paper presentation on agriculture in india

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft

Affiliation Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Systems, The University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, United Kingdom

Roles Methodology

Affiliation Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, India

Roles Data curation

Roles Conceptualization

Affiliation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, India

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

• Lindsay M. Jaacks, 
• Niti Gupta, 
• Jagjit Plage, 
• Ashish Awasthi, 
• Divya Veluguri, 
• Sanjay Rastogi, 
• Elena Dall’Agnese, 
• GV Ramanjaneyulu, 
• Abhishek Jain

• Published: August 18, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

21 Oct 2022: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, et al. (2022) Correction: Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Agriculture in India: Cross-Sectional Results from a Nationally Representative Survey. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation 1(10): e0000033. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000033 View correction

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted agriculture in India in many ways, yet no nationally representative survey has been conducted to quantify these impacts. The three objectives of this study were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and input use, (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices, and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. Phone surveys were conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 with farmers who had previously participated in a nationally representative survey. Values are reported as weighted percent (95% confidence interval). A total of 3,637 farmers completed the survey; 59% (56–61%) were small/marginal farmers; 72% (69–74%) were male; and 52% (49–55%) had a below poverty line ration card. A majority of farmers (84% [82–86%]) reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020. Farmers who reported a change in their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (p = 0.001) and soybean (p<0.001) and less likely to be cultivating rice (p<0.001). Concerning inputs, 66% (63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor. More than half of farmers (62% [59–65%]) were interested in trying sustainable farming, primarily because of government schemes or because their peers were practicing it. About one-fifth (18% [15–21%]) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% (28–47%) reported it affected their ability to work. In conclusion, COVID-19 infections had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continued to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning more about practicing sustainable farming. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Author summary

Nearly half of the Indian population is employed in agriculture, yet no nationally representative survey has explored the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on farmers. We leveraged a pre-existing nationally representative sample of 20 states/union territories to conduct surveys via phone interview between December 2020 and January 2021 with 3,637 farmers. This period coincided with the end of the first wave of COVID-19 (which peaked in mid-September 2020) and the end of the Kharif (monsoon) season–the major agricultural season when rice is primarily cultivated. Our three objectives were to evaluate how the pandemic has influenced: (1) cropping patterns and the use of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and labor; (2) farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices such as organic farming; and (3) farmers’ COVID-19 symptoms. We found that symptoms associated with COVID-19 had started to impact farmers’ productivity even during the first wave in India. Most farmers continue to grow the same crops with no change in input use. However, many expressed an interest in learning about sustainable farming practices. Among the farmers who did change their cropping pattern, they were more likely to be growing nutrient-dense crops (vegetables) instead of rice. Findings will inform future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Citation: Jaacks LM, Gupta N, Plage J, Awasthi A, Veluguri D, Rastogi S, et al. (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture in India: Cross-sectional results from a nationally representative survey. PLOS Sustain Transform 1(8): e0000026. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026

Editor: Prajal Pradhan, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), GERMANY

Received: February 4, 2022; Accepted: July 9, 2022; Published: August 18, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Jaacks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: De-identified participant data is available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YOOU7C .

Funding: Funding to support data collection was provided by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (AJ), The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government (LMJ), discretionary faculty research funds from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (LMJ), and Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation (LMJ). ED received salary support from the Royal Society of Edinburgh and the Scottish Government for this work. LMJ received salary support from Medical Research Council/UK Research and Innovation for this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Since its initial outbreak in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has killed more than 6 million people globally [ 1 ]. In addition, more than 100 million people are estimated to have ‘long COVID’ globally, with the highest rates of long COVID reported in Asia [ 2 ]. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic will have long-lasting effects on population health and wellbeing. In addition, supply chain disruptions arising from government responses to control the pandemic, i.e. lockdowns and border closures, have led to a re-emergence of debates on the vulnerabilities of globalized value chains [ 3 ]. Finally, the pandemic and pandemic response led to the largest global economic crisis in more than a century with the world economy shrinking by approximately 3% and global poverty increasing for the first time in a generation [ 4 ]. Given that agriculture is the largest employer in most developing economies [ 5 ] and the important role agriculture plays in food security, an in-depth evaluation of this particular sector is warranted.

India’s agricultural system is largely based on input-intensive monocropping of staple crops. Two-thirds of irrigated land and one-third of unirrigated land is cultivated with paddy and wheat [ 6 ]. With regards to inputs, 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides [ 6 ]. While there has been an increase in organic farming and other sustainable approaches such as natural farming in recent years, it still makes up less than 2% of all cultivated land [ 7 , 8 ]. The cost of cultivation has been increasing [ 9 ] and yields of rice and wheat have been stagnating [ 10 ], resulting in more than half of agricultural households being in debt [ 11 ]. Thus, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a crisis among Indian farmers.

In 2020, as a result of public health interventions to prevent the spread of COVID-19, there were major disruptions to India’s agri-supply chains. A phone survey of a convenience sample of Indian farmers across 12 states conducted in May 2020–during the first lockdown–found that farmers struggled to sell their produce because the market price was too low or they could not access the markets due to travel restrictions [ 12 ]. Moreover, about half of farmers reported the lockdown had affected their ability to sow for the upcoming season due to labor not being available and not being able to access or afford inputs such as seeds, fertilizer, and pesticides [ 12 ]. One might expect that the high cost of these products and disruption to accessing them during the pandemic may have led some farmers to consider agricultural practices that do not rely on external inputs, such as organic farming, natural farming, and other sustainable agricultural practices. At the same time, from the demand-side, the pandemic and increasing health-consciousness among consumers in India has stimulated growth of the organic market [ 13 ].

To address the aforementioned disruptions to the agriculture sector, the Finance Minister announced a COVID-19 economic package worth 1.5 trillion Indian Rupees (INR) (~20 billion US Dollars [USD]) aimed at strengthening infrastructure, logistics, and capacity building [ 14 ]. A majority of the funds went to setting up an “Agri Infrastructure Fund” to finance projects at the farm gate and aggregation points [ 14 ]. Other aspects of the package included the promotion of herb/medicinal plant cultivation and the extension of “Operation Greens” from tomato, onion, and potato to all fruits and vegetables [ 14 ]. These new initiatives may also shift agricultural practices, particularly cropping patterns. One previous survey found that more than 90% of farmers who were monocroppers in Kharif 2019 were monocroppers in Kharif 2020–and primarily cultivating rice–suggesting there has not been a major shift in cropping patterns as a result of the pandemic [ 15 ], but further research is needed to confirm this observation.

To date, no nationally representative study has been conducted among Indian farmers nor has any study explored whether the pandemic has shifted farmers’ crop choices, input use, and willingness to adopt more sustainable practices. Moreover, early in the pandemic–i.e., in May 2020–individuals living in urban slums were nearly twice as likely to have been infected with COVID-19 (Immunoglobulin G antibody positive in a national seroprevalence study) as compared to individuals in rural areas [ 16 ]. However, by mid-September 2020, when India’s first wave of COVID-19 peaked, rural areas had also experienced a rise in cases [ 17 ]. Whether or not this affected farmers’ ability to work has not been explored. Given that different crops have different labor requirements [ 18 ] and sustainable agricultural practices tend to be more labor-intensive [ 19 ], one might expect COVID-19 infection to affect a farmer’s decision to cultivate a certain crop or adopt chemical-free practices.

There are multiple pathways through which agriculture impacts food and nutrition security [ 20 ]. Agricultural production is a direct source of food for farmers and a source of income that can be used to purchase food. Agriculture also has indirect effects on nutrition security through influencing expenditures on health care, education, and improved water and sanitation as well as women’s empowerment and caring practices. Farming systems that promote crop diversity, such as agroecology, may have an even greater positive effect on nutrition security [ 21 ]. Indeed, during the first COVID-19 lockdown in India, it was observed that farmers who cultivated two or more crops were less likely to experience a decline in dietary diversity than farmers who cultivated one crop (i.e., monocroppers) [ 15 ]. Thus, any impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture may have downstream effects on food and nutrition security.

There were three primary objectives of this study. First, to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced cropping patterns and the use of inputs by Indian farmers. Second, to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has influenced their willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Third, to monitor if Indian farmers are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 that disrupt their work activities. In addition, a secondary objective was to evaluate food insecurity and diet quality in the most vulnerable group of farmers, namely, agricultural laborers. Together, findings from these objectives deepen our understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on national food security and future directions for resilient agri-food systems.

Characteristics of study sample

Of the 5,200 participants called, 4,099 (79%) answered the call and 3,637 (89%) of those who answered consented to participate ( Fig 1 ). Of the total consented participants, 3,266 were farmers and the remaining 371 were agricultural laborers. Not having time was the most common reason reported for not participating (40%). Twenty states/union territories (herein ‘states’) were represented in the sample ( S1 Table ). State-wise sample sizes ranged from 2 (Delhi and Uttarakhand) to 419 (Uttar Pradesh). The sample size was particularly small for Delhi (n = 2), Haryana (n = 16), and Punjab (n = 19), partly because farmer protests were going on at the time of the survey.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g001

The weighted mean farm size was 2.11 ha, ranging from 0.004 to 23.8 ha; 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56–61%) of participants were small/marginal farmers. A majority of participants were male and middle-aged; about one-third lived in households with 6 or more people; and 17% (15–19%) were illiterate ( Table 1 ). About one-third reported belonging to Other Backward Caste (OBC) and half reported having a Below Poverty Line (BPL) ration card. Landless and small/marginal farmers had smaller household sizes (p = 0.005) and were more likely to have a BPL ration card (p = 0.001).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t001

Change in cropping patterns and input use during the COVID-19 pandemic

A majority of participants cultivated in both 2019 and 2020 (83% [95% CI, 80–85%], data not shown). Among these participants, 76% (73–79%) reported no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ( Table 2 ). The remaining 21% (18–24%) reported an increase in cultivated land and 3% (2–4%) a decrease in cultivated land. At the state level, the percent reporting no change in the area of land cultivated on their farms ranged from 41% (28–56%) in Assam to 94% (89–96%) in Gujarat ( S2 Table ). In Assam and Odisha, a much larger proportion of farmers reported an increase in the amount of land cultivated: 57% (42–71%) and 50% (39–60%), respectively ( S2 Table ). The most commonly reported reason for a change in the extent of land cultivated was a financial loss during the lockdown, which was reported by 53% (46–60%) of farmers ( Fig 2 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t002

With regards to cropping pattern, 84% (95% CI, 82–86%) of farmers reported cultivating the same crops in 2019 and 2020 ( Table 2 ). Among those who reported a change in the type of crop, 41% (34–49%) said it was a temporary change, but 32% (25–39%) said they were considering a permanent change. The reporting pattern was similar across all states, except Assam and Karnataka, where 36% (22–53%) and 48% (41–55%), respectively, reported a change in their cropping pattern ( S2 Table ). Rice and wheat were the most commonly cultivated crops in both Kharif 2019 and 2020 followed by pulses, vegetables, and mustard ( Fig 3 ). Vegetables were the most commonly cultivated crops in kitchen gardens with other crops (including fruit) rarely cultivated in kitchen gardens.

‘Rice’ includes basmati and other. ‘Pulses’ includes tur, urad, gram, moong, and other. Crops were presented if they were reported by >5% of participants. Rapeseed, other oilseeds, fruit, coconut, jute, and spices were reported by <5% of participants and were therefore not presented.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g003

Farmers who changed their cropping patterns were less likely to be cultivating rice (27% versus 41% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001) and wheat (27% versus 36% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.05). Those who changed their cropping patterns were more likely to be cultivating vegetables (26% versus 15% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p = 0.001) and soybean (7% versus 3% among farmers who did not change their cropping patterns, p<0.001).

The most commonly reported reason for continuing to cultivate the same crop was that it was profitable ( Fig 4 ). Not having a specific reason to shift and not having the knowledge to change crops were also commonly reported. Among farmers who changed crops, the most commonly reported reason was weather followed by market price.

Abbreviations: MSP, minimum support price.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g004

Concerning inputs, 66% (95% CI, 63–68%) of farmers reported no change in fertilizers; 66% (64–69%) reported no change in pesticides; and 59% (56–62%) reported no change in labor ( Table 2 ). Medium and large farmers were more likely to report no change in fertilizer use compared to small/marginal farmers (p = 0.01). Participants were more likely to report a decrease in labor availability (24% [22–26%]) than an increase in availability (17% [15–19%]). In terms of state-wise differences, farmers from Andhra Pradesh (25% [16–37%]), Chhattisgarh (31% [19–46%]), Odisha (22% [16–29%]), and West Bengal (39% [33–46%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of fertilizers ( S2 Table ). Farmers from Andhra Pradesh (34% [23–46%]), Gujarat (36% [27–45%]), and West Bengal (36% [30–43%]) were most likely to report an increase in the use of pesticides. Farmers were most likely to report a decrease in labor availability in Andhra Pradesh (37% [25–50%]), Assam (35% [21–53%]), Madhya Pradesh (49% [42–57%]), and Odisha (45% [35–56%]). Poor soil quality and too expensive were the top two reasons for reporting a change in fertilizer use ( Fig 5 ). More pests was the number one reason for reporting a change in pesticide use.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.g005

Coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and willingness to adopt sustainable agricultural practices

About 1 in 5 farmers (21% [95% CI, 18–23%]) had a problem in accessing bank credit during the Kharif season, with loan sanction delays identified as the main problem by half of participants ( Table 3 ). Across states, farmers in Madhya Pradesh had the greatest difficulty in accessing bank credit: 56% (48–63%) of farmers reported having a problem in this state ( S3 Table ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t003

In terms of coping strategies to help mitigate the impact of COVID-19, one-third of participants had a kitchen garden for home consumption–small/marginal farmers were more likely to have kitchen gardens than medium and large farmers (p<0.001)–and 50% reported eating their own production ( Table 3 ). More than 50% of farmers in Assam, Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal had kitchen gardens ( S3 Table ). Other commonly reported coping strategies included reducing the price of produce (31% [95% CI, 29–34%] of farmers), finding new markets (21% [19–24%]), and storing more of their produce (17% [15–20%]) ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal and medium farmers were more likely to store their produce than larger farmers (p = 0.03).

About half of farmers (52% [95% CI, 49–55%]) reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent and 62% (59–65%) were interested in trying these practices, primarily because of government schemes encouraging such approaches or because their peers were practicing it ( Table 3 ). Small/marginal farmers were more likely to report government schemes and peers, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs (all p<0.001). In four states–Assam (74% [59–85%]), Chhattisgarh (67% [55–78%]), Madhya Pradesh (76% [69–82%]), and Tamil Nadu (84% [75–90%]), the vast majority of farmers reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent ( S3 Table ). The lowest rates of interest in agroecology practices were in Karnataka (21% [15–27%] expressing an interest) and Gujarat (19% [14–26%] expressing an interest). Government schemes were most frequently cited as a reason in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. COVID-19-related reasons were most frequently cited in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Tamil Nadu, and rarely reported in other states.

COVID-19 symptoms and impact on work

With regards to COVID-19 symptoms in the past month, 8% (95% CI, 6–9%) of farmers had a cough, 12% (9–15%) had a fever, 5% (4–7%) had shortness of breath, and 18% (15–21%) had any one of these three symptoms ( Table 4 ). Among those who had COVID-19 symptoms, 22% (14–32%) said it impacted their ability to work for several days in the past month; 10% (6–17%) said it impacted their ability to work for more than half the days in the past month; and 5% (1–18%) said it impacted their ability to work nearly every day in the past month. Landless and small/marginal farmers were most likely to report COVID-19 symptoms had an impact on their work (p = 0.03).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t004

Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not find an association between COVID-19 symptoms and changes in crop cultivation patterns or interest in trying agroecological practices. Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 13% reported changing the type of crop they are cultivating compared to 16% among those without symptoms (p = 0.20). Among those with COVID-19 symptoms, 68% reported an interest in trying agroecological practices compared to 61% among those without symptoms (p = 0.17). Results were similarly non-significant for COVID-19 symptoms affecting their work: symptoms versus no symptoms, 14% versus 13%, respectively (p = 0.91), for changing the type of crop they are cultivating, and 63% versus 70%, respectively (p = 0.49), for interest in trying agroecological practices.

Food security and diet quality among agricultural laborers during the COVID-19 pandemic

Among agricultural laborers, 43% (95% CI, 35–51%) were not able to find work in the current Kharif season. Among those who were able to find work, it was mostly as agricultural laborers (82% [72–80%]), though 5% (3–8%) had work through the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA) ( Table 5 ). About one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed (34% [25–44%]) and 17% (11–25%) a decrease in wage rate. In terms of support received in the past 3 months, 75% (67–81%) had received rations. One in five had not received any support during this period.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.t005

A total of 44% (95% CI, 7–52%) of agricultural laborers reported having a kitchen garden for home consumption ( Table 5 ). In terms of food insecurity, 43% (36–51%) were worried about food in the past month and 21% (16–28%) ate less than usual. More severe forms of food insecurity–skipping a meal in the past month and going without eating for a whole day in the past month–were less common. Diet quality was very poor: the weighted mean dietary diversity score was 1.28 (out of a maximum of 8) and 94% (91–97%) of participants had low dietary diversity. The most commonly consumed food groups were grains (59% [50–67%] consuming daily), vegetables (24% [19–31%] consuming daily), potatoes (18% [14–23%] consuming daily), dairy (15% [9–25%] consuming daily), and pulses (14% [10–18%] consuming daily). All other food groups were consumed by <10% of the sample daily (fruit, nuts, eggs, fish, poultry, and meat).

Despite disruptions to agri-supply chains and labor mobility due to the pandemic [ 12 ], and major new policy initiatives to support development of the agriculture sector [ 14 ], we found that most farmers in a nationally representative sample did not report a change in either their cropping pattern or input use between 2019 and 2020. Among the 16% of farmers who did report cultivating a different crop in 2020 as compared to 2019, many had transitioned from growing rice to growing higher-value, nutrient-dense crops (vegetables), citing weather and the market price as underlying reasons. It was promising to find that 62% of farmers were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices. Given the recent emphasis on natural farming by the highest levels of government–including the Prime Minister of India [ 8 , 22 ]–this willingness among farmers to try sustainable farming practices is especially encouraging for achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 2 target, “to ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices” [ 23 ].

Lack of knowledge was the most frequently reported barrier to shifting cropping patterns. Farmers have consistently reported lack of knowledge and information as a key barrier to diversification towards high-value crops [ 24 ]. Access to knowledge and information is also an important factor in determining adaptation behaviors of farmers in response to climate-related risks [ 25 ]. Non-farm level factors such as access to inputs, credit, local markets, and road networks are also significantly related to crop choice and farm-level diversification [ 24 , 26 – 28 ]. Thus, external support, particularly in the form of farmer training and extension services, is necessary to enable farmers to make changes to their crop cultivation patterns.

This was among the first studies to evaluate the spread of COVID-19 to rural agricultural communities in India and the impact of infection on farmers’ productivity. About one-fifth (18%) of farmers reported COVID-19 symptoms in the past month (cough, fever, or shortness of breath) and among those with symptoms, 37% reported it affected their ability to work. This is likely to be an underestimate of the impact of the first wave on farmers’ productivity given that the survey asked farmers to recall symptoms in the past month, which would have referred to November-December 2020, after the first wave peaked in mid-September 2020. The second wave, which started in March 2021, was much more severe, and continued into the Kharif season of 2021. Continued monitoring of the impact of the spread of COVID-19 in rural communities is required, particularly considering the average age of farmers in India is 50 years and 18% of farmers are over 61 years old [ 29 ]–with age being the biggest single risk factor for COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

Half of farmers in this national sample reported avoiding the use of chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides to some extent during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown. This was surprising given that 90% of irrigated land and 63% of unirrigated land is treated with synthetic fertilizer in India and approximately 40% of agricultural land is treated with synthetic pesticides according to a national census of farmers conducted in 2016–2017, before the pandemic [ 6 ]. The lockdown affected farmers’ ability to access and afford inputs including fertilizer and pesticides [ 12 ], and this may explain why a large proportion of farmers in this sample reported avoiding their use to some extent. Moreover, this may reflect the avoidance of fertilizers and pesticides on plots used for home consumption rather than commercial plots–our survey did not differentiate between the two when asking this question. Given that only 16–17% of farmers reported a decrease in fertilizers and pesticides during the COVID-19 pandemic, further exploration of trends in the use of inputs on agricultural land–both commercial and non-commercial–is warranted.

Another key finding of this survey is the substantial interest in agroecological practices among farmers. More than half (62%) of farmers reported that they were interested in trying more sustainable farming practices such as reducing their use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and the proportion was similar across farm sizes. However, the underlying drivers reported differed across farm sizes with small/marginal farmers more likely to report government schemes and the fact that their peers are practicing it, whereas large farmers were more likely to report high input costs as the reason. These findings can inform programmatic approaches to increasing adoption of these practices across India. Of note, there was variability in the proportion of farmers expressing an interest in agroecological practices across states with Gujarat and Karnataka having the lowest proportions. In contrast, in six states, more than 80% of farmers reported that they were interested in trying these practices, including Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal. Recently, several state governments have taken up policy initiatives to promote sustainable agriculture in India and the central government is providing fiscal and policy support for these initiatives [ 8 ]. For example, Odisha introduced a state organic farming policy in 2018 and has undertaken various initiatives such as an organic millet mission to link farmers to the public distribution system [ 30 ].

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, uptake of sustainable farming practices in India was low; less than 2% of all cultivated land was under organic farming [ 7 , 8 ]. A recent systematic review identified several factors influencing uptake of these practices by farmers [ 31 ]. For example, older farmers who typically have lower education levels than younger farmers are less likely to adopt sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. Considering the average age of Indian farmers is 50.5 years according to the latest Input Survey (2016–17) [ 6 ], this may partially explain low uptake of sustainable farming practices in India. In addition, institutional factors, particularly visits from agriculture extension services, participation in training programs, and organizational membership are important determinants of uptake of sustainable farming practices [ 31 ]. We recently confirmed this in Andhra Pradesh, where meeting with government or non-governmental organization (NGO) extension agents was significantly positively associated with practicing zero-budget natural farming [ 32 ]. Farmers’ perceptions as relate to sustainable farming can also influence adoption. Farmers who perceive that sustainable farming is beneficial for environmental and human health or that it is more profitable because it reduces cultivation costs, are more likely to adopt this alternative approach [ 31 ]. Unfortunately, however, access to extension agents in India, particularly for women, sharply declined during the pandemic and farmers increasingly relied on social networks for information [ 33 ]. The lack of access to extension agents may hinder adoption of sustainable farming practices even if farmers express an interest in trying them.

This study also uncovered the most common coping strategies to manage their produce implemented by farmers during the first wave: (1) eating their own production (50%), (2) reducing the price of their agricultural products (31%), (3) finding new markets (21%), and (4) storing more (17%). A previous survey conducted in four states (Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Karnataka) in May 2020–approximately 8–9 months before our survey–found that 52% coped by finding new markets, 25% by reducing their price, 18% by consuming their own production, and just 5% by storing more [ 34 ]. The discrepancy between studies could suggest that in a nationally representative sample, farmers have less access to new markets but more access to storage facilities than that previous sample of World Vegetable Center program participants [ 34 ].

Among agricultural laborers, 43% were not able to find work during the Kharif season following the initial lockdown and about one-third reported a decrease in the number of days employed. The loss of wage income as a result of the pandemic was also reported in a previous survey of farmers across 12 states that found from June to July/August 2020, 38% of agricultural households no longer earned an income from wages [ 35 ]. Together, these findings are especially worrying because an estimated one-third of agricultural household income comes from wages in India [ 36 ].

Related to this, we also evaluated food insecurity and dietary diversity in agricultural laborers. We found a high proportion were worried about food in the past month (43%), and a notable proportion ate less than usual (21%), skipped a meal (15%), and went without eating for a whole day (6%). These proportions are only slightly lower than reported in a survey across 12 states conducted in May 2020 that found 52% of agricultural laborers worried about food in the past month, 18% skipped a meal, and 7% went without eating for a whole day [ 12 ]. This suggests that food insecurity remains a critical issue. It is promising that 75% of agricultural laborers reported receiving food rations and 44% had a kitchen garden as these may protect them from more severe food insecurity [ 15 ]. This finding is consistent with a previous study of smallholder farmers in two states (Haryana and Odisha), which found that a well-functioning Public Distribution System (PDS) for food rations and homestead gardening protected households from worsening food insecurity during the pandemic [ 37 ]. A survey of rural areas across nine states similarly found that receipt of food rations was high during the initial lockdown period: 52% of households had received free food rations multiple times [ 38 ]. Interestingly, that survey also found the same percent of respondents did not have a ration for the day of the survey (6%) [ 38 ]. Finally, a large-scale survey across 15 states also found that PDS had met the grain needs for the vast majority of households, but distribution of nutrient-dense foods such as pulses lagged behind [ 39 ].

Nonetheless, diet quality was poor–the diets of agricultural laborers in our sample largely consisted of grains, only one-fourth consumed vegetables daily, and less than one-fifth consumed high-protein foods such as pulses and eggs daily. Thus, while these agricultural laborers may have staved off hunger to some extent, they did not have nutritional security. The importance of nutritional security has been recognized in food security studies for over two decades. In fact as Hwalla et. al (2016) propose, there can be no food security without nutritional security and vice versa [ 40 ]. Our findings are similar to the existing literature which shows that households that are food insecure sacrifice the quality of food and food variety “in favor of food quantity, in order to avoid a state of absolute hunger” [ 40 ]. Moreover, a balanced diet plays a key role in building immunity against diseases such as COVID-19 [ 41 ]. Much more work is needed to improve diet quality for these vulnerable groups in India.

This study is not without limitations. The overall response rate was high (89%), however, response rates were differential by state with lower response rates in Haryana, Punjab, and NCR Delhi due to widespread farmer protests in these states at that time. Given that Haryana and Punjab are major agricultural states in India–they are often referred to as the “bread basket” of India–the lack of representation from these states is a major limitation of this study. Moreover, the average farm size in this sample was much larger than that reported in the latest Agriculture Census for India, conducted in 2015–2016, of 1.08 ha [ 29 ]. This study was also cross-sectional, conducted after the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020, which was less severe than the second wave in 2021. Nonetheless, as it is to the best of our knowledge the only nationally representative survey of farmers to be conducted during the pandemic, the findings are valuable for understanding farmers’ response to prepare for such disruptions in the future. Finally, a phone interview relying on self-report may result in biased responses. For example, farmers may over-report practicing sustainable farming practices because it is perceived of as the socially desirable response.

Indian agriculture and its farmers have proven to be resilient during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Indian economy declined in the first quarter of 2020 by 15%, agriculture remained the only sector to grow–by 3.4% [ 42 ]–largely due to a good harvest with favorable monsoons and the exemption of agricultural activities during the lockdown. However, the sector is not without major challenges. Diet quality remains poor, soils are degraded, groundwater levels continue to drop, and greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase [ 43 ].

With these growing concerns, India must look at a paradigm shift in producing and consuming food. This study found that despite the severe agri-supply chain constraints stemming from the pandemic, farmers did not find it feasible or were not motivated to change their cropping patterns or input-intensive practices, though about half of farmers reported already trying to avoid the use of chemicals to some extent. The policy structure in India continues to favor intensification of a limited number of staple crops–especially rice and wheat. An encouraging finding was the substantial interest in sustainable agricultural practices among farmers, which, if scaled, have the potential to improve farmers’ livelihood, reduce environmental externalities, and increase resilience.

Materials and methods

Sampling strategy.

The sampling frame used for this survey was a sub-set of a nationally representative survey–the Indian Residential Energy Survey (IRES)–conducted by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water between November 2019 and March 2020 [ 44 ]. The original IRES study was conducted to describe the state of energy access and energy-use patterns across Indian households.

IRES surveyed 14,850 households across 152 districts in the 21 most-populous states of India, which account for 97% of the Indian population. The study used stratified multi-stage probability sampling. The primary sampling units (PSU) were villages in rural areas and wards in urban areas, according to the 2011 Census. Within each state, a select number of districts (d) were sampled randomly from d/2 number of strata. Within each of the sampled districts, two basic strata were formed: (i) rural strata comprised of all rural areas of the district and (ii) urban strata comprised of all urban areas of the district. In each district, a total of 12 PSUs were sampled from the urban and rural sampling frames, proportional to the urban and rural population in the district. From each PSU, eight households were randomly surveyed. An equal number of households were sampled from each of the sampled districts.

The IRES survey collected details on the primary source of income for the household. Those reporting agriculture and agricultural labor were contacted for this follow-up survey. There are primarily two cropping seasons in India: Kharif, which runs from May to mid-October, and Rabi, which runs from mid-October to mid-April. Our survey focused on the Kharif season. Participants who matched the IRES database and cultivated land or worked as agricultural laborers in the 2020–2021 Kharif season were included. Those who owned land, but leased it out to someone else during the 2020–2021 Kharif season were excluded.

Data collection

Surveys were conducted via phone interview between 1 December 2020 and 10 January 2021 using SurveyToGo (Dooblo Ltd, Kefar Sava, Israel). The same survey agency that conducted the original IRES survey was contracted to collect the data (Market Xcel Data Matrix Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, India). The survey took, on average, about 20 minutes to complete.

The survey is provided in the Supporting Information ( S1 Text ). Briefly, the survey had four sections. The first section included questions on landholding amount, amount of land cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in amount of land cultivated (if applicable), what crops were cultivated in the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in type of crop cultivated and whether the participant thought it was a permanent change (if applicable), reason for sticking with the same type of crop (if applicable), whether there was a change in fertilizer or pesticide use between the current and last Kharif season, reason for change in fertilizer or pesticide use (if applicable), whether there was a change in labor availability between the current and last Kharif season, whether the participant had a kitchen garden for home consumption, what is grown in the kitchen garden (if applicable), and problems accessing bank credit. The second section included questions on coping strategies, agroecological practices, interest in trying agroecological practices, and reason for interest (if applicable). The third section included questions for agricultural laborers on receipt of support, finding work, changes in number of days of work and wage rate between the current and last Kharif season, food insecurity, and dietary intake. The fourth section included questions on COVID-19 symptoms and whether the symptoms had affected the participant’s ability to work.

Questions on agricultural practices were adapted from Government of India surveys [ 45 , 46 ]. Land values were reported in local units and converted into hectares ( S4 Table ). Four farm size categories were defined according to land ownership as landless (0 ha), small/marginal farms (0.01–2.00 ha), medium farms (2.01–4.00 ha), and large farms (>4.00 ha) [ 29 ]. The questions on practice and interest in agroecological practices was framed as: ‘Do you follow any practices in agriculture where you avoid using chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides, like organic farming?’

Food security was assessed using three questions from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) [ 47 , 48 ]: in the past month, was there a time when you or others in your household (1) worried you would run out of food, (2) skipped a meal, or (3) went without eating for a whole day. Only three of the eight FIES questions were asked based on previous experiences administering these questions to farmers in India [ 12 ] that suggested they are very sensitive questions and cause participant discomfort. Questions on food consumption were adapted from the FAO’s Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD) [ 49 ]. Eight of the ten MDD food groups were included: (1) starchy staples (rice, wheat, and potatoes), (2) pulses, (3) nuts, (4) vegetables, (5) fruits, (6) dairy, (7) eggs, and (8) fleshy foods (meat, poultry, and fish). Those who consumed a food group every day in the past week were assigned a value of “1” and those who did not were assigned a value of “0.” Values were then summed across the eight food groups such that the dietary diversity score ranged from 0 to 8 with 8 representing maximum dietary diversity. Low dietary diversity was defined as a dietary diversity score less than 4.

Household demographic data were from the baseline IRES survey and included rural versus urban residence; age and gender of the participant; educational attainment of the primary income earner of the household; caste; household size; and whether or not they had a BPL or Antyodaya ration card.

This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Centre for Media Studies (Protocol #: IRB00006230). Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were conducted using Stata Statistical Software, Release 16.1 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, Texas, USA). Less than 5% of data were missing for all variables ( S5 Table ). State-wise analyses excluded states with sample sizes <100, including Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala, Delhi, Punjab, and Uttarakhand ( S1 Table ). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize demographic characteristics, agricultural practices, food insecurity, dietary diversity, and COVID-19 symptoms, overall and by farm size and state. Values were reported as a weighted percent (95% CI). The weighted percents were calculated as weighted means of indicator variables (e.g., proportions) using Stata’s estimation commands for survey data (e.g., svy ). The 95% CIs were logit-transformed CIs derived from the standard errors of those means. Details of the IRES sampling weight derivation are described elsewhere [ 44 ]. Briefly, a sampling weight was derived for each participating household. The sampling weight equals the number of households in the population that the household represents, estimated as the reciprocal of the probability of selecting that household for the IRES sample. The IRES sampling weights were then adjusted for non-response to the COVID-19 survey using inverse propensity scores derived from a binary logistic regression model based on background characteristics of the participants [ 50 ]. We tested for differences in characteristics according to farm size using Pearson’s chi-squared tests, which are corrected for the survey design [ 51 , 52 ]. A two-sided p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Supporting information

S1 table. state-wise sample sizes..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s001

S2 Table. State-wise agricultural practices during the Kharif season in 2020 and 2019 among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s002

S3 Table. State-wise coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic and interest in agroecology among land-owning farmers in India.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s003

S4 Table. Land conversion factors from hextobinary.com (accessed 17 February and 11 May 2021).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s004

S5 Table. Summary of missing data.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s005

S1 Text. Survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000026.s006

Acknowledgments

We would like to sincerely thank the many farmers and agricultural laborers who responded to our survey. We would also like to express our thanks to the enumerators, without whom this study would not have been possible.

• 1. Our World in Data. Daily new confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people Oxford: University of Oxford; 2022 [cited 2022 May 17]. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=~OWID_WRL .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 4. World Bank. World Development Report 2022: Finance for an Equitable Recovery. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2022.
• 5. World Bank. Employment in agriculture (% of total employment) (modeled ILO estimate) Washington, DC: World Bank; 2019 [cited 2021 June 16]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS .
• 6. Agriculture Census Division. All India Report on Input Survey 2016–17. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 2021.
• 7. Gupta N, Pradhan S, Jain A, Patel N. Sustainable Agriculture in India 2021: What We Know and How to Scale Up. New Delhi: Council on Energy, Environment and Water, 2021.
• 8. NITI Aayog. Natural farming New Delhi: NITI Aayog,; 2021 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://naturalfarming.niti.gov.in/ .
• 11. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. India—Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, January—December 2013, NSS 70th Round New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation,; 2019 [cited 2021 February 8]. Available from: http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/133 .
• 13. USDA. India—Organic Industry Market Report—2021. New Delhi,: United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2021 Contract No.: IN2021-0095.
• 14. Ministry of Finance. Finance Minister announces measures to strengthen Agriculture Infrastructure Logistics, Capacity Building, Governance and Administrative Reforms for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Processing Sectors New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2020 [cited 2022 January 20]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1624153 .
• 17. Mohanan M, Malani A, Krishnan K, Acharya A. Prevalence of COVID-19 in rural versus urban areas in a low-income country: findings from a State-Wide study in Karnataka, India. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper. 2021;(2021–92).
• 18. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI). Labour in Indian Agriculture: A Growing Challenge. New Delhi: FICCI, 2015.
• 22. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, editor Prime Minister’s Address (Virtual). National Conclave on Natural Farming; 2021 December 16; Anand, Gujarat, India.
• 23. United Nations. Goal 2: Zero Hunger. Goal 2 Targets. New York: United Nations,; 2022 [cited 2022 January 23]. Available from: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/ .
• 24. Haque TB M; Sinha G; Kalra P; Thomas S;. Constraints and Potentials of Diversified Agricultural Development in Eastern India. New Delhi: Council for Social Development, 2010.
• 25. Bahinipati CS, Patnaik U. What Motivates Farm Level Adaptation in India? A Systematic Review. In: Haque E, editor. Climate change and community resilience Insights from South Asia: Springer; 2021.
• 29. Department of Agriculture C, and Farmers Welfare;. All India Report on Agriculture Census 2015–16. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2020.
• 36. NABARD. NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey 2016–17. Mumbai: National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development (NABARD), 2018.
• 38. Rapid Community Response to COVID-19 (RCRC). Resilient Communities. RCRC Centre for Monitoring Rural India during COVID-19 Times. RCRC Hosehold Survey. May 2020. New Delhi: RCRC, 2020.
• 39. Dalberg. Efficacy of government entitlements for low income families during Covid 19. Mumbai: Dalberg, 2020.
• 42. Ministry of Finance. Indian Agriculture contributes to green shoots of the Indian Economy with a Growth Rate of 3.4 Per Cent Despite COVID-19 Pandemic New Delhi: Press Information Bureau; 2021 [cited 2022 January 24]. Available from: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1693205 .
• 44. Agrawal SM, Sunil Jain, Abhishek Ganesan, Karthik Urpelainen, Johannes India Residential Energy Survey (IRES) 2020. Design and data quality. New Delhi Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), 2020.
• 45. Ministry of Agriculture GoI. Agriculture Census 2015–16: Manual of Schedules and Instructions for Data Collection. New Delhi, India: Government of India, 2015.
• 46. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation. National Sample Survey (NSS), 70th round. New Delhi: Government of India; 2013.
• 47. Ballard TJ, Kepple AW, Cafiero C. The food insecurity experience scale: development of a global standard for monitoring hunger worldwide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization 2013.
• 49. FAO. Minimum dietary diversity for women: a guide for measurement. Rome: FAO, 2016.
• 50. Potter F, Grau E, Williams S, Diaz-Tena N, Carlson BL, editors. An application of propensity modeling: Comparing unweighted and weighted logistic regression models for nonresponse adjustments. Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section American Statistical Association; 2006.

Advertisement

Agriculture in India’s twenty-first century

• Research Paper
• Published: 16 December 2022
• Volume 24 , pages 162–178, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Vinod Vyasulu 1 , 2  

203 Accesses

Explore all metrics

While agricultural production has increased in selected crops and in some regions in India, environmental issues like salinity, water logging, leaching of soil, and contamination of rivers have become serious in these regions. Food preferences have been distorted in a way detrimental to health and nutrition with problems like diabetes becoming endemic. This lecture takes the position that all these are the unintended results of our agricultural policy. This lecture, therefore, highlights the changing role of the agrarian economy in India over the years, focusing specifically on the contribution and unintended consequences of the Green Revolution in the country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source IIHS Geospatial Lab

Similar content being viewed by others

Agriculture and Food Production in China and the U.S.

Agriculture and Food Security: Implications on Sustainable Development and the WEF Nexus

An Overview of Indian Agriculture with Focus on Challenges and Opportunities in North East

I am most grateful to the Director of ISEC, Professor Ram Deshpande, for this invitation. I am also grateful to Aromer Revi, Director of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements, who was the Chief Guest at this lecture, for helpful comments. My thinking on this subject has been deeply influenced by Varadachary to whom I am grateful for discussions and friendship. Errors of fact and opinion are my original contributions.

http://www.economist.com/node/21563412 , for an interesting view on the implications of this rural mindset.

A number of my contemporaries in Delhi University went to see for themselves the effects of this famine. It led to a major radicalisation of the student community. A number of these students—among the best and brightest—went underground and joined the ‘naxal’ movement. For an account, see Dilip Simeon, Revolution Highway , Rabindra Ray, The Naxalites and their Ideology , and Vinod Vyasulu, ‘The Parable of the Underdeveloped Economist’ Monthly Review, April, 1974.

See the following statement by Senator Huber H Humphery, later the Vice President of the United States: “ I have heard... that people may become dependent on us for food. I know that was not supposed to be good news. To me that was good news, because before people can do anything they have got to eat. And if you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you, in terms of their cooperation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific… Hubert Humphrey, 4t Congress, First Session, Senate Committee on Agriculture and Fore try. Hearings: Policies and Operations P.L. 480, p. 29 1957. Cited in Harry Cleaver: ‘The Contradictions of the Green Revolution’, Monthly Review, June 1972. [ https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/cleavercontradictions.pdf ].

See also: http://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/83-480/000042EC.pdf .

Although India accepted conditions like devaluation of the rupee, the promised loan never came through. See the discussion of this incident by a person in the policy making circles of the day, in K.S Krishnaswamy, Windows of Opportunity, Orient Blackswan.

While overall poverty measured by the poverty line has declined over the years, the absolute number of the poor today is roughly estimated at over 300 million–-roughly the population of India in 1947. There has also been an increase in urban poverty in recent years, but that is another subject altogether.

See the excellent description by Gautam Pingle: http://www.thehansindia.info/News/Article.asp?category=1&subCategory=5&ContentId=88377

For example, see http://www.fao.org/sd/fsdirect/fbdirect/FSP005.htm .

See http://motherchildnutrition.org/resources/pdf/HungamaBKDec11LR.pdf .

The production function used in our researches is the standard Cobb–Douglas or a variant thereof. It deals only with quantities . Georgescu-Roegen points out the inadequacies of this specification and notes the need to include qualitative aspects of the production process. At the end of the process, we have say, a tired worker, a used tool, and on the output side, apart from the desired output, a ‘waste’ like smoke or pollution. This follows from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, where, in a closed system, the quantity of entropy continually increases. The clue to environmental destruction lies here. See.

http://www.locchiodiromolo.it/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/georgescu-roegen-1970-the-economics-of-production.pdf . Also N Georgescu-Roegen: The Entrpoy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard, 1971.

See Vinod Vyasulu [editor]: Technological Choice in the Indian Environment , Sterling Publishers, Delhi 1980.

In this context, see also Harry Cleaver: https://webspace.utexas.edu/hcleaver/www/hmctechasweaponry.htm .

M.V. Nadkarni’s research in ISEC in the mid 1980s showed that there was a productivity increase in Madhya Pradesh, in traditional farming, but not in Punjab, the home of the green Revolution. ‘Crisis of Increasing Costs in Indian Agriculture,—Is there a Way Out?, EPW, Review of.

Agriculture, September 24, 1988.

See Ritika Khera: http://www.epw.in/special-articles/revival-public-distribution-system-evidence-and-explanations.html .

Between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Planning Commission is where most of these policies have been designed and implemented. Over the years other ministries got into the act: Food Processing, Fertilisers, Water Resources, Civil Supplies, etc. We have today a byzantine structure of policy making. No attention is paid to the mounting evidence of things going wrong. What the Courts have termed ‘application of the mind’ is conspicuous by its absence. In this entire discussion I have not brought in the question of corruption, so clearly highlighted by the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

I thank K.R.S. Murthy, the Chairman of ISEC, for injecting this note of caution. The truth is we do not know.

Antonio Cipriano José María y Francisco de Santa Ana Machado y Ruiz, known as Antonio Machado, was a Spanish poet and one of the leading figures of the literary movement known as the Generation of '98. Enjoy the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj-W6D2LSlo .

See God’s Own Crops, Report of a National Consultation On Millets organised by the Millet Network of India, Hyderabad June 5 and 6, 2008. Also See also: http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/files/GreenRevUP.pdf . The IIM Ahemdabad has set up a programme in rainfed agriculture.

Varadachary’s H.M. Mathur Memorial Lecture in the H.M. Mathur Institute of State Administration in Jaipur in March 2011 lists out a workable programme on these lines for Rajasthan, which mutatis mutandis, could be applied to other areas as well.

http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/554 .

An important way to reverse the ill health of the people and the land is to increase our technical and price support to ‘coarse grains’, barley and oats. Coarse grains This will give an impetus to incomes in the more backward rural areas and for foods locally grown and consumed.

See my ‘Brazil’s ‘Fome Zero’ Strategy: Can India Implement Cash Transfers?’ in Economic and Political Weekly, Vol—XLV No. 26–27, June 26, 2010.

This is an article of faith, based on a belief in the fundamental equality of all people. India has a proud record. In a country steeped in inequity of all kinds, it is revolutionary in its social consequences…something we have been witness to since Independence. That people do not always act in what appears to some of us as ‘sensible’ is another matter. I remain committed to the fundamental notion of equality, while being open to ways of implementing it.

See the forthcoming: Reflections on Budget and Governance Accountability, for a detailed discussion of these issues.

There is no funding provided for this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

IIM, Bengaluru, India

Vinod Vyasulu

ISEC, Bengaluru, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinod Vyasulu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

There is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

L.S. Venkataramanan Memorial Lecture; This lecture was delivered by Prof. Vinod Vyasulu at the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore (ISEC) as LSV Memorial Lecture on September 5, 2012. The article was submitted to ISEC for possible publication and circulation. This lecture is presented here in its original version.

If I am permitted to depart from prose:

Great Truths and Wicked Problems

It was the physicists Neils Bohr who

Told us about Truths and Great Truths.

The opposite of a Truth, he said

Is a Falsehood.

The opposite of a Great Truth

Is another Great Truth.

To understand reality, we need

All Great Truths.

The Principle of Complementarity.

In Society we have Tame Problems

And Wicked Problems.

They are very different

And need to be faced differently.

Tame Problems have straight forward

Solutions. They may be complex

Indeed they often are.

Clarity of goals and good administration

Will give solutions to Tame problems.

An example is the US Man on the Moon mission.

It was complex, needed high technology

But clarity, finances and management

Led to a successful solution.

Neil Armstrong landed on the moon.

The company form is well suited to

Deal with big and small Tame problems.

The corporations today do so daily.

Set clear goals, put together finances

People and manage them properly

And you have solutions regularly.

Wicked Problems are different from this.

Find a solution and some will complain

Wicked Problems are inherently complex

Objectives are fuzzy, data inaccurate

A solution often turns out to be

Another Wicked Problem.

A wicked Problem is like a Great Truth.

Its opposite is like Itself.

Consider the US of A which is good at

Finding solutions to Tame Problems

Through their thousands of corporations.

Look at the issue of health care there.

It is indeed a Wicked Problem.

Obama has proposed a solution

The Republicans call it another Wicked Problem

That is no solution to healthcare there.

The issues of development and Social Transformation

Constitute the mother of all Wicked Problems.

But there is a Great Truth here.

One carves a path to walk by Wicked Problems

One bypasses them and their perceived solutions.

Forget corporations that deal with

Tame Problems.

For Wicked Problems we need Democracy.

People will choose freely for a path

To tread, bypassing all Wicked Problems.

All will not be happy, but all will not be sad

A majority will find an acceptable path.

Neils Bohr’s insight did not come

From deductive logic. It cannot.

There is no better example of induction.

Let’s learn from it.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Vyasulu, V. Agriculture in India’s twenty-first century. J. Soc. Econ. Dev. 24 (Suppl 1), 162–178 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-022-00218-9

Download citation

Published : 16 December 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-022-00218-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Green revolution
• Food security
• Agriculture policy
• Agriculture and health
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Agriculture in India: The past, present, and future

Pani's bharat bhushan and deo datt singh trace the evolution of india's agriculture, and discuss its future in the context of climate change and water security..

Edited transcript of the episode: 00:54Sneha: Today I’m in conversation with Bharat Bhushan and Deo Datt Singh—two civil society leaders belonging to different generations—both of whom have witnessed India’s changing […]

Edited transcript of the episode:

00:54 Sneha: Today I’m in conversation with Bharat Bhushan and Deo Datt Singh—two civil society leaders belonging to different generations—both of whom have witnessed India’s changing agricultural landscape at different points in time.

Bharat Bhushan is the chief functionary and one of the founders of People’s Action for National Integration ( PANI ), a nonprofit working with marginalised communities in Uttar Pradesh. Bharatji has been actively involved in social change movements from a very young age and has vast experience in implementing integrated development programmes in rural India.

Deo Datt Singh is an agri-business expert. He is the director of operations at PANI, where he brings in several decades of experience in leading and managing development projects. Deoji’s areas of expertise include ecological farming, climate change, rural economic development, and agri-business development. Today, we’re going to be speaking about India’s ever-evolving relationship with agriculture. We know that agriculture plays a vital role in India’s development story, be it in terms of the livelihoods it supports, the food security that it ensures, or its contribution to trade and GDP.

In this episode, Bharatji and Deoji will dip into the past, tell us how we got to where we are today, and also discuss the future of farming—particularly in light of the current threats of climate change, water security, and a generation of young people who no longer aspire to be farmers.

02:39 Sneha: Bharatji, you’ve been deeply involved in rural development for several decades—be it through your participation in social movements or your work at PANI. You’ve also worked closely with farmers and advocated for their rights. And so we could say that you’ve witnessed how agriculture has evolved in our country. Could you tell us about the evolution of agriculture in India?

Bharat : Agriculture has a longstanding history [in India]. It has evolved over a span of 1,100 years. Our scriptures also mention it—we have always been a farmer-based or an agrarian country. However, most of our agriculture was monsoon-dependent during that time. Our production was contingent on the monsoon, without which we would have no harvest and would suffer calamities. This dependence resulted in a huge famine in Bengal in 1943 —I’m referring to the pre-Independence era. More than 10 lakh people were affected by the famine.

03:41 Sneha: So we’ve been an agrarian country for centuries. But prior to Independence, we weren’t producing enough to meet our needs. What changed post Independence?

Bharat : Realising the severity of the problem, the government that came into power immediately after Independence decided to prioritise and encourage agriculture first. In order to boost agriculture, they adopted the idea of a green revolution. It was worked upon intensively from the first Five-Year Plan itself, and it progressed slowly. In hindsight, we can infer that India was in a period of starvation till 1950. From 1950–70, we had a shortage of food grains. And we became food sufficient from 1970–2000. We experienced this shift because of the Green Revolution. 

We’ve been food secure post 2000. Today, our situation is such that we can export and distribute grains to others. Perhaps this is the reason we’re called an agriculture-based country; no other nation is called a primarily agricultural country, because this is our history. This has been the state of our agriculture in the pre- and post-Independence era. 

05:04 Sneha: Thank you, Bharatji, for tracing the evolution of agriculture in India. From a state of near starvation to now being a food-secure nation that exports grains to other countries, we’ve come a long way. And, of course, the policies that the government adopted post Independence have played an important role in this. The Green Revolution in particular was a turning point. And a lot has changed since it was introduced. Deoji, coming to you, since the Green Revolution was initiated in the ‘60s, how has agriculture changed?

Deo Datt : Agriculture has gone through a lot of changes in the past three to four decades. For instance, after the Green Revolution, our [food grain] production increased, making us food sufficient. But this had other consequences and problems as well. We were unable to conserve our environmental resources, especially land and water, in the race to improve our yield. The unrestrained use of chemicals and pesticides damaged our lands. If we look at the statistics with the awareness of the damage caused, they paint a very bleak picture. Our chemical usage per acre of land might be low compared to Japan and the US, but we still have chemical and pesticide residue, posing a substantial concern for us.

The progress of the past four decades compels us to appreciate ourselves, but at the same time, it asks us to re-evaluate our mistakes to avoid repeating them. 

Our country and our agriculture could have developed, but perhaps it couldn’t happen to that scale, which I must say is quite unfortunate.

07:10 Sneha : So while the Green Revolution successfully increased the output of our land, it also had other repercussions, and we’re still dealing with them. There is a study , for example, that explores how food grain production in India rose from 82 million tonnes in the late 1960s to 264 million tonnes in 2013–14. That’s a lot. But along with this switch to high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat during the Green Revolution, farmers were also encouraged to use chemicals fertilisers and pesticides to increase their yield. And the persistent use of chemicals over time has led to the degradation of our soil and water.

Agriculture has always played an important role; it is the sole catalyst that can bring a balance to our current population.

Shifting gears slightly, Bharatji, if we talk about the rural economy today, how would you describe the role of agriculture in India’s rural economy?

Bharat: Agriculture has always played an important role; it is the sole catalyst that can bring a balance to our current population. Animal husbandry, milk production, fish production, etc. are all connected to agriculture. There is a visible difference in the rural economy of states where these are worked upon together through an integrated approach. However, this attempt is being made at a very small scale. It has the potential to make a significant contribution to the economy if done in a planned manner by the government.

In rural India, our brothers and sisters who are farmers work together. But the value of their work, and I’m not referring to the monetary value… but the value in terms of the respect that they deserve from society is lacking. And this can be due to many reasons. But if their labour is given that respect, it will help them in creating their own identity and, as a result, enhance their self-respect. And from self-respect, they will be able to move towards self-reliance—to bridge the gap that exists. How this can be achieved in practice is a separate discussion. But if we’re able to do this—give the respect to agriculture that it deserves, then even today, no other industry can bring economic power to our country on the scale that agriculture can. If we weren’t an agricultural country, a country of villages, our situation would have been much worse during the corona period. It is because of agriculture that our government is able to distribute free grains today.

10:04 Sneha : Yes, Bharatji, as you said, during COVID-19, the country would have suffered far more than it did if weren’t for our farmers. And we need to recognise that contribution.

The other interesting thing you said was that the government needs to look at the rural economy as a whole. Now, what this means is that in addition to the focus on agricultural crops, it needs to look at other livelihoods such as animal husbandry, dairy farming, and fish production. An integrated approach to rural development that accounts for these livelihoods can significantly boost our rural economy.

Deoji, we’ve touched upon the role that the government can play. What do you think is the role of the private sector in relation to agriculture and the rural economy? 

Deo Datt: The private sector has a major role to play, and it has played it well till now; this cannot be dismissed. We don’t have authentic data but one source states that the number of government extension workers is so low in India that one extension worker has to assist 16,000 farmers. Farmers are able to learn about technologies and practices because of these extension workers. However, it isn’t possible for one worker to support 16,000 farmers. This is where private companies come in. They have reached remote places with their extension workers, and played a major role in the sale of their products—be it seed companies, fertiliser companies, pesticide companies. They have made a major contribution.

Currently, the government is promoting FPOs because they are innovating products. Private companies can play an important role in consolidating and arranging the buy-back of these products. They can help with storage and processing. Rough statistics state that approximately 26 percent of our horticulture products face post-harvest loss. If we can manage to save that 26 percent, our production will effectively be considered 26 percent more. The private sector can play a major role here.

12:35 Sneha: So the private sector has a significant role to play in taking new tools and technologies to farmers. It has also taken seeds, fertilisers, and pesticides to farmer groups.

Deoji, you also mentioned farmer producer organisations, or FPOs—these are groups of farmers that come together to leverage the advantages of collectivising. They pool their resources and therefore reduce their risks and increase incomes.

A major role the private sector can play in the future is in feeding the required research into the agriculture sector to help us tackle the climate change crisis.

What you’re saying is that the private sector can create markets for these farmer collectives and help them store and process agricultural products—something that small farmers typically don’t have the expertise and resources to do.

How else can the private sector help? Deo Datt : A major role the private sector can play in the future is in feeding the required research into the agriculture sector to help us tackle the climate change crisis. Many private companies innovate their own varieties, chemicals… They have a huge opportunity to invest in climate-change-resilient research. It can become a profitable business for them if they are able to market the research to their customer base.

I’m not saying that private companies should spend all their resources on the country. But they can utilise their resources to help develop agriculture, which can benefit them simultaneously. Such a situation can develop. 

15:04 Sneha: So, we’ve been speaking about a few different dimensions of agriculture in India. Is there anything you think our listeners will be surprised to learn when it comes to agriculture? Deoji, coming to you first.

Deo Datt: By 2050, we will have a population of 160 crore. Our current food grain production is 314 million tonnes. We have to grow by four times every year. Only then will we be able to fulfil our requirement of 400 million tonnes by 2050. I’m talking about just India.

15:40 Sneha: So, we have to increase our food grain production fourfold each year for the next three decades to fulfil our requirement of 400 million tonnes by 2050. 

Deo Datt: Also, the youth of our nation is making a great contribution. However, they don’t consider agriculture a viable career. So our audience will be surprised to learn that agriculture can in fact be remunerative for young people. Several agriculture-based start-ups have been launched in India and are making great progress. This is a huge opportunity for young people to find employment in agriculture and reform the sector. If you’ve noticed, the government intends to double the [farmer] income. They wish to reduce the use of fertilisers by 20 percent; water use by 25 percent; and methane emission by 45 percent. However, if the youth does not enter this field, then neither the government nor the ageing farmer population is capable of achieving these targets on their own. Young people’s contribution is imperative. I think people might be surprised to learn that agriculture can offer opportunities to the youth.

17:18 Sneha: So there’s a huge opportunity for the youth of our country to find employment in agriculture. And this in turn will help reform the sector, which is crucial if we are to meet these production goals by 2050.

Bharatji, what are your thoughts on this? What will our listeners be surprised to learn about agriculture in India?

Bharat: As I said previously, despite being an agricultural country, the majority of our population does not know what farming is, what it entails, how villages function, and the kind of people that reside in the village and how they live their life. This would be new information for people, which is sad in itself. The point is that they should already be equipped with this knowledge as most of our population resides in villages—despite the widespread urbanisation, 73 percent of our population lives in villages. So everyone needs to know about this 73 percent. The government needs to make efforts towards this, similar to the efforts made for other important issues. For 73 percent of this population, everything is connected to agriculture. If the government tries to make people understand, then they will learn about how important our land is, where we were born, and where we live. People are unaware because the younger generation has no connection with the villages. So when we meet young people, they ask us how villages work. This is shocking for us since we have many universities for agriculture education, but people are still unaware. So this needs to be focused on. I think if this is surprising for me then it’s possible that it will be surprising for others as well. 

19:07 Sneha: Yes, it’s surprising that even though we’re an agrarian country with a huge rural population, many of us, especially those who live in cities, don’t know very much about our rural economy.

Keeping all of this in mind, if we think about the future of agriculture through the lenses of food security, water security, and climate change, what needs to change or shift?

Deo Datt: Moving forward, Snehaji, we’ll have to change how we practise agriculture to combat the shifts being brought about by climate change. The government has made a lot of announcements—on organic farming, millet farming, including millets on our plate—all these steps are admirable and the need of the hour. However, we can’t rely on organic farming and use of millets alone to solve for climate change. We need consolidated policies, and we need to figure out their implementation to face this emerging challenge. Various stakeholders need to work together for implementation, be it research institutions, educational institutions, or extension institutions. Because it is important for the farmers and the young generation to possess knowledge of new research through the extension system. That is the first important thing—to make a chain [of knowledge sharing] in order to meet this challenge. Moving forward, we’ll have to focus on our soil health, conserve water, choose less water-intensive crops, and plan our farming as per water availability.

20:55 Sneha: So you’re saying that while organic farming and the focus on millets are important steps towards climate action, they aren’t enough. We need consolidated policies, and various stakeholders have to come together to solve the challenges that confront us.

We also need to think about the health of our soil and how we can conserve water in agricultural processes. Moving forward, farmers will need to choose crops that require less water.

Deo Datt : If I may add—this may sound philosophical—but we need to change our lifestyle. Unless we change our lifestyle… Sitting in North India, why do we want to consume broccoli in the summers? Why do we want to eat cauliflower? Why are we importing fruits from foreign countries? Why are we contributing to carbon emissions? We need to change our lifestyle. We need to turn to agriculture and make it a lifestyle again. Otherwise, if we keep thinking about agriculture as only a profitable venture, we will continue to make the same mistakes we made after the Green Revolution. We need to explore practising agriculture as a lifestyle once again. We can only have a sustainable future and keep our planet secure if we modify our lifestyle. Otherwise, we have a tough road ahead of us.

22:30 Sneha: So, Deoji, you’re saying that we should move beyond thinking about agriculture as a profitable venture or we’ll continue to make the same mistakes we made after the Green Revolution.

Bharatji, what do you think we should be doing moving forward?

Bharat:  If you think about it, land distribution is such a small part [of the discussion]. We have land, but it is not distributed equally. We saw the Bhoodan Movement and participated in it—based on the idea Vinobaji had that everyone should possess land. So one important element is how land ownership can become a reality for all. If we wish to change farming, then we need to include small farmers too, not just those who farm on a large scale. Change won’t be possible unless we include everyone.

23:25 Sneha: To give our listeners some context, Vinoba Bhave, a social reformer and freedom fighter, started the Bhoodan Movement in a village in Telangana in 1951. He went from village to village and convinced the landlords to voluntarily donate their land to farmers. He also convinced the government to turn it into a law and distribute land equally, or as per people’s requirement.

Bharat : So the Bhoodan Movement was huge in the country; I was 12 or 13 when I witnessed it myself. My mother and father were part of it. It was a significant programme—not just a programme, it was a movement. The Bhoodan land is available even today, which has been distributed to some, and not to others. So there is still an imbalance. The aim should be to strike a balance and distribute land to all. As Deoji mentioned, we’re focusing on millet and organic farming—even those won’t be accepted unless practised by everyone. Nothing will change if only a few incorporate these. There is a need to adopt an integrated approach. 

24:42 Sneha: This has been such an eye-opening conversation. Like you both have said, farming and agriculture in India have come a long way. But there is also an urgent need to reassess where and how we go from here, especially as we deal with the climate crisis.

Short-term thinking can have no place in our plans for agriculture in India. We need to invest in the health of our soil, conserve water and use it efficiently, keep farmers at the forefront of our agrarian policies, and build a future in which young people want to be part of India’s agricultural economy.

Thank you, Bharatji and Deoji, for a wonderful conversation.

• India: Issues and priorities for agriculture
• How agricultural evolution is giving rise to a new futuristic model of farming
• The future of Indian agriculture
• Climate change and Indian agriculture
• Organic farming in India: A vision toward a healthy nation
• Sustainable agriculture: Bringing Indian farmers on board
• Making agriculture viable for small and marginal farmers

Don't miss out.

Subscribe to the podcast here .

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Farmers in India are hit hard by extreme weather. Some say expanding natural farming is the answer

India’s southern Andhra Pradesh state has become a positive example of the benefits of natural farming, a process of using organic matter as fertilizers and pesticides that makes crops more resilient to bad weather. (AP Video by Shawn Sebastian and Altaf Qadri. Produced by Teresa de Miguel)

Bhaskar Rao, a farm worker, sprays natural pesticide at a multi-crop farm belonging to Meerabi Chunduru, an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. The area has become a positive example of the benefits of natural farming, a process of using organic matter as fertilizers and pesticides that makes crops more resilient to bad weather. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

• Copy Link copied

Ratna Raju a farmer who is part of a collective who practice natural farming, harvests spinach at his farm in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. The soil can absorb more water because it’s more porous than pesticide-laden soil which is crusty and dry. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Meerabi Chunduru, right, an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, is assisted by Bhaskar Rao as they prepare ‘Ghana Jeevamrtutham’, a natural dry pesticide inoculant at her farm in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. Chunduru said she switched to the practice after her husband’s health deteriorated, which she believes is because of prolonged exposure to some harmful pesticides. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Meerabi Chunduru, an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, pours natural pesticide into a sprayer carried by a worker at her farm in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. Chunduru said she switched to the practice after her husband’s health deteriorated, which she believes is because of prolonged exposure to some harmful pesticides. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Meerabi Chunduru an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, works at her farm in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. Chunduru said she switched to the practice after her husband’s health deteriorated, which she believes is because of prolonged exposure to some harmful pesticides. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Bhaskar Rao, right, a farm worker, sprays natural pesticide as Meerabi Chunduru, left, an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, works at her farm in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. The area has become a positive example of the benefits of natural farming, a process of using organic matter as fertilizers and pesticides that makes crops more resilient to bad weather. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Farm workers pack freshly harvested cauliflowers at a farm in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

M Jojiamma, a natural farmer, feeds buffaloes at her house in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. The area has become a positive example of the benefits of natural farming, a process of using organic matter as fertilizers and pesticides that makes crops more resilient to bad weather. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Meerabi Chunduru, an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, works at her farm in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

V Vanisaree, center, district project manager RySS, a regional government backed not-for-profit that promotes natural farming, demonstrates techniques of how to shield seeds with natural inoculants to the members of a group in Pamidipadu village, Bapatla district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

V Vanisaree, center, district project manager RySS, a regional government backed not-for-profit that promotes natural farming, explains the techniques involving natural fertilizer to members of a group in Pamidipadu village, Bapatla district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

D Rani, a natural farmer, harvests peas as she works at her farm in Pamidipadu village, Bapatla district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. The area has become a positive example of the benefits of natural farming, a process of using organic matter as fertilizers and pesticides that makes crops more resilient to bad weather. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

A farmer separates chaff from wheat grains in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Ratna Raju, a farmer who is part of a collective who practice natural farming, sprays natural pesticide on his farm in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. The soil can absorb more water because it’s more porous than pesticide-laden soil which is crusty and dry. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Ratna Raju, a farmer who is part of a collective that practices natural farming, works at his farm in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. The soil can absorb more water because it’s more porous than pesticide-laden soil which is crusty and dry. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Workers carry cattle dung, used to make natural fertilizer, in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. The area has become a positive example of the benefits of natural farming, a process of using organic matter as fertilizers and pesticides that makes crops more resilient to bad weather. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

GUNTUR, India (AP) — There’s a pungent odor on Ratna Raju’s farm that he says is protecting his crops from the unpredictable and extreme weather that’s become more frequent with human-caused climate change .

The smell comes from a concoction of cow urine, an unrefined sugar known as jaggery, and other organic materials that act as fertilizers, pesticides and bad weather barriers for his corn, rice, leafy greens and other vegetables on his farm in Guntur in India’s southern Andhra Pradesh state. The region is frequently hit by cyclones and extreme heat, and farmers say that so-called natural farming protects their crops because the soil can hold more water, and their more robust roots help the plants withstand strong winds.

Andhra Pradesh has become a positive example of the benefits of natural farming, and advocates say active government support is the primary driver for the state’s success. Experts say these methods should be expanded across India’s vast agricultural lands as climate change and decreasing profits have led to multiple farmers’ protests this year. But fledgling government support across the country for these methods means most farmers still use chemical pesticides and fertilizers, making them more vulnerable when extreme weather hits. Many farmers are calling for greater federal and state investment to help farms switch to more climate change-proof practices.

Meerabi Chunduru an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, works at her farm in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

For many, the benefits of greater investment in natural farming are already obvious: In December, Cyclone Michaung , a storm moving up to 110 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour) brought heavy rainfall across India’s southeastern coast, flooding towns and fields. A preliminary assessment conducted a few weeks later found that 600,000 acres of crops were destroyed in Andhra Pradesh state.

On Raju’s natural farm, however, where he was growing paddy at the time, “the rainwater on our farms seeped into the ground in one day,” he said. The soil can absorb more water because it’s more porous than pesticide-laden soil which is crusty and dry. Planting different kinds of crops throughout the year — as opposed to the more standard single crop farms — also helps keep the soil healthy, he said.

But neighboring farmer Srikanth Kanapala’s fields, that rely on chemical pesticides and fertilizers, were flooded for four days after the cyclone. He said seeing Raju’s crops hold firm while his failed has made him curious about alternative farming methods.

“I incurred huge losses,” said Kanapala, who estimates he lost up to $600 because of the cyclone, a substantial sum for a small farmer in India. “For the next planting season, I plan to use natural farming methods too.”

Bhaskar Rao, right, a farm worker, sprays natural pesticide as Meerabi Chunduru, left, an avid practitioner and advocate of natural farming techniques, works at her farm in Aremanda village in Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Sunday, Feb. 11, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Local and federal government initiatives have resulted in an estimated 700,000 farmers shifting to natural farming in the state according to Rythu Sadhikara Samstha, a government-backed not-for-profit launched in 2016 to promote natural farming. The state of Andhra Pradesh hopes to inspire all of its six million farmers to take up natural farming by the end of the decade.

The Indian federal government’s agriculture ministry has spent upwards of $8 million to promote natural farming and says farmers tilling nearly a million acres across the country have shifted to the practice. In March last year, India’s junior minister for agriculture said he hoped at least 25% of farms across India would use organic and natural farming techniques.

But farmers like Meerabi Chunduru, one of the first in the region to switch to natural farming, said more government and political support is needed. Chunduru said she switched to the practice after her husband’s health deteriorated, which she believes is because of prolonged exposure to some harmful pesticides.

While the health effects of various pesticides have not yet been studied in detail, farm workers around the world have long claimed extended exposure has caused health problems. In February, a Philadelphia jury awarded $2.25 billion in damages in a case where a weed killer with Glyphosate — restricted in India since just 2022 — was linked to a resident’s blood cancer. In India, 63 farmers died in the western state of Maharashtra in 2017, believed to be linked to a pesticide containing the chemical Diafenthiuron, which is currently banned in the European Union, but not in India.

“Right now, not many politicians are talking about natural farming. There is some support but we need more,” said Chunduru. She called for more subsidies for seeds such as groundnuts, black gram, sorghum, vegetable crops and maize that can help farmers make the switch.

Ratna Raju, a farmer who is part of a collective who practice natural farming, sprays natural pesticide on his farm in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Ratna Raju, a farmer who is part of a collective that practices natural farming, works at his farm in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Farmers’ rights activists said skepticism about natural farming among political leaders, government bureaucrats and scientists is still pervasive because they still trust the existing farming models that use fertilizers, insecticides and pesticides to achieve maximum productivity. In the short-term, chemical alternatives can be cheaper and more effective, but in the long term they take a toll on the soil’s health, meaning larger quantities of chemicals are needed to maintain crops, causing a cycle of greater costs and poorer soil, natural farming advocates say.

“Agroecological initiatives are not getting adequate attention or budgetary outlays,” said Kavitha Kuruganti, an activist who has advocated for sustainable farming practices for nearly three decades. The Indian government spends less than three percent of its total budget on agriculture. It has earmarked nearly $20 billion in fertilizer subsidies this year, but only $55 million has been allocated by the federal government to encourage natural farming. Kuruganti said there are a handful of politicians who support the practice but scaling it up remains a challenge in India.

A lack of national standards and guidelines or a viable supply chain that farmers can sell their produce through is also keeping natural farming relatively niche, said NS Suresh, a research scientist at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, a Bengaluru-based think-tank.

But because the practice helps keep the plants and the soil healthy across various soil types and all kinds of unpredictable weather conditions, it’s beneficial for farmers all around India, from its mountains to its coasts, experts say. And the practice of planting different crops year-round means farmers have produce to harvest at any given time, giving an extra boost to their soil and their wallets.

Chunduru, who’s been practicing natural farming for four years now, hopes that prioritizing natural farming in the country can have benefits for producers and consumers of crops alike, and other farmers avoid the kind of harms her husband has faced.

“We can provide nutrient-rich food, soil and physical health” to future generations, she said.

Workers carry cattle dung, used to make natural fertilizer, in Pedavuppudu village, Guntur district of southern India’s Andhra Pradesh state, Monday, Feb. 12, 2024. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

Arasu reported from Bengaluru, India.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .