editorialteam
New Member
THIS IS A TWO PART ARTICLE. PART I AVAILABLE AT
http://www.agricultureinformation.com/discuss/threads/the-debate-organic-vs-chemical-farming-part-1.6769/
Residue in food:
Plant cannot recognize organic/inorganic compounds. It takes everything in ionic form. So there is no difference between organic and inorganic in that aspect except one problem..Residue.
Organic / bio-fertilizers are completely ruled out from this. Going 100% organic has only one major advantage. It is residue free.
It is a major problem with pesticides (crop protection chemicals). Application of pesticides will protect the food from diseases and infection. But still the food loss is at 25- 30%. Disease and infestation can attack every stage of production from sowing, growing, harvesting. In storing & logistics due to lack of cold storage agri outputs are wasted to large extent.
Without application of pesticides/ insecticides the food loss figures can be alarming at 60-65%. So, it has become a necessary evil. But residue in food is the problem, some are removed by washing, some by cooking and some are retained in food we consume which causes adverse health effects.
But technology has been developed to eliminate highly poisonous substances and use low volume usage high efficiency control compounds to protect from residues. The government has brought in warning triangles in labels such as Red, Yellow, Blue, Green where red is the most poisonous and green is the least harmful product. Currently the red labels are almost banned from usage and blue, green category is widely available and used in market.
But same is not with chemical, it has much lower residues. It doesn’t cause trouble by direct consumption but has its negative effects on environment.
Environmental Health:
On this view the organic and bio-fertilizers are generally the best, safer, environment friendly option to use as it does not damage the natural health or alter its chemical composition. But still some organic matter may contain heavy metals such as arsenic and chromium which is not good for crops and the consumers. So it still requires screening before application.
Chemical farming does has its effect on soil health, but on its excessive/ imbalanced usage. When excess of any chemical compound is used the plant cannot take all of it and it settles and infiltrates into deeper soil. Soil becomes acidic and loses its fertility. Some gets mixed with ground water or as river runoff causing deterioration to already scarce potable water.
Air pollution is at a negligible rate compared to other chemical industries. Urea is produced by utilizing the atmospheric nitrogen. The denitrification releases ammonia. Only a fraction of ammonia escapes through the steam in the industrial process of manufacturing urea. And as majority of the chemical fertilizers are still imported and we only active in pack, mix and sell. The actual chemical reaction process taking place in the country is very less which is not significantly actionable at this point.
Key problem: Excessive use of chemical fertilisers due to poor education of the farmers on its ill effects.
Cost:
The government has played a very important role in creating imbalance in utilisation of fertilizers by giving subsidy to chemical fertilisers. Of which urea is under highest subsidy. Government provides 2/3rd subsidy and 1/3rd is collected by the companies from farmers on sale. The second highest subsidy goes to phosphatic fertilizers where 1/3rd is paid by the government and 2/3rd is collected from farmers. Other minerals and micro- nutrients are not under subsidy.
This makes urea the cheapest fertilizer. Farmer’s rational thinking forces him to go high purchase of urea and loose focus on other nutrients and micro-nutrients. Excess purchasing also causes excess utilisation by not understanding that urea alone cannot replace other nutritional requirements.
But the present government is planning to take away the subsidy from the industry and give the benefit directly to farmer through DBT scheme (Direct benefit transfer)
Key problem : In the current system
Industries procures chemicals --> Government pays back the subsidy to industry -->Rest is collected from farmers
Proposed system:
Industries procures chemicals --> Farmer procures based on his requirement -->Government pays back the subsidy to farmers bank account
Recently government has conducted a trial with 16 districts. Industries get subsidy only after the actual purchase happens from the farmer end. A biometric system is installed to capture the data of farmer purchases. The real time data will help to identify the purchasing pattern of farmers, fraudulent purchases etc. This will be collected for an year.
Based on this data and analysis the DBT scheme will hopefully be implemented in another two year period. This change can bring down the imbalance as farmers will not have the biases on purchasing fertilizers on cost basis. They will be much more careful in procuring the quantities. Also they will be motivated to analyse and understand the requirement of the soil. This will help in controlling the use of urea thus will have a check on soil/ water pollution caused through fertilizers.
Micro- nutrients and other essential minerals will get its focus. Apart from cutting down the subsidy a tremendous amount of effort is needed to educate the farmers on the nutritional requirement of their farm/crop/climate. It is much complex than application of pesticides as each land/crop/ season requires different set of nutrition in different proportions..
Conclusion: Balanced approach- Organic, Bio & Inorganic fertilizers
100% organic or 100% chemical is not a pragmatic/ viable solution to practice. Organic components are the life of the plants and it is inevitable . But due to its limitations it cannot guarantee 100% results in productivity and nutrition. Chemical as we discussed has to be utilized in balanced manner. Excess use is abuse.
Strategies suggested to strike balance and create awareness:
1. Government initiatives to educate farmers with induction of more extension workers
2. Government policy decisions on removal of subsidy and providing subsidy for growing green manure.
3. Government and private agencies promoting and contributing to the growth of organic fertilizers
4. Impose necessary education/regulation in use of fertilizers like implementation of soil health cards (Successful in Gujarat but to be strictly implemented across the states)
5. Scientific approach on soil, water, crop and climate
6. Ensure the analytical equipment, soil & water test labs available in large numbers across the nation.
7. Private public partnership in creating awareness
8. Relieving private players from subsidy and de-control
So there is no black/ white. We have to identify shades of grey. Organic, chemical and bio- fertilizer needs a symbiotic approach. They have to be utilised in right proportion after analysing the soil, water, seed for which technological and farmer education plays vital role.
(As told to Radhika Subramanian)
Last edited: