India’s Soil Health Card (SHC) programme has created one of the world’s largest soil databases. But the country is still grappling with how to use it meaningfully. The programme has issued around 20 crore (200 million) cards from millions of geo‑tagged samples, built a national nutrient map, and set up labs, portals, and a digital engine capable of giving fertiliser advice plot by plot. On paper, policy documents imagine SHC data guiding cropping patterns and local soil action plans through maps and GIS tools. In practice, however, the data is still used mainly to monitor the scheme itself—counting samples and cards—rather than to shape fertiliser policy or change how inputs are sold. When farmers do follow SHC recommendations, fertiliser use becomes more balanced, input costs fall, and yields usually hold steady or improve, suggesting that the technical system works; it is real‑world use that lags behind.

What farmers actually see

Criticisms of SHC are less about lab chemistry and more about how uneven and confusing the whole chain is—from sampling to the advice farmers finally receive. Sampling protocols vary by state, quality checks are weak, turnaround times are slow, and the cards are packed with technical text that does not match what farmers see in their fields. In a village near Lakhimpur, Uttar Pradesh, tribal farmers said their soils had never been tested. A sugarcane-maize farmer there felt soil testing “sounds important” but trusted his dealer more, because the dealer not only tells him “ye wala dal toh fasal mazboot rahegi” but also gives him credit. In Sitapur district, a woman farmer said, “Humne kabhi bhi aisa koi test suna nahi hai” — for her, soil testing has simply never entered her world. Another farmer from Gola, Sitapur, busy harvesting potatoes, said he does not know about soil tests and just buys whatever manure and fertiliser the dealer suggests; for him, soil health advice does not compete with dealer advice because it is absent altogether.

What dealers and companies do

Agri retailers themselves underline this gap. A big Shahjahanpur dealer with a Rs 10 crore turnover says labs are either too costly or “only on paper,” and openly admits, Humare paas jo aata hai, jo maangte hain, wohi dete hain—test ka kya kaam?” Demand, not data, drives sales. In Mahuli, Sitapur, another dealer says company or mill “testing” often produces identical reports or mixed‑up village samples, turning cards into meaningless paperwork. A farmer in his shop puts it bluntly: with soils there is “na test, na doctor,” unlike blood tests where a doctor interprets results. Senior agri input sales representatives reinforce this logic, pushing crop‑growth promoters, pesticides, and “strong” combo packs that give fast, visible results and high margins, while ignoring invisible issues like low soil organic carbon. For them, demo plots are about proving the product works, not explaining what the soil lacks or how to fix it.

Data without behaviour change

All this leaves a deep gap between the SHC database and how farmers actually behave. Most cannot read the cards easily, do not find them convincing, or simply fall back on habit and dealer advice, so their buying patterns barely shift. An agri input dealer from Lakhimour district, says farmers want “fasal badhane wale doctor” i;e chemical inputs —not lessons on carbon or micronutrients. Of his 700‑plus customers, not one does soil testing.

At the system level, SHC data still has little bite. District plans, subsidies, and regulation reward sales volume more than soil balance. Dealers keep selling, and farmers keep applying, high nitrogen inputs even where organic carbon is collapsing. Government portals track how many cards are produced but do not offer simple village‑level dashboards that farmers, FPOs, or local groups can actually use. So, the SHC system behaves like a technocratic reporting tool—good for files rather than a public decision tool.

A big asset, treated like a side scheme

This high‑quality soil asset—over 20 crore SHCs reporting 12 key nutrients and soil properties and generating plot‑specific fertiliser advice—can cut costs while protecting yields when used. Yet it is still treated mainly as a scheme output (cards), not as information that should drive input choices, cropping patterns, or public budgets. Much of the “testing” remains “on paper,” so the system proves that the data and science work but fails to turn them into behaviour change; the real failure is adoption and integration.

The ground beneath our feet

Related Stories

COVID-19: For every reported death, there were around two additional excess deaths related to the pandemic

A steady voice in the age of noise

Soil health cards have already proved India can collect soil data at scale; the remaining challenge is political and institutional

Food in the age of climate change