Editorial Simplified : Stirring up the truth about ZBNF | GS – III


Relevance :  GS Paper  III


Theme of the article

Zero Budget Natural Farming has no scientific validation and its inclusion into agricultural policy appears unwise.


Context

Most criticisms of modern agricultural practices are criticisms of post-Liebig developments in agricultural science. It was after the pioneering work of Justus von Liebig and Friedrich Wöhler in organic chemistry in the 19th century that chemical fertilizers began to be used in agriculture.


History of organic farming

  • In the 20th century, the criticisms levelled against Green Revolution technologies were criticisms of the increasing “chemicalisation” of agriculture. Claims were made that alternative, non-chemical agricultures were possible.
  • Organic farming became an umbrella term that represented a variety of non-chemical and less-chemical oriented methods of farming.
  • Rudolf Steiner’s biodynamics, Masanobu Fukuoka’s one-straw revolution and Madagascar’s System of Rice Intensification (SRI) were examples of specific alternatives proposed.
  • In India, such alternatives and their variants included, among others, homoeo-farming, Vedic farming, Natu-eco farming, Agnihotra farming and Amrutpani farming.
  • Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), popularised by Subhash Palekar, is the most recent entry into this group.

Understanding the ZBNF

  • The alternative of ZBNF is, thus, posed against both inorganic farming and organic farming.
  • Palekar’s premise is that soil has all the nutrients plants need. To make these nutrients available to plants, we need the intermediation of microorganisms. For this, he recommends the “four wheels of ZBNF”: Bijamrit, Jivamrit, Mulching and Waaphasa.
    • Bijamrit is the microbial coating of seeds with formulations of cow urine and cow dung.
    • Jivamrit is the enhancement of soil microbes using an inoculum of cow dung, cow urine, and jaggery.
    • Mulching is the covering of soil with crops or crop residues.
    • Waaphasa is the building up of soil humus to increase soil aeration.
  • In addition, ZBNF includes three methods of insect and pest management: Agniastra, Brahmastra and Neemastra (all different preparations using cow urine, cow dung, tobacco, fruits, green chilli, garlic and neem).

Analysing ZBNF

  • First, ZBNF is hardly zero budget. Many ingredients have to be purchased. These apart, wages of hired labour, imputed value of family labour, imputed rent over owned land, costs of maintaining cows and paid-out costs on electricity and pump sets are all costs that ZBNF proponents conveniently ignore.
  • Second, there are no independent studies to validate the claims that ZBNF plots have a higher yield than non-ZBNF plots. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has a report, but it appears to be a self-appraisal by the implementing agency; independent studies based on field trials are not available..
  • Third, most of Mr. Palekar’s claims stand agricultural science on its head. Indian soils are poor in organic matter content. About 59% of soils are low in available nitrogen; about 49% are low in available phosphorus; and about 48% are low or medium in available potassium. Indian soils are also varyingly deficient in micronutrients, such as zinc, iron, manganese, copper, molybdenum and boron.
  • Fourth, Mr. Palekar has a totally irrational position on the nutrient requirements of plants. According to him, 98.5% of the nutrients that plants need is obtained from air, water and sunlight; only 1.5% is from the soil. All nutrients are present in adequate quantities in all types of soils. However, they are not in a usable form. Jivamrit makes these nutrients available to the plants by increasing the population of soil microorganisms. All these are baseless claims.
  • Finally, the spiritual nature of agriculture that Mr. Palekar posits is troublesome. He has claimed that because of ZBNF’s spiritual closeness to nature, its practitioners will stop drinking, gambling, lying, eating non-vegetarian food and wasting resources. For him, only Indian Vedic philosophy is the “absolute truth”.
  • All of this reeks of a cultural chauvinism that uncritically celebrates indigenous knowledges and reactionary features of the past.

Way forward

  • Undoubtedly, improvement of soil health should be a priority agenda in India’s agricultural policy.
  • We need steps to check wind and water erosion of soils.
  • We need innovative technologies to minimise physical degradation of soils due to waterlogging, flooding and crusting.
  • We need to improve the fertility of saline, acidic, alkaline and toxic soils by reclaiming them.
  • We need location-specific interventions towards balanced fertilisation and integrated nutrient management.
  • While we try to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers in some locations, we should be open to increasing their use in other locations.
  • But such a comprehensive approach requires a strong embrace of scientific temper and a firm rejection of anti-science postures.

Conclusion

Lacking scientific temper, the inclusion of ZBNF into our agricultural policy by the government appears unwise and imprudent.


Leave a Reply