Addressing the 38th edition of ‘Mann Ki Baat’, the prime minister said, “Can our farmers take a pledge to bring down urea use by half by 2022? If they promise to use less urea in agriculture, the fertility of the land will increase. The lives of farmers will start improving.”
Modi made the statement in the backdrop of ‘World Soil Day’ on December 5 and deteriorating health of the soil world over, an overarching factor contributing to this is excessive use of urea.
The positive correlation between excessive use of urea and erosion in soil health is an incontrovertible fact proven by several studies and also acknowledged in the Economic Survey and other official documents. This is a phenomenon that started in the 90s and continues till date. Yet, successive governments have done little to remedy the situation. Now, prime minister’s exhortation to reduce urea use by half sounds more like a medicine that will kill the patient.
Currently, urea consumption in India is about 30 million tons [mt]. This translates to 13.8 mt nitrogen or ‘N’ [1 ton urea contains 0.46 ton ‘N’]. If, urea use is slashed by 50% as contemplated by Modi, this will mean knocking off 6.9 mt ‘N’. This will tantamount to going much beyond merely correcting the excessive use.
A precise depiction of excessive use in scientific terms is imbalance in fertilizer use. Apart from ‘N’ supplied primarily from urea, plants also need phosphate or ‘P’ and potash ‘K’ – the two other major nutrients besides a host of other secondary and micro-nutrients such as sulphur, zinc, magnesium, calcium etc. P and K are supplied by complex fertilizers which contain these nutrients besides ‘N’ in different proportions [some complexes contain nil ‘N’].
To get optimum crop yield without affecting soil health, agricultural scientists recommend N, P, K to be used in the ratio of 4:2:1. As against this, the current use is imbalanced at 8.2:3.2:1. Put in other words, the actual use of ‘N’ is 2.5 times the use of ‘P’ instead of ideal 2 times. So, there is an excess of 25%. This excess can be eliminated by reducing urea use by 7.5 mt or 3.45 mt as ‘N’ whereas realization of Modi’s wish would require a cut of 6.9 mt N.
The farmers will end up reducing use of ‘N’ to level much lower than what is even required. Even if use of P and K remains at existing level, the NPK use ratio will swing towards these nutrients. If, their consumption continues to grow [more likely scenario], the imbalance towards P and K will be even greater. Today, we are grappling with over-use of N relative to P and K, by 2022, we would be saddled with its under-use
In sync Modi’s idea, could we consider use of organic manure [time and again, he has advocated its use – having cited Sikkim which has completely switched over to organic agriculture] to make up for the loss of nutrient due to cut in application of urea? Well, that is easier said than done. The question we need to consider is whether organics can substitute fertilizers?
One ton of organics contains 12 kg of nutrients. This is barely 52% of nutrient supplied from a bag [50 kg] of urea and still lower 37% available in a bag of DAP [dia-ammonium phosphate – a commonly used complex fertilizers that contains 18% ‘N’ and 46% ‘P’]. To make up for one mt nutrient, equivalent quantity of organic manure will have to be 83 mt [1/.012]. Corresponding to 3.45 mt [the extra cut], the requirement of organics will be a colossal 287 mt!
Such monumental quantities are neither available nor capable of being generated. Even if the supplies can be garnered, the logistics of transporting to millions of small and marginal holdings spread all over [it would be naive to expect each farm to be self-sufficient] will pose a daunting challenge. One should also not be oblivious of huge cost involved in handling and transportation [apart from inability of farmers to cope with the stink that goes with its large-scale use].
The government has also not given any clue as to how the stakeholders will be galvanized to bring about reduction in use of urea. Unlike in case of neem coating wherein it issued a gag order requiring all manufacturers/importers to do 100% mandatory coating [before the product leaves the factory/port], no order can be issued to farmers to say that ‘they will have to use 25%/50% less’. To order manufacturers to supply that much less won’t be tenable either.
The only prudent way to do it is by incentivizing/dis-incentivizing fertilizers use which is best achieved by suitably dovetailing the price policy. At present, the government gives much higher subsidy on urea than on subsidy on complex fertilizers. This results in selling the former at a price much lower than the price of the latter. This indeed is the predominating factor contributing to excess use of urea.
So, the government should reduce subsidy on urea and concurrently, increase subsidy on complex fertilizers. This will bring up urea price from its current artificially low level and at the same time, lower price of complexes from their present high level. As a consequence, the use of P and K will get a push while that of N will decline thereby reducing the imbalance. In turn, this will increase efficiency of fertilizer use, enhanced yield and improve soil fertility.
Eventually, the government should aim at giving subsidy directly to farmers [instead of current system of routing through the manufacturers/importers] and letting them decide how to use the money. If, the soil needs more of P and K, then, the farmer can allocate more of it for buying complex fertilizers. He/she can use the soil health card [SHC] [on Modi’s call, SHC’s are being issued to all farmers] to guide his/her decision.
To conclude, prime minister’s thrust on reducing urea use is well intended, but it should not be over-done. More important, it should be achieved within a coherent and well-coordinated pricing policy framework.