The Indore composting method is one of the most influential composting systems in the history of organic and regenerative farming. Developed in India in the early twentieth century by Sir Albert Howard and Yeshwant D. Wad at the Institute of Plant Industry in Indore, it helped shape the modern organic movement and remains highly relevant for farmers, growers, market gardeners, smallholders and anyone interested in building soil fertility naturally.
At its simplest, the Indore method is a way of turning agricultural wastes into rich, stable humus. But behind that simple description is a much bigger idea: farming should not be a one-way process where nutrients are taken from the soil, exported in crops and replaced only with purchased fertilisers. Instead, farms should work as living cycles. Crop residues, weeds, leaves, animal bedding, dung, urine-soaked earth and other organic materials should be returned to the soil in a carefully managed form.
Howard and Wad described the system in their 1931 book The Waste Products of Agriculture: Their Utilization as Humus, where they argued that one of the great problems of modern crop production was waste. They saw the exploitation of soil fertility without proper return as a kind of agricultural plunder, and composting as one of the most practical ways to restore balance. The book explains the Indore method as a continuous, aerobic process for converting farm by-products into humus using only mixed organic wastes, dung, urine earth, wood ash, air and water.
For modern readers interested in regenerative agriculture, organic farming, agroecology, market gardening or pasture-based systems, the Indore composting method is still worth understanding. It may need adaptation for today’s machinery, labour costs, climate conditions and regulations, but its core principles remain remarkably sound.
The Indore composting method is a managed aerobic composting process designed to convert farm wastes into humus-rich compost. It was developed in Indore, India, through practical experiments with crop residues, animal manures and soil materials.
The method combines several sources of organic matter, including:
The aim is to create the right conditions for fungi and bacteria to break down tough plant material and transform it into stable humus. Howard and Wad were particularly concerned with making the process practical for smallholders. They wanted a system that used materials already available on the farm, rather than relying on expensive imported chemicals or fertilisers.
Unlike casual compost heaps, the Indore method is carefully structured. Materials are mixed, layered, moistened, inoculated with decomposing material, turned at set intervals and allowed to mature over roughly ninety days. The finished compost is dark, crumbly, fine-textured and suitable for returning to the land.
The Indore method came from a very practical problem: how could farmers maintain soil fertility without relying heavily on artificial fertilisers or newly cleared land?
In the early twentieth century, many farming systems were becoming increasingly dependent on external inputs. Chemical fertilisers were being promoted as a modern solution to soil fertility, while large-scale agriculture often relied on the fertility accumulated in virgin soils. Howard saw this as short-sighted. In his view, soil fertility had to be maintained from within the farming system wherever possible.
He was also working in India, where many small farmers did not have the money to buy fertilisers. A method based on local farm wastes was therefore not only ecologically sensible but economically necessary.
The Indore method was designed to solve several problems at once:
This is why the method became so important to the later organic farming movement. It was not just about compost. It was about the whole philosophy of farming with cycles rather than extraction.
The Indore method depends on a few key biological principles. These are still central to good composting today.
Howard and Wad found that single materials often compost badly on their own. Tough, woody residues such as cotton stalks, pigeon pea stalks or cane trash may be too low in nitrogen. Soft green materials may be too rich in nitrogen and can become slimy, smelly or anaerobic if used alone.
The solution is to mix materials. A good compost heap needs a balance of carbon-rich and nitrogen-rich ingredients.
Carbon-rich materials include straw, dry stalks, sawdust, dry leaves and woody residues.
Nitrogen-rich materials include green weeds, fresh plant material, dung, urine earth and leguminous crops.
Modern composters often describe this as the balance between “browns” and “greens”. The Indore method understood this principle long before it became common gardening language.
The Indore method is an aerobic process. That means it depends on oxygen. When air is present, beneficial fungi and bacteria break down materials efficiently, generating heat and producing a pleasant earthy compost.
When air is lacking, the heap becomes anaerobic. This can lead to bad smells, nutrient losses, fly problems and poor-quality compost.
Howard and Wad paid great attention to aeration. They recommended shallow pits or heaps, careful layering, avoiding trampling, and turning the compost at intervals. Their pits were not supposed to be too deep, because deep material could become starved of oxygen.
Compost needs moisture, but not too much. If the heap is too dry, decomposition slows or stops. If it is too wet, air spaces fill with water and the compost turns anaerobic.
The Indore method involves regular watering, especially during dry periods. However, Howard and Wad also warned against overwatering. They observed that excess water could reduce aeration and lead to nitrogen losses.
The ideal modern description would be: compost should feel like a wrung-out sponge. Moist, but not dripping.
The Indore method is based on the activity of fungi and bacteria. These organisms break down cellulose, lignin and other plant compounds, converting raw residues into humus.
Howard and Wad recommended inoculating new compost with material from an active compost pit. This was not because composting cannot happen without inoculation, but because it helps introduce the right decomposer organisms and speeds the process.
Today, many composters do the same thing informally by adding a little finished compost, old manure, garden soil or active compost material to a new pile.
The goal is not half-rotted waste. The aim is a mature, stable, fine compost that can be safely incorporated into the soil.
Howard and Wad were concerned that if raw organic material was added directly to fields, the soil would have to do too much work breaking it down. During that process, soil microbes might temporarily tie up nitrogen, making it unavailable to crops.
By composting outside the field first, the farmer prepares plant food before applying it. This was one of the most important ideas behind the Indore system.
The original Indore system was designed around cattle sheds, farm residues and compost pits. A modern farm may adapt the details, but the basic process is as follows.
The first stage is to gather plant and animal wastes from the farm. These might include straw, crop stalks, weeds, leaves, spoiled fodder, green manure crops, animal bedding and dung.
Howard and Wad emphasised that woody materials should be broken down before composting. Tough stalks were crushed or trampled so that fungi and bacteria could access the inner tissues more easily.
For modern growers, this might mean chopping, shredding, mowing, bruising or running over material before composting. Smaller pieces compost faster because they provide more surface area for microbial activity.
In the original Indore system, crop residues were used as bedding under cattle. This had several benefits.
The animals crushed the material.
Dung and urine enriched it with nitrogen.
The bedding absorbed valuable nutrients that might otherwise be lost.
The material became better mixed and more biologically active.
This is one of the cleverest parts of the method. Livestock were not just producing manure; they were helping prepare the raw compost ingredients.
A modern equivalent might be deep litter bedding in a barn, compost-bedded packs, winter housing with straw bedding, or collecting bedding from poultry, goats, sheep or cattle.
Howard and Wad used shallow compost pits, often around two feet deep. In very wet seasons, they recommended heaps rather than pits to avoid waterlogging.
The bedding and organic material were spread in thin layers. Dung slurry, urine earth, wood ash and water were added. The aim was even mixing, good moisture and plenty of air.
A key point is that the material should not be compacted. Trampling reduces air spaces and can push the heap into anaerobic conditions.
For modern use, compost can be made in bays, windrows, heaps or static piles. The shape matters less than the conditions: air, moisture, balance and temperature.
The material is watered during construction and at later stages. In the original system, water was carefully measured, but for most modern growers the practical test is physical: take a handful of composting material and squeeze it. It should hold together slightly and feel moist, but water should not pour out.
Dry compost becomes inactive. Wet compost becomes smelly. Moisture management is one of the quiet arts of composting.
In the Indore method, the compost is turned several times, traditionally around:
The purpose of turning is to mix the material, add oxygen, redistribute moisture and bring outer material into the hotter centre.
The original process was designed around a roughly ninety-day composting cycle. After about three months, the compost was considered ready for use.
Modern composting may be faster or slower depending on the climate, feedstocks, pile size and turning method. Warm, well-balanced heaps may compost quickly. Cold, woody or dry heaps take longer.
One unusual feature of the original Indore method is the use of “urine earth”. This was earth from the cattle shed floor that had absorbed urine. It served several purposes.
It captured nitrogen that might otherwise be lost.
It provided minerals and microbial life.
It helped coat plant residues with a moisture-retaining film.
It acted as a buffering material, helping maintain suitable conditions for decomposition.
Wood ash was also used, partly as a source of minerals and partly to help balance acidity. However, modern growers should use wood ash carefully. It is alkaline and can raise pH if overused. It should only come from clean, untreated wood.
The wider lesson is that liquid nutrients matter. Urine, slurry, washings and leachate can contain valuable fertility, but they must be managed carefully to avoid pollution and nutrient loss.
The Indore method differs from a casual compost heap in several ways.
First, it is systematic. Materials are collected, mixed, moistened, turned and matured according to a plan.
Second, it is farm-scale. It was designed to process the wastes of a working agricultural holding, not just kitchen scraps or garden cuttings.
Third, it integrates livestock. Animal bedding, dung and urine are central to the method.
Fourth, it aims to produce humus for soil fertility, not simply dispose of waste.
Fifth, it is based on observation of microbial processes. Howard and Wad were interested in temperature, aeration, nitrogen loss, decomposition and compost quality.
This is why the Indore method became so influential. It made composting look like a serious agricultural practice rather than a rough-and-ready way of tidying up waste.
Lets at the benefits
The most obvious benefit is the return of organic matter to the soil. Compost helps improve soil structure, aggregation, water retention and biological activity.
For regenerative farmers, this is central. Soil organic matter is linked to resilience: better infiltration, improved drought tolerance, more active soil life and better nutrient cycling.
The method turns crop residues, weeds, leaves and bedding into a useful resource. This reduces burning, dumping and nutrient loss.
For farms trying to become more circular, this is a big deal. The less fertility that leaks from the system, the less has to be bought back in.
Good compost feeds soil organisms. It introduces decomposed organic matter and microbial by-products that help stimulate soil life.
This does not mean compost is a magic inoculant that solves every soil problem. But it can be a valuable part of a broader soil health strategy.
The Indore method was designed for farmers with limited access to purchased fertilisers. That lesson still matters. Composting on-farm can reduce reliance on bought-in fertility, particularly where farms have livestock bedding or abundant plant residues.
Raw manure can lose nitrogen, smell unpleasant, attract flies and create pollution risks. Composting stabilises it and makes it easier to spread.
For livestock farms, this can turn a management problem into a soil-building asset.
Well-made compost is easier to spread and incorporate than rough, raw waste. It is more uniform, more stable and less likely to rob nitrogen from crops.
The Indore method is valuable, but it is not perfect or universally applicable without adaptation.
The original system involved collecting materials, bedding animals, moving compost, watering and turning by hand. On modern farms, especially where labour is expensive, this can be a barrier.
Mechanisation can help. Front loaders, compost turners, muck spreaders and aerated systems can all apply Indore principles in a modern form.
Composting works best when there is a steady supply of diverse organic materials. A farm with few animals and little residue may struggle to produce enough compost.
Market gardens often solve this by importing local green waste, woodchip, manure or leaves, but these materials must be clean and safe.
Compost is not a precise fertiliser. Its nutrient content depends on the materials used, the composting process and the maturity of the final product.
Modern growers should test compost where possible and use soil analysis to avoid over- or under-application.
Badly managed compost can smell, lose nitrogen, produce leachate, attract pests or fail to break down properly. The Indore method works because it is managed. Remove the management, and the benefits decline.
Not all organic waste is suitable for composting on-farm. Diseased plant material, persistent herbicide residues, contaminated manures, treated wood, sewage sludge and certain urban wastes can create problems.
The Indore principle is to recycle fertility, but modern safety standards must guide what is used.
The Indore composting method fits naturally within regenerative agriculture, but it should be seen as one tool among many.
A regenerative farm might combine composting with:
The deeper lesson from Howard and Wad is not that every farm must copy the Indore pit system exactly. It is that every farm should ask: how do we return life, carbon and nutrients to the soil?
For a pasture livestock farm, that might mean composting winter bedding and applying it to hay fields.
For a market garden, it might mean combining crop residues, woodchip, leaves and animal manures into managed compost bays.
For an arable farm, it might mean composting straw-based manures, using cover crops and returning residues rather than burning or exporting them.
For a community farm, it might mean setting up a local composting system that turns green waste into fertility for food production.
You do not need to recreate the exact 1931 Indore system to benefit from its principles. Here are practical ways to apply it today.
Avoid heaps made entirely of grass clippings, straw, manure or woodchip. Mix carbon-rich and nitrogen-rich ingredients.
A useful rough guide is to combine dry, fibrous materials with wetter, greener or manure-rich materials.
Tough stalks, hedge cuttings and woody residues compost slowly unless broken down. Shred, chop or crush them where possible.
Avoid compacting the pile. Build it with enough structure to allow air flow. Turn it when it becomes too dense, too wet or starts to smell.
Too dry and nothing happens. Too wet and the heap turns anaerobic. Aim for damp, not soggy.
Straw bedding mixed with dung and urine is excellent compost material. Do not waste it. Compost it properly and return it to the land.
Immature compost can tie up nitrogen or stress plants. Let it finish. Mature compost should smell earthy, look dark and crumbly, and no longer resemble the original materials too strongly.
For commercial growing, test compost and soil. Compost is valuable, but nutrient management still matters.
One common mistake is making the heap too wet. This causes smells and poor decomposition.
Another is using too much woody material without enough nitrogen. The heap stays cold and slow.
A third is failing to turn or aerate the pile. Oxygen is essential.
A fourth is using contaminated inputs. Be especially cautious with manure from animals bedded on sprayed straw or fed hay from land treated with persistent herbicides.
A fifth is applying unfinished compost directly around sensitive crops. Finished compost is far safer and more useful.
The Indore composting method matters because it offers a practical answer to one of farming’s oldest questions: how do we maintain fertility?
Howard and Wad’s answer was elegant: use the wastes of agriculture itself. Do not let nutrients drift away. Do not burn organic matter that could feed the soil. Do not treat dung, bedding and residues as a nuisance. Gather them, balance them, compost them and return them.
In an age of rising fertiliser costs, soil degradation, climate uncertainty and renewed interest in regenerative farming, that message feels anything but outdated.
The method also challenges us to think differently. Composting is not just waste disposal. It is farm design. It asks us to reconnect livestock with cropping, residues with soil, biology with productivity, and everyday practical work with long-term land stewardship.
The Indore composting method is one of the classic foundations of organic and regenerative agriculture. Developed by Albert Howard and Yeshwant D. Wad in India, it showed how mixed agricultural wastes could be transformed into humus through a controlled aerobic process.
Its details may need updating for modern farms, but its principles remain powerful: mix materials well, maintain air and moisture, use animal manures intelligently, avoid nutrient loss, and return organic matter to the soil in a stable form.
For farmers, market gardeners, smallholders and growers today, the Indore method is more than a historical curiosity. It is a reminder that fertility is not something we always have to buy in a bag. Often, it is already on the farm — in the bedding, the stalks, the weeds, the leaves, the dung, the residues — waiting to be brought back into the cycle.
The great lesson of the Indore composting method is simple: waste is only waste when we fail to return it to life.
Humus gnosis: soil fertility, research and funding in the life of Sir Albert Howard – Published in: The British Journal for the History of Science, 2025
The best modern academic sources for placing Albert Howard in historical context. It looks at Howard’s work on soil fertility, composting, agricultural research, funding, and the way his ideas helped shape organic farming. It is especially useful because it complicates the simple story of Howard as merely the “father of organic agriculture”, showing how his ideas emerged from imperial science, field observation, Indian agriculture, and debates about artificial fertilisers.
Hershey, David R. “Sir Albert Howard and the Indore Process.” – Published in: HortTechnology, 1992
A short but very handy paper focused specifically on Howard and the Indore process. Hershey summarises Howard’s career, explains the basic ingredients and structure of the Indore method, and notes that the process used plant wastes, animal manure, limestone or wood ash, water and air. It also gives a balanced critique, pointing out that Howard’s basic composting ideas were environmentally sound, but that some of his broader claims about soil health and disease went beyond the evidence available.
Albert Howard and Yeshwant D. Wad – Book: The Waste Products of Agriculture: Their Utilization as Humus
This is the original source for understanding the Indore composting method. Written in 1931 by Albert Howard and Yeshwant D. Wad, the book explains how agricultural waste products can be turned into humus and returned to the soil.
The book is important because it captures the thinking behind the Indore method in the authors’ own words. Howard and Wad argue that many so-called “waste” materials on farms — crop residues, weeds, leaves, animal bedding, dung, urine earth and ash — are really valuable sources of fertility if properly composted.
For modern readers interested in regenerative agriculture, organic farming or agroecology, this book is still worth reading. Some of its language and assumptions are dated, but the central idea remains powerful: a farm should not waste its fertility. It should cycle nutrients and organic matter back into the soil.
Zhao, Shuaixiang et al. “A precision compost strategy aligning composts and application methods with target crops and growth environments can increase global food production.” –Published in: Nature Food, 2022
This is a strong modern paper for showing how compost research has moved on from Howard’s era. The authors carried out a global meta-analysis with more than 2,000 observations, looking at how compost type, crop type, application method and growing environment affect outcomes. It is useful because it supports the idea that compost can play a major role in sustainable agriculture, but also shows that results depend heavily on matching the right compost to the right crop and context.
Diacono, Mariangela and Montemurro, Francesco. “Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review.” – Published in: Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2010
This is a widely cited review of long-term experiments on organic amendments. It found that repeated use of organic amendments can improve soil biological functions, increase microbial biomass, improve enzyme activity and raise soil organic carbon compared with unfertilised or chemically fertilised treatments.
