By Danilo P. Padua, PhD
farmers.”
The current situation in our agricultural sector maybe described as chaotic. There are a lot of people in the department of agriculture who can turn things around for the better but they are stymied by the presence of predatory actions of people with self-serving interests.
The very capable people down the line in the department can not even fix their plans due to somewhat confusing signals from above. That’s why food production is somehow affected, contributing to the recipe of continuing smuggling of agricultural products.
The attempt to increase production using more environment friendly technologies are even met with serious but dubious criticisms by politicians who should know better, and some people whose agri-based businesses might be affected. For example, the Dept of Agriculture Memo Order #32 may still be loudly ringing in the ears of critics as manifested in some media interviews lately. This is a memo mandating only 20% of the total budget for fertilizers to be devoted to biofertilizers.
That memo is certainly geared towards the right direction. My only reservation is that instead of using the generic term, biostimulants, it specifies biofertilizers which is just a sub-category of the former. The application of the memo should not be restricted to only biofertilizers, as there are plant-based and seaweed-based biostimulants which are as good or maybe even better than biofertilizers.
The memo also mentions that the biofertilizers should be produced locally. This is in order only after some time but not at the moment. It should be alright if local development of biofertilizers have been given enough impetus earlier to local producers to develop their products. But there was none. That means local producers were left on their own to develop their product. At this time, we can not expect then a great number of locally-developed biofertilizers available in the market. However, there are a number of similar foreign products registered with our FPA and some have even undergone the necessary evaluation by a reputable research institution such as PHILRICE, and found very effective. The various regional DA units have also done their part for this, that’s why DA came up with the M.O.
Since the memo is predicated on balanced fertilization, it should not be confined only to biofertilizers but to biostimulants as a whole. Also, that it should not be restricted initially to only locally-developed materials but should include other biostimulants that have been proven effective locally.
It is now a common knowledge that the continuous use of inorganic fertilizers have spawned a lot of problems in the field including environmental degradation and non-sustainability of production. Also, the health of farmers and consumers are compromised. About 33% of cultivated farmlands are now degraded.
In the vegetable production areas in Cordillera, especially Benguet, heavy metals such as copper, lead, manganese, zinc are already found in appreciable amounts. This is in addition to the preponderance of nitrate in harvested tubers and leafy vegetables, and others due to the inorganic fertilizers applied. Nitrate is a cancer-causing compound in plants or in water. Definitely, this is a big concern for everybody’s health.
Additionally, the use of inorganic fertilizers in large amount depletes nutrients and organic matter in the soil. That is why, 82% of local farmlands are having moderate to low levels of fertility.
The balanced fertilization strategy – combination of biostimulants such as biofertilizers, and inorganic fertilizer- being espoused by the DA will really address the above problems.
Why are agricultural biostimulants so important? They are actually environment-friendly materials. They are developed using, among others, seaweed extracts, plant extracts or botanicals, beneficial fungi or bacteria.
They do not contain large amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium – the main major elements needed by plants, but they function more than those elements.
Applied in small amounts, biostimulants greatly increase the nutrient use efficiency, nutrient mobilization, transport, storage and assimilation in the plant. Because of this, they enhance root development, promote plant growth, optimize absorption of water and nutrients by plants, enhance performance of rhizosphere microbes, soil enzymes, and prevent soil degradation
In addition, they increase crop tolerance to drought, and salinity, as well as crop tolerance to biotic/abiotic stress. They therefore activates the natural defense mechanisms of plants, lessening the need to apply insecticides or fungicides
As a result of all of the above, plants have better growth, flowering, fruit setting, and crop yield. Biostimulants therefore limits dependence on mineral fertilizer, and synthetic agro-chemicals, ultimately restoring and nurturing soil microbiology in degraded farms. This will allow farmers to produce more with less damaging crop inputs.
Except for biofertilizers, most biostimulants available in the market now were designed to work with other products including synthetic chemicals. They are now being considered as an insurance policy against unfavorable conditions. In short, these are focused for sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
High fertilizer prices, environmental changes, water scarcity, polluted waters, reduction in soil quality, outbreak of pests and diseases, and food security are some of the major reasons why biostimulants are now given a lot of strategic importance in many countries in the world. Its use is already widespread in Europe, US, Brazil, India, China, Chile, Peru, etc. In Southeast Asia, Vietnam is the the top user of this.
In Spain, 80% growers of tomato are now using biostimulants in their farms with even higher production and profit; 11% wheat farmers and, 7% barley growers also use now biostimulants.
Eleven years ago, the EU countries already applied biostimulants in 6.2M hectares. Now, it’s more than 30M hectares. They have established a set of rules (Fertilizing Products Regulation – FPR) in their use since middle of 2022. Maybe we can come up with our own relevant policy using FPR as a pattern.
The European Union plans to reduce use of chemical fertilizer (by 20%), and chemical pesticides (by 50%) by 2030.
In Southeast Asia, the use and trade of biostimulants is dominated by Vietnam.
By trying to stop the DA to implement M.O. #32, we are also pulling the Philippines to the bottom of agricultural production, and greater food security risk. Is it possible that those critics of M.O. #32 have self-serving interests because they have businesses related to inorganic fertilizers?
President BBM declared a couple of days earlier that we will have a 97% rice self-sufficiency by 2025. This is highly possible by using agricultural biostimulants in our crop production ventures
It must be emphasized though that the use of biostimulants does not mean total elimination of inorganic fertilizers use. It is just decreasing the amount of such input to a level that is not injurious to the soil and the environment.
We do not like to be left behind using the biostimulant technology to increase our crop production level.
**
