Behind artificial fertilisers

Through the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp), government is promoting use of artificial fertilisers in crop production. ALBERT SHARRA explores the challenges such fertilisers pose to the nation.

Most Malawian farmers have found relief in using fertiliser to improve crop yield. Political leaders are preaching about their commitment to sustain the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (Fisp) initiative. President Joyce Banda and her rival Peter Mutharika, among other political leaders in the country, have made it clear that they will sustain Fisp if they win the 2014 elections.

Banda says she wants to introduce a parallel Fisp to supplement the government initiative. On the other hand, Mutharika recently said at a rally in Blantyre that he will reduce further the current price of K500 for a 50kg bag of fertiliser to ensure more people access it.

With the Fisp programme being proven to have led to bumper yields in the country; it is not surprising that government is promoting it. However, the number of beneficiaries of Fisp continues to grow every year and agricultural experts predict that the amount of artificial fertiliser applied to Malawi soils annually will double in a few years.

During the 2012/2013 growing season, about 155 000 metric tonnes of fertilisers were used in the country alone. This excludes the fertilisers bought directly from shops by farmers who did not benefit from the programme.

Currently, about 1.6 million of the country’s 15 million population benefit from Fisp. Although the number of farmers who use unsubsidised fertiliser is not clear, it is a fact that many farmers in the country use chemical fertilisers for crop production.

In a research paper titled ‘What are the Dynamic Effects of Fertiliser Subsidies on Household, Well-being? Evidence from Malawi’ Ricker-Gilber exposes challenges of the initiative, particularly its impact at household and national level.

The paper which was also presented at the Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE) and the 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (Aeasa) Conference in South Africa in September 2010, reveals that the cost of financing large-scale fertiliser subsidies are high and puts the country to economic challenges.

For example, government spent K19.4 billion (about $48.5m) on Fisp during the 2007/08 growing season. In the 2012/2013 season, government has spent K54 billion (about $135m).

Wth politicians wanting to increase the number of beneficiaries further, these huge sums of money are likely to increase further.

But what is the impact of fertiliser on soil fertility?

Wilfred Murray, a Nigerian agricultural scientist in his article titled ‘What are the impacts of artificial fertilisers on soils?’ wrote that excessive application of fertilisers by farmers and gardeners results in the leakage of nitrogen and phosphates in the soil or water.

The Urea and 23:21:0+4s fertilisers that are distributed to farmers in Fisp contain nitrogen and phosphates, among many other plant nutrients.

According to Murray, the accumulation of these chemicals in the soil, in the long run, collects in ground water and eventually find their way to rivers and lakes. He says this leads to eutrophication—a situation where living beings can no longer live in a water body.

He adds that taking the infected water leads to health problems including stomach ulcers and blue baby syndrome.

Mwanza District agricultural development officer (Dado), Vincent Wandale, says Malawi has no choice at the moment but to continue using artificial fertilisers.

Although he agrees that Malawi soils have been over-mined, he says it is artificial fertilisers that are helping us maintain high yields.

“At the moment, we can say fertiliser anchors Malawi’s agriculture because the soils have been over-mined, but still we need to be careful especially on the type of fertilisers we use. We should use fertilisers that complement with manure so that we can control concentration of nutrients in the soil,” says Wandale.

He says the Agriculture Support Wide Approach (Aswap), a government initiative, is promoting use of organic fertilisers to supplement the inorganic fertilisers.

However, some agriculture experts have argued that the effect of organic manure on yield is the same as that of artificial fertilisers. The difference, they say, is that organic fertilisers have additional advantages in that their effect lasts longer and they do not need constant applications.

“When used properly, organic manure is a valuable source of plant nutrients to improve crop production and soil quality. Manure contains most of the nutrients that crops require, including nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium,” writes US based soil scientist William Mcbbean in his book The Art of balancing soil nutrients.

Apart from this, organic manure is cheap and easy to make compared to artificial fertilisers.

A senior officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, who asked for anonymity, says Fisp is not a solution. He says Malawi soils are exhausted and need heavy investment to restore their fertility.

“The only thing artificial fertilisers do every growing season is to damage the soil further. We need to promote the use of manure. Our economy cannot sustain buying fertiliser for all poor people. We need a strategy that will provide a lasting solution,” says the officer.

Loveness Chimaliro a local farmer in Angelo Goveya area in Blantyre told MBC Television in a documentary aired on April 22 2013 that she tried both artificial and organic manure on her one acre field and the product proved that manure is the best.

“Manure is cheap, I use wastes from my toilets, ashes and soil. I don’t buy anything. Fisp is unreliable because your name can miss on the beneficiaries list and unsubsidised fertiliser is very expensive,” she said.

She further explained that manure applied one growing season can support plant growth in the following seasons, rather than artificial fertilisers which require repeated application every year.

Chimaliro, who works with Centre for Community Development (Ccode), emphasised that use of artificial fertiliser is not a solution to achieving high yields.

“The benefits are short-lived. Fertilisers only expose the soil to too much salts and pollution,” she said.