Nature Farming in the Philippines

T. C. Mendoza

University of the Philippines, Los Banos, Philippines

Abstract

For almost three decades, farmers in the Philippines have been using chemical fertilizers, pesticides and growth regulators in their crop production strategies. Despite the high cost of these inputs, and the farmers’ awareness that they can adversely affect soil fertility, food quality, human and animal health, and environmental quality, they are used extensively because there are few alternatives that would be considered practical and feasible. One reason for this is that university-based research has strongly promoted the use of agricultural chemicals as the best means of achieving the highest possible crop yields. The predominant question then is how can the farmers shift from a chemical-intensive agriculture to one that is based on the utilization of natural systems, and still maintain their economic Viability. It is encouraging that there are some efforts now underway by university researchers, the Philippine government, and the private sector to develop nature farming as an alternative to chemical-based agriculture. The government, in cooperation with non-government agencies, needs to set forth certain policy initiatives that would promote the necessary research for the development of productive, profitable, and sustainable natural farming systems, and to ensure that such knowledge is transferred effectively to the farmers.

Introduction

For the last 20 to 30 years, farmers in the Philippines have been practicing a chemical-based agricultural production strategy. The detrimental effects from the use of agricultural chemicals (fertilizer, pesticides, growth regulators, growth hormones, and antibiotics) on the farmer, the farm, the wealth of the nation, the environment, and future generations have been well documented and discussed (Aspiras, 1987; Medina and Ridao, 1987; Onate, 1989; Loevinsohn et al., 1983). The crucial issue or problem that requires firm resolve is “how do we shift from chemical-based agriculture to one which is sustainable and nature-based?” In cases where the soil is very acidic and the soil fertility is low, the pest population is extremely complex. Under these conditions, there is a resurgence of new pests, evolution of new biotypes and physiologic races. A sudden shift or withdrawal in the use of fertilizers and pesticides may cause drastic yield reductions. Field trials show that yields may be reduced by as much as 50 to 60 percent (FSSRI Annual Report, 1987). Such yield reductions are obviously unacceptable to farmers, to society, and to the nation as a whole. Yield reductions may mean massive food shortages and incalcuable or unimaginable consequences. These apprehensions or issues raised against a nature farming approach may not be real in practice. The fear of yield decline could be avoided. This paper presents the results of a university-based research initiative on nature farming, and a case study of a farmer-initiated nature farming system, including a discussion of its implications and some policy imperatives.

University-Based Research on Nature Farming

University-based research is still mostly classified as mainstream research and characterized as being high yield-oriented. This necessitates the use of high yielding varieties, nourished adequately with chemical fertilizers, and protected with an array of pesticides. The capital scarcity of farmers, the risks involved in farming, and the increasing level of environmental pollution are posing serious questions on whether the current mainstream research can be sustained. Certainly the objective of supplying the necessary food and fiber required by our population can be achieved. But at what cost?

In view of these developments, efforts are now underway to evaluate nature farming as an alternative. Mainly, the research being conducted is focused on the input side of production. This research is directed toward minimizing or reducing the input costs of production. This is referred to as Minimum Input Farming (MIF). The objectives of the research are twofold: to determine how best to minimize the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The following research is directed toward minimizing the use of chemical fertilizers:

1. Use of rice straw, corn stover, and sugarcane trash as mulch and fertilizer;

2. Green manuring with azolla and sesbania for lowlands, and mungbean for the uplands;

3. Use of poultry, hog, and cattle/carabao manure;

4. Rhizobium inoculation of legumes (soybean, mungbean, peanut);

5. Azospirillum inoculation of crops belonging to the grass family (sugarcane, corn, sorghum, napier);

6. Crop rotation schemes involving legumes as the rotational crop; and

7. Intercropping and cover-cropping between nonlegume and legume crops, e.g.,

a) sugarcane + mungbean, soybean, or peanut;

b) corn + mungbean, soybean, or peanut;

c) coconut + winged bean or kudzu.

Addressing the objective of minimizing the use of pesticides, the following research is being undertaken:

1. Use of botanical pesticides. Specific research being conducted includes: the identification and inventory of plants that have pesticidal properties; the identification of mode of action (repellant effect, toxicity); and the extraction procedure, preparation and method of application.

2. Application of the concept/practices of integrated pest management (IPM). Specific research includes: establishing critical threshold for various pests in different crops; and monitoring farmers acceptance of IPM.

3. Use of biological control agents or natural enemies. This area of pest management has not been thoroughly studied in the Philippines. Only Bacillus thuringensis and Trichograma, which are known worldwide, have been investigated; other species remain to be found.

These university-based research efforts have similar characteristics. They are conducted by individual researchers representing their own discipline, bias, or training. In addition, they are conducted on a project-to-project basis, as their duration is coterminus with the project duration. There are negative implications for the research. There is no integration into actual farming systems. Rarely are farmers involved in the research process. They are short-term, and data obtained are generally indicative measures. There is no long-term monitoring of effects.

http://www.infrc.or.jp/knf/PDF KNF Conf Data/C1-4-011.pdf