Equating low-cost natural farming vis-à-vis integrated crop management and organic practices in groundnut-wheat cropping system in Gujarat Plains of India

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4953651/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Equating low-cost natural farming vis-à-vis integrated crop management and organic practices in groundnut-wheat cropping system in Gujarat Plains of India

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4953651/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

A comprehensive field experiment was carried out at Gujarat Plains in India during both rainy and winter seasons of 2022-23 and 2023-24 for exploring the feasibility and viability of low-cost natural farming in groundnut-based cropping system on a low-fertility medium black calcareous soil. The experiment compared natural farming (NF), conventional farming (CF, or most popularly called as Integrated Crop Management or ICM practice), and organic farming (OF), using two groundnut cultivars, GJG-22 (Virginia bunch habit) and TG 37-A (Spanish Bunch habit). Following groundnut, two wheat cultivars (GW 451 and Lok 1) were grown in rotation during winter seasons, after a preceding fodder crop of pearl millet (taken before experimentation for eliminating soil heterogeneity). The results showed that ICM practices resulted in realization of the highest pod (1702–1822 kg/ha), haulm (2710–2740 kg/ha), total (4413–4562 kg/ha), and kernel (1202–1259 kg/ha) yields, consistently outperforming over both NF and OF. NF practices resulted in 19% and 23% reduction in pod yield over the two years’ evaluation period compared to ICM practice. Economic returns, growth parameters, and system productivities (groundnut-wheat together) followed the same trend as that of pod yield; and these values were the highest under ICM, which integrated chemical fertilizers, manure, and pesticides. The performance of organic practice was in between these two (ICM and NF). In wheat alone, ICM practice adopted plots had the highest yields and economic returns, with GW 451 outperforming Lok 1. The optimal NPK uptake ratios were identified as 6.8:1.0:2.2 for groundnut and 3.9:1.0:3.3 for wheat, emphasizing on balanced nutrient application. In conclusion, ICM practices ensure adequate nutrient supply and optimal crop growth, leading to higher productivity and profitability. Therefore, the study focuses on optimizing nutrient management in achieving sustainable and profitable agricultural production systems, balancing both high-input conventional farming and eco-friendly low-cost natural farming practices in the future.

Groundnut-wheat

Groundnut equivalent yield

ICM practice

Low-cost natural farming

Organic farming

Gujarat Plains of India is mostly characterized by semi-arid climatic conditions with low and erratic rainfall, typically ranging between 400–800 mm annually. The soils are predominantly shallow, with varying degrees of fertility and water-holding capacity. These challenging conditions necessitate innovative agricultural practices to ensure sustainable productivity (Government of Gujarat, 2020). Groundnut (rainy season) and wheat (winter season) are staple crops in this region, traditionally grown using high-input conventional farming methods. However, the conventional farming approach for groundnut-wheat cropping system involves significant use of chemical inputs, which has led to soil degradation and increased cultivation costs (Government of Gujarat, 2020).

In response to these challenges, low-cost natural farming, or Zero Budget Natural Farming (also popularly called, ZBNF) has emerged as a viable alternative. Developed by Indian agriculturist Subhash Palekar, ZBNF is a holistic agricultural practice that aims to minimize input costs and promote sustainable farming through natural processes. ZBNF is based on the sound principles of using locally available resources, enhancing soil health through organic means, and reducing dependency on external inputs such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Palekar, 2006a). It is considered as an alternative to chemical fertilizer-based agriculture or high input-cost agriculture. ZBNF advantages include improving farming system resilience, lower greenhouse emissions, improved soil health and biodiversity and reduced cost of cultivation, which is particularly beneficial for small and marginal farmers (Mishra & Puranik, 2018; Desai et al., 2021). It emphasizes on enhancing soil (physical-chemical and fertility) conditions by managing organic matter and soil biological activity; diversification of genetic resources; greater biomass recycling; and boosted biological interactions. Thus, it advocates cent percent elimination of synthetic chemical inputs (fertilizer and pesticides) and encourages the application of natural mixtures made using traditional/rural (local) available products, such as cow dung, cow urine, jaggery, pulse flour etc., mulching practices, and symbiotic intercropping. ZBNF has four pillars which are Jeevamrutha (cowdung based crop nutrition), Bijamrita (seed treatment), Acchadana (mulching) and Whapasa (efficient and less irrigation) which are integrated into it which creates a self-sustaining agricultural ecosystem where crops are grown with minimal external inputs, leveraging natural processes to enhance productivity and sustainability (Palekar, 2006b; Sharma & Singh, 2019). In this context, normal biological formula for pest management is also used for pest control involving Agniastra, Brahmastra and Neemastra using local products. Zero budget does not literally mean that cost is zero which implies that the need for external financing is zero, and that any costs incurred in ZBNF is offset by a diversified source of income accruing farm broadening/ diversification rather than dependence on monoculture.

Sustainable low-cost natural farming in (groundnut based) cropping system offers a much-needed alternative to conventional input-intensive agriculture. Its long-term benefits include maintaining soil quality, increased productivity & return per unit input use, and biodiversity related benefits. Thus, it could be a reality in near future for low-cost natural farming especially in realizing a sustained groundnut (and wheat) production when the crop(s) or its cropping system, which is mostly dependent on, applied inputs with high cost of cultivation/production. Keeping this in view and finding out an appropriate strategy for equating low-cost natural farming vis-à-vis integrated crop management and organic practices, a field experiment is initiated for the first time to develop a climate resilient sustainable agriculture practice through low-cost natural farming in groundnut-wheat cropping system in Gujarat Plains of India. Thus, the current study is aimed at understanding the effect of different farming systems (ICM, Organic farming and Natural farming) on growth, yield, nutrient uptake, and profitability of the most popular groundnut - wheat cropping systems of the region and state.

2.1 Site description

The field experiment was carried out in Gujarat Plains of India (at ICAR-Directorate of Groundnut Research Farm, Junagadh under the jurisdiction in Gujarat state of India) (Fig. 1) starting from Spring-summer 2022-23. The site is situated at an altitude of 60 m above mean sea level on 21.31⁰ North latitude and 70.36⁰ East longitude; and is categorized under the Southern Saurashtra Agro-climatic Region of Gujarat state (Gujarat Plains) and is further classified under Gujarat Plain and Hill Region of India. The climate of this area is semi-arid with an annual average rainfall of about 80–100 cm (mostly during June to September SW monsoon based rainy season with very meagre amount received during winter/ spring/ summer seasons following it).

2.2 Soil and weather description

The experiment was carried out in a medium black calcareous soil under the above prevailing agro-ecosystem. A residual exhaustive fodder crop of pearl millet was grown prior to sowing of rainy season crop of groundnut for eliminating soil heterogeneity, if any. As a result, (on soil parameters) almost similar nutrient availability in soils is conspicuous in different plots (low to medium fertile soil) following completion of this exhaustive fodder crop before the main experiment involving groundnut-wheat cropping system to begin in. Thus, soil homogeneity is restored through exhaustive crop of Pearl millet (Fig. 2) in the beginning, which was followed by groundnut & wheat in rotation for two years during both rainy and winter season of 2022-23 and 2023-24, respectively. Further perusal of the data on soil analysis made before the current investigation (rainy season 2022 groundnut crop) revealed that the soil was calcareous medium black clayey (vertic stochrept) in texture, alkaline in soil reaction (8.24), medium in organic carbon (0.63%), and low in available N (182 kg/ha), available P (7.95 kg/ha) and available K (96.88 kg/ha). The bulk density of 0–15 cm and 15–30 cm depth soil was 1.44 g/cc and 1.46 g/cc, respectively. The soil moisture content in 0–15 and 15–30 cm profile-depth at field capacity (1/3rd atmosphere) was 30.4 and 30.3 percent, respectively; and the permanent wilting point (15 atmosphere) for the same was 14.4 and 14.0 percent, respectively. The South-West Monsoon in India during 2022 was normal over NW India (101%) covering Gujarat and adjoining region. However, the 2022 seasonal (SW monsoon) rainfall over the country as a whole (106% of LPA) was higher than the long period average (LPA of 87.0 cm based on data of 1971–2020). Among the four monsoon months (June to September), rainfall deficiency was highest during August and was excess during July and September (Fig. 3). Under the given situation, high rainfall during rainy season (especially in July) resulted in flooding, which could have played a prominent role on the groundnut crop under Gujarat conditions. Almost similar condition monsoon condition prevailed during 2023.

2.3 Experimental details and crop management

The experiment was laid out during rainy season with groundnut crop sown with three farming practices/modules in main plot (Natural farming, ICM practice and organic farming); and two varieties of groundnut in sub plot. Two varieties of wheat replaced the groundnut varieties during winter season following a permanent layout system for the above three farming practices. Thus, these farming practices are integrated with two varieties of groundnut (of different habit groups belonging to Spanish Bunch TG 37A and Virginia Bunch GJG 22) during rainy season; and further with two short duration varieties of wheat (GW 451 and Lok 1) during winter season. This is made to ascertain the effect of farming practice with each of varieties individually and in combination in a cropping system mode. The treatments (three farming practices and two varieties) were laid out in split plot involving large plots (> 90 m²) and replicated 8 times both during rainy and winter seasons. The details of the farming modules are presented in Table 1. The detail methodology about four pillars of low-cost natural farming (LCNF or ZBNF) are also presented in Table 2 (Palekar, 2006). TG 37A is a central release (2004) variety of groundnut very popular among the farmers, while GJG 22 (JSSP 36) is a variety released (2013) for rainy season sowing in the state of Gujarat. In 2022, the groundnut crop was sown during last week of June, 2022 with pre-sowing irrigation and was harvested during 3rd week of October, 2022; and was followed by irrigated wheat. In 2023, harvesting of groundnut extended till 1st week of November followed by sowing of wheat in last week of November. Rainy season groundnut crop was raised mostly with seasonal SW monsoon while winter season wheat with irrigation. Normal practices are followed to raise a successful crop during both the seasons. Measurements /recording on plant growth and development attributes including yield and economics in groundnut- wheat cropping system were taken up/recorded.

Table 1

Package of practices followed in various treatments under different farming systems
Treatments	Farming Practices/Module details
Module-I	Natural Farming (NF or ZBNF)
Module-I	• Seed treatment with Beejamrut by spraying on seed, mix well and dry before sowing • Soil application of Ghan Jeevamrut @ 250 kg/ha along with FYM @ 250 kg/ha at sowing as well assoil application of Jeevamrut with irrigation at sowing, 30, 60 & 90 DAS • Achhadan: Wheat straw mulch @ 5 t/ha • Plant protection: Agniastra, Brahmastra, Neemastra, etc., if required
Module-II	Organic Farming (OF)
Module-II	• Seed treatment with biofertilizer by spraying on seed, respectively; mix well and dry before sowing • Soil application of vermicompost @ 2 t/ha, FYM @ 10 t/ha and foliar application of Panchagavya at 30, 45 and 60 DAS • Plant protection: Pheromone trap, Trichoderma, Beauveria, Metarhizium, NPV, etc., if required
Module-III	ICM Practice
Module-III	• Seed treated with recommended fungicide before sowing of seed • Soil application of recommended dose of chemical fertilizer and manures • Plant protection: Recommended fungicides, insecticides and herbicides, if required

Table 2

The details of methodology for supplying inputs in Natural Farming adopted under field condition
Input	Preparation	Benefits
Jivamrita/ Jeevamrutha	It is composed of the cow-dung (20 kg), urine (5–10 l), jaggery (20 kg) and dicot flour (2 kg) and is applied to the crops with each Irrigation cycle.	It provides nutrients, but most importantly, acts as a catalytic agent that promotes the activity of microorganisms in the soil, as well as increases earthworm activity. It also helps to prevent fungal and bacterial plant diseases. It is only needed for the first 3–4 years of the transition, after which the system becomes self-sustaining.
Bijamrita	It is basically made up of water (20 l), cow dung (5 kg), urine (5 l), lime (50 gm) and just a handful of soil.	It is a seed treatment, equipped in protecting young roots from fungus as well as from soil-borne and seed-borne diseases
Acchadana-Mulching	It was done by soil mulch, straw mulch or live mulch.	It conserves soil moisture, by reducing evaporation.
Whapasa-moisture	The irrigation should be reduced and irrigation should be practiced efficiently only in alternate furrows.	It challenges the idea that plant roots need a lot of water. In-fact, what roots need is water vapour, and therefore, whapasa is the condition where there exist both air molecules and water molecules present in the soil.

2.4 Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed for complete randomized block design (Gomez & Gomez, 1984) using analysis of variance in the OPSTAT program. Before analysis of variance estimation, all data were subjected to test for homogeneity of error variances. Treatment means were compared using a protected least significant difference test at p ≤ 0.05. Box and whisker plots of yield was prepared by SPSS 16.0 software while other graphs were prepared in Microsoft excel.

4.1 Groundnut

4.1.1 Growth and development parameters

The experimental findings presented in Table 4 revealed significant differences in the growth parameters of groundnut, such as plant height, fresh and dry weight per plant, nodule count, and nodule dry weight, due to different farming practices and varieties. However, branches per plant in both years, nodule count per plant in 2022-23, and nodule dry weight in 2023-24 were not affected by farming practices. The nutrient content of input formulations used in both natural farming (ZBNF) and organic farming is listed in Table 3. A detailed analysis of Table 4 data indicated that among the three farming practices, organic farming, which utilized FYM, vermicompost, biofertilizers, and organic plant protection products like neem oil, resulted in realization of significantly higher plant height, fresh and dry weight per plant, nodule count, and nodule dry weight. In contrast, low-cost natural farming (LCNF or NF or ZBNF) recorded significantly lower values for plant height, number of branches per plant at harvest, fresh and dry weight per plant, nodule count, and nodule dry weight for both varieties. Conventional farming (ICM) showed intermediate values between NF and OF. The difference between OF and ICM practices was statistically non-significant for fresh and dry weight per plant in both years and for plant height in 2023-24. However, growth under OF and ICM was significantly higher than NF for all parameters, except for nodule count per plant in 2023-24 (where the difference between ICM and NF was non-significant) and for nodule dry weight in 2022-23, which was significantly higher in NF than in ICM. Additionally, significantly higher values for plant parameters (except for nodule attributes, which during 2022-23 were significantly higher in TG-37A than GJG-22) were observed under Virginia Bunch GJG 22 due to its unique growth habit. The interaction between farming practices and varieties was found to be non-significant for all growth parameters.

Table 3

Nutrient content in input-formulations used in natural farming (ZBNF) and organic farming
Particulars	Beejamruta	Jeevamruta	FYM	Vermicompost
N (%)	2.380	1.96	0.5	1.6
P (%)	0.127	0.173	0.2	0.7
K (%)	0.485	0.280	0.5	0.8
Fe (ppm)	282	15.35	146.5	175
Mn (ppm)	10.7	3.32	69.0	96.5
Zn (ppm)	4.29	2.95	14.5	24.5

Organic agriculture demonstrated superior growth in the study due to its nature as an ecologically intensive production system, which is expanding globally in response to increasing demand for sustainability (Eyhorn et al., 2019; Willer et al., 2019) and premium products. The superior crop growth under organic farming practices can be attributed to more favorable soil conditions, including the application of vermicompost, FYM, biofertilizers, and biopesticides. Vermicompost is rich in N, P, K, various plant hormones, and micronutrients that regulate plant metabolism at the cellular level. The homogeneous and fertile residues produced by worms feeding on organic substrates are highly suitable for plant growth. Additionally, the presence of plant hormones accelerates cell division and elongation. Vermicompost also promotes bacterial growth and metabolic activity, and its balanced pH maintains a favorable environment, resulting in maximum bacterial growth in root nodules. This might explain the maximum number of root nodules and dry weight of nodules per plant observed under both organic and natural farming compared to ICM in the groundnut crop, a legume. These results are consistent with the findings of Sitaram et al. (2014).

Table 4

Growth parameters of Groundnut as influenced by farming practices and varieties in 2022-23 and 2023-24
Treatment	Plant height (cm)		Branches /plant (#/pl)		Fresh wt. (g/pl)		Dry wt. (g/pl)		Nodule count (#/pl)		Nodule dry wt. (mg/pl)
Treatment	2022- 23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023- 24
Farming Practices (F)
ICM Practice	32.7	36.83	4.01	5.63	60.5	56.85	18.4	17.41	172	129	58.2	43.3
Natural Farming	29.8	34.50	4.16	5.27	51.1	52.80	16.1	15.28	174	127	63.6	42.7
Organic Farming	38.5	38.06	4.33	5.50	66.6	58.26	19.0	17.92	174	140	68.7	44.9
SEm(±)	0.56	0.65	0.14	0.19	2.19	0.97	0.50	0.26	2.65	1.65	1.66	0.99
CD (P = 0.05)	1.74	2.00	NS	NS	6.73	2.96	1.54	0.80	NS	5.04	5.07	NS
Varieties (V)
TG-37 A	27.6	32.76	3.73	3.84	53.7	36.35	16.8	11.00	185	119	71.0	38.9
GJG-22	39.8	40.16	4.60	7.10	65.2	75.59	18.8	22.73	161	145	56.0	48.4
SEm(±)	0.57	0.57	0.13	0.10	2.14	0.68	0.52	0.28	2.24	1.36	1.31	0.72
CD (P = 0.05)	1.69	1.68	0.39	0.29	6.36	2.02	1.54	0.82	6.64	4.01	3.87	2.12
Interaction (F x V)
SEm(±)	0.80	0.93	0.20	0.27	3.10	1.37	0.71	0.37	3.69	2.33	2.34	1.40
CD (P = 0.05)	2.98	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	1.43	NS	7.07	6.82	NS
Interaction (V x F)
SEm(±)	0.90	0.95	0.21	0.22	3.42	1.28	0.81	0.43	3.79	2.34	2.30	1.32
CD (P = 0.05)	2.71	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	1.28	NS	7.04	6.94	NA

Table 5

Yield attributes and economics of Groundnut as influenced by farming practices and varieties in 2022-23 and 2023-24
Treatment	Pods /plant (#/pl)		Seed Index (g)		Shelling per cent (%)		Gross return (₹ ha^− 1)		Net return (₹ ha^− 1)		B:C ratio
Treatment	2022- 23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023- 24	2022- 23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023- 24
Farming Practices (F)
ICM Practice	13.5	15.9	35.2	41.0	69.24	70.7	112081	127537	67267	85836	1.50	3.06
Natural Farming	14.4	12.2	31.5	38.9	68.18	68.7	89772	101808	53348	68869	1.47	3.09
Organic Farming	14.9	13.9	33.2	42.7	69.19	72.4	99801	118215	56301	78253	1.29	2.96
SEm(±)	0.34	0.54	0.21	0.51	0.25	0.49	1357	997	1358	997	0.03	0.03
CD (P = 0.05)	1.04	1.67	0.64	1.55	0.77	1.49	4157	3052	4158	3052	0.10	0.08
Varieties (V)
TG-37 A	13.2	12.9	29.6	35.5	67.88	69.1	109247	119195	67667	80994	1.63	3.12
GJG-22	15.3	15.1	37.1	46.2	69.86	72.0	91856	112512	50276	74311	1.21	2.95
SEm(±)	0.49	0.29	0.23	0.40	0.33	0.54	1230	1688	1231	1688	0.03	0.04
CD (P = 0.05)	1.45	0.86	0.68	1.19	0.97	1.60	3644	4998	3644	4998	0.09	0.12
Interaction (F x V)
SEm(±)	0.48	0.77	0.29	0.72	0.35	0.69	1919	1409	1919	1409	0.05	0.04
CD (P = 0.05)	2.53	NS	NS	NS	1.70	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
Interaction (V x F)
SEm(±)	0.69	0.65	0.35	0.71	0.47	0.82	0.69	2295	0.35	2295	0.47	0.06
CD (P = 0.05)	2.06	NS	NS	NS	1.42	NS	2.06	NS	NS	NS	1.42	NS

4.1.2 Yield and Yield attributes

Different farming practices/modules significantly influenced the yield, and its attributes of the groundnut crop due to their favorable impact on growth, and development attributes (Tables 5 and 6). In 2022-23, the number of pods per plant was highest in organic farming (OF), followed by natural farming (NF), but the difference was non-significant. In 2023-24, pods per plant, seed index, and shelling percentage were significantly higher in Integrated Crop Management (ICM) compared to the other two practices. However, in 2023-24, seed index and shelling percentage values were higher in OF than in ICM, with significant differences within each farming practice. A critical examination of Table 6 data shows that ICM, which employed improved production technologies as recommended, resulted in the highest pod yield (1702–1822 kg/ha), haulm yield (2710–2740 kg/ha), total yield (4413–4562 kg/ha), and kernel yield (1202–1259 kg/ha), followed by OF, with the lowest values in NF. The differences between OF and NF for yields were significant, except for haulm yield in 2023-24, where the difference was non-significant. Despite NF practices showing a higher harvest index (42.2%) in 2022-23, the substantial increases in yield and associated yield traits under ICM are likely due to enhancements in yield attributes such as seed index, shelling percentage, and haulm yield. In 2023-24, the highest harvest index was observed under ICM, followed by OF. Consequently, these factors cumulatively resulted in higher pod and kernel yields under ICM. Similar observations were made by Nath et al. (2023a). The higher kernel yield under ICM practices can be linked to better pod development and filling, which is essential for marketable produce (Yadav et al., 2018). The Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practice consistently showed superior performance across all yield and economic parameters. This could be attributed to the comprehensive approach of ICM, which integrates various sustainable agricultural practices, enhancing soil health and crop productivity (Sharma et al., 2022). Organic Farming, although slightly lower in performance compared to ICM, demonstrated substantial benefits in terms of sustainability and economic viability, as evidenced by the increased seed index and net returns (Patel et al., 2023).

Although the groundnut crop responded to low-cost natural farming with 19% and 23% lower pod yield in 2022-23 and 2023-24, respectively, ICM, which incorporates integrated nutrient management with chemical fertilizers, FYM, and pesticides, was found to be more advantageous for achieving higher yield and returns from the groundnut crop. Although organic and natural farming produce lower yields than conventional farming (Seufert et al., 2012; Ponisio et al., 2015), they are more profitable, environmentally friendly, and offer equally or more nutritious foods with fewer pesticide residues (Reganold and Wachter, 2016; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al., 2017). These systems rely more on ecosystem services, needing time to stabilize, while conventional farming relies on external inputs for immediate yield benefits (Reganold and Wachter, 2016). Initially, organic practices may be more affected by changing environmental conditions impacting soil microbes, pollinators, and natural enemies, leading to greater yield and profit variability (Mäeder et al., 2002; Crowder et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2013; Karp et al., 2018). However, organic and natural farming have lower variability in environmental sustainability due to fewer control methods and management options (Reganold and Wachter, 2016).

Therefore, regarding the main plot effect (farming practice), significantly higher values in yield and yield parameters were recorded in the order: ICM > OF > NF. The only exception was haulm yield, where the difference between the varieties was non-significant in 2022-23 but significantly higher in GJG-22 than TG-37A in 2023-24. The effect of varieties on kernel yield and total yield was also non-significant in 2023-24. Yield attributing characters were significantly higher under TG 37A than Virginia Bunch GJG 22 (Table 5), contributing to higher yield parameters. Thus, similar to ICM, TG 37A outperformed GJG 22 in both pod and kernel yield. The significantly higher harvest index under TG 37A contributed to the significant increase in yield compared to GJG 22.

The interaction effect on pod yield and kernel yield during both years, as well as on haulm yield, total yield, and harvest index in 2023-24, was not significant (Table 6). The higher yield of groundnut following the application of inorganic nutrient sources is likely due to the immediate release and availability of nutrients, which is essential for short-duration varieties requiring quick nourishment, compared to the slower release of nutrients from organic sources (Nath et al., 2023a, b). These findings corroborate those of Banik and Sharma (2009), who observed similar results in soil with high organic carbon levels. This is in concordance with Kumar et al. (2020), who observed higher yields of groundnut in conventional farms compared to natural farms in Visakhapatnam. These observations are in line with study undertaken by Vinay et al. (2020) in maize and Galab et al. (2019) in rice who found lower yields on ZBNF farms compared to non-ZBNF farms. However, Duddigan et al. (2023) found ~ 30–40% higher yield of groundnut kernels in the ZBNF treatment Overall, average pod yield of groundnut (also grain yield of wheat, Fig. 4) in 2022-23 was higher than in 2023-24.

Table 6

Yield of Groundnut as influenced by farming practices & varieties in 2022-23 and 2023-24
Treatment	Pod Yield (kg/ha)		Haulm Yield (kg/ha)		Total Yield (kg/ha)		HI (%)		Kernel Yield (kg/ha)
Treatment	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24
Farming Practices (F)
ICM Practice	1822	1702	2740	2710	4562	4413	39.9	38.6	1259	1202
Natural Farming	1473	1314	2014	2575	3486	3889	42.2	33.9	1002	901
Organic Farming	1613	1566	2564	2620	4178	4186	38.5	37.5	1116	1133
SEm(±)	24.3	15.85	14.3	41.33	30.0	41.3	0.37	0.46	18.1	14.93
CD (P = 0.05)	74.3	48.53	43.7	NS	92.0	126.6	1.14	1.41	55.4	45.71
Varieties (V)
TG-37 A	1791	1591	2458	2532	4249	4123	42.1	38.5	1216	1102
GJG-22	1481	1464	2420	2738	3901	4202	38.3	34.8	1035	1056
SEm(±)	21.9	26.30	13.3	36.4	27.7	44.2	0.32	0.50	14.22	20.6
CD (P = 0.05)	65.1	77.87	NS	107.7	82.0	NS	0.96	1.47	42.12	NS
Interaction (F x V)
SEm(±)	34.3	22.41	20.2	58.4	42.5	58.5	0.53	0.65	25.59	21.11
CD (P = 0.05)	NS	NS	69.1	NS	144.2	NS	1.68	NS	NS	NS
Interaction (V x F)
SEm(±)	36.2	35.90	21.6	60.8	45.3	68.1	0.54	0.76	25.12	29.30
CD (P = 0.05)	NS	NS	65.0	NS	136.2	NS	1.64	NS	NS	NS

4.1.3 Economics of cultivation

As a result of higher yields, the ICM practice in groundnut achieved significantly higher gross returns (₹1,12,081/ha in 2022-23 and ₹1,27,537/ha in 2023-24) and net returns (₹67,267/ha in 2022-23 and ₹85,836/ha in 2023-24), followed by organic farming (OF) and natural farming (NF) (Table 5). Natural farming reported significantly lower gross returns (₹89,772/ha in 2022-23 and ₹1,01,828 /ha in 2023-24) and net returns (₹53,348/ha in 2022-23 and ₹68,869/ha in 2023-24) due to lower yields under this practice. The benefit-cost (B:C) ratio was also higher under ICM (1.50 in 2022-23), followed by NF. However, this trend reversed in 2023-24, though the difference between the two was non-significant in both years. The B:C ratio for organic farming remained significantly the lowest during both years. This could be attributed to the higher economic and biological yields under ICM with similar costs to those of organic and natural farming practices. Similar trends were observed for the Spanish Bunch variety TG 37A compared to the Virginia Bunch variety GJG 22 during both years (Table 5). The higher yields realized with TG 37A resulted in significantly higher income and BCR compared to GJG 22. These results are consistent with the findings of Chaurasia et al. (2009), Behera and Rautaray (2010), Singh et al. (2018), and Lyngdoh et al. (2019). Reduction in gross revenue among organic/ natural farming in different field crops like soybean, paddy, wheat compared to conventional farmers have also been observed by Reddy et al. (2022). However, despite the wide divergence of opinions about the costs and benefits of organic/ natural farming, some studies have also pointed out that the gains of organic/ natural farming in terms of increased farm-level biodiversity, organic matter and organic carbon content in the soil are enormous. In fact, it more than compensate for the economic losses due to lower yields through enhancing sustainability (Meemken et al., 2018).

4.2 Wheat

Various farming practices and modules significantly influenced the yield and yield attributes of rotational wheat crops as well. Data in Table 8 shows that grain yields of 3156 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 2481 kg/ha in 2023-24 were achieved with low-cost natural farming practices, compared to 3947 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 3200 kg/ha in 2023-24 under organic farming. However, significantly higher yields of 5300 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 3727 kg/ha in 2023-24 were realized with Integrated Crop Management practices that employed improved production technologies. This trend was consistent for other growth and yield attributes (Tables 7 and 8). For instance, these include straw yield (6439 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 4299 kg/ha in 2023-24), biological yield (11.7 t/ha in 2022-23 and 8.02 t/ha in 2023-24), dry weight of plants at harvest (215 g/m row length in 2022-23 and 184.1 g/m row length in 2023-24), number of panicles/m row length (90.1 in 2022-23 and 82.4 in 2023-24), and seed index (58.2g in 2022-23 and 53.6g in 2023-24) under ICM. This suggests that ICM practices ensure better nutrient and pest management, leading to robust plant growth, higher no. of panicles and seed index (Kumar et al., 2014; Sharma et al., 2017). Although NF practices showed a slightly higher harvest index (47.4%) in 2022-23, the highest HI in 2023-24 was again under ICM, followed by OF. These factors contributed to better economic outcomes for ICM plots (Table 7). ICM practice in wheat resulted in significantly higher gross returns (₹1,19,062/ha in 2022-23 and ₹91,227/ha in 2023-24) and net returns (₹87,621/ha in 2022-23 and ₹58,409/ha in 2023-24), followed by organic and natural farming (Table 7). NF reported significantly lower gross returns (₹70,561/ha in 2022-23 and ₹61,655 /ha in 2023-24) and net returns (₹45,836/ha in 2022-23 and ₹35,552/ha in 2023-24) due to lower yields.

Thus, the main plot effect (farming practice) followed the order: ICM > OF > NF. In subplots, significantly higher productivity (grain yield) was recorded under wheat GW 451 (4464 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 3395 kg/ha in 2023-24) compared to Lok 1 (3805 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 2877 kg/ha in 2023-24). Most growth and developmental parameters had higher values under GW 451, except for the seed index in 2023-24, where Lok 1 performed better (Table 7). GW 451 also had a significantly higher harvest index than Lok 1, although differences between varieties for HI were non-significant in 2022-23 (Table 8).

The interaction effect on growth parameters was generally non-significant, but interactions were significant for grain yield, straw yield, biological yield, net return, and BCR in 2022-23. This suggests that the higher yield of wheat following the application of inorganic nutrient sources is due to the immediate release and availability of nutrients, essential for short-duration varieties needing quick nourishment, compared to the slower release of nutrients from organic sources (Nath et al. 2023a). These findings corroborate those of Banik and Sharma (2009).

Table 7

Yield attributes and economics of Wheat as influenced by farming practices and varieties in 2022-23 and 2023-24
Treatment	Dry wt. (g/m row length)		No. of panicles/m row length		Seed Index (g/1000-seed)		Gross return (₹ ha^− 1)		Net return (₹ ha^− 1)		B:C ratio
Treatment	2022- 23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023- 24	2022- 23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023- 24	2022-23	2023- 24
Farming Practices (F)
ICM Practice	215	184.1	90.1	82.4	58.2	53.6	119062	91227	87621	58409	2.79	2.78
Natural Farming	138	106.0	68.1	63.3	53.2	48.1	70561	61655	45836	35552	1.85	2.36
Organic Farming	184	168.0	74.5	78.5	56.6	50.8	88855	78927	57532	40926	1.84	2.08
SEm(±)	7.45	3.47	3.67	1.80	0.76	0.86	2291	1131	2291	1131	0.08	0.04
CD (P = 0.05)	22.8	10.6	11.3	5.52	2.34	2.62	7015	3464	7015	3464	0.26	0.11
Varieties (V)
GW 451	186	157.4	80.1	78.9	58.2	47.0	100285	83453	71123	51146	2.40	2.60
Lok 1	173	148.0	75.1	70.5	53.2	54.6	85366	71086	56204	38779	1.92	2.21
SEm(±)	4.02	1.77	2.09	1.34	56.6	0.73	1514	923	1514	923	0.05	0.03
CD (P = 0.05)	11.9	5.25	NS	3.97	0.76	2.17	4484	2734	4484	2734	0.15	0.09
Interaction	NS	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	NS	NS	*	NS	*	NS
* Significant at P < 0.07

Table 8

Yield of Wheat as influenced by farming practices and varieties in 2022-23 and 2023-24
Treatment	Grain yield (kg/ha)		Straw yield (kg/ha)		Biological Yield (t/ha)		HI (%)^
Treatment	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24
Farming Practices (F)
ICM Practice	5300	3727	6439	4299	11.7	8025	45.1	46.4
Natural Farming	3156	2481	3503	3477	6.66	5957	47.4	41.6
Organic Farming	3947	3200	4979	4079	8.93	7280	44.2	44.0
SEm(±)	104	50.7	113	71.5	0.21	77.1	0.41	0.68
CD (P = 0.05)	317	155.2	347	219.0	0.63	236.2	1.26	2.08
Varieties (V)
GW 451	4464	3395	5429	4148	9.89	7543	45.3	44.8
Lok 1	3805	2877	4519	3755	8.32	6632	45.9	43.2
SEm(±)	70.4	40.9	56.6	61.3	0.10	69.3	0.44	0.53
CD (P = 0.05)	208	121.1	168	181.4	0.31	205.3	NS	1.56
Interaction	*	NS	*	NS	*	NS	NS	NS
* Significant at P < 0.05; ^ Harvest index

4.3 System productivity and economics

Various farming practices significantly influenced the yield and yield attributes of the groundnut-wheat system. On an average, irrespective of the farming practices and varieties, system productivity of 3129 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 2646 kg/ha 2023-24 was achieved in the groundnut-wheat cropping system as depicted in Fig. 4. Table 9 shows that the groundnut-based equivalent total grain yield was 2681 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 2199 kg/ha in 2023-24 with low-cost natural farming practices, compared to 3125 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 2708 kg/ha in 2023-24 under organic farming practices. However, significantly higher yields were achieved with Integrated Crop Management practices, yielding 3851 kg/ha in 2022-23 and 3032 kg/ha in 2023-24 by employing improved production technologies as recommended. Similarly, other growth and yield attributes followed this trend (Table 9). This included total biomass productivity (16.3 t/ha in 2022-23 and 12.4 t/ha in 2023-24), productivity per day (72.8 kg/ha/day in 2022-23 and 52.9 kg/ha/day in 2023-24), and economic parameters such as net return (Rs. 154,888 in 2022-23 and Rs. 144,245 in 2023-24) under ICM, outperforming all other practices. Thus, the main plot effect of farming practices ranked as follows: ICM > OF > NF, both in terms of yield and economics. In the subplot, significantly greater productivity was recorded with the wheat variety GW 451 compared to Lok 1. All growth and developmental parameters were also significantly higher under these treatments.

Table 9

Productivity & economics of the cropping system (groundnut-wheat) under different treatments
Treatment	Total yield# (kg/ha)		Total Biomass productivity (t/ha)		Productivity per day* (kg/ha)		Gross Returns (INR/ha)		Net Returns (INR/ha)
Treatment	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24
Farming Practices (F)
ICM Practice	3851	3032	16.3	12.4	72.8	52.9	231143	218764	154888	144245
Natural Farming	2681	2199	10.1	9.9	45.3	41.9	160334	163463	99185	104421
Organic Farming	3125	2708	13.1	11.5	58.5	48.8	188656	197143	113833	119180
SEm(±)	45.6	21.4	0.20	0.09	0.91	0.37	2604	1356	2604	1356
CD (P = 0.05)	140	65.4	0.62	0.27	2.78	1.14	7976	4152	7976	4152
Varieties (V)
TG-37 A	3500	2802	14.1	11.7	63.1	49.6	209533	202648	138790	132140
GJG-22	2937	2490	12.2	10.8	54.6	46.1	177223	183599	106480	113090
SEm(±)	35.2	29.1	0.11	0.08	0.50	0.33	1999	1834	1999	1834
CD (P = 0.05)	104	86.2	0.33	0.23	1.49	0.98	5919	5430	5919	5430
Interaction	*	NS	*	NS	*	NS	*	NS	*	NS
* Total duration = 111 + 113 = 224 days; # Based on Groundnut Equivalent Yield (GEY) = Groundnut yield + GEY of wheat

The interaction effect on productivity and economics was significant in 2022-23, indicating a similar high crop response with the combination of ICM and GW 451. As explained, the higher total yield of the groundnut-wheat system following the application of inorganic nutrients may be due to the immediate release and availability of nutrients in the ICM system, compared to the slower release of nutrients from organic or natural sources. These findings corroborate those of Banik and Sharma (2009). ZBNF, while demonstrating lower yields, still provided respectable economic returns due to reduced input (Mishra & Puranik, 2018). Natural Farming recorded the lowest biological yield, which might be due to the limited use of external inputs leading to lower overall productivity (Thakur et al., 2016). The interaction between farming practices and varieties was significant for most parameters, indicating that the choice of variety and farming practice can significantly influence wheat productivity (Yadav et al., 2018). Figure 5 illustrates the statistical comparison of Groundnut Equivalent Yield (GEY) (kg/ha) over two years of study, across different farming practices and varieties. Significantly higher GEY was achieved in the first year (2022-23, 3219 kg/ha), under the ICM practice (3442 kg/ha), and with the TG 37A - GW 451 varietal combination (3151 kg/ha), compared to other levels within these factors. Among the farming practices, organic farming produced a significantly higher yield than natural farming, with an increase of 19.5%. The yield under ICM practice was 18.0% higher than that of organic farming and 41.0% higher than that of natural farming.

4.4 Nutrient content and uptake

Various farming practices and modules significantly impacted nutrient (NPK) uptake and production efficiency (measured by the amount of nutrients required to produce 100 kg of pods under normal conditions) in groundnut crops. Table 10 demonstrated that nutrient uptake for N, P, K, and total NPK was highest with Integrated Crop Management (ICM) and lowest with natural farming. In terms of productivity, the average uptake of N, P, and K (including both kernel and haulm in groundnut) under ICM was approximately 97.9, 14.23, and 30.7 kg/ha, respectively, compared to the lowest values of 62.5, 9.28, and 20.1 kg/ha under natural farming. Similar trends were observed in the rotational wheat crop (Table 11).

Table 10

Nutrient (NPK) uptake by groundnut as influenced by farming practices and varieties of groundnut
Treatment	Nutrient uptake (kg/ha) in seed/ haulm					Total Nutrient uptake (seed + haulm) (kg/ha)					Total Nutrient uptake (seed + haulm) in kg/ 100-kg pod produced
Treatment	N		P		K	N		P		K	N	P		K
Farming Practices (F)
ICM	51.1/ 46.8	5.11/ 9.12		12.4/ 18.3		97.9	14.23		30.7		5.40		0.78		1.70
NF	30.6/ 32.0	3.52/ 5.76		9.08/ 11.1		62.5	9.28		20.1		4.25		0.63		1.37
OF	40.2/ 43.6	4.37/ 7.94		10.7/ 16.2		83.8	12.32		26.9		5.22		0.77		1.68
SEm(±)	0.65/ 0.24	0.07/ 0.04		0.17/ 0.09		0.65	0.08		0.18		0.06		0.008		0.018
C.D. (0.05)	1.99/ 0.73	0.21/ 0.14		0.52/ 0.27		1.98	0.23		0.55		0.17		0.024		0.054
Varieties (V)
TG 37A	45.7/ 41.7	4.89/ 7.95		11.78/ 15.7		87.4	12.84		27.5		4.86		0.72		1.53
GJG 22	35.6/ 39.9	3.78/ 7.26		9.71/ 14.6		75.5	11.04		24.3		5.05		0.74		1.63
SEm(±)	0.48/ 0.22	0.05/ 0.04		0.13/ 0.08		0.58	0.07		0.17		0.06		0.008		0.020
C.D.(0.05)	1.44/ 0.65	0.16/ 0.12		0.39/ 0.24		1.70	0.22		0.50		0.18		NS		0.058
Interaction (C.D. (0.05)*	NS/ 1.15	NS/ 0.21		NS/ 0.42		2.99	0.38		0.88		0.32		0.046		0.102
* Significant at P < 0.05

Consequently, nutrient uptake followed the order: ICM > Organic Farming (OF) > Natural Farming (NF). Among groundnut varieties, TG 37A exhibited significantly higher nutrient uptake compared to GJG 22. For wheat varieties, GW 451 had an advantage over Lok 1. Nutrient content in seed/haulm and grain/straw of groundnut and wheat as influenced by different farming practices and varieties is presented in Figs. 6 and 7. The interaction effect on growth parameters was mostly significant, indicating a higher crop response in nutrient uptake with the combination of ICM and TG 37A, both of which demonstrated higher individual effects.

Table 11

Nutrient (NPK) uptake by wheat as influenced by farming practices and varieties of wheat
Treatment	Nutrient uptake (kg/ha) in grain					Nutrient uptake (kg/ha) in straw					Total Nutrient uptake (kg/ha) (grain + straw)
Treatment	N		P		K	N		P		K	N	P		K
Farming Practices (F)
ICM	102.9	23.4		28.6		24.4	10.1		78.3		127.4		33.5		107.0
NF	52.2	11.2		14.8		11.0	4.09		38.0		63.2		15.3		52.8
OF	73.1	16.3		20.4		17.1	7.34		58.0		90.2		23.6		78.4
SEm(±)	1.83	0.41		0.52		0.39	0.16		1.30		2.14		0.54		1.73
C.D. (0.05)	5.61	1.25		1.59		1.19	0.49		3.97		6.56		1.65		5.29
Varieties (V)
TG 37A	83.0	18.9		23.5		19.7	8.49		64.1		102.8		27.4		87.6
GJG 22	69.1	15.0		19.1		15.3	5.88		52.1		84.4		20.9		71.2
SEm(±)	1.32	0.30		0.37		0.20	0.09		0.67		1.39		0.34		0.86
C.D.(0.05)	3.91	0.88		1.09		0.60	0.26		1.98		4.13		0.99		2.55
Interaction (C.D. (0.05)*	6.90	1.56		1.92		1.07	0.46		3.51		7.30		1.76		4.52
* Significant at P < 0.05

For every 100 kg of pods produced under field conditions, the average nutrient uptake for N, P, and K (including both kernel and haulm in groundnut) under ICM was approximately 5.40, 0.78, and 1.70 kg/ha, respectively, compared to the lowest values of 5.22, 0.77, and 1.68 kg/ha under natural farming. Thus, nutrient uptake per 100 kg of pods produced followed the same order: ICM > OF > NF; TG 37A > GJG22 (Table 10). The interaction effect on growth parameters also followed this trend, with higher nutrient uptake observed in the combination of ICM and TG 37A/GW 451. Therefore, it is suggested that the groundnut crop requires around 7.3 kg NPK (i.e., 5.0 N + 0.7 P + 1.6 K) per 100 kg pods under ICM, equating to 100 kg N, 14 kg P, and 32 kg K per two tons of pod yield. The same quantities may be required for both organic and natural farming, provided adequate and appropriate blending with suitable additives or supplementary nutrients is made according to the different farming practices. Higher productivity is typically associated with higher nutrient uptake, without limitations on specific nutrients, and can be enhanced by appropriate technological management, assuming other production factors remain stable. The study showed that pod yields of 20.5, 139.5, and 64 kg were produced per kg of N, P, and K absorbed, respectively (partial factor productivity calculated as pod yield per unit nutrient absorbed). Based on the ratio of N, P, and K uptake for achieving higher per-unit productivity across farming practices and varieties, the ratios were observed to be 6.8:1.0:2.2 for groundnut and 3.9:1.0:3.3 for wheat. These findings corroborate those of Banik and Sharma (2009). The variation in nutrient uptake among wheat varieties suggests that GW 451 is more efficient in nutrient absorption compared to Lok 1. This could be due to inherent genetic differences between the varieties, influencing their nutrient use efficiency (Bhattacharyya et al., 2008).

4.5 Quality parameters

As shown in Table 12, the quality parameters of groundnut, including kernel moisture, oil content, protein content, and aflatoxin content, were unaffected by the various farming practices, with no significant differences observed among ICM practices, natural farming, and organic farming. Among the different varieties, kernel moisture content was statistically similar. Oil yield, protein content and aflatoxin content were significantly influenced by the varieties used. The highest oil content was recorded in GJG 22 at 53.4%, while TG 37A had the highest protein content at 29.6%. This result aligns with findings by Sharma et al. (2020), who reported that certain groundnut varieties naturally exhibit higher oil content due to their genetic makeup. The variation in oil content across different varieties can also be influenced by environmental factors such as temperature, soil type, and irrigation practices. Aflatoxin levels in GJG 22 (5.37 ppb) were 131% higher compared to TG 37A (2.32 ppb). This aligns with studies by Kumar et al. (2021), who noted that certain groundnut varieties are more prone to aflatoxin contamination, particularly under stress conditions. Aflatoxin levels are influenced by various factors, including the storage environment, humidity, and post-harvest handling practices.

Table 12

Quality parameters in groundnut under farming practices and varieties in rainy season 2023)
Treatments	Kernel Moisture (%)	Oil Content (%)	Protein Content (%)	Aflatoxin B1 (ppb) (ELISA)
Farming Practices (F)
ICM	5.64	50.8	27.6	2.95
Natural Farming	5.75	51.2	27.2	3.86
Organic Farming	5.67	51.7	26.6	4.72
SEm (±)	0.14	0.34	0.30	1.32
CD (P = 0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS
Varieties (V)
TG-37 A	5.74	49.1	29.6	2.32
GJG-22	5.63	53.4	24.7	5.37
SEm (±)	0.09	0.25	0.29	0.80
CD (P = 0.05)	NA	0.75	0.85	2.82
Interaction (F x V)
SEm(±)	0.19	0.47	0.42	1.87
CD (P = 0.05)	NA	NA	NA	NS
Interaction (V x F)
SEm(±)	0.18	0.46	0.46	1.64
CD (P = 0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS

The study concluded that while natural farming methods resulted in average reduction of 21% in pod yield compared to Integrated Crop Management (ICM) practices for rainy season groundnut, ICM practices proved significantly superior in maximizing yield and economic returns. Resource poor marginal farmers can use natural farming in groundnut-wheat cropping system, whose BCR (average of 2.28 and 2.10 respectively for groundnut and wheat respectively) is better than organic farming. However, the superior performance of ICM can be attributed to the optimal supply of inputs, including chemical fertilizers, FYM, and pesticides, which facilitated better crop growth and development. Despite the advantages of ICM, efforts to enhance productivity in eco-friendly farming practices—such as natural and organic farming—are essential and binding on all of us. Future research and practices should therefore focus on appropriately reinforcing nutrient supply to improve yields in these sustainable systems, aiming at balancing ecological benefits with productivity outcomes.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We sincerely thank ICAR-Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh, Gujarat for financial support for the experiment.

Banik, P., & Sharma, R. V. (2009). Effect of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients on the winter crop-rice cropping system in sub-humid tropics of India. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 55(3), 285–294.
Behera, U. K., & Rautaray, S. K. (2010). Effect of biofertilizers and chemical fertilizers on productivity and quality parameters of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) on a vertisols of central India. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 56(1), 65–72.
Bhattacharyya, R., Prakash, V., Kundu, S., & Gupta, H. S. (2008). Sustainability index for different farming techniques in the central Himalaya. Energy, 33(1), 197–204.
Chaurasia, S. K., Jain, N., & Jain, N. (2009). Effect of integrated use of fertilizers, organic manures and micronutrients on productivity of sesame (Sesamum indicum). Annals of Agricultural Research, 30(3&4), 91–94.
Crowder, D. W., Northfield, T. D., Strand, M. R., & Snyder, W. E. (2010). Organic agriculture promotes evenness and natural pest control. Nature, 466, 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09183
Desai, R., Patel, D., & Shah, K. (2021). Impact of zero budget natural farming on soil health and crop productivity in Gujarat. Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 13(2), 123–135.
Duddigan, S., Shaw, L. J., Sizmur, T., Gogu, D., Hussain, Z., Jirra, K., & Collins, C. D. (2023). Natural farming improves crop yield in SE India when compared to conventional or organic systems by enhancing soil quality. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 43, 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x
Eyhorn, F., Muller, A., Reganold, J. P., Frison, E., Herren, H. R., Luttikholt, L., & Smith, P. (2019). Sustainability in global agriculture driven by organic farming. Nature Sustainability, 2, 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0266-6
Galab, S., Prudhvikar, R. P., & Sree Rama, R. D. (2019). Impact assessment of zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh: A comprehensive approach using crop cutting experiments. Centre for Economic and Social Studies. Retrieved from http://www.cess.ac.in/
Gomez, K. A., & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research. Wiley.
Government of Gujarat. (2020). Agricultural statistics at a glance. Department of Agriculture.
Karp, D. S., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Meehan, T. D., Martin, E. A., DeClerk, F., Grab, H., & Kremen, C. (2018). Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, E7863–E7870. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800042115
Kennedy, C. M., Lonsdorf, E., Neel, M. C., Williams, N. M., Ricketts, T. H., Winfree, R., & Kremen, C. (2013). A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecology Letters, 16(5), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12082
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Espíndola, A., Vanbergen, A. J., Settele, J., Kremen, C., & Dicks, L. V. (2017). Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecology Letters, 20(5), 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12762
Kumar, R., Kumar, S., Yashavanth, B. S., Meena, P. C., Ramesh, P., Indoria, A. K., & Manjunath, M. (2020). Adoption of natural farming and its effect on crop yield and farmers' livelihood in India. ICAR-National Academy of Agricultural Research Management.
Kumar, V., & Shukla, P. (2021). Aflatoxin Contamination in Groundnut: Factors, Detection, and Management. Food Safety Journal, 18(2), 89–102.
Lyngdoh, B., Krishnamurthy, N., Jayadeva, H. M., Gowda, J., Seenappa, C., & Nataraju, M. S. (2019). Influence of foliar nutrition on the performance of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 53(2), 57–61.
Mäeder, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296(5573), 1694–1697. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071148
Meemken, E. M., & Qaim, M. (2018). Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10(1), 39–63.
Mishra, R., & Puranik, S. (2018). Performance of low-input agriculture systems: A review. International Journal of Agricultural Research, 53(1), 45–57.
Nath, C. P., Dutta, A., Hazra, K. K., Praharaj, C. S., Kumar, N., Singh, S. S., & Das, K. (2023a). Physical and chemical characteristics of soil with long-term inclusion of pulses in cropping system and organic amendments. Scientific Reports, in press.
Nath, C. P., Kumar, N., Dutta, A., Hazra, K. K., Praharaj, C. S., Singh, S. S., & Das, K. (2023b). Pulse crop and organic amendments in cropping system improve soil quality in rice ecology: Evidence from a long-term experiment of 16 years. Geoderma, 430, 116334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116334
Palekar, S. (2006a). Textbook on Shoonya Bandovalada Naisargika Krushi. Swamy Anand, Agri Prakashana.
Palekar, S. (2006b). The philosophy of zero budget natural farming. Shri Subhash Palekar.
Patel, R., Desai, R., & Shah, K. (2023). Comparative analysis of organic and natural farming practices on groundnut yield. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences.
Ponisio, L. C., M’Gonigle, L. K., Mace, K. C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P., & Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1799), 20141396. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1396
Reddy, A. A., Melts, I., Mohan, G., Rani, C. R., Pawar, V., Singh, V., & Bhattarai, M. (2022). Economic impact of organic agriculture: Evidence from a Pan-India survey. Sustainability, 14(22), 15057. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215057
Reganold, J. P., & Wachter, J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2, 15221. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.221
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485(7397), 229–232. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069
Sharma, M., & Patel, J. (2020). Study on Oil Content in Groundnut Varieties. Journal of Oilseeds Research, 37(1), 45–53.
Sharma, A., & Singh, M. (2019). Economic viability of zero budget natural farming: A case study. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(3), 289–297.
Sharma, P., Verma, R., & Yadav, S. (2022). Integrated crop management: A sustainable approach for enhancing groundnut productivity. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.
Singh, N., Joshi, E., Sasode, D. S., Sikarwar, R. S., & Rawat, G. S. (2018). Liquid biofertilizer and inorganic nutrients effect on physiological, quality parameters and productivity of kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(9), 729–735.
Sitaram, T., Sharma, S. K., & Reager, M. L. (2014). Effect of vermicompost and zinc on yield attributes, yield and quality of green gram [Vigna radiata var. aureus (L.) Wilczek] in arid western Rajasthan. International Journal of Agricultural Science, 10(1), 138–141.
Thakur, R., Gupta, S., & Rana, R. (2016). Comparative study of natural and conventional farming practices. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 38(1), 91–103.
Vinay, G., Padmaja, B., & Malla Reddy, M. (2020). Evaluation of natural farming practices on the performance of maize. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Science, 2, 224–230.
Willer, H., Lernoud, J., & Kemper, L. (2019). The world of organic agriculture. FiBL.
Yadav, M., Singh, A., & Choudhary, P. (2018). Performance of different wheat varieties under varying farming practices. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 10(5), 123–130.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Major revisions
05 Nov, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
24 Sep, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
04 Sep, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
23 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
21 Aug, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Equating low-cost natural farming vis-à-vis integrated crop management and organic practices in groundnut-wheat cropping system in Gujarat Plains of India

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1. INTRODUCTION

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Site description

2.2 Soil and weather description

2.3 Experimental details and crop management

2.4 Statistical analysis

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Groundnut

4.1.1 Growth and development parameters

4.1.2 Yield and Yield attributes

4.1.3 Economics of cultivation

4.2 Wheat

4.3 System productivity and economics

4.4 Nutrient content and uptake

4.5 Quality parameters

5. CONCLUSION

Declarations

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

References

Status:

Version 1