Quite clear benefits and quite clear drawbacks exist that require analysis when considering using chemical fertilizer, however another, oft-forgotten element exists: people and what helps maintain their living styles. Chemical fertilizers attract largely those whose region where they live share similarities to sub-Saharan Africa where “[f]arming a smallholding is intensive, backbreaking work that, for the most part, is done out of necessity, not choice”. The quick and obvious rewards, along with the little time and effort required to apply chemical fertilizers, shows why they have such appeal. Given this, one might expect that many farmers would use fertilizer, however sub-Saharan Africa's fertilizer prices leave farmers unable to afford any. The requirement for fertilizer to be imported, since few produce it locally, underlies the reason fertilizer costs a lot. The fertilizer does not get produced locally because the demand does not reach a level where producing it locally seems worthwhile. The high prices that leave fertilizer unaffordable cause this low demand. This causes a lovely catch-22 scenario, where the high price causes the high price. The local governments have tried subsidizing the fertilizer, however the governments stopped these subsidies before too long because they had a high cost. Some people believe that African farmers need fertilizer, and if they're unable to afford it then wealthier countries should provide it; and when you think about the fact that many nations largely overuse fertilizer, one would likely agree that wealthier countries can spare fertilizer.
Sub-Saharan Africa's long-lasting food crisis has prompted many people to suggest solutions. As a solution, people often first consider using chemical fertilizers, which have their benefits and drawbacks; however, people often forget the way chemical fertilizers affect farmers' lifestyles. Though options other than chemical fertilizer also exist, including planting plants that naturally enrich the soil and using crop rotation. However, carefully combining all the options will likely produce the best results.
Chemical fertilizers contain mostly nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. People reference this nutrient combination frequently enough that it has gained the abbreviation NPK; nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium's chemical symbols determined this abbreviation. Nitrogen gets the most focus since “corn, wheat, and rice, the fast-growing crops on which humanity depends for survival, are among the most nitrogen hungry of all plants”. One might expect that, the air containing 80% nitrogen, plants wouldn't lack this nutrient, but unfortunately plants cannot process the form this nitrogen has.
People often view chemical fertilizers negatively, but they have proven extremely useful when attempting to lessen food crises. Sub-Saharan Africa largely seeks chemical fertilizers because the red soil there has extremely little vital nutrients, “[losing] 22 kilograms of nitrogen, 2.5 kg of phosphorus and 15 kg of potassium annually over the past 30 years”. The low labor cost and quick and obvious returns also add a large appeal.
The short-term effects show many boons, but the long-term effects show more negatives. When overused, excess fertilizer will wash away from farms and contaminate river water. The fertilizer the river contains helps to grow the plants that reside there, largely plankton and algae. The aid these two receive causes a population boom, creating much more plankton and algae than one could consider healthy. This extra biomass creates dead zones, areas where plants and fish can't survive. The plants die because the algae and plankton form a large and dense population that completely blocks out sunlight. The fish die because decomposing plankton and algae consumes the oxygen the fish need, and because the recent population boom provides more biomass to decompose, decomposition consumes too much oxygen.
Researches have studied other, more natural, methods that increase the concentration of soil nutrients. These methods largely consist of planting legume, which contain bacteria in their roots that help to convert airborne nitrogen into nitrogen usable by plants. Like many green solutions, the growing of legume unfortunately imposes much more extra labor on the farmer, often to level where farmers forego the option. Another solution involves planting Faidherbia albida trees, which also help boost nitrogen content in soil. These trees have an added benefit, they shed their leaves near the beginning of the growing season, meaning not only do they not block sunlight from any crops planted near their base, but they actually provide a form of natural fertilizer for them.
Crop cycling contains another solution for providing more bountiful harvests. Crop cycling rests on the idea that, since soil will renew its nutrients over time, if you do not plant crops for a year, the crops will have the nutrients to produce a lot more the next year. However, no one really likes the idea of wasting their land for a year, so instead of not planting crops, farmers plant crops that require different nutrients. Since these crops use different nutrients, they can produce a bountiful harvest while allowing the nutrients that the original crop needs to build up. This allows both crops to have the surplus of nutrients that gives them a bountiful harvest. Sometimes though, after one year, the nutrients in the soil remain too low; in this case farmers simply add crops to the cycle until the cycle lasts for long enough to allow the nutrients to return. Many farmers, likely not wanting to waste seed, instead of only using a single field and cycling which crops they plant in a year, will use multiple fields and switch which crop they plant in which field. Crop cycling has another added benefit for the farmer, at least if they mainly practice subsistence farming, in that it provides more variety to the diet of the farmer and those that they support.Personally though, I think the best solution to this problem, like the solution to many problems, lies in a careful mixture of all the provided solutions. This works especially well in this case since all the solutions I have discussed rely on the same underlying mechanic to produce their results, providing extra nutrients to crops. Since this solution allows the usage of these methods in small quantities, it has the added benefit of reducing many of the negatives that result from the over-practice of these methods, such as the dead-zones created from the overuse of chemical fertilizers and the large amount of work required of nutrient-enriching plants. However, saying “let’s just do them all” does not really provide a solution to the issues involved with getting farmers to use the individual methods.
The first issue lies in the unwillingness of farmers to put in the extra labor required in growing nutrient-enriching crops. A potential solution to this consists of providing farmers with subsidies for planting and growing Faidherbia albida trees. Using trees has the benefit that, while in their early years trees may require a decent amount of upkeep, when they grow old, trees tend to require little care. The trees also live a long time, meaning they will rarely need replanting. The little care and non-necessity of replanting means that after a few years farmers would not require an incentive to make sure the trees grow well, allowing the amount spent on these subsidies to be reduced.
The second issue consists of people preferring old and safe methods and hesitating to try new and unfamiliar methods. The solution of this also lies in subsidies. If subsidies existed that farmers only gained in the case of their crops failing, they would have a safety net and their worry about trying new methods would greatly diminish.
The third issue results from the high price of fertilizer that prevents farmers from affording them. The solution to this once again involves subsidies, though this time the subsidies would not be for the farmers, but for those that produce fertilizer. Having a local source of fertilizer would allow farmers to purchase it at a lower price. The subsidies would also encourage more people to produce fertilizer, which would push the price down even more. With more people producing fertilizer the government could safely reduce or eliminate the subsidies without the fear that everyone will leave the business.
These solutions all unfortunately have one big problem: governments do not want to subsidize farming. The hesitancy of governments to subsidize farming results from the failures their attempts at subsidizing farming had in the past. This leads one to wonder, if not the government, where will money for subsidies come from? Charity organizations seem like a likely answer. Charities often focus on providing in impoverished areas, so they already focus on locations such as this. Many charities also focus specifically on providing food, and they likely would willingly direct some of their efforts towards not just providing what people need, but toward providing the means so that these people can produce what they need themselves.
In total, the benefits and drawbacks of chemical fertilizers, nutrient-enriching plants, and crop rotation tend to neutralize each other. However, when used together in lower quantities, the drawbacks of these methods become a lot smaller while the impact of their benefits does not change much, resulting in a much more appealing solution. Unfortunately, farmers hesitate to use these new methods, but the provision of subsidies should make them feel safe and motivate them to try them. All in all, this should result in farmers having more bountiful harvests, improving their quality of life and the quality of life of their communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment