YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (HP), India. A review of the data revealed that varied SPNF inputs had a favorable effect on vegetative, production and microbiological parameters of strawberry. In the study, SPNF inputs namely, Ghan-Jeevamrit and Jeevamrit were applied as soil applications and Agniaster and Bramashter (500 ml/ 15 L water) as foliar sprays at 15 days interval. The results of the study demonstrated that vegetative growth and production parameters were significantly increased through application of Ghan-Jeevamrit @2.5 kg/m² + Jeevamrit-2.0 L/ m². Both plant height and number of flowers per plant reported 1.1 folds increase through application of treatment Ghan-Jeevamrit @ 5 kg/m² (T₂) over Jeevamrit-2.0 L/ m², which recorded the minimum values. The superior combination exhibited an increase of 14.9 and 13.0 per cent on fruit set and fruit yield respectively, over Jeevamrit-2.0 L/ m². The result also demonstrated that soil bacterial count (x 10⁶ cfu) and fungi (x 10³ cfu) were recorded maximum in Ghan-Jeevamrit @2.5 kg/m² + Jeevamrit-2.0 L/ m², whereas, AM fungal count was registered maximum in the combination of Ghan-Jeevamrit @ 2.5 kg/ m² + Jeevamrit-1.0 L/ m². Similarly, pomegranate cultivars namely, Kabuli Kandhari and Sindhuri were evaluated for horticultural traits under the SPNF system during 2020-2021. The results also depicted that the cultivar ‘Sindhuri’ exhibited the highest plant height (121.4 cm), canopy spread (84.2, 72.6 cm), and tree girth (10.6 cm). However, cultivar Kabuli Kandhari showed the maximum shoot growth (37.3 cm) when SPNF inputs such as Jeevamrit and Ghan-Jeevamrit were applied as soil application and Agniaster and Bramashter as foliar spray at 15-day intervals.

A study on ‘Evaluation of Guava cultivars under SPNF system’ was carried out during the year 2020-2021 on the cultivars, Lalit and Allahabad Safeda cultivars. Maximum plant height (121.8), trunk girth (6.3 cm), shoot growth (85.6 cm), number of primary branches (6.5), number of secondary branches (10.7) and number of fruits (6.0) were all reported for the cultivar Lalit. However, for the examined vegetative characteristics, both cultivars were statistically similar under applied SPNF inputs, namely Jeevamrit and Ghan-Jeevamrit as soil treatment and Agniaster and Bramashter as foliar spray applied at 15-days intervals. Furthermore, an assessment of horticultural traits was conducted on two apple cultivars namely, Gale Gala and Jeromine under SPNF system. The cultivar Gale Gala exhibited maximum plant height, canopy spread, and trunk girth. Both cultivars, however, showed similar results for canopy spread (north-south) and number of primary branches under applied SPNF inputs including Jeevamrit and Ghan-Jeevamrit as soil application and Agniaster and Bramashter as foliar sprays. A project report published on ‘Impact of SPNF inputs and Azolla extract on cropping behaviour of strawberry cv. Sweet Charlie in guava-fenugreek-coriander based farming system. The data also indicated that the combined application of SPNF inputs and Azolla extract had a significantly positive effect on strawberry production parameters with increased plant height, leaf area, number of fruits and fruit yield exerted per cent increase of 72.9.

Acknowledgments: We are thankful to all the supporting staff of SPNF Unit of Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry for their valuable assistance time to time.

Funding: Not applicable

Ethics approval: All methods were in compliance with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Competing interests: All the authors declare that they have no competing interests for the publication of the manuscript.

References

1. Alewu, B., and C. Nosiri. 2011. Pesticides and human health. In Pesticides in the Modern World – Effects of Pesticides Exposure, ed. M. Stoytcheva, 231-50. InTech.
2. Ambler-Edwards, S., K. S. Bailey, A. Kiff, T. Lang, R. Lee, T. K. Marsden, D. W. Simons, and H. Tibbs. 2009. Food Futures: Rethinking UK Strategy. A Chatham House report. URL: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/695/
3. Anand, A., and P. Kumar. 2020. Geographical analysis of zero budget natural farming for sustainable agricultural de-velopment in India. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 7:822-30.
4. Armanda, D. T., J. B. Guinee, and A. Tukker. 2019. The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture’s con-tribution to food security and sustainability–A review. Global Food Security 22:13-24.
5. Arshad, M., T. S. Amjath-Babu, S. Aravindakshan, T. J. Krupnik, V. Toussaint, H. Kachele, and K. Muller. 2018. Climatic variability and thermal stress in Pakistan’s rice and wheat systems: A stochastic frontier and quantile regres-sion analysis of economic efficiency. Ecological Indicators 89:496-506.
6. Asokan, R., D. Murugan, and S. Sathiyaraj. 2020. Environmental sustainability through zero budget natural farming. Studies in Indian Place Names 40:1876-85.
7. Badagley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M. J. Chappell, K. Aviles-Vazquez, A. Samulon, and I. Perfecto. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:86-108.
8. Bana, R. S., R. Dawar, S. M. Haldhar, S. Godara, A. Singh, S. D. Bamboriya, V. Kumar, A. K. Mishra, and M. Choudhary. 2022. Natural farming: Is it safe to march ahead? Journal of Agriculture and Ecology 14:1-11.
9. Baranski, M., D. Srednicka-Tober, N. Volakakis, C. Seal, R. Sanderson, G. B. Stewart, C. Benbrook, B. Biavati, E. Markellou, C. Giotis, and J. Gromadzka-Ostrowska. 2014. Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: A systematic literature review and me-ta-analyses. British Journal of Nutrition 112:794-811.
10. Benis, K., and P. Ferrao. 2017. Potential mitigation of the environmental impacts of food systems through urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) – A life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 140:784-95.
11. Bharucha, Z. P., S. B. Mitjans, and J. Pretty. 2020. Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research 18:1-20.
12. Bhatnagar, P., J. Singh, P. S. Chauhan, M. K. Sharma, C. B. Meena, and M. C. Jain. 2016. Carbon assimilation poten-tial of Nagpur mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco.). International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 5:1402-09.
13. Bhatt, P., K. Pal, G. Bhandari, and A. Barh. 2019. Modelling of methyl halide biodegradation on bacteria and its effect on other environmental systems. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 158:88-100.
14. Bhattacharyya, R., B. N. Ghosh, P. K. Mishra, B. Mandal, C. S. Rao, D. Sarkar, K. Das, K. S. Anil, M. Lalitha, K. M. Hati, and A. J. Franzluebbers. 2015. Soil degradation in India: Challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability 7:3528-70.
15. Burger J. 2008. Assessment and management of risk to wild life from cadmium. Science of the Total Environment 389:37-45.
16. Chadha, G. K., S. Sen, and H. R. Sharma. 2004. State of the Indian Farmer: A Millennium Study; Ministry of Agricul-ture, Government of India: New Delhi, India.
17. Chand, R. 2012. Agricultural R&D for next generation, ICAR Vision 2050. AU Vice Chancellors and ICAR Directors Meet, 21-22 August, NASC Complex, New Delhi.
18. Chandel, A. C., and M. D. Jangilwad. 2021. Natural farming vs Organic farming. Just Agriculture 1:1-3.
19. Chen, C., E. M. Bauske, G. Musson, and K. R. Rodriguez. 1995. Biological control of Fusarium wilt on cotton by use of endophytic bacteria. Biological Control 5:83-91.
20. Cotrufo, M. F., M. G. Ranalli, M. L. Haddix, J. Six, and E. Lugato. 2019. Soil carbon storage informed by particulate and mineral-associated organic matter. Nature Geoscience 12:989-94.
21. CSTEP. 2020. Life Cycle Assessment of ZBNF and Non-ZBNF: A Study in Andhra Pradesh.
22. DeFries, R. S., T. Rudel, M. Uriarte, and M. Hansen. 2010. Deforestation driven by urban population growth and ag-ricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nature Geoscience 3:178-81.
23. Devarinti, S. R. 2016. Natural farming: eco-friendly and sustainable. Agrotechnology 5:147.
24. Duddigan, S., C. D. Collins, Z. Hussain, H. Osbahr, L. J. Shaw, F. Sinclair, T. Sizmur, V. Thallam, and L. Ann Winowiecki. 2022. Impact of zero budget natural farming on crop yields in Andhra Pradesh, SE In-dia. Sustainability 14:1689.
25. Duram, L. A. 2010. Encyclopedia of organic, sustainable and local food. Santa Barbara. 440.
26. FAO. 2009. http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsummit/english/fsheets/malnutrition.pdf
27. Fitrah, H. 2022. Benefits of using organic fertilizer for soil fertility. International Journal of Social Science, Education, Communication and Economics 1:257-66.
28. Food and Agriculture Organisation (2012). Greening the Economy with Agriculture. Extract from the FAO Council document CL 143/18: Status of preparation of FAO contributions to the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustaina-ble Development: Governance for Greening the Economy with Agriculture. Retrieved on 29/12/2018.
29. Foote, K. J., M. K. Joy, and R. G. Death. 2015. New Zealand dairy farming: Milking our environment for all its worth. Environmental management 56:709-20.
30. Friedlingstein, P., M. O’Sullivan, M. W., Jones, R. M. Andrew, J. Hauck, A. Olsen, et al. 2020. Global Carbon Budget. Earth System Science Data 12:3269-40.
31. Friedmann, H. 2007. Scaling up: Bringing public institutions and food service corporations into the project for a local, sustainable food system in Ontario. Journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society 24:389-98.
32. Fukuda, K. 2018. The advantage of natural farming as an eco-friendly way of living: practice and discourse on the “Learners’ Fields” in Fukuoka, Japan. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 40:15-23.
33. Fukuoka, M. 1978. The one straw revolution. Rodale Press, Emmaus, PA, USA.
34. Gallego, S. M., L. B. Pena, R. A. Barcia, C. E. Azpilicueta, M. F. Iannone, and E. P. Rosales. 2012. Unravelling cad-mium toxicity and tolerance in plants: Insight into regulatory mechanism. Environmental and Experimental Botany 83:33-46.
35. Galli, F., and G. Brunori. 2015. Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development (Evidence Document). https://orgprints.org/28858/
36. Gibbons, C., B. Morgan, J. H. Kavouras, and M. A. Ben-Othmen. 2020. Sustainability in agriculture and local food systems: A solution to a global crisis. Zero hunger 832-43.
37. Gilbert, S. F., J. Sapp and S. I. Tauber. 2012. A symbiotic view of life: We have never been individuals. Quarterly Review of Biology 87:325-41.
38. Glick, B. R., and Y. Abd Bashan. 1997. Genetic manipulation of plant growth promoting bacteria to enhance biocontrol of phytopathogens. Biotechnology Advances 15:353-78.
39. Gomiero, T., D. Pimentel, and M. G. Paoletti. 2011. Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture? Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:6-23.
40. Gupta, N., S. Tripathi, and H. H. Dholakia. 2020. Can zero budget natural farming save input costs and fertiliser subsi-dies. Evidence from Andhra Pradesh. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water.
41. Hati, K. M., A. Swarup, A. K. Dwivedi, A. K. Misra, and K. K. Bandyopadhyay. 2006. Changes in soil physical prop-erties and organic carbon status at the topsoil horizon of a vertisol of central India after 28 years of continuous cropping, fertilization and manuring. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 119:127-34.
42. Hedayati, M., P. M. Brock, G. Nachimuthu, and G. Schwenke G. 2019. Farm-level strategies to reduce the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of cotton production: An Australian perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production 212:974-85.
43. Huimin, Y., X. Xiangming, H. Heqing, L. Jiyuan, J. Chen, and B. Xuedong. 2014. Multiple cropping intensity in Chi-na derived from agro meteorological observations and MODIS data. Chinese Geographical Science 24:1-14.
44. Hungate, B. A., E. A. Holland, R. B. Jackson, F. S. Chapin, H. A. Mooney, and C. B. Field. 1997. The fate of carbon in grasslands under carbon dioxide enrichment. Nature 388:576-579.
45. IANS. 2022. https://www.zeebiz.com/small-­business/news-natural-farming-spreads-roots-in-worlds-highest-village-in-himachal-pradesh-193114.
46. ICRAF-RySS. 2020. Reversing desertification through a Climate Resilient Exemplar Landscape (CREL) in Andhra Pradesh, India. http://outputs.worldagroforestry.org/cgi-bin/koha/opac-detail
47. IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014, Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
48. IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/ 08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-bygovernments.
49. Iqbal, M. 2015. Consumer behaviour of organic food: A developing country perspective. International Journal of Marketing and Business Communication 4:58-67.
50. Iqbal, Z., A. Hussain, A. Latif, M. R. Asi, and J. A. Chaudhary. 2001. Impact of pesticide applications in cotton agro ecosystem and soil bioactivity studies. I. Microbial Populations. Journal of Biological Sciences 1:640-44.
51. Kaiser, J. 2004. Wounding Earth’s fragile skin. Science 304:1616-18.
52. Kalcsits, L., E. Lotze, M. Tagliavini, K. D. Hannam, T. Mimmo, D. Neilsen, et al. 2020. Recent achievements and new research opportunities for optimizing macronutrient availability, acquisition, and distribution for perennial fruit crops. Agronomy 10:1738.
53. Karaca, A., S. C. Cetin, O. C. Turgay, and R. Kizikaya. 2010. Effects of heavy metals on soil enzyme activities. In Soil heavy metals Vol. 19 soil biology, ed. I. Sharameti and A. Verma, 237-65. Springer, Heidelberg.
54. Kawaguchi, Y., and T, Shinichi. 2014. Natural Farming: A way of life. Tokyo: Otsukishoten.
55. Khadse, A., P. M. Rosset, H. Morales, and B. G. Ferguson. 2018. Taking agroecology to scale: the Zero Budget Natu-ral Farming peasant movement in Karnataka, India. The Journal of Peasant Studies 45:192-219.
56. Khurana, A., and V. Kumar. 2020. State of Organic and Natural Farming in India: Challenges and Possibilities. https://www.cseindia.org/state-of-organic-and-natural-farming-in-india-10346.
57. Kirwan, J., and D. Maye. 2013. Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food sys-tems. Journal of Rural Studies 29:91-100.
58. Kneafsey, M., L. Venn, U. Schmutz, B. Balazs, L. Trenchard, T. Eyden-Wood, E. Bos, G. Sutton, and M. Blackett. 2013. Short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU. A state of play of their socio-economic characteris-tics. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports 123:129.
59. Koner, N., and A. Laha. 2020. Economics of zero budget natural farming in Purulia district of West Bengal: Is it eco-nomically viable? Studies in Agricultural Economics 122:22-8.
60. Korav, S., A. K. Dhaka, A. Chaudhary, and Y. S. Mamatha. 2020. Zero budget natural farming a key to sutainable agriculture: challenges, opportunities and policy intervention. Indian Journal of Pure and Applied Biosciences 8:285-95.
61. Kumar, C. P. 2022. Sustainable agriculture in India-natural farming spreads roots in Andhra Pradesh. Humities 10:16-21.
62. Kumar, R., K. Sanjiv, B. S. Yashavanth, and P. C. Meena. 2019. Natural farming practices in India: its adoption and impact on crop yield and farmers’ income. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 74:420-32.
63. Kumar, R., S. Kumar, B. S. Yashavanth, P. C. Meena, P. Ramesh, A. K. Indoria, S. Kundu, and M. Manjunath. 2020. Adoption of natural farming and its effect on crop yield and farmers’ livelihood in India.
64. Kumar, S., P. Kale, and P. Thombare. 2019. Zero budget natural farming (ZBNF): Securing smallholder farming from distress. Science for Agriculture and Allied Sector 1:1-4.
65. La Via Campesina. 2016. Zero budget natural farming in India. 52 Profiles on Agroecology: Zero Budget Natural Farming in India. FAO Agroecology. Knowledge Hub.
66. Lal, R. 2018. Digging deeper: A holistic perspective of factors affecting soil organic carbon sequestration in agroecosystems. Global Change Biology 24:3285-301.
67. Liao, J., Q. Xu, H. Xu, and D. Huang. 2019. Natural farming improves soil quality and alters microbial diversity in a cabbage field in Japan. Sustainability 11:3131.
68. Lohr, L. 2001. Factors affecting international demand and trade in organic food products. Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade 67-79.
69. Lorimer, J. 2017. Probiotic environmentalities: Rewilding with wolves and worms”. Theory, Culture and Society 34:27-48.
70. Ma, L. Q., and G. N. Rao. 1997. Chemical fractionation of cadmium, copper, nickel, and zinc in contaminated soils. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America 26:259-64.
71. MacMillan, T., and E. Dowler. 2011. Just and Sustainable? Examining the rhetoric and potential realities of UK food security. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Online 1-24.
72. Malik, Z., A. Ahmad, M. Abassi, G. H. Dawood, A. Hussain, and M. Jamil. 2017. Agrochemicals and soil microbes: Interaction for soil health. In Xenobiotics in the soil environment monitoring, toxicity and management, 139-52. Springer International, Cham.
73. Malla, G. 2008. Climate change and its impact on Nepalese agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Environment 9:62-71.
74. Mamgai, P., P. Nautiyal, and R. Jethi. 2021. Nutri-gardens: A rich source of nutrition for farm women – LEISA IN-DIA.
75. Markuszewska, A., A. Prior, A. Strano, B. Balint, B. Midoux, C. Bros, C. Koutsaftaki, C. Jochum, C. Buffet, D. McGlynn, F. Bravo, H. del Valtari, J. Czaja, P. Saalasto, P. Toyli, R. Kokovkin, M. Redman, S. R. Mazili, et al. 2012. EU rural review (No. 12; EU Rural Review). https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/42858164-67b1-49df-920b-349b25e55064
76. Mendelsohn, R., and J. Wang. 2017. The impact of climate on farm inputs in developing country agriculture. Atmosfera 30:77–86.
77. Mishra, M. 2013. Role of eco-friendly agricultural practices in Indian agriculture development. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology 4:25-9.
78. Mohanapure, P. and M. Chavhan. 2020. Augmentation of zero budget natural farming for sustainable agriculture. Just Agriculture 1:374-79.
79. Molden, D. (Ed.). 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life. A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Ag-riculture. Earthscan, London. Available at http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/books.htm
80. Montgomery, D. R. 2007. Dirt: The Erosion of Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley.
81. Moss, B. 2008. Water pollution by agriculture. Philosophical Transactions B 363:659-66.
82. Munster, D. 2021. The nectar of life: fermentation, soil health, and bionativism in Indian natural farming. Current Anthropology 62:311-22.
83. Mzoughi, N. 2011. Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?. Ecological Economics 70:1536-45.
84. NAAS. 2019. Zero budget natural farming – A myth or reality? Policy Paper No. 90, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi: 20pp.
85. Najam, A., D. Runnalls, and M. Halle. 2007. Environment and globalisation: Five propositions. Environment and Governance Project 1-54.
86. Naresh, R. K., M. Kumar, S. Kumar, U. Chowdhary, Y. Kumar, N. C. Mahajan, M. Malik, S. Singh, R. C. Rathi, and S. S. Tomar. 2018. Zero budget natural farming viable for small farmers to empower food and nutritional security and improve soil health: A review. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 7:1104-18.
87. Nath, R., Y. Luan, W. Yang, C. Yang, W. Chen, Q. Li, and X. Cui. 2015. Changes in arable land demand for food in India and China: A potential threat to food security. Sustainability 7:5371-97.
88. National Centre of Organic Farming in India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, available at http://ncof.dacnet.nic.in/policy_and_efc/ organic_farming_policy_2005.pdf
89. Nelson, G. C., H. Valin, R. D. Sands, P. Havlik, H. Ahammad, D. Deryng, J. Elliott, S. Fujimori, T. Hasegawa, E. Heyhoe, and P. Kyle. 2014. Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:3274-79.
90. NOAA. 2021. Despite Pandemic Shutdowns, Carbon Dioxide and Methane Surged in 2020. Available at: https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ Arti-cleID/2742/Despite-pandemic-shutdowns-carbon-dioxide-and-methane-surged-in-2020 (Accessed December 31, 2022).
91. NRC, 2010. Towards sustainable agricultural systems in the 21st Century. National Academies Press. http://www.nap. edu/catalog/12832.html Accessed on 20 March 2010.
92. Ontl, T. A., and L. A. Schulte. 2012. Soil carbon storage. Nature Education Knowledge 3.
93. Palekar, S. 2010. The philosophy of spiritual farming: Zero budget natural farming – part 1. 5th revised renewal ed. Amravati: Zero Budget Natural Farming Research, Development and Extension Movement.
94. Paliath S. 2022. Explained: What is Natural Farming? https://www.indiaspend.com/explainers/what-is-natural-farming-827994.
95. Pankaj, B. T. S., V. M. Pathak, A. Barh, and D. Chandra. 2015a. Optimization of amylase production from the fungal isolates of Himalayan region Uttarakhand. Ecology, Environment and Conservation 21:1517-21.
96. Parr, J. F., S. B. Hornick, and D. D. Kaufman. 1994. Use of microbial inoculants and organic fertilizers in agricultural production. Taiwan: ASPAC Food and Fertilizer Technology Center.
97. Parvathamma, G. L. 2016. Farmers suicide and response of the government in India-An analysis. IOSR Journal of Economics and Finance 7:1-6.
98. Pathak, H., N. Jain, A. Bhatia, J. Patel and P. K. Aggarwal. 2010. Carbon footprints of Indian food items. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139:66-73.
99. Patil, P., and A. K. Kumar. 2017. Biological carbon sequestration through fruit crops (Perennial Crops-Natural “Sponges” for absorbing carbon dioxide from atmosphere). Plant Archives 17:1041-46.
100. Pimentel, D., B. Berger, D. Filiberto, M. Newton, B. Wolfe, E. Karabinakis, S. Clark, E. Poon, E. Abbett, and S. Nandagopal, S. 2004. Water resources: Agricultural and environmental issues. BioScience 54:909-18.
101. Pimentel, D., T. Petrovna, M. Riley, J. Jacquet, V. Ng, J. Honigman, and E. Valero. 2006. Conservation of biological diversity in agricultural, forestry, and marine systems. In Focus on Ecology Research, 151–173. Nova Science Publishers, New York.
102. Pingali, P. L. 2012. Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109:12302-08.
103. Pirsaheb, M., M. Limoee, F. Namdari, and R. Khamutian. 2015. Organochlorine pesticides residue in breast milk: A systematic review. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran 29:228.
104. Posani, B. 2009. Farmer suicides and the political economy of agrarian distress in India. Development Studies Institute Working Paper Series 9-95.
105. Prajapati, H. R. 2019. Zero budget Natural Farming: Myth and Reality. 1-8.
106. Quinton, J. N., G. Govers, C. Van Oost, and R. D. Bardgett. 2010. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeo-chemical cycling. Nature Geoscience 3:311-14.
107. Rajan, R., M. Feza, K. Pandey, A. Aman, and V. Kumar. 2020. Climate change and resilience in fruit crops. Climate change and its effects on Agriculture 337-54.
108. Rani, A., and B. Saxena. 2021. Microbial mediated natural farming for sustainable environment. In Microbial Technology for Sustainable Environment, 49-60. Springer, Singapore.
109. Ranjan, S., and S. Sow. 2021. A way towards sustainable agriculture through zero budget natural farming. Food and Scientific Reports 30-32.
110. Rao, C. A., B. M. K. Raju, A. V. M. Rao, K. V. Rao, J. Samuel, K. Ramachandran, K. Nagasree, R. N. Kumar, and K. R. Shankar. 2017. Assessing vulnerability and adaptation of agriculture to climate change in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 72:375-84.
111. Rashid, M. I., L. H. Mujawar, T. Shahzad, T. Almeelbi, I. M. Ismail, and M. Oves. 2016. Bacteria and fungi can con-tribute to nutrients bioavailability and aggregate formation in degraded soils. Microbiological Research 183:26-41.
112. Reddy, V. R. 2003. Land degradation in India: Extent, costs and determinants.” Economic and Political Weekly. 38:4700-13.
113. Reed, B., B. Abidoye, and R. Mendelsohn. 2017. The economics of crop adaptation to climate change in South-East Asia. Climate Change Economics 8:1740002.
114. Reich, P., and H. Eswaran. 2004. Soil and trouble. Science 304:1614-15.
115. Renagold, J. P., R. I. Papendick, and J. F. Parr. 1990. Sustainable Agriculture. Scientific American 262:112-20.
116. Ritchie, H. 2020. You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local (Our World in Data). https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
117. Ritchie, H., and M. Roser. 2020. Environmental impacts of food production (Our World in Data). https:// our-worldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
118. Rose, S., J. Halstead, and T. Griffin. 2021. Zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh: A review of evidence, gaps, and future considerations. Tufts University CREATE Solutions for a Changing World 2:1-25.
119. Rose, S., J. Halstead, T. Griffin, and A. M. Jaffe. 2022. Natural farming, A climate solution in India? https://www.climatepolicylab.org/climatesmart/2022/1/19/natural-farming-a-climate-solution-in-india
120. Roshni, R. K. 2022. Agri Nutri Gardens to meet families’ nutritional needs. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/agri-nutri-gardens-to-meet-families-nutritional-needs/article36667686.ece
121. Rosset, P. M., and M. E. Martinez-Torres. 2012. Rural social movements and agroecology: Context, theory and process. Ecology and Society 17.
122. Royal Society of London. 2009. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture. RS Policy document 11/09 Issued: October 2009 RS1608, London. http://royalsociety.org/Reapingthebenefits/ Ac-cessed on 23 March 2009.
123. Sathish, B. R., B. Anand, and K. Keerthishankar. 2022. Prospectus of natural farming practices in horticultural crops. Recent Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Science 110.
124. Saygi, H. 2020. Adverse effects of climate change on agriculture: An evaluation of fruit and honey bee farming. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 10:504-14.
125. Scandellari, F., G. Liguori, G. Caruso, F. Meggio, P. Inglese, R. Gucci, et al. 2017. Carbon sequestration potential of Italian orchards and vineyards. Acta Horticulturae 1177:145-50.
126. Scherr, S. J., J. C. Milder, and M. Inbar. 2007. Paying farmers for stewardship. In Farming with nature: the science and practice of ecoagriculture, ed. S. J. Scherr, and J. A. McNeely. Washington, DC: Island Press.
127. Searchinger, T. D., S. Wirsenius, T. Beringer, and P. Dumas. 2018. Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564:249-53.
128. Shahabi Ahangarkolaee, S., and M. Gorton. 2021. The effects of perceived regulatory efficacy, ethnocentrism and food safety concern on the demand for organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies 45:273-86.
129. Shaikh, N. F., and B. D. Gachande. 2015. Effect of organic bio-booster and inorganic inputs on rhizosphere Mycoflora population and species diversity of wheat. International Journal of Science and Research 4:295-302.
130. Sharma, N. K., R. J. Singh, D. Mandal, A. Kumar, N. M. Alam, and S. Keesstra. 2017. Increasing farmer’s income and reducing soil erosion using intercropping in rainfed maize-wheat rotation of Himalaya, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 247:43-53.
131. Sharma, S., V. S. Rana, H. Prasad, J. Lakra, and U. Sharma. 2021. Appraisal of carbon capture, storage, and utilization through fruit crops. Frontiers in Environmental Science 258.
132. Shun-hong, H., P. Bing, Y. Zhi-hui, C. Li-yuan, and Z. Li-cheng. 2009. Chromium accumulation, microorganism population and enzyme activities in soils around chromium-containing slag heap of steel alloy factory. Transactions of Nonferrous Metals Society of China 19:241-48.
133. Sinclair, F., A. Wezel, C. Mbow, S. Chomba, V. Robiglio, and R. Harrison. 2019. The contribution of agroecological approaches to realizing climate-resilient agriculture. Rotterdam and Washington, DC.
134. Singh, J. S., V. C. Pandey, and D. P. Singh. 2011. Efficient soil microorganisms: A new dimension for sustainable ag-riculture and environmental development. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140:339-53.
135. Singh, R. 2000. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: A case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82:97-103.
136. Singh, R., P. Mamgai, and P. Nautiyal. 2020. Nutri Garden for food security and diet diversity, ICAR-ATARI, Zone-I, PAU Campus, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. p. 29.
137. Skinner, C., A. Gattinger, M. Krauss, H. M. Krause, J. Mayer, M. G. van der Heijden, and P. Mader. 2019. The impact of long-term organic farming on soil-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Scientific Reports 9:1702.
138. Smith, J., J. Yeluripati, P. Smith, and D. R. Nayak. 2020. Potential yield challenges to scale-up of zero budget natural farming. Nature Sustainability 3:247-52.
139. Sreenivasa, M. N., N. M. Naik, and S. N. Bhat. 2010. Beejamruth: A source for beneficial bacteria. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 17:72-7.
140. Stein, A. J., and F. Santini. 2022. The sustainability of “local” food: A review for policy-makers. Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies 103:77-89.
141. Stevenson, J. R., N. Villoria, D. Byerlee, T. Kelley, and M. Maredia. 2013. Green Revolution research saved an esti-mated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:8363-68.
142. Stokstad, E. 2002. Organic farms reap many benefits. Science 296: 1589.
143. Suri, S. 2020. Nutrition gardens: a sustainable model for food security and diversity. ORF Issue Brief No, 369.
144. Tasca, A. L., S. Nessi, and L. Rigamonti. 2017. Environmental sustainability of agri-food supply chains: An LCA comparison between two alternative forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 140:725-41.
145. Tata Energy Research Institute. 2014. Introducing the concept of Nutri-gardens to address rural malnutrition by involv-ing IOCL’s Kisan Seva Kendras. https://www.teriin.org/projects/ nutrition-security/files/Report_IOCL-PHASE-I.pdf
146. Tripathi, S., S. Nagbhushan, and T. Shahidi. 2018. Zero Budget Natural Farming for the Sustainable Development Goals. Council on Energy, Environment and Water 28.
147. Troy, T. J., C. Kipgen, and I. Pal. 2015. The impact of climate extremes and irrigation on US crop yields. Environmental Research Letters 10:054013.
148. Wang, W., H. Wang, Y. Feng, L. Wang, X. Xiao, Y. Xi, X. Luo, R. Sun, X. Ye, and Y. Huang. 2016. Consistent re-sponses of the microbial community structure to organic farming along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. Scientific Reports 6:35046.
149. World Population Prospects. 2022. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/content/World-Population-Prospects-2022
150. Xu, H. 2000. Nature Farming in Japan. Research Signpost 37:1-164.
151. Zade, S. P., S. L. Bhosale, and P. H. Gourkhede. 2020. Carbon status in major fruit orchard soils of Parbhani district of Maharashtra. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 9:1969-79.
152. Zak, D. R., K. S. Pregitzer, J. S. King, and W. E. Holmes. 2000. Elevated atmospheric CO2, fine roots and the response of soil microorganisms: A review and hypothesis. The New Phytologist 147:201-22.
153. Zero budget natural farming (APZBNF 2018). http://apzbnf.in
154. Zero Budget Natural Farming as a nature-based solution for climate action (UNEP 2019). https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/28895?
155. Zuraini, Z., G. Sanjay, and M. Noresah. 2010. Efective microorganism technology for water quality restoration and po-tential for sustainable water resources and management. Proceedings of the International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Sofware Modelling for Environments Sake, Fifth Biennial Meeting, Ontario, Canada.