Every Indian coffee story begins with the same legend. The Sufi saint Baba Budan, returning from Mecca in the seventeenth century, carried seven coffee seeds strapped to his body and planted them in the hills of Chandragiri, in what is now Chikkamagaluru. From those seeds, the story goes, grew an industry that today employs around two million people and earns the country a record 1.8 billion dollars a year in exports.

It is a good legend. It is also, unintentionally, a precise description of a genetic problem.

Seven seeds is a founder population. A founder population is a bottleneck. And Coffea arabica was already bottlenecked before Baba Budan touched it, having arisen from a chance cross between C. canephora and C. eugenioides in a small corner of Ethiopia and Yemen, then propagating largely by self-pollination. India inherited a narrow crop and narrowed it further.

We have spent four centuries building a globally admired coffee sector on that inheritance. Climate change is now asking what else the inheritance contains. The honest answer is that we do not have much genetic room left, and the reserves that could give us more are sitting in a research collection in Karnataka and in forests we are steadily clearing.

Research Rundown reads global science through an Indian researcher's lens, one story a week. No noise, no filler. If that is your kind of reading, come aboard.

Subscribe now

What India actually grows, and what it has quietly stopped growing

Look past the legend to the ledger. India is the world’s seventh-largest coffee producer. Karnataka accounts for roughly 70 percent of output, Kerala about 20 percent, and Tamil Nadu around 5 percent. Some 250,000 growers work this crop, and 98 percent of them are smallholders.

Now look at the composition of that output, because this is where the story hides. Robusta makes up close to three-quarters of Indian production. Arabica, the species with the higher market value and the finer cup, has been in a long, quiet retreat. The Coffee Board’s post-blossom estimate for 2025 to 2026 put arabica at 118,125 tonnes against robusta’s 284,875 tonnes. Yields tell the same story more brutally. Arabica returns roughly 384 kilograms per hectare against robusta’s 1,276.

Growers are not abandoning arabica out of fashion. They are abandoning it because it keeps losing. It loses to white stem borer. It loses to leaf rust. It loses to a monsoon that arrives when it should not and vanishes when it should not. Robusta is the rational choice, and every hectare that shifts is a hectare of genetic and ecological simplification.

That shift is not a Karnataka curiosity. It is the same shift happening across tropical Asia, and it is what a crop looks like when it runs out of adaptive options.

The pests that drew the map

India’s coffee geography was drawn by two organisms, and neither has gone away.

White stem borer, Xylotrechus quadripes, began devastating plantations in the 1860s. Coffee leaf rust, Hemileia vastatrix, arrived from Sri Lanka in 1869 and rewrote the industry across South Asia. Indian planters responded with an agronomic answer that has since become the sector’s signature: they grew coffee under dense, diverse native shade. Indian coffee is shade-grown not primarily as a marketing story but as a survival strategy.

That strategy has held for a century and is now under pressure from two directions at once. Kodagu, the single largest coffee-growing district, lost about 77,000 hectares of natural forest, roughly 30 percent, between 1977 and 1997, even as coffee area doubled. Growers under financial stress increasingly replace native shade with exotic timber species, and research from the Western Ghats shows the substitution has real costs: multi-species native canopies buffer the effects of extreme rainfall better than monospecific Grevillea stands, and shade-tree diversity itself lifts both coffee yield and quality.

Meanwhile the climate has stopped cooperating. Analysis reported in early 2026 found that climate change has added roughly 30 extra extreme-heat days a year to India’s coffee farms. Scenario modelling for the cardamom and coffee hotspots of the Western Ghats projects temperature increases spanning 0.5 to 8.5 degrees Celsius and enormous swings in precipitation under RCP 4.5 and 8.5. The 2025 monsoon delivered the consequence directly: excessive rain through berry formation triggered black rot in arabica and fruit rot in robusta, which is why planter associations in Karnataka and Kerala publicly doubted the Coffee Board’s optimistic 403,000-tonne forecast.

A crop with thin genetics, a thinning canopy, and a destabilising monsoon is a crop with very little margin.

What Kodagu taught me

I did not come to this subject from the literature. I came to it from the field.

The early part of my career (1987-93) was spent in Cardamom Research Centre, Appangala, Kodagu, in the coffee tracts of Coorg, and those years shaped how I read every plantation-crop crisis since. Today it is a Regional Station of ICAR-Indian Institute of Spices Research, Kozhikode. What I remember is not the statistics. It is the sound of a planter tapping an arabica stem and knowing, from the hollowness, that the white stem borer had already won. It is the ridge lines where the old native shade still stood, and the neighbouring blocks where it did not, and how differently the two behaved in a bad year.

Kodagu is not an abstraction to me. It is the district that grows a third of India’s coffee, and it is where I learned that a pest problem is never only a pest problem. Stem borer pressure tracked the canopy. Rust tracked the variety. The estates that had kept their diversity, in trees and in planting material, absorbed shocks that flattened the estates that had not.

Those lessons were unfashionable then. Yields were rising, replanting with a narrow set of high-performing selections looked like progress, and the argument for keeping messy genetic and ecological variety around sounded like sentimentality. It was not sentimentality. It was insurance, and the premiums were being quietly cancelled.

Four decades later I am watching the same argument play out with better data and less time.

We have done this before, and we have forgotten

Here is the part of the story Indian researchers should be telling louder.

India has already been rescued once by genes from outside cultivated arabica. The most widely planted arabica selections in the country today, Chandragiri (Sln.13) and Selection 9, are Sarchimor and related types. Their rust resistance traces back to Hybrido de Timor, a spontaneous hybrid between C. arabica and C. canephora. Cauvery, Sln.12, comes from the same lineage. Our commercial robusta hybrid CxR is itself an interspecific cross.

Read that again. The varieties holding up Indian arabica cultivation right now carry introgressed genes from another species. Interspecific germplasm is not an exotic future proposal for Indian coffee. It is the load-bearing wall of the present crop, installed decades ago by breeders who understood exactly what they were doing.

So when the international literature urges breeders to look at wild Coffea relatives such as the heat-tolerant C. stenophylla, rediscovered in West Africa after being written off, or the drought-adapted Madagascan species, Indian scientists should not hear a novel idea. They should hear a familiar one, arriving late, with higher stakes.

The collection we are sitting on

India is better positioned than the pessimism suggests, and worse positioned than the complacency admits.

The Central Coffee Research Institute at Balehonnur, which marked its centenary in 2025, maintains a germplasm collection of about 300 arabica accessions, 73 robusta, and 17 other Coffea species. Over its history CCRI has released 13 arabica and 3 robusta varieties, and a white stem borer tolerant arabica is now in multi-location trials.

That is a serious national asset, built patiently over a century by people who will never be famous for it. It is also modest against the scale of the problem. Seventeen non-cultivated species is a start, not a strategy, when a global assessment led by Kew concluded that around 60 percent of wild Coffea species face extinction. The insurance policy for the world’s coffee is burning while we are still deciding whether to read it.

And breeding a perennial is punishingly slow. A new coffee variety takes years for the plant to mature and many generations of backcrossing to stabilise. Marker-assisted selection, now genuinely feasible since the arabica genome was resolved in detail, can compress that timeline. It cannot compress it into a monsoon cycle. Every year we delay pre-breeding is a year subtracted from a response we will need in the 2040s.

The smallholder is the whole game

None of this reaches a farm by itself.

Ninety-eight percent of India’s coffee growers are smallholders. A climate-resilient variety that exists only in a trial plot at Balehonnur protects nobody in Wayanad. The bottleneck between a released variety and a planted one is nursery capacity, clean planting material, extension reach, and the simple economics of a grower who cannot afford a failed replanting.

This is where India’s coffee story converges with every other plantation crop I have worked on. The pattern I first saw on those Kodagu estates repeated itself later in black pepper and in cardamom. The elite lines get narrower, the landraces get neglected, the wild relatives go unconserved, and then a new pathogen or an unfamiliar season exposes exactly how little variation remains in the cultivated stock. The germplasm that could have answered the question sits underfunded, or uncollected, in a forest that is no longer there.

India holds Geographical Indication tags for Coorg Arabica, Wayanad Robusta, Chikmagalur Arabica, Araku Valley Arabica, Bababudangiris Arabica, and Monsooned Malabar. We have learned to market our coffee’s distinctiveness with real sophistication. We have not learned to conserve the genetic base that distinctiveness rests on with anything like the same energy.

What India should do now

The Coffee Board has set a target of 9 lakh tonnes by 2047. That number is achievable only if the genetic and ecological foundations hold. Four priorities follow directly from the evidence.

• Fund pre-breeding at CCRI as national infrastructure. Expand the wild and interspecific holdings well beyond 17 species, characterise them genomically, and support the slow work of moving traits into usable Indian breeding lines. This is unglamorous, decade-scale science that no market will pay for.

• Conserve the Western Ghats canopy as a coffee asset, not a competing land use. Native multi-species shade demonstrably buffers climate extremes and improves yield and quality. Incentivise growers to keep native trees instead of penalising them for it.

• Solve the last mile. Resilient varieties and clean planting material must reach smallholders at a price and scale that matter. Otherwise our breeding programme is an academic exercise with a good annual report.

• Treat arabica’s retreat as a warning, not a market signal. Every hectare converted to robusta narrows our options. Some conversion is rational. All of it is a loss of adaptive capacity we are not accounting for anywhere.

Baba Budan’s seven seeds were a spectacular piece of luck. They were also, genetically speaking, a very thin margin, and we have been living on it for four hundred years. The margin is now closing. India has the institutions, the collection, and the scientific tradition to widen it again, and roughly one breeding generation in which to start.

The breeders at Balehonnur are ready. The planters of Kodagu, where I learned all of this the slow way, have been telling us the same thing for years. The question, as always, is whether we will fund the century of work before we need it, or after.

Pass it on · Share with a colleague · Forward to someone in the field

Share

Additional Reading

1. Davis, A. P., Chadburn, H., Moat, J., O’Sullivan, R., Hargreaves, S., & Nic Lughadha, E. (2019). High extinction risk for wild coffee species and implications for coffee sector sustainability. Science Advances, 5(1), eaav3473. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3473

2. Davis, A. P., Mieulet, D., Moat, J., Sarmu, D., & Haggar, J. (2021). Arabica-like flavour in a heat-tolerant wild coffee species. Nature Plants, 7(4), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00891-4

3. Murugan, M., Shetty, P. K., Anandhi, A., Ravi, R., Alappan, S., Vasudevan, M., & Dhanya, M. K. (2022). Climate change scenarios, their impacts and implications on Indian cardamom-coffee hot spots. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 1057617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1057617

4. Nesper, M., Kueffer, C., Krishnan, S., Kushalappa, C. G., & Ghazoul, J. (2017). Shade tree diversity enhances coffee production and quality in agroforestry systems in the Western Ghats. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 247, 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.06.024

5. Salojärvi, J., Rambani, A., Yu, Z., Guyot, R., … Albert, V. A. (2024). The genome and population genomics of allopolyploid Coffea arabica reveal the diversification history of modern coffee cultivars. Nature Genetics, 56(4), 721–731. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01695-w

If this piece gave you something to think about, that is the whole point of Research Rundown. New pieces land weekly, always refracted through what they mean for researchers here. Subscribe free and I will see you in the next one.

Subscribe now

Add your take · What is your take? · Tell me what I missed

Leave a comment

A paper that crossed my desk recently - submitted in February 2026 by Mike Bos under the supervision of Prof. George Kowalchuk at Utrecht University - raises a question that the plant science community needs to answer more honestly than it has so far: when we talk about rewilding crop microbiomes, are we talking about a genuine breakthrough for sustainable agriculture, or are we papering over serious unresolved trade-offs with premature optimism?

The paper is titled Rewilding Crop Microbiomes: Payoff or Trade-Off? The title alone is a signal. In a domain where the language of boundless potential dominates, the author asks the harder question. That deserves attention.

What Domestication Took Away from Our Crops

About 13,000 years ago, humans began domesticating plants. The logic was straightforward: select for yield, select for ease of harvest, select for the traits that made farming manageable. The Green Revolution of 1944 accelerated this further, introducing high-yielding varieties, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides that reshaped agriculture globally.

What did we lose? More than most people realise.

The numbers tell the story plainly. Domesticated soybean (Glycine max) has lost about 49% of its genetic diversity compared to its wild relative Glycine soja. Domesticated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) has lost about 77%, rice (Oryza sativa) about 30%, maize (Zea mays) 27%, bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) 69%, and durum wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. durum) a staggering 84%. These are not abstract genomic statistics. They represent the erosion of adaptive potential — the biological capital that plants draw on when conditions become difficult.

But what often goes unmentioned is what this genetic bottleneck did to the microbial partnerships these plants depend on.

Plants are not solitary organisms. They live in intimate alliance with a consortium of bacteria, fungi, archaea, viruses, and protozoa — collectively termed the microbiome. These microbes inhabit the rhizosphere (the soil zone surrounding roots), the phyllosphere (leaf surfaces), and the endosphere (internal tissues). Their contributions are not minor: they fix atmospheric nitrogen, mobilize phosphorus and zinc, produce antibiotics, prime the plant’s immune defenses through induced systemic resistance (ISR), and help plants survive drought, heat, salinity, and flooding.

When we bred crops for yield under fertilizer-rich, low-stress conditions, we inadvertently selected away from the genes governing microbial recruitment. Modern wheat cultivars show far lower dependence on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) than their wild ancestors. Modern maize is colonized by AMF to a lesser extent than wild teosinte, and the diversity of AMF associated with it is reduced. Domesticated rice has lost the ability to recruit nitrogen-fixing Frankiaceae bacteria that are abundant in the rhizosphere of wild rice. Domesticated legumes appear to have weakened their ability to sanction ineffective nitrogen-fixing rhizobia — a quality-control mechanism wild legumes retain.

In wheat, researchers found a decrease in nitrogen transformation and phosphorus mineralization in domesticated cultivars compared to their wild counterparts. In rice, domestication increased nitrous oxide emissions — a potent greenhouse gas — while reducing nitrogen fixation in the soil.

The paradox is this: we bred crops to need less from their microbiome, then supplied the difference artificially. Fertilizer replaced nitrogen fixation. Pesticide replaced microbial disease suppression. The plants delivered yields. The ecological support structure quietly collapsed.

This is a serious gap. Not a minor concern to be managed around the edges. A serious gap.

The Rewilding Idea: What It Proposes

In a landmark 2022 paper in Science, researchers Jos Raaijmakers and E. Toby Kiers proposed “microbiome rewilding” — restoring the ancestral microbial interactions that crops have lost. Their four-step research roadmap has become the field’s organizing framework.

The roadmap starts with identifying microbes associated specifically with wild relatives of domesticated crops. The second step validates which ancestral microbes actually benefit crop phenotype. The third identifies the plant genetic loci responsible for recruiting and maintaining these microbes. The fourth step identifies the root exudates and signaling molecules that activate the beneficial interaction.

The ambition is clear: reintroduce the biological machinery that thousands of years of domestication switched off.

Several early results are genuinely encouraging. In cannabis, seed priming with Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas putida isolated from low-domesticated varieties significantly improved germination rates and root formation in more domesticated lines. Bacteria isolated from the wild grass Celtica gigantea improved grain yield and carotenoid content in the cereal crop tritordeum under field conditions. Synthetic microbial communities (SynComs) constructed from wild rice microbiomes improved root elongation in domesticated rice. In soybean, SynComs including Rhodococcus, Lysobacter, and Arthrobacter promoted growth and nitrogen acquisition without relying on conventional rhizobial nodulation.

In barley, a genomic locus named QRMC-3HS — linked to the recruitment of specific bacterial taxa in the rhizosphere — was identified and found to sit close to a yield QTL. This suggests that yield-directed selection directly altered microbiome composition through genetic linkage. It is not a coincidence. It is a consequence.

These results matter. They demonstrate that the lost interactions are, at least in principle, recoverable.

But this is precisely where the honest accounting must begin.

The Trade-Offs That Need to Be Stated Plainly

The Bos thesis makes a point that most rewilding literature conspicuously avoids: the trade-offs are real, they are under-researched, and they may determine whether rewilding succeeds at scale or remains a greenhouse phenomenon.

Three categories of cost are relevant.

Genetic costs arise when the introduction of beneficial traits from wild relatives drags in linked undesirable alleles — a phenomenon called linkage drag. Introducing the scab resistance gene Rvi6 in apple (Malus domestica) improved resistance to the fungal pathogen Venturia inaequalis, but led to poor fruit quality, rendering the variety commercially unviable. QTLs for Phytophthora resistance in tomato and pepper were linked to negative effects on yield and fruit size. This is not an exception to the rule. It is the rule.

Allocation costs are perhaps the most structurally important trade-off. Microbial associations are metabolically expensive. Nitrogen-fixing microbes in root nodules consume 20–25% of the plant’s photosynthate. AMF take 10–20%. Maintaining induced systemic resistance reduces growth rate in the absence of pathogens. Inoculation of common bean with bacteria previously ascribed growth-promoting ability actually downregulated expression of genes involved in defense responses and detoxification. The interaction with nitrogen-fixing Rhizobium suppresses the plant’s innate immunity, increasing susceptibility to other pathogens.

The trade-off is not theoretical. It is a basic biological constraint: a plant cannot simultaneously maximize growth, maximize defense, and maintain a full complement of energy-costly microbial symbionts.

The Bos paper highlights a study (Favela et al., 2026, Science Advances) that claimed to introduce reduced nitrification rates in maize lines through teosinte introgressions “without a performance penalty.” The author’s scrutiny reveals a different picture: both the NIL047 and NIL021 hybrid lines showed reduced grain yield, albeit non-significant in a small sample size (n=16). The larger study would likely reveal the trade-off the authors chose to downplay. This raises uncomfortable questions. It is not about whether rewilding shows promise. It is about whether the field is prepared to report trade-offs as rigorously as it reports benefits.

Field challenges add another layer of difficulty. The rhizosphere is a place of intense microbial competition. Native microbes routinely outcompete introduced ones. A SynCom that improved sorghum growth in greenhouse conditions lost many of its strains in field conditions within weeks. Bacterial strains improving sugar beet yield in California proved ineffective in Idaho. Strains effective in Idaho failed in California. Rhizobium leguminosarum improved rice in greenhouse experiments but showed no significant effect on grain yield in the field. The context dependency of these results is not a small problem. It is the central problem.

The Health and Ecological Risks No One Wants to Lead With

There is a dimension of microbial inoculation research that receives considerably less attention in promotional discussions: some beneficial microbes are simultaneously opportunistic human pathogens.

Burkholderia cepacia promotes growth in pepper and increases resistance to F. oxysporum, P. capsici, and R. solani - all significant plant pathogens. The same organism is an opportunistic human pathogen, particularly dangerous for immunocompromised patients. Our studies showed a strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to protect black pepper (Piper nigrum) against Phytophthora capsici and Radopholus similis - yet the same strain showed virulence similar to clinical P. aeruginosa strains in murine lungs.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) adds further risk. Rhodococcus spp. can transition from plant-beneficial bacterium to plant pathogen through acquisition of a virulence plasmid. Many commercial plant growth-promoting bacteria carry antibiotic resistance genes that can transfer to native soil microbes through HGT. The rhizosphere is already a reservoir for opportunistic human pathogens, and introducing non-native microbial species into it may have consequences we cannot fully model in advance.

The disruption of native microbial ecosystems is real. Introduction of Pseudomonas aeruginosa significantly reduced abundance of native bacteria. Introduction of S. meliloti and Azospirillum lipoferum reduced the abundance of soil nitrification and denitrifying bacteria under low carbon conditions.

These are not reasons to abandon rewilding. They are reasons to conduct long-term field trials before commercial deployment and to assess human safety as rigorously as agronomic efficacy. The Bos paper makes this point clearly, and it deserves to be made more loudly in public discussion.

Where Does This Leave Agriculture?

The Bos thesis concludes with a nuanced verdict: rewilding is a promising framework, but its success is highly context-dependent. In well-managed, fertilizer-rich, low-stress conditions, modern crop cultivars will likely outperform rewilded crops - precisely because they are optimized for those conditions and rewilded crops bear the metabolic cost of maintaining microbial partnerships. In stressed conditions - drought, pathogen pressure, nutrient-poor soils - crops with restored microbiomes may outperform, because their biological support system activates where chemical inputs cannot reach.

This is the key insight. Rewilding is not a universal replacement for conventional agriculture. It is a targeted strategy, most valuable where external inputs are unavailable or unaffordable, and where stress conditions are the norm rather than the exception. In subsistence farming, smallholder agriculture, organic systems, and climate-stressed environments, it may represent the most viable path to resilience.

The field needs to be honest about this. Rewilding as a concept should not be marketed as a wholesale alternative to modern agricultural practice. It should be positioned where the evidence actually places it - as a precision strategy for specific contexts, with identified benefits and acknowledged costs.

There is also a question that Indian agricultural researchers and policymakers should be asking directly: crops grown predominantly in smallholder, low-input systems in ecologically complex environments - what ancestral microbiome resources remain in wild relatives? What has been lost through centuries of selective cultivation? What can SynComs or targeted genetic approaches restore? These questions have not received the systematic attention they deserve.

Key Takeaways

1. Crop domestication has imposed a severe microbial cost. Genetic diversity losses of 30–84% across major crops have been accompanied by reduced ability to recruit nitrogen-fixing, phosphorus-mobilizing, and pathogen-suppressing microbes. These losses are measurable, documented, and consequential.

2. Rewilding is scientifically grounded, not speculative. The Raaijmakers–Kiers four-step roadmap provides a testable framework. Early results from SynCom studies and QTL mapping studies demonstrate that lost microbial interactions are recoverable in principle.

3. The trade-offs are real and under-reported. Genetic costs from linkage drag, allocation costs from microbial symbiosis, and the context-dependency of field performance are not minor caveats. They are central to whether rewilding scales from the greenhouse to the farm.

4. Field validation is non-negotiable. Greenhouse results and field results diverge dramatically and consistently. No rewilding intervention should move toward commercial application without multi-environment, multi-year field trials that specifically test for yield penalties alongside reported benefits.

5. Health and ecological safety assessments must be standard, not optional. The dual nature of some plant-beneficial microbes as human pathogens is documented. HGT risks are documented. Long-term ecological monitoring must accompany field deployment.

The real test of rewilding will not lie in the publication of promising greenhouse results. It will lie in whether crops with restored microbiomes outperform conventional cultivars under the stressed, resource-limited, unpredictable conditions that define farming in the places where food security is most precarious.

The science is ready to be taken seriously. The field needs to take its own trade-offs equally seriously.

Additional Reading

1. Raaijmakers, J. M., & Kiers, E. T. (2022). Rewilding plant microbiomes: Microbiota of crop ancestors may offer a way to enhance sustainable food production. Science, 378(6620), 599–600. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn6350

2. Ramirez-Villacis, D. X., Leon-Reyes, A., Pieterse, C. M. J., & Raaijmakers, J. M. (2025). Born to rewild: Reconnecting beneficial plant-microbiome alliances for resilient future crops. Cell Host & Microbe, 33(8), 1241–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2025.06.017

3. Favela, A., Kent, A. D., Sible, C. N., et al. (2026). Lost and found: Rediscovering microbiome-associated phenotypes that reshape agricultural sustainability. Science Advances, 12(1), eaed3360. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aed3360

4. Chang, J., Costa, O. Y. A., Sun, Y., et al. (2025). Domesticated rice alters the rhizosphere microbiome, reducing nitrogen fixation and increasing nitrous oxide emissions. Nature Communications, 16(1), 2038. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-57213-x

5. Smith, M. E., Kavamura, V. N., Hughes, D., et al. (2025). Uncovering functional deterioration in the rhizosphere microbiome associated with post-green revolution wheat cultivars. Environmental Microbiome, 20(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-025-00723-4

If this was useful, share it with a colleague who should be reading it.

Share

If someone forwarded this to you and you’d like to receive Research Rundown regularly,

Subscribe now

Have a question or a pushback on something I wrote? Leave a comment — I read every one.

Leave a comment

In a time of climate disruption, soil fatigue, and rising global residue scrutiny, India is embracing a quiet revolution — one driven not by synthetics, but by biologicals: eco-friendly inputs that restore soil health, boost resilience, and reduce chemical dependency.

And in a promising move, the Government of India has issued a landmark notification on biostimulants, bringing regulatory clarity to a fast-growing segment of the biological inputs space. But to unlock the full promise of this revolution, we need to understand what biologicals really are — and how they can reshape Indian agriculture.

🧬 What Are Biologicals and How Are They Different from Biostimulants?

The term biologicals includes a wide range of naturally derived agricultural inputs that work with nature, not against it. These are broadly classified into:

• Biopesticides / Biocontrol agents – microbials and botanicals that control pests and diseases.

  e.g., Trichoderma, Bacillus, neem oil

• Biofertilizers – beneficial microbes that improve nutrient availability.

  e.g., Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Azospirillum

• Biostimulants – non-nutrient substances or microbes that stimulate plant growth and stress tolerance.

  e.g., seaweed extracts, amino acids, humic acids

While the notification provides much-needed regulatory clarity for biostimulants, the entire biological sector still operates in a policy grey zone. If India is to transition toward sustainable agriculture at scale, this gap must be addressed through comprehensive and harmonized regulations across all categories of biologicals.

🌱 Why India Needs Biologicals — Now More Than Ever

The case for biologicals in Indian agriculture is not just environmental — it is agronomic, economic, and existential. Years of chemical-intensive farming have depleted our soils, weakened our natural pest defenses, and contaminated food chains. Meanwhile, climate change is making agriculture more unpredictable, with heatwaves, erratic rainfall, and new pest outbreaks threatening farm livelihoods and food security.

Biologicals offer a viable path forward. They restore soil health, reduce dependency on synthetic inputs, and improve crop resilience to both biotic and abiotic stress. Importantly, they also open doors to export markets, especially for high-value crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, and tea, where chemical residue limits are strictly enforced.

The need is urgent, and the opportunity is real. But the shift will not happen through inputs alone. It requires a fundamental rethinking of how we evaluate agricultural success.

📈 India’s Momentum: Market, Policy & Practice

India is already the seventh-largest market in the world for biopesticides and biostimulants. In 2023, the biostimulants market alone was estimated at $308 million, with projections suggesting it could nearly triple to $850 million by 2030. That’s a compound annual growth rate of over 15%.

Several factors are fueling this surge. Export-oriented crops are facing stricter international scrutiny on pesticide residues. Consumers — particularly India’s rising middle class — are becoming more conscious of where their food comes from and how it is grown. The government has also stepped in with supportive schemes like Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY), MOVCDNER for organic farming in the northeast, and various Integrated Nutrient and Pest Management programs. Training through Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) is helping farmers understand the value of microbial inputs and their correct usage.

Even India’s digital infrastructure is aiding the cause. With increasing smartphone penetration, farmers now have access to online agronomy support, weather-linked pest alerts, and mobile apps for crop advisory — making it easier than ever to adopt new technologies like biologicals.

🚧 Challenges That Remain

Despite these positive signals, adoption remains slow and uneven. One major hurdle is the mindset gap. Indian farmers — like their counterparts worldwide — are used to seeing immediate, visible effects from chemical sprays. Biologicals, by contrast, often work preventively and more subtly. They require a different approach, and most importantly, a different expectation.

There are also logistical and infrastructural barriers. Many biologicals have a shorter shelf life or need cool storage — a challenge in rural India where cold chains are underdeveloped. Fragmented landholdings make it difficult to scale farmer training or demos. And the market is flooded with substandard products due to weak regulation, eroding trust.

The recent biostimulant notification helps address part of this trust deficit, but more needs to be done. A broader regulatory framework for biopesticides and biofertilizers, robust enforcement, and clear quality standards are essential to build credibility and scale.

🛠️ Way Forward: Science, Systems, and Support

Unlocking India’s biological agriculture potential will require a multi-pronged strategy:

First, science must lead the way. We need more research into region-specific microbial formulations, strain stability, and synergistic blends of biologicals with existing agronomic practices.

Second, we must build support systems — both physical and institutional. This includes supply chains that can preserve product integrity, digital platforms to deliver farmer education, and field trials that demonstrate outcomes clearly and credibly.

Third, there must be policy convergence. Biostimulants cannot be regulated in isolation. India needs a comprehensive, harmonized policy for all biologicals — one that encourages innovation while protecting farmers from inferior products.

Finally, we need to change how we measure value. If we continue comparing biologicals to chemicals by price-per-litre, we miss the bigger picture. But if we evaluate them by total system benefits, they emerge as the most cost-effective and future-proof tools in a farmer’s kit.

🌾 Conclusion: Cultivating a Biological Future

India’s agriculture sector is not just facing a crisis — it is facing a choice. We can continue down the path of high-input, chemically intensive farming and deal with the growing costs of soil degradation, health hazards, and export limitations. Or we can invest in biological agriculture — a path that is smarter, safer, and more aligned with the needs of both farmers and the planet.

The recent biostimulant notification is more than a policy update — it is a signal of intent. It tells us that India is ready to embrace sustainable, science-backed, microbial-driven farming.

Now it’s time to build on that momentum. The microbes are ready. The markets are opening. The only shift left is in our mindsets.

Let’s make that shift — for the soil, for the farmer, and for the future.

📚 References

1. AgbioInvestor. (2023). Biologicals Market in India: Biopesticides and Biostimulants Market Intelligence Report. Retrieved from https://www.agbioinvestor.com/

2. Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. (2023). Notification on the Registration and Regulation of Biostimulants under the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO). Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India. Retrieved from https://agricoop.nic.in/

3. DunhamTrimmer. (2023). Global Biologicals Market Database: Adoption Trends and Market Analysis. Retrieved from https://www.dunhamtrimmer.com/

4. Sharma, S. B. (2024, May). Biologicals are not expensive – we’ve been counting wrong [LinkedIn article]. LinkedIn. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/biologicals-expensive-we-have-been-counting-wrong-shashi-b-sharma-egafc

Leave a comment

Share

As the world’s largest producer of spices and a major player in global agriculture, India has much to gain from adopting this efficient system. Crop grouping simplifies the complex process of setting Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) by categorising crops with similar characteristics, making it easier to manage pesticide regulations and protect public health. But the hesitation to fully embrace this method has created a bottleneck, hindering progress and leaving India’s agricultural sector vulnerable to inconsistencies and missed opportunities.

This blog explores why breaking the wait is crucial for India’s agricultural future. We delve into the myriad benefits of crop grouping, from ensuring safer food to boosting market access for Indian farmers. We’ll also discuss actionable strategies to fast-track its implementation, paving the way for a more robust and harmonised regulatory framework. It’s time for India to move from deliberation to action, ensuring a safer, more competitive agricultural landscape for all. Let’s break the wait and fast-track crop grouping now!

Understanding Crop Grouping: A Primer on the Concept, Importance, and Benefits

Crop grouping is a regulatory approach that categorizes crops based on their similarities in botanical characteristics, growth habits, and pesticide residue behaviors. This method simplifies the process of setting MRLs by selecting representative crops within each group. These representative crops, chosen for their similar residue behaviour and economic importance, undergo residue testing to determine safe pesticide levels. The data collected from these crops are then extrapolated to set MRLs for all crops within the subgroup, ensuring consistent regulation across a wide range of crops.

Traditionally, MRLs have been established individually for each crop, requiring extensive data collection and analysis. This approach can be particularly burdensome for countries like India, where an estimated 594 different crops are grown. These crops include major staples such as rice, wheat, and maize, as well as a diverse array of fruits, vegetables, spices, and minor crops. However, there is a notable disparity in the availability of label claims for pesticide use across these crops, with only about 200 crops having established label claims. This leaves many minor crops without adequate regulatory guidance, often relying on off-label pesticide use, leading to inconsistent residue levels and potential health risks.

Crop grouping addresses these challenges by providing a more efficient and harmonised approach to pesticide regulation. The process is grounded in scientific research, emphasising efficiency and safety. By using representative crops, crop grouping minimizes the need for extensive testing across all individual crops, saving time and resources. It also aligns national regulations with international standards, such as those set by Codex Alimentarius, facilitating global trade and ensuring consumer safety. Key principles of crop grouping include scientific accuracy, regulatory efficiency, and the protection of public health by maintaining pesticide residues within safe limits.

Additionally, crop grouping supports farmers by simplifying compliance requirements. With clear MRLs applicable to their crops, farmers can make informed decisions about pesticide use, reducing the risk of non-compliance and potential trade rejections. This system also encourages the adoption of good agricultural practices (GAPs), promoting sustainable farming methods that benefit the environment and society. By establishing consistent MRLs and harmonising regulations, crop grouping ensures food safety, enhances market access, and strengthens India’s position in the global agricultural market.

India’s Initiatives in Crop Grouping

India has made significant strides toward implementing crop grouping, demonstrating a commitment to enhancing food safety and regulatory efficiency. The journey began in March 2013, when the Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare formed a sub-committee under Dr. T.P. Rajendran, former ADG (Plant Protection), to study crop grouping principles based on Codex Committee guidelines. This initiative marked the country’s first formal exploration into adopting crop grouping as a regulatory approach.

Over the years, various committees and expert groups have been formed to refine the crop grouping framework. A pivotal moment occurred during the 360th Registration Committee (RC) meeting in December 2015, where the committee approved the extrapolation of MRLs within crop groups, provided similar GAPs were applied. This decision laid the foundation for creating a more efficient regulatory system. The RC in its 369th meeting held on 4 October 2016 constituted another sub-committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. P.K. Chakrabarty, Former ADG (PP), ICAR & Member RC to recommend the procedure to implement crop grouping principles while protecting the environment and human beings within the ambit of the Insecticides Act. Efforts continued with a workshop held in October 2017, which brought together stakeholders from ICAR, CropLife India, FSSAI, CIB&RC, and international experts. The workshop’s recommendations focused on establishing guidelines, expanding label claims, and identifying minor crops within the country.

In the 407th RC meeting in August 2019, chaired by Dr. S.K. Malhotra, the committee acknowledged the sub-committee’s efforts and approved the implementation of crop grouping principles for label expansion. However, despite this progress, concerns have been raised over the prolonged timeline and the recurring need for further refinement. The recent decision in the 450th RC meeting in August 2023 to form a new sub-committee under the ADG (PP&B), ICAR, New Delhi, to re-examine the crop grouping principles specifically for label expansion, highlights the ongoing deliberations and the lack of a final, comprehensive decision.

This delay, spanning nearly a decade, raises concerns about the pace of regulatory reform in India’s agricultural sector. The extended process reflects the complexities involved in harmonising pesticide regulations across a diverse agricultural landscape and the need for careful consideration to make sure scientific and practical feasibility. But the protracted timeline also underscores the urgency for decisive action. The continued postponement risks missing the large benefits of crop grouping, like improved food safety, streamlined regulations, and enhanced international trade opportunities. There is a pressing need for India to expedite the finalization and implementation of crop grouping to leverage these advantages fully and to give clear guidance to stakeholders across the agricultural sector.

Proposed Crop Groups and Representative Crops in India

To implement crop grouping effectively, a comprehensive classification of crops based on shared characteristics is essential. The following table outlines the proposed crop groups, subgroups, and their representative crops as detailed in the Indian report. This categorisation is crucial for establishing MRLs and ensuring uniform regulation across similar crops.

By categorising crops in this manner, the regulatory framework can streamline the process of pesticide residue testing and MRL establishment. The selection of representative crops is based on their prevalence, economic importance, and similarities in pesticide residue behaviour, ensuring that the established MRLs are both protective of public health and conducive to efficient regulation. This organised approach facilitates the uniform application of regulations, enhances food safety, and supports India’s agricultural trade objectives.

Learning from Global Examples

As India considers implementing crop grouping, valuable lessons can be learned from other countries and international bodies like Codex Alimentarius. These examples offer insights into efficient regulatory frameworks, enforcement strategies, and the use of dietary data, which can guide India’s approach and expedite its implementation process.

Codex Alimentarius: Setting international standards

Codex Alimentarius provides a global reference for harmonising pesticide regulations. It develops comprehensive crop grouping guidelines based on international dietary data and consumption patterns, facilitating global trade by ensuring consistent MRLs across member countries. While Codex’s recommendations are not legally binding, they serve as advisory guidelines that countries can adopt or adapt.

United States: Integrated approach and stakeholder involvement

The United States employs an integrated approach, involving scientific data and active stakeholder engagement. The EPA and USDA set legally binding MRLs based on national dietary data, ensuring regulations reflect local consumption patterns. This approach is bolstered by strict adherence to national GAPs and a robust regulatory framework that enforces compliance.

European Union: Harmonisation and consistency

The EU’s crop grouping system, managed by EFSA, emphasises harmonisation across member states, ensuring uniform MRLs and high safety standards. The legally binding regulations are based on comprehensive dietary data, aligning with international standards to facilitate trade and protect public health.

Australia and New Zealand: Streamlined regulations and data sharing

Australia and New Zealand, through FSANZ, streamline pesticide regulations by emphasizing data sharing and aligning with Codex standards. Their approach, while not legally binding, influences national policies and uses local dietary data to tailor MRLs, ensuring relevant and effective food safety measures.

Japan: Rigorous Scientific Standards and Public Transparency

Japan’s crop grouping implementation, led by MHLW, is marked by rigorous scientific standards and public transparency. Using extensive data collection and national dietary data, Japan sets legally binding MRLs, enforced through strict national GAPs. Regular publication of testing results builds public confidence in food safety.

Key takeaways for India

1. Adopt Codex standards: Aligning with Codex standards can facilitate international trade and ensure MRLs meet global safety norms.

2. Use national dietary data: Tailoring MRLs based on local consumption patterns will ensure relevance and protect public health.

3. Legal binding and enforcement: Establishing legally binding MRLs will strengthen compliance and enforcement.

4. National GAPs and policies: Implementing national GAPs will help minimise pesticide residues and promote sustainable practices.

5. Stakeholder engagement: Involving stakeholders in the regulatory process can ensure practical and effective regulations.

6. Public transparency: Regularly publishing information on residue testing can build public confidence in the regulatory system.

By adopting these best practices, India can develop a robust crop grouping system that enhances food safety, streamlines regulations, and supports agricultural growth. The insights from global examples can help India overcome challenges and successfully implement crop grouping.

Strategic Steps to Accelerate Crop Grouping Adoption in India

To fully realise the benefits of crop grouping, India must adopt a strategic approach.

1. Strengthen data collection and research: Prioritise collecting comprehensive residue data for diverse crops, including minor ones, by collaborating with research institutions and using advanced technologies.

2. Adopt Codex standards and national dietary data: Align MRLs with Codex standards for global trade facilitation and tailor them to local dietary patterns to ensure relevance and public health protection.

3. Establish legal binding and enforcement: Implement legally binding MRLs and create robust enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance across all stakeholders.

4. Implement national GAPs and policies: Develop and enforce Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) specific to India’s conditions, promoting sustainable farming and safe pesticide use.

5. Engage stakeholders: Involve farmers, industry representatives, and scientists in the regulatory process to ensure practical and effective regulations.

6. Maintain public transparency: Regularly publish information on residue testing and regulatory decisions to build public trust and transparency.

7. Foster international collaboration: Collaborate internationally and harmonize with global standards to enhance trade and leverage advanced scientific methodologies.

8. Monitor and review implementation: Continuously evaluate and update MRLs based on new data and agricultural developments, ensuring the system remains effective and current.

Conclusion: A Call to Action for Fast-Tracking Crop Grouping in India

Fast-tracking the implementation of crop grouping has the potential to significantly transform India’s agricultural sector. Ensuring consistent MRLs across similar crops can enhance food safety, protect public health, and build consumer confidence in Indian agricultural products. Aligning India’s MRLs with international standards will facilitate smoother trade relations and expand market access, providing a substantial boost to revenue for farmers and exporters.

Furthermore, crop grouping simplifies regulatory compliance, making it easier for farmers to adopt GAPs and promoting sustainable farming methods. This streamlined regulatory framework not only supports innovation in crop protection, leading to the development of safer and more effective pesticides, but also improves overall regulatory efficiency. By reducing the need for individual assessments, crop grouping accelerates decision-making processes and reduces bureaucratic delays.

Additionally, adopting crop grouping will strengthen India’s agricultural identity and brand, positioning the country as a reliable supplier of high-quality, safe agricultural products. This enhanced reputation will attract international partnerships and investments, further bolstering the sector’s growth and development.

The time to act is now, as the benefits of crop grouping are too significant to delay. By embracing this transformative approach, India can ensure a safer, more competitive agricultural landscape, benefiting all stakeholders involved. Let’s break the wait and fast-track crop grouping in India!

Additional Reading

1. Codex Alimentarius 2024. Commodity Categories. Food and Agricultural Organization. Accessed on 01 August 2024.

2. Department of Agriculture & Cooperation 2015. Report of the Committee on Crop Grouping with Reference to Fixation of Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) of Pesticides in Agricultural Crop Commodities. Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India.

3. EPA 2024. Pesticide Tolerance Crop Grouping Revisions. United State’s Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. Accessed on 01 August 2024.

4. IR-4 Project 2024. Crop Grouping. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Accessed on 01 August 2024.

Embarking on this journey into the soil microbiome is like uncovering a treasure chest of ecological wonders, revealing how these microorganisms are not merely residents of the soil but the very pulse of Earth’s ecological equilibrium. Join us as we delve into the extraordinary contributions of these minuscule beings, connecting the dots between our lives, the health of our planet, and the intricate web of life that binds us all. Together, we’ll discover the unseen world that supports us in every step we take, highlighting the critical role of soil microbes in the grand narrative of One Health and the sustainable future it promises.

The invisible world beneath us

Beyond the scenic vistas that capture our admiration lies a bustling, hidden universe essential to our survival—the soil microbiome. This complex network of microorganisms acts as Earth’s life support system, decomposing organic matter, cycling crucial nutrients, and fostering robust plant growth. They serve as nature’s defense force, shielding plants from diseases, participating actively in carbon cycling, and aiding in climate change mitigation. For those unacquainted, envision soil microbes as Earth’s diligent backstage crew, ensuring the fertility of our soils and the stability of our climate, thus making life sustainable. Their endeavours highlight the intricate interconnections within ecosystems, emphasizing the urgent need to safeguard these invisible allies for the well-being of future generations.

Architects of the earth

Soil microbiomes are instrumental in sculpting our environment. They break down organic matter, releasing nutrients vital for plant health and ecosystem diversity. By fixing atmospheric nitrogen and making phosphorus accessible, they fortify the soil, enabling ecosystems to thrive. Their role in carbon sequestration is pivotal in climate change mitigation, capturing carbon within the soil. Moreover, they enhance soil structure, improving water retention and filtration, and defend plants against pathogens, diminishing the reliance on chemical pesticides. These activities highlight their indispensable role in sustaining ecosystems and bolstering agricultural productivity.

Guardians of growth

Integral to plant health and agriculture, soil microbes act as natural fertilisers and protectors. They supply essential nutrients by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and mobilising phosphorus, foster plant growth through symbiotic relationships, and safeguard plants from pathogens, minimising the need for chemicals. Their role in decomposing organic matter enhances soil structure, promoting better aeration and water retention. These microbial actions lay the foundation for sustainable farming, underscoring the importance of soil health in agricultural success and ecosystem resilience.

A shield against climate change

Soil microbes are at the forefront of the battle against climate change, chiefly through carbon sequestration. They transform organic material into stable carbon forms stored in the soil, thus reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. By improving soil structure, they also boost the soil’s capacity to store carbon. This process not only combats climate change but also enhances soil fertility, benefiting both the environment and agriculture.

The One Health connection

Linking soil microbes to the One Health concept underscores how soil health directly influences human and animal well-being. Healthy soil microbiomes are essential for producing nutritious crops, supporting diets, and by preserving ecosystem services like clean water and air, and by mitigating climate change, they indirectly bolster overall health. The microbial regulation of soil pathogens further illustrates the complex relationship between soil, environmental health, and the well-being of all life forms.

Challenges and future directions

The preservation of soil microbiomes is threatened by pollution, deforestation, intensive agriculture, and climate change, which disrupt these ecosystems. Embracing regenerative farming practices, minimizing chemical usage, and enhancing above and below-ground biodiversity are critical strategies for a sustainable future. Future efforts should focus on policy initiatives that advocate for soil health, research into microbial ecosystems and their resilience, and public education on the significance of soil conservation. Protecting soil microbiomes is paramount for sustaining life on Earth, fostering healthy ecosystems, and addressing climate change.

Key policy interventions

Policy changes that can conserve soil microbes, integral to the One Health approach, include:

1. Promotion of Regenerative Agriculture Practices: Encourage farming techniques that enhance soil health, such as crop rotation, cover cropping, reduced tillage, and organic farming.

2. Funding for Soil Microbiome Research: Allocate resources for studying soil microbiomes, their role in ecosystems, and their impacts on human and animal health.

3. Incorporation of Soil Health in Environmental Protection Policies: Implement land use and conservation policies that preserve natural habitats and prevent soil degradation.

4. Incentives for Soil Carbon Sequestration Practices: Provide financial incentives for practices that increase carbon storage in soil, contributing to climate change mitigation.

5. Integration of Soil Health into Public Health Strategies: Recognize soil health’s impact on food security and disease prevention in public health planning and policy.

6. Development of Soil Health Benchmarks: Establish and enforce soil health standards and benchmarks for agricultural and land use practices.

7. Education and Awareness Programs: Increase awareness about the importance of soil microbiomes through education and outreach programs targeting farmers, policymakers, and the general public.

8. Support for Sustainable Land Management: Encourage sustainable land management practices that maintain or improve soil microbial diversity and function.

9. Collaboration and Partnership: Foster partnerships between government, academia, industry, and communities to share knowledge and practices that support soil microbiome conservation.

10. Regulatory Measures Against Soil Pollutants: Regulate and reduce the use of harmful chemicals and pollutants that adversely affect soil microbiomes.

Conclusion

As we journey through the hidden universe beneath our feet, it becomes abundantly clear that soil microbes are not just minor characters in the story of our planet—they are vital protagonists. These microscopic organisms perform essential functions that sustain life on Earth, from recycling nutrients and enhancing plant health to combating climate change through carbon sequestration. They form the foundation of ecosystems, support agricultural productivity, and, by extension, influence human and animal health through the One Health concept. Their role is so pervasive that the health of our planet and future generations is intrinsically linked to the well-being of these unseen allies.

However, this critical balance is under threat from human activities that degrade soil health, such as pollution, deforestation, and unsustainable farming practices. The urgency to act is now, to not only acknowledge the indispensable role of soil microbes but also to take concrete steps to protect and nurture this precious resource.

Call to action: Let us, as stewards of our planet, commit to adopting practices that support soil health—whether through advocating for sustainable agricultural practices, supporting organic and regenerative farming, or simply educating ourselves and others about the importance of soil conservation. Every action counts, from reducing chemical use in our gardens to supporting policies that protect natural habitats and promote biodiversity.

We encourage you to think of soil not just as the ground beneath your feet, but as a living, breathing entity that sustains life in countless ways. By protecting soil microbiomes, we safeguard our future, ensuring a healthier planet for generations to come. Let’s turn our attention to the ground beneath us and act to preserve the life within it. The time to nurture our planet’s unseen heroes is now—our very survival may depend on it.

Additional Reading

• Banerjee, S., & van der Heijden, M. G. A. (2023). Soil microbiomes and one health. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 21(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00779-w

• Bertola, M., Ferrarini, A. & Visioli, G. (2021). Improvement of soil microbial diversity through sustainable agricultural practices and its evaluation by -Omics approaches: A perspective for the environment, food quality and human safety. Microorganisms 9(7):1400. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9071400. 

• Frąc, M., Hannula, E.S., Bełka, M., Salles, J.F., Jedryczka, M. (2022).Soil mycobiome in sustainable agriculture. Front Microbiol. 13:1033824. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1033824. 

• Fierer, N. (2017). Embracing the unknown: Disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 15(10), 579-590. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.87

• Singh, B. K., Yan, Z.-Z., Whittaker, M., Vargas, R., & Abdelfattah, A. (2023). Soil microbiomes must be explicitly included in One Health policy. Nature Microbiology, 8, 1367–1372. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-023-01386-y

With profound sorrow, we announce the passing of Prof. Monkombu Sambasivan Swaminathan, the revered agricultural scientist and the architect of India’s Green Revolution. His demise marks the end of an era of dedication to eradicating hunger and malnutrition and leaves an irreplaceable void in the world of agricultural science.

Born on August 7, 1925, in Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu, to parents hailing from Monkombu, Kuttanad in Kerala, Prof. Swaminathan was a beacon of hope and inspiration for millions of farmers and a guiding spirit in agricultural science and policy.

Distinguished roles and contributions

His foundational research in the fields of potato, wheat, and rice, particularly in cytogenetics, ionizing radiation, and radiosensitivity, has been instrumental in advancing agricultural science. Prof. Swaminathan served with distinction as the Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines. His leadership at these institutions was pivotal in advancing agricultural research and developing high-yielding varieties of crops, transforming India from a food-deficient nation to a food-surplus country.

He played a significant role in the sustainable agricultural development of Kuttanad, Kerala, emphasising ecological balance and the preservation of the region’s unique below sea level farming system, recognised globally as an Agricultural Heritage System.

Visit of Prof. M.S. Swaminathan to ICAR – Indian Institute of Spices Research on various occasions

Advocacy and vision

As the chair of the National Commission on Farmers and a President of the Pugwash Conferences and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), he has been a strong advocate for agricultural reforms, global peace, and environmental conservation. Prof. Swaminathan coined the term ‘Evergreen Revolution’ to articulate his vision of achieving ‘productivity in perpetuity without associated ecological harm’. He founded the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation to further his mission of promoting pro-nature, pro-poor, and pro-women sustainable development.

Author and thought leader

A prolific author and thought leader, Prof. Swaminathan contributed extensively to agricultural literature, penning numerous research papers, articles, and seminal works such as “In Search of Biohappiness: Biodiversity and Food, Health and Livelihood Security” and “From Green to Evergreen Revolution: Indian Agriculture, Performance and Challenges.” His writings have been instrumental in shaping global perspectives on sustainable agriculture, food security, and biodiversity conservation.

National honours and global recognition

Serving as a nominated member of the Parliament of India from 2007 to 2013, he championed the cause of women farmers in India. Recognised by TIME magazine as one of the ’20 Most Influential Asian People of the 20th Century’, he has received numerous prestigious awards, reflecting his unparalleled contributions to science and humanity.

India honoured him with its highest civilian awards, including the Padma Shri, the Padma Bhushan, and the Padma Vibhushan, acknowledging his invaluable contributions to the nation and humanity. His relentless pursuit of a hunger-free world earned him international accolades, including the Ramon Magsaysay Award, the World Food Prize, and the UNESCO Gandhi Prize.

Enduring legacy

Prof. Swaminathan’s enduring legacy is his unwavering commitment to leveraging science and technology for social change and his visionary approach to sustainable and inclusive agricultural development. The global community extends its deepest condolences to his family in this hour of grief. His ideals and mission to eradicate hunger and promote ecological conservation will continue to inspire generations to come.