Archives

by Dr. U P de S Waidyanatha

Fertilizer use in rice doubled in the last decade but average rice yields increased only by about 8%. Subsidizing merely fertilizer is therefore, not the answer to increasing national rice production.

Research has shown that a technology package that costs the farmer only about 20% more than his current cost can boost yields by 70 to 225% and net returns 5 to 15 fold! The subsidy on fertilizer urea, which would only have little impact on rice yields, if diverted to transfer this technology to rice farmers, should have a far greater impact on national rice production and farmer incomes.

The fertilizer urea subsidy, which is costing the government some Rs. 3 billion per year, is wrongly believed by many to provide tangible relief to paddy farmers. The cost of fertilizer in rice farming is only some 11-12% of the total cost of production and the cost of the urea component is about half of it. The subsidy on urea gives the farmer a gain of only some Rs. 700 - 800 per acre per season. Recent increases in phosphate (US$ 180 to 200/MT) and potash fertilizers (US$ 164 to 200) will effectively nullify the farmers' gain from the urea subsidy.

Whilst application of the correct quantity of urea (nitrogenous fertilizer) is vitally important, rice scientists express concern that the urea subsidy, by encouraging its over-use, may cause nutrient imbalances leading to adverse effects on the crop, and the recent increases in potash and phosphate fertilizers may aggravate this trend.

Furthermore, whilst chemical (NPK) fertilizer use among rice farmers doubled in the 1990s rice yields increased by only 8% implying that inappropriate fertilizer use or other limiting factors are at play.

Deficiency of certain micronutrients such as zinc and sulphur in some soils are reported to reduce yields appreciably. Most farmers give priority to the application of fertilizer to the neglect of other agronomic and pest management practices, which are equally important yield determinants.

This may explain the poor response to increased fertilizer use. For example, good weed management can be as important as fertilizer application for high yields.

The need for a balanced technology package which takes into account all factors determining yield such as tillage, timely cultivation, fertilizer use, pest, disease and water management for optimizing yields has been amply demonstrated by the Department of Agriculture, particularly through its 'Yaya' demonstration programmes.

The importance of the entire package of technology for increasing yield, and not merely fertilizer, is dramatically shown in the more recent paddy yield optimisation demonstrations conducted in the North Central Province, under the ADB-funded North Central Province Rural Development Project.

There were 375 plots irrigated with minor tanks aggregating 286 acres in the project. The technology package comprised: timely cultivation (of the entire 'yaya'), deep ploughing (8"-10"), application of organic fertilizers (3 MT/ac) comprising cattle manure, green manure, straw, and correct inorganic fertilizer mixtures, improved (certified) seed, integrated pest management and efficient water management.

Of twelve demonstrations that were conducted, two that showed the highest (Nabadawewa tank) and lowest (Hiripitigama tank) paddy yields are given below in Tables 1 and 2. In the case of the 'Maximum Yield Plot', the farmers applied optimum inorganic and organic fertilizer required to achieve a target yield of 200 bushels/acre and also other inputs, whereas in the case of the medium yield plots, the farmers did not plough deep, applied no organic manure but only inorganic fertilizers adequate to push yields from the traditional average level of 70-80 to 120 bushels/acre. The traditional yield plots are those where there was no intervention in the farmers' usual practices.

What is most significant is that, with only a small increase (of about Rs. 4000/ac) in the cost of production the net returns increased dramatically. For example, even in the case of the lowest average yield situation at Hiripitigama tank, net income for the 'Medium Yield Plot' (Rs. 9,500/ac) and 'Maximum Yield Plot' (Rs. 18,000/ac) increased by 2.7 and 5 fold respectively over the 'Traditional Yield Plot" (Rs. 3500/ac). The corresponding increases are far more dramatic at Nabadawewa being nearly 5 (Rs. 18,750/ac) and 15 (Rs. 62,000/ac) fold.

Very similar results have also been reported recently from the Mahaweli System C under the Mahaweli Upgrading Project where yields of the order of 120-180 bushels/ac (6-9 MT/ha) have been achieved for four consecutive seasons. Because of the higher cultivation costs associated with the technology package, farmers were compelled to seek credit (Rajarata and UVA Development Banks), each farmer (1 hectare) borrowing Rs. 10,000 on average. Over 99% of the 33,000 farmers promptly settled the loans after harvest.

Although on a national scale such magnitudes of productivity and incomes may not be achievable, it is more than evident that a well organized technology transfer campaign with this package and access to credit should cause very substantial yield increases, possibly enabling the national requirement of rice to be produced just from the irrigated rice lands.

The Rs. 3 billion to be spent on the urea subsidy, if used in demonstrating the technology package, could theoretically cover the total cost of cultivation of over 160,000 demonstrations each one-acre. This is equivalent to 8% of the total extent planted to rice in the two seasons, Yala and Maha. Imagine the impact of such an exercise on the farmer uptake of the new technology!!.

To do this of course the Government must re-establish a professional field extension service, which has been defunct since field extension workers were transformed into Grama Niladaris, in the 1990s. The Rs. 3 billion is adequate to cover both the extension staff costs and a very substantial number of demonstrations.

Farmers require both technology and capital (as credit) to boost rice production. A modicum of subsidy is just not enough. The Mahaweli system C experience shows that farmers honourably pay back loans when profits are good.

It is up to the government to put together a comprehensive package of technology and credit to ensure significant increases in rice productivity and incomes for the farmer, and food security for the nation. The urea subsidy is a good example of political expedience superceding technical considerations.

(The writer is Director General, National Agribusiness Council.)

www.Pathmaconstruction.com

www.crescat.com

News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security
Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries

Produced by Lake House
Copyright © 2003 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager