It has been for sometime that I have been advocating the use of natural organic fertilisers. The reason is that chemical fertilisers have made our soils toxic. The excessive use of chemical fertilisers is best understood in terms of misallocations of resources. When the West was lording over us by virtue of better agricultural functioning- the times of Ayub-they played on the fears of the ruling tyrannical powers.
In the sixties we were told that famine will set in if we do not go for chemical fertilisers. We dutifully followed. Urea bag was set up at Rs 7 per bag. This may seem cheap now but at that time the wheat was Rs 18 per kg. I was serving somewhere in the wilds of Punjab when the orders came that the field officers were to help promote fertiliser sales. We dutifully followed. In fact we did so many things dutifully that one almost lost count of what was going on and how many such orders were given to us. But all that is now past and there is no reason to dig these old graves and forsake ourselves for doing what we did.
Now we must look for a natural resource use model. The natural resource use gives us a way towards sustainable agriculture. That has been an elusive goal for quite sometime; it's very much like the poverty issue and the food security issue that is forever furthered to put the fear of God into the developing countries. They normally respond by shifting to the desired objectives set for them by the Western countries and if the direct approach does not help then the international research agencies are brought out. There follows an indirect offer of visits to these international research institutes and a luxurious stay at the stations. The brain-washing is completed through what Perkins calls the 'hit man' approach. Pakistan and other developing countries were made to solve the USA mid-west wheat surplus. The approach was two-fold. Offer wheat under PL480 free in the initial stage (pay the market price to own farmers) and then slowly raise the price. The farmer's bill is an excellent place to get the details of the doings in which the very market system that was planned to be developed was thwarted. The cheap imports allowed the developing countries to produce the crop inefficiently.
In the meantime, the push was made for chemical inputs. In the latest intervention Engro's chief executive had moaned that they had spent one billion dollars for a new urea factory to the existing one and that there was no gas available. So if an MNC makes a market mistake should he not pay for that mistake or are the rules different for different players. Is there an alternative to urea input? You bet there is. That was proved conclusively by the works of Dr Tahir, former Dean of the Agriculture University at Faisalabad, and also by the organic experiments at the National Agriculture Research Center (NARC) Islamabad by another soil scientist who was degreed from Germany.
What then are the advantages of the natural resource base? To put it mildly there are what are called seven principles of organic growth. If someone calls otherwise do not heed and take it from me there is no productivity shortfall. These principles are independent and interdependent working the soils independently. These may be listed as:
1. Ground condition is the basis of sustainable output not the plant that the chemical fertilisers try and hit (and fail). Organics try aim to improve the reserves and resilience of the soils while increasing its production. Chemicals fertilisers on the other hand deplete and pollute the soils so that the output depends on ever-increasing amount of external inputs and suppressants (pesticides). Try giving the fertilisers and see how there will be an attack of sucking pests. So why not give your own a chance and improve the ground realities.
2. Natural Energy is made available for organics through sunlight, water, earth, air and organic waste - all of which are natural, abundant, low (or no) cost and non-polluting. Using modern (so-called) controls to push output, sowing deadlines and residues reduce natural resilience. Simple ways of harnessing these energies are now available.
3. Composting waste means that there is no waste in agriculture. All our villages are now full of muck and mountains of degraded material that not only is hazardous for the young children in the villages but over time pollute when not harnessed properly. Every output then becomes input for the next cycle of production.
4. Organic synergy achieves results with less control. A dynamic process of growth can be created that harnesses change for production improvement. There is tolerance for ambiguity, synergy assertiveness, and a combination of intuition and logic. In that sense it is self educative.
5. Ruling the cycles is possible as organic works with nature and is not in conflict with the natural systems.
6. Resilience through diversity is possible by the very nature of the products that are used in the input and output equation. Diversity is the key to reducing pests and weeds by the encouragement to birds and insects.
7. Real Quality is noticeable when we eat organic foods. The taste is different. The customer flocking to the organic shop in Chak Shazad is a case in point. There is a rapport and trust that is built up as a result of a two-way relationship.
8. The seven principles listed above manage to develop the internal logic of the farmer and since the farmer is working with material that is easy for him there will always be a sense of satisfaction.
Pakistan's problem emanates from the PhDs that were mostly educated and brain-washed in the US. The PhDs instead of making inroads and adapting the countryside knowledge to local conditions they became part of the control system that furthered the Western model. As proof to this effect was my interaction with a Nobel laureate. He had just come back from China and was predicting a disaster in agriculture. Instead my experience of their ways is different. So go one's own way or be a slave, be yours obedient servant. Why cannot we think of the poor financial resource farmer? It is obvious that the natural environment won't support continued economic growth without radical changes in our use of resources. If more than fifty years of chemical inputs has not resulted in food security then it may be better to move away from the mechanical and chemical systems that we were given by the West. China and Iran maybe shining examples of what can be done with fewer inputs? The uncertainties of the future can be thus reduced if not altogether removed. The economics of input costs are reduced by a factor of forty only in terms of money costs. That cannot be a disaster. The environment costs if added will make more of a difference.
Comments
Comments are closed.