The organic, synthetic controversy over fertiliser

by Suren Sumithrarachchi

The government has proposed to rapidly convert to organic from synthetic fertiliser used in domestic agriculture, and has banned the import of synthetically produced fertiliser with immediate effect. While the concept of moving to organic agriculture is good and worthy of pursuing, worldwide experience is that the change is a long term process. Countries that spearheaded the conversion as far back as 40 years ago have only reached 10% to 20% conversion at best. By 2019, only 1.5 percent of the world farmland has been farmed organically (The World of Organic Agriculture – Statistics & Emerging Trends 2021), and therefore the change should be seen as a long-term prospect for the country, not one to be carried out instantly.

The stated reason for banning synthetically manufactured fertiliser is to protect the masses from harmful chemical residues in their food. If this is the true reason, why is the country continuing to import many agricultural products, all of which are grown with synthetically manufactured fertiliser? The real reason, one would suspect, is the constraint on foreign currency for the import of fertiliser, but as usual the government prefers to lie to the masses.

The question also arises as to why synthetic fertiliser, and weedicides and pesticides have been classified together as chemical fertiliser, when the two categories serve two distinctly different purposes in crop production and also cause two distinctly different levels of harm to the environment. A genuine desire to reduce the harm to the masses would have prompted the authorities to first ban the weedicides and pesticides and resort to mechanical weeding and entomological solutions for pest control. Even going for entomological solutions is not short term, but a mid-term solution as the predators have to be bred and grown before they can be of use.

What must be remembered is that going organic is taking a highly scientific approach to agriculture. Hence it must be tackled with the experts putting their shoulders to the wheel. As the scientific community will advise, time should be allowed for the residual synthetic fertiliser and weedicides and pesticides hitherto used, to wash off. This will allow for the creation of a suitable soil condition for the micro-organisms that grow on the root mass of plants to activate themselves and other micro-organisms in the soil to acclimatise themselves to the newly created friendly environment. Planting material itself have to be of varieties adaptable to organic fertilizer.

Authorities must recognise that developing facilities to produce organic fertiliser in large quantities is not the solution as organic fertiliser is not a one to one replacement for synthetically produced fertiliser. The nitrogen content in organic fertiliser could vary between 6% and 8%, while the nitrogen content in synthetically produced fertiliser is 46%. Therefore, scientific methods must be adopted to impregnate the organic fertilisers with the relevant microorganisms to enhance their capacity to facilitate the absorption of the nitrogen from the soil. These microorganisms must be grown and made available to meet the roll out of the organic conversion. Therefore, as opposed to developing large facilities to produce organic fertiliser, infrastructure to cultivate and grow the relevant microorganisms providing the in quantities that will satisfy the demand of a nationwide roll-out of organic farms, must take precedence.

With the ban on synthetic fertiliser without paying due attention to the above, the smallholders who comprise the larger proportion of the tea growers in the country will be affected and this will have a fall on effect on the tea industry and other perennial crops. The effect on tea is bound to destroy the worldwide esteem that the brand “Ceylon Tea” enjoys, developed and nurtured by dedicated tea growers for almost 150 years. As tea is one of our major exports, it will also have an adverse effect on the foreign exchange it brings to the country.

What the decision makers do not realise is that the issue that has been created is very serious. Before long, it is most certainly going to create a famine in the country. Knowledgeable sources have discussed the seriousness of the issue, but the authorities seem adamant not to retract. It seems those around the leaders are telling the leaders what they prefer to hear, and thereby retain their comfortable positions, rather than state the truth and risk their comfort zone. This issue clearly is interwoven with the leadership style of the present rulers, who pathetically believe that they have a right to carry through their vision, regardless of whether it is in line with the legitimate and rational expectations of the people they lead.