The
demand projections for fertilizer by the NAASc (1997) is a figure
and not a fact, amounts to an eccentric speculation, far beyond
error of tolerance. To assume that fertilizer use contributes to
50 to 60 per cent of the yield is acerbic and these are feared to
be aggressive promotion anchors on such data. A type of emulation
of fertilizer consumption of Egypt, Korea, or China to adopt in
India seriously lacks salience. Since 1990, increasing levels of
fertilizer use in India is not the indicator for progress in agriculture
but decreasing use efficiency and diminishing returns with wilting
of national economy, is the tough challenge. A critical examination
based on lessons learnt offers no support for additional resources
(inorganic fertilizers) mobilisation. Thus :
l
90 per cent of the benefit of the fertilizer, was already realised
and the balance depends on factors other than fertilizer to be operative
(IFPRI 1990)
l
Even the most skilful sales force with all incentives for higher
sales since 1990 were totally ineffective on crop yields in India
(Desai, 1992).
l
A point is reached where additional cost of fertilizer one rupee
would not yield grain worth one rupee.
l
The formula of fertilizer plus water and crop variety is no longer
working ( WWI, 1997).
l
Data based on 125 experiments in 1984, showed that by applying 80
kg.N /ha to a soil of total N value of 0.32 per cent rarely increased
yields. ‘Yields without NPK fertilizer correlated highly with soil
organic matter (as organic carbon per cent) as a basis to determine
the fertilizer requirement (Research Highlights IRRI, 1984).
l
Economic yield maximisation reached its limits by 1990 when levels
and, methods were optimum for of increasing use efficiency of fertilizer
over the period 1950-84 each additional tonne of fertilizer used
boosted grain output by nine tonnes but since then it was less than
two tonnes.
l
For Nitrogen use efficiency, on HYV (wheat) for the period (1950
to 1985) are more efficient than the traditional varieties at all
three levels (75, 150 and 300 kg/N/ha). However, NEU is lower at
the higher rates (150 and 300) than at modest rates of 75 kg/N/ha.
It is not the level of fertilizer but its management determines
the crop yield (CGIAR 1997).
Opportunities
- An El Dorado
The
windows of opportunity do not open by themselves, but a ceaseless
pursuit would never fail. For India today an El Dorado of sources
from which the untapped yield potentials could be harvested are:
l
Regional imbalances in production and productivity amenable for
reduction over a long term of 2000 to 2025
l
Excessive care of the assured areas of irrigation needs to be pruned,
with no sacrifice in yield.
l
Long neglected rainfed agriculture to be made more productive.
l
Replacement of current energy intensive cultural practices with
much merited traditional methods a therapy for soil ill health and
enhance use efficiency of inputs.
l
Production losses through pre and post-harvest of crops from pests,
diseases and weeds.
l
The utter neglect of the titanic animal wealth, which suffers from
lack of care, under and mal nutrition, must be corrected to add
bio-energy and manure to promote soil quality and consequently human
health.
l
An estimated 230 mil/ha of waste land that could more usefully be
utilised, is stalled for delay in political decision to resolve
the conflict of allotment, between small landless farmers with their
inherent financial inability to manage farms and rich farmers who
demand for an economically viable unit of at least 100 ha.
The
poor resource farmers (100 ml. holdings of less than 1 ha. of India)
are firmly anchored to poverty and hunger, from which recovery is
remote. They are not slaves of inherited practices. Their initiative
and activity for trial and experimentation is genuine. It is true
that initial incentives, supply of seed and credit will be required
until addiction is established. As farmers’ crop carries no viability
and seeds for replanting cannot be obtained from the farmers’ crop,
the technological imposition of having to purchase seed, season
after season, due to what is called ‘termination technology’ is
not acceptable. Researchers from several agencies began to comment
on the poor fit between the imported technology of land use and
crop management of the developed world to the recipient third world
tropical agriculture. In reality, as tradition was replaced with
modernity, expected benefits were lost and adverse consequences
to production multiplied. Both the approach and action are wrong.
Modernisation built into tradition, with integration of agronomy
and the environment is desired. In short it is the acceptance of
tradition as the distilled wisdom of past farming practices with
three objectives viz., reducing the cost of production, conservation
of natural resources and protecting the health of the environment
and the people, will bring unbridled success.
The
thrill of the incredible crop yields turned into a threat of unsustainability.
The glamour of food security is now a clamour for distributive justice,
a new breed of traders and middleman, harvest without sowing, prevented
economic access of food to the producer and the consumer.
The
fatigued green revolution of India has not lost any of its inherent
potentials for harvest. There is no need for a second green revolution
but only the management of the first based on ecological principles
and natural governing laws to function within the capacity factor
of the ecosystems. To this end, a distillate of available knowledge
is assembled and articulated into a package of practices for farmers’
adoption. The feed back from the farmers to the researchers would
enable further refinement of the practices; a process continued
until farmers’ economic objectives and consumers expectations are
achieved.
Closing
thoughts
The
HYV technology remains fatigued due to mismanagement. All that is
needed is to remedy it through bio-remediation by man for the benefit
of the people with the cooperation of farmers and policy makers.
To bring about cooperative action among biological agencies is in
reality a bio-remediation. Land, water and biodiversity are in the
forefront among resources that call for cooperative and rational
management. In a country where rural population is as much as 60
per cent of the total, an average per capita investment on agriculture
and rural development of Rs 93/- for 1997-98, as announced by the
planning commission New Delhi, is deeply offensive and abundantly
absurd. Population control, rural development and, research and
application of buried traditional practices, hold considerable hope
and strength for a better future for all in the new century that
just commenced. The design of the ninth plan must find answers to
the challenges posed by the rural poor and degraded agricultural
production base.
India
must establish as its cherished goal, a conservationist society
where the best in modern agricultural, industrial, information and
management technologies are integrated in an ecologically desirable
manner with traditional wisdom and technologies A society where
both unsustainable life styles and unacceptable poverty will become
anachronisms of the past. This presentation finds incredible support
for relevance and rhetoric in the words of the ablest Secretary
of the Rio Earth Summit
Dr.
Maurice Strong, (1989) “Both ecological and economic factors dictate
that small farmers in developing countries should be very sparing
in their use of fertilizers, chemicals and pesticides and their
dependence on them. External agencies and experts should realise
that they have as much to learn, as they have to impart, to the
small farmers and should device techniques of working with them
to marry traditional and modern insights and practices rather than
learned credence to the assumption that these are inherently contradictory.”
This
was the core objective on which the Swaminathan Research Foundation,
Madras functioned for a decade. Its progress in adoption of eco-technologies
by the farmers would be of interest. That alone would be able to
prevent the much-dreaded onset of ecological collapse, global warming
and destruction of biodiversity. What appears to be the missing
link to the endeavour is the absence of service centres in the rural
areas for the supply of the new tools and materials required by
the farmers right in the village. These centres could be organised
and managed by the farmers themselves. Then the farmers would obtain
crop tailored fertilizer mixtures, organic manures, tank silt bags,
seeds of their choice (genetically modified or otherwise) bio pesticides
as constantly advised by the extension agencies of the agricultural
university. Indian farmers will have real democratic operation of
technologies of their choice and confidence. A feed back from the
farmers would enable research agenda formulation by the university
research departments.
THE
AUTHOR IS DISTINGUISHED FELLOW OF MSSRF (INDIA), M. AGRI. SC. (NEW
ZEALAND), PH.D. (IARI, NEW DELHI), F.I.AG.SCI. (INDIA)
It
is true that for India since 1990, to move forward is calamitous
and go backward is loony. But it seems necessary to ruminate the
past, assimilate the present to construct the future. In the past
traditional agricultural practices that stood the test of time is
the distilled wisdom and the present offers technological tools
of reliance to accelerate the processes promoted under alternative
agriculture. This is the lesson of US after experiencing the grave
consequences of energy intensive agriculture contained in the report
of NRC (1989) strongly supported by case studies on the relative
merits of conventional and alternative agriculture. A more comprehensive
and convincing advice for India was one of the oldest on record,
ideal to practice at least the integrated approach, with site specific
technology of close fit, reproduced below as:
