Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Economic Performance, Market Integration and Social Inclusion in Indigenous Knowledge based Natural Farming: Empirical Evidence from Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

S
Sarvesh Kumar1,*
0000-0001-9366-660X
A
Aditya Singh1
K
Kashish Pandey1
C
Chandra Nath Yadav1
A
Amarjeet Prajapati2
1Department of Agricultural Economics, Shri Durga Ji P. G. College, Chandeshwar, Azamgarh-276 128, Uttar Pradesh, India. 
2Department of Agronomy, Shri Durga Ji P. G. College, Chandeshwar, Azamgarh-276 128, Uttar Pradesh, India. 

ABSTRACT

Background: Indigenous Knowledge-based natural farming has gained increasing attention as a sustainable agricultural approach. However, evidence on its economic, employment and market outcomes remains limited. This study examined the socio-economic determinants, adoption patterns, economic performance, market integration and consumer perceptions associated with natural farming in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.

Methods: A multi-stage purposive sampling technique was used to select 240 farmers from Azamgarh, Jaunpur and Varanasi districts. Data were collected during 2024-2025 through structured interviews, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Economic performance was assessed using cost of cultivation, yield and net income, while consumer perceptions were analysed using contingent valuation. Independent sample t-tests were employed to examine differences between the two farming systems.

Result: Natural farming adopters were predominantly middle-aged (46.2 years) with small landholdings (1.82 acres). Institutional support played a crucial role in adoption, with 72 per cent of farmers having extension contact, 58 per cent receiving training and 64 per cent participating in farmer groups. Adoption of indigenous practices was high (IKAI = 0.746), with Jeevamritha (0.205) being the most widely adopted practice. Natural farming significantly outperformed conventional farming across all crops (p<0.001), with income gains ranging from 32.38 per cent to 65.41 per cent, supported by lower production costs and price premiums. It also showed stronger market integration, generated more employment and encouraged greater participation of women and youth. Consumers expressed favourable perceptions, with 24 per cent willing to pay a premium for natural farming products.

INTRODUCTION

Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) have long shaped sustainable agricultural practices by providing context-specific approaches that enhance soil fertility, optimize resource use and maintain ecological balance (Singh and Sureja, 2008; Palekar, 2006). Natural farming, rooted in these traditional knowledge systems, relies on locally available inputs such as Jeevamritha, Beejamrit, Ghanajeevamritha and Agneyastra to improve soil microbial activity, nutrient cycling and crop resilience without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides (Kumar et al., 2020). Beyond its ecological benefits, natural farming can reduce production costs and improve farm profitability, making it particularly relevant for smallholder and marginal farmers (Mishra, 2018; Chapke et al., 2025; Choudhary et al., 2023). Although zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) is a specific approach emphasizing the avoidance of external input purchases (Palekar, 2006), the broader IKS-based natural farming framework is founded on ecological sustainability, cultural continuity and local self-reliance. Consequently, IKS-based natural farming does not necessarily imply zero monetary expenditure; rather, it prioritizes the use of locally available resources and indigenous knowledge to reduce dependence on external inputs (Bharucha et al., 2020; Lairenjam, 2025; NABARD, 2024).
       
A growing body of research demonstrates that IKS-based natural farming generates both agronomic and economic benefits. Studies have reported reductions of 50-60 per cent in energy and water use, accompanied by increased net farm revenues (NITI Aayog, 2018; CSTEP, 2022). Bharucha et al., (2020) and Saxena et al., (2022) found that natural farming lowers cultivation costs and reduces dependence on external inputs while maintaining productivity. Kumar et al., (2020) reported improvements in soil microbial activity and nutrient availability, contributing to enhanced soil health and sustainability. In addition, Berger et al., (2025) observed substantial profit gains driven by lower input costs and improved ecosystem services, while Tripathi et al., (2024) and Deva (2025) highlighted the role of indigenous farming innovations in strengthening climate resilience and livelihood security. Collectively, these studies suggest that IKS-based natural farming improves economic performance through cost reduction, enhanced ecological functions and greater resilience to environmental stresses.
       
Despite these advances, three specific knowledge gaps remain unaddressed. First, existing studies have focused primarily on ecological sustainability and productivity, with no systematic quantification of  employment outcomes (e.g., labour days per hectare disaggregated by gender) for IKS-based farming systems. Second, evidence on consumer perceptions and pricing advantage, particularly willingness-to-pay for non-certified IKS produce, remains fragmented and context-specific (Yadav, 2024). Third, no study has simultaneously examined income, employment and market outcomes for IKS-based natural farming relative to conventional systems. Consequently, the extent to which ecological benefits translate into measurable economic gains and improved market opportunities remains insufficiently understood. Addressing these gaps is essential for informing policies and market interventions that support the wider adoption of indigenous knowledge-based agriculture (Khadse and Rosset, 2019).
       
The present study contributes the assessment of income, employment and market outcomes for IKS-based natural farming, distinct from prior ecological sustainability and productivity focused research. Specifically, it examines whether IKS-based farming systems provide superior income and employment outcomes and whether naturally produced commodities benefit from improved market access, pricing advantages and favourable consumer perceptions relative to conventional systems. We hypothesize that IKS-based farming generates higher income and employment per acre and that consumers demonstrate positive willingness-to-pay for naturally produced products.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area and sampling design
 
The study was conducted in three districts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, namely Azamgarh, Jaunpur and Varanasi, purposively selected to capture diverse agroecological and socioeconomic contexts where IKS-based natural farming is actively practiced. The sampling frame comprised smallholder farmers (<2 ha) with at least three consecutive years of experience in their respective farming system. Natural farmers were defined as those using locally available resources and indigenous bio-inputs such as Jeevamritha, Beejamrit, Ghanajeevamritha and Agneyastra, without the application of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides during the preceding two cropping cycles. Conventional farmers were those relying primarily on synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides during the study period.
       
Using a multi-stage purposive sampling approach, a total of 240 farmers (120 natural and 120 conventional) were selected, comprising 40 farmers from each farming system in each district. Efforts were made to ensure broad comparability between the two groups with respect to farm size, irrigation access, agroecological conditions and farming experience. The sample size was determined to ensure adequate representation of both farming systems across the selected districts and to facilitate meaningful comparative analysis of economic and market outcomes. Data were collected during 2024–2025, covering one kharif and one rabi season. Given the purposive sampling design, the findings should be interpreted within the context of the study area.
 
Data collection and analysis
 
Structured interviews were conducted to collect information on production practices, input use, costs, yields, labour utilization, income and market participation. To supplement the survey, 12 focus group discussions and 24 key informant interviews were conducted to explore factors influencing the adoption of natural farming. To enhance data reliability, self-reported yield information was cross-validated through field visits for a 20 per cent subsample of respondents, while output prices were cross-checked with prevailing mandi prices. Family labour was imputed using prevailing local wage rates. Data were collected separately for kharif and rabi seasons to account for seasonal variations in production and prices. Economic performance was assessed using indicators such as cost of cultivation, productivity, gross returns, net returns and input-use efficiency.  
       
Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were used to summarize net income (gross income - total cost + value of input saving) under natural and conventional farming systems. Differences between group means were assessed using an independent samples t-test. Statistical significance was determined at the 5% level (p<0.05). All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and results are reported as Mean±SD.
 
Consumer and market assessment
 
A stratified sample of 100 consumers (Varanasi = 50, Jaunpur = 30 and Azamgarh = 20) was surveyed to assess willingness-to-pay (WTP) using the Contingent Valuation Method (Mitchell and Carson, 1989). Respondents selected their preferred price premium from a payment card ranging from 0 to 50 per cent above prevailing market prices and were subsequently asked an open-ended confirmation question. Protest responses were excluded from the analysis and mean WTP premium was reported.
 
Indigenous knowledge adoption index (IKAI)
 
The Indigenous Knowledge Adoption Index (IKAI) was developed for the present study based on the adoption index approach commonly used in agricultural technology adoption research (Rogers, 2003) to assess the extent of adoption of key indigenous natural farming practices. The index incorporated five components-Jeevamritha, Beejamritha, Ghanajeevamritha, mixed cropping and mulching and Agneyastra/Neemastra. Weights assigned to each component and the computation of the composite index are presented in Table 2. The weighted scores were aggregated to obtain a composite IKAI ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater adoption of indigenous knowledge-based farming practices.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Determinants of natural farming adoption
 
The socio-economic profile of natural farming adopters (Table 1) showed that the average age was 46.2 years, education was 10.4 years, landholding was 1.82 acres and family size was 5.6 members. Institutional support was evident, with 72 per cent reporting extension contact, 58 per cent training exposure and 64 per cent farmer group membership. The predominance of middle-aged adopters suggests that farming experience and livelihood stability are important determinants of adoption. The education level reflects adequate human capital to understand ecological principles and manage bio-inputs, supporting the knowledge-intensive nature of natural farming. The small landholding size confirms that natural farming was primarily practiced by small and marginal farmers, with low external input dependence making it economically viable for resource-constrained households.

Table 1: Socio-economic and institutional profile of the natural farmers.


       
The average family size of 5.6 members provided adequate labour for labour-intensive operations such as bio-input preparation and crop diversification. The high institutional engagement, 72 per cent extension contact, 58 per cent training exposure and 64 per cent farmer group membership, underscores the importance of advisory services, capacity building and collective action in accelerating adoption. However, these findings require cautious interpretation, as farmer motivation, self-selection, differential market access and input subsidies may influence adoption and economic outcomes, while training and extension contact may be endogenous to adoption decisions (Feder et al., 1985).   
 
Adoption pattern of natural farming practices among farmers
 
The adoption pattern of natural farming practices (Table 2) showed a Composite Indigenous Knowledge Adoption Index (IKAI) of 0.746. Among the components, Jeevamritha recorded the highest weighted score (0.205), followed by Beejamritha (0.152), Ghanajeevamritha (0.142), mixed cropping and mulching (0.136) and Agneyastra/Neemastra (0.111).

Table 2: Indigenous knowledge adoption index (IKAI).


       
The IKAI of 0.746 indicates a high level of adoption of indigenous natural farming practices, reflecting integration of traditional ecological knowledge into existing farming systems. The highest adoption of Jeevamritha (0.205) suggests its dominant role in enhancing soil biological activity and nutrient availability. The relatively higher adoption of Beejamritha (0.152) and Ghanajeevamritha (0.142) indicates farmer emphasis on seed treatment and organic nutrient management for improving soil health and crop productivity. The moderate adoption of mixed cropping and mulching (0.136) reflects gradual acceptance of ecological diversification and moisture conservation practices. The comparatively lower adoption of Agneyastra/Neemastra (0.111) may be attributed to labour intensity, preparation complexity and variability in perceived effectiveness in pest management.
 
Comparative economic performance of natural and conventional farming systems
 
The comparative economic performance of natural and conventional farming systems is presented in Table 3. The findings revealed that natural farming consistently reduced cost of cultivation, ranging from 18.5 per cent in paddy to 65.8 per cent in chickpea. The highest cost reduction was observed in chickpea (65.8%), followed by potato (55.9%), tomato (38.6%), turmeric (33.6%), sugarcane (25.9%), wheat (23.2%) and paddy (18.5%). Fig 1 illustrates these cost savings, attributed to the elimination of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Despite marginal yield reductions in paddy, wheat, sugarcane and potato, net income remained consistently higher under natural farming due to premium price. Chickpea, turmeric and tomato recorded yield increases, further enhancing their income advantage. The income difference ranged from 32.38 per cent in turmeric to 65.41 per cent in chickpea. The income advantage is primarily driven by cost savings, while price premiums (8-24%) further enhance profitability. Crops with higher price premiums, chickpea, turmeric and tomato, exhibited the most favourable income differentials. The synergistic effect of cost reduction and market incentives creates a double dividend for natural farming adopters.

Table 3: Comparative economic performance of natural and conventional farming across major crops.



Fig 1: Conceptual framework of IKS-based natural farming and sustainable rural livelihoods.


 
Crop-wise income advantage under natural farming
 
Table 4 compares net income from natural and conventional farming across crops. Natural farming generated higher net income in every crop, with gains ranging from 32.38 per cent (turmeric) to 65.41 per cent (chickpea). All differences were statistically significant (p<0.001), with t values ranging from 20.29 (tomato) to 40.43 (wheat), the latter reflecting wheat’s relatively low variability and high consistency in income gains. Chickpea recorded the highest relative gain (65.41%), driven by substantial cost reduction (65.8%) and a 20% price premium. Paddy (45.17%) and wheat (45.04%) followed closely, despite marginal yield declines, due to significant input cost savings and moderate premiums. In absolute terms, tomato (₹ 23,704/acre), turmeric (₹ 18,079/acre) and potato (₹ 15,637/acre) showed the largest income increases, reflecting the combined effect of cost reduction, price premiums and in some cases, yield gains.

Table 4: Crop-wise comparison of net income under natural and conventional farming systems (₹/acre).


       
The income advantage was not limited to a particular crop group. It was evident in cereals (paddy, wheat), pulses (chickpea), cash crops (sugarcane, turmeric) and vegetables (potato, tomato). This suggests that the economic benefits of natural farming are driven more by system-level cost efficiencies and market premiums than by crop-specific factors. However, the economic gains must be weighed against key trade-offs. Yield reductions in paddy (-7.1%), wheat (-8.5%), sugarcane (-4.7%) and potato (-4.3%) highlight a trade-off that may pose challenges in regions facing food security concerns, consistent with global evidence on short-term yield penalties during agroecological transitions (Seufert et al., 2012; Ponisio et al., 2015; Kumar, 2023).
 
Market integration, employment and social inclusion under natural farming
 
Table 5 presents a comparative assessment of market integration, employment and social inclusion indicators between natural and conventional farming systems. Natural farming demonstrated higher direct selling (48% vs 21%), higher price realization (₹ 28/kg vs ₹ 21/kg, with a 22% premium), indicating consumer preference for chemical-free produce, lower transaction costs (₹ 145 vs ₹ 210/quintal) and better storage access (36% vs 18%). It also generated more labour days per acre (72 vs 58), higher family labour participation (61% vs 48%), greater women’s participation (46% vs 28%), higher youth engagement (34% vs 19%) and more skilled input-preparation days (12 vs 2).

Table 5: Market integration, employment and social inclusion indicators.


       
These findings indicate stronger market integration among natural farming households, as reflected in higher direct selling, better price realization, lower transaction costs and improved storage access. The increased labour demand suggests greater employment generation, while higher participation of family members, women and youth points to broader household involvement in farming activities. The substantially higher number of skilled input-preparation days further highlights the knowledge-intensive nature of natural farming. Overall, natural farming demonstrated consistent advantages across all market integration, employment and social inclusion indicators examined in the study.

Consumer perception and branding strategies for natural farming products
 
Consumer perceptions of natural farming products and the branding strategies adopted for their promotion are presented in Table 6. Consumers reported high levels of trust (4.2), health perception (4.4) and repeat purchase intention (4.1), while awareness remained moderate (3.9). The willingness of 24 per cent of consumers to pay a premium further reflected favourable consumer acceptance of natural farming products. Among the branding and promotion strategies, social media marketing (38%) and regional brand names (32%) recorded the highest adoption, indicating greater reliance on digital and local branding approaches. Eco-friendly packaging (27%) and PGS certification (21%) exhibited moderate adoption, whereas QR-based traceability was adopted by only 8 per cent of respondents, suggesting limited use of advanced product authentication mechanisms.

Table 6: Consumer perception and branding strategies for natural farming products.


       
Overall, the findings indicate that positive consumer perceptions, particularly regarding trust and health benefits, support the market potential of natural farming products. However, the relatively lower adoption of certification and traceability measures suggests scope for strengthening branding efforts to enhance consumer confidence, market differentiation and long-term market competitiveness. However, Scalability is constrained by low PGS (21%) and QR traceability (8%) uptake, limiting formal market access (Loconto et al., 2016). Price premiums may not sustain with increased supply (Schleenbecker and Hamm, 2013) and informal branding may lack mainstream consumer assurance (Janssen and Hamm, 2012).

CONCLUSION

The findings revealed important insights into the socio-economic determinants, adoption patterns, economic performance, market integration and consumer perceptions of natural farming systems. Adopters of natural farming were predominantly middle-aged (46.2 years) with small landholdings (1.82 acres), while institutional support emerged as a key driver of adoption, reflected in high levels of extension contact (72%), training exposure (58%) and group membership (64%). Adoption of indigenous practices was substantial (IKAI = 0.746), with Jeevamritha (0.205) recording the highest uptake.
       
Economically, natural farming significantly outperformed conventional farming across all  crops (p<0.001) under study, with income gains ranging from 32.38 per cent to 65.41 per cent, supported by lower production costs and price premiums. However, yield reductions observed in four crops indicate potential productivity trade-offs that warrant careful consideration.
       
Natural farming also demonstrated stronger market integration, generated greater employment and enhanced the participation of women and youth in agricultural activities. Consumer perceptions were favourable, with 24 per cent of respondents willing to pay a premium, although the adoption of PGS certification and QR-based traceability remained limited.
       
Overall, the findings suggest that natural farming is an economically viable and socially inclusive farming system with considerable potential for sustainable rural development. However, its wider scaling will depend on addressing labour requirements, productivity constraints and certification challenges through targeted policy support, capacity building and stronger institutional mechanisms.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received under the Institutional Internship Scheme 2024-25 of the Indian Knowledge Systems Division, Ministry of Education, New Delhi, for sponsoring this research.

Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
 
Informed consent
 
None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES


  1. Berger, I., Kamble, A., Morton, O., Raj, V., Nair, S.R., Edwards, D.P., Wauchope, H.S., Joshi, V., Basu, P., Smith, B. and Dicks, L.V. (2025). India’s agroecology programme, ‘Zero budget natural farming’, delivers biodiversity and economic benefits without lowering yields. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9: 2057-2068. doi: 10.1038/s41559-025-02849-7.

  2. Bharucha, Z.P., Mitjans, S.B. and Pretty, J. (2020). Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 18(1): 1-20. 

  3. Chapke, R.R., Satyavathi, C.T., Babu, K.S. and Laxmiprasanna, P. (2025). Integrating indigenous traditional knowledge and ergonomic efficiency for sustainable millets farming:  A study from Koraput, Odisha, India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9: 1673772. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1673772.

  4. Choudhary, S.K., Kumar, R., Seema and Kumar, A. (2023). General overview of zero budget natural farming (ZBNF). Agricultural Reviews. 44(3): 328-335. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2186.

  5. CSTEP. (2022). Zero Budget Natural Farming: Impact Assessment and Sustainability Analysis. Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, Bengaluru.

  6. Deva, M.A. (2025). Rooted technologies: How tribal farmers are merging traditional knowledge with agri-tech for climate resilience. Social Innovations Journal. 31(2): 45-58. 

  7. Feder, G., Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 33(2): 255-298.

  8. Janssen, M. and Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness- to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference. 25(1): 9-22.

  9. Khadse, A. and Rosset, P.M.  (2019). Zero Budget Natural Farming in India-from inception to institutionalization. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 43(7-8): 848-871. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1608349.

  10. Kumar, C.P. (2023). Towards sustainable agriculture: Evaluating the feasibility and perception of natural farming in Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh, India. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 38(4): 376-382. doi: 10.18805/BKAP664.

  11. Kumar, R., Kumar, S., Yashavanth, B.S., Meena, P.C., Ramesh, P, Indoria, A.K., Kundu, S. and 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, Hyderabad, India.

  12. Lairenjam, C., Verma, A.K., Jha, K.K., Ram, S. and Kiba, L.G. (2025). Ruza: An indigenous farming system practiced in the hills of Nagaland, North-East India. Environment and Ecology. 43(3): 535-541.

  13. Loconto, A., Poisot, A.S. and Santacoloma, P. (2016). Innovative Markets for Sustainable Agriculture: How Innovations in Market Institutions Encourage Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Countries. FAO, Rome.

  14. Mishra, S. (2018). Zero Budget Natural Farming: Are this and similar practices the answers? Working Paper No. 70, Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies, Bhubaneswar.

  15. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.

  16. Nayak, K.J.R.A. (2024). Documenting Cases of Successful Farmers Adopting Indigenous, Climate Resilient and Sustainable Farming Practices in India. NABARD Research Study- 48. NANARD, Mumbai.

  17. NITI Aayog (2018). Strategy for New India @ 75. NITI Aayog, New Delhi.

  18. Palekar, S. (2006). The Philosophy of Spiritual Farming. Amravati: Swamy Anand Books.

  19. Ponisio, L.C., M’Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P. and Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 282(1799): 20141396. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396.

  20. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. New York: The Free Press.

  21. Saxena, C.K., Kumar, M. and Singh, R.K. (2022). Zero budget natural farming for sustainable agriculture: A review. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 37(2): 105-113. doi: 10.18805/BKAP482.

  22. Schleenbecker, R. and Hamm, U. (2013). Consumers’ perception of organic product characteristics. A review. Appetite. 71: 420-429.

  23. Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. and Foley, J.A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature.  485(7397): 229-232. doi: 10.1038/nature11069.

  24. Singh, R.K. and Sureja, A.K. (2008). Indigenous knowledge and sustainable agricultural resources management under rainfed agro-ecosystem. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 7(4): 642-654.

  25. Tripathi, S.K., Hauchhum, R., Ovung, E.Y., Singh, N.S., Vanlalfakawma, D.C., Upadhyay, K. K., Brearley, F.Q. and Lalraminghlova, H. (2024). Innovative Shifting Cultivation and Other Agricultural Practices Conducted by the Indigenous Population of Mizoram, North-East India. In Shifting Cultivation Systems.  Springer Nature Switzerland. (pp. 29-48). doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-70388-1_3.

  26. Yadav, E., Goyal, M., Ghalawat, S., Agarwal, S., Girdhar, A., Bhavesh, Shivam and Anamika. (2024). Consumer perception and awareness towards organic food in the National Capital Region. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 60(2): 56-60. doi: 10.48165/IJEE.2024.60211.
Published In
Indian Journal of Agricultural Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
30
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Economic Performance, Market Integration and Social Inclusion in Indigenous Knowledge based Natural Farming: Empirical Evidence from Eastern Uttar Pradesh, India

    S
    Sarvesh Kumar1,*
    0000-0001-9366-660X
    A
    Aditya Singh1
    K
    Kashish Pandey1
    C
    Chandra Nath Yadav1
    A
    Amarjeet Prajapati2
    1Department of Agricultural Economics, Shri Durga Ji P. G. College, Chandeshwar, Azamgarh-276 128, Uttar Pradesh, India. 
    2Department of Agronomy, Shri Durga Ji P. G. College, Chandeshwar, Azamgarh-276 128, Uttar Pradesh, India. 

    ABSTRACT

    Background: Indigenous Knowledge-based natural farming has gained increasing attention as a sustainable agricultural approach. However, evidence on its economic, employment and market outcomes remains limited. This study examined the socio-economic determinants, adoption patterns, economic performance, market integration and consumer perceptions associated with natural farming in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.

    Methods: A multi-stage purposive sampling technique was used to select 240 farmers from Azamgarh, Jaunpur and Varanasi districts. Data were collected during 2024-2025 through structured interviews, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Economic performance was assessed using cost of cultivation, yield and net income, while consumer perceptions were analysed using contingent valuation. Independent sample t-tests were employed to examine differences between the two farming systems.

    Result: Natural farming adopters were predominantly middle-aged (46.2 years) with small landholdings (1.82 acres). Institutional support played a crucial role in adoption, with 72 per cent of farmers having extension contact, 58 per cent receiving training and 64 per cent participating in farmer groups. Adoption of indigenous practices was high (IKAI = 0.746), with Jeevamritha (0.205) being the most widely adopted practice. Natural farming significantly outperformed conventional farming across all crops (p<0.001), with income gains ranging from 32.38 per cent to 65.41 per cent, supported by lower production costs and price premiums. It also showed stronger market integration, generated more employment and encouraged greater participation of women and youth. Consumers expressed favourable perceptions, with 24 per cent willing to pay a premium for natural farming products.

    INTRODUCTION

    Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) have long shaped sustainable agricultural practices by providing context-specific approaches that enhance soil fertility, optimize resource use and maintain ecological balance (Singh and Sureja, 2008; Palekar, 2006). Natural farming, rooted in these traditional knowledge systems, relies on locally available inputs such as Jeevamritha, Beejamrit, Ghanajeevamritha and Agneyastra to improve soil microbial activity, nutrient cycling and crop resilience without synthetic fertilizers or pesticides (Kumar et al., 2020). Beyond its ecological benefits, natural farming can reduce production costs and improve farm profitability, making it particularly relevant for smallholder and marginal farmers (Mishra, 2018; Chapke et al., 2025; Choudhary et al., 2023). Although zero budget natural farming (ZBNF) is a specific approach emphasizing the avoidance of external input purchases (Palekar, 2006), the broader IKS-based natural farming framework is founded on ecological sustainability, cultural continuity and local self-reliance. Consequently, IKS-based natural farming does not necessarily imply zero monetary expenditure; rather, it prioritizes the use of locally available resources and indigenous knowledge to reduce dependence on external inputs (Bharucha et al., 2020; Lairenjam, 2025; NABARD, 2024).
           
    A growing body of research demonstrates that IKS-based natural farming generates both agronomic and economic benefits. Studies have reported reductions of 50-60 per cent in energy and water use, accompanied by increased net farm revenues (NITI Aayog, 2018; CSTEP, 2022). Bharucha et al., (2020) and Saxena et al., (2022) found that natural farming lowers cultivation costs and reduces dependence on external inputs while maintaining productivity. Kumar et al., (2020) reported improvements in soil microbial activity and nutrient availability, contributing to enhanced soil health and sustainability. In addition, Berger et al., (2025) observed substantial profit gains driven by lower input costs and improved ecosystem services, while Tripathi et al., (2024) and Deva (2025) highlighted the role of indigenous farming innovations in strengthening climate resilience and livelihood security. Collectively, these studies suggest that IKS-based natural farming improves economic performance through cost reduction, enhanced ecological functions and greater resilience to environmental stresses.
           
    Despite these advances, three specific knowledge gaps remain unaddressed. First, existing studies have focused primarily on ecological sustainability and productivity, with no systematic quantification of  employment outcomes (e.g., labour days per hectare disaggregated by gender) for IKS-based farming systems. Second, evidence on consumer perceptions and pricing advantage, particularly willingness-to-pay for non-certified IKS produce, remains fragmented and context-specific (Yadav, 2024). Third, no study has simultaneously examined income, employment and market outcomes for IKS-based natural farming relative to conventional systems. Consequently, the extent to which ecological benefits translate into measurable economic gains and improved market opportunities remains insufficiently understood. Addressing these gaps is essential for informing policies and market interventions that support the wider adoption of indigenous knowledge-based agriculture (Khadse and Rosset, 2019).
           
    The present study contributes the assessment of income, employment and market outcomes for IKS-based natural farming, distinct from prior ecological sustainability and productivity focused research. Specifically, it examines whether IKS-based farming systems provide superior income and employment outcomes and whether naturally produced commodities benefit from improved market access, pricing advantages and favourable consumer perceptions relative to conventional systems. We hypothesize that IKS-based farming generates higher income and employment per acre and that consumers demonstrate positive willingness-to-pay for naturally produced products.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study area and sampling design
     
    The study was conducted in three districts of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, namely Azamgarh, Jaunpur and Varanasi, purposively selected to capture diverse agroecological and socioeconomic contexts where IKS-based natural farming is actively practiced. The sampling frame comprised smallholder farmers (<2 ha) with at least three consecutive years of experience in their respective farming system. Natural farmers were defined as those using locally available resources and indigenous bio-inputs such as Jeevamritha, Beejamrit, Ghanajeevamritha and Agneyastra, without the application of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides during the preceding two cropping cycles. Conventional farmers were those relying primarily on synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides during the study period.
           
    Using a multi-stage purposive sampling approach, a total of 240 farmers (120 natural and 120 conventional) were selected, comprising 40 farmers from each farming system in each district. Efforts were made to ensure broad comparability between the two groups with respect to farm size, irrigation access, agroecological conditions and farming experience. The sample size was determined to ensure adequate representation of both farming systems across the selected districts and to facilitate meaningful comparative analysis of economic and market outcomes. Data were collected during 2024–2025, covering one kharif and one rabi season. Given the purposive sampling design, the findings should be interpreted within the context of the study area.
     
    Data collection and analysis
     
    Structured interviews were conducted to collect information on production practices, input use, costs, yields, labour utilization, income and market participation. To supplement the survey, 12 focus group discussions and 24 key informant interviews were conducted to explore factors influencing the adoption of natural farming. To enhance data reliability, self-reported yield information was cross-validated through field visits for a 20 per cent subsample of respondents, while output prices were cross-checked with prevailing mandi prices. Family labour was imputed using prevailing local wage rates. Data were collected separately for kharif and rabi seasons to account for seasonal variations in production and prices. Economic performance was assessed using indicators such as cost of cultivation, productivity, gross returns, net returns and input-use efficiency.  
           
    Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were used to summarize net income (gross income - total cost + value of input saving) under natural and conventional farming systems. Differences between group means were assessed using an independent samples t-test. Statistical significance was determined at the 5% level (p<0.05). All analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel and results are reported as Mean±SD.
     
    Consumer and market assessment
     
    A stratified sample of 100 consumers (Varanasi = 50, Jaunpur = 30 and Azamgarh = 20) was surveyed to assess willingness-to-pay (WTP) using the Contingent Valuation Method (Mitchell and Carson, 1989). Respondents selected their preferred price premium from a payment card ranging from 0 to 50 per cent above prevailing market prices and were subsequently asked an open-ended confirmation question. Protest responses were excluded from the analysis and mean WTP premium was reported.
     
    Indigenous knowledge adoption index (IKAI)
     
    The Indigenous Knowledge Adoption Index (IKAI) was developed for the present study based on the adoption index approach commonly used in agricultural technology adoption research (Rogers, 2003) to assess the extent of adoption of key indigenous natural farming practices. The index incorporated five components-Jeevamritha, Beejamritha, Ghanajeevamritha, mixed cropping and mulching and Agneyastra/Neemastra. Weights assigned to each component and the computation of the composite index are presented in Table 2. The weighted scores were aggregated to obtain a composite IKAI ranging from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating greater adoption of indigenous knowledge-based farming practices.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    Determinants of natural farming adoption
     
    The socio-economic profile of natural farming adopters (Table 1) showed that the average age was 46.2 years, education was 10.4 years, landholding was 1.82 acres and family size was 5.6 members. Institutional support was evident, with 72 per cent reporting extension contact, 58 per cent training exposure and 64 per cent farmer group membership. The predominance of middle-aged adopters suggests that farming experience and livelihood stability are important determinants of adoption. The education level reflects adequate human capital to understand ecological principles and manage bio-inputs, supporting the knowledge-intensive nature of natural farming. The small landholding size confirms that natural farming was primarily practiced by small and marginal farmers, with low external input dependence making it economically viable for resource-constrained households.

    Table 1: Socio-economic and institutional profile of the natural farmers.


           
    The average family size of 5.6 members provided adequate labour for labour-intensive operations such as bio-input preparation and crop diversification. The high institutional engagement, 72 per cent extension contact, 58 per cent training exposure and 64 per cent farmer group membership, underscores the importance of advisory services, capacity building and collective action in accelerating adoption. However, these findings require cautious interpretation, as farmer motivation, self-selection, differential market access and input subsidies may influence adoption and economic outcomes, while training and extension contact may be endogenous to adoption decisions (Feder et al., 1985).   
     
    Adoption pattern of natural farming practices among farmers
     
    The adoption pattern of natural farming practices (Table 2) showed a Composite Indigenous Knowledge Adoption Index (IKAI) of 0.746. Among the components, Jeevamritha recorded the highest weighted score (0.205), followed by Beejamritha (0.152), Ghanajeevamritha (0.142), mixed cropping and mulching (0.136) and Agneyastra/Neemastra (0.111).

    Table 2: Indigenous knowledge adoption index (IKAI).


           
    The IKAI of 0.746 indicates a high level of adoption of indigenous natural farming practices, reflecting integration of traditional ecological knowledge into existing farming systems. The highest adoption of Jeevamritha (0.205) suggests its dominant role in enhancing soil biological activity and nutrient availability. The relatively higher adoption of Beejamritha (0.152) and Ghanajeevamritha (0.142) indicates farmer emphasis on seed treatment and organic nutrient management for improving soil health and crop productivity. The moderate adoption of mixed cropping and mulching (0.136) reflects gradual acceptance of ecological diversification and moisture conservation practices. The comparatively lower adoption of Agneyastra/Neemastra (0.111) may be attributed to labour intensity, preparation complexity and variability in perceived effectiveness in pest management.
     
    Comparative economic performance of natural and conventional farming systems
     
    The comparative economic performance of natural and conventional farming systems is presented in Table 3. The findings revealed that natural farming consistently reduced cost of cultivation, ranging from 18.5 per cent in paddy to 65.8 per cent in chickpea. The highest cost reduction was observed in chickpea (65.8%), followed by potato (55.9%), tomato (38.6%), turmeric (33.6%), sugarcane (25.9%), wheat (23.2%) and paddy (18.5%). Fig 1 illustrates these cost savings, attributed to the elimination of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Despite marginal yield reductions in paddy, wheat, sugarcane and potato, net income remained consistently higher under natural farming due to premium price. Chickpea, turmeric and tomato recorded yield increases, further enhancing their income advantage. The income difference ranged from 32.38 per cent in turmeric to 65.41 per cent in chickpea. The income advantage is primarily driven by cost savings, while price premiums (8-24%) further enhance profitability. Crops with higher price premiums, chickpea, turmeric and tomato, exhibited the most favourable income differentials. The synergistic effect of cost reduction and market incentives creates a double dividend for natural farming adopters.

    Table 3: Comparative economic performance of natural and conventional farming across major crops.



    Fig 1: Conceptual framework of IKS-based natural farming and sustainable rural livelihoods.


     
    Crop-wise income advantage under natural farming
     
    Table 4 compares net income from natural and conventional farming across crops. Natural farming generated higher net income in every crop, with gains ranging from 32.38 per cent (turmeric) to 65.41 per cent (chickpea). All differences were statistically significant (p<0.001), with t values ranging from 20.29 (tomato) to 40.43 (wheat), the latter reflecting wheat’s relatively low variability and high consistency in income gains. Chickpea recorded the highest relative gain (65.41%), driven by substantial cost reduction (65.8%) and a 20% price premium. Paddy (45.17%) and wheat (45.04%) followed closely, despite marginal yield declines, due to significant input cost savings and moderate premiums. In absolute terms, tomato (₹ 23,704/acre), turmeric (₹ 18,079/acre) and potato (₹ 15,637/acre) showed the largest income increases, reflecting the combined effect of cost reduction, price premiums and in some cases, yield gains.

    Table 4: Crop-wise comparison of net income under natural and conventional farming systems (₹/acre).


           
    The income advantage was not limited to a particular crop group. It was evident in cereals (paddy, wheat), pulses (chickpea), cash crops (sugarcane, turmeric) and vegetables (potato, tomato). This suggests that the economic benefits of natural farming are driven more by system-level cost efficiencies and market premiums than by crop-specific factors. However, the economic gains must be weighed against key trade-offs. Yield reductions in paddy (-7.1%), wheat (-8.5%), sugarcane (-4.7%) and potato (-4.3%) highlight a trade-off that may pose challenges in regions facing food security concerns, consistent with global evidence on short-term yield penalties during agroecological transitions (Seufert et al., 2012; Ponisio et al., 2015; Kumar, 2023).
     
    Market integration, employment and social inclusion under natural farming
     
    Table 5 presents a comparative assessment of market integration, employment and social inclusion indicators between natural and conventional farming systems. Natural farming demonstrated higher direct selling (48% vs 21%), higher price realization (₹ 28/kg vs ₹ 21/kg, with a 22% premium), indicating consumer preference for chemical-free produce, lower transaction costs (₹ 145 vs ₹ 210/quintal) and better storage access (36% vs 18%). It also generated more labour days per acre (72 vs 58), higher family labour participation (61% vs 48%), greater women’s participation (46% vs 28%), higher youth engagement (34% vs 19%) and more skilled input-preparation days (12 vs 2).

    Table 5: Market integration, employment and social inclusion indicators.


           
    These findings indicate stronger market integration among natural farming households, as reflected in higher direct selling, better price realization, lower transaction costs and improved storage access. The increased labour demand suggests greater employment generation, while higher participation of family members, women and youth points to broader household involvement in farming activities. The substantially higher number of skilled input-preparation days further highlights the knowledge-intensive nature of natural farming. Overall, natural farming demonstrated consistent advantages across all market integration, employment and social inclusion indicators examined in the study.

    Consumer perception and branding strategies for natural farming products
     
    Consumer perceptions of natural farming products and the branding strategies adopted for their promotion are presented in Table 6. Consumers reported high levels of trust (4.2), health perception (4.4) and repeat purchase intention (4.1), while awareness remained moderate (3.9). The willingness of 24 per cent of consumers to pay a premium further reflected favourable consumer acceptance of natural farming products. Among the branding and promotion strategies, social media marketing (38%) and regional brand names (32%) recorded the highest adoption, indicating greater reliance on digital and local branding approaches. Eco-friendly packaging (27%) and PGS certification (21%) exhibited moderate adoption, whereas QR-based traceability was adopted by only 8 per cent of respondents, suggesting limited use of advanced product authentication mechanisms.

    Table 6: Consumer perception and branding strategies for natural farming products.


           
    Overall, the findings indicate that positive consumer perceptions, particularly regarding trust and health benefits, support the market potential of natural farming products. However, the relatively lower adoption of certification and traceability measures suggests scope for strengthening branding efforts to enhance consumer confidence, market differentiation and long-term market competitiveness. However, Scalability is constrained by low PGS (21%) and QR traceability (8%) uptake, limiting formal market access (Loconto et al., 2016). Price premiums may not sustain with increased supply (Schleenbecker and Hamm, 2013) and informal branding may lack mainstream consumer assurance (Janssen and Hamm, 2012).

    CONCLUSION

    The findings revealed important insights into the socio-economic determinants, adoption patterns, economic performance, market integration and consumer perceptions of natural farming systems. Adopters of natural farming were predominantly middle-aged (46.2 years) with small landholdings (1.82 acres), while institutional support emerged as a key driver of adoption, reflected in high levels of extension contact (72%), training exposure (58%) and group membership (64%). Adoption of indigenous practices was substantial (IKAI = 0.746), with Jeevamritha (0.205) recording the highest uptake.
           
    Economically, natural farming significantly outperformed conventional farming across all  crops (p<0.001) under study, with income gains ranging from 32.38 per cent to 65.41 per cent, supported by lower production costs and price premiums. However, yield reductions observed in four crops indicate potential productivity trade-offs that warrant careful consideration.
           
    Natural farming also demonstrated stronger market integration, generated greater employment and enhanced the participation of women and youth in agricultural activities. Consumer perceptions were favourable, with 24 per cent of respondents willing to pay a premium, although the adoption of PGS certification and QR-based traceability remained limited.
           
    Overall, the findings suggest that natural farming is an economically viable and socially inclusive farming system with considerable potential for sustainable rural development. However, its wider scaling will depend on addressing labour requirements, productivity constraints and certification challenges through targeted policy support, capacity building and stronger institutional mechanisms.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received under the Institutional Internship Scheme 2024-25 of the Indian Knowledge Systems Division, Ministry of Education, New Delhi, for sponsoring this research.

    Disclaimers
     
    The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
     
    Informed consent
     
    None.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

    REFERENCES


    1. Berger, I., Kamble, A., Morton, O., Raj, V., Nair, S.R., Edwards, D.P., Wauchope, H.S., Joshi, V., Basu, P., Smith, B. and Dicks, L.V. (2025). India’s agroecology programme, ‘Zero budget natural farming’, delivers biodiversity and economic benefits without lowering yields. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9: 2057-2068. doi: 10.1038/s41559-025-02849-7.

    2. Bharucha, Z.P., Mitjans, S.B. and Pretty, J. (2020). Towards redesign at scale through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 18(1): 1-20. 

    3. Chapke, R.R., Satyavathi, C.T., Babu, K.S. and Laxmiprasanna, P. (2025). Integrating indigenous traditional knowledge and ergonomic efficiency for sustainable millets farming:  A study from Koraput, Odisha, India. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 9: 1673772. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1673772.

    4. Choudhary, S.K., Kumar, R., Seema and Kumar, A. (2023). General overview of zero budget natural farming (ZBNF). Agricultural Reviews. 44(3): 328-335. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2186.

    5. CSTEP. (2022). Zero Budget Natural Farming: Impact Assessment and Sustainability Analysis. Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, Bengaluru.

    6. Deva, M.A. (2025). Rooted technologies: How tribal farmers are merging traditional knowledge with agri-tech for climate resilience. Social Innovations Journal. 31(2): 45-58. 

    7. Feder, G., Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 33(2): 255-298.

    8. Janssen, M. and Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness- to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference. 25(1): 9-22.

    9. Khadse, A. and Rosset, P.M.  (2019). Zero Budget Natural Farming in India-from inception to institutionalization. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 43(7-8): 848-871. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2019.1608349.

    10. Kumar, C.P. (2023). Towards sustainable agriculture: Evaluating the feasibility and perception of natural farming in Vizianagaram District of Andhra Pradesh, India. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 38(4): 376-382. doi: 10.18805/BKAP664.

    11. Kumar, R., Kumar, S., Yashavanth, B.S., Meena, P.C., Ramesh, P, Indoria, A.K., Kundu, S. and 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, Hyderabad, India.

    12. Lairenjam, C., Verma, A.K., Jha, K.K., Ram, S. and Kiba, L.G. (2025). Ruza: An indigenous farming system practiced in the hills of Nagaland, North-East India. Environment and Ecology. 43(3): 535-541.

    13. Loconto, A., Poisot, A.S. and Santacoloma, P. (2016). Innovative Markets for Sustainable Agriculture: How Innovations in Market Institutions Encourage Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Countries. FAO, Rome.

    14. Mishra, S. (2018). Zero Budget Natural Farming: Are this and similar practices the answers? Working Paper No. 70, Nabakrushna Choudhury Centre for Development Studies, Bhubaneswar.

    15. Mitchell, R.C. and Carson, R.T. (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington DC.

    16. Nayak, K.J.R.A. (2024). Documenting Cases of Successful Farmers Adopting Indigenous, Climate Resilient and Sustainable Farming Practices in India. NABARD Research Study- 48. NANARD, Mumbai.

    17. NITI Aayog (2018). Strategy for New India @ 75. NITI Aayog, New Delhi.

    18. Palekar, S. (2006). The Philosophy of Spiritual Farming. Amravati: Swamy Anand Books.

    19. Ponisio, L.C., M’Gonigle, L.K., Mace, K.C., Palomino, J., de Valpine, P. and Kremen, C. (2015). Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 282(1799): 20141396. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2014.1396.

    20. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. New York: The Free Press.

    21. Saxena, C.K., Kumar, M. and Singh, R.K. (2022). Zero budget natural farming for sustainable agriculture: A review. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 37(2): 105-113. doi: 10.18805/BKAP482.

    22. Schleenbecker, R. and Hamm, U. (2013). Consumers’ perception of organic product characteristics. A review. Appetite. 71: 420-429.

    23. Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N. and Foley, J.A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature.  485(7397): 229-232. doi: 10.1038/nature11069.

    24. Singh, R.K. and Sureja, A.K. (2008). Indigenous knowledge and sustainable agricultural resources management under rainfed agro-ecosystem. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 7(4): 642-654.

    25. Tripathi, S.K., Hauchhum, R., Ovung, E.Y., Singh, N.S., Vanlalfakawma, D.C., Upadhyay, K. K., Brearley, F.Q. and Lalraminghlova, H. (2024). Innovative Shifting Cultivation and Other Agricultural Practices Conducted by the Indigenous Population of Mizoram, North-East India. In Shifting Cultivation Systems.  Springer Nature Switzerland. (pp. 29-48). doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-70388-1_3.

    26. Yadav, E., Goyal, M., Ghalawat, S., Agarwal, S., Girdhar, A., Bhavesh, Shivam and Anamika. (2024). Consumer perception and awareness towards organic food in the National Capital Region. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 60(2): 56-60. doi: 10.48165/IJEE.2024.60211.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)