Archives

Agriculture

Are artificial fertilizer indispensable?

by Abey Ekanayake

A fertilizer warehouse

It was in 1845 that the German scientist Justus Von Liebig discovered that plants use the elements, Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potash and others only if they have been made water soluble and with that revelation the artificial fertilizer industry developed.

The NPK of today's chemical agriculture using Sulphate of ammonia , Urea , Triple Super Phosphate and Muriate of Potash commenced with that discovery.

It is indeed true that plants need water soluble elements. However, if it is also true that artificial fertilizers are indispensable for plant growth, as is commonly accepted, one could justifiably ask, how did farmers grow crops before 1845?

How did Parakramabahu the Great make Sri Lanka the granary of the East? The answer is found in F.H. King's book titled "Farmers of Forty Centuries" - 1929, where he says that agricultural production in China, Korea and Japan was very high and that these high yields were maintained and improved upon over a period of 4000 years without the use of chemical fertilizers but with the extensive use of compost, cultivation of nitrogen fixing leguminous crops like soya beans and the rotation of crops.

Production records maintained in old monasteries in the West are also said to show high production rates achieved without the use of chemical fertilizer but by improving soil fertility.

As it is true that plants can utilize elements only in soluble form, and as the elements in their original encasing in rock are not soluble we must question how nature is organized to make those elements soluble and available to plants without any interference from man.

It is the microbes and earthworms in the soil that convert these elements and the other organic waste products of agriculture into water soluble humus colloids which are true plant food.

The important thing about a humus colloid is that the soluble elements in it are at all times available to the plant and yet they will neither evaporate nor leach out and the feeder roots can use the elements as and when required.

If a jar of well made compost is buried about four inches deep in a biologically active field and removed after six to eight weeks it will be found that the compost material has completely disappeared and the glass jar will be packed solid with hair roots. These are the feeder roots.

When artificial fertilizers are applied to the soil, they are dissolved as salts and then become distributed throughout the soil moisture. A plant with leaves in which photosynthesis takes place, must also transpire water to function properly.

Therefore a plant must have continuous access to pure water for transpiration, and the plant must also feed itself. In fact totally different roots are engaged in the two processes. The feeder roots are the white hair roots that we spoke of earlier that went into the compost jar.

The water in-taking roots are much darker and much bigger but now they too take in the soluble artificial fertilizer as it is distributed throughout the soil moisture.

What are the implications of all this? When plants need nutrition in the form of nitrogen, they should, according to nature, acquire it through the nitrogen stored in the humus and the plant will never take too much. It is entirely governed by nature and this slowly absorbed nitrogen is transformed in the plant into protein of a high amino acid quality.

On the other hand if we apply a bag of Sulphate of Ammonia or Urea per acre, we will have made available a large amount of nitrogen in the soil water and the plant will be forced to take that excessive nitrogen, regardless of its requirements.

So we have a situation where the plant cannot cope with the nitrogen it has taken in, not only through the feeder roots but also through the water taking roots, because the nitrogen has been indiscriminatingly distributed throughout the soil.

Some of the nitrogen is converted into protein but of poor quality and the rest of the nitrogen which is not properly assimilated, appears as a nitrate which later can turn into a nitrite, and that is a deadly poison.

The effects of even raw organic manure on plants can easily be observed on any farm where animals are kept. It will be noticed from the grass growing in the drain flowing from a cattle shed carrying quantities of cattle manure and urine that it is blue green in colour and luxuriant in growth.

The same kind of grass can be seen growing round cow pads left where cows have grazed, but the cows prefer not to eat these as they contain too much nitrogen.

The same result can also be achieved by the application of artificial fertilizer and again the cows prefer not eating these luxuriant grasses because of the excess nitrogen. These observations indicate that what is required is a balance, as in nature.

In nature, there must be a balance between salt and water in plant and animal cells. If the salt content rises the cells have to take in more water to neutralize the solution. In the case of plants grown with artificial fertilizer, there is no longer pure water in the soil and we end up with the plants full of salts.

The cells are blown up to accommodate an equivalent amount of water to match the amount of salt and so we have the giant cabbages and leaks and lettuces, but with little taste or nutrient value.

Through this method of fertilizing plants we have turned them into bags of salt and water which in turn attract pests and diseases and the need to use poisons to eradicate these pests. The net result is that we receive food of poor quality and contaminated with residues of poisonous chemicals.

Soil derives from rock and depending on the type of rock and the minerals, both major and minor that are available in it, the soil that derives from that rock is fully supplied or deficient in one or several of the elements essential for the type of vegetation we wish to grow there.

We could get rock dust that contains the required elements but not in soluble form and spread it on the property at the same time making the soil biologically active.

The elements in the rock dust will then become available to the plants through the biological activity of the soil via the humus. In this connection it will be useful if agriculturists can get soil analysis done quickly and cheaply so that only the required element is added to the soil.

Experienced farmers and agriculturists are able to say what elements are in short supply, by examining the growth of plants and by the type of weeds that are proliferating on the land.

Whatever crop is being cultivated, agriculturists have a tendency to look for an increase in yields and concentrate on feeding the plants direct with artificial fertilizer. In the process they miss the vital issue, the feeding and improving of the fertility of the soil in which the plants grow. No amount of NPK chemical fertilizer will improve soil fertility.

There are three main groups of organisms in the soil, namely plants represented by their roots and leaf litter, micro-organisms mainly bacteria and fungus and earthworms.

One of the principal functions of the earthworm is to consume available mineral nutrients and organics, and by the action of enzymes in their digestive tract, render them water soluble and make them easily absorbable by the feeder roots of plants.

All we have to do is to recycle all the waste products of agriculture and the more organic matter we supply on to the land, earthworms will proliferate and as they proliferate the population of micro organisms and the humus content of the soil too will increase thus providing adequate food for the crops.

At present we are spending large sums of money in foreign exchange on chemical fertilizer and with present methods of application coupled with the low organic content of most soils much of this manure is lost by surface run off and leaching, some claim that as much as 60% is lost.

These phosphates and nitrates end up polluting our water bodies thus aggravating the problem. In the last few decades the importance of organic matter in the soil economy has been ignored with the dependence entirely on chemical fertilizer.

However, recently many research scientists and agriculturists all over the world have begun to realize the important part played by earthworms and other organisms in the soil.

That even in order to get the best value of artificial fertilizer there must be adequate organic matter in the soil and that it is possible to cut down the application rates by as much as 50 percent and at the same time increase yields. Some have gone off artificial fertilizers totally.

In the past yala season, a small group of farmers in Dompe encouraged by the renowned, and evergreen G.K. Upawanse, have cultivated about 10 acres paddy using the traditional Heenaty and Hondarawalu varieties using straw mulch and organic manure (Nawa Kekulama).

They have not used any artificial fertilizer and very little water and claim that their costs have been reduced by at least 50% of what they normally incur.

They are about to harvest and judging from the seed heads expect a better harvest than in the previous yala, when they used the conventional methods of cultivation. Now they are looking to improve their high lands by cutting contour drains to conserve soil and water, as a starting point. If this trend catches on there is hope.

************

Agriculture setback in W.T.O.

By Martin Khor

A W.T.O. session in progress

The latest meeting on agriculture in June was supposed to advance the World Trade Organisation's progress towards a July framework agreement.

But the optimism turned into a slight depression as there was a setback, with key countries further apart than they seemed to be just two weeks earlier. This may also sour the mood for negotiations on other issues.

Recently the World Trade Organisation suffered quite a setback in its quest to conclude a 'framework agreement' on some critical issues by the end of July.

Almost everyone believes that for that to happen, the key issue to resolve is agriculture. If there is no agreement on agriculture, there can be no agreement on other issues, such as industrial tariffs and the Singapore issues.

From 23 to 25 June, there was a flurry of informal meetings on agriculture at the WTO headquarters in Geneva.

At the concluding meeting, the mood was downbeat, as it became clear that the different groupings of countries were further away from a deal than just two weeks earlier, when positions among the largest countries seemed to be coming closer together.

The chairman of the agriculture negotiations, Tim Groser of New Zealand, told the meeting he remained 'frustrated' at the slow pace of progress, but assured that the intensity of the negotiation was accelerating, and that 'progress is definitely being made'.

This half-reassurance could not hide the disappointment felt by most that there had been a 'step backwards', as one diplomat put it.

On June 13, at a meeting in Sao Paulo, the Trade Ministers of five big WTO members (the United States, the European Union, Brazil, India, and Australia) on the agriculture issue had met and signalled that they were close to reaching an understanding.

It was expected that from the meeting of political leaders would come more progress when the diplomats thrashed out the technical details in Geneva later that month. But it was not to be.

The main sticking point is the approach to be taken on reducing import tariffs of agricultural products.

The US wants to preserve high tariffs on a few farm products of its own, but is very keen that there be a formula to bring everyone's high tariffs down drastically, so that it can sell its own farm products abroad.

It devised a system jointly with the EU, known as a 'blended formula', with three parts: in category 1 for a few products, there would be a mild tariff reduction (with a cut by an overall average rate); in category 2 for most products, there would be a drastic reduction using a 'Swiss formula', in which the higher the tariff level, the greater would be the cut; and in category 3 for some products, the tariffs would be cut to zero.

This approach was strongly opposed by most developing countries, including India and Brazil. They said that it was designed to suit the tariff profiles of the US and EU, which could continue to protect their few high tariffs in the first category, and this would block the developing countries' access to their markets.

But as most of the two giants' farm tariffs are not so high, they did not mind having the formulae in categories 2 and 3, as these would not affect them much.

In fact, because the US and EU give out so much subsidies, their big farmers do not even need much tariff protection as they can make profits on many products even if prices are low.

However, most developing countries are too poor to give out farm subsidies. They can only protect their farmers through tariffs, and most of these countries have rather high bound tariffs.

If the US-EU 'blended approach' is adopted, the developing countries would have to slash their own tariffs drastically, thus opening themselves to cheap (and often subsidised) imports swamping their markets and displacing their farmers.

The Group of 20 developing countries countered the US-EU plan with a proposal of their own at the end of May. It did not contain a formula, but had a set of principles that would have the developed countries cutting their own higher tariffs, whilst the developing countries would have 'special and differential treatment' with lower tariff reductions on average.

In any case, the G20 rejected outright the US-EU blended approach, and especially the use of the 'Swiss formula'.

At the Sao Paulo meeting, the US Trade Representative Bob Zoellick and the European Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy reportedly showed sympathy for the G20 developing countries' views.

According to Brazilian and Indian sources, the US and EU indicated they could do away with their 'blended formula' and instead use the G20's paper on essential principles as the basis for future negotiations.

The developing countries were thus optimistic that their point had been made and accepted and that the agriculture negotiations would be quite cordial when they resumed in Geneva.

To the surprise of many, however, the US brought along a new proposal to Geneva, in which they insisted that the much-opposed 'Swiss formula' be at the centre of the tariff reduction exercise.

Under this formula, the higher the tariffs, the deeper would be the tariff cut. For example, under one scenario, if there is a 40% tariff on a product, that tariff would now be brought down to 7%. If there is a 4% tariff on another product, it would be only be brought down to 1.4%.

The countries with high tariffs on many products to protect their farmers would have to open up their markets much more. The rich countries, with about US$350 billion in subsidies, can still keep their farms afloat even if they face import competition.

But the developing countries cannot afford those high levels of subsidies. If they lower their tariffs steeply, many farmers will lose their livelihoods. There would be social and political problems, especially since farmers form the majority of the population in many developing countries.

When the US came up with its new proposal in Geneva, India was very surprised, as the US Trade Representative during the Sao Paulo meeting had already given the impression that the US had given up its 'blended approach' with the Swiss formula in the middle of it.

'India can never accept any kind of a Swiss formula in agriculture,' India's Ambassador Chandrasekhar told journalists on 24 June.

The group of five big members held their own meetings that week, but they were unable to report progress to the larger WTO membership.

Indeed, a surprising and depressing phenomenon at the WTO meeting on 25 June was that none of these five (the US, the EU, Brazil, India and Australia) made any statement or report.

With the big five keeping mum, the other members could only state their own concerns. And one of their biggest complaints was that the negotiations in agriculture were not 'transparent' and that most of the WTO members were being kept in the dark, and were not able to participate.

Some of them suggested that the talks be held in the open, and that every country be allowed to take part.

- Third World Network Features

(The writer is Director of the Third World Network).

www.crescat.com

www.ceylincoproperties.com

www.Pathmaconstruction.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