Comparative economics of natural and conventional farming: An exploratory study in Raipur District of Chhattisgarh

Introduction

Decades of intensive chemical-input farming have left Indian agriculture under real strain costs keep climbing, soils keep degrading, and the long-term sustainability of farm livelihoods is now a genuine worry. Chemical-free and low-external-input systems have consequently drawn growing policy and academic interest as a way of restoring ecological balance without sacrificing farmer income, and natural farming has emerged as the most visible of these alternatives. Rather than depending on synthetic chemicals or even purchased organic inputs, it leans on recycling what the farm already has biomass mulching, farm-prepared cow-dung and cow-urine formulations, and a complete break from synthetic inputs. With the launch of the National Mission on Natural Farming, this has moved well beyond a grassroots movement into a formal, state-backed programme meant to cut input dependence while holding productivity and cost in check. Chhattisgarh is one of the more active adopting states, and Raipur district in particular has built up a sizeable base of natural-farming practitioners under mission mode. But whether this shift makes economic sense depends far less on its ecological appeal than on plain farm-budget arithmetic what it costs to cultivate, what it yields, and what net returns and benefit-cost ratios it delivers next to the conventional system it is meant to replace. From an agribusiness standpoint, natural farming only makes sense if the money saved on output, and the existing Indian evidence on this point is genuinely mixed: some studies find that natural farming cuts cost but also drags yields down enough that net income barely moves (Reddy et al., 2019; Koner & Laha, 2020) [11, 7] , while others report no short-term yield penalty at all, and even higher incomes, where the full practice package is adopted with institutional backing (Bharucha et al., 2020;Duddigan et al., 2022) [2, 6] . This divide suggests the economic outcome is highly context-specific and needs to be measured locally rather than assumed. Most existing assessments, moreover, are concentrated in Andhra Pradesh and a handful of hill states, and rarely benchmark a chemical-free plot against a matched conventional plot within the same villages of a district like Raipur leaving a real gap in the locally grounded evidence that extension agencies and policymakers actually need. This study was undertaken to fill that gap: to evaluate, on a strictly comparable per-hectare basis, the cost of cultivation and profitability of natural farming against conventional farming for mustard, chickpea and grass pea in Raipur district, tracing costs through the standard CACP cost concepts and comparing yields, returns, cost of production and output-input ratios between the two systems. It forms the second objective of a wider study titled "Natural Farming as a Sustainable Agribusiness Model: A Study on Awareness, Adoption and Economic Outcomes in Raipur District of Chhattisgarh."

Materials and Methods

Study area and sampling

The study was conducted in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh, a major agricultural hub and an actively adopting district under the National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF), where 1,125 farmers have taken up natural-farming practices across 1,077.69 acres the population that formed the sampling frame. Raipur sits in the central plains agro-climatic zone, receives an average of about 1,150-1,250 mm of rainfall concentrated in the south-west monsoon, and is dominated by small and marginal holdings, which together make up over 81 per cent of the district's operational holdings. Three blocks with an established concentration of natural-farming practitioners Arang, Abhanpur and Tilda were purposively selected; the natural-farming plots here are mostly rabi, rainfed-cum-canal-irrigated parcels growing oilseed and pulse crops. From the 1,125 natural-farming farmers in the district, a random five per cent sample of 56 farmers was drawn from the selected blocks and villages, and an equal number of 56 conventionalfarming farmers was picked from the same villages by simple random sampling to serve as a matched comparison group 112 respondents in total. Data on household and farm characteristics, cropping pattern, item-wise input use and cost, yield and sale price were collected through personal interviews using a pretested structured schedule administered in the local language during the rabi season, supplemented by secondary data from the Department of Agriculture (Government of Chhattisgarh), the NMNF portal and published sources. Because the two groups differed substantially in average operational area, all costs and returns were expressed on a uniform per-hectare basis to keep the comparison fair.

Cost concepts and profitability measures

Cost of cultivation was worked out using the standard CACP cost concepts, moving progressively from the actual paid-out cost (Cost A1) through the imputation of rent, family labour, interest on owned capital and the rental value of owned land, up to a comprehensive cost that also imputes a ten per cent managerial return (Cost C3). Profitability was assessed using the following standard measures:

Test of significance

Differences in cost, yield and returns between the two independent groups were tested using the independent-samples (Welch) t-test, appropriate for groups of unequal variances, with adjusted degrees of freedom from the Welch-Satterthwaite equation. Data were compiled and analyzed in MS Excel; the results below report the observed per-hectare magnitudes and the direction and size of the differences between the two systems as recorded in the survey.

Results and Discussion

Scale of sample farmers

The average area operated by conventional-farming households (3.87 ha) was nearly six times that of natural-farming households (0.68 ha) across all three crops (Table 1), confirming that natural farming in the district is still practised on small, carved-out parcels rather than at full-farm scale. This scale difference is neutralised in the analysis by comparing costs and returns strictly on a per-hectare basis.

Cost of cultivation mustard Crop

The total cost of cultivating mustard under natural farming (₹28,511/ha) was about 47.46 per cent lower than under conventional farming (₹54,265/ha) the largest saving among the three crops. This was driven mainly by a very large 75.06 per cent cut in machine/bullock labour charge and a 58.33 per cent cut in hired labour, together with a 67.34 per cent saving on fertilizer (natural farming spent ₹1,925/ha on bio-fertilizer against ₹5,890/ha on chemical fertilizer under conventional farming) and a 61.15 per cent saving on plant-protection inputs (₹975/ha on biological pest-control formulations against ₹2,551/ha on chemicals). Unlike chickpea and grass pea, familylabour cost was also lower, not higher, under natural farming for mustard (31.25 per cent lower), so total human-labour cost came in at nearly half that of conventional farming. As is typical of low-input systems, the variable-cost share fell sharply (61.68 per cent) while the fixed-cost component mainly the rental value of owned land formed a comparatively larger share of the total, even though it too was 27.29 per cent lower in absolute terms (Table 2).

Cost of cultivation chickpea

The total cost of cultivating chickpea under natural farming (₹37,404/ha) was about 32.48 per cent lower than under conventional farming (₹55,398/ha) the smallest saving of the three crops. Unlike mustard, seed cost under natural farming was marginally higher (+2.27 per cent), as farmers used a higher local-seed rate to offset lower germination during the transition, and family-labour use was 18.18 per cent higher, reflecting the extra labour needed to prepare and apply on-farm bio-inputs and to hand-weed in place of chemical weed control. Even so, total human-labour cost remained 33.33 per cent lower under natural farming because far less labour was hired in. As with mustard, spending on fertilizer, plant protection and irrigation was cut substantially by 59.45, 69.88 and 53.33 per cent respectively through the use of bio-fertilizer and biological pest-control inputs in place of chemical ones (Table 3).

Cost of cultivation grass pea

The total cost of cultivating grass pea under natural farming (₹35,251/ha) was 37.30 per cent lower than under conventional farming (₹56,221/ha). Machine/bullock labour charge and depreciation on farm machinery both fell by 86.32 per cent, fertilizer cost by 68.45 per cent and plant-protection cost by 65.34 per cent, while family-labour use, as with chickpea, was higher under natural farming (+25.00 per cent) owing to the substitution of on-farm bio-input preparation for purchased inputs. Total variable cost fell by 44.27 per cent and total fixed cost by 26.37 per cent, with the imputed rental value of owned land remaining the single largest cost item under both systems (Table 4).

Yield and profitability

The cost saving, however, came at the price of yield, and tracing costs through the CACP concepts shows that even the cost advantage itself is not as stable as it first appears (Tables 567). Mustard yield under natural farming (6.40 qt/ha) was 52.06 per cent below conventional farming (13.35 qt/ha), and at an identical price of ₹5,950/qt, net income fell to ₹9,569/ha against ₹25,167/ha under conventional farming a drop of 61.98 per cent. The cost of production per quintal was marginally higher under natural farming (₹4,455 against ₹4,394, +1.39 per cent), and the output-input ratio (1.34 against 1.46) and net-return ratio (0.34 against 0.46) were both modestly lower (Table 5). Chickpea yield under natural farming (8.35 qt/ha) was 44.52 per cent lower than under conventional farming (15.05 qt/ha), and at an identical price of ₹5,650/qt, net income under natural farming (₹9,774/ha) came in 67.02 per cent lower the widest income gap of the three crops while the cost of production per quintal was 21.70 per cent higher (₹4,480 against ₹3,681). The output-input ratio (1.26 against 1.53) and net-return ratio (0.26 against 0.53) confirm that chickpea under natural farming, as currently practiced, is markedly less remunerative (Table 6). Grass pea yield under natural farming (10.15 qt/ha) was 43.30 per cent lower than under conventional farming (17.90 qt/ha); at an identical price of ₹4,300/qt, net income under natural farming (₹8,394/ha) was 59.55 per cent lower than under conventional farming (₹20,749/ha) the narrowest income gap of the three crops. The cost of production per quintal was 10.57 per cent higher (₹3,473 against ₹3,141), and both the output-input ratio (1.24 against 1.37) and net-return ratio (0.24 against 0.37) stayed comparatively close between the two systems (Table 7).

Tracing costs through the CACP concepts

Tracing costs through the successive CACP cost concepts from Cost A1 (paid-out cost) to Cost C3 (fully imputed cost) shows the same pattern for all three crops: the cost advantage of natural farming is widest at Cost A1 and narrows steadily as imputed fixed items are added (Table 8). For mustard, the cost advantage of natural farming declines from 65.76 per cent at Cost A1 to 47.46 per cent by Cost C3; for chickpea, it decreases from 41.41 per cent to 32.48 per cent; and for grass pea, it declines from 50.55 per cent to roughly 37.30 per cent. This happens because imputed fixed items the rental value of owned land, interest on fixed capital and the managerial component are broadly similar in absolute terms across the two systems, so they add a proportionately larger share to the lower cost base of natural farming.

Comparative synthesis

Taken together, the three crops tell one consistent story (Table 9). Natural farming delivered a genuine, sizeable saving in the cash cost of cultivation between 32.48 and 47.46 per cent achieved largely through cuts in machine/bullock labour, hired labour and irrigation, and through the use of cheaper bio-inputs in place of chemical fertilizer and plant-protection chemicals. In every case, though, that saving was accompanied by a proportionately larger fall in yield, and because the two systems fetched identical prices, the yield penalty was the decisive factor: net income under natural farming ended up 59.55 to 67.02 per cent lower, and both the output-input and net-return ratios stayed uniformly below conventional farming. The ranking across crops is instructive grass pea, with the smallest yield gap, showed the narrowest income disadvantage, while chickpea, which combined a large yield gap with a higher seed cost and higher family-labour cost, showed the widest. This places grass pea and other low-input pulses as the more promising entry points for chemical-free cultivation in the district. This central finding that natural farming lowers cash cost but depresses yield and net income even further lines up closely with a substantial strand of Indian evidence. Reddy et al. (2019), studying Zero Budget Natural Farming across Andhra Pradesh, similarly found lower cultivation cost alongside reduced yields in the initial years with no compensating price premium, so gains in net farm income stayed limited; Koner and Laha (2020), comparing natural and chemical farming in Purulia district of West Bengal, likewise recorded a fall in both per-hectare cost and per-hectare yield after conversion. The Raipur results extend this pattern and pin it down more precisely: here the yield reduction (roughly 43-52 per cent) was large enough to push the per-quintal cost of production above that of conventional farming for every crop, so the input saving never translated into a competitive net return. This sits in sharp contrast with more optimistic experimental and programme evidence from Andhra Pradesh Duddigan et al. (2022) found no short-term yield penalty from natural farming in controlled field-plot experiments across six districts, while Bharucha et al. (2020) reported statistically significant gains in both yields and incomes at scale. The reconciling factor appears to be the practice package itself: in those studies the yield-protecting components of natural farming seed and soil treatments, on-farm microbial formulations and, above all, mulching for soil-moisture retention were actually applied, whereas the wider survey behind this study found that Raipur's sample farmers had adopted only a partial version of these core bio-input techniques, relying on biofertilizer and biological pest-control inputs while still falling well short of the full prescribed package. What is observed here a substantial input-cost saving alongside a still-sizeable yield penalty is consistent with what would be expected when the cost-reducing half of the natural-farming package is more fully adopted than the yield-protecting half. Price is the second reconciling factor. Kumar et al. (2023) note that the broader profitability of chemical-free systems depends heavily on premium prices for the produce; where output sells into the same market at the same price as conventional produce, a lower yield feeds directly into lower income precisely what happened here, since natural-farming and conventional produce fetched identical prices for every crop. The steady narrowing of the cost gap from Cost A1 to Cost C3 reinforces this from the cost side: the advantage of natural farming lies in avoided purchased inputs, and once the largely system-invariant imputed items land rent, interest on fixed capital, managerial return are added, that advantage shrinks. Read alongside the wider observation that natural farming in the district is confined to small, less-irrigated, partially converted parcels (Khurana & Kumar, 2020), the evidence suggests natural farming in Raipur is, for now, a costsaving but yield-constrained orientation rather than a fully realized, financially competitive agribusiness model and that closing the yield gap through fuller adoption of the technical package, together with an assured, differentiated output market, is the precondition for changing that.

Conclusion

This comparative assessment of 56 natural-farming and 56 conventional-farming households in Raipur district shows that natural farming, as currently practised, delivers a substantial and genuine saving in the cash cost of cultivation 32.48 per cent for chickpea, 37.30 per cent for grass pea and 47.46 per cent for mustard achieved chiefly through large cuts in machine/bullock labour, hired labour and irrigation, and through the substitution of bio-fertilizer and biological pest-control inputs for chemical fertilizer and plant-protection chemicals. This saving, however, is more than offset by a sizeable yield penalty of 43.30 to 52.06 per cent, so that at identical output prices, net income under natural farming remains 59.55 to 67.02 per cent below conventional farming, the per-quintal cost of production is higher, and the output-input and net-return ratios are consistently lower across all three crops. Tracing costs through the CACP concepts confirms that the cost advantage of natural farming is concentrated in avoided and reduced purchased inputs and narrows as imputed fixed costs are added.

The overriding conclusion is that natural farming in Raipur district is not yet a financially competitive alternative to conventional cultivation, with the yield gap not input cost as the binding constraint. Because that yield gap coincides with only partial adoption of the prescribed bio-input package and the absence of any price premium, the practical priorities are clear: close the yield gap through fuller, better-supported adoption of the technical natural-farming practices; build an assured and remunerative market for natural-farming produce so that lower volumes need not mean lower incomes; and start this transition with the crops grass pea and other low-input pulses that already lie closest to economic parity. Longitudinal, multi-season research that separates technically compliant adopters from partial adopters will be essential to establish whether, once the full package is in place, natural farming can convert its established cost advantage into a competitive net return.

References

1. Athawale S, Singh R, Hatai LD, Sing Bey B, Singh NA, Singh RJ, et al. A comparative economics of natural farming and conventional farming of rice cultivation in Arunachal Pradesh. Oryza. 2024;61(2):355-362.
2. Bharucha ZP, Mitjans SB, Pretty J. Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. Int J Agric Sustain. 2020;18(1):1-20. doi:10.1080/14735903.2019.1694465.
3. Chandel RS, Gupta M, Sharma S, Sharma PL, Verma S, Chandel A. Impact of Palekar's natural farming on farmers' economy in Himachal Pradesh. Indian J Ecol. 2021;48:873878.
4. Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices. Manual on cost of cultivation surveys. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2023.
5. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF). New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2025. Available from: https://naturalfarming.dac.gov.in
6. 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. doi:10.3390/su14031689.
7. Koner N, Laha A. Economics of zero budget natural farming in Purulia District of West Bengal: is it economically viable? Stud Agric Econ. 2020;122(1):22-28. doi:10.7896/j.1924.
8. Kumar R, Kumar S, Yashavanth BS, Venu N, Meena PC, Dhandapani A, et al. Natural farming practices for chemical-free agriculture: implications for crop yield and profitability. Agriculture. 2023;13(3):647. doi:10.3390/agriculture13030647.
9. Laishram C, Vashishat RK, Sharma S, Rajkumari B, Mishra N, Barwal P, et al. Impact of natural farming cropping system on rural households-evidence from Solan district of Himachal Pradesh, India. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2022;6:878015. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2022.878015.
10. Mohan Kumar M, Adarsha LK, Singh SP, Boppana KL. Economics of organic farming over conventional farminga case study in Karnataka, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(11):2810-2817.
11. Reddy BG, Reddy VR, Reddy MS. Potential and constraints of zero budgeted natural farming (ZBNF): a study of Andhra Pradesh. Indian J Agric Econ. 2019;74(3):321-332.
12. Singh B, Mahajan RK. A comparative study of cost and profitability of conventional and organic wheat in southwest Punjab. Arthshastra Indian J Econ Res. 2017;6(3):13-20.