We need to address the issue of soil health. Four steps can improve the situation

The Union Minister for Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, launched his rabi campaign, “Khet Bachao Abhiyan” (Save the Farm Campaign), on October 22 in Karnal, Haryana. His focus is to correct the imbalanced use of chemical fertilisers, which is harming soils and groundwater and polluting the air. He has appealed to farmers to use balanced doses of chemical fertilisers, in line with the doses recommended by state agriculture universities for major crops. He is well aware of the problem, but the issue is whether the farmers will heed his advice, especially when the pricing policy of urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP) and muriate of potash (MOP) gives them wrong signals. Sixteen years after the nutrient-based subsidy (NBS) was introduced, the imbalance in the use of nitrogen (N), Phosphate (P) and potash (K) has worsened.

Crops, like humans, need a balanced meal. ICRIER’s recent policy brief, ‘Repurposing India’s Fertiliser Policy towards Nutrient Optimisation’, compares actual nutrient use in 20 major states with crop- and irrigation-specific norms between 2009-10 and 2024-25, neatly bracketing the NBS reform of 2010.

The results are sobering. Nationally, nitrogen use has moved from 7 per cent below its recommended dose to 6 per cent above it. The phosphorus deficit has narrowed only from 29 to 22 per cent, while the potassium deficit has deepened from 48 to 72 per cent: Farmers apply just 9 kg of potash per hectare against a need of 32 kg. The N:P:K ratio stands at 10.5:4.1:1, against a derived normative 2.8:1.5:1. Eleven of 20 major states, led by Jharkhand (72 per cent) and Punjab (65 per cent), overuse nitrogen. Every state under-applies potash; Haryana and Jharkhand apply barely a tenth of what their crops need.

Why has a reform meant to fix the imbalance made it worse? Simple economics. NBS let the prices of phosphatic and potassic fertilisers float with world markets, but kept urea out at a fixed price. Between 2010-11 and 2024-25, DAP prices nearly tripled to Rs 54/kg, and MOP rose six-fold to Rs 52/kg, while the price of nitrogen in urea rose by just 1 per cent. Farmers respond to relative prices. Nitrogen also makes the crop look green, while the damage from missing potash shows up later, and quietly. So, nitrogen’s share in NPK use is back to about 67 per cent — the 1970-71 level.

The damage runs from the soil to the plate. Of the 96 lakh samples tested under the Soil Health Card scheme in 2025-26, 72 per cent were low in nitrogen, 52 per cent in organic carbon, 42 per cent in boron and 37 per cent in zinc. Low nitrogen despite its overuse is no paradox: Carbon-starved soils cannot hold what is poured on them, and crops take up only 30-40 per cent of the nitrogen applied. Part of the rest escapes into the air as nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 273 times as potent as carbon dioxide; Punjab’s fertiliser-related emissions are nearly double the national average. Some of the chemical leaches into groundwater: Nitrate above safe limits has been found in parts of 502 districts and carries the risk of “blue baby syndrome” in infants and chronic illness in adults.

Potassium deficiency weakens resistance to drought and disease and lowers grain quality; phosphorus shortage delays flowering. When soils lack zinc and other micronutrients, the grains they yield do too, fuelling the hidden hunger that afflicts millions.

All this also comes at a steep fiscal price. The subsidy budget for 2026-27 is Rs 1.71 lakh crore. The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could push the subsidy bill to anywhere between Rs 2.5 lakh crore and Rs 3 lakh crore, with the urea subsidy amounting to two-thirds of this. The benefits are skewed, too: Punjab gets about Rs 25,700 of nitrogen subsidy per hectare, 10 times what Kerala gets. Add MSP-based procurement and subsidised power, and the rice-wheat rotation gets locked in. All this hurts aquifers.

What, then, is the way out? Four steps can improve the situation.

One, move from input price subsidy to a direct benefit transfer on a per-hectare basis and neutral across nutrients and crops. This will ensure that farmers face the market price of each nutrient and urea loses its artificial edge. AgriStack is creating digital farmer IDs linked to land records and crops sown, and a framework for fertiliser sale (FFS) will tie each purchase at the point of sale to that identity. But identifying tenants remains a challenge. If this seems too abrupt, bring urea under NBS while lowering DAP and MOP prices in step, keeping the overall subsidy budget at around Rs 2 lakh crore.

Two, reward balance where decisions are made. PM-PRANAM was supposed to reward states that use fertilisers in a balanced way. But so far, nothing has been disbursed. The scheme needs fixing, and its implementation should be expedited.

Three, plough the savings in fertiliser subsidy into drip irrigation and fertigation, and back product innovation. These include customised and coated fertilisers, triple super phosphate (TSP) — in place of DAP — biofertilisers, nano fertilisers, and gene-edited seeds using nitrogen more efficiently.

Four, follow the 4Rs — right source, rate, time and place — with plot-level advice based on soil tests. Rotating cereals with pulses can cut the next crop’s nitrogen need by 20-30 per cent. But none of this will stick in Punjab and Haryana unless power pricing and procurement are reformed.

The yardstick of success must change from total fertilisers applied to balanced supply of nutrients. India’s soils have been quietly underwriting our food security for decades; that account is now overdrawn. The real question is whether the government will bite the bullet before the soils give way. The cost of waiting is rising with every season.

Gulati is distinguished professor and Juneja is senior fellow at ICRIER. Views are personal