Ban on liquid fertilizer

About a decade ago, I got a brochure offering a liquid fertilizer made from the production waste of an MSG factory. The brochure had a picture of tomato, chili and other vegetable plants growing well thanks to the use of this liquid fertilizer. The fertilizer was sold at a very low price, in the sense that the what a farmer paid was intended only to cover the cost of the material supplemented to the composition of the fertilizer. So, this fertilizer contained not only nitrogen but also phosphate, potassium, calcium, etc.; all being chemical elements needed by plants.

Producing liquid fertilizer out of industrial waste is a good idea as this means utilizing something which should otherwise be simply dumped.

Several years ago there was a shocking report. A regent in East Java instructed all village heads to ban the use of liquid fertilizer by farmers in their villages. It was not clear to me the real reason for this ban. When the ban was introduced, efforts were under way to intensify the use of urea fertilizer in tablet form. Despite the ban, farmers secretly continued to use the liquid fertilizer because it was cheaper then the urea fertilizer, which was then subsidized.

About a week ago I heard that there was a temporary ban on the use of liquid fertilizer pending the result of research on this type of fertilizer. The reason put forward was that there was a likelihood that a decline in the rice harvest output in East Java was attributable to the excessive use of liquid fertilizer. It was also reported that the same held true in the case of the net sugar cane output.

On the other hand, I have also read in major dailies in Jakarta that the decline in harvest output has been attributed to a high rate of humidity and an unusually high level of rainfall. Some have also said that the decline in rice harvests has been caused by the fact that farmers have used only urea fertilizer and have not used, in addition, either supplementary fertilizers containing phosphate and potassium or pesticide (to eradicate pests) because the monetary crisis has made their prices soar.

I personally believe that the decline in our agricultural output is an average phenomenon found throughout the country as a result, mainly, of the impact of El Nio and La Nia.

Incidentally, the ban on the use of liquid fertilizer was effected when the rupiah was strengthening in value, a condition not encouraging for the export of urea as our urea would not be competitive enough in the international market.

Rather than prohibiting farmers from using liquid fertilizer, though only temporarily, it would be wiser if the authorities provided intensive counseling to ensure that farmers diluted liquid fertilizer with water under the ratio of 1:2 or 1:4. Anyway, liquid fertilizer contains not only nitrogen but also potassium and phosphate.

Finally, there is, in fact, an alternative, which does not favor farmers, namely recommending that producers of liquid fertilizer raise the prices of their products so that farmers will automatically be compelled to reduce the amount of liquid fertilizer they use.

SUNARTO PRAWIROSUJANTO

Jakarta