|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Tuesday, 27 April 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Features | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Is Urea a panacea for rural agriculture? by Dr.Richard Thornton Smith, Ecologist and Organic Farming researcher and Nelson Nagasinghe To develop a meaningful and effective policy for rural areas we need to understand what is happening in the world and to realise that failure to support the economy of rural areas will spell serious future problems for urban areas. This article examines how current agricultural costs, environmental pollution, water scarcity and the country's energy needs converge on a strong case for developing organic - ecological and forest farming systems.
Recent increases in the price of petro chemically-based products, notably urea, have led to much discontent. At the present time heads are buried in the sand, anxious to please the voter or simply to maintain business as usual, as if this, like previous price increases can be solved by solid resistance, death threats and the like. But this time the issues are so serious that inaction is not an option - it is time to face up to some uncomfortable realities. Urea is the mainstay of chemical farming. After practically two generations farmers have become so accustomed to chemical inputs in agriculture that price increases which are not matched by increases in the value of agricultural products will naturally cause panic. This raises two important questions: 1. How wide is the awareness that agrochemicals are implicated in multiple damage to our health via food and water supplies and through their routine use? 2. Can the country really afford to continue its generous subsidy of chemical products? There is increasing public awareness of the dangers from chemical contamination but largely as a result of peoples suffering rather than through any programme of public or school-based education. The latter should be addressed as a matter of priority. All systems of our body are affected in one way or another from diabetes and kidney failure to the multiple manifestations of infertility. Farmers use more chemicals now to produce a given weight of product than they did formerly. Take paddy for example. Compared with 20 years ago, although yields per acre have increased by around 20% the consumption of fertilizer has virtually doubled (Annual Reports of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka 1976-2002). Most farmers will tell you that their soils have deteriorated over time with the use of chemicals which undoubtedly accounts for the need to use more chemical to maintain yield. Parallel with the increased use of fertilizer has been a surge in pesticide use of even greater impact to humans and wildlife. It is claimed that many vegetable farmers grow food for themselves without using chemicals yet routinely spray their produce cosmetically with pesticide before it goes to market, ensuring that their customers are subject to maximum levels of contamination. Given these facts, should our government be encouraging the use of chemicals? If something costs more, it might be used more sparingly. So should we not be considering the advantages of increased costs of chemical farm inputs? Surely this is just what Sri Lanka requires at this time. Furthermore, agrochemicals represent a huge import cost for Sri Lanka and a reduction in their use could therefore make a contribution to the economy. Even the chemical companies must admit there is a lot that can be done to encourage a more responsible use of their products. Some three years ago The Environment Ministry empowered the National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWSDB) to investigate how water pollution problems could be alleviated and their ongoing work to promote responsible practices, including the introduction of organic farming, is to be widely welcomed. What is needed in this context is 'connected government', in other words a coordination of policies within separate ministries, all helping to address matters of public health. Without such an initiative, we would not be exaggerating to say that serious demographic imbalances seem likely in the future. In this respect we would deplore one ministry taking a responsible approach while another bends to the farming vote or to the transnational corporations. Actions of the latter kind merely fuel the problem and frustrate the efforts of professionals dedicated to environmental improvement. At the present time, while chemical farmers have the benefit of subsidised fertilizer, organic farmers get no credit whatsoever for their non-polluting methods. The creation of a more level playing field would act as a huge incentive to cleaning up the nation's water supplies and be more cost-effective than channelling money into subsidies. Alternatives Are farmers aware that there are alternatives to the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides? Most farmers are not or are fearful of making a change, which explains the scale of the current furore. Over recent years some farmers have been changing to a combination of methods which can variously be described as reduced-input agriculture or even to organic farming which does not employ any synthetic chemicals. The latter approach demonstrates very well that despite what the advertisers may say, there is life after chemicals - and life more abundantly! Reduced input - sometimes referred to as integrated farming - has shown good results in other parts of Asia, with reduced costs for the farmer as well as a reduced burden of subsidy for the nation. Furthermore, as the use of chemicals diminishes, some of the original biological control agents begin to reduce the pest burden. In some larger-scale enterprises this may represent the most attractive alternative to unreformed chemical farming. However, it represents turning down the volume rather than switching to another channel, which is why organic farming offers the more dynamic and sustainable alternative. Unfortunately, advice on alternatives, particularly on organic farming, is very patchy from District Agriculture Departments and, although now part of government policy, organic farming is yet to be effectively advocated from the highest levels of the Agriculture Ministry. The important thing for farmers to realise is that there is no need to be a victim of the current trap created by high input costs and low returns on produce. By 'organic' we mean a system of farming which uses no synthetic chemical fertilizers or pesticides, and which employs recycled organic materials and particular systems of cropping for the management and enhancement of soil fertility. To a considerable extent, weed and pest management follows from the cultural practices adopted, although a wide variety of substances - often of herbal origin - are used for controlling pests. The aim is to 'work with nature' to create a sustainable system functioning somewhat like an organism. Organic food will be virtually free of chemical residues but also has other qualities which make it healthier. It has a higher mineral and vitamin content, better flavour and texture and better keeping quality. Drought and food security Two-thirds of Sri Lanka is considered to be Dry Zone. Water scarcity is therefore a major issue in agricultural and community development. Records at the Tea Research Institute indicate that rainfall used to be more reliable in the past. As in Thailand and Indonesia, rainfall appears to have dropped by as much as 20% over the last 30 years with rainy days occurring even less frequently, meaning that the average intensity of rainfall is now higher. Furthermore, because of deforestation and soil deterioration, water retention in catchments and soils has decreased dramatically leading to higher runoff, and therefore wastage, of available rainfall. Higher rainfall intensity also means less effective recharge of ground water. As a result, flood relief and drought relief programmes now follow each other in quick succession! This water crisis can only get worse in the future and it would appear urgent for water-harvesting techniques to be widely adopted. Whatever the actual rainfall situation, plants seem likely to be challenged more now and in the future by water scarcity. In this respect, the organic system is superior to chemical farming for encouraging strong, well-formed and deeper root systems. This in turn encourages greater soil biological activity and generates higher levels of soil humus. The latter aids good soil structure and water retention. Organic crops grow with support from mycorrhizal fungi which extend effective rooting and the plant's ability to find water in dry conditions. In an Australian comparison, irrigation frequency was reduced by half for organic pastures. Organic crops also grow with smaller cells having stronger walls and higher contents of phenolics, cyanogenic glucosides and other secondary nutrients which raise the osmotic value of cells. In countless cases where conventional systems have suffered from the consequences of drought, organic crops continue to thrive. After the early 2004 failure of paddy in many areas there are notable cases of organic crops which not only survived but went on to fetch higher market prices due to scarcity. Previous published work from the USA reveals that it is only in wet years that conventional farming proves more profitable - in these years, chemicals are more fully utilized through adequate soil moisture. Recent experience in the Dry Zone of Sri Lanka, where paddy has been grown using a mulch system (Nawakekulama) indicates that, compared with the traditional flooding method, at least 50% less irrigation water is used, enabling water to be saved for the following season. Making changes to farmers' agricultural methods can certainly be expected to bring benefits but more significant financial gains would result from improved marketing, adding value through processing or through additional agriculture-related enterprises. It is this latter possibility that we now explore. Energy requirements Power generation in this country is increasingly dependent on costly imported petroleum because of our limited hydro-power potential. If we are not to face a future of power shortage, voltage reductions and rotational power cuts as has been frequent in the past, then an alternative energy source must be actively explored and widely developed. Alternative energy sources are now well documented and include wind and solar, each of which has its local applications. But of much more widespread and extensive potential is the source of energy derived from living biomass (dendro)- from the production of wood by growing trees. Suitable species of tree exist in Sri Lanka for this purpose as well as appropriate growing conditions. A Bio-energy Association of Sri Lanka (BEASL) has been formed to help develop this established and proven technology in Sri Lanka. The use of firewood for energy is nothing new even for Sri Lanka. The most important distinction the Bio Energy Association of Sri Lanka (BEASL) would like to make in respect of Dendro Energy as opposed to the traditional use of firewood is the use of Sustainably Grown Fuel Wood (SGF) for our energy needs. The proposals made by BEASL assumes very conservative yields of 30 tons per ha per year from such plantations. This level of yield has been exceeded comfortably in all the field trials carried out by the CRI and the Ministry of Science and Technology in all types of terrain and climatic conditions. (To be continued) |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
