Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) provides the interface for the meeting of farmers and scientists. This is a meeting of different social worlds, contesting agendas, cultures of cooperation and networks of actors. Like in other disciplines, scientists in AR4D have developed their own culture of science. However, the role of their culture of science in the negotiations and encounters with farmers’ social worlds is rarely discussed. Analysing AR4D with a theoretical framework based on Science and Technology Studies (STS) helps us to highlight important issues of power and access in AR4D. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the introduction of certain technologies has interacted with the lives of people in an AR4D project in Ethiopia, and to highlight the potential and limitations of applying STS to AR4D. We interviewed farmers, scientists, extensionists, policy makers and donors associated with an AR4D project in the Ethiopian Highlands using qualitative social research approaches. Akrich’s theory on scripts provided the theoretical framework for analysis. Our findings provide examples for the re-inscription of technology and access in an AR4D project, leading to trade-offs and shifting of power between different actors. We conclude that understanding AR4D as part of a network of actors with its own culture of science provides an essential learning ground. We recommend STS to be applied more widely in AR4D to explore the nature of these networks to highlight what makes technology work for users in the long term.

During the last decades, soil organic carbon (SOC) attracted the attention of a much wider array of specialists beyond agriculture and soil science, as it was proven to be one of the most crucial components of the earth’s climate system, which has a great potential to be managed by humans. Soils as a carbon pool are one of the key factors in several Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goal 15, “Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss” with the SOC stock being explicitly cited in Indicator 15.3.1.

This technical manual is the first attempt to gather, in a standardized format, the existing data on the impacts of the main soil management practices on SOC content in a wide array of environments, including the advantages, drawbacks and constraints. This manual presents different sustainable soil management (SSM) practices at different scales and in different contexts, supported by case studies that have been shown with quantitative data to have a positive effect on SOC stocks and successful experiences of SOC sequestration in practical field applications.

Soil pollution is invisible to the human eye, but it compromises the quality of the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe and puts human and environmental health at risk. Most contaminants originate from human activities such as industrial processes and mining, poor waste management, unsustainable farming practices, accidents ranging from small chemical spills to accidents at nuclear power plants, and the many effects of armed conflicts. Pollution knows no borders: contaminants are spread throughout terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and many are distributed globally by atmospheric transport. In addition, they are redistributed through the global economy by way of food and production chains.

Soil pollution has been internationally recognized as a major threat to soil health, and it affects the soil’s ability to provide ecosystem services, including the production of safe and sufficient food, compromising global food security. Soil pollution hinders the achievement of many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those related to poverty elimination (SDG 1), zero hunger (SDG 2), and good health and well-being (SDG 3). Soil pollution hits the most vulnerable hardest, especially children and women (SDG 5). The supply of safe drinking water is threatened by the leaching of contaminants into groundwater and runoff (SDG 6). CO2 and N2O emissions from unsustainably managed soils accelerate climate change (SDG 13). Soil pollution contributes to land degradation and loss of terrestrial (SDG 15) and aquatic (SDG 14) biodiversity, and decreased the security and resilience of cities (SDG 11), among others.

Afghanistan is a landlocked mountainous country with plains in the north and southwest, which is described as being located within South and Central Asia. Water is the lifeblood of the people of Afghanistan, not just for living but also for the economy, which has traditionally been dominated by agriculture. Over 80% of the country’s water resources originate within the Hindu Kush mountain ranges at altitudes over 2000 m. The mountains perform as natural water storage, with snow throughout the winter and snowmelt within the summer that supports perennial flow of all the major rivers.

Soil health testing provides an integrated assessment of biological, physical, and chemical attributes to inform the sustainable management of farm fields. However, it is unclear how tests reflect farmers’ own assessments of soil quality and agronomic performance, which may disproportionately influence farm management practices. We asked farmers in three regions of Michigan to identify three fields to compare their own assessments against soil health tests: a “best,” a “worst,” and a “non‐row crop” reference field. Each field was tested for soil aggregate stability, available water capacity, soil organic matter (SOM), mineralizable carbon (MinC), permanganate oxidizable carbon (POXC), pH, P, and K. We evaluated soil health scores using paired t tests to compare results from contrasting fields with farmers’ assessments of each field. Across all farms, the overall soil health test score for cropped fields was significantly higher on fields farmers rated as “Best.” This result was driven solely by physical and biological (including C) parameters; inorganic chemical tests did not distinguish among field types. On reference fields in all regions, biological parameters were consistently higher, but inorganic chemical and physical measures were not. The performance of soil C measures was inconsistent: SOM and MinC consistently detected significant differences between “Best” and “Worst” cropped fields, but POXC did not. Our results suggest that common soil health assays for physical and biological attributes generally align well with farmers’ assessments of their fields. That soil health tests match farmer experience reinforces the value of these tests as a meaningful guide for soil management decisions.