HIGH international fertiliser prices hit agriculture at the wrong time and this led to strains on the democratically elected government. Was this the result of transfer pricing mechanism or were the domestic market forces responsible for this exorbitant increase?

Market forces can hardly be the main reason. Whatever the reason, this led to hyperinflation in the grain prices especially wheat. The recent reforms came to have sinister meaning as the ordinary people were ignored just as during the French Revolution.

What could the farmers have done to avoid the risk that came their way? The gain from rise in rice prices was unprecedented. That led to a speculative investment. The risk of output prices was again witnessed.

The system of agronomic practices seems to have collapsed. This normally happens when the research gets obsolete. Agronomic practices are necessary for the inputs to be used effectively and efficiently.

With transfer pricing by the multinationals, there was no way that DAP fertiliser was going to come cheap as the West has a monopoly situation on it. Countries round the world hooked onto chemical fertiliser understand this and therefore manage to import fertiliser much ahead of the sowing season.

The system of agriculture has to be dynamic, for if it is not, it will collapse as is being witnessed today. Obsolete knowledge and obsolete thinking coupled with conveniences have made the workers of science lazy and complacent.

When there was grain shortage, it was blamed on the Afghans and smuggling, as also other nations were criticized for poaching on national produce. One advisor went as far as to say that this wheat was sold in Central Asia, ignoring the fact that the region is self-sufficient in grains and organic one at that. Farmers have now started questioning the use and efficacy of fertiliser.

Organic fertiliser, on the other hand, has a distinct advantage in improving land fertility because of the application and storage of humus in soil. Any aspect of science that adds to productivity should be and is welcome to the farmers. China has understood this and its leadership have responded to the needs of farmers.

The recommendations on fertiliser uses are not scientifically determined and the rule of thumb is one or two bags of urea and three bags of phosphate fertiliser. This adds up to a tidy sum (between Rs17,000-Rs23,000). The organic fertiliser, on the other hand, is available at Rs400 per bag.

The new approach then is that organic fertiliser is coupled with the management of other variables. Nutrient control is not constant over time and therefore a scientific method is evolved to handle this in other countries. The nature of soils in the semi-tropics is different from that of temperate soils, so that aping of the science elsewhere is not justified and not applicable. That is one reason why productivity in Pakistan is stagnant at 2.6 tons per hectare.

Inorganic fertiliser recommendations are based on soil testing procedures. In other words, the existing nutrient contents should first be ascertained. These calibrations even if done on a crop-by-crop basis are not definitive. Agriculture is still an uncertain and imperfect area. The variables are many and their interaction is not well known. These imperfections are used by the multinationals to their benefits.

Every time there is a new genetic base. The calibration has to be redone based on the seed system. When soil undergoes change then the macroeconomic variables undergo change. This goes to indicate that the nutrient requirements would change over time. In Pakistan, this does not happen. The recommendations are more or less the same and in fact follow a general rule. That general rule is that farmer will put fertiliser that he can afford. This is the dilemma that the farmer is in.

Now the developed fertiliser industry is suggesting that the means of the testing procedures be arranged in such a manner that it is carried out expeditiously and urgently. In the case of macro indicators the testing time is eight days while for micronutrients (17 of them) it is much more. By suggesting an undoable procedure, the fertiliser companies and their cohorts are exonerating themselves from any liability.

The second thing that they are saying is that the magnitude of production determines the fertiliser requirements. Obviously they have never heard of diminishing returns. The third thing that they are saying is that even if this is not right, the fertiliser requirement will be retested and this will continue ad infinitum.