Connect with us

News

Imported liquid Nano-Nitrogen fertiliser not organic, says a group of academics

Published

on

The liquid Nano-Nitrogen fertiliser from Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO) imported by the government is a synthetic chemical fertiliser, and not an organic fertiliser, academics attached to the Agriculture and Technology Faculties of State Universities said yesterday.

They issued a statement under the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations (FUTA) letterhead:

“The Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer of IFFCO is a urea-based formulation where urea is coated with polymers to make nano-size particles. Therefore, this fertilizer is a synthetic chemical fertiliser, and not an organic fertilizer. The Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer is recommended to apply as a foliar spray and said to contain 4% Nitrogen. This is rather a new product, which has very recently (2021 March) received approval for large scale production from the Ministry of Agriculture of India. Anyhow, nano-fertilisers are not accepted in organic agriculture in Sri Lanka as indicated in the standard of requirements for organic agriculture (SLS1324:2018),” the statement said.

FUTA added that the Ministry of Agriculture claims that three applications of 2.5 L of this fertilizer at a time (i.e. 7.5 L in total) is adequate to provide required nutrients for the cultivation of one hectare of paddy crop. When applied at this rate, Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer would provide only 300 g of Nitrogen per one hectare.

“However, in general, nearly 105 kg of nitrogen is taken up by the paddy crop yielding 4-5 tons of grains per hectare. Accordingly, Nano-Nitrogen fertiliser should be applied at a rate of 1,250 L per hectare if it is the only source of nitrogen added to the crop, which is an impossible task to be realized within a cropping season,” the academics said.

Given below is the statement in full: “The government of Sri Lanka recently imported liquid Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer from Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. (IFFCO). From an initial order of 3.1 million liters, 45,000 liters (90,000 bottles, each carrying 500 ml) were airlifted on 19th October 2021 to Sri Lanka. We have learned that there are many misconceptions being publicized in the mass media on this Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer. As a concerned group of agricultural professionals in the country, academics attached to the Agriculture and Technology Faculties of State Universities in Sri Lanka, we wish to provide correct scientific facts about the imported fertilizer and express our views on this matter as follows.

“The Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer of IFFCO is a urea-based formulation where urea is coated with polymers to make nano-size particles. Therefore, this fertilizer is a synthetic chemical fertilizer, and not an organic fertilizer. The Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer is recommended to apply as a foliar spray and said to contain 4% Nitrogen. This is rather a new product, which has very recently (2021 March) received approval for large scale production from the Ministry of Agriculture of India. Anyhow, nano-fertilizers are not accepted in organic agriculture in Sri Lanka as indicated in the standard of requirements for organic agriculture (SLS1324:2018).

“In media briefings conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, we learned that three applications of 2.5 L of this fertilizer at a time (i.e. 7.5 L in total) is adequate to provide required nutrients for the cultivation of one hectare of paddy crop. When applied at this rate, Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer would provide only 300 g of Nitrogen per one hectare. In general, nearly 105 kg of nitrogen is taken up by the paddy crop yielding 4-5 tons of grains per hectare. Accordingly, Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer should be applied at a rate of 1,250 L per hectare if it is the only source of nitrogen added to the crop, which is an impossible task to be realized within a cropping season.

“In their official website, IFFCO has indicated that this Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer should be applied only as a top dressing along with a reduced rate of urea, while phosphorus and potassium sources are to be supplied at full rate as per the recommendations. All research reports on this liquid fertilizer have recommended using this fertilizer to fulfil only partial requirements of Nitrogen for crops and often used with 50% recommended dose of urea. Therefore, Nano-Nitrogen is more appropriate to be viewed as a supplementary source of Nitrogen than a major nutrient source.

“Spraying liquid fertilizer may not be practical for some crops unless the farmers have access to drone technology. This is because spraying large areas and taller crops such as maize and sugarcane is not practical with commonly used spray tanks. Moreover, the effectiveness of these foliar fertilizers depends on the ground-cover by leaf area, weather conditions and application technology. Therefore, it is a necessity to provide clear guidance to the farmers on correct application procedures.

“In this context there is a serious question as to what should be recommended to the farmers in Sri Lanka, as the sources of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium nutrients are limited in the market with the recent ban imposed on importing synthetic ‘chemical’ fertilizer. It is important to note that the benefit of Nano-Nitrogen cannot be realized when the crop suffers from nutrient imbalances. The Nano-fertilizer is applied at a much lower rate than regular urea fertilizer application mainly because it is a foliar spray. Applying the Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer at high concentrations, in the absence of soil application of Nitrogen fertilizer such as urea, could damage leaves. Therefore, the available option would be to have repeated application of Nano-Nitrogen fertilizer at a lower dosage.

“It should be noted that nano-fertilizers are more expensive than regular nitrogen fertilizers. Thus, considering the cost of the fertilizer and labor cost for application, the use of foliar fertilizers in a crop like paddy is expensive and will increase the cost of production.

“Any fertilizer imported to the country needs to be tested following the accepted protocols prior to giving approval for importation and after the shipment has arrived in order to assure quality and to avoid any negative impacts. Sri Lanka does not have developed SLS standards for nano-fertilizers, yet. These standards should be developed to assure quality of the product free of biurate-like toxic substances. Besides, recommendations should not be made in an ad-hoc manner without conducting any field investigations.

“Furthermore, in the eco-friendly/green agriculture concept, much attention is given to improve and regenerate soil fertility. However, foliar application of fertilizers will not contribute to enhancing soil fertility. Therefore, while failing to achieve higher crop yields, it is highly unlikely that the expensive Nano-Fertilizer we have imported will help in realizing the objectives of green-agriculture.”



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

AgriConnect Sri Lanka’ to be launched on 30 October to Modernise the Agricultural Sector Through Digitalisation

Published

on

By

A discussion on the official launch of the ‘AgriConnect Sri Lanka’ programme was held at the Presidential Secretariat on Tuesday  (13) morning between Secretary to the President Dr. Nandika Sanath Kumanayake and a delegation led by Gevorg Sargsyan, World Bank Group Manager for Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

The discussion focused on the official launch of the ‘AgriConnect Sri Lanka’ programme, scheduled to take place on 30 October at TRACE Expert City.

The World Bank delegation provided a comprehensive briefing on the programme and emphasised that Sri Lanka is set to become the first country in South Asia to join this global initiative of the World Bank Group, marking a significant milestone.

Victor Anthonypillai, Senior Country Officer of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), Tomas Ricardo Rosada Villamar Practice Manager at the World Bank, Felipe F. Dizon, Senior Economist and Athula Senaratne, Senior Agriculture Specialist, also attended the meeting. The Presidential Secretariat was represented by Senior Assistant Secretary to the President Dr Danushka Perera and Assistant Secretary to the President R. A. Ruwanpathirana.

President’s Media Division (PMD)

Continue Reading

News

Prison rules to be revised over monks’ attire

Published

on

Harshana

Appointment of committee eyewash, says UNP

The government is considering changes to prison regulations pertaining to the treatment of Buddhist monks serving jail terms, including their right to wear monastic robes when taken outside prison.

Justice and National Integration Minister Harshana Nanayakkara announced the proposed changes yesterday (14) following the submission of an interim report by a committee appointed to review the rules and procedures governing prisons.

The report was handed over to Secretary to the President Dr Nandika Sanath Kumanayake at the Presidential Secretariat.

One of the key recommendations is to amend Prison Standing Order 356 by introducing a new provision, 356(A). The proposed revision would require prison authorities to consult the Department of Buddhist Affairs on the removal of a monk’s robes upon admission to prison. The Commissioner of Prisons would be allowed 10 days to notify the department and take the necessary steps.

A separate amendment to Departmental Order 550 would allow Buddhist monks to wear their robes whenever they are taken outside prison, unless their respective Nikaya formally requests that the privilege be withdrawn.

The committee has also recommended extending similar arrangements, with suitable modifications, to members of other religious clergy who are imprisoned.

The proposals follow concerns raised over the treatment of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera after he was taken into custody. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake subsequently held discussions with representatives of the three main Buddhist Nikayas and appointed the committee to examine the existing legal framework.

Nanayakkara said the interim report had been forwarded to the Acting Commissioner General of Prisons, along with instructions to revise the relevant standing orders in accordance with its recommendations.

The proposed amendments have yet to be confirmed as formally implemented.

Meanwhile, the UNP yesterday criticised the government’s decision to appoint a committee to make recommendations on the attire to be worn by imprisoned Buddhist monks and other religious leaders when taken outside prison, describing the move as unnecessary.

In a statement issued yesterday (14), the UNP said the procedures governing the matter were already clearly set out in the Department of Prisons’ Standing Orders, making the appointment of a separate committee unwarranted.

The party cited remarks by Professor G.L. Peiris, Convenor of the Janathawadi Joint Opposition, who had described the committee’s appointment as a

“complete eyewash” and questioned the need for such a move.

Referring to Standing Order 550 of the Prisons Department, the UNP said convicted prisoners appearing before court for legal proceedings should not be required to wear prison uniforms.

It further stated that the regulations allowed prisoners to wear civilian clothing consistent with what they wore before imprisonment, including attire appropriate to their cultural and religious backgrounds.

The UNP accused the government of unnecessarily prolonging the issue by appointing a committee, despite the existence of regulations governing prisoners’ attire.

The party also called on the government to seek forgiveness from the Mahanayake Thera and the Sangha Council of the Kotte Sri Kalyani Samagri Dharma Maha Sangha Sabha of the Siyam Maha Nikaya over the decision concerning the religious attire of Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera.

Continue Reading

News

AC President recuses himself from hearing prison attire case pertaining to Gnanasara Thera

Published

on

Court of Appeal President Justice Rohantha Abeysuriya yesterday withdrew from the bench hearing petitions challenging the decision by prison authorities to require Ven. Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thera to wear prison attire following his imprisonment.

The decision was announced when the petitions seeking to invalidate the prison authorities’ decision were taken up for consideration on October 14.

Following his withdrawal, a three-judge bench was appointed to hear the petitions.

The petitions relate to the prison authorities’ decision to require Gnanasara Thera to wear prison attire after he was taken into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence for contempt of court.

In September this year, the Supreme Court annulled the presidential pardon granted to Gnanasara Thera by former President Maithripala Sirisena in May 2019.

Following the ruling, the Court of Appeal directed the Commissioner General of Prisons to take the necessary steps to enforce the remainder of the monk’s prison sentence.

Gnanasara Thera had originally been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for contempt of court but had served only around nine months before receiving the presidential pardon in 2019.

Continue Reading

Trending