By Danilo P. Padua, PhD
farmers.”
On the 27th of April, 2023, the Department of Agriculture issued Memorandum Order #32, mandating use of biofertilizers for crop production. While still hot, straight from the oven, some politicians and agri-entrepreneur want the M.O. recalled for further study or outrightly revoked.
Among those very vocal to show their displeasure of the M.O. are Senator Risa Hontiveros and the Samahang Industriya ng Agrikultura (Sinag) thru its president, Mr. Rosendo So.
The objective of the M.O. is clear. That is, to help farmers, especially rice farmers, produce rice at a lower production cost without sacrificing the yield thereby providing greater profit for farmers.
According to Sen Hontiveros, M.O. 32 is untimely given the fact that it was released at a time of high prices and the looming El Nino phenomenon. “Mapapagaan ba ang kalagayan ng mga magsasaka o mauuwi lang sa korapsiyon ang resulta,” was her unrefined question. The statement of Sen Hontiveros is reflective of her lack of technical staff that could have provided her with some info on the matter before she unwisely opened her mouth.
She also incredulously asked, “Is bio-fertilizer indeed more cost-effective?”. Then she also went on to say that since biofertilizers are still new, the procurement agencies and auditors maybe clueless on how to specify biofertilizer quality and price. And because they are new, there wont be many suppliers. Her further statements show that she really needs technical advise for her to have a more accurate and better appreciation of the subject matter.
It’s again a classic example of a national politician commenting on a seemingly controversial concern while it is really hot, and then will just give real thought only later. It makes her a bit controversial too. Which is what she expected probably so people will continue to remember her.
She may have a point in saying that “procurement agencies and auditors maybe clueless…” but that statement in itself questions the intellect of the heads or decision-makers in those agencies, including the auditors. For a fact, the biofertilizers have been there for decades already but it is only now that they are given more focus because of the prevailing conditions in the farm and in the marketplace. Because of her infantile knowledge of biofertilizers, she chose to file Senate resolution #608 to look into the matter, instead of calling for a dialogue with the DA officials, together perhaps with other interest groups to dig deeper into why the M.O. was issued. Ah of course, it is obvious that a filed resolution will add to her “accomplishment” in the upper chamber. A resolution is a resolution, an additional credit, a good decoration to a resume.
According to surveys, at least 33% of the farms worldwide are already degraded, due to continuous use of inorganic fertilizers. Inorganic fertilizer supplies are getting scarcer because of ongoing events like the Russia-Ukraine war. These necessitate alternative sources and ways to make the soil more productive in the long run.
SINAG thru Mr. So on the other hand, boldly stated that the use of biofertilizer in commercial scale is not yet proven. Also that the claim of the M.O. that urea price is high is false, so there is no savings actually by the farmers when they use biofertilizers. He recommends the use of chicken dung instead, as a cheaper organic fertilizer.
Like senator Risa, Mr. So had the audacity to declare that the M.0. may result to scam like what happened during the time of Mr. Jocelyn Bolante under then PGMA. Well, scam can happen any time regardless of any M.O. if greedy people are manning the fort, abetted by scheming private business people or individuals
And to show that he thinks only as a businessman, So suggested that farmers should be allowed to choose the most suitable fertilizer for their farm. If this will be the case, we will probably observe the same thing year in and year out in farmers’ fields. Maybe very minimal improvement. As a result, our food security will be greatly compromised. Surely, farmers rely on the government for advice on what new technology to use or practice in their own farms. To let them choose what they want to use is okay only when the government had already gone through a process of proper evaluation and testing of available technology.
The reactions of some politicians and other individuals to M.O. 32 of the D.A. apparently did not consider the other aspects or benefits that can be derived from biofertilizers. That’s why their arguments are not well thought and not based on science.
Biofertilizers are not actually functioning similarly as the synthetic/inorganic fertilizers as we know. Synthetic fertilizers reduce soil quality, water quality, degrades the land, pollutes the environment including groundwater, may induce outbreak of pests and diseases, and hazardous to both humans and animals while biofertilizers have opposite effect. They are good for soil and soil biota, not damaging to the environment and not hazardous to humans or animals.
Applied in small amounts, biofertilizers do not provide major elements but they increase the efficiency of use of elements in the soil, limits dependence on synthetic fertilizers, activates defense mechanisms of plants and restores and nurture soil microbiology, among others.
Based on numerous researches around the world, including the Philippines, biofertilizers reduce the amount of synthetic fertilizers that will be used in crop production, and in many cases, actually increase yield with a better quality. They are actually already in use in commercial scale in practically all major and minor crops in the world such as rice, corn, potato, wheat, barley, sugar cane, tobacco, coffee, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, cucumber, eggplant, tomato, beans, sunflower, fruit trees, grapes, citrus, strawberry, watermelon, melon, onion, garlic, peanut, soybean, ornamentals, and much, much more.
Some of the biofertilizers, (and biostimulants for that matter)have already undergone the strict procedure of undergoing testing by the Philippine Rice Research Institute, and by Regional DA units as well. They proved to be very efficient, and can truly substantially lower the cost of production in rice.
