Showing posts with label Organic fertilization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Organic fertilization. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

Organic Fertilizers, Organic Plant Growth Regulator, and Organic Plant Supplement as defined in the new Philippine National Standard for Organic Fertilizer


The new Philippine National Standard (PNS) for Organic Fertilizer was published in 2013 by the Bureau of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards (BAFPS) of the Department of Agriculture (PNS/BAFPS 40:2013).


According to this new PNS, Organic Fertilizer is “any product in solid or liquid form, of plant (except by-products from petroleum industries) or animal origin that has undergone substantial decomposition that can supply available nutrients to plants with a total Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) of five to seven percent (5-7%). This may be enriched by microbial inoculants and naturally occurring minerals but no chemical or inorganic fertilizer material has been added to the finished product to affect the nutrient content.”

Organic Plant Growth Regulator/Promoter is “any compound of organic origin, in liquid or solid form, which in low concentration promotes or modifies physiological process in plants.”

Organic Plant Supplement is “any compound of organic origin in liquid or solid form which in low concentration promotes or modifies physiological processes in plants. Total NPK is not lower than 0.5% and not more than 2.5% (0.5-2.5%) and may contain beneficial microorganisms, micronutrients and plant growth regulators. These plant supplements include, but are not limited to: FPJ (Fermented Plant Juice), FFJ (Fermented Fruit Juice), FAA (Fish Amino Acid), FE (Fish Emulsion), Seaweed Extracts, Vermi Tea, Compost Tea and the like.”

The Technical Working Group which prepared the new/revised PNS was composed of: Dr. Leo P. Caneda, Executive Director, BAFPS (Chair) and the following members: Dr. N.B. Inciong (Professional Regulation Commission), Dr. E.P. Paningbatan Jr (Univ Philippines Los Banos), Dr. E.S. Paterno (UPLB), Dr. P.B. Sanchez (UPLB), Dr. V.C. Cuevas (UPLB), Dr. G.V. Pangga (UPLB), Dr. B.M. Calub (UPLB), Dr. N.E de la Cruz (Central Luzon State University), Dr. V.B. Asio (Visayas State University), Ms. J.B. Lansangan (Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority), Ms. P. Orpia (Bureau of Soil and Water Management), Ms. L.K. Limpin (Organic Certification Center of the Phil), Mr.  A. Aquino (Negros Island Certification Agency), and Mr. P.Belisario (Organic Producers and Traders Association).


Sunday, December 19, 2010

A comparison of organic and conventional farming

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) in the USA, assembled in 1980 a high-powered Task Force composed of 24 scientists (chaired by S.R. Aldrich) with expertise in agricultural economics, agronomy, animal science, dairy science, entomology, food science, horticulture, soil science, veterinary medicine and others to look into the similarities and differences between organic and conventional farming. The Task Force report, which remains very relevant to the current debate surrounding organic and conventional agriculture, was officially published as CAST Report No. 84 "Organic and Conventional Farming Compared" in October 1980.

Some of the interesting highlights of the report are:

1. Conventional and organic farming have much in common. They differ principally in the use of modern chemical technology. Conventional farmers use commercial inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, animal feed additives) to increase productivity while organic farmers prefer to use natural resources.

2. Both conventional and organic farmers use various mechanical, biological, and other means to control pests. Conventional farmers use synthetic pesticides but organic farmers prefer to avoid them.

3. Conventional farmers extensively use nutritional supplements in animal feeds, hormonally active substances, and drugs. These substances are generally unacceptable to organic farmers.

4. The terms "natural" and "organic" are often used interchangeably in organic farming. But in science, organic refers to carbon compounds. Many such compounds occur in nature and many are synthesized in laboratories and factories. Likewise, many inorganic or nonorganic compounds occur naturally. Hence, natural compounds are not necessarily organic, and organic compounds are not necessarily natural.

5. Urea is a natural organic waste product of human and animal metabolism. It is present in animal and human excreta and is therefore accepted as a natural and nonartificial nitrogen source in organic farming. However, the urea that is synthesized in factories which is chemically identical to the urea produced by human and animal metabolism (used as fertilizer in conventional farming), is not acceptable in organic farming. This is one of the inconsistencies in organic agriculture.

6. The urea produced by animals (present in excreta) or by factories (in commercial fertilizers) is transformed in the soil into ammonium and nitrate ions, the important forms of nitrogen taken up by plants. Both ions are inorganic, not organic. Therefore, in scientific terminology, the organically grown food produced with urea derived from animals is actually "inorganically grown."

7. The "organic foods" produced by organic farming are composed of chemicals. Most foods contain many chemicals, and most of these are organic chemicals, whether the foods are produced by conventional farming or organic farming.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Challenges and opportunities in agriculture

by Dr. Cezar P. Mamaril
Senior Consulting Expert of Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice)
Los Baños, Laguna

I would like to share my thoughts about current challenges and opportunities in agriculture that institutions like Visayas State University (VSU) should be concerned. I could not over emphasize the fact that we are facing the problem of producing sufficient food to feed the ever increasing population of our country. Last census reported that our population is increasing by 2.3 percent, while our food production (particularly rice) is increasing by about 2.5 percent. The minimal growth difference between population and food production is not sufficient to provide the other requirements of small farmers to live a decent life. I hope the current census will show a decline in population growth so that we will have a better breathing space. (If you have not yet been interviewed by the census takers, you better do so otherwise you may not get your ration of rice!). Furthermore, some recent reports show that the per capita rice consumption in the Philippines has been increasing from less than 100 kg/year several years ago to almost 120 kg/year currently which suggest that some people can not afford to purchase other kinds of food besides rice. Yet in developed countries like Japan and Korea, the per capita consumption is decreasing with increasing income. I was told by my younger son who is an Agric. Economist that the Philippines is now the largest rice importer in the world. I read in the newspaper that this year alone, the government will be importing 2.45 million tons of rice. Is this a sign that Filipinos are retrogressing economically while our Asian neighbors are moving forward?

Besides inadequate food production, lands suitable for the expansion of food production is declining fast suggesting that time will come when we can no longer increase food production by expansion of area. Likewise, there is also the problem of conversion of agricultural lands for other human activities such as real estate housing projects, industrial activities, game parks like golf courses, etc. It is also unfortunate that most of these areas being converted into other human activities are productive lands mostly irrigated lowland rice areas. Since land is a finite resource, we should properly and efficiently utilize it.

Population also creates pressure on water resources which is quite critical especially in rice growing areas. Forests are also subjected to tremendous pressure with increasing population because of the demand for building materials and for fuel. With increasing deforestation, water resources will also diminish. Likewise, when water resources decrease, the share for agriculture for water will also decrease while domestic and urban needs increase because of increasing population. Thus, food production will be greatly affected especially for lowland rice and could lead to lower yields. It has been observed that not only the surface water resources that is affected by deforestation but also the ground water level. It is doubly serious especially in coastal areas because as the fresh ground water table gets deeper, sea water intrusion takes place to replenish the fresh ground water. Subsequently when ground water which is contaminated with sea water is pumped for irrigation the soil may become saline which is adverse to crops production.

The challenge therefore is how one can proceed to produce sufficient food for an unabated population growth with less land and declining soil productivity and less water resources and climate change. The current scenario looks bleak but we should remain optimistic and be challenged and remain hopeful for Divine intervention. We should put our efforts and minds together to use effectively and efficiently whatever resources are available.

Currently there are technologies being disseminated which are not cost effective because they are highly generalized rather than site specific. Thus most often farmers do not realize the benefits that are claimed to be obtained through these technologies. You may also agree with me that there is no “perfect” or “universal” technology that is appropriate for all sites and conditions. Technologies being generated should define the site characteristics and conditions where such technology is effective. Certain technologies are being disseminated prematurely; i.e. not extensively tested before being released for dissemination under all conditions and crops. What is effective for one crop is not necessarily true for all crops. A more specific example is technologies suitable for upland rice is not necessarily appropriate for irrigated or rainfed lowland rice and yet they are the same crop. A friendly advice to researchers is to define and characterize your experimental sites thoroughly so when you finally will disseminate your findings, you can specify where such technology works or where it does not.

In preparing research programs, it might be wise to involve the different stakeholders, such as the farmers and providers of farm inputs, to insure that there is relevance to the stakeholders’ need and capability and for the eventual adoption of whatever results generated by research. As researchers we often feel that we have better ideas than the farmers to resolve their problems and yet while research results might seem encouraging, farmers are hesitant to adopt these due to other factors that the research failed to consider during the process of conducting the study. I can cite several examples. A technology may produce successfully high yields but it requires high cost of inputs, both materials and manpower, which some farmers does not have the capacity to obtain the inputs. Naturally it is likely that many farmers will not adopt such technology. It might be a good idea to generate a cafeteria of technologies that require different levels of inputs and capabilities from which farmers can choose depending on their financial and technical capacities. Thus, socio-economic characterization of target stakeholders is imperative besides biophysicochemical characterization of the target areas.

There are rice areas where once farmers can grow two seasons of rice a year with reasonable yield but because of declining supply of water resources, the dry season rice crop often fails. Under such situation, crop diversification may be considered wherein during the dry season other crops should be planted. In choosing the alternative crop, however, the crop being introduced should have an economic value equal or better than rice if possible. Crop diversification will also enhance soil productivity. In a rolling landscape, it is possible that the bottom portion of the toposequence will be planted to rice while those in the top and slope portion to upland crops. Integrated crop diversification will likewise reduce economic risks on the part of the farmer.

With increasing cost of farm inputs, we should assist the farmers to utilize these external inputs effectively and efficiently as well as the proper utilization of farm biomass. One reason why chemical fertilizers are claimed to cause soil degradation is because of misuse rather than overuse of fertilizers which could lead to nutrient imbalance. There is increasing evidence of widespread multi nutrient deficiencies in our country especially in areas where crops are constantly applied with chemical fertilizers like rice, corn and sugarcane. This is because most often than not, only NPK fertilizers are applied and in the meantime the native supply of the other essential nutrients are being depleted. It is imperative that proper diagnosis of the nutrient status of soils should be regularly undertaken so that only the limiting nutrient should be applied in proper proportion to the other essential nutrients. Unfortunately the cost of soil analysis is beyond the reach of small farmers plus the fact that there are limited and inaccessible soil laboratories in the country. Therefore, there is a need to develop cheap and simple techniques to diagnose nutrient status of soils. Currently, the available simple diagnostic tools being promoted are the Soil Test Kit (STK), Nutrient Manager, a computer assisted method developed by IRRI, and the Minus One Element Technique (MOET) kit which is designed primarily for lowland rice soils.

Integrated nutrient management strategy may also reduce the cost of external input use especially if one will fully and efficiently utilized farm produced biomass as supplemental source of nutrients. Utilization of on farm biomass should not require special handling of the materials to the extent that additional time and facilities are required for the farmer to process these materials before such can be applied to the soil. Farmers usually are apprehensive to do extra efforts especially if the additional benefit will not significantly compensate the extra effort spent. More efficient and effective ways to utilize these on farm biomass has to be developed rather than the traditional composting and inoculating with decomposing or mineralizing organisms. There should be some means to stimulate the indigenous and heterogeneous soil organisms to decompose and mineralize organic materials rather than utilizing isolated pure strains of organism which will be an added cost to the farmer.

There must be many more opportunities that could enhance agricultural production and help uplift the well being of farmers but I leave them for you to think about. I would like to point out, however that based from my own farm experience, increasing production does not necessarily lead to better livelihood for a small farmer mainly because under our present situation, the middlemen or traders usually earn more than the farmers. Marketing is an important problem that small farmers face. Unless small farmers are organized to be able to dictate the price of their produce, they will never improve their lot. Unfortunately farmers’ cooperative movements in our country do not have a commendable history. These should be one area of interest that the new government should look into. Coincidentally, while preparing my talk, I heard in the radio last Wednesday, that one of the advocacies that the new Secretary of Agriculture Alcala has proposed to President Aquino during his interview for the DA position which impressed the President is the elimination of middlemen by providing opportunities for small farmers to sell their produce directly to the consumers. It will be interesting to see what plans, programs and strategies our new government will pursue to enhanced the well being of our small farmers and fisher folks.

In closing I would like to reiterate that we should remain optimistic that the seemingly bleak scenario of our agricultural sector mentioned earlier can be overcome if we put our acts together and with the guidance of our Almighty God. Moreover, I would like to leave the following quotation from Henry David Thoreau “If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet a success unexpected in common hours.” Success in any endeavor could be attained through perseverance, determination and hard work.

----------------
*Excerpt of keynote speech delivered during the College of Agriculture Day, Visayas State University, Baybay, Leyte on July 2, 2010.

*Dr. Mamaril is a retired UP Los Banos soil science professor and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) scientist. He is the son of Mr. Julian Mamaril, the first Superintendent of Visayas Agricultural College (forerunner of Visayas State University) in the early 1960s.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Earthworms: the most important soil and ecosystem engineers


Earthworms are thought to be the most ancient soil animals having started colonizing terrestrial environments about 600 million years ago (Spain and Lavelle 2001). They are the most predominant soil fauna except in dry and cold climates. Earthworms are semiaquatic animals which extract water continuously from the surrounding soil inorder to maintain their cuticle in a moist state to facilitate gas exchange. Thus moisture status is a major limitation to earthworm activities and distribution.
Spain and Lavelle (2001) reported that since earthworms live in direct and continuous contact with the soil matrix and the soil solution, their presistence, propagation and activity are greatly affected by the chemical (pH, dissolved ions) characteristics of the soil. Based on their sensitivity to soil pH, earthworms are grouped into acidophilic species (able to thrive below pH 6 such as in organic forest litter), neutrophilic species (they prefer soil pH 6 to 7) and basophilic species (prefer basic soils).

Three ecological types of earthworms (Spain and Lavelle, 2001)
a) Epigeics. Earthworm of this type live in the litter layers and thus are effective compost-makers. However, they have no or little effects on soil structure.
b) Anecics. These are earthworms that feed on the surface littler that they mixe with soil but spend most of the time in galleries they create within the soil. They are
also able to translocate considerable amount of leaf-litter into the soil.
c) Endogeics. Earthworms of this type live and feed within the soil. Among the earthworm types, the endogeics are the major agent of soil aggregation.
Effects of earthworms on soil properties
Earthworm burrows are known to have high continuity in both horizontal and vertical directions and thus greatly influences water and air movement in the soil. Earthworms influence the physical and chemical soil properties in many ways by burrowing, casting, feeding and propagating. According to Emmerling et al. (2002) earthworms are the most important ecosystem engineers (organisms that may modify or create their habitat and thus influence availability of resources to other species and soil properties) in arable soil due to their lasting effects on soil physical and biochemical properties.
In an interesting laboratory study to assess the impact of ecologically different earthworm species on soil water characteristics, such as soil tension, water content, and water infiltration rate, Ernst et al. (2009) exposed three earthworm species (Lumbricus rubellus, Aporrectodea caliginosa, Lumbricus terrestris) in soil columns (diameter 30 cm, height 50 cm) for 100 days with a total fresh earthworm biomass of 22.7 ± 0.4 g per column, each in duplicate. Each column was added with 30 g of sieved and rewetted horse manure placed on the soil surface as a food source. Precipitation events (10 mm) were simulated at day 28 and day 64.
Results revealed that ecologically different earthworms modify soil water characteristics in different ways. The anecic L. terrestris and the endogeic A. caliginosa showed the tendency to enhance the drying of the topsoil and subsoil. Their intensive and deep burrowing activity seemed to enhance the exchange of water vapor due to a better aeration in the soil. In contrast, the epigeic L. rubellus tended to enhance the storage of soil moisture in the topsoil, which might be linked to lower rates of litter loss from soil surface and thus a thicker litter layer remaining. A. caliginosa led to considerable higher water infiltration rates and faster water discharges in the subsoil, relative to the other species, probably due to a high soil dwelling activity.
Vermiculture
The term "vermiculture" refers to the cultivation of epigeic earthworms grown in an organic matter substrate with no soil. Rearing soil dwelling earthworms undercontrolled conditions requires an understanding of their needs. Many earthworm species can exhibit a degree of plasticity in behavior, so general maintenance does not necessarily require extremely large containers. L. terrestris for example does not need access to a vertical borrow and can be bred in pots which may be only a few cm in depth (Butt, 2009).
References
Butt, KR. 2009. Collection and rearing of earthworms. Workshop Kommission III der DBG, 20-21.03.2009, Trier, Germany
Emmerling, C, M Schlotter, A. Hartmann, and E. Kandeler. 2002. Functional diversity of soil organisms- a review of recent research activities in Germany. JPNSS 165:
408-420.
Ernst G, D Felten, M Vohland, and C Emmerling. 2009. European Journal of Soil Biology 45: 207-213.
Lavelle, P. and A.V. Spain. 2001. Soil Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht, 654p
Photo source:


Saturday, January 23, 2010

Response of corn to chicken dung and rice hull ash application and mycorrhizal fungi inoculation


By Luz Geneston-Asio, Central Analytical Services Lab, VSU, Baybay, Leyte


The use of locally available and cheap organic fertilizers like chicken dung and rice hull ash which have the ability to increase crop yield and at the same time improve soil quality is becoming popular among farmers in many places in the Philippines. In addition, considering that the world demand for corn as food and feed is projected to greatly increase in the coming decades, there is a need to explore the use of such materials for corn production.

We evaluated the growth and yield responses of corn to chicken dung and rice hull ash application a well as to mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. The experiment was laid out in a split-plot in Randomized Complete Block Design consisting of three replications. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) inoculation served as the main plot while application of fertilizer was designated as the subplot. The fertilizer treatments included the following: To-control, T1-inorganic fertilizer (60-60-60 kg/ha N, P205, K20), T2-chicken dung alone (60 kg/ha N), T3-chicken dung (as in T2) + 30 kg/ha rice hull ash. The experimental area had an alluvial clay loam soil with pH of 5.8 and moderate fertility status.

Results showed that VAM inoculation significantly increased the total N but not the total P, K, and Ca contents of the tissue of corn plant. However, VAM inoculation did not significantly affect the grain yield and the agronomic characteristics of corn. In contrast, fertilization using inorganic fertilizer, chicken dung or chicken dung plus rice hull ash enhanced the early tasseling and silking but not emergence and maturity of corn. The application of fertilizers significantly increased plant height as well as the fresh stover yield compared to the control plants.

The inorganic fertilizer, chicken dung, and chicken dung plus rice hull ash significantly increased the number of ears per plant, ear length, number of grains per ear, weight of 1000 seeds, grain yield and harvest index. The use of chicken dung combined with rice hull ash for corn production is a good substitute for the inorganic fertilizer in increasing corn grain yield. (Above photo shows VAM infection in the root of corn from this study).

Reference

Luz Geneston-Asio and Alfredo B. Escasinas. 2006. Response of corn to chicken dung and rice hull ash application and mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. Annals of Tropical Research 26: 23-36

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Organic fertilization improves soil fungi population

While organic fertilization is now widely known to improve the general soil quality, more data from field experiments are still needed to support this notion. Cwalina-Ambroziak and Bowszys (2009) carried out a 3-year field experiment to determine the influence of organic fertilization on the community of soil fungi as compared to no fertilization and NPK fertilization only. Findings of the study revealed a significantly higher total number of fungal colony-forming units in soil applied with organic fertilizer than in soil without fertilizer application and the one applied with NPK mineral fertilizers. Moreover, pathogen population was highest in soil without fertilization and lowest in the soil added with organic fertilizer.

The study demonstrated that organic fertilization has a positive influence on the structure of soil fungi communities. This was particularly more observable in the qualitative changes in fungi composition than in the changes in fungi numbers. Results of the study support the findings of other researchers that organic fertilization stimulates the growth of soil microorganisms and that it protects the plants against pathogens of the genus Pythium and Phytophthora.

According to Terekhova (2007) fungal communities represent one of the most important functional and structural components of biological systems. Fungi affect the properties of the soil via the regulation of pedogenic processes; the composition of soil organic matter; the soil structure status; the soil acidity; the soil temperature characteristics; and certainly via the regulation of the functioning of soil microbiota.

References

Cwalina-Ambroziak B. and T. Bowszys. 2009. Changes in fungi communities in organically fertilized soil. Plant Soil Environ 55: 25-32.

Terekhova V.A. 2007. The importance of mycological studies for soil quality control. Eurasian Soil Science 40: 583-587.