Despite our dearest efforts to give as much aid as possible, 2,500 children die each day in Africa (“Water Crisis”). The assistance developed nations provide Africa has helped the continent a great deal; however, help may not last much longer. The continent must employ methods to boost agricultural yields in order to feed the population. Unfortunately, African farmers’ hard labor methods aren’t sufficient enough to distribute an adequate amount of food to nourish the whole population. No matter hard these farmers work, current crop yields will not placate the population’s stomachs unless farmers begin using plant-enhancing supplements. These supplements, notably fertilizers, shall soon become Africa’s saviors if used properly. A delicate mix of chemical fertilizers, organic fertilizers, and biofertilizers provides the best short-term solution to ensure that the starving African population survives. The synergy between the three will lower the risk of pollution while promoting fast-acting crop growth and soil recovery for Africa’s agricultural field.
Some people have formulated other solutions. One slightly misled author wrote an article in Nature about this subject. This article has brought attention to the fact that these African farmers need fast-acting solutions that will provide the benefits needed for their continent in the short-term. The author believes that because the African soil needs this short-term attention, the right choice lies in using mainly chemical fertilizers. He believes that, because the chemical fertilizers maximize plant productivity if used properly, farmers can save the situation by using them (Anonymous 2012). Unfortunately, this author is sadly mistaken; yes, the chemical fertilizers will provide a high amount of yield, but the damages to the environment and possibly to the crops themselves bring up a whole new depth to the situation. The author did consider those possibilities within his article, but in his attempt to persuade his readers, he left out vital tidbits of information that drastically affect whether the agriculture of Africa will be saved or destroyed.
So what exactly are chemical fertilizers, and what do they do? These concentrated, nutrient-filled crop-boosters contain a potent mix of phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium (“The 411”). The plant growth requires those three elements in varying levels. The soil in Africa lacks these key nutrients. The Nature article mentions that, “Intensive farming has seen the typical hectare of sub-Saharan farmland lose 22 kilograms of nitrogen, 2.5 kg of phosphorus and 15 kg of potassium annually over the past 30 years” (Anonymous 2012). The levels of the nutrients in the soil have definitely decreased in the past years, so of course, there must be some type of replenishment to get the crops growing again. Chemical fertilizers do have the ability to replenish this stricken soil, but at what cost? Many people are aware of the consequences of using chemical fertilizers; one of the most notable effects is the pollution of water sources. Not only would this become an issue if farmers use the chemical fertilizers, but many other lesser-known consequences would follow, such as the possibility of burning the plants and weakening them. Exposure to fertilizers could also make the plants more susceptible to disease, which may cause more long-term problems for farmers even if only a short-term application is used (Chen 2006).
The methods farmers use to grow rice demonstrate one prominent example of chemical fertilizers’ powerful pollution capabilities. Rice is a very large crop for most of the northern and western African countries and some of the southern and central ones. To maintain higher crop yields, farmers must add nitrogen to the surrounding water that the rice sits in. While growing, rice must remain submerged to allow that moist environment to remain, effectively allowing the nitrogen to mineralize underwater. However, because farmers add the nitrogen directly to the water, they waste a great amount of the fertilizers; this wastefulness soon turns into pollution. The excess nitrogen floats in the water, so the water must simply seep lower into the aquifers or travel downhill in order to pollute other water sources. Eutrophication, the growth of algae due to excess nitrogen in water, will then occur, which causes leads to many fish deaths (B Ghosh 1998). This disaster is only one of the many examples of pollution that can come about from the use of chemical fertilizers; if pollution can cause fish deaths, then it’s capable of much more.
In India, a study done on chemical fertilizer dependency found that chemical fertilizers have “undermined soil quality in terms of its physical, biological and chemical properties afflicting its ability to satisfy healthy plant growth and crop production” (N. Ghosh 2004). Though these chemicals can replenish the soil momentarily by refilling what it may have lost, the true results are actually fully detrimental to the health of the soil. As farmers apply more chemicals, they make the soil harder to work, ruin the environment that microorganisms live in, and deplete nutrients that already exist in the soil. No matter how appealing a high-yield fantasy sounds for Africa, chemical fertilizers can damage the agriculture much more than they can help. If the soil becomes unworkable, rather than just weak, then how can farmers grow more food in the future? If the water becomes undrinkable, then how can the inhabitants survive on their own?
Thankfully, a solution to all this madness exists. Chemical fertilizers alone won’t do the job. Perhaps, then, smaller amounts of this questionable substance can bring higher yields while keeping the amount of environmental damage to a minimum. A simple mixture of three main types of fertilizers provides the solution needed to feed Africa’s population in both the short-term and the long-term. An organic aspect is one of those ingredients. People who discuss matters such as this usually hold chemical fertilizers and organic fertilizers in opposition to each other, but the two could actually work together for a true benefit. A study done in Switzerland confirms that organic fertilizers require a relatively low amount of nutrient input and still have largely decent yields. In fact, when compared to conventional methods of farming (which the Africans have been relying on for quite some time), the nutrient inputs decreased by 34-51% while still keeping almost 100% yields for many crops (Maeder 2002). This signifies an amazing find, because it allows the farmers to put in much less work for near-equal yields if they rely on organic fertilizer alone. However, organic fertilizer is only one ingredient of the all-powerful, Africa-saving solution.
The chemical fertilizers are incorporated into the mix next. Chemical fertilizers alone would ruin the plants and deplete the organic matter within the soil, but a combination of organic and chemical fertilizers actually forms a complementary mixture (Chen 2006). The organic fertilizers strengthen the plants and prepare the soil with organic matter, and the chemical fertilizers provide the unnatural boost of nutrients that will cause the yields to skyrocket while still avoiding environmental damage. In a sense, the organic fertilizer generously prepares the soil for the chemical fertilizer and allows less input to create more yields.
Finally, the inclusion of biofertilizers completes the mix. Biofertilizers hold microorganisms that help to enrich the soil and to make the plants stronger (Chen 2006). By adding biofertilizers to the combination, the plants can grow much healthier, counteracting the negative effects of the chemical fertilizers. The microorganisms provide life within the soil and often on the plants; they can accomplish a variety of things from fixing nitrogen to making complex substances simpler for the plants to absorb.
These three vital ingredients create the ideal solution for the problem in Africa. The three cannot separately complete what the full mix can. The chemical fertilizers destroy the soil, the organic fertilizers work too slowly, and the biofertilizers just add organisms to the soil. On the other hand, when put together, the mix makes the best short-term solution for the preservation of Africa’s starving population clear. If this plan rockets into action, rather than the pure chemical fertilizer plan, then it can protect Africa for quite some time; extreme growth can blossom from that. The soil will rebuild and produce high yields in the short-term, and in the long-term, it will continue to grow healthier as the microorganisms do their work in making it rich. As a result, Africans will view agriculture as a notably easier matter, and they can continue to make other developments to push Africa toward the status of a developed country.
Works Cited
Anonymous. 2012. Food for thought. Nature [Internet]. [2012 Mar 29, cited 2012 Sept 17] 483(7391):510. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483510a.html
"The 411 on Chemical Fertilizer." Lawncare.net. N.p., Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.lawncare.net/the-411-on-chemical-fertilizer/>.
Maeder P. 2002. Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Farming. Science [Internet]. [2002, cited 2012 Sept 17] 296(5573):1694-1697. Available from: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/296/5573/1694.full
"Water Crisis." Missionaries of Africa. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://www.missionariesofafrica.org/challenges/water1.html>.
(MLA style was used for online sources that were not journals and that I could not use CSE style on.)
