The detrimental impact of conventional agricultural systems on ecosystems has prompted the search for more sustainable farming practices. The question of producing more diverse food without causing harm to nature has become a pressing concern. And for the past few years, agricultural scientists around the world have been working to find answers to this question. Climate Smart Agriculture, Regenerative Agriculture, Natural Farming, Permaculture, and many other “alternative agricultural systems” are trying to establish them as mainstream. There is a movement or effort to transition from conventional farming methods to these more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternatives. Whichever the system has been proposed, their main theme is to start from soil.
The conventional agriculture system portraits soil only as a means of production. This perspective has led to treating soil just as a tool or resource to grow crops through exploitation. Heavy use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, uses of heavy equipment, uncontrolled irrigation, heavy tillage, monoculture, etc., have caused the soil to suffer badly.
According to the customs department of Nepal, 2024/25, the government of Nepal has imported chemical fertilizer worth Rs 36.44bn which was just Rs 14.33bn in 2013/14. The average use of pesticide in Nepal is 396 grams per ha, which has grown abruptly from past few years. By this rate, there might not be good fertile soil to produce our daily food items. The focus of gaining short term benefits tends to deplete the resources to produce food for the upcoming generation. According to PQPMC, Nepal has imported 1,183,741.24 ai kg of pesticide in 2022/23.
Almost 10 years back in 2013/14 this import was only 454,595.98 ai kg. This result shows that use of pesticide has almost tripled in Nepal. The impact of use of these pesticides directly hampers soil living conditions. As soil health deteriorates, so does its ability to produce food. Degraded soil demands more inputs to sustain productivity, which raises agricultural costs and diminishes farmers’ profits. If this trend persists, the long-term sustainability of food production will be at risk, particularly in areas where soil degradation is most pronounced.
As soil health degrades, its ability to produce food also decreases. Almost 87 percent of Nepal’s top soil is being washed away due to floods and landslides every year. In the recent flood and landslide of Mid Asoj 2081, the agricultural land has been washed away in Sindhuli and Ramechaap districts. The sand brought by the flood has been deposited on the arable land. This devastating situation will cause farmers around Sindhuli and Ramechaap to suffer badly in coming years. It is pretty certain that those farmers whose arable soil has been affected by flood must change their profession. This trend is seen every year in Nepal. Every year huge amounts of fertile soil is lost due to floods and landslides and farmers are forced to leave the farming profession. As a result, the population of farmers was 81.2 percent in the census of 1991, which was reduced to 57.3 percent in the latest census of 2021. And the number will keep on decreasing in the coming years too!
Soil, rather than means of production, is a living, sacred entity. It must be seen as a dynamic system full of life. There is a whole ecosystem of bacteria, fungus, protozoa and millions of invisible living organisms pursuing their own life cycle. These microbes work day and night to maintain the foundation for the entire life cycle on earth. Soil, like other natural systems, contains living microbes that work collectively to maintain its health and fertility. Because of all this, it should be nurtured and cared for as a foundation of all living organisms. The need of preserving soil has become an important topic not just for immediate benefit but for long term sustainable future. And the best way of preserving soil is by preserving life present in it—the microbes.
But how do we preserve or multiply soil microbes? In the pursuit of preserving and multiplying microbes, flawed practices have become predominant. Every time humans have intervened, there have been problems in the ecosystem. A similar situation has occurred for soil microbes too. In the name of preservation, humans have tried to mold for their own ease and benefits. Microbial culture or inoculants, including bacteria, fungi, nematodes and other microorganisms, are marketed for their potential benefit in agricultural sectors like productivity, enhancing growth, nutrient uptake and maintaining sustainability. The primary motivation of promoting these products has become profit generating assets for big agriculture companies. Commercialization of these inoculants has more financial motivation rather than soil conservation. It fails to answer the basic question of what consequences may arise on ecology, economy and agronomy by emphasizing only use of limited beneficial microbes in soil.
Some new practices like using Jeevamrit in soil are rising all around Nepal. In simple terms Jeevamrit is a microbial solution. But understanding it only as a microbial solution might be unfair about its dynamic use. It enriches the soil as a dynamic, living ecosystem. Jeevamrit fosters a symbiotic relationship with soil, balancing it as a natural, living system and enhancing its fertility without reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Some of the local government offices in Nepal distribute EM (Effective Microorganisms) solutions to farmers. While EM selectively promotes specific beneficial microbes, Jeevamrit creates a diverse microbial community, reflecting the complexity found in forest soil.
A philosophical question
Human intervention has created and will always create problems in the ecosystem. The ethical responsibility of selecting only a few beneficial microbes for their own benefits lies in the recognition that it can disrupt the balance of the soil ecosystem, and reduce biodiversity. Our relation with nature lies in its holistic approach. The use of limited microbes breaks the wholeness of nature. This can cause damage in resiliency and sustainability of the whole natural system. The need for a long sustainable future cannot be compromised for short term trivial benefits,
The resiliency of an ecosystem lies in its complexity. Selection leads to more simplified models, resulting in rupture of interconnectedness and complex ecological interactions. For centuries, farmers have come up with the solution of preserving soil without intervening in the way of nature. Easy, fast and flawed solutions of bottle packaged commercial products can result in the disappearance of traditional valuable agricultural practices of nature conservation.
Prioritizing only beneficial microbes can lead to a reductionist view of nature. As Rachel Carson says- In nature, nothing exists alone. Humans in the present context have forgotten the broader societal views on nature. People for momentary benefits see nature as a source of exploitation without addressing the needs of future generations in both terms of agronomical productivity and ecological health. This short-sighted approach ultimately degrades nature, leaving depleted and compromised resources for future generations.
The use of technology to understand and manipulate microbial activity has potential risks, too. Technology has given humans to intervene in precision for optimum benefits. The commercialization of such microbial culture will not be possible without technological advancement. But use of technology has caused us to overlook the complexity of microbial communities and their working process. As Masanobu Fukuoka quotes “In nature, there is no such thing as waste. Everything serves a purpose. Technology has removed us from the natural process and has made us blind to this truth.” This statement suggests that there has been unintended imbalance in soil microbial activities and over dependencies on commercial products for short term financial gain. All these practices can cause the loss of traditional knowledge of seeing nature in holistic form and conserving it not only for human benefit but also for entire living creatures.
A practical question
Despite gaining technological advancement, scientists have not figured out the complete knowledge about soil microbial activity. For specific bacteria, there may be more than one strain and each strain may have different functions. Some strains can have a positive impact on soil whereas others may have negative. Using only beneficial strain can lead to significant reduction in soil microbial diversity. These introduced strains can dominate over native microbial species by competing with them for food, nutrients and other essential elements. The native microbes can perform a wide range of functions for smooth ecosystem functioning. The use of specific strains, say nutrient solubilizing bacteria, can only perform a single function of providing nutrients to plants. The dominance of this strain can cause reduction in performance of other native bacteria which leads to disruption in soil microbial harmony. Tiedje et al. (2001) found that using only a single bacterial strain for nitrogen fixation can boost nitrogen levels, but this results in suppression of other native beneficial soil bacteria. This reduction in microbial diversity can compromise soil resilience, making it less capable of adapting to environmental stresses like drought or diseases. When only a single strain becomes dominant it creates microbial monoculture, causing reduced soil resiliency and sustainability.
The survival of introduced strain depends highly on favorable environmental conditions. Unlike native strains, they cannot survive in stress conditions. Due to which those strains whose population is higher in some seasons might completely disappear in another. This can cause more harmful effects on soil health. During favorable seasons, the population of introduced strains increase rapidly suppressing the native ones. But sudden disappearance of those strains can create hollow in soil ecological functioning. The experiment conducted by Allen et al. (2003) found that inoculating crops with mycorrhizal fungi has initial benefit but during environmental fluctuation it fails to compete with native microbial population. This risk of potential failure needs more regular and careful monitoring. So, regular maintenance of such introduced beneficial strains comes up with more monetary investment. This ultimately puts an economic burden on small scale farmers around the world. A case study in the Journal of Agricultural Economics revealed that some farmers saw initial benefits from microbial inoculants but many did not experience long-term yield or soil health improvements that justified the high costs. So, more need for thorough economic evaluations before adoption is required for farmers.
Various microbial populations in soil coexist and interact with each other to maintain synergy for proper ecological functioning. This synergy is required for maintaining balance to perform agricultural activities. The breakdown of synergy can cause decrease in soil nutrient holding capacity, organic matter decomposition rate, nutrient cycling, soil compaction, reduced cation exchange capacity, increased soil borne diseases, and many other detrimental agricultural impacts. This results in complete failure of the agricultural system.
In the name of maintaining sustainability, use of bottle packed beneficial microbial culture/inoculants has been marketed widely. There might be certain short term benefits of using such products but the cost of it in the coming future must not be ignored. This temporary solution results in a cycle of continuous inoculation without sustainable improvements. The only way of preserving soil microbial harmony is to conserve the traditional knowledge and practices that farmers have been performing from centuries and transfer them to the upcoming generation for their sustainable future. It’s that simple.
The author holds a degree in Agriculture with experience in sustainable agriculture practices, agro-ecology, and permaculture design
