Effectiveness of Organic Fertilizers for rice, corn, etc.

Planting rice is picturesque & beautiful. It should also be profitable for poor & marginalized farmers.

The demand for Organic Fertilizers (OFs) surged in 2008 when chemical & in-organic fertilizers prices reached unprecedented levels in 2008 as oil prices traded for U$140+ per barrel. That demand was also prompted by perceptions that OFs are effective alternatives and/or supplements to chemical & in-organic fertilizers (CFs).

This webpage presents information that OFs may NOT be effective for fertilizing rice crops. Our findings disagree with common perceptions & recommendations and we are NOT alone in these findings. There are obscure reports by established research institutions that indicate OFs are NOT cost-effective. (See References mentioned below.)

This webpage is published so that farmers, researchers & persons with authority can wisely use our findings. For example, while OFs do not appear to be effective for rice they seem to be effective for corn. This is consistent with their effectiveness on vegetables.

OFs may be ineffective for rice because rice is water-logged. The micro-organisms may be drowning & dying. Corn like vegetables that profitably benefit from OFs are not water-logged. The micro-organisms may be aerobic & therefore thrive where air is present.

The author is not a soil scientist or a full-time farmer. Views presented here are not marketing or research based. They must be perceived as independent results gathered with a good level of accuracy & statistical basis.

Background

Our findings were discovered after Efficacy Tests mandated by the Fertilizer & Pesticide Authority (FPA) were conducted on OFs that were previously found to be effective for rice. The test protocols are described below. They required six (6) different fertilizer treatments, four (4) replications & monitoring by an FPA certified researcher.

When un-expected results were found, the tests were promptly repeated. However, only the same un-expected results were produced again. Further research revealed that some soil scientists & established research institutions were also having similar findings.

Seedlings in foreground were treated with Bio-N. No growth differences were observed with un-treated seedlings before transplanting.

MOET (Minus One Element Test) was used to verify fertilizer requirements.

Findings

Harvests were manually threshed to more accurately obtain weight of grains per 100 hills.

DATA from Efficacy Test Plots gathered on 28 March 2009

Average weight in kilograms of palay per 4 x 100 hills after manual threshing

	Fertilization OF + CF	R1 (kg/100hills)	R2 (kg/100hills)	R3 (kg/100hills)	R4 (kg/100 hills)
T1	0% + 100%	4.0	2.8	3.5	3.8
(tons/hectare)		6.95	4.78	6.08	6.61
T2	0% + 50%	3.5	4.4	3.9	3.2
(tons/hectare)		6.12	7.58	6.78	5.56
T3	0% + 25%	3.4	4.0	3.4	3.0
(tons/hectare)		5.91	6.92	5.98	5.22
T4	100% + 0%	2.6	3.2	2.8	2.0
(tons/hectare)		4.52	5.53	4.87	3.48
T5	100% + 25%	2.3	3.4	3.1	3.4
(tons/hectare)		4.00	5.84	5.39	5.98
T6	100% + 50%	4.0	3.5	3.3	3.2
(tons/hectare)		6.88	6.08	5.74	5.56

DATA from Efficacy Test Plots gathered on 15 August 2009

	Fertilization OF + CF	R1 (kg/100hills)	R2 (kg/100hills)	R3 (kg/100hills)	R4 (kg/100 hills)
T1	0% + 100%	1.7	1.7	2.1	1.8
(tons/hectare)		3.0	3.0	3.7	3.1
T2	0% + 50%	1.9	1.9	2.1	1.5
(tons/hectare)		3.2	3.2	3.6	2.6
T3	0% + 25%	1.6	1.4	1.9	1.8
(tons/hectare)		2.8	2.5	3.3	3.1
T4	100% + 0%	1.7	1.3	1.8	1.6
(tons/hectare)		3.0	2.3	3.0	2.8
T5	100% + 50%	2.2	1.9	2.0	1.8
(tons/hectare)		3.8	3.3	3.5	3.1
T6	100% + 100%	2.1	1.4	1.8	1.7
(tons/hectare)		3.7	2.4	3.1	3.0

Notes from 28 March 2009 Data:

1. 2.8 kg/100 hills at R2 has Treatment of 0-0 (OF&CF).

2. 100+50 (OF&CF) results were good but not as good as 0+50 (OF&CF) overall.

100+0 and 100+25 (OF & CF) results were consistently poorer than 0+25 and 0+50 (OF&CF) treatments.

Notes from 15 August 2009 Data:

1. Yields were up to 50% lower than on 28 March 2009 because of Tungro damage & wet season conditions.

2. 0+100 and 100+100 (OF & CF) results are almost identical – indicating OF had no effect (?) on yield.

0+50 and 100+50 (OF & CF) results are also identical & higher – indicating OF had no effect & 50% CF may be a better (?) RRCF. This observation of a lower RRCF appears to be consistent with Nutrient Manager for Rice recommendations. (see Test Protocol Details below.)

At best, similar results from 0+25 and 100+0 (OF & CF) indicate that 100% OF is only comparable to 25% CF. This implies that OF application must be 4 times more or at 8 tons/hectare. This will make the cost OF usage prohibitive & un-profitable.

3. Comparing R1 & R2 with R3 & R4 (where seedlings were treated with Bio-N), shows that Bio-N treated seedlings yielded slightly better results.

Conclusions:

· Despite best efforts, our tests may be considered to have produced poor & possibly inconclusive results. Rice farming is a tedious & protracted process. It is also susceptible to many predicaments caused by pests, diseases & natural hazards.

· If Organic Fertilizers (OFs) cannot produce appreciable “performance gains” even when applied at 2 tons/hectare & in fields that were previously, their use should not be promoted. If OF usage cannot produce satisfactory improvements under “managed” conditions, better results are unlikely during regular use.

· The use of Bio-N in seedlings appears to have a slightly better effect on yields. Since Bio-N is in-expensive, it should continue to be tested & its use should be encouraged with consistently better results.

· The use of specific (lesser) quantities of in-organic or chemical fertiilzers (CFs) when the Nutrient Manager for Rice (NMR) is used must continue to be tested. Its use must also be encouraged with consistently better results.

· Our plans to obtain FPA registration to sell our Organic Fertilizer for use with rice will be abandoned. In our own rice farms, we will stop using OFs & we will try to disseminate these findings to other farmers. Meager funds available to poor but hard-working farmers should not be gambled on products that cannot deliver good & profitable results.

Comments & Recommendations:

1. Rice is a water-logged plant. Micro-organisms in OFs that produce fertilizing nutrients may be “drowning & dying” in the water. This is not far-fetched since some of these micro-organisms were gathered in soils that were not water-logged.

2. Use OFs in non-water logged plants only. As OFs are well-liked by vegetable, the same may be true for corn. Our preliminary tests show noticeable growth differences that indicate OFs treated plants were growing better. If OFs produce more favorable yields for corn & other plants, we should use them for these plants instead.

3. Tests to verify our findings must continue to be pursued & results must be published to guide marginalized farmers & help them achieve more profitable yields.

Noticeable un-even growth in preliminary tests on corn indicate that Organic Fertilizers are effective.

References:

1. The Long Road is an article printed in the October-December 2008 issue of Rice Today. Rice Today is published by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) – the world’s leading international rice research & training center.

The article describes painstaking research known as LTCCE (Long Term Continuous Cropping Experiment) began in 1963. It shows that in 45+ years of continuous research, modern & intensive farming (where chemical or in-organic fertilizers are used in 3 successive crops per year or 135+ crops to date), the continuous use chemical or in-organic fertilizers does not damage soils by making it acidic.

The LTCCE shows that continuous use of chemical or in-organic fertilizers is good. It is not harmful to soils as commonly suspected.

Read The Long Road at: http://beta.irri.org/news/index.php/200812305301/rice-today/science-shorts/the-long-road.html

2. Can Organic Agriculture Feed Asia? is also an article that appeared in the October-December 2008 issue of Rice Today.

The following statement appeared in the article: “Many commercially produced organic fertilizers that are widely promoted and even subsidized in rice-growing countries of Asia do not provide proven profitable yield gains.”

Read Can Organic Agriculture Feed Asia? at: http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Weak-Asian-oil-market-on-the-cards-12228-3-1.html

3. PhilRICE Long Term Organic Fertilizer Use in Paddy Soil Tests

These statements found in the articles published by PhilRICE at the Open Academy for Agriculture or www.openacademy.ph need to be understood carefully before using Organic Fertilizers:

From Use organic fertilizer to save on fertilizer costs at: http://www.openacademy.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1224&Itemid=276

“Because commercial organic fertilizer (COF) only contains one to three percent NPK, farmers would need to apply 7,966.6 kg COF or 159 bags COF to provide the required 238 kg N/ha, according to Javier’s computations.

“At P175/bag, farmers need to spend almost PhP28,000/ha to target a yield of 7 t/ha. In contrast, farmers only need at most 4 bags of urea for the wet season, spending only PhP4800.”

From Waste no more-- for a fertile and productive soil at: http://www.openacademy.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1230&Itemid=276

“It has always been a persistent question whether a farmer can go purely organic. Experts say it is possible, but it will take lots of organic fertilizer to provide the nutrients a rice plant needs.”

4. Farmers warned vs false claims on ‘biofertilizers’ appeared on The Philippine Daily Inquirer on March 12, 2010.

The report is based on studies performed by Michelle Castilo & Cezar Mamaril, PhilRICE Science Research Specialist & Senior Consulting Expert, respectively. They found that micro-bearing biofertilizers were falsely advertised after conducting tests in 10 provinces covering both wet & dry months.

Read Farmers warned vs false claims on ’biofertilzers’ at: http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20100311-258091

Test Protocol Details:

Field Layout:

Replication 1	T3	T1	T6	T5	T2	T4
Replication 2	T4	T2	T5	T3	T1	T6
Replication 3	T2	T4	T1	T6	T5	T3
Replication 4	T5	T3	T4	T1	T6	T2

Notes:

1. T1= Control; T2= RRCF; T3=½ RRCF; T4= ½ RRCF + RROF; T5= RROF; T6= RRCF + RROF

where RRCF= Recommended Rate of Chemical Fertilizer; RROF= Recommended Rate of Organic Fertilizer ; Control = No fertilization

2. Each plot will contain at least 500 seedlings spaced 25cm x 25cm.

3. Each treatment will be replicated 4 times.

4. Plots are arranged in randomized complete block design (RCBD).

5. Tests conducted (each was done twice):

Experimental Use Permit: EUP F-969 dated 28 Oct 2008 & Trial Extension approved 09 June 2009

Soil Tests: BSWM S-4316 on 3 Nov 2008 & S-1157 on 23 Apr 2009

Organic Fertilizer Tests: BSWM F-354 on 18 Sept 2008 & F-273 on 29 Apr 2009

6. The Nutrient Manager for Rice (NMR) is a decision tool that provides field-specific OF & CF fertilizer requirements. Based on variety, fertilization & yield history, soil & irrigation characteristics; seasons, etc., NMR provides a print out of OF & CF quantity needed & when it is needed.

A version is available on line at: http://beta.irri.org/index.php/nmrice. Try it!

RRCF: Due to significant differences between actual CF usage, BSWM recommendations & NMR (with NMR giving lowest rates of fertilization), RRCF for the tests was averaged between actual usage & BSWM recommendations.

RROF: 2 tons/hectare or 40 x 50 kg bags/hectare.

7. Our Organic Fertilizers were made with Broiler Chicken manure for the 1^st test & Layer Chicken Manure for the 2^nd test.

Chicken Manure: 60%; Carbonized Rice Hull or CRH: 30% Madre Cacao (Gliricidia Sepium) leaves 5%, Sunflower leaves: 5% plus BioQUICK & BioFIX from BIOTECH, UP Los Baños, Philippines & EM-1 from EM Research Phils. Inc.

8. Seedlings treated with Bio-N were planted on Rows 1 & 2 (Replications 1 & 2). Rows 3 & 4 received seedlings not treated with Bio-N.

9. Yields were determined by reaping 4 x 100 hills/plot & weighing them before & after manual threshing to determine weight of grains from 100 hills.

A rainbow on the horizon indicating “all will be well” if we use our precious resources wisely.

For questions & PDF copies of linked materials that cannot be accessed, please email: biofuelswork@gmail.com
or visit our Home Page at: www.biofuelswork.com

Originally posted: 02 September 2009 -- Updated: 04 September 2009 – Updated again on: 14 April 2010