brand logo

Organic fertiliser: Nano, or no know?

09 Nov 2021

  • The need for a closer look at the specifics on nano nitrogen fertiliser
BY Sumudu Chamara As time passes, the Government’s plan to establish a 100% organic farming culture in the country keeps facing new challenges. However, due to the likelihood of these challenges not being taken into account in the planning phase of the organic plan, the Government had to take hasty decisions to resolve these issues.  Even though one of the main objectives of this plan was to stop the importation of fertilisers and thereby save foreign reserves, due to the lack of planning concerning the transition from chemical fertilisers to organic fertilisers, the Government had to import fertilisers, including chemical fertilisers, on several occasions. On 19 October, a consignment of 100,000 litres of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser was exported from India, and it has also been reported that another consignment of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser is scheduled to arrive in Sri Lanka within the next two weeks. The question as to whether nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser is in actuality an organic fertiliser arose mainly due to the Government deciding to import it at a time the country is trying to switch to a 100% organic agricultural system, from the current chemical fertiliser-based agriculture. The Government also said that this liquid fertiliser would help farmers during this transition period. However, there are also concerns regarding the effectiveness of this liquid fertiliser, and how ready Sri Lanka’s agriculture sector is to use, and benefit from, it. Among many parties, the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) expressed concerns about nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser, and said that this liquid fertiliser, produced by the Indian firm Indian Farmers’ Fertiliser Co-operative Ltd. (IFFCO), is a urea-based formulation, and that it is actually a synthetic chemical fertiliser and therefore, not an organic fertiliser.  Most importantly, there is a question as to whether the importation of this newly manufactured fertiliser has actually helped farmers.   The Morning looked into the opinion of farmers and farmers’ groups about the introduction and use of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser, and according to them, overall, farmers remain sceptical about the use of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser, as they are not familiar with it, and due to the concerns relating to the effectiveness of this liquid fertiliser. Most importantly, they are unsure whether nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser can replace the chemical fertiliser they had been using thus far. Speaking to The Morning in this regard, All Island Farmers’ Federation (AIFF) National Organiser Namal Karunaratne said that even though farmers’ groups are trying to educate farmers about this new fertiliser, the lack of knowledge and inexperience among farmers with regard to the use of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser has rendered farmers unsure about the use of this new fertiliser.  He explained: “Despite attempts to educate farmers, they express fear and uncertainty. It is concerning that this fertiliser is not being used widely anywhere, and it has not been tested properly even in India. India issued this fertiliser in large quantities only on 31 March. Most importantly, when we are giving nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser to farmers, we have to consider the fact that it has not been tested on paddy.” In this regard, the FUTA had said: “It also raises concerns about this liquid fertiliser being a rather new product, as it was quite recently, i.e. in March of this year, it received approval from India’s Agriculture Ministry for large-scale production. Nano fertilisers are not accepted in organic agriculture in Sri Lanka as indicated in the standards of requirements for organic agriculture.” According to Indian media outlets, in 2019, the IFFCO had launched field trials of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser in around 9,000 sites. They further said that the Central Fertiliser Committee, India’s fertiliser products regulatory body, had granted approval for this product after a year-long field trial. The initial approval for this liquid fertiliser has been granted only for a period of three years, according to the Indian media outlets. Quoting an official from India’s Fertiliser Ministry, The Economic Times said: “Since the technology is new, we need to ensure that it has no adverse impact on the environment and human health. We will keep a close watch on the results of this product.”  Speaking on behalf of farmers, Karunaratne also shed some light on the practical issues farmers are facing when using nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser. “Nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser is said to contain only 4% of nitrogen, and most of the time, it is not sufficient. Usually, it is paddy leaves that absorb the nitrogen, and when it comes to paddy cultivation, nitrogen has to be given by the second week. A two-week-old paddy plant is a very small plant, and it does not have leaves large enough to absorb nitrogen adequately. When putting this liquid fertiliser in the second week, a majority of it falls onto the ground, because no leaves have developed by that time. It results in the paddy plant receiving an even lesser amount of nitrogen than it usually requires and the amount the nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser contains. This, in turn, results in the paddy plant being weakened, and therefore, it is not possible to expect a good yield from such a plant.” He pointed out that the imported potassium chloride or Muriate of Potash (MOP), as well as what was imported under the name nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser, which is also known as “nano fertiliser”, are both considered chemical fertilisers. “In paddy cultivation, around 50 kilogrammes (kg) of nitrogen is required for one hectare (ha), or 20 kg of nitrogen for one acre. This is the normal requirement, according to agricultural scientists. Nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser however, contains only 4% of nitrogen, or just 40 grams of nitrogen per kg of this liquid fertiliser. The Government first said that 2.5 litres of this fertiliser is enough for one ha land; however, academics have said that around 1,250 litres of the fertiliser will be required for one ha. The gap between the recommended and required amounts of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser is huge, and farmers are facing issues due to these practical, scientific matters.” In a press release issued last month, the FUTA had explained what Karunaratne said, noting: “The Agriculture Ministry had said that three applications of 2.5 litres of this fertiliser at a time, which is equivalent to 7.5. litres in total, is adequate to provide required nutrients for the cultivation of one ha of paddy crop. When applied at this rate, nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser would provide only 300 grams of nitrogen per ha. In general, nearly 105 kg of nitrogen is taken by the paddy crop yielding four to five tonnes of grains per ha. Accordingly, nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser should be applied at a rate of 1,250 litres per ha, if it is the only source of nitrogen added to the crop, which is an impossible task to be realised within a cropping season.” Karunaratne further said: “When farming paddy, farmers usually put urea in the second week, and on the 28th day, they put the second urea batch. Urea has around 46.6% of nitrogen, which is a higher amount than the amount of nitrogen in the nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser. It is absolutely necessary, because giving the plant nitrogen in the form of urea by the second week helps the paddy plant to properly grow its roots, among other parts, which in turn helps absorb other nutrients necessary for its initial growth. Putting urea again on the 28th day helps the paddy plant to grow further, and as it grows further, farmers use potassium. Usually, potassium is given to the paddy plant in the form of MOP. When the requirement of potassium and other nutrients such as phosphorus is fulfilled, we can expect a good yield.” Karunaratne also noted that introducing new fertiliser should be followed by an alternative to replace the fertiliser types that were used previously. “However, the Government did not provide farmers with phosphorus at all, even though it is also a necessary nutrient. In addition, the Government did not introduce any alternative to MOP. What is more, the alternative that was introduced for nitrogen, i.e. nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser, is a failure.” He also noted that nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser cannot compensate for chemical fertiliser, and that this liquid fertiliser is not even organic fertiliser, but is essentially a chemical fertiliser. He noted that in this context, there is also a need to keep educating farmers.  Meanwhile, Movement for Land and Agricultural Reforms (MONLAR) Convenor Chinthaka Rajapakshe, said that farmers do not trust nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser to be effective, and that they are likely to rely more on the effectiveness of normal compost fertiliser. He added that the prevailing resistance on the part of farmers against the fertiliser crisis can be seen when it comes to nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser as well.  He told The Morning: “Overall, farmers do not seem to be concerned about using nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser much. The lack of knowledge about, and unfamiliarity with, this type of fertiliser could be one of the reasons. In addition, this could also be due to the Government not taking any measures to raise awareness about nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser when it was introduced to farmers.” The Morning’s attempts to contact Agriculture Minister Mahindananda Aluthgamage and the Agriculture Ministry officials to discuss the issues faced by farmers were unsuccessful. As far as the pros and cons of this liquid fertiliser (nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser, not other forms of nano fertilisers) are concerned, there is little data about it, as it was recently introduced. When India approved nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser last year (before approval of large-scale production this year), the Indian authorities had anticipated that it would cut down the use of urea by 50%, while also increasing productivity by 15%. However, during the past few months, researchers have identified a number of production and usage-related limitations. These challenges with regard to the use of nano fertiliser include, according to these researchers, the high cost of production, the lack of a nano fertiliser risk management system, the lack of production and availability in required amounts, and the lack of standardisation in the formulation process. Other limitations that directly affect farms and yield include the lack of practical knowledge among farmers about the use of nano fertilisers, and also different plants responding to nano fertilisers in different ways and having different absorption levels.  There are also practical challenges as far as the Sri Lankan context is concerned, especially in the case of paddy cultivation. Last month, the FUTA said that spraying liquid fertiliser may not be practical for some crops unless the farmers have access to drone technology, because spraying liquid fertiliser in large areas as well as to taller crops, such as maize and sugarcane, is not practical with commonly used spray tanks. It further said that the effectiveness of foliar fertilisers (fertiliser designed to be applied directly to the leaves of a plant), such as nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser, depends on the ground cover by leaf area, weather conditions, and application technology. It added that in this context, it is a necessity to provide clear guidance to farmers on the correct application of this liquid fertiliser.   The FUTA further said nano fertilisers are more expensive than regular nitrogen fertilisers, and that taking into account the cost of fertiliser and the labour cost for application, the use of foliar fertilisers in a crop like paddy would be expensive and would increase the cost of production.  It has been three weeks since the first consignment of nano nitrogen liquid fertiliser was imported, and farmers are not happy or convinced about the use and effectiveness of this liquid fertiliser. On the contrary, even if they started using it, according to those who spoke with The Morning, there are practical issues as far as farmers’ knowledge and equipment are concerned. The authorities cannot just import some fertiliser and claim to have addressed the challenges faced by farmers. It is imperative that these alleged solutions actually solve the issue.


More News..