If there’s one resource carrying the heaviest burden in Indian agriculture, it’s the soil itself. Far from being naturally resilient, large parts of India’s cultivated land are severely depleted, even as they are expected to sustain food production for more than 1.5 billion people.
Large-scale soil assessments tell a stark story. Analysis of more than 242,000 soil samples collected across 615 districts in 28 states shows widespread nutrient exhaustion. Sulfur deficiency affects nearly 59 percent of soils, zinc deficiency about 51 percent, and boron deficiency close to 45 percent. The situation is even more severe for primary soil health indicators: organic carbon is deficient in roughly 85 percent of samples, nitrogen in 97 percent, phosphorus in 83 percent, and potassium in 71 percent.
Decades of uniform fertilizer use have failed to correct uneven nutrient loss and, in many cases, have accelerated imbalance. The evidence is clear that applying the same inputs everywhere, regardless of soil condition, is no longer effective. Addressing India’s soil crisis now demands targeted, data-driven fertilization strategies rather than blanket solutions.
What makes India’s soil crisis uniquely severe is that nutrient loss rarely occurs in isolation. In many fields, multiple essential elements are depleted at the same time, creating layered deficiencies that blunt crop response. Soil survey results show recurring overlaps: sulfur and zinc shortages occur together in roughly nine percent of soils, zinc and boron in a similar proportion, and combined deficiencies of sulfur, zinc, and boron affect about three percent of cultivated land. In such conditions, even well-timed fertilizer applications deliver limited benefits because crops cannot perform well when there several critical nutrients are missing simultaneously.
The pattern of nutrient depletion is far from consistent nationwide. States including Bihar, Goa, Karnataka, and Odisha show especially high incidences of multiple nutrient deficiencies occurring together. In contrast, regions such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, and Rajasthan face different but equally limiting combinations, commonly involving sulfur, zinc, and iron. This uneven distribution highlights an important reality: soil degradation in India is strongly regional, shaped by local soil characteristics, long-term cropping systems, and fertilizer and residue management practices rather than a single, uniform national trend.
This crisis has been created over time by the way soils have been managed. Decades of continuous cropping with high-yielding varieties, heavy dependence on NPK fertilizers, and very limited addition of organic residues altogether have steadily weakened the soil’s natural resilience. Micronutrients were mined out without being replaced, biological activity declined, and the soil’s ability to buffer stress eroded. Today, many fields demand higher and higher fertilizer doses just to hold yields steady. This growing dependence is not evidence of efficiency or advancement; it is a warning sign of a production system drawing down its own fertility capital and facing diminishing returns with every season.
Uniform fertilizer application assumes uniform soils, and that assumption is fundamentally wrong. Within a single field, nutrient availability can vary sharply due to differences in soil texture, organic matter, drainage, past cropping, and fertilizer history. Applying the same nutrient dose everywhere guarantees two outcomes at once: oversupply in some zones and persistent deficiency in others.
The traditional blanket fertilization applies uniform doses at scheduled intervals without accounting for the specific needs of crops or variations within a field. This approach generally achieves only 30 to 50 percent nutrient use efficiency, leaving a large portion of fertilizers unused. The excess nutrients often leach into groundwater, volatilize into the atmosphere or become chemically bound in the soil providing no benefit to the crop. While farmers bear the financial burden of these wasted inputs, the environment pays an even higher price through soil degradation and water pollution.
Precision fertilization moves away from uniform nutrient application and instead relies on what is actually happening in the field. Soil tests help identify existing nutrient levels, while tissue analysis shows how well crops are absorbing nutrients as they grow. Field observations further connect these findings to crop performance. When this information is used alongside GPS-guided, variable-rate application systems, fertilizers can be applied only where they are needed, in the right quantities, and at the most effective stages of crop growth. This results in better use of inputs while reducing wastage and limiting environmental impact.
The field studies consistently shows that precision nutrient management reduces fertilizer consumption by roughly 25 to 30 percent without yield penalties and often with yield gains. More importantly, it allows the farmers to pinpoint problem zones (areas driving most of the deficiency or loss) and correct them directly instead of masking them with higher overall fertilizer rates.
In practice, precision fertilization turns nutrient management from guesswork into a controlled process. Real-time sensors and decision-support systems supply critical data on soil moisture, nutrient availability, and crop health, allowing farmers to correct imbalances before deficiencies reduce yields or excesses create toxicity. In nutrient-poor regions such as large parts of India, this focused strategy is the most effective way to rebuild soil fertility, maintain productivity and minimize both input costs and environmental impact.
Despite the clear agronomic and economic case, precision fertilization remains rare across much of India. Adoption is especially limited among small and marginal farmers who cultivate an average of just over one hectare and operate under tight financial and logistical constraints.
Reliable soil testing is still difficult for many farmers to access. In several rural regions, laboratories are located far away, handle more samples than they can manage, or produce results that vary in quality. As a result, fertilizers are often applied without a proper understanding of the soil’s nutrient condition. Even when test reports are available, the recommendations are frequently hard to interpret or poorly matched to local cropping practices, which reduces their value under actual field conditions.
Cost is yet another barrier. Variable-rate equipment, sensors, and decision-support tools are still out of reach for most smallholders, and fragmented landholdings make individual investment impractical. Infrastructure gaps that is ranging from digital connectivity to extension support, further slows down the adoption.
The direction of change, however, is becoming increasingly clear. Rising fertilizer costs, declining soil fertility, and narrowing profit margins are compelling farmers to move away from blanket nutrient application practices. What was once seen as a technology-driven approach is now emerging as a practical, cost-saving necessity. Initiatives such as the Soil Health Card program, along with agritech startups that provide affordable soil diagnostics and mobile-based advisory services, are helping to close the gap between scientific recommendations and on-field application. As a result, targeted nutrient management is becoming more accessible than it was even a decade ago.
India cannot meet future food demand by simply applying more fertilizer to already stressed soils. The challenge is no longer quantity, but accuracy. Feeding a growing population while rebuilding soil fertility demands nutrient decisions based on need, timing, and location, not blanket application.
Precision fertilization does exactly that. By aligning nutrient supply with crop demand, it cuts unnecessary input costs, improves nutrient uptake, reduces runoff and leaching, and supports long-term soil recovery instead of accelerating degradation. More importantly, it shifts Indian agriculture away from input-heavy survival tactics toward efficient, knowledge-driven production. This transition is not optional; it is the structural change required to sustain yields, farmer incomes, and soil health simultaneously.
