Fwd: Chris Dharmakeerthi's fb post

[Naturecare Syndicate.]

Here is an article From FB post by Chriss Dharmakirthi . Please assist me to take a decision to shift to organic or continue with GAP "good agriculture practises" .

Seriously I need your kind assistance to take a decision.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: NatureCare Syndicate <naturecare...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun, 2021, 2:53 am
Subject: Chris Dharmakeerthi's fb post
To: Naturecare Syndicate. <nature...@gmail.com>, NatureCare Syndicate <naturecare...@gmail.com>, Super Shine Marketing <lion...@yahoo.com>, Sachini <qs...@microconstructions.com>

I have been engaging the experts in the agriculture department and our tertiary academics as well as the researchers in the leading agri research institutions this past fortnight to ascertain the truth about the various claims different camps in the raging debate on whether the policy decision by the Government to ban agro chemicals is good or bad for our agriculture sector.  

I must say that , I feel sorry for our policy making politicians who are at the helm of the plantations and agriculture sector, because the manner in which the anti-ban brigade has been waging its arguments,  anyone who is not very knowledgeable  on the subject would get totally confused, and actually also convinced by , not the logic of their arguments, but by the sheer power of their academic credentials and lofty titles they hold. It is the bamboozle effect!:

It became quite apparent, when one listens to some of these agri experts participating in zoom meetings that unless one is astute enough to see the "slow ball" (bullshit), one would get bowled by their unscientific arguments of dramatic yield drops, making even some of the more well respected newspaper columnists,  civil society commentators, and even economists who have been pulled into the argument,  be misled by their figures.

Composts generally represent a high organic matter medium containing all of the nutrients needed by plants, in approximately the same quantities that are found in plants. 

As a practicing organic farmer, however, the most common mistake made in utilizing compost as a soil amendment is to treat it as a fertilizer.   We do not put fertilizer to feed plants. We build the soil to enable the soil as the mother, or gaiya,  to feed nutrients to the plants. 

Us organic farmers know that most composts are quite nutrient deficient.  Those who are anti organic agriculture , the pro-agro chemical lobby has been stating this fact, as if that is the only soil nourishment ingredient that we organic farmers apply. They are ignorant about how the soil biome as a total system within an agroecology practice  comes to support all of the nutrient requirements of a crop in a sustainable cycle once the soil gets regenerated.

What these pro-agro chemical folks don't say, perhaps out of intellectual dishonesty or because of their sheer ignorance, is that the application of compost alone is not enough, that it must be amended with plant nutrients, particularly with available N (example gliricidria )  and also stimulated with bio stimulants to obtain the requisite amount of soluable nitrate for the plant. .  

Enhancement of soil productivity and increase in crop yields are obtained with the addition of gliricidia leaf manuring in several rainfed crops. Impact of mulch-cum-manuring with gliricidia can increase yields by 300% in comparison with control and 150% in comparison with FYM and use of chemical fertilizers, in studies done in India.  

In Sri Lanka, the Institute of Fundamental Studies (IFS) led by Professor Ananda Kulasooriya and Prof. Gamini Seneviratne, have proven not just scientifically, but also practically in field trials that paddy harvest yields would exceed the agro-chemical only fields by 22%, when only 200 kg compost is mixed with 1 litre of  biofilm per acre , making the requirement for an hectare at 500 kg.  They postulate that when 80 kg of compost is mixed with 1 litre of biofilm and also with 120 kg of  biochar, that yields could go even higher, per acre. 

Thus to say that organic farming is confined to merely applying compost alone is like stating a half truth.   

Lamentably, the Agriculture Department trots out figures saying a paddy filed of one hectare would require 10 tons of compost to ensure adequate amount of nitrate for the paddy plant.  Imagine the difference here.   The IFS study clearly shows that one only needs 500 kg of mixed compost per hectare, as compared to the ridiculous quantum of 10 tons, which is 2000% more !    

So they mislead even the farmer who is considering his plant fertilization options under the new Government policy, as the Department of Agriculture is only saying to apply 10 tons of compost per hectare to retain his paddy harvest yield stability of 5 tons of rice harvest per hectare.    No mention of combining compost with biochar or biofilm.   

Imagine, if you apply such a large quantum of compost only, quite soon the paddy field after a few planting cycles, would become a small hill and in a decade a mountain.   How unscientific and impractical is that advice. 

The department of Agriculture is to blame for the misconception that compost alone is a suitable plant growth medium.  A typical compost may be 1–3% total N by weight, but the ammonium and nitrate (available forms) of N are typically less than 0.05% by weight.  Depending on the feedstock for the compost,  high nitrogen bearing gliricidia or legume crops and chicken manure would increase that N by weight, thereby improving the available nitrate in the compost. 

As explained before, the smart organic farmers who know their soil science basics and understand the value of combining biocharcoal , which can be easily made using a pyrolysis process that burns wood or rice husks or even straw with zero oxygen, combine their compost made with high nitrogen containing chicken waste and cow urine drenched dung,  to assure themselves of high nitrate availability for the plant.

Furthermore in order to solubalize the fixed nitrates in the soil, they apply biofilm,which is a cultured bacteria known as biostimulants, and that in combination with compost and biochar delivers all the nitrogen requirements for the soil.  No need to apply imported Urea.

If you ask me, whether we need to go through all of that effort to make biocharcoal, make compost, and produce biofilm and other bacteria rich bio stimulants, I would say that we would not need to even do that, as we can get all our nitrogen needs from rain fed irrigation water and by plating legumes.

Our department of Agriculture is yet to recognize the mandatory need to prescribe crop rotations to farmers, as it is a well known fact around the world that planting legumes like mung, cowpea, or beans ensures the rice field of over 300  kg of nitrogen that gets fixed from the atmosphere into the soil.  

 These nitrogen fixing legume plants draw the nitrogen from the air to nourish the soil and it is win a win solution for Sri Lanka farmers, as mung is a profitable crop to grow, and it also becomes a fertilizer. 

Imagine how much money that Government has wasted over the past 40 years in the import of Urea, also known as carbamide,into the country because of the ignorance about how nitrogen gets fixed to the soil by natural means, and how to increase it further by growing legumes, and if there is a high nitrogen intenstive crop, that a compost could be made using a mix of biocharchoal and biofilm to optimize the nitrate uptake.

 They also don't describe the importance of organic matter in the soil as it fosters microbes who must be present for the solubility process of the fixed nitrates in the soil.  The absence of them reduces the conversion rate of avaliable nitrates for the plant to absorb.  No wonder then that only 20% of the applied urea gets absorbed by the rice plant and 80% is wasted. 

So to me, this argument that organic farming is unscientific and that agro chemical farming is scientific is utter rubbish.  The reverse is true, as it is organic farming that is practicing advanced soil microbial mobilization technologies with bio stimulants, and much more scientific crop rotational practices by using crops like legumes to fix nitrogen in the soil, and the fact that none of these practices have been advocated by the department of Agriculture proves that they were in the pocket of the agro chemical companies importing urea.

The traditional farmers, who have rotated crops, done chena burns, and fostered  good composts  rich in nitrogen, which essentially ensured bio charcoal production, good soil bacteria and adequate soil carbon,  have not been appreciated for the tremendous benefit that it provides to nourish the soil and make nutrient availability to the plants, much more stable and natural.

When a compost mixed with biochar and bio stimulants, is applied to soil, it initiates a cascade of changes in soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. While the direction of many of these changes is predictable based on soil and compost characteristics, their magnitude varies as a result of the dynamic interactions between these two diverse and biologically active porous media. 

Understanding these complex interactions is important for both scientific advances and practical management of compost in agronomic and horticultural systems.  Sadly, the agro chemical lobby is deaf to these scientific soil management practices, as their business model is to kill the soil, and make the farmer dependent on their external input of urea.

The Director of Agriculture of Sri Lanka, Dr. Wirekoon  is on record saying that the wet zone of  Sri Lanka has excess nitrates in the soil and therefore no urea application is needed, and it is only the dry zone farmers who need to be supported with nitrogen support.     

The arithmetic is simple.  110 kg of nitrates are needed for the rice plant.  The rainwater from the irrigation systems provide about 40 kg of nitrates from the atmosphere. The previous year's left over nitrates are quite high, as the same Agriculture department admits that only 20% of the 240 kg of urea applied is absorbed by the plant, and much of it is lost, and a conservative estimate puts the retained nitrates at about 50 kg in the soil, and this brings it up to 70 kg.   The gap is 40 kg. 

So if the farmer grows legumes like mung, which is a 45 day crop, a paddy field of 1 hectare gets 300 kg.   Without applying any external inputs, the farmer has 260 or more kg of nitrates left for his next crop.   If he does not plant legumes , and applies compost, as per the aforementioned mixture protocol,   there would be more than adequate nitrogen to give a high yield.

Sadly, the Government was misled by the Department of Agriculture by their excessive quantum of compost of 10 tons per hectare that was recommended to assure the required nitrogen availability for the paddy plant.  

Between the Mahaweli Authority's paddy and vegetable land bank of 160,000 hectares and the Department of Agrarian Services landbank of 800,000 paddy lands and 300,000 vegetable land bank, the total requirement was for 1,260,000 hectares.  Which meant the excessive application claim of compost was  approximately 11 million tons of compost.    The agenda behind this large number was to prove that such a vast quantity of compost was not available for the next Maha season and thus to force the Government to import Urea.

We also do not need to import organic fertilizer from abroad either,  sterilized or inert by radiation. There is no assurance that such imports are without deadly pathogens. We cannot  make our  soil  biome  vulnerable.  The bio threat factor cannot be ignored.  We have enough locally grown  feedstock to produce locally compost.  The real question to answer on this is to ask how much compost is actually needed to be applied per acre or hectare. 

If one goes by the Institute of Fundamental Studies trials, and their recommendation of applying 500 kg of mixed compost, the total requirement in tons would be less than 620,000 tons, which is a very practical and reasonable production target for the Maha season.  So the 10 ton per acre exaggerated volume of 11.2 million tons of compost is unnecessary. 

Now, assuming we are all agreed that the nitrogen availability in the soil can be solved through an agroecological approach,  and preferably using organic standards,  the question that remains unanswered is the yield drop risk.

The average rice paddy per hectare yield is accepted as 5 tons, although the national average is lower than that.  Lets  take that higher figure to give our agro chemical lobby an advantage.  ;-). Having taken that figure of 5 tons per hectare, it is important that we need to understand what the baseline is.  Meaning, if no fertilizer is applied, what would the yield be in a field of one hectare for rice?  It is also accepted that it is 2 tons per hectare, although the department of agriculture says it could be even higher, at 2.5 tons.  But again, lets be conservative and take the lower figure of 2 tons per hectare, again to give the anti-ban lobby an advantage.   

Now you may ask me, how come we can get 2 tons per hectare without applying any fertilizer even for 10 years.  The soil nitrogen levels gets depleted when a rice crop draws 110 kg of nitrates each year.   Again it is estimated that rice crop draws 22.5 kg of nitrates for every ton of rice it produces.  So if 2 tons is the baseline and 5 tons is the incremental benefit we have got from applying agro chemicals, then this huge lobby group is fighting for this 3 ton gain per hectare.

Now, what would a pure conventional compost only provide as its yield.  3.5 tons per hectare as per department of agriculture results.  If it is compost plus a bio stimulant like biofilm produced by IFS?  5.2 tons per hecatare as per a trial done last year.    Now that is higher than the agro chemical yield.   The addition of biochar is expected to further improve the yield to 6 tons, and that shows the potential. 

So this exaggerated claims of 50% drop in yields if Sri Lanka shifts to organic farming is based on ignorance and also intellectual dishonesty.    I was wondering from where this figure came out of.  It was from a study done some 30 years ago.  I found a more recent study done in Sri Lanka, which is an ongoing study, and in that the drop is only 12 per cent in the first year, and it was only after the 5th year that the yield dropped by 48%, and that too , only because they applied no fertilizer, not even compost or any organic inputs.  

So with zero inputs, the yield drop in the first year was 12% and it was only after year 5 it became a 48% drop, but now it has tapered and stabilized at that rate, because of that baseline factor of the rice plant surviving at 2.4 tons per acre utilizing the naturally recharged nitrogen from rain fed irrigation water. 

The same logic holds for Tea and spices as well, with the quantum being higher.    So it is a pity that shrill voices are joining the chorus of half truths to support the corrupt agro chemical importer lobby and not realizing that there is no argument here on the efficiency of soil productivity with a scientific approach to agriculture using agro ecological principles.