BENEFITS OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS

BENEFITS OF AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS

 BY: MOHAMED AMEEN VK

CE10B037

INTRODUCTION:

       Hazards of use agricultural chemicals are well documented and are one of the main interests of journals and articles today. But most of these articles are incomplete because they are not discussing the part of advantages and necessity of chemicals used in agriculture. Thus most of the people are well aware of threats of these chemicals and recent studies shows 70% of the people are having negative view point on it. Still Most people eat food grown in a system that uses pesticides and many individuals use pesticides in the house or garden. Some authors do value the beneficial role of pesticides. Studies shows "If pesticides were abolished, the lives saved would be outnumbered by a factor of around 1000 by the lives lost due to poorer diets”. So discussion on beneficial aspects of pesticides and fertilizers is relevant and hold importance.

          Before going to analysis of benefits I would like to remind you that it is not to barely support the chemicals but is to understand the their vital role in agriculture. The important thing is, risks and negative aspects associated with obsolete or wrongly managed pesticides should not be ignored, but nor should the positives.

Population growth and Food crisis

          In 1984, it seemed as if the rate of population growth was slowing everywhere except in Africa and parts of southern Asia. Today, the situation looks less promising since progress made toward reducing birth rates has been slower than expected. The world's population, now 5300 million, is increasing by approximately 250,000 people every day! It is estimated that 1000 million people will be born during this decade. Over the next ten years, the population of the industrialized world will grow by 56 million, while the number of people living in developing countries will expand to over 900 million (United Nations Population Division, 1989; UNFPA, 1989). By and large, the biggest increases will occur in the poorest countries - those societies least equipped to meet the needs of the new arrivals and invest in their future.

          Worldwide, enough food is produced to feed everyone, yet this food and the technologies to produce it do not always reach those in need. As a result of food deficits, nearly 1 000 million people do not get enough to eat and over 400 million are chronically malnourished. Every year 11 million children under the age of five die from hunger or hunger-related diseases. In recent decades there has been impressive growth in food production, which has been attributed to the development of improved, disease-resistant varieties of staple crops; the increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides; and the expansion of irrigated cropland. Nevertheless, per caput food production actually declined in 51 developing countries while rising in only 43 between 1979-1981 and 1986-1987. Among the African countries, 25 experienced a drop in per caput cereal production. In Latin America, production was also disappointing: 17 countries suffered a decline (UNFPA, 1990). In Asia, food production has managed to keep slightly ahead of population growth largely because of new breeds of Asian rice and the use of tremendous amounts of agricultural chemicals. However, in some areas losses from poor land management has erased the benefits which had been gained. Consequently, developing countries' food imports are rising dramatically to compensate for local deficits. But still global grain production per capita lies in the same level or a bit lower. The following diagram shows the comparison between global grain production and grain production per capita.

            Along with rapid increase in population needs for food and shelter also increase rapidly. Today large area of fields used for grain production is filled with houses and huge buildings. Many available fields are under government protection. Thus year by year need for food increases while land available for food production is decreasing. So the only way is to use available land efficiently and produce maximum yield. Here is the importance of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Effective use of these chemicals made remarkable change in food production and led to green revolution. Human started producing much more yield from nearly same area harvested and from same amount of seeds available. The following chart shows change in agricultural sector during the period of green revolution.

Benefits from agricultural Chemicals

          No species in the earth is allowed enjoy unlimited population, all the populations are limited by resources available. Even man has no exception from the environmental control over population. Although man made exception to himself and today human population is increasing in rapid rate. Agricultural chemicals are the main tool which helped man to do so. Since 1940 we have witnessed agricultural revolution in the technically advance world which has led to markedly increased supplies of wholesome food. This has come about primarily because of (a) genetically improved verities and breeds (b) better plant nutrition (c) improved crop and livestock management practices (d) control of harmful weeds, pests, parasites etc (e) irrigation techniques. The integration and application of these production inputs have created green revolution.

          Agricultural chemicals along with technology are essential if food, feed and fiber production is to be maintained in order to meet needs and requirements of the huge population. Pesticides are extensively used in countries where sources of food are adequate. But studies shows that annul yield in these countries are directly proportional to amount of use pesticides. Tackling this study of the benefits of pesticides was an iterative process. Some of the benefits, such as the reduced mortality from malaria achieved by controlling Anopheles mosquitoes, are obvious and in this article is relied only on agricultural sector. However, the initial searches provided leads to different benefits. Some of these others are less obvious due to them being secondary benefits arising either in the medium or long term, or being subtle or small incremental benefits distributed over a very wide area. However, these secondary benefits are equally important and in some cases provide the ultimate justification for the use of the pesticides. We also had to address the question of who is benefiting. The number and nature of beneficiaries determine our attitudes to particular categories of pesticide use. Clearly, the farmer using herbicides is saving money or effort on mechanical weed control costs – a direct benefit to him. There may also be a skewed distribution of benefits relating to wealth or geographic distribution.

Critics of this document may claim that the stated benefits can be achieved without using pesticides, for example using cultural practices to control pests, leading to larger yields and higher quality of life. There are instances where this is true, but all of the cases given here are examples where pesticides have delivered the stated benefits. It is for others to establish where there are better, alternative means of achieving the same end…!

The best we can hope for is that the public makes informed choices about which technologies will be most likely to bring them the benefits they are seeking, at lowest cost to them, others and the environment. This document aims to provide evidence to guide and change these consumer attitudes and choices by putting the spotlight on the positive facets of pesticides. We recognized that there were a range of types of benefit from individual types of pesticide use. For example, herbicides may bring benefits in a range of different areas, including financial (saving money because labor is expensive), physical (reducing drudgery of workers doing manual weeding), environmental (less use of fossil fuels in powered machinery, controlling weeds without disturbing the soil) and social (reduced drudgery, improvement of the living.

In order to ensure a systematic analysis and to unravel the many potential benefits of pesticides, we can categories the effects into primary and secondary benefits outlined below.

Primary benefits: These are the consequences of the pesticides’ effects – the direct gains expected from their use. For example the effect of killing caterpillars feeding on the crop brings the primary benefit of higher yields and better quality of cabbage

Secondary benefits: These are the less immediate or less obvious benefits that result from the primary benefits. They may be subtle, less intuitively obvious, or longer term. It follows that for secondary benefits it is therefore more difficult to establish cause and effect, but nevertheless they can be powerful justifications for pesticide use. For example the higher cabbage yield might bring additional revenue that could be put towards children’s education or medical care, leading to a healthier, better educated population.

Benefits from pesticides (An analysis of studies on US agriculture)

          Some of the best studies of the benefits of pesticides have estimated the economic consequences of a ban on pesticide use. These “what if?” studies deal with extreme-case possibilities, but serve as a starting point for putting pesticides in perspective. A study by Knutson describes possible effects on U.S. society of a hypothetical ban of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides.  Without pesticides, U.S. food production would drop and food prices would soar. With lower production and higher prices, U.S. farmers would be less competitive in global markets for major grains, cotton, and peanuts. U.S. exports of corn, wheat, and soybeans would drop 27 percent, with a loss of 132,000 jobs. A pesticide ban in the U.S. would decrease year-ending supplies of corn, wheat, and soybeans 73 percent, trigger price instability, slow U.S. food aid programs to poor countries, and increase worldwide hunger. The suggestion that a ban on pesticide use would help the environment may not be true. Under a pesticide ban, the number of farmed acres would have to be increased to make up for reduced per-acre yields, which would in turn cause widespread loss of wildlife habitat. Without herbicides, farmers would probably have to cultivate fields more frequently to control weeds, which would lead to increased soil loss from erosion. Other countries, many with lower standards of environmental concern than ours, would increase pesticide use to boost crop production and take advantage of reduced U.S. food exports. Effects on U.S. farmers would vary. Incomes of food plant growers would more than double, but most of this increase would be offset by new land purchases because growers would need to cultivate more land to make up for lower yields. Incomes of livestock producers would drop 50 percent because of higher feed prices. Without pesticides, southern farmers would fare worse than their northern counterparts because southern climates promote higher pest populations. A second study8 focused only on the consequences of a fungicide ban. These chemicals control plant disease fungi that, if unchecked, kill crop plants and sometimes produce lethal natural food poisons. A U.S. ban on fungicides would reduce production of fruit 32 percent, vegetables 21 percent, peanuts 68 percent, and corn and wheat 6 percent each. These figures are even more grim then we consider that the consumption of fruits and vegetables help prevent heart disease and some cancers.9 Without fungicides, per capita consumption of these healthy foods would decrease 24 percent, with negative consequences for our nation’s health. A ban on fungicides would increase consumer food prices by 13 percent, reduce the gross national product by about $28 billion, reduce total personal spending by$22 billion, and eliminate 235,000 jobs — including 125,000 jobs in the farm sector which represents 4 percent of total agricultural employment. A fungicide ban would have the greatest economic and health impacts on the poor because these groups spend a higher percentage of their incomes on food. For example, the annual food bill for a family at the poverty level would increase $362, which is 3 percent of their yearly income. Because of higher prices and lower production of fruits and vegetables, consumption of these healthy foods would shrink most among the nation’s poor, forcing this group to bear the greatest health consequences of a deteriorating U.S. diet. But even without these “what if?” studies the benefits of pesticides are obvious. Using carefully timed pesticide applications, farmers have nearly eradicated the cotton boll weevil in large areas of the southeast; this pest devastated the cotton-based southern farm economy at the beginning of the twentieth century. Worldwide, herbicides have provided a 10 to 20 percent yield increase in bread grains, enough for fifteen loaves of bread for each person on the earth. In the poorest countries, 95 percent of the population produces the food to feed itself and the remaining 5 percent. Whereas in developed countries the reverse is true; 3 to 5 percent of the population produces enough to feed the rest, in addition to exporting the surplus. This incredible efficiency in food production in the developed countries would not be possible without pesticides.

The value of pesticides goes beyond agriculture. Many tick-and insect-borne diseases—yellow fever, encephalitis, plague typhoid fever, malaria, dog heartworms, and Rocky Mountain spotted fever— today are held in check by insecticides. By controlling Fleas, cockroaches, and flies, insecticides improve the sanitation and comfort of our homes. Long-lasting soil pesticides protect millions of U. S. homes against termites. Sometimes pesticides can restore balance to ecosystems harmed by the invasion of exotic species. For example, the sea lamprey, a parasitic eel, invaded the Great Lakes after a shipping canal around Niagara Falls was built in 1829. The eels attacked native species of fish, and by the 1950s populations of lake trout were decimated. The pesticide TFM was used to control the lamprey, and today the lake trout population is recovering. Where would the United States be without pesticides? These chemicals improve food quality, quantity, and variety. They improve human health by controlling natural food poisons, increasing production of fruits and vegetables, and helping to control long-forgotten diseases. They protect our homes and property. They let U.S. farmers compete profitably in an increasingly global economy. Truly, the standard of living we take for granted in the United States would not be possible without the benefits of pesticides.

Secondary and Primary effects of pesticides

          The use of pesticides can prevent or reduce agricultural losses to pests and so improve yield, as well as improving the quality of the produce in terms of cosmetic appeal – often important to buyers. They can also improve the nutritional value of food and sometimes its safety. To resource-poor communities with no financial or food reserves, the reliability of production is also of paramount importance. It is no good having a good harvest for three years if there are large losses in the fourth year. There is a financial cost if pesticides have to be used, but at least there will be something left to harvest for sale and/or consumption. In this way, pesticides are a tool to deliver food security. Pesticides used in stored products can prolong the viable life of the produce and prevent huge post-harvest losses from pests and diseases.

These primary benefits bring many secondary benefits. Clearly if harvestable yields and quality are increasing, farm revenues are also likely to increase. This results in wealthier farmers with more disposable income to stimulate the local economy. In turn regional and national agricultural economies become more buoyant and revenues from exports of high quality produce bring in much needed foreign exchange. This last factor is particularly important in some developing countries that export out of season fruit and vegetables to the US and Europe. Consumers in developed countries gain too from the wider range of imported crops that is available for a greater proportion of the year. And higher yields mean less pressure to cultivate un-cropped land – a wider benefit to the environment. Greater quantities of food in communities also generally means better nutrition, which carries over into better health. Healthier people are by and large also happier people, who are more productive and able to contribute better to their society. This contrasts with the situation where the poor nutrition resulting from limited food supplies increases the susceptibility to diseases, reducing people’s energy and productivity in a vicious circle of deprivation. Pesticides can help break this cycle that also threatens the security of personal livelihoods and the economic well-being of affected regions. So the main primary and secondary benefits can be tabulated as below.

Primary Benefits	Secondary Benefits
Agricultural production Improved yields, quality, appearance etc	Farming communities Nutrition and health, wider range of viable crops, life expectancy, quality of life
Energy needs Reduced drudgery and fuel use for weeding. Less soil disturbances.	National Agricultural economy, export revenues, human productivity, higher per capita.
Preventing problems Reduced pest epidemics, invasive species are controlled	Global Less pressure on un cropped land, fewer pest introductions, lesser green house gas production.

Current Trends in Pesticide Usage

In the face of a growing human population and increased urbanization, the demand for pesticides will only rise. Farmers must increase yields on increasingly fewer farm acres. Poorer countries will not sustain more people without first controlling pest-borne diseases. Citizens of developed countries, accustomed to high standards of living, will continue to demand inexpensive, high-quality food, freedom from pest borne diseases, and pest-free homes. However, the risks of pesticides, whether real or perceived, may force changes in the way these chemicals are used. Scientists and lawmakers are working toward pest control plans that are environmentally sound, effective, and profitable. The best pesticide policies will reconcile environmental concerns with economic realities. Pests must be managed, and farmers must survive economically. IPM methods will continue to reduce our reliance on synthetic pesticides. IPM has always implied that pesticides are one of many weapons in the pest control arsenal which includes genetics, biologic controls, and plant production practices. IPM has research and “real life” success stories to keep it in the forefront of pest control. IPM is here to stay! That does not mean that IPM will not be redefined or adopt new methods as knowledge in the area of pest management increases. Already there are new concepts and buzzwords (i.e., “low input” agriculture and “sustainable” agriculture) which are basically IPM methods with slightly different approaches or emphases. IPM or related methods will not eliminate the need for pesticides. The benefits of pesticides are real, and this reality will outlive the changeable winds of public opinion. Pesticides can give fast and adequate relief from pests. As the human population grows and farm acreage shrinks, food production efficiency cannot be jeopardized. We will need all of the tools at our disposal for food production, including pesticides.

Effect of fertilizers

          Farming same crop in the same place for long time reduces the nutrient content of soil which it requires most. Natural processes like nitrification and other soil fertilizing processes are very slow and not adequate for the needs and improved production of yields. Synthetic chemical fertilizers are mostly inorganic and used to fertilize soil directly. Fertilizers are broadly divided into two classes: organic, synthetic fertilizers. Organic fertilizers are made up of animal or plant-based natural materials, while inorganic fertilizers are commercially produced from synthetically manufactured chemicals. Synthetic fertilizers are used to treat soy, sunflower, barley, maize and rapeseed fields.

          Unlike organic fertilizers, the nutrient content of synthetic fertilizers is measurable and exact. Synthetic fertilizers are typically packaged in bags that have a three-digit number sequence printed on them, also called the N-P-K percentage. This sequence denotes the percentage of its chemical components. The first number denotes the nitrogen (N) percentage of the bag, the second number denotes the phosphorous (P) and the third number denotes the potassium (K) composition of the bag. Synthetic fertilizers can be applied when a plant requires a particular nutrient. This is an obvious advantage over organic fertilizers, which may release a required nutrient off time, or when the plant does not need it. Synthetic fertilizers allow gardeners to accurately measure the nutrient uptake by plant Synthetic fertilizers have a greater amount of nutrient and mineral content than organic fertilizers. Potassium promotes protein synthesis, the movement of water through a plant, the development of cell wall components, the production of fruit, photosynthesis, protein and starch production and facilitates enzyme reactions. Potassium in synthetic fertilizers is in the form of potassium sulphate or potassium chloride. Plants require phosphorous to store energy, promote root growth, and facilitate fruit and flower development. Nitrogen promotes higher fruit and crop yields, facilitates photosynthesis and energy production and improves the quality of crops.

          Synthetic fertilizers are quick acting and release nutrients faster than organic fertilizers. Organic fertilizers must decompose their nutrient content before releasing it in the soil. Inorganic fertilizers do not need to undergo decomposition. Plants and crops that are given synthetic fertilizers receive their component minerals and nutrients almost immediately. Synthetic fertilizers effectively address soil nutrient deficiencies and can cure infected or diseased crop. They help gardeners save effort and time, and are easily available in gardening stores.

Conclusion

          Even though use of chemicals in agriculture is highly criticized it has remarkable role in meeting needs of present world. Increasing population reduced land available for crop production but need for food running with population. In this situation only way is to yield maximum from the available land and chemicals are crucial here. Benefits from chemicals can be classified in to primary and secondary. Primary benefits are direct effects while secondary benefit arises from primary and is also important in justification of use of chemicals. Pesticides and synthetic fertilizers played important role in ‘green revolution’ by controlling pest and parasites, controlling damaging weeds and improving soil fertility in desired amounts.