Adoption dynamics of natural farming in Himachal Pradesh: Insights into practices, profiles, and policy gaps

Introduction

Agriculture forms the cornerstone of India's economy, intricately woven into its historical and cultural fabric. Blessed with varied climate, landscapes, and soil types, India sustains a broad spectrum of farming practices. This sector engages a significant portion of the population and accounts for 15.9 per cent of the nation's GDP, as reported by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India (2025) [12] . India's agricultural landscape is vibrant and varied, blending time-honored farming practices with contemporary agricultural innovations. The Green Revolution's technological advancements significantly increased crop yields and incomes compared to traditional practices (Panneerselvam et al., 2011) [13] . However, the resulting intensive farming, reliant on chemical pesticides, fertilizers, and heavy irrigation, has led to environmental degradation and health risks from exposure to synthetic chemicals (Bhattacharyya et al., 2015) [3] . In response, eco-friendly approaches like agroecology and sustainable intensification have gained traction as alternative production methods, better aligned with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Organic farming contributes to poverty alleviation and food security by enhancing yields in lowinput regions, preserving biodiversity, and protecting natural resources both on farms and in surrounding ecosystems (Masoodi et al., 2022) [11] . According to Shanmuka et al. (2024) [14] , natural farming, a type of regenerative agriculture, is distinguished by its unique practices and principles, setting it apart from other regenerative agricultural systems. Organic farming prioritizes environmental health, adopting an eco-friendly approach that serves as a natural mechanism for environmental protection and sustainable development (Bordoloi and Arunachalam, 2022) [4] . Duddigan et al. (2022) [7] conducted field experiments in Andhra Pradesh, comparing Natural Farming (NF) with conventional and organic systems, offering insights into NF's impact on crop yields across various districts and crops. Khan et al. (2022) [10] explored NF as a route to sustainable agriculture, emphasizing its ability to lower production costs and improve soil fertility through practices such as mulching and natural fertilizer use, which enhance soil health and minimize environmental harm. Natural Farming emphases on removing farmers' dependence on outside supplies and credit markets to provide them autonomy by forbidding them to make any purchases from other parties, particularly businesses.

Four pillars of natural farming 1) Beejamrita: For generations, farmers have utilized a traditional practice of treating seeds with a blend of local cow urine, cow dung, and a small quantity of soil collected from the farm's bund or field. In Natural Farming, a comparable method is employed, where seeds are coated with a mixture crafted from cow dung, urine, and other locally sourced materials, proving equally effective in combating seed-borne diseases. 2) Jivamrita: This mixture, known as a fermented microbial culture, provides essential nutrients while primarily functioning as a catalyst to boost the activity of earthworms and other soil microorganisms. Additionally, this preparation, often called jivamrita, helps protect plants from bacterial and fungal diseases, promoting healthier crop growth. 3) Mulching: Mulching involves covering the soil surface with living crops or straw (decomposed plant residue) to retain moisture, regulate soil temperature around plant roots, prevent erosion, minimize runoff, and suppress weed growth, thereby enhancing overall soil health and productivity. 4) Whapasa: Whapasa refers to an optimal soil condition where the spaces between soil particles and plant roots contain a balanced mix of 50 per cent air and 50 per cent water vapor. This equilibrium improves water availability, enhances water-use efficiency, and strengthens crop resilience to drought, supporting sustainable agricultural practices.

Source: Sharma & Dhiman, 2024 [15] Importance of natural farming Natural Farming, as the name suggests, is the art, practice, and, increasingly, the science of working with nature to achieve much more with less. Various national and international authorities, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, and the European Union define maximum residue limits on multiple pesticides. Numerous Negative health effects have been associated with chemical pesticides, which is why promoting Natural Farming in India (Thakur et al. 2014) [17] . Therefore, an urgent strategic approach is needed to reduce the use of agrochemicals and implement sustainable practices. Moreover, current agriculture has to implement environmentally friendlier practices that pose fewer public health risks. Natural Farming has emerged to ensure food security by reviving Indian agriculture in an environmentally safe manner. Hence, the present study has been proposed to identify the gaps and perception of farmers for inclusion in the policy and planning so that the farmers are encouraged to adopt Natural Farming and maximize their profit. Natural Farming has gained prominence as a sustainable approach to bolster food security while revitalizing Indian agriculture in an eco-friendly way. It encompasses a set of farming practices aimed at minimizing input costs through the use of natural inputs like Jeevamrita, Beejamrita, and Waaphasa, alongside techniques such as intercropping and mulching. Given the health risks associated with conventional farming, there is a pressing need to advocate for and enhance the adoption of Natural Farming.

Review of literature

The literature on Natural Farming highlights its significance as a sustainable agricultural practice in India, addressing environmental, economic, and health challenges posed by conventional farming. Panneerselvam et al. (2011) [13] demonstrated that Green Revolution technologies boosted yields but led to environmental degradation due to intensive chemical use, prompting a shift toward eco-friendly alternatives like Natural Farming. Bhattacharyya et al. (2015) [3] further emphasized the adverse health and ecological impacts of synthetic pesticides, underscoring the need for sustainable practices aligned with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Organic and Natural Farming are recognized for enhancing food security and reducing poverty, particularly in low-input regions, by preserving biodiversity and natural resources (Masoodi et al., 2022) [11] . Bordoloi and Arunachalam (2022) [4] highlighted Natural Farming's role in environmental protection, noting its reliance on natural inputs like Jeevamrita and Beejamrita to improve soil health. Duddigan et al. (2022) [7] provided empirical evidence from Andhra Pradesh, showing that Natural Farming yields comparable outputs to conventional systems while reducing costs and environmental harm. Khan et al. (2022) [10] emphasized its economic benefits, such as lower input costs through practices like mulching and natural pest management. Shanmuka et al. (2024) [14] distinguished Natural Farming as a unique regenerative approach, characterized by practices like Whapasa, which enhance water-use efficiency. Thakur et al.

(2014) [17] linked chemical pesticide exposure to health risks, advocating for Natural Farming to mitigate these issues. However, Thakur et al. (2023) [18] noted barriers to adoption, including limited awareness and policy support, suggesting the need for targeted extension services. This literature establishes Natural Farming as a viable solution for sustainable agriculture but highlights gaps in adoption dynamics, which this study aims to address. Recent studies, like Gupta et al. (2023) [9] , underscore its potential to enhance soil microbial diversity, while Sharma et al. (2024) [16] noted its role in climate resilience through carbon sequestration. Tripathi et al. (2025) [19] identified barriers, including limited farmer training and market access, suggesting policy interventions. These studies collectively affirm Natural Farming's sustainability benefits but highlight adoption challenges, such as knowledge gaps and inconsistent extension services, which this study seeks to explore further.

Methodology

This research was undertaken at Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University to fulfill part of the requirements for a PhD in Agribusiness Management. The study utilized a pre-tested questionnaire and was carried out in the rural regions of Himachal Pradesh, India, which spans 55,673 square kilometers (Economic and Statistics Department, 2019) [8] . The study covered all twelve districts of Himachal Pradesh. A purposive sampling method was applied to select districts with significant Natural Farming activity. A multistage random sampling technique was used to choose farmers practicing Natural Farming. In the initial stage, one block with the highest proportion of Natural Farming practitioners was selected from each district. In the second stage, panchayats with the largest number of farmers engaged in Natural Farming were chosen from each block. In the third stage, farmers practicing Natural Farming were deliberately selected from each village to gather primary data. The sample size for each panchayat was calculated using the relative proportion method, resulting in a total of 384 Natural Farming adopters, determined by Cochran's formula for a known population.

Adoption of different components and practices of Natural Farming among farmers

The analysis of Table 2 presents the adoption levels of various components and practices of Natural Farming among respondents, based on mean scores, adoption categories (High, Moderate, and Low adoption), and overall ranking. The findings indicate that the highest level of adoption is observed for Beejamrit and Jeevamrit, both with a mean score of 2.85 and an adoption level of 85.7 per cent, ranking first. These results suggest that seed treatment and soil enrichment practices are widely accepted among natural farmers. The second most adopted component is natural pest management, with a mean score of 2.75 and a high adoption level of 75 per cent, indicating that farmers recognize the importance of chemical-free pest control methods. Astras rank third, with a mean score of 2.61 and a high adoption rate of 71.1 per cent, highlighting moderate acceptance among farmers. Intercropping (ranked fourth), with a mean score of 2.28 and 64.1 per cent high adoption, suggests that many farmers integrate multiple crops to enhance biodiversity and soil fertility. Mulching, with a mean score of 2.46 and 57.3 per cent high adoption (ranked fifth), indicates a moderate level of acceptance, Whapasa ranks sixth, with a mean score of 1.77 and only 16.7 per cent high adoption. The lowest ranked component is crop rotation, with a mean score of 1.13 and only 3.1 per cent high adoption, suggesting that most farmers (90.1per cent) have a low adoption level of this practice. An analysis of Table 3 categorizes the adoption levels of natural farming practices among farmers based on their scores, divided into three groups: Low Adoption, Moderate Adoption, and High Adoption. The majority of farmers (83.1%) fall under the Moderate Adoption category, with scores ranging between 1.91 and 2.77, indicating that most farmers have adopted some components of natural farming. This suggests that while there is significant interest in natural farming, full implementation is still a challenge for most. A smaller proportion (14.1%) is categorized under Low Adoption, with scores below 1.91. These farmers have minimal engagement with natural farming practices. On the other hand, only 2.9 per cent of farmers fall into the High Adoption category, with scores above 2.77, demonstrating that very few farmers have fully embraced all components of natural farming. The mean adoption score is 2.34, with a standard deviation of 0.42, indicating moderate variability in adoption levels across the surveyed population. A few reasons for the moderate adoption of these components and practices are that some farmers are not fully aware of the benefits and methodologies associated with natural farming (Thakur et al. 2023) [18] . While initiatives are promoting natural farming, inconsistent policy support and a lack of institutional backing hinder widespread adoption. Farmers require assurance through support, subsidies, and technical assistance to confidently adopt natural farming practices.

Discussion

The findings of this study provide critical insights into the adoption of Natural Farming in Himachal Pradesh, highlighting both its potential and challenges. The socio-demographic profile reveals a predominance of female farmers (63%), aligning with trends showing women's increasing role in sustainable agriculture (Agarwal, 2018) [1] . The concentration of middleaged farmers (70.8% aged 31-50) suggests that Natural Farming appeals to those in their productive years, possibly due to its labor-intensive nature and economic viability (Duddigan et al., 2022) [7] . The high educational attainment (65.4% senior secondary, 29.9% graduates) indicates that literacy facilitates the adoption of complex practices like Beejamrita and Jeevamrita, which require technical knowledge (Shanmuka et al., 2024) [14] . The prevalence of marginal landholdings (92.9%) and lowincome farmers (57.5% earning 0-2.5 lakhs) underscores Natural Farming's suitability for resource-constrained smallholders, as its low-input model reduces financial burdens (Khan et al., 2022) [10] . The adoption analysis reveals strong uptake of Beejamrita and Jeevamrita (85.7% high adoption), reflecting their simplicity and effectiveness in seed treatment and soil enrichment (Bordoloi & Arunachalam, 2022) [4] . Natural pest management (75% high adoption) indicates farmers' awareness of chemical-free alternatives, driven by health and environmental concerns (Thakur et al., 2014) [17] . However, lower adoption of Whapasa (16.7%) and crop rotation (3.1%) suggests knowledge gaps or practical challenges, possibly due to limited extension services or agroecological constraints (Thakur et al., 2023) [18] . The moderate adoption index (83.1%) highlights that while interest in Natural Farming is widespread, full implementation remains limited, likely due to inconsistent policy support and inadequate training (Masoodi et al., 2022) [11] . The complete land ownership (100%) facilitates long-term sustainable practices, as secure tenure encourages investments in soil health (Panneerselvam et al., 2011) [13] . These findings align with global trends promoting agroecology to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, particularly in reducing poverty and enhancing food security (Bhattacharyya et al., 2015) [3] . However, the study's reliance on quantitative data limits exploration of farmers' motivations and barriers, which qualitative methods could address. Create dedicated market channels and certification programs to ensure fair pricing and economic viability, motivating farmers to fully embrace Natural Farming.

Policy implications

Future research & limitations

Future research should adopt a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative interviews with farmers to uncover motivations, barriers, and perceptions influencing Natural Farming adoption, complementing quantitative findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017) [6] . Expanding the geographical scope beyond Himachal Pradesh to other Indian states with diverse agroecological conditions would enhance generalizability (Kumar, 2019). Longitudinal studies tracking adoption trends over time could assess the sustainability and economic impacts of Natural Farming, addressing gaps in longterm data (Duddigan et al., 2022) [7] . Policy-oriented research should evaluate the effectiveness of existing support mechanisms, such as subsidies and extension services, to recommend targeted interventions (Thakur et al., 2023) [18] . Investigating the role of gender in adoption, given the high female participation, could inform gender-sensitive agricultural policies (Agarwal, 2018) [1] . Additionally, studies should explore the low adoption of practices like Whapasa and crop rotation, identifying specific agroecological or knowledge-related barriers (Shanmuka et al., 2024) [14] . Collaboration with agricultural institutions to develop tailored training programs could bridge knowledge gaps and promote wider adoption. This study, while comprehensive, has several limitations. The reliance on quantitative data limits insights into farmers' motivations and barriers, which qualitative methods could address. The purposive sampling method, although strategic, may introduce selection bias by focusing only on districts with high Natural Farming activity. The study's scope is restricted to Himachal Pradesh, potentially limiting generalizability to other agroecological regions. Additionally, the lack of longitudinal data hinders understanding of long-term adoption trends. Finally, the absence of detailed criteria for selecting blocks and panchayats reduces methodological transparency, potentially affecting replicability.

Acknowledgement

We sincerely thank our academic supervisor for their invaluable guidance and feedback throughout this research. We express deep gratitude to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh who participated in the survey, sharing their insights on natural farming practices. Special thanks go to the Subhash Palekar Natural Farming (SPNF) Department, Shimla, for providing critical data and support during feedback. We acknowledge the contributions of agricultural extension officers and trainers who facilitated access to rural communities. We are also grateful to Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry for institutional resources and logistical assistance. Finally, we appreciate our peers for their constructive input during the study's development.

References

1. Agarwal B. Gender equality, food security, and the sustainable development goals. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 2018;34:26-32.
2. Babbie E. The practice of social research. 15th ed. Cengage Learning; 2020.
3. Bhattacharyya R, Ghosh BN, Mishra PK, Mandal B, Rao CS, Sarkar D, et al. Soil degradation in India: challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability. 2015;7(4):35283570.
4. Bordoloi P, Arunachalam A. Organic farming in the northeast region of India: boon for environmental sustainability. Biol Forum-An Int J. 2022;14(4):302-306.
5. Cochran WG. Sampling techniques. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 1977.
6. Creswell JW, Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Sage Publications; 2017.
7. Duddigan S, Collins CD, Hussain Z, Osbahr H, Shaw LJ, Sinclair F, et al. Impact of zero budget natural farming on crop yields in Andhra Pradesh, SE India. Sustainability. 2022;14(3):1689-1694.
8. Gupta R, Singh A, Sharma R. Soil microbial diversity under natural farming systems in India. Soil Biol Biochem. 2023;178:108-120.
9. Khan MR, Raja W, Bhat TA, Mir MS, Naikoo NB, Amin Z, et al. Zero budget natural farming: A way forward towards sustainable agriculture. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 2022;41(13):31-43.
10. Masoodi UH, Bashir K, Malik AA. Organic farming in vegetables -the Indian scenario. Biol Forum-An Int J. 2022;14(3):564-572.
11. Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Economic Survey 2024-25. New Delhi: Department of Economic Affairs; 2025.
12. Panneerselvam P, Hermansen JE, Halberg N. Food security of small holding farmers: Comparing organic and conventional systems in India. J Sustain Agric. 2011;35:4868.
13. Shanmuka A, Kumbhare NV, Muralikrishnan L, Sinha K. Biological Forum-An Int J. 2024;16(4):191-197.
14. Sharma A, Dhiman R. Perceptions of farmers towards natural farming as a sustainable food system: A way forward. 2024.
15. Sharma P, Kumar S, Mishra A. Natural farming for climate resilience: Evidence from Indian agriculture. Clim Dev. 2024;16(2):200-215.
16. Thakur DS, Khot R, Joshi PP, Pandharipande M, Nagpure K. Glyphosate poisoning with acute pulmonary edema. Toxicol Int. 2014;21(3):328.
17. Thakur R, Sharma S, Laishram C, Negi A. Farmer's perception towards adoption of eco-friendly natural farming system in Mandi district of Himachal Pradesh, India. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol. 2023;41:576-585.
18. Tripathi A, Singh R, Yadav P. Barriers to natural farming adoption in India: A policy perspective. Agric Econ. 2025;56(1):45-60.