By Ranjit Mulleriyawa
" Farmers rightly sense there is danger in the counsel of any man who does not have to live by the results"
(John Kenneth Galbraidth)
I am both an agricultural scientist and farmer. I have operated a two hectare plot of land in the dry zone for ten years. I lived on the land, and farming was my only source of income. I speak from personal experience.
When I was actively involved in farming (40 years ago), labour was plentiful and cheap. Daily wage was only five rupees. Conventional rice farming required 135 man days of labour per hectare. Since labour was cheap, it was still possible to invest in this much labour. Irrigation water was also plentiful and virtually free.
We did not need any Glyphosate or any other herbicide for land preparation then (in fact, Glyphosate wasn’t even available at the time.) Almost 40 % of the irrigation water used in rice cultivation is for land preparation. Because water was plentiful and available continuously for one full month, there was no need to hasten land preparation by applying herbicides. We transplanted our rice. It took about 40 man days to transplant one hectare of paddy. Plentiful irrigation water enabled effective weed control without resorting to any herbicides even after planting the rice seedlings. Cheap labour made manual weeding feasible.
Today, the situation is very different. Labour is scarce and costs Rs. 1000 per man day. Irrigation water too is scarce, and land preparation has to be frequently accomplished within 2-3 weeks. This is how Glyphosate came into widespread use in land preparation in the paddy sector. (Glyphosate was approved for use in paddy fields in 1998). Glyphosate was cost effective, and enabled land preparation in 10-14 days. There is no other herbicide that is equally effective and less toxic to man and the environment. Hastening land preparation through use of Glyphosate resulted in 15-20 per cent saving in irrigation water. Water is now a scarce commodity (a result of Global warming). Even President Sirisena has highlighted the importance of economizing on the use of irrigation water.
Transplanting rice (manually) is no longer a viable option. Broadcasting rice is now the norm. This requires herbicide use after seeding (broadcasting rice). Glyphosate cannot be applied at this stage since it would kill the rice seedlings. Many other herbicides are available for effective weed control in a standing crop of rice. One wonders how safe these herbicides are. Still, they are a necessity in ensuring effective weed control. These are the hard facts pertaining to use and necessity for herbicides in rice cultivation.
Glyphosate is used only during land preparation (7-10 days before ploughing the field). When Glyphosate is applied, it is sprayed on the weeds. One does not wet the soil. Of course, some of the spray may fall on the soil surface, but it is ‘fixed’ by the soil, and has been proven to break down in the soil within a few weeks. There is no evidence of Glyphosate residues being found on the rice plant or in the rice grain. If it was in the rice plant, it would have killed the rice.
There is only one publication claiming detection of Glyphosate in the water of two wells in Raja Rata, but the concentrations (3 and 0.7 parts per billion) are two hundred times less than the environmentally permissible limit (U.S. EPA Standard of 700 ppb). Then, what is all this fuss about Glyphoate? Glyphosate does not bio-accumulate in mammals.
John Kenneth Galbraidth was spot on when he said, "Farmers rightly sense there is danger in the counsel of any man who does not have to live by the results." Having lived by the results myself, I would be vary of armchair critics who pontificate on what farmers should do while they themselves do not have to face the consequences. Isn’t this the height of hypocrisy?
More dangerous
Despite the unjustified focus on Glyphosate, there are many other products – particularly insecticides and fungicides, that are sprayed many times on the growing crop (sometimes, shortly before harvest), that pose a much greater threat to human health. Vegetables (Chilli, Cabbage, Tomato, Brinjal, Capsicum) are doused with insecticides and fungicides every 10-15 days! Some unscrupulous traders even apply fungicides to tomatoes after harvest to increase their shelf life. Should we not be more concerned on such issues?
Misuse of Pesticides is the Problem
Misuse of pesticides is bad for man’s health, his purse (a waste of money) and the environment. This is the problem that needs to be addressed urgently. That can only be accomplished by effective farmer education programmes. (The problem of Cigarette smoking was not addressed by banning cigarettes? A vigorous health education programme was the solution to the smoking problem, and it has borne fruit). Let’s tackle the pesticide issue the same way through a revitalized agricultural extension service which will harness all available resources – Agriculture Department, N.G.O.s, C.B.Os, etc.
Multi-pronged Action Needed
Considering the magnitude and gravity of the problem, effectively addressing the pesticide issue needs the active participation/involvement of many agencies – Government, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs),Community Based Organizations (CBOs), Private Sector, International Donor Agencies and Civil Society groups.
Reaching out to farmers
Government departments are notoriously ineffective in reaching out to farmers at village level. They must link-up with other organizations having proven experience in reaching out to isolated farming communities. Some NGOs have been highly effective in communicating with rural communities. They have a vital role to play in preventing misuse and mishandling of pesticides.
One must also recognize the fact that in many countries (Thailand, Indonesia, and Central America) farmers have been trained to act as community-based farmer extensionists. They have proven to be even more effective than public sector extension agents (extensionists).
Farmer Extensionists
Farmer extensionists have a number of advantages over outsiders as extensionists. They understand the people (community) with whom they are working. Being of the same culture, they have a feel for the villagers- an intimate understanding of their feelings and reasons behind their actions. Having been poor themselves, they understand the villagers economic problems and priorities. They also speak the same language and use their vocabulary. City language, especially technical language and that of the universities can be as unintelligible to villagers as a foreign language.
Villagers also work harder at extension work than outsiders. They are accustomed to manual labour and walking long distances through wind, rain and mud- important for working in isolated areas where the need is greatest. They identify more closely with villagers’ hardships than outsiders. They are also more accessible as they live close at hand (community-based). Farmer extensionists can also show their fellow farmers (students) that they have already done what they are encouraging their students to do. Thus, they can serve as role models of success.
Personal Experience
I have had many years experience in selecting, training and deployment of farmer extensionists. Many of them have been amazingly effective. Farmers are much smarter than we think!
I am willing to assist any organization seriously interested in community-based agricultural extension and health education programmes. Any takers?
* The writer holds a Masters’ degree in Agriculture from the University of the Philippines. He has been a researcher at the International Rice Research Institute, and Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka. He has also been a dry zone farmer personally operating a small farm for ten years, and served as a Consultant in Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development to several National and International Organisations.
He may be contacted at: rangoviya2013@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment