Rebuilding soil organic carbon: a shared responsibility

Rebuilding soil organic carbon should become a shared priority for everyone who earns a livelihood from agriculture or depends on it for food. Farmers make the decisions in the field, but those decisions are shaped by the advice, products, markets and public support available to them. A serious effort to improve soil health must therefore involve the entire agricultural community.

As the founder of NanoKheti, I believe agricultural innovation should be judged partly by the condition of the soil it leaves behind. The harvest matters. So do the farmer’s earnings and the land’s ability to remain productive through subsequent seasons. Our approach to soil organic carbon must bring these concerns together.

Why soil organic carbon matters

Soil organic carbon is the carbon contained in soil organic matter, including plant and animal residues, living organisms and materials formed through decomposition. Many soil microorganisms use organic compounds as sources of energy and carbon. Their activity helps recycle nutrients and influences the physical environment in which roots grow. The microbiological case for protecting this resource has a direct implication for the wider farming community: we must create conditions that allow these processes to continue.

The Food and Agriculture Organization identifies soil organic carbon as a key indicator of soil health. Organic matter contributes to nutrient supply, soil structure and water relations, although the benefits depend on soil type, climate and management. This makes carbon restoration relevant to everyday farm decisions. It also makes it unsuitable for sweeping promises that one practice or product will deliver the same result everywhere.

Start with the farmer’s own field

For farmers, the starting point should be a reliable understanding of their own fields. Soil testing, interpreted with local agronomic advice, can help establish a baseline. A practical plan may include returning suitable crop residues, applying quality compost or well-managed manure, protecting soil from erosion and maintaining living roots where the crop calendar and water supply allow. These choices should fit the farm’s nutrient requirements, labour availability and economics.

We must take the costs of those choices seriously. Crop residues may also be needed as livestock fodder. Moving bulky organic materials involves transport and labour. An additional cover crop can compete for scarce water if poorly planned. A farmer cannot be expected to absorb every cost simply because society values healthier soil. Advice becomes useful when it explains how a practice can work within these constraints.

What farmer organisations can do

Farmer producer organisations and cooperatives can help make that possible. Shared machinery for residue management, coordinated soil sampling and access to tested compost can make services available beyond individual farms. Collective planning can also identify which materials are locally available and how they should be handled. Such arrangements need transparent charges and dependable delivery, especially when the time between two crops is short.

The quality of organic inputs

The quality of organic inputs deserves equal attention. Compost suppliers and organisations handling biodegradable waste should provide clear information about source materials, maturity, nutrient content and relevant quality tests. Municipal bodies can support this effort through effective segregation and processing. Agricultural land should receive materials that are suitable for the soil and crop; the need to dispose of waste must never determine what a farmer is asked to apply.

Scientists and extension

Scientists, agricultural universities and extension teams have a responsibility to make the evidence usable. Recommendations should explain which practices suit a particular soil and cropping system, how they interact with nutrient management, and what changes can reasonably be assessed over time. Advice in local languages, supported by field visits, can help farmers understand both the opportunity and the limitations.

Demonstrations should also be designed to answer farmers’ questions. They should include a fair comparison with existing practice and records of costs, labour and crop performance. Where soil carbon is being assessed, sampling and analysis must be consistent. A greener crop or a successful harvest can be encouraging, but neither establishes that the soil has gained organic carbon. Field observations and laboratory evidence have different roles, and both should be reported honestly.

The input industry, including NanoKheti

The agricultural input industry must apply the same discipline to its claims. Companies should state what their products contain, what function they are intended to perform and the conditions under which supporting trials were conducted. Dealers need enough training to explain appropriate use and recognise when a farmer requires specialist advice. Promises of rapid carbon restoration should be supported by measurements that farmers and independent researchers can examine.

That responsibility applies to businesses such as NanoKheti as much as to any other participant. I believe trust in agricultural innovation depends on how clearly we explain its capabilities and limits. Farmers deserve evidence relevant to their conditions and an honest account of the cost. Product sales should be accompanied by advice on the wider management practices required for the intended benefit.

Public institutions, buyers and finance

Public institutions can strengthen this effort by making dependable soil testing, extension and practical infrastructure more accessible. Support for residue management and quality compost supply should account for local demand and operating costs. Programmes should make participation workable for smallholders, tenant farmers and women farmers, with simple procedures and advice they can use. Public investment should help resolve the practical barriers that individual farmers cannot address alone.

Food processors, retailers and institutional buyers also have a role. Those seeking produce from farms that improve soil health should consider sharing the cost of advisory services, monitoring and changes in practice. Longer procurement relationships can give farmers greater confidence to invest in their land. Any sustainability claim made to consumers should describe the practices and evidence behind it, with clear acknowledgement of what has actually been measured.

Financial institutions and development organisations can help by examining the working capital and equipment needs of these efforts. Support should reflect the time needed to establish and assess changes in soil management. Farmers should be able to understand the costs, obligations and expected benefits before participating in any programme. Their records and field data should remain accessible to them.

Realistic expectations

Our expectations must remain realistic. Soil carbon responds to the balance between organic inputs and losses, within the limits set by local conditions. Credible assessment requires comparable sampling and laboratory methods, with enough time to distinguish a sustained change from ordinary variability. A soil carbon percentage also needs context; it should be considered alongside nutrient balance, acidity or salinity, soil structure and crop performance.

A plan for the coming season

This is why I favour locally designed plans over a single carbon target applied to every farm. For the coming cropping season, farmer organisations could bring growers, scientists, suppliers and buyers together to agree on a manageable starting point. They could establish baseline information for participating fields, select affordable practices and record their implementation. Operational difficulties and costs can be reviewed each season, while soil carbon is reassessed on a scientifically appropriate schedule.

The results should be shared, including practices that prove too costly or fail to deliver the expected benefit. That information can improve the next set of decisions and prevent farmers elsewhere from repeating an avoidable mistake. Progress will be more credible when it is built on open learning and continued support.

A shared responsibility

I urge everyone in the farming community to treat soil organic carbon as a shared responsibility and to identify the part they can act on now. A farmer needs workable options. The institutions and businesses around that farmer must help make those options affordable, scientifically sound and worth continuing. Rebuilding soil carbon becomes a practical agricultural priority when that responsibility is reflected in the advice we give, the products we sell, the crops we buy and the support we provide.

Editor's note: the summary box, subheadings and links were added by NanoKheti's editors. The article text is Amit Nalawade's.