Duddigan Sarah, Shaw Liz J, Sizmur Tom, Gogu Dharmendar, Hussain Zakir, Jirra Kiranmai, Kaliki Hamika, Sanka Rahul, Sohail Mohammad, Soma Reshma, Thallam Vijay, Vattikuti Haripriya, Collins Chris D
Soil Research Centre and Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire UK.
Rythu Sadhikara Samstha (RySS), Guntur, Andhra Pradesh India.
Agron Sustain Dev. 2023;43(2):31. doi: 10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x. Epub 2023 Mar 23.
Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) is a grassroot agrarian movement and a state backed extension in Andhra Pradesh, and has been claimed to potentially meet the twin goals of global food security and environmental conservation. However, there is a lack of statistically evaluated data to support assertions of yield benefits of ZBNF compared to organic or conventional alternatives, or to mechanistically account for them. In order to fill this gap, controlled field experiments were established in twenty-eight farms across six districts, spanning over 800 km, over three cropping seasons. In these experiments, we compared ZBNF (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, home-made inputs comprising cow dung and urine with mulch) to conventional (synthetic fertilisers and pesticides) and organic (no synthetic pesticides or fertilisers, no mulch, purchased organic inputs, e.g. farmyard manure and vermicompost) treatments, all with no tillage. Comparisons were made in terms of yield, soil pH, temperature, moisture content, nutrient content and earthworm abundance. Our data shows that yield was significantly higher in the ZBNF treatment ( score = 0.58 ± 0.08), than the organic (= -0.34 ± 0.06) or conventional (-0.24 ± 0.07) treatment when all farm experiments were analysed together. However, the efficacy of the ZBNF treatment was context specific and varied according to district and the crop in question. The ZBNF yield benefit is likely attributed to mulching, generating a cooler soil, with a higher moisture content and a larger earthworm population. There were no significant differences between ZBNF and the conventional treatment in the majority of nutrients. This is a particularly important observation, as intensive use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers comes with a number of associated risks to farmers' finances, human health, greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. However, long-term field and landscape scale trials are needed to corroborate these initial observations.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-023-00884-x.
零预算自然农法（ZBNF）是一场基层农业运动，也是安得拉邦政府支持的一项推广活动，据称它有可能实现全球粮食安全和环境保护这两个目标。然而，缺乏经过统计评估的数据来支持与有机或传统替代方法相比，ZBNF在产量效益方面的断言，也缺乏对这些效益的机理解释。为了填补这一空白，在跨越六个区、绵延800多公里的28个农场进行了三个种植季节的对照田间试验。在这些试验中，我们将ZBNF（不使用合成农药或化肥，自制投入物包括牛粪、尿液和覆盖物）与传统（合成化肥和农药）和有机（不使用合成农药或化肥，不使用覆盖物，购买有机投入物，如农家肥和蚯蚓堆肥）处理进行比较，所有处理均不进行耕作。在产量、土壤pH值、温度、水分含量、养分含量和蚯蚓数量方面进行了比较。我们的数据表明，当对所有农场试验进行综合分析时，ZBNF处理的产量（得分 = 0.58 ± 0.08）显著高于有机处理（= -0.34 ± 0.06）或传统处理（-0.24 ± 0.07）。然而，ZBNF处理的效果因具体情况而异，根据地区和所涉及的作物而有所不同。ZBNF的产量效益可能归因于覆盖物，它能使土壤温度更低、水分含量更高且蚯蚓数量更多。在大多数养分方面，ZBNF与传统处理之间没有显著差异。这是一个特别重要的观察结果，因为大量使用合成农药和化肥会给农民的财务状况、人类健康、温室气体排放、生物多样性丧失和环境污染带来一系列相关风险。然而，需要长期的田间和景观尺度试验来证实这些初步观察结果。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s1359-023-00884-x获取的补充材料。
