Journal of Experimental Agriculture International

Background: Organic farming and natural farming are widely promoted as alternatives to high-external-input agriculture, but they differ in regulation, input philosophy, certification, market linkage, and agronomic design. Organic farming is usually standards-based and may use approved external organic inputs, whereas natural farming emphasizes chemical-free, livestock-integrated, locally prepared bio-inputs, mulching, crop diversity, and reduced purchased-input dependence. Objective: This systematic review compared organic farming and natural farming in crop production systems, with attention to yield, soil health, input cost, profitability, biodiversity, climate resilience, and adoption constraints. Methods: The review question was structured using PICOS. A completed open-source search and verification log was used because authenticated exports from subscription databases were not available. Searches covered open publisher pages, DOI pages, agricultural journal platforms, Google Scholar-style searching, and citation chasing for publications dated 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2026. Selection, extraction, quality appraisal, and synthesis followed PRISMA 2020 and SWiM principles. Meta-analysis was not conducted because studies differed in crops, regions, interventions, comparators, durations, and outcome metrics. Results: The screening log identified 121 records, of which 88 were screened after duplicate and non-relevant record removal. Twenty-two full-text reports were assessed and 11 studies were included in narrative synthesis. Eight studies directly compared natural farming with organic farming and/or conventional or recommended systems; three studies provided contextual evidence. Findings were mixed. Natural farming performed favourably in some Andhra Pradesh systems, but several cereal/intercropping studies reported lower yields than conventional or recommended packages, while organic systems often showed stronger soil biological activity. Conclusion: Organic farming has a stronger global evidence and certification base, whereas natural farming may reduce cash input costs and support agroecological redesign. Neither system can be judged universally superior; recommendations should be crop-, region-, resource-, and transition-stage specific.