Side-by-side farm trials that show what natural farming does to yield and cost
TL;DR Plotcompare runs paired trials on working farms. One plot follows natural or regenerative practice and the other follows the farmer's usual method, with the same crop in the same season. It measures yield, input cost and basic soil change, and sells the clean comparison data to state missions, food companies and FPOs deciding where to push the switch.
India is betting on chemical-free farming before it knows what the switch costs a farmer in years one to three. And the evidence points every which way. A 2020 model estimated that strict zero budget natural farming could cut output by at least 20–48% where crops are short of nitrogen[1]. A 2023 field study on 28 Andhra Pradesh farms found higher yields, though only two of 13 crops showed a significant gain and the state programme was a co-author[2]. A 2025 study of 26 landscapes found yields roughly unchanged and profit per field about 124% higher[3].
All three are careful work. None of them tells a groundnut grower in Anantapur or a wheat farmer in Bihar what to expect on their own land.
Plotcompare signs farmers up to split one field into two marked plots for at least three seasons. One plot follows the practice being tested, which could be natural farming, zero tillage, mulching or cover crops. The other stays exactly as the farmer normally runs it. A trained field assistant logs every input and its price, does crop cutting at harvest under a fixed protocol and takes soil samples at the start and every year after.
Results get pooled by crop and district into short reports - yield difference with a range, cost per acre, labour days and what changed in the soil. Buyers can commission trials in the districts they care about or subscribe to the pooled data.
I reframed the seed, which pitched an AI platform to fill regenerative-farming data gaps. Software can't fill a gap in field measurement, it can only model around it. CIMMYT's Punjab and Bihar work shows remote sensing spots zero tillage with roughly 80% accuracy[4], which helps with checking practice but says nothing about yield or cost. So the trials come first and the analysis can sit on top later.
Farmers take part for free and get their own plot results plus a small fee per season. The payers are the institutions that need the answer. State natural-farming programmes come first, since the national mission targets 7.5 lakh hectares across 15,000 clusters[5]. Food companies running regenerative sourcing pilots come second, and global food and grain majors already pay a US measurement firm to track practices in their supply regions[6]. My working assumption is ₹25,000–40,000 per paired plot per season, and that price is untested.
The National Mission on Natural Farming has set national targets and runs 18 Centres of Natural Farming[7], so the money is moving faster than the evidence. The 2025 landscape study and the earlier model reached opposite conclusions within five years of each other[1][3]. A 2026 PNAS paper noted that checking farm practices costs about the same however small the farm is, which makes pooled, shared measurement cheaper for everyone[8].
There's no public figure for spending on on-farm trials or agronomic evidence in India. The narrowest signal is the size of the switch. Andhra Pradesh reports more than 1.77 million farmers and over 0.92 million hectares under its natural-farming programme[5]. Adjacent - one carbon developer already sells farm-side emission cuts to food and apparel companies in India[9]. That shows corporate budgets exist for farm data, not that they'll fund yield trials.
That US firm sells measurement and reporting to global food brands but lists no India work[6]. The carbon developer runs a soil-carbon credit programme and Scope 3 work in more than 14 states[9], and its focus is carbon, not the yield question. Andhra Pradesh's programme uses 5,000 farmer fields as learning sites[5], but the people promoting a practice aren't the best people to grade it. The gap is an independent trial network that publishes yield and cost by crop and district.
| Difficulty | Moderate (41/100) |
| Starting capital | ₹55–95 L |
| Time to launch | 4–6 months |
The science is simple. The hard part is field discipline, which means keeping farmers on the same plots for three seasons and getting inputs logged honestly and crops cut the same way in 20 districts. Selling takes time too, because government buyers move through tenders and annual budgets.
No sector licence. Running trials on a farmer's own land with their written agreement needs no permit, so the baseline is what counts.
Building this outside India? The categories above usually have a local equivalent, so check with your own regulator.
Don't let AI fill gaps in the data or predict yields you didn't measure. The whole value here is neutral, measured field results.
Want to work out the AI layer for Plotcompare? Talk to Yash →
I think this suits an agronomist or development-sector operator who can run field teams and is happy being the neutral party. If you want software margins then look elsewhere. Before you raise money, prove that one state programme or food company will pay for 100 paired plots in a single season and accept results it didn't get to choose.
Plan for roughly ₹55–95 L, mostly field assistants, soil tests and crop cutting across districts. A first season with 100 paired plots costs much less.
No. You need written agreements with farmers, DPDP compliance for their data, and the usual company registration and GST.
Yes, wherever governments or food companies are paying for farmers to change practice. Check local data protection law and what reporting formats buyers need.
The free Plotcompare validation kit has the line-by-line capital breakdown, the effort scoring, the data-protection and contract checklist, a 14-day validation sprint with pass/fail targets, a 90-day launch plan, 10 interview questions for programme heads and sourcing teams, and 5 assumptions to test. Download the kit →
Thinking about building Plotcompare or something close to it? The make-or-break work is getting a buyer to fund three seasons and publish whatever the plots show, and I'm happy to think that through with you. If you need a hand, you know where to find me. Talk to Yash →
For illustration only. Names are fictional and ideas hypothetical; sourced facts are real but may be out of date. Nothing here is legal, financial or professional advice, and Yash Khatri is not personally liable for any use of it. Read the full disclaimer.