When the Ayub government took the decision on chemical fertilisers it may have been the only option. Not so now. The world has moved on and the human brain given its elasticity in developing new options has done so. Let us then examine the current implications of chemical fertiliser. We spent a considerable amount of finances on developing laboratories for fertiliser requirement determinations.
Chemical fertilisers are synthetic fertilisers and the artificial fertilisers will continue to be called as such. Capitalism has shot itself in the foot by making these fertilisers expensive. The farmer, given the current price, cannot afford to buy these fertilisers at the given exorbitant price for DAP and SOP (sulphate of potash). Nitrogen is relatively cheaper though this by itself can create a number of problems for the farmers.
The second issue is that their production is energy-intensive and the two in conjunction has added to the current price malaise. It is also harmful to the environment.
Although there is a hefty subsidy for farmers, the product (s) is still outside the purchasing power of the farmers, large or small. If one considers the agrarian structure, then 97 per cent of the farmers are unable to purchase this and the only ones to benefit would be 0.4 per cent of the large farmers with more than 100 acres as their holding.
Chemical fertilisers have an advantage in as much as they are easier to obtain and apply. In the long run that may cause a considerable amount of damage to ecology. The consequences need to be examined and decisions consciously taken.
The fact is that the high amount of nutrients in chemical fertilisers leads to quick action using the organic matter in the soil. So just as when a nutrient in the body is used and is not replenished the consequences are adverse, so also in soils the used up organic matter has to be replenished.
In Pakistani soils that is not the case and the organic matter is now either not there or in very minimal quantities. It is possible to use leguminous crops and trees that fix phosphate and nitrogen in the soil and some that also reduce the amount of temperature of the soil. All crops that are grown, we know, have a temperature tolerance level.
The workings of the chemical fertilisers are weighted for the amount of fertiliser that they have. Other nutrients such as sulphur, zinc are also added and one finds that it is not always the case that all nutrients are used. Peanuts may use only sulphur in single super phosphate. That is, it is also possible to examine whether the crops are going to use a particular chemical and in what amount. Residues will create distortions in the soil structure. One of the limitations of chemical fertiliser is that it is seldom balanced in fertilisation. The nutrients are high as compared to organic fertilisers that it creates what is known as an induced deficiency.
To cover these induced deficiencies soil tests are to be carried out after every crop production. These soil tests have to be interpreted. Who will do this for our farmers? Are you aware of the seven tests that are carried out, the best of the soil scientists can make a serious error in their interpretation? I could go into more technical rendition as to what the weightage content is but that would only complicate matters. So suffice it to say that the balancing of complex fertilisers by itself is a difficult act as the fertilisers seldom have the quantum of nutrients that is mentioned by the manufacturers. So there is double jeopardy.
The problem with nitrogen is that it is easily leached out of the root zone (affecting the efficiency of nitrogen use) and thus requiring multiple applications. These are then cost prohibitive. What amount is leached out is not known, so one is in a blind alley. The problem with single and triple super phosphate is that it is fixed in to insoluble form unless used immediately. The efficiency factor is that they be placed near the root zone. Where broadcasting is the method of application, the impossibility of placing this in bands near the root zone is cumbersome and almost impossible. One can try it as a side dressing and that would improve efficient use.
Potassium fertilisers especially muriate of potash are water soluble. In Pakistan we have had a fetish against muriate of potash and we go for sulphate of potash (SoP). Sop is manufactured potash and thus twice as expensive.
The oxides, hydroxides, phosphates of iron are insoluble in water but sulphur is soluble and can be sprayed on leaves where they are absorbed through stomata on the leaf. This can be further improved for productivity of horticultural products especially fruit trees. Sulphur mountains are available everywhere but inability of our soil scientists is such that the farmer has not been given this benefit. The loss thus suffered is colossal. These are chelates that fix themselves to ions of chemical fertilisers.
If organic fertilisers are used, chelates are available in the soil and the organic fertilisers keep on adding to productivity through this chemical action. Chelates of organic fertilisers resist fixation in the soil and thus are available in perpetuity to the plants as per their requirement.
If policy-makers continue their current policy interventions they are not going to succeed in removing hunger. Take good care of the soils. They have living organisms in them.