Opinion
Supporting Lankan agricultural scientists in facing microbial-fertiliser vendors
By Chandre Dharmawardana
It was mystifying to read Professor Kulasooriya’s article “Don’t deride Sri Lankan scientists”, (Island, 29/11/2021) because it is not clear who has derided Sri Lankan scientists. By “Sri Lankan” scientists, did he exclude expatriate Sri Lankan citizens, dual citizens and others as being fair game for derision?
For many decades Dr. Nalin de Silva has derided Sri Lankan scientists as well as science itself. The media perhaps allowed such misinformation with the oddity of a “Science Dean” attacking science. I remember articles where Prof. Carlo Fonseka as well as Prof. Amaratunge were the unfair targets. Keerthi Tennakoon, Bodhi Dhanapala and I wrote to provide some balance.
Dr. Channa Jayasumana published a Sinhalese book titled “Vakugadu Satana” where many scientists who pioneered research on chronic kidney disease of unknown aetiology were tar-brushed intolerably. A band of fringe “scientists” alleged that the scientists of the Department of Agriculture (DOA) “destroyed the use of traditional seeds”. Those involved in pesticides and agrochemicals were labeled as agents of international companies knowingly promoting poisons and “pocketing commissions”.
If Professor Kulasooriya read any of my newspaper articles going back to decades, he will find that I had consistently defended the scientists working on topics on food, agriculture and environment, when it was fashionable for “environmental militants” to attack not just local scientists, but the likes of Norman Borlaug.
I stated many a time that the rice breeders of Sri Lanka should be named national heroes. But the heroes of these zealots are the likes of Vandana Shiva, “Dr”. Mercola or Stephanie Senaff. So, I am glad that Professor Kulasooriya has also at last come forward to defend local scientists.
However, what is not clear to me is who has “derided” what set of scientists? Prof. Kulasooriya mentions a debate where a Chris Dharmakirti had responded to one of my articles. Nothing like that ever happened. Instead, I responded to a group email by Dharmakirti where I felt that he was unfairly rebuking local scientists, asking why they do not embrace various technologies that use soil microbes for enhancing soil fertility?
I quote one of Dharmakirti’s several rebukes directed at the DOA scientists:
A scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal as far back as 1987 (Nitrogen Fixation in some Rice Soils in Sri Lanka, published in the MIRCEN Journal of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology), suggest the promotion of algae growth in the paddy field during the first 21 days of planting to obtain as much free nitrogen as possible. In fact, the paper states the following: ” In situ measurements of nitrogenase activities in some rice soils, representing three different agroclimatic zones of Sri Lanka, demonstrated that there is a great potential for nitrogen fixation in these paddy soils, provided that they are continuously flooded and that nitrogenous fertilis er levels are relatively low. Under such conditions cyanobacterial (blue-green algal) fixation predominates. In certain areas of the wet zone, with highly organic soils, cyanobacterial fixation could probably meet a great part of the N-fertiliser input recommended. Heterotrophic rhizosphere fixation may also be significant, especially in the dry zone.” Thus it begs the question once again why our Department of Agriculture does not make a concerted effort to utilise all available scientific knowledge and proven methods to reduce to application of artificial inputs by pursuing a natural input maximization strategy and then FILL THAT MISSING PERCENTAGE and not waste public money on EXCESSIVE application of UREA …
I responded that using microbial fertilisers is NOT YET a proven method. Even the paper quoted by Dharmakirti talks of “great potential”. A 2016 review by Prof. Kulasooriya and Dr. Magana-arachchi (KMA) explicitly support my view.
So, I was DEFENDING the local DOA scientists (who cannot respond except through their ministry spokesman). Has Dharmakirti recently returned from the West and derided the local DOA scientists, and perhaps Dr. Kulasooriya is complaining about it? If so, Prof. Kulasooriya’s write up is completely misleading.
This gives an opportunity to ask WHY microbial enhancement of soil fertility does NOT have wider adoption.
In an Island news item (Saman Indrajith , 20-Feb-2017) Dr. Gamini Seneviratne, Prof. Kulasooriya and others are acclaimed for developing a microbial bio-filmed bio-fertilizer (BFBF) that allegedly gives the same yield as with 100% chemical fertilisers, by merely using 50% of chemical fertiliser mixed with BFBF made by a company linked with local scientists.
The 50% reduction in chemical fertiliser was explicitly claimed for tea, rice, maize, radish, cabbage, bitter gourd, aubergine, okra, chili, wax pepper, tomato and pole beans. However, these claims given in the Commonwealth Agricultural Bulletin Journal (CABJ, 2016) or in the newspapers are WITHOUT foundation, as the reported harvest data seem INCORRECT and unrealistic.
The tests done by DOA scientists (independently of the work of Professor Kulasooriya’s colleagues) show NO IMPROVEMENT in harvests on adding BFBF. So, the farmer pays extra for BFBF and has to use the same amount of chemical fertiliser, (and not 50% of it as claimed) to get the same yield, as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 data are for maize. The BFBF results for all corps (for trials done around 2014) can be compared with independent data given in the 2014 DOA Report titled “Cost of Cultivation of Agricultural Crops”. We give typical examples to show that the marketing claims for the BFBF fertiliser are UNSUBSTANTIATED. This remains true even today, in 2021.
The yields claimed by BFBF for rice (Ampare, Yala season) with 100% fertiliser is 3580 kg/ha while DOA gives 6059 kg/ha without BFBF, i.e., a DECREASE of the harvest to almost half! Cabbage is given as 980 kg/ha while DOA says it should be around 27,945 kg/ha. The same mismatch is found for all the crops.
However, recovering full harvests with 50% fertilisers on using BFBF is the astonishing 2016 claim, repeated in fertiliser handouts of the Yahapalanya Presidential Secretariat in 2019, and in current websites of BFBF marketeers and scientists, even in 2021. The prestige of the Institute of Fundamental Studies, as well as social links of senior academics prevent the public or concerned scientists from open critical appraisal of BFBF. Was a comment on BFBF submitted to the Sri Lanka National Science Foundation Journal by Dr. Waidyanatha suppressed?
We should also look into the claim by Professor Kulasooriya et al., that they have proven techniques of using microbial inoculants (rhizobia microbes) for enhancing soil fertility. Let us quote Professor Kulasooriya.
In adopting this technology for Sri Lanka, we have gone through several years of study. ….
These have been authenticated and screened under greenhouse conditions … field tested in small plots in collaboration … at HORDI and other research stations. … the most promising strains were used in large-scale field trials, … conducted with … farmers under our strict supervision and those of the field officers of the Plenty Foods company.
Where have the results of these greenhouse tests etc., been published? The rhizobia technology has been given to farmers since 2010. Hence the research and development must have appeared during the 2000-2010 period. Searching through (e.g., Google scholar for S. A. Kulasooriya) we find no results showing harvest comparisons for soils with and without inoculants, or establishing increased bio-available nitrogen in inoculated soils. Although the technology had been marketed by 2010, only pot experiments on green gram appear even in 2011 (Ariyaratne et al) , but not much beyond previous work (e.g., Nieuwenhove et al 2000, Wijesundara et al 2000, Bandara et al 2006). An abstract dated 2019 (Sumudumali et al) says that:
“However, further studies are needed to confirm the effects of Rhizobial inoculants for groundnut with the strain isolated from the control to evaluate their performances with the other strains in different field conditions”.
That the rhizobia microbial technology has been sold to innumerable farmers since 2010 does NOT prove that the product meets what is claimed. While the BFBF people have published some data (which actually disprove their claims), the rhizobia inoculation people haven’t done even that?
The scientific or marketing claims of the BFBF or microbial-inoculant purveyors remain unproven from the data available in the public domain. The international experience confirms the fickle nature of these techniques, as seen in a recent Nature Report (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56954-2). Perhaps we should thank Chris Dharmakirti for his unwitting role of whistle blower.
Opinion
Why Bachelor of Arts and no Spinsters …, LSE degrees and titles, again?
Three matters concerning universities. The eminent botanist Dr. Upatissa Pethiyagoda asked (17/12) why there were Bachelor of Arts degrees and no Spinsters …. degrees. When universities were first founded in medieval times, the intelligentsia was almost entirely churchmen: priests, friars and monks. There were no women in the clergy. Churchmen held power in studium generale which about the 15th century came to be called universities.
Universities governed themselves, a common feature of many organisations in medieval Europe, where authority was fragmented. (The seeds of present claims for autonomy in universities, bolstered by new and other powerful factors, lay there.) Although graduates from the Arts Faculty comprised the overwhelming majority in universities, and the arts faculty was fons et origo ceteris (source and origin of all others), graduates of the Faculty of Theology controlled universities. For centuries to come this practice continued. The church and, more recently, laymen who governed universities, did not permit the admission of women to universities. In Dr. Pethiyagoda’s university in the UK, women were formally admitted to degrees only in 1948! In Oxford, women had been admitted in 1920-21. That explains why there are no “Spinster graduates”, even though, in some universities, women comprise the majority that graduates. However, change has been rapid since then. The present vice-chancellor of Cambridge University is a woman. The Master of Trinity Hall, one of the smaller but older colleges in that university, is a woman who was an academic in the US, previously.
Then it was asked whether LSE could offer a degree (in The Island, on the same day). LSE cannot, because it is not a university but only a School at the University of London, like the Imperial College of Science and Technology, King’s College or SOAS. Similarly, one cannot get a degree from the Harvard Business School. The model of the University of London was copied in India, when the British established universities there in 1857, the year of the mutiny. (Ramachandran Guha once remarked that two mutinies began in 1857; the other being the establishment of universities whose alumni were a force in pushing the British out of India.) As a result, Delhi University or Calcutta University has large numbers of colleges, where standards of teaching vary widely. The University of Bangalore is reputed to have hundreds of affiliated colleges.
P. A. Samaraweera, philosophiae doctor, (20/12/24) insists on calling a university degree a title: ‘…(PD) is incorrect in his analysis of a Ph.D. as a title’. Well, of course, Alice (in Wonderland) retorted, ‘I mean what I say’ and Dr. Samaraweeera may assert that same privilege. But korala, muhandiram, maha mudali, professor, archdeacon and judge are titles, not university degrees. B.A., D.Phil., and D.Litt. are degrees and not titles. His appellation ‘Dr.’ is not a title, whereas he may hold the title ’professor’. I went back to history to explain what it is, not what the future should be. He might find it difficult to explain why he, a chemist (say) holds a degree ‘doctor of philosophy’, having never, even in school, studied philosophy. The explanation is in the history of universities. Well into the 21st century, President Emmanuel Macron, a few months ago, opened the University of Paris-Saclay and it will have deans, provosts, and other office holders whose titles derive from the University of Paris which started about 1210 CE. Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of Oxford, in the 14th century, had he miraculously been transported to the occasion, may have found the entire setup familiar as he was ‘a French poet, an agriculturist, a lawyer, a physician, and a preacher; ….’ ( Rashdall, Vol.III p.241). He may even have understood the proceedings. Modern universities follow procedures adopted in old Europe: wear your cappa (degree gown and cap) and compare those vestments with what a Catholic priest, a bishop or the pope wears. Need I say more?
Philosophiae Doctor
Opinion
Going easy on Year 5 Scholarship trial
“The goal of education is not to increase the amount of knowledge but to create the possibilities for a child to invent and discover”
– Jean Piaget
“[They] are confined for four or five years in small cages, being kept in the dark and not allowed to set foot on the ground”. One might wonder whether the foregoing sentence is one which is meant to serve as a metaphorical description of the joyless life of most of our primary-level students, who are regimented for two to three years to face the Year 5 Scholarship exam. Well, no.
It doesn’t have the remotest connection to modern-day exams or an education system unwittingly designed to drain childhood of its inherent pleasures. It refers to a custom, a ‘persecution’ ingrained in primeval cultures, the remnants of which may still be found in many societies including ours. The quote is from a well-known book on anthropology, “The Golden Bough: A study in magic and religion” written by Sir James Frazer. The sentence describes a widespread taboo in primitive societies, which resulted in the “seclusion of girls at puberty”. However, it is a pity that today, one is likely to see in it, at least a faint reference to the otherwise happiest period of our youngest citizens, who are pressured to prepare for an exam, which is superimposed, for reasons unrelated to the goals of education, per se. Rather, it is designed to make tens of thousands of underprivileged children work harder than they reasonably can, because the successive governments have not been able to provide the required infrastructure facilities to their schools to enable them to continue studies till they enter the tertiary level. In other words, the well-known exam is an instance of making our children sacrifice their childhood till the rulers, if they ever will, set right the larger economic wrongs.
Whereas, in ancient times, young girls were made to carry the burden of superstition and patriarchy, today young children of all sexes are forced to pay the price for political and economic bungling. Ultimately, a problem resulting from lack of opportunities for many, is upgraded and embellished as ‘providing opportunities’ for the few ‘smart’. And, its grand title is Year 5 Scholarship Exam. What we conveniently forget is that this ‘exam’ is a wrong medicine produced to compensate for political quackery, which justifies the continuation of substandard education for the ‘condemned’ majority. It seems that the onward march of human progress, while doing away with cultural wrongs, is shy of getting rid of economic wrongs. A local saying seems apt here – one may say that the Year 5 scholarship exam has been serving as a metaphor for an annually produced loincloth expected to cure politically induced child-diarrhea.
The reported leaking of three questions from the Grade 5 scholarship exam held this year and the reports of such incidents in the past show its undesirable influence on the children, parents and other vested interests. At least, it has raised an unhealthy spirit of competition considerably removing the sense of joy which should be an essential part of these children’s learning experience. This is particularly relevant because the exam has drawn both students and their parents into a prolonged spell of obsession, which has severely undermined the importance of leisure and fun that should be part and parcel of a wholesome childhood. The prolonged fixation on the exam results tied to their ‘future success’ robs these fledgling scholars of the joys of ‘free learning’, which should otherwise give them that vital sense of adventure and excitement in gaining new knowledge. Bertrand Russell’s quote, “There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge”, which refers to the unplanned learning pursuits that may enhance the quality of life of adults, may not be totally irrelevant in any discussion on child education.
As history and anthropology bear evidence, children have always been defenceless against many of those well-meaning programmes imposed on them by adults. It is a pity that today the parental ambitions triggered by social forces, have invaded and highjacked the childhood of our clueless kids. Particularly vulnerable are those underprivileged children who form the majority. Whereas the children of privileged families enjoy the freedom of engaging in many leisure pursuits while receiving their primary level education without undue stress, a large number of children belonging to the lower strata of society are grievously saddled with the scholarship exam to the exclusion of all fun and recreation.
As Ms. Ruth Surenthiraraj highlights in her article titled, “A case for the non-essential” (Kuppi Talk) published in The Island of December 10, “…entertainment, leisure, or the space to create is often perceived as being directly and positively correlated to being able to afford either the time or the resources to enjoy it”. This is a valid critique of a smug social attitude, which tends to give credence to the warped idea that the underprivileged in society may ‘prudently’ forget about entertainment. Reducing childhood to a strenuous struggle for future success is sad. And, any programme relating to education or otherwise, which, directly or indirectly, helps consolidate the idea that deprived children may ‘wisely’ shun any entertainment ‘for their own good’ can be nothing short of catastrophic.
Susantha Hewa
Opinion
Christmas Roots and Hearts Aglow:
Rekindling Faith, Peace, and Love Below…!
(Practical Tips for Christmas Bliss)
by Rev. Fr. (Dr.) Eymard Fernando
Bishop’s House, Kurunegala.
In an increasingly and incredibly materialised and commercialised world today, the core meaning of Christmas often seems distorted, being overshadowed by consumerism, bustling sales, and extravagant festivities. Yet, at its heart, Christmas is a season meant for reflection, change, love, and unity – a time when people gather to celebrate gratitude and generosity centred around the Divine Baby. As we explore the roots of Christmas and what it can mean for us in today’s world, we uncover themes of faith, hope, peace, and kindness that transcend religious boundaries, reminding us of the true purpose and value of God becoming man.
Therefore, let us delve a little into the origins and deeper significance of Christmas, exploring ways to return to these roots through themes of generosity, togetherness, and humility. By rediscovering these essential values, we can certainly celebrate Christmas as a season that brings light and life to our world.
A Season of Faith and Reflection
Christmas has its origins in the Birth of Jesus Christ, a moment celebrated by Christians as the arrival of hope and salvation. However, even beyond its religious significance, Christmas season has become a time when many reflect on themes of love, hope, and renewal. The story of the Nativity conveys universal values: humility, peace, and the power of hope.
The Birth of Jesus in a humble manger represents a profound lesson about simplicity and compassion. As theologian Henri Nouwen noted, “Jesus was born in the least expected place to the least expected people in the least expected way.” This simplicity, intertwined with humility, challenges the commercialised image of Christmas today. Instead of focusing on luxury and excess, the roots of Christmas invite us to value the simple, meaningful aspects of life: faith, family, and fraternity.
In today’s world, we can return to these roots by setting aside time for personal reflection during Christmas. Practising gratitude, being mindful of those less fortunate, and reaching out to loved ones are all different ways we can honour the spiritual foundation of Christmas. Thus, we all can benefit from a moment of stillness and introspection during this busy time of the year.
The Spirit of Generosity and Compassion
Christmas has always been a season of sharing, inspired by the gifts of the Magi to the Christ- Child and later, Saint Nicholas’ acts of charity as santa claus. However, the tradition of sharing has gradually shifted from simple acts of kindness to an intense focus on material gifts. According to American sociologist Juliet Schor, “We give to show love, but in a culture that equates love with spending, our giving has been commercialized.”
However, in recent years, a shift towards alternative, meaningful sharing has gained momentum in the form of a worthy ‘retromarch’. Many individuals and families now choose to give to charity in a loved one’s name or to offer experiences rather than material goods. This form of sharing very much aligns with the true spirit of Christmas, embodying generosity without extravagance.
Likewise, local initiatives, such as community food drives and clothing and toy collections, have become popular ways to give back. Participating in these efforts allows people to connect with others in their communities, creating a shared sense of purpose and compassion. As Mother Teresa famously said, “It’s not how much we give, but how much love we put into giving.” By focusing mainly on the intention behind our gifts, we can bring the spirit of Christmas alive in our own hearts and communities. However, the magic of Christmas is not very much in presents and parties, but in His Presence!
Family and Togetherness: A Time for Connection
The Christmas season is often one of the few times in the year when families come together, setting aside time to reconnect, reflect, and celebrate. This emphasis on togetherness is deeply rooted in the season’s traditions, dating back to ancient winter solstice festivals where communities gathered to share warmth and light during the darkest days of the year.
In modern times, when families may be dispersed across cities or even continents, Christmas remains a crucial opportunity to reconnect. This communal emphasis shows how Christmas, regardless of religious affiliations, has become a unifying tradition centred on family.
Simple traditions – like sharing a meal, decorating a Christmas tree, or singing carols together – allow families to pause, connect, and create memories. These rituals not only strengthen family bonds but also convey the essence of Christmas for younger generations. As American author Richard Paul Evans, best known for his inspirational and heartfelt novels says, “The smells, tastes, and sounds of Christmas are the roots that nurture a family tree.” By focusing on togetherness, Christmas serves as a reminder of the love and connection that sustain us all throughout the New Year.
Peace on Earth: Seeking Unity in This Divided World
One of the most significant messages of Christmas is the call for ‘Peace on Earth’. Yet, today’s world is marked by political, social, cultural, economic and various other divisions, making the pursuit of peace and unity more relevant than ever before. From the hymn ‘Silent Night’ to the angels’ proclamation of peace, Christmas has long symbolized hope in times of conflict.
A poignant historical example of Christmas promoting peace is the Christmas Truce of 1914, during World War I. British and German soldiers, entrenched on the Western Front, laid down their arms on Christmas Eve to exchange greetings, sing carols, and share small gifts. This unexpected truce, though brief, reminded soldiers of their shared humanity amidst the horrors of war. It symbolised the power of Christmas to transcend differences and bring people together, even during a time of darkness and death.
Today, peace-oriented traditions continue to play an important role during Christmas season. Interfaith gatherings, community meals, and charitable events all serve as spaces for people from different backgrounds to connect and understand one another. In a world often divided by ideological and political differences, Christmas can become a season with a reason for open dialogue, compassion, and understanding. Embracing Christmas’ call for peace and unity allows us to honour its roots in ways that resonate with our global context.
Practising Simplicity and Mindfulness
While Christmas has grown as a metaphor for lavish celebrations and enchanting tamashas, the season’s roots actually encourage simplicity and mindfulness. The traditional story of Jesus’ Birth in a manger speaks to a humble beginning, one that invites us to cherish what truly matters in life. Embracing that simplicity allows us shift our focus from material abundance to the richness of shared experiences.
In recent years, minimalism and mindfulness have gained popularity as antidotes to the consumer-driven spendthrift lifestyle with a ‘shop till you drop’ psychosis. Many people now opt for simpler, handmade gifts or choose to forgo elaborate decorations in favour of natural elements. These preferred choices reflect a desire to connect more authentically with the true meaning of Christmas. Instead of flashy lights or mountains of gifts, families can create meaningful memories through acts of kindness or spending quality time together strengthening family ties. One modern example for this is the ‘Reverse Advent Calendar’ tradition. Instead of receiving a treat each day, participants place an item – such as dry rations or clothing – in a box to donate to those in need. This practice helps to instil gratitude and generosity, shifting the focus from consumption to community service. By embracing a simpler and more mindful and meaningful approach, we honour the humble roots of Christmas and foster a deeper sense of appreciation for life’s countless blessings.
A Journey of Rediscovering…
Returning to the roots of Christmas is a journey of rediscovering faith, kindness, and togetherness in a world that often moves at a very rapid pace. The true spirit of Christmas calls us to reflect on values that transcend time and culture: humility, compassion, peace, unity, and love. In embracing these themes, we transform Christmas from a season of materialism into one pregnant with meaning.
As we celebrate Christmas this year, let us remember that this event is not about what we have, but about who we are with and how we make others feel. It is a season of opening our hearts and minds to others, of putting love into action, and of finding moments of peace and tranquility in the midst of cacophony, disorder and chaos. By going back to the roots of Christmas, let us therefore invite joy, hope, and kindness into our lives, allowing Christmas grow and glow with renewed purpose and profound meaning resulting in a new birth in our own lives!
-
Sports7 days ago
Sri Lanka to mend fences with veterans
-
Sports5 days ago
Pathirana set to sling his way into Kiwi hearts
-
Opinion7 days ago
Is AKD following LKY?
-
News3 days ago
Office of CDS likely to be scrapped; top defence changes on the cards
-
News6 days ago
SL issues USD 10.4 bn macro-linked bonds
-
Opinion7 days ago
‘A degree is not a title’ – a response
-
Editorial6 days ago
Ranil’s advice
-
Editorial7 days ago
Lest watchdogs should become lapdogs