Only a prosperous
farmer can be a happy farmer.
Importing food means benefiting farmers, industries and economies elsewhere.
High labor productivity, high return on investment and high economic profitability are the determining factors of farming to guarantee economic prosperity of the farmers.
Technology is inevitable in agriculture to increase production, successfully adapt to climate change and ensure economic profitability.
The drudgery stricken farming characterized by low labor productivity, return on investment and economic profitability will not let farmers to escape poverty. We must equip our farmers with right technologies and provide necessary support system.
Reducing initial capital investment cost, increasing labor productivity and shortening the credit repayment period are three critical elements for enhancing economic profitability.
Credit repayment period can be shortened by reducing the initial capital investment cost, which means providing credit alone is not enough. The initial capital investment cost also must be brought down.
Farmers of developing countries do not have the financial ability to invest on production technologies.
Low interest loan reduce the credit repayment period but the high initial investment still discourage farmers for making high investment.
There are many contributory factors for increasing profitability. But among all, the initial high investment cost is a primary concern of the farmers.
Affordable initial investment cost and short turnaround period are deciding factors for farmers in making capital investment although the investment would provide high labor productivity and economic profitability.
Unless economic profitability of farming is explicitly demonstrated youths will continue to turn their back to agriculture.
Labor productivity can be increased in may ways. Plowing fields with power tiller instead of bullocks is just one way. Hybrid seeds stunningly increases labor productivity while everything remaining same. Drip and sprinkler irrigation not only increases labor productivity but also saves water up to 70%, while green house cultivation expands production period.
Importing food means benefiting farmers, industries and economies elsewhere.
High labor productivity, high return on investment and high economic profitability are the determining factors of farming to guarantee economic prosperity of the farmers.
Technology is inevitable in agriculture to increase production, successfully adapt to climate change and ensure economic profitability.
The drudgery stricken farming characterized by low labor productivity, return on investment and economic profitability will not let farmers to escape poverty. We must equip our farmers with right technologies and provide necessary support system.
Reducing initial capital investment cost, increasing labor productivity and shortening the credit repayment period are three critical elements for enhancing economic profitability.
Credit repayment period can be shortened by reducing the initial capital investment cost, which means providing credit alone is not enough. The initial capital investment cost also must be brought down.
Farmers of developing countries do not have the financial ability to invest on production technologies.
Low interest loan reduce the credit repayment period but the high initial investment still discourage farmers for making high investment.
There are many contributory factors for increasing profitability. But among all, the initial high investment cost is a primary concern of the farmers.
Affordable initial investment cost and short turnaround period are deciding factors for farmers in making capital investment although the investment would provide high labor productivity and economic profitability.
Unless economic profitability of farming is explicitly demonstrated youths will continue to turn their back to agriculture.
Labor productivity can be increased in may ways. Plowing fields with power tiller instead of bullocks is just one way. Hybrid seeds stunningly increases labor productivity while everything remaining same. Drip and sprinkler irrigation not only increases labor productivity but also saves water up to 70%, while green house cultivation expands production period.
Modern agriculture is
driven by technology and economics.
Longer we linger on rhetoric, longer will it take to realize economic prosperity for farming communities.
Longer we linger on rhetoric, longer will it take to realize economic prosperity for farming communities.
Dr. M S Swaminathan, the
icon of agriculture in developing countries says: "It would be more
appropriate to refer the limited support provided to the farmers as support to sustainable
farming, rather than designating as subsidy.
In developed countries the agriculture is essentially a commercial occupation where hardly five per cent of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihood and the farmers are safeguarded by extensive financial support through green box provision of WTO.
But in developing countries, agriculture is the principal occupation. The farm size is small and the marketable surplus is low. As a result, farm families require social protection and therefore it is wrong to designate the limited support given to them as subsidy."
There is a differences between agriculture in developed countries and in developing countries. If we fail to understand this, we are certain to miss the boat for sustainable development.
We need sustainable agriculture that supports sustainable livelihood farming communities which constitute over 60% of the population.
We need sustainable agriculture that produce healthy food and provide high economic profit, and does not harm the environment.
Sustainability in agriculture is a broad concept which considers not only sustaining production but also economic profitability, complying to environmental and human health standards.
The 21st century agriculture must be safe, sustainable, and profitable that feeds more people and creates more jobs.
Agriculture that embraces innovations which make economic sense and applies external inputs that are readily available, effective, and profitable is called conventional agriculture.
Juxtaposed to conventional agriculture, the organic agriculture came into existence immediately following the green revolution brought about by the conventional agriculture in 1960s.
Organic agriculture opposes the use of 'external' inputs. Its strong hold is its ecological approach for soil health, environmental protection and biodiversity.
The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) was established in 1972.
IFOAM is the highest scoring international NGO, and it provides the international framework for organic farming.
The IFOAM's basic standards provide a framework for national standard-setting and certification bodies to develop certification standards that are responsive to local conditions.
Many countries have legislated organic production, including the EU nations (1990s), Japan (2001), and the US (2002).
In countries where organic agriculture law exists, organic farming is defined by law, and the commercial use of the term 'organic' to describe farming and food products is regulated by law.
Where laws exist, organic certification agencies are necessarily present and it is illegal for a non-certified farm to call itself or its products as organic.
On October 19, 1998, the IFOAM's issued Mar del Plata Declaration, which prohibited the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) in organic farming.
Cultivating GMO is not the tradition of conventional agriculture. But so long the law of the country permits, and makes economic sense; the conventional agriculture is open to GMO.
The argument against GMOs so far is that no one has a clue on impact of genetic engineering producing GMOs for specific purposes like climate change adaptation, food quality or plant health.
The movement against the GMOs is over weighed largely by fear and belief, and psychological views of consumers rather than scientific data.
The argument favoring GMO is that higher production is needed to cope up with climate change and for ending world hunger. It could also be the key to producing healthier food ensuring proper nourishment, eliminate hidden hunger, reduce the need to use pesticide and to make farming more profitable.
The Bt Cotton in India have greatly reduced the use insecticides. Bangladesh released Bt Brinjal to reduce the use of insecticides on Brinjal crop.
GMOs are the products of mixing genes between species.
GMOs are also the products of changing the sequence of couple of target genes within the same species.
In developed countries the agriculture is essentially a commercial occupation where hardly five per cent of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihood and the farmers are safeguarded by extensive financial support through green box provision of WTO.
But in developing countries, agriculture is the principal occupation. The farm size is small and the marketable surplus is low. As a result, farm families require social protection and therefore it is wrong to designate the limited support given to them as subsidy."
There is a differences between agriculture in developed countries and in developing countries. If we fail to understand this, we are certain to miss the boat for sustainable development.
We need sustainable agriculture that supports sustainable livelihood farming communities which constitute over 60% of the population.
We need sustainable agriculture that produce healthy food and provide high economic profit, and does not harm the environment.
Sustainability in agriculture is a broad concept which considers not only sustaining production but also economic profitability, complying to environmental and human health standards.
The 21st century agriculture must be safe, sustainable, and profitable that feeds more people and creates more jobs.
Agriculture that embraces innovations which make economic sense and applies external inputs that are readily available, effective, and profitable is called conventional agriculture.
Juxtaposed to conventional agriculture, the organic agriculture came into existence immediately following the green revolution brought about by the conventional agriculture in 1960s.
Organic agriculture opposes the use of 'external' inputs. Its strong hold is its ecological approach for soil health, environmental protection and biodiversity.
The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) was established in 1972.
IFOAM is the highest scoring international NGO, and it provides the international framework for organic farming.
The IFOAM's basic standards provide a framework for national standard-setting and certification bodies to develop certification standards that are responsive to local conditions.
Many countries have legislated organic production, including the EU nations (1990s), Japan (2001), and the US (2002).
In countries where organic agriculture law exists, organic farming is defined by law, and the commercial use of the term 'organic' to describe farming and food products is regulated by law.
Where laws exist, organic certification agencies are necessarily present and it is illegal for a non-certified farm to call itself or its products as organic.
On October 19, 1998, the IFOAM's issued Mar del Plata Declaration, which prohibited the use of Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) in organic farming.
Cultivating GMO is not the tradition of conventional agriculture. But so long the law of the country permits, and makes economic sense; the conventional agriculture is open to GMO.
The argument against GMOs so far is that no one has a clue on impact of genetic engineering producing GMOs for specific purposes like climate change adaptation, food quality or plant health.
The movement against the GMOs is over weighed largely by fear and belief, and psychological views of consumers rather than scientific data.
The argument favoring GMO is that higher production is needed to cope up with climate change and for ending world hunger. It could also be the key to producing healthier food ensuring proper nourishment, eliminate hidden hunger, reduce the need to use pesticide and to make farming more profitable.
The Bt Cotton in India have greatly reduced the use insecticides. Bangladesh released Bt Brinjal to reduce the use of insecticides on Brinjal crop.
GMOs are the products of mixing genes between species.
GMOs are also the products of changing the sequence of couple of target genes within the same species.
Mixing the genes of different species
is unnatural which has created fear with assumption that and it may go horribly wrong. The genes contained in GMOs would
spread like some kind of living pollution.
But how about GMOs which are produced by changing the sequence of couple of genes within the same species?
If changing the sequence of few target genes within a same specie is wrong, how about conventional breeding using mutagenesis which mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way?
Many crop varieties, thousands indeed, have been actually developed through mutation breeding, called mutagenesis. Are we going to list them as GMOs and ban their cultivation?
The fear of GMOs has spread like wildfire. GMOs are essentially banned in Europe, and the fear is exported by NGOs, where GMOs are still banned today. This is perhaps the most successful campaign.
Farmers in India could not be stopped using GMO cotton, the Bt cotton. I wonder what would happen to White Fly resistant GMO cotton which is also ready in the shelf.
Increasing production is possible by closing the yield gap if it exists or by setting a new yield target and achieving that target.
The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether we want to increase production or not.
The fact of the matter is we should free us from the unclear vision and rhetoric.
Closing the yield gap means increasing the production by narrowing the yield gap between the potential, the yield recorded in research plot and the actual yield in the farmers' filed.
Increase in production of food crops has always come with growth of crop yields. But the growth of crop yields worldwide has stagnated for rice and many major food crops, for decade now.
If we do not get yield growth back on track, I wonder how we are going to increase production.
Hybrids are seen as anti-farmer believing that corporate makes fortune while farmers continue to suffer and hence there is no support for hybrid seeds.
GMO is demonized as anti-environment and anti-science and organic farming is successfully prohibiting off-farm inputs and innovations.
If we think the old traditional way of farming is the best, that’s fine but do we have the right to enforce while farmers are not able to sustain their livelihood causing rural-urban migration.
Farmers understand the pressures of meeting the ends of their livelihood. To them nothing is important than high crop yield and higher return on investment.
Farmers understand that technology never stops developing and consistently look for new ways of farming.
What technology we have at hand to put the yield growth back on track?
The potential yield of HYV (high yielding variety) of rice has stagnated at 10 Mt per hectare, attained with the variety IR-64.
Many farmers harvest up 7 Mt rice per hectare with IR 64. Attaining what is attained in research plots in the farmers' field is an uphill task and generally not possible in every farmer's field.
Feeding the world sustainably is the challenge at hand. If we do not have technology at hand, let us be sincere and dare to be frank for the sake of both the people and the planet.
Organic farming has always demonstrated success at small scale, confined to local economies, and it is not integrated to global food industry.
Ever since organic farming has been the niche enterprise at the local level among everyone practicing conventional farming, rather than a function of economics at the national and global level.
Organic farming will be no more niche if everyone practice at national, regional and global level.
By nature, Organic farming is labor intensive. It requires more labor, which brings down the labor productivity. It increases the cost of production and cost of food to urban consumers.
The production with organic farming when calculated in labor time, the cost of production is much higher compared to conventional agriculture. It means labor productivity in organic farming is low.
Organic farming is often referred as sustainable agriculture. Technically the two are not exactly same and the two are not synonymous.
Before organic farming is called sustainable, we must agree on the answer to the question: what is to be sustained, for whom and for how long?
But how about GMOs which are produced by changing the sequence of couple of genes within the same species?
If changing the sequence of few target genes within a same specie is wrong, how about conventional breeding using mutagenesis which mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way?
Many crop varieties, thousands indeed, have been actually developed through mutation breeding, called mutagenesis. Are we going to list them as GMOs and ban their cultivation?
The fear of GMOs has spread like wildfire. GMOs are essentially banned in Europe, and the fear is exported by NGOs, where GMOs are still banned today. This is perhaps the most successful campaign.
Farmers in India could not be stopped using GMO cotton, the Bt cotton. I wonder what would happen to White Fly resistant GMO cotton which is also ready in the shelf.
Increasing production is possible by closing the yield gap if it exists or by setting a new yield target and achieving that target.
The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether we want to increase production or not.
The fact of the matter is we should free us from the unclear vision and rhetoric.
Closing the yield gap means increasing the production by narrowing the yield gap between the potential, the yield recorded in research plot and the actual yield in the farmers' filed.
Increase in production of food crops has always come with growth of crop yields. But the growth of crop yields worldwide has stagnated for rice and many major food crops, for decade now.
If we do not get yield growth back on track, I wonder how we are going to increase production.
Hybrids are seen as anti-farmer believing that corporate makes fortune while farmers continue to suffer and hence there is no support for hybrid seeds.
GMO is demonized as anti-environment and anti-science and organic farming is successfully prohibiting off-farm inputs and innovations.
If we think the old traditional way of farming is the best, that’s fine but do we have the right to enforce while farmers are not able to sustain their livelihood causing rural-urban migration.
Farmers understand the pressures of meeting the ends of their livelihood. To them nothing is important than high crop yield and higher return on investment.
Farmers understand that technology never stops developing and consistently look for new ways of farming.
What technology we have at hand to put the yield growth back on track?
The potential yield of HYV (high yielding variety) of rice has stagnated at 10 Mt per hectare, attained with the variety IR-64.
Many farmers harvest up 7 Mt rice per hectare with IR 64. Attaining what is attained in research plots in the farmers' field is an uphill task and generally not possible in every farmer's field.
Feeding the world sustainably is the challenge at hand. If we do not have technology at hand, let us be sincere and dare to be frank for the sake of both the people and the planet.
Organic farming has always demonstrated success at small scale, confined to local economies, and it is not integrated to global food industry.
Ever since organic farming has been the niche enterprise at the local level among everyone practicing conventional farming, rather than a function of economics at the national and global level.
Organic farming will be no more niche if everyone practice at national, regional and global level.
By nature, Organic farming is labor intensive. It requires more labor, which brings down the labor productivity. It increases the cost of production and cost of food to urban consumers.
The production with organic farming when calculated in labor time, the cost of production is much higher compared to conventional agriculture. It means labor productivity in organic farming is low.
Organic farming is often referred as sustainable agriculture. Technically the two are not exactly same and the two are not synonymous.
Before organic farming is called sustainable, we must agree on the answer to the question: what is to be sustained, for whom and for how long?
Whether organic farming or conventional agriculture, if it is sustainable, it must
not only be ecologically sound and socially responsible but also economically
viable. These three dimensions, in so
far as they relate to sustainability, are inseparable.
Farming not
sustaining the livelihood of the farmers or creating job for the youths that
pays them cannot be defined as sustainable.
More than anything else, the most appealing and driving force of organic farming is that organic food doesn't contain pesticides.
The conventional agriculture does use synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers. But it does not disregard bio-organic manures and bio-pesticides so long they are available, effective and make better economic sense.
The principles and practices of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM) are essentially the grafts of conventional agriculture.
The IPM and IPNM principles seek for minimum and effective use of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
All chemical pesticides are not necessarily harmful. Why not ban all those chemical pesticides that are harmful to environment and potentially enter food chain and harm human health? Why not use safe pesticides, organic and biological, to protect crops. After all crops needs to be protected form pests and diseases just as people. Demonizing pesticides outright, log stock and barrel, is wrong.
Chemical fertilizers are accused of being harmful to soil, soil microorganisms and environment.
Chemical fertilizers carry major plant nutrients in high concentration and do not necessarily contain micro-nutrients.
More than anything else, the most appealing and driving force of organic farming is that organic food doesn't contain pesticides.
The conventional agriculture does use synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers. But it does not disregard bio-organic manures and bio-pesticides so long they are available, effective and make better economic sense.
The principles and practices of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Plant Nutrient Management (IPNM) are essentially the grafts of conventional agriculture.
The IPM and IPNM principles seek for minimum and effective use of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
All chemical pesticides are not necessarily harmful. Why not ban all those chemical pesticides that are harmful to environment and potentially enter food chain and harm human health? Why not use safe pesticides, organic and biological, to protect crops. After all crops needs to be protected form pests and diseases just as people. Demonizing pesticides outright, log stock and barrel, is wrong.
Chemical fertilizers are accused of being harmful to soil, soil microorganisms and environment.
Chemical fertilizers carry major plant nutrients in high concentration and do not necessarily contain micro-nutrients.
When
soil microorganisms come in direct contact with chemical fertilizers they encyst
and enter into rest, or die. But entire population of soil microorganisms do not come in direct contact with chemical
fertilizers.
The nitrogen fertilizers stimulate reproduction of certain species of soil microorganisms, which in turn accelerates the decomposition of organic matter they feed on. It causes depletion of organic matter in the soil.
When organic manures is not applied and if the organic matter content is less in the soil, applying nitrogen fertilizers will cause depletion in organic matter content of the soil, which in turn causes degradation of soil physical properties.
With continuous application of chemical fertilizers the pool of micro-nutrients too is depleted.
When chemical fertilizers are excessively used it causes enrichment of water bodies of the vicinity causing eutrophication.
It is not the use of chemical fertilizers but inappropriate and excessive use, considered as misuse, and not applying adequate organic manures and micro-nutrients is responsible for negative impacts for which chemical fertilizer alone is accused.
What is important is not the absence but the balance use of chemical fertilizers, organic manure and micro-nutrients is important.
When major nutrient like phosphorus or micro-nutrient like boron, zinc or molybdenum are inherently deficient in soil, applying organic manure will not satisfy the crop requirement for maximum economic yield.
Nutrient deficiency particularly micro-nutrients makes plants susceptible to insect pests causing larval insect outbreak or spread of disease like HLB (citrus greening) for which primary factor is nutrient inadequacy and /or deficiency.
Both conventional agriculture and organic farming pursue IPM but differs at the time of crisis at terminal end.
The conventional agriculture resorts to pesticides as last resort to save the crop while organic farming resorts to sustain loss, which every farmer does not accept to loose 100% of their crop.
Conventional agriculture increased food production and raw materials for industries. It enabled developing countries to attain and sustain food sufficiency. It increased the income of farmers and continue to support agri-business and industrial and economic growth. It is therefore not right to tag conventional agriculture with weasel words like chemical farming harming human health and environment.
There is no denial that conventional agriculture has been responsible for polluting soil, water and air.
There is every chance that pesticide residues may enter the food chain and harm the human health. This is the single most important negative aspect of conventional farming
When the prevalence of pesticide residues in conventional agricultural produce is ruled out there is no functional difference between organically and conventionally produced foods.
It is not right to generalize that people consuming food produced by conventional agriculture are poisoned with toxic chemicals and they are not nutritive.
The real issue is not using or using the synthetic chemical pesticides. The issue is to protect the crop in a right manner considering science, health and environment, and economic, and not putting the synthetic chemical pesticides on the table for argument.
There are bio-pesticides effective enough to protect the crop just as synthetic chemical pesticides. It is only a matter of policy decision to stop using and/ or ban import of synthetic chemical pesticides into the country. Allowing import and using synthetic chemical pesticides on one hand and promoting organic farming on other hand is a deterring dichotomy.
The USDA accredited organic certifying agencies of the USA allow the use of products like rock phosphate, elemental sulfur, magnesium sulfate and micro-nutrients including soluble boron products, and sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt (see details in annexure).
As in USA or EU countries the organic inputs should be made available for practicing organic farming. When organic inputs are not made available nor allowed to import means not allowed to use. Even the bio-organic manures certified by IMO is not allowed to import. It means farmers have to practice subsistence farming forgoing the opportunity to increase production and earn more for economic well being.
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers available in the market are chemical in nature.
In making Urea -the nitrogen fertilizer, the nitrogen is extracted from the atmosphere and hydrogen from natural gas. Urea is not only used in agriculture but it is used in many industries besides agriculture.
In strict sense Urea is an organic compound as it has carbon in it. But its use is banned in organic farming.
Potassium is mined from underground bedded deposits and phosphorus from phosphate rocks.
In making phosphorus and potassium fertilizers, the source materials are reduced to smaller volumes containing higher concentration of phosphorus and potassium in readily available forms.
Phosphorus is one of the building blocks of all life. Every living cell requires it. Plants need phosphorus to grow as much as they need water.
Many soils do not have enough phosphorus. For this reason the phosphate rocks are mined and turned into phosphate fertilizer.
Most of the world’s best phosphate reserves are already used, and those that remain are in just a handful of countries.
Large and more developed countries keep the phosphate resource for their own use only. Countries exporting phosphate rocks are basically two countries: Morocco and the Western Sahara.
The actual content of phosphorus in rock phosphate is small and the rate of phosphorus availability to plants is slow.
The rock phosphate contains too much ballast, or inactive ingredients, which the crops do not need and applying it directly merely increase the energy requirements for transporting and delivering.
So long the production and use of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers makes economic sense and their application is neither harming the soil health nor human health or environment, their use in agriculture should not be a taboo.
Crop rotation between cereals and legumes improves nitrogen content in the soil and reduces the incidences of pests that thrive in monoculture. But crop rotation is not bound to organic farming. It is traditionally practiced by farmer practicing conventional agriculture.
The conventional agriculture intends to use composted organic manure as much as possible but not having it enough is a challenge.
Managing soil fertility to supply adequate plant nutrients to support maximum economic yield is a vast field of soil science which engages many different scientific disciplines.
One thing we must know that when a crop is harvested, plant nutrients are removed from the soil.
The quantities of plant nutrients removed from the soil depend on crop specie and yield. An estimate of nutrients uptake (removed) by a crop of rice is:
The nitrogen fertilizers stimulate reproduction of certain species of soil microorganisms, which in turn accelerates the decomposition of organic matter they feed on. It causes depletion of organic matter in the soil.
When organic manures is not applied and if the organic matter content is less in the soil, applying nitrogen fertilizers will cause depletion in organic matter content of the soil, which in turn causes degradation of soil physical properties.
With continuous application of chemical fertilizers the pool of micro-nutrients too is depleted.
When chemical fertilizers are excessively used it causes enrichment of water bodies of the vicinity causing eutrophication.
It is not the use of chemical fertilizers but inappropriate and excessive use, considered as misuse, and not applying adequate organic manures and micro-nutrients is responsible for negative impacts for which chemical fertilizer alone is accused.
What is important is not the absence but the balance use of chemical fertilizers, organic manure and micro-nutrients is important.
When major nutrient like phosphorus or micro-nutrient like boron, zinc or molybdenum are inherently deficient in soil, applying organic manure will not satisfy the crop requirement for maximum economic yield.
Nutrient deficiency particularly micro-nutrients makes plants susceptible to insect pests causing larval insect outbreak or spread of disease like HLB (citrus greening) for which primary factor is nutrient inadequacy and /or deficiency.
Both conventional agriculture and organic farming pursue IPM but differs at the time of crisis at terminal end.
The conventional agriculture resorts to pesticides as last resort to save the crop while organic farming resorts to sustain loss, which every farmer does not accept to loose 100% of their crop.
Conventional agriculture increased food production and raw materials for industries. It enabled developing countries to attain and sustain food sufficiency. It increased the income of farmers and continue to support agri-business and industrial and economic growth. It is therefore not right to tag conventional agriculture with weasel words like chemical farming harming human health and environment.
There is no denial that conventional agriculture has been responsible for polluting soil, water and air.
There is every chance that pesticide residues may enter the food chain and harm the human health. This is the single most important negative aspect of conventional farming
When the prevalence of pesticide residues in conventional agricultural produce is ruled out there is no functional difference between organically and conventionally produced foods.
It is not right to generalize that people consuming food produced by conventional agriculture are poisoned with toxic chemicals and they are not nutritive.
The real issue is not using or using the synthetic chemical pesticides. The issue is to protect the crop in a right manner considering science, health and environment, and economic, and not putting the synthetic chemical pesticides on the table for argument.
There are bio-pesticides effective enough to protect the crop just as synthetic chemical pesticides. It is only a matter of policy decision to stop using and/ or ban import of synthetic chemical pesticides into the country. Allowing import and using synthetic chemical pesticides on one hand and promoting organic farming on other hand is a deterring dichotomy.
The USDA accredited organic certifying agencies of the USA allow the use of products like rock phosphate, elemental sulfur, magnesium sulfate and micro-nutrients including soluble boron products, and sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt (see details in annexure).
As in USA or EU countries the organic inputs should be made available for practicing organic farming. When organic inputs are not made available nor allowed to import means not allowed to use. Even the bio-organic manures certified by IMO is not allowed to import. It means farmers have to practice subsistence farming forgoing the opportunity to increase production and earn more for economic well being.
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers available in the market are chemical in nature.
In making Urea -the nitrogen fertilizer, the nitrogen is extracted from the atmosphere and hydrogen from natural gas. Urea is not only used in agriculture but it is used in many industries besides agriculture.
In strict sense Urea is an organic compound as it has carbon in it. But its use is banned in organic farming.
Potassium is mined from underground bedded deposits and phosphorus from phosphate rocks.
In making phosphorus and potassium fertilizers, the source materials are reduced to smaller volumes containing higher concentration of phosphorus and potassium in readily available forms.
Phosphorus is one of the building blocks of all life. Every living cell requires it. Plants need phosphorus to grow as much as they need water.
Many soils do not have enough phosphorus. For this reason the phosphate rocks are mined and turned into phosphate fertilizer.
Most of the world’s best phosphate reserves are already used, and those that remain are in just a handful of countries.
Large and more developed countries keep the phosphate resource for their own use only. Countries exporting phosphate rocks are basically two countries: Morocco and the Western Sahara.
The actual content of phosphorus in rock phosphate is small and the rate of phosphorus availability to plants is slow.
The rock phosphate contains too much ballast, or inactive ingredients, which the crops do not need and applying it directly merely increase the energy requirements for transporting and delivering.
So long the production and use of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers makes economic sense and their application is neither harming the soil health nor human health or environment, their use in agriculture should not be a taboo.
Crop rotation between cereals and legumes improves nitrogen content in the soil and reduces the incidences of pests that thrive in monoculture. But crop rotation is not bound to organic farming. It is traditionally practiced by farmer practicing conventional agriculture.
The conventional agriculture intends to use composted organic manure as much as possible but not having it enough is a challenge.
Managing soil fertility to supply adequate plant nutrients to support maximum economic yield is a vast field of soil science which engages many different scientific disciplines.
One thing we must know that when a crop is harvested, plant nutrients are removed from the soil.
The quantities of plant nutrients removed from the soil depend on crop specie and yield. An estimate of nutrients uptake (removed) by a crop of rice is:
Crops
|
Yield
(Mt
per ha.)
|
Nutrient
removed (in kg per ha.)
|
||
Nitrogen
(N)
|
Phosphorus
(P)
|
Potassium
(K)
|
||
Rice
|
2.8
|
82
|
10
|
100
|
8.0
|
152
|
37
|
270
|
|
In a given soil, there is a finite amount of plant nutrients and the ability of the soil to supply the plant nutrients to a given crop is finite also.
The ability of the soil to supply plant nutrients decreases over time unless the plant nutrients removed are replaced or regenerated. This is the basics of soil fertility management.
If a farm is to remain productive, the amount of nutrients removed in each harvest does not exceed the amount returned to the soil.
As early as in 1841, Justus von Leibig, a German scientist said: "It must be born in mind that, as a principle of arable farming, what is taken out from the soil must be returned to it in full measure."
An increase in soil fertility can be attained if we regenerate or add more nutrients to the soil than we take away from it.
The abundance of atmospheric nitrogen fixing bacteria, phosphorus and potassium solubilizing bacteria in soil play important role in enhancing soil fertility.
Teuro Higa, a Japanese scientist on Effective Microorganisms (EM) says; "The predominance of beneficial and effective microorganisms can help to improve and maintain the soil chemical and physical properties. To increase and sustain agricultural production, biological factors must be considered."
The organic farming advocates "Closed Cycle" for managing plant nutrients in the soil. It attempts to regenerate all plant nutrients removed in each harvest.
Organic farming believes that the need to apply plant nutrients from external sources is a system failure.
Organic farming opposes the Law of Return which says the nutrients removed from the soil in each harvest must be returned back to maintain the soil fertility.
The weakness of organic farming lies in its pursuance of closed cycle. Organic farming does not necessarily
guarantee water saving and conservation, soil erosion and technologies for efficient use of
plant nutrients, and above all the economic profitability is not a necessary
element of organic farming.
Organic farming use composted organic manures, inorganic rock phosphate or
granite dust that are not chemically processed.
These products have low nutrient contents.
Approximate nutrients contents of
some organic fertilizers
Manures and
Organic Fertilizers
|
N
|
P205
|
K2O
|
||
% (dry wt
basis)
|
|||||
Dairy manure
|
2.1
|
3.2
|
3.0
|
||
Poultry
manure
|
2.0
|
5.0
|
2.0
|
||
Composted manure
|
1.3
|
0.4
|
0.4
|
||
Bone meal
(raw)
|
3.0
|
22.0
|
0
|
||
Rock
phosphate (total P2O5)
|
0
|
20-32
|
0
|
||
Granite dust
(total K2O)
|
0
|
0
|
22
|
||
For increasing production and profit of an organic farm, huge amount of organic manures is needed. The organic matter of the farm alone is not enough. The organic manure is not available in the market.
When a micro-nutrient like Zinc or Boron is not there in the soil, it is possibly not there in the organic manure also. For this reason it is often said that micro-nutrient which is not there in the soil is also not there in the food you eat.
The rock phosphates and granite dusts are not available in the country, nor all micro-nutrients are allowed to import.
Organic farming has categorized external inputs into three categories: Permitted, Restricted and Prohibited.
Permitted inputs are allowed to use without restriction.
Restricted inputs are allowed to be used with the permission from certification agency.
Prohibited inputs are not allowed to use in organic farming.
The synthetic chemical pesticides, irrespective of their nature and synthetic chemical fertilizers falls under prohibited category and their use in organic farming is not allowed.
It is assumed that with the application organic manures and rock phosphates the requirement of the secondary plant nutrients (Ca, Mg, S) and micro nutrients (Fe, Mn, copper, Zn, B, and Mo) is sufficiently met. This assumption is not always true.
The theory of organic farming on managing soil fertility is good but pragmatically it is not universally feasible. Making huge amount of composted manure within a farm is a big challenge.
Applying composted manures that are not fully decomposed causes the unending problems of insect pests and diseases. This is least understood by most.
Building and maintaining high population of beneficial microorganism, including nitrogen fixing, and phosphorus and potassium solubilizing, and disease suppressing micro-oranisms is a good idea but where is the stock of the beneficial micro-organisms of which the population needs to be augmented regularly or else in soil the population of all kinds of micro-flora tend to be in natural balance.
To protect the crop from pests and diseases organically, the bio-pesticide and plant based pesticides are also not readily available in the market.
In the above circumstance, farmers who are practicing organic farming are actually practicing Natural Farming advocated by Masanobu Fukuoka (1913–2008), a Japanese farmer and philosopher.
Masanobu Fukuoka (1913–2008), introduced Natural Farming in his book "The One-Straw Revolution" published in 1975.
What is important is rightly producing healthy food, having clean environment, and earning good income. This should be the ultimate goal of 21st century agriculture.
The extremes of regulations help none nor regulations translate ideas into result.
Farmers must not continue to sustain drudgery and poverty, and youths continue to turn their back to agriculture.
Whether with organic farming or with sensible and scientific conventional farming, we need to enable farmers to increase production and profit.
The conventional agriculture does not deny any of the good practices of organic farming, but on its own right the conventional agriculture demands economic benefits for the farmers.
At a 2002 conference the Nobel Prize-winning plant breeder Norman Borlaug said "We aren't going to feed 6 billion people with organic fertilizer. If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time."
It is not that there is no essence in what Norman Borlaug said but a large-scale shift to organic farming is possible. It is doable but the question is can we do it, if yes why not?
The long-standing argument that organic farming yields less holds truth. A study by scientists at the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture in Switzerland showed that organic farms were 20 percent less productive than conventional plots, over a 21-year period.
Results of more than 200 studies in North America and Europe conducted by Per Pinstrup Andersen, a Cornell professor and winner of the World Food Prize, and his colleagues have concluded that yields of organic farming were about 80 percent of the yields of conventional agriculture.
The conversion to organic farming from conventional farming is not seamless.
To fully transform conventional agriculture to organic farming requires huge political commitment and economic capacity of the government to make investment.
But certainly importing synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers and promoting organic farming at the same time is a hoax.
On serious note, the world's farming is not moving towards orthodox organic farming. This is probably justified as the global food supply is already under stress as more than 800 millions people go hungry every day and the world's population continues to expand.
Certainly 'no input farming' has no chance.
All that is needed is doing right things.
Farmers should be rightly supported to use technologies which are environmentally safe and guarantees production increase and economic profitability.
Someday, the organic farming and conventional agriculture should converge and together produce healthy food ensuring clean environment and provide better livelihood to the farmers.
The integrated approach would out-perform both strictly organic farming and conventional agriculture.
Healthy food, clean environment, high labor productivity, high return on investment, and high economic profitability should be the common theme. We must focus on these five essentials. The rests are argumentative.
Sustaining farming is one thing and sustaining the livelihood and standard of living of farmers is another.
The economic profitability of farming truly matters.
Maximize labor productivity, returns on investment and economic profitability without harming human health and environment
When a micro-nutrient like Zinc or Boron is not there in the soil, it is possibly not there in the organic manure also. For this reason it is often said that micro-nutrient which is not there in the soil is also not there in the food you eat.
The rock phosphates and granite dusts are not available in the country, nor all micro-nutrients are allowed to import.
Organic farming has categorized external inputs into three categories: Permitted, Restricted and Prohibited.
Permitted inputs are allowed to use without restriction.
Restricted inputs are allowed to be used with the permission from certification agency.
Prohibited inputs are not allowed to use in organic farming.
The synthetic chemical pesticides, irrespective of their nature and synthetic chemical fertilizers falls under prohibited category and their use in organic farming is not allowed.
It is assumed that with the application organic manures and rock phosphates the requirement of the secondary plant nutrients (Ca, Mg, S) and micro nutrients (Fe, Mn, copper, Zn, B, and Mo) is sufficiently met. This assumption is not always true.
The theory of organic farming on managing soil fertility is good but pragmatically it is not universally feasible. Making huge amount of composted manure within a farm is a big challenge.
Applying composted manures that are not fully decomposed causes the unending problems of insect pests and diseases. This is least understood by most.
Building and maintaining high population of beneficial microorganism, including nitrogen fixing, and phosphorus and potassium solubilizing, and disease suppressing micro-oranisms is a good idea but where is the stock of the beneficial micro-organisms of which the population needs to be augmented regularly or else in soil the population of all kinds of micro-flora tend to be in natural balance.
To protect the crop from pests and diseases organically, the bio-pesticide and plant based pesticides are also not readily available in the market.
In the above circumstance, farmers who are practicing organic farming are actually practicing Natural Farming advocated by Masanobu Fukuoka (1913–2008), a Japanese farmer and philosopher.
Masanobu Fukuoka (1913–2008), introduced Natural Farming in his book "The One-Straw Revolution" published in 1975.
What is important is rightly producing healthy food, having clean environment, and earning good income. This should be the ultimate goal of 21st century agriculture.
The extremes of regulations help none nor regulations translate ideas into result.
Farmers must not continue to sustain drudgery and poverty, and youths continue to turn their back to agriculture.
Whether with organic farming or with sensible and scientific conventional farming, we need to enable farmers to increase production and profit.
The conventional agriculture does not deny any of the good practices of organic farming, but on its own right the conventional agriculture demands economic benefits for the farmers.
At a 2002 conference the Nobel Prize-winning plant breeder Norman Borlaug said "We aren't going to feed 6 billion people with organic fertilizer. If we tried to do it, we would level most of our forest and many of those lands would be productive only for a short period of time."
It is not that there is no essence in what Norman Borlaug said but a large-scale shift to organic farming is possible. It is doable but the question is can we do it, if yes why not?
The long-standing argument that organic farming yields less holds truth. A study by scientists at the Research Institute for Organic Agriculture in Switzerland showed that organic farms were 20 percent less productive than conventional plots, over a 21-year period.
Results of more than 200 studies in North America and Europe conducted by Per Pinstrup Andersen, a Cornell professor and winner of the World Food Prize, and his colleagues have concluded that yields of organic farming were about 80 percent of the yields of conventional agriculture.
The conversion to organic farming from conventional farming is not seamless.
To fully transform conventional agriculture to organic farming requires huge political commitment and economic capacity of the government to make investment.
But certainly importing synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers and promoting organic farming at the same time is a hoax.
On serious note, the world's farming is not moving towards orthodox organic farming. This is probably justified as the global food supply is already under stress as more than 800 millions people go hungry every day and the world's population continues to expand.
Certainly 'no input farming' has no chance.
All that is needed is doing right things.
Farmers should be rightly supported to use technologies which are environmentally safe and guarantees production increase and economic profitability.
Someday, the organic farming and conventional agriculture should converge and together produce healthy food ensuring clean environment and provide better livelihood to the farmers.
The integrated approach would out-perform both strictly organic farming and conventional agriculture.
Healthy food, clean environment, high labor productivity, high return on investment, and high economic profitability should be the common theme. We must focus on these five essentials. The rests are argumentative.
Sustaining farming is one thing and sustaining the livelihood and standard of living of farmers is another.
The economic profitability of farming truly matters.
Maximize labor productivity, returns on investment and economic profitability without harming human health and environment
There should be one
agriculture system - the sustainable agriculture system, that do not harm human
health and environment, ensures high labor productivity and high return on investment,
and high economic profitability against all vagaries of climate change.
Annexure
List
of synthetic substances allowed by USDA for organic crop production.
(a) As algaecide, disinfectants, and
sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.
(1) Alcohols.
(i) Ethanol.
(ii) Isopropanol.
(2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use,
residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from
cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum
residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine
products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label
directions.
(i) Calcium
hypochlorite.
(ii) Chlorine
dioxide.
(iii) Sodium
hypochlorite.
(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in
aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any
24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase
baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the
producer and accredited certifying agent.
(4) Hydrogen peroxide.
(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system
cleaner only.
(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting
equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material. Also permitted in
hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(a) at concentration of no
more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label.
(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.
(8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS
#-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop
production to approved food uses identified on the product label.
(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as
applicable.
(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in
farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters)
and ornamental crops.
(2) Mulches.
(i) Newspaper or
other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(ii) Plastic mulch
and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).
(iii) Biodegradable
biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or
feedstock derived from excluded methods.
(c) As compost feed stocks—Newspapers or other
recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.
(d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for
use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of
crop.
(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or
mite control).
(1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in
insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.
(2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS
#-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be
sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no
direct contact with organic food or crops.
(4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp
control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field
during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do
not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon
by the producer and accredited certifying agent.
(5) Elemental sulfur.
(6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.
(7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as
dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Soaps, insecticidal.
(9) Sticky traps/barriers.
(10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7;
58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.
(f) As insect management. Pheromones.
(g) As rodenticides. Vitamin D3.
(h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate
(CAS # 10045-86-0).
(i) As plant disease control.
(1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS
#-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be
sourced from naturally occurring sand.
(2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, copper
oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided,
That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes
accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides.
(3) Copper sulfate—Substance must be used in
a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.
(4) Hydrated lime.
(5) Hydrogen peroxide.
(6) Lime sulfur.
(7) Oils, horticultural, narrow range oils as
dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.
(8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire
blight bacteria. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in
§205.601(i) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide
product label.
(9) Potassium bicarbonate.
(10) Elemental sulfur.
(11) Streptomycin, for fire blight control in
apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(12) Tetracycline, for fire blight control in
apples and pears only until October 21, 2014.
(j) As plant or soil amendments.
(1) Aquatic plant extracts (other than
hydrolyzed)—Extraction process is limited to the use of potassium hydroxide or
sodium hydroxide; solvent amount used is limited to that amount necessary for
extraction.
(2) Elemental sulfur.
(3) Humic acids—naturally occurring deposits,
water and alkali extracts only.
(4) Lignin sulfonate—chelating agent, dust
suppressant.
(5) Magnesium sulfate—allowed with a
documented soil deficiency.
(6) Micronutrients—not
to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or
chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.
(i) Soluble boron products.
(ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates
of zinc, copper, iron, manganese,
molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt.
(7) Liquid fish products—can be pH adjusted
with sulfuric, citric or phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not
exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 3.5.
(8)
Vitamins, B1, C, and E.
(9)
Sulfurous acid (CAS # 7782-99-2) for on-farm generation of substance utilizing
99% purity elemental sulfur per paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
(k) As plant growth regulators. Ethylene gas—for
regulation of pineapple flowering.
(l) As floating agents in postharvest
handling.
(1) Lignin sulfonate.
(2) Sodium
silicate—for tree fruit and fiber processing.
(m) As synthetic inert ingredients as
classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for use with
nonsynthetic substances or synthetic substances listed in this section and used
as an active pesticide ingredient in accordance with any limitations on the use
of such substances.
(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.
(2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for
use only in passive pheromone dispensers.
(n) Seed preparations. Hydrogen chloride (CAS #
7647-01-0)—for de-linting cotton seed for planting.
(o) As production aids. Micro crystalline
cheese wax for use in log grown mushroom production (Must be made without
either ethylene-propylene co-polymer or synthetic colors).
No comments:
Post a Comment