Reduced soil fertility and rising pest and disease pressures are contributing to the already serious problem of global food insecurity. Monoculture is the most labour and resource-intensive form of crop production around the globe. Unfortunately, monocultures are more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and weeds, so the expansion of this system is accompanied by a host of biological issues. Negative effects on the environment, human health, and ecosystem stability are all associated with monocropping because it relies so heavily on the use of chemical plant protection products of all generations of pesticides. Although crop production strategies are important for overall enhancement in production, the intercropping can help farmers in attaining raised economic returns by taking multiple crops in a single season. Intercropping is an alternative strategy for improved resource use efficiency, environmental safety, and sustainable pest management without the use of chemical pesticides that can help mitigate these risks. Intercropping (two or more crop species coexisting) is a cultural practice in pest management that reduces insect pests by increasing ecosystem diversity. Intercropping and planting crops that kill or repel pests, attract natural enemies, or have antibacterial effects can reduce disease and pest damage and pesticide use. Intercropping, where crops grow between main crops, reduces the likelihood of pest infestation. Intercropping is a potential pest management practice because it diversifies crops in an agro-ecosystem to reduce insect populations and attacks. Intercropping relies on a deep understanding of insect ecology and crop traits. Intercropping can be used alone or in combination with host-plant resistance and biological control. Intercropping ensures crop yield stability, protects against crop failure, improves soil fertility, increases soil conservation, and reduces pesticide use, minimizing agriculture's environmental impact. The aim is to define the role and importance of intercropping as a strategy in crop pest management and as a boost for crop production vis-à-vis soil fertility.

A research trial was conducted at Agronomy Farm (SKUAST-K, Wadura, Jammu & Kashmir), during kharif 2017 and 2018 to evaluate nutrient removal in rice under various rice establishment methods and weed control measures. The study comprised of two factors: rice establishment techniques {Transplanting (TPR); Direct seeding (DSR) and System of rice intensification (SRI)} as main plot treatments and weed control measures {Butachlor @ 1500 g a.i ha⁻¹ (B); Penoxsulam @ 22.5 g a.i ha⁻¹ (P); Pyrazosulfuron ethyl + Pretilachlor @ 15 and 600 g a.i ha⁻¹ (PP); Bensulfuron methyl + Pretilachlor @ 60 and 600 g a.i ha⁻¹ (BP); 2 Conoweeding/Hand Weeding (CW/HW); Weed free (WF) and weedy check (WC)} as sub-plot treatments meant to evaluate the best establishment method and weed management practice for rice. Over DSR and transplanted rice, the SRI technique yielded a significant increase in dry biomass accumulation (17.04 and 17.20 t ha⁻¹) and grain (7.92 and 8.17 t ha⁻¹) and straw (9.60 and 10.17 t ha⁻¹) yields. Penoxsulam herbicide significantly showed higher grain and straw yield of 8.19 and 8.28 t ha⁻¹ and 10.13 and 10.44 t ha⁻¹, respectively, than other weed management measures by comparing the means using critical difference. TPR excelled in reducing dry weed biomass more than other established methods. All herbicides considerably reduced dry weed biomass, but Penoxsulam herbicide showed the greatest reduction in dry weed biomass and proved superior against complex weed flora. Weeds showed maximum contribution towards total Biomass under DSR, among rice establishment techniques. In contrast, among different weed control measures, it was maximum in weedy check treatment (Untreated Control) and minimum in penoxsulam treatment. SRI significantly excelled in crop (grain and straw) nutrient uptake compared to the DSR and TPR method, although different crop establishment techniques non-significantly influenced nutrient concentrations. Furthermore, penoxsulam treatment demonstrated higher crop (grain and straw) nutrient uptake among the various weed management measures. However, available soil nutrients were observed among establishment techniques, highest in DSR and lowest in SRI. Moreover, direct-seeded rice excelled SRI and transplanted rice in weed nutrient uptake, and among the different herbicidal treatments, penoxsulam recorded the lowest uptake in weeds. Nutrient budgeting demonstrated that DSR showed the maximum percentage of nutrient removal by weeds, and the minimum ratio was in TPR. In contrast, the lowest rate of nutrients removed via weeds were seen in penoxsulam application under various weed management measures.

Excessive nitrogenous fertilization in years resulted in larger nitrogen and profit losses. This problem can be reduced by using need-based and time-specific nitrogen management. Therefore, a field experiment was carried out during the Kharif season of 2019 and 2020 in order to evaluate the impact of precision nitrogen management on the phenology, yield and agrometeorological indices of hybrid maize genotypes at the Agronomy Research Farm, FoA Wadura, Sopore, SKUAST-Kashmir. The experiment was carried out in split-plot design consisting of maize hybrids (Shalimar Maize Hybrid-2 Vivek-45 and Kanchan-517) as main plot treatments and precision nitrogen management (T₁: Control, T₂: Recommended N, T₃: 25% N as basal ≤ LCC 3@20 kg N ha⁻¹, T₄: 25% N as basal ≤ LCC 3@30 kg N ha⁻¹, T₅: 25% N as basal ≤ LCC 4@20 kg N ha⁻¹, T₆: 25% N as basal ≤ LCC 4@30 kg N ha⁻¹, T₇: 25% N as basal ≤ LCC 5@20 kg N ha⁻¹ and T₈: 25% N as basal ≤ LCC 5@30 kg N ha⁻¹) as sub-plot treatments. Results demonstrated that maize hybrids showed a non-significant difference in attaining different phenophases during both years. However, Shalimar Maize Hybrid-2 demonstrated higher grain (62.35 and 60.65 q ha⁻¹) and biological yield (170.26 and 165.86 q ha⁻¹), a higher number of days to attain different phenological stages in comparison to Vivek-45 and Kanchan-517 thereby achieved higher heat units, PTUs, HTUs, PTI. The application of nitrogen through LCC ≤ 5@30 kg N ha⁻¹ noted higher grain yield (61.27 and 59.13 q ha⁻¹) and biological yield (171.30 and 166.13 q ha⁻¹) during 2019 and 2020 respectively. Higher values of Growing degree days (GDD), Heliothermal units (HTU), Photothermal units (PTU), Phenothermal index (PTI), heat use efficiency (HUE) and radiation use efficiency (RUE) were observed in the application of nitrogen through LCC ≤ 5@30 kg N ha⁻¹ and required the highest number of days to reach different phenophases than other treatments during crop growing seasons of 2019 and 2020. The results demonstrated that Nitrogen application based on LCC ≤ 5@30 proved effective and should be adopted in maize hybrids especially in Shalimar Maize Hybrid-2 to attain higher yield under the temperate climate of Kashmir Valley.

Chemical fertilisers and insecticides have increased at an alarming rate in India since the green revolution. Excessive chemical use has a negative influence on the ecosystem, soil, human health, and Consumption of groundwater purity. To limit the usage of artificial fertilisers and pesticides in this situation, the Zero Budget Natural Farming technique was implemented. Agriculture is a significant industry in India. It is essential for the Indian economy's survival and expansion. The majority of farmers rely extensively on inorganic external chemical inputs like as fertilisers and pesticides, which pollute groundwater and other water-dependent ecosystems while also reducing soil fertility over time. The continued use of pesticides and chemicals poses a major threat to the health of Indian farmers.Zero-budget farming has the potential to significantly reduce production expenses. Mulching, soil protection measures, natural insecticides, and fertilisers are used by low-budget farmers. Jivamrita, Bijamrita, Acchadana (Mulching), and Whapasa are the four main pillars of natural farming on a low budget. Mulching, soil conservation measures, natural insecticides, and fertilisers are used by farmers on a low budget. The continual retention of crop wastes replenishes soil fertility and aids in soil health maintenance. Pest and disease management is an important part of zero-budget natural farming crop production methods. Under the conditions of climate change, achieving food security would necessitate a holistic system approach that incorporates natural agricultural principles for a sustainable agriculture.In this paper, we have discussed about the concept, need, benefits, major pillars, principles of ZBNF, opportunities and challenges of adopting ZBNF and the factors to scale up zero budget natural farming.

Exorbitant praxis of nitrogen pioneered and opened up the usage of time-specific and need-based nitrogen management. The leaf color chart (LCC), being one of the handy tool, is put to use for the estimation of the indirect leaf N, and also heightens the competence of crop N administration. Integrating leaf color chart assessments into maize cultivation practices can provide a practical and cost-effective approach for tailoring nitrogen applications, leading to improved resource-use efficiency and sustainable maize production. To perceive the specific leaf color chart (LCC) value for precision maneuvering of nitrogen in different maize hybrids, a field experiment was carried out at the research farm of Division of Agronomy, FoA, Wadura, Sopore, SKUAST-Kashmir, in the years 2019 and 2020 (Kharif seasons). Split Plot Design (SPD) employing three maize varieties (Shalimar Maize Hybrid-2 (SMH-2), Kanchan-517 and Vivek-45) in main plots and precision management of nitrogen (T₁: Control, T₂: Recommended Nitrogen (120 kg N ha^–1), T₃: 25% N as basal LCC @20 (≤ 3) kg N ha⁻¹, T₄: 25% N as basal LCC @30 (≤ 3) kg N ha⁻¹, T₅: 25% N as basal LCC @20 (≤ 4) kg N ha⁻¹, T₆: 25% N as basal LCC @30 (≤ 4) kg N ha⁻¹, T₇: 25% N as basal LCC @20 (≤ 5) kg N ha⁻¹ and T₈: 25% N as basal LCC @30 (≤ 5) kg N ha⁻¹) in sub-plots was systemized. The pooled means indicated that SMH-2 chalked up utmost values in growth (plant height 189.4 cm) and periodic leaf area index and yield parameters with a grain yield of 6.1 t ha^–1, straw yield of 10.6 t ha^–1, respectively. The LCC value of @ 30 (≤ 5) kg N ha^–1 set down statistically highest and significant grain (6.0 t ha^–1) and straw yield (10.8 t ha^–1) pooled over the years amidst other nitrogen management treatments, respectively. LCC @ 20 (≤ 5) kg N ha^–1 turned up to have highest apparent N recovery (REN) followed by LCC @ 30 (≤ 5) kg N ha^-1 whereas LCC @ 20 (≤ 4) kg N ha^–1 which was at par with LCC @ 20 (≤ 5) kg N ha^-1 recorded maximum agronomic efficiency (AE). LCC @ 20 (≤ 3) kg N ha^–1 showed the highest physiological efficiency (PE) and partial factor productivity (Pfp). Furthermore, different rice genotypes manifested significant effects vis-à-vis Pfp and REN, which were maximum in SMH-2 contrasted with Kanchan-517 and Vivek-45. In the interim, the economics of pooled data divulged that the maximum B: C ratio was observed in SMH-2 and LCC @ 30 (≤ 5) kg N ha^–1. Therefore, site-specific nutrient management through LCC proved to be an effective strategy to maximize yield and nitrogen use efficiency in hybrid maize.

Integrated Farming System is a holistic approach in which different enterprises are utilized in a collaborative way, wherein the resources are managed efficiently so that waste output of one enterprise serves as the input for another. Due to an ever-increasing population, the arable land is becoming increasingly scarcer per person, leaving little room for horizontal agricultural expansion. There are 115 million working farms in India, with about 80% of them being small or marginal farmers. With Integrated Farming System, the living standards of these farmers can be enhanced by efficient utilization of different enterprises. The IFS is actually a mixed farming system wherein different enterprises like dairy, fish, poultry, and other beneficial enterprises give an enhanced returns with lower risks, which can intermediate the losses of crops in case of severe climatic conditions. Under IFS, various enterprises having lower dependency on severe weather circumstances, the farmer is comparatively on safer side as far as the adversities of crop losses are concerned There are many advantages to integrated farming systems (IFS), such as a more efficient use of farm resources and an eco-friendlier strategy to farming. As a system of crop and livestock farming, IFS consists of at least two distinct but logically interdependent parts. Water efficiency, weed and pest control, and soil health can all be improved with IFS. It also helps to maintain water quality. Chemical fertilisers, weed killers, and pesticides should be used sparingly in an integrated farming system in order to protect the environment from their harmful effects. Adopting an Integrated Farming System (IFS) ensures a stable and long-term source of farm income by integrating a number of businesses to make the most of the land's natural resources. IFS itself is important for sustainable development of farmer by improving yield, economic return, employment generation, nutritional security and livelihood.