Unsustainable agriculture

In every cropping season, farmers' agitation for fertiliser has become a common phenomenon. The country's factories can't cope with the growing demand of fertiliser. Moreover, loopholes in the distribution system aggravates the situation. Is there any easy way to bail out of the situation?
In fact, the growing demand of fertiliser, especially urea, can't be met in the existing system of farming. With passage of time, the demand for urea has been increasing and will continue to increase as the quantity of urea applied to a piece of land this season would not give the desired response next season.
The chemical fertiliser builds a sort of resistance in soil as an antibiotic does in animal bodies. As a result, the amount of fertiliser required grows each time for getting desired results.
This is an endless journey. And we don't know where are we going. Neither our farmers nor our agriculturists seem to be concerned about protecting our farming from impending disaster. The days are not far away when our land will not produce anything despite application of heavy doses of fertiliser.
It was not long ago when our farmers didn't use chemical fertilisers and pesticides in their lands. They used organic matter like cow dung, compost, crop residue, water hyacinth, oil cakes etc in the soil. Cultivation of leguminous and green crops was a must at regular intervals to maintain soil fertility and productivity. As a result, the arable land of our country had not lost its fertility over the centuries.
In contrast, use of chemical fertilizers has made millions of hectares of farmlands of many countries non-arable in the last two to three decades. In India, thousands of acres of once fertile land in Punjab turned infertile following introduction of so-called High Yielding Variety (HYV) crops that require application of heavy doses of chemical fertilisers and water. The farmers of Punjab are now fighting to reclaim their land from salinity and infertility.
The HYV seeds introduced in the '60s in our country brought a number of menaces along with them. These seeds need application of N-P-K containing chemical fertilisers, extra water and pesticide for their survival and for giving yields. Without these inputs, their production is simply impossible. To meet the demands, our farmers have been rushing madly for the inputs.
There is a debate about whether our "age-old" farming system is capable of meeting the demand for food for the increasing population. There is a myth in place that it is not possible. But that is absolutely wrong. Of course, there was stagnancy in production, especially in paddy, with the traditional seeds. But, the seeds themselves are not responsible for that.
Farmers used to produce, store and preserve seeds for themselves generation after generation. We know that every plant variety loses its genetic properties over the years. Cross-pollination also alters their characteristics. As a result, the farmers' seeds lost their properties and, thereby, yield over the years.
What we needed to do was to preserve the original genetic traits of hundreds of varieties of different crops. But our agricultural bosses have not done that, instead they have been rushing for so-called western methods of cultivation.
Evidence shows that our traditional rice varieties gave 3700 to 4,000 kg/hectare yield, which is almost equal to the average production of today's HYV rice. However, our indigenous varieties do not require any use of detrimental chemicals for their growth or for producing yield. The HYV euphoria not only drove away traditional rice varieties but also other essential minor crops. Minor cereals like millet, joar, bazra, kaon etc have vanished from the farmers' fields and food baskets over the last two decades.
The HYV cultivation cannot be sustained for many reasons. Firstly, a huge quantity of non-renewable energy is currently being used for production of HYV rice. The uninterrupted supply of non-renewable energy like natural gas, petroleum products and groundwater will not be possible for very long. Secondly, application of inorganic and organic chemicals in the form of fertilisers and pesticides has already reduced the fertility and productivity of soil through altering its properties.
The excessive use of water, especially groundwater, in rice fields will create salinity problem and ultimately make the land unproductive. The extraction of groundwater itself is a serious hazard for the ecology and environment. Thirdly, the cost of production will increase gradually, raising the production cost of the produce. At one point, the production cost will go beyond the purchasing capacity of the consumers. We are already witnessing this syndrome. And fourthly, countries like ours can't thrive on monoculture, which we are practicing now.
The tables show how much fertiliser and energy we use for crop production. Moreover, for operating the engine-driven pumps for irrigation, on an average, 14 lakh metric tons of diesel are needed, and for running motor-driven pumps 704,782 MKWH electricity (in 2005-06) was needed during boro season only.
The mystery behind the severe crisis of essential commodities like vegetable, pulse, edible oil, spice, fish and meat lies in the monoculture, i,e lone cultivation, of rice. Despite making great efforts and using all available resources, we could not make the country self-sufficient in rice.
On the contrary, because of diversion of almost all resources for rice cultivation other crops were not only neglected, they were routed out. A minor shift of the energy, resource and manpower being used for HYV rice cultivation could bring autarky in vegetables, edible oils, pulses and spices, fish, and animal products.
If we shift from rice to other crops, we would be benefited in several ways. Firstly, the use of precious non-renewable energy would be drastically curtailed, as these crops need hardly any chemical fertiliser for their production.
Secondly, extraction of groundwater will also be minimised. Soil fertility would be augmented through cultivating leguminous crops, and proper crop rotation.
Thirdly, huge foreign exchange needed to import these items and fertiliser would be saved. Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, consumers would get the items at affordable prices.
Now, the question is: do we import almost all daily essential commodities, or only a few, after attaining self-sufficiency in most items? Should we depend on foreign countries, especially India, for petty items like onion, garlic, ginger, pulse or do we import rice after achieving self-sufficiency in other commodities?
In cost-benefit analysis, rice monoculture is not acceptable under any circumstances. The extra resources we use for cultivation of HYV rice, and money spent for importing some minor items, are valued at nearly Tk 90 billion, which is equivalent to import cost of 40 lakh metric tons of rice.
A little effort and policy shift can save the huge resources now being used for cultivation of rice. To protect our agriculture and our farmers' community, we must come out from the N-P-K circle. We will have to go back to organic farming.
Nazrul Islam is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.