As usual, an unnatural price of a commodity attracts the interest of smugglers and this fertiliser started going through our porous western borders, creating a shortage in the local market. The government, in response to this phenomenon, imported urea at higher international prices to offset the shortage.
However, with the imports came a price increase of Rs50 per 50-kg bag of urea. This was done under World Bank strictures but gave a windfall to the fertiliser manufacturers. They not only had a major cost reduction in the basic input of natural gas but were also given a 10 per cent increase in price as well. The government’s policy benefited the corporations while they claimed it was done all for the farmers gain.
Looking at the scenario, the pricing policy has developed a sellers market which has given cartel-like strength to the urea manufacturers. Some of these producers have used this power to introduce new products which is quite understandable. However, the introduction of such products that dupe the growers is unethical business practice.
For instance, Engro introduced an imported zinc sulphate at a high profit margin but which was promptly declared by the Punjab government as substandard. In reaction, they flogged this product known as Zangro in Sindh — as the concerned officials of agricultural department Sindh were not much concerned about the purity or efficacy of the product.
The corporation faced resistance from their own dealers as they were averse to market such a product at twice the import price. That is when the company used their new found muscle of a shortage of urea in the market and made it mandatory on the dealers not only to pay for the micro nutrient in advance but also tied the lucrative purchase of one bag of urea to one bag of Zangro.
The poor dealers who had bought Zangro under duress could not offload this product even to unsuspecting farmers and stocks started to pile up in their godowns.
To counter this slow movement, the firm submitted to NARC, Islamabad, 13 samples of zinc sulphate marketed by their competitors. The NARC’s scientific officers who analysed the samples admitted that seven of zinc fertilizer samples were sub-standard. Some complained that they were not in their original packing but were given to the laboratory by one of the competitors in one kilogramme lots in plastic shopping bags.
The NARC officers analysed these contaminated samples which was also in serious violation of good business practices. Their report shows that one of the tested samples had 39 per cent zinc in mono-hydrate sulphate form which is just not possible. The maximum it can go up to is 36 per cent. Maybe, these expert scientists are trying to change the laws of chemistry!
One of the samples, the report stated was zinc in chelated form. When the scientific officer who signed the report was asked whether he had the equipment available or the methodology to analyse chelated products, he answered in the negative. This raises the question about the real scientific qualifications of people involved and, therefore, the calibre of the analysis and the report. This report was in fact circulated by one of the competitors throughout the country.
The farmers should be made aware about the differences between zinc sulphate and chelated zinc. An advantage of chelated zinc is its high mobility versus the slow consumption by the plant of zinc sulphate because the latter does not breakdown immediately as absorbable nutrition. Furthermore, and in local conditions this crucial, this chelated zinc works in high pH and additionally allows the plant to absorb the phosphorus. This the zinc sulphate does not do.
Chelated zinc helps produce indole acetic acid which starts the photosynthesis process which zinc sulphate does not touch. Chelated zinc also breaks down very quickly and has no residual effect on the micro-biological structure of the soil. Zinc sulphate will sit in the soil for at least two years acting as a contaminant.
Given the advantages of applying chelated zinc instead of in the ancient form of zinc sulphate, nevertheless the Sindh agriculture department without pause decided to go with the NARC report. By not critically analysing the contents, the department has, in fact, done a great disservice to the farming community of the province.
The large companies are making profits from low value-added, over priced or sub-standard products. Instead of helping to multiply the corporate profit margin by reducing the vital input cost such as supplying gas below cost, the government should act in the farmers’ best interest.
The government should ensure that the so-called subsidy which is being gobbled up by the corporations should have been passed on to the farming community in the form of a price reduction. Furthermore, these corporations should be discouraged from marketing their products that represent obsolete technology. Protecting the farmer is critical for radical improvements in agriculture.
The writer is vice-chairman Sindh Abadgar Board, Badin