Seetha Ranjani, a farmer from Kurunegala, spent nearly 18 months counting grains on panicles grown in a small 50-square-centimetre plot. It was not part of a ritual. She was part of an experiment that asked the question, can we grow as much food without chemical fertiliser as we can with it?
According to field research presented last week at the Roots and Rights: People’s Food Systems Research Symposium in Colombo, the answer is more hopeful than the country’s fertiliser debate implies. Across three seasons and several agroecological zones, researchers and farmers tested ecological methods against standard chemical fertiliser recommendations. According to the results some agroecological treatments can produce competitive paddy yields while lowering farmers’ dependence on costly external inputs.
This does not mean Sri Lanka can abandon chemical fertiliser overnight. Any transition must be gradual, tested, farmer-led and backed by extension services. But the findings suggest that the national debate should move beyond the old binary of chemical fertiliser versus organic farming.
Farmer-led experiment
The research was led by Chaminda Paragodaarachchi, an agroecology and livelihood adviser at the Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR). “We did not sit in an office and design this,” he told the symposium, held at BCIS and organised by MONLAR. “Farmers were in the fields with us. They measured. They observed. In some places, they even counted the grains on panicles themselves.”
The team tested four treatments on small plots of paddy land. The first was the standard recommendation of chemical fertiliser. The second was cow-dung compost. The third was jeevamrutham (a fermented mix of cow urine, dung, jaggery and pulse flour, widely used in natural farming). The fourth was improved compost developed with Sabaragamuwa University, which they called `super compost’.
Farmers from different agroecological zones took part and different paddy varieties were used. And the results, Paragodaarachchi said, moved in a single direction.
“Agroecological treatments can produce yields equal to, close to, or even higher than those obtained through chemical fertiliser,” he said. “In some cases, yields increased over time.”
Most accessible, cheapest input
Perhaps the most striking finding was economic. When the team calculated costs, jeevamrutham was the cheapest, so cheap that even a farmer with almost no cash could make it at home. “Its cost per square metre was very low,” Paragodaarachchi said. “That makes it more accessible to small farmers.”
Cow-dung compost and super compost were more expensive. But the researchers said those costs are driven by market prices. Compost is sold at commercial rates.
Earthworms and related inputs are also expensive if bought. “This means we need to rethink how these inputs are produced,” Paragodaarachchi said. “They should not be confined to the market. Compost, super compost and similar inputs can be produced at village level through farmer groups, rural organisations, co-operatives or community-based systems. That would reduce costs and make the system more practical.”
Super compost, in particular, showed strong potential. Yields were competitive with chemical fertiliser, and in some locations, over successive seasons, the gap narrowed or disappeared altogether.
Crisis-born research
For decades, Sri Lankan agriculture has been built on imported inputs such as chemical fertiliser, pesticides, and herbicides, often paid for with scarce foreign currency. Over 75 percent of the money farmers spent on their farms are spent on fertiliser, machinery, pesticides, herbicides and labour.
“That dependency became very visible during the economic crisis of 2022. When the Gotabaya Rajapaksa Government banned fertiliser imports due to country’s bankruptcy, farmers were left stranded, yields fell and incomes collapsed. While the Government in the power at that time was responsible for the catastrophe, the crisis led many to question whether the system was sustainable in the long term,” Moderator of MONLAR Chintaka Rajapakse said.
Agroecology is not simply about swapping one input for another. It is about changing the method and the thinking behind farming. “Agroecology is based on soil, ecology, local knowledge and social practice,” ICC member of La Via Campasina global peasant movement Vimukthi de Silva said. “Knowledge, technology and scientific practice must be developed in a way that farmers can use. The problem is that much of the available science is used to strengthen capitalist agriculture, not sustainable farming. That is not a failure of science itself. It is a result of the system in which science is used.”
Research limits, researcher honesty
No field study is perfect. In this particular research; wild animal damage affected some plots, weather created difficulties – heavy rain in one season, drought in another. Some farmers had to abandon certain seasons altogether, though they continued to support the research. Data collection was also not always easy as many farmers had never carried out this type of experiment before. There may also have been small variations in the quality of compost produced in different places.
Super compost was prepared centrally and distributed, but other inputs depended on local conditions.These variations must be considered in future research. Yet, the knowledge built through the process is valuable.
Successive Governments have given chemical fertiliser subsidies as a way to support farmers and ensure food security. At the same time, the country is struggling with debt, a weak rupee, and the high cost of imported inputs. There is also the possibility of worldwide fertiliser shortages due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the global fertiliser industry. The strait handles one-third of the world’s synthetic fertiliser and over 40 percent of seaborne urea.
Export-oriented agriculture remains the dominant policy framework. However, Vimukthi de Silva said the framework fails to answer a more fundamental question of whether the system can address malnutrition among rural communities in Sri Lanka.
The research suggests that an alternative exists, one that is not based on expensive imports, foreign exchange, or corporate supply chains. It is based on soil, on local knowledge, and on farmers working together.
“The question before us now is this,” Paragodaarachchi told the symposium. “In what direction do we want to develop our future? In what direction should new technology move? Should it serve profit and dependency, or should it strengthen farmers, communities and ecological farming?”
Ultimately, for Ranjani, the farmer who counted grains on a panicle, the question is whether there is an alternative to dependence on imports that keeps farmers trapped in a vicious cycle of debt and dependency. The research suggests it can.
Source : This article was originally published by Sunday Observer