The Price to Pay for Chemical Fertilizers in Sub-Saharan Africa

In some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, farmers use pepper fruits, ash, and lime to protect their grains from bothersome pests. Although Americans typically associate pesticides with an image of a bright orange bottle containing chemicals, natural ingredients characterize this Sub-Saharan African mixture. The people of Sub-Saharan Africa need to produce successful crops, as eighty percent of the region’s population depends on some form of agriculture to make a profit (Mkpado & Onuoha, 1). An article in the March 2011 issue of Nature argued that chemical fertilizers, also known as inorganic fertilizers, best improve agricultural production. Although this article discusses the short-term benefits of chemical fertilizers, low-input technologies, like the mixture of pepper fruits, ash, and lime, pose greater long-term advantages. Farmers should use low-input technologies rather than chemical fertilizers because low-input technologies cost less and preserve the health of soil, which is fundamental to Sub-Saharan Africa’s productivity.

The negative aspects of chemical fertilizers and the advantages of low-input technologies outweigh the possible benefits of chemical fertilizers. Unlike organic fertilizers, inorganic fertilizers release their nutrients into the soil quickly so that crops grow faster. However, chemical fertilizers decrease the soil’s quality because of their high concentrations of mineral salt. So although inorganic fertilizers cause crops to grow faster, they destroy soil and prevent future farming. Additionally, boosting crop yield functions only as a short-term benefit. Even people who support the use of chemical fertilizers, such as the writer of the Nature article, realize that this process can only work for a limited time until soil degrades completely: “Improved access to fertilizer, although essential at present, is not the best long-term solution. Research must continue to reduce reliance on chemicals and to make their use more efficient” (Nature). Low-input technologies, also known as green techniques, work to preserve what naturally exists in a community while chemical fertilizers do not (Mkpado & Onuoha, 1). In other words, green techniques use materials that already exist in a particular place to create appropriate and low-cost methods of farming.

Farmers in Fada N'Gourma, a city in Burkina Faso, applied
human excreta for six to ten months to their crops and
achieved great results as opposed to using chemical fertilizers.
Another example of inexpensive low-input technology
(Sustainable Sanitation).

This significant difference between low-input technologies and chemical fertilizers becomes even more important when we consider what products farmers can afford. Unlike inorganic fertilizers, which farmers have to import, green techniques come from a farmer’s community. News reporter Natasha Gilbert discussed the problem of imported chemical fertilizers’ cost: “Cost is one of the biggest problems. Because of transport expenses, farmers in inland Africa pay more than twice as much for fertilizer as farmers in Europe” (Gilbert, 1). In contrast to the expense of imported substances, farmers can use already existent shrubs and hedges to add nutrients to their land (El-Hai & Diab & Ahmed, 261). Also, mixing pepper fruits, ash, and lime native to the region creates a more inexpensive pest-control substance. These low-input technologies not only cost less, they don’t add any unwanted or unknown chemicals into the soil. In addition to the initial cost of fertilizers, we have to think about the added costs of inorganic fertilizers. These manufactured products have a cyclical effect, which begins with a farmer using chemical fertilizers to boost his crop yield for one season. Season after season, the farmer continues to use these fertilizers because of the increased crop yield. Although crop yield increases, soil quality deteriorates. To combat the soil’s ruin, a farmer can buy more fertilizers to quickly restore nutrients to the crops. Then, the farmer can return to using the original chemical fertilizers until he needs to replenish his soil’s nutrients with additional, expensive fertilizer. The following quotation describes the second half of this phenomenon, the use of nutrient replenishing fertilizer: “Use of mineral fertilizers is usually recommended to replenish the nutrient depletion. Limitation on its use is the high cost of imported fertilizers and supply shortage in local markets” (El-Hai & Diab & Ahmed, 261). Farmers begin the cycle of buying costly chemical fertilizers, and this cycle continues because inorganic fertilizers destroy soil’s nutrients. The high cost of fertilizers should deter farmers from using these expensive imports and instead steer them toward using the less costly low-input technologies.

Another example of low-input technology’s use in sub-Saharan Africa. In this photograph, a farmer in Malawi stands near his crops after using an intense process of rotating and intercropping. Of these new methods, the farmer said, “People should not burn residues, because there is life. I’ve also seen that, in heavy storms, maize plants in conservation agriculture plots are less likely to lodge. I promise you, I will not stop using conservation agriculture” (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center).

Cracked dirt in Mauritania. This arid soil has caused
extreme food shortages. Clearly, the future of Sub-Saharan Africa
depends on the health of its soil (Oxfam International).

Farmers should use less costly low-input technologies because they also preserve the quality of soil, which is necessary for the long-term success of Sub-Saharan Africa’s productivity. Productivity in this region relies on the success of agriculture, as agricultural development can lead to the development of many other industries: “Through agricultural development and raising income and the purchasing power of those people, increased demand on output of non-agricultural sectors will be created. Therefore, it can be said that agricultural development is the core of development of other sectors in most of African countries” (El-Hai & Diab & Ahmed, 260). Some experts have even argued that soil quality determines a country’s economic independence in the long run, saying, “Increasingly, infertile soil is the key constraint to greater crop production and food self-sufficiency in Sub-Saharan Africa” (Vlek, 328). Since Sub-Saharan Africa’s economic independence depends on long-term agricultural success, farmers need to think about the consequences of using chemical fertilizers that destroy soil. Ceaser Mkandawire, author of "Assessing Utilization of Low-Input Agricultural Technologies,” argues that as people have become more concerned with the world’s limited resources and as researchers have realized how a disintegrating environment limits Africa’s agricultural success, maintaining healthy land has become fundamental to farmers. Mkandawire’s argument underscores how farmers should be more concerned with the overall health of their land rather than just the annual crop yield boosted by chemical fertilizers. Mkandawire uses quantitative evidence from studies that indicate how the ruin of soil reduces the “productivity of land about 1 percent a year” (Mkandawire, 58). Mkandawire also cites an interview with an agricultural expert from the Malawi Organic Growers Association, who notes that organic farming techniques have rejuvenated ruined soil while also allowing farmers to receive more secure income because of their diversified crops (Mkandawire, 62-64). For instance, “ashing cattle manure,” a low-input technology used in Zambia, improves the pH and moisture-holding abilities of soil by spreading cattle manure over crops (Mkpado & Onuoha, 1). Mkandawire’s claim repudiates the idea that expediency of crop yield is more important than chemical fertilizers’ unhealthy effects on soil.

To allow Sub-Saharan African farming to flourish, farmers need to recognize how much healthier and less costly low-input technologies are than chemical fertilizers. People argue that these inorganic products can boost crop growth in the short term, but ultimately, soil health has become so important to the success of long-term agriculture that farmers should dispose of chemical fertilizers. Additionally, the use of low-input technologies illustrates another benefit attractive to African farmers: these technologies are native. Meaning, they belong to specific farmers and communities; they aren’t imported. As Egbezor Uchendu argues in his book, Beyond the Primary Commodity Trap: Essays on Politics and Poverty in Africa, breaking the cycle of poverty is important, but breaking that cycle actually means something when Africans do it themselves (Uchendu, 99-103). When Africans can rely on themselves to find the answers to their own pressing issues. Re-evaluating the use of low-input technologies rather than farming with chemical fertilizers imported from all over the world could thus usher in an era of thriving agricultural productivity and independence in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Works Cited

“African agriculture: Dirt poor.” Nature 483.7391 (2012): n. pag. Nature. 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. < http://www.nature.com/news/african-agriculture-dirt-poor-1.10311>.

Beth. 2009. Graphic. Flicker. 1 Oct 2012.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/flahertyb/3874710086/>.

El-Hai, Mahmoud, Diab, Abdel-Kader, and Ahmed, Sayed. "Prospective of Agricultural Development in Africa." Growth and Development in Africa. Ed. Diery Seck and Ed. Dipo Busari. Trenton: Africa World Press, Inc, 2009. 235-282. Print.

"Food for Thought." Nature 483.7391 (2012): n. pag. Nature. 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 4 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html>.

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. 2006. Photograph. Flicker. 1 Oct 2012. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/cimmyt/7337558700/>.

Mkandawire, Ceasar H. "Assessing Utilization of Low-Input Agricultural Technologies (LIATs) In Malawi: Adoption And Challenges For the Malawian Subsistence Farmers." Low-Input Agricultural Technologies for Sub-Saharan Africa. Vol. 4. Berlin: Frankfurt, M, 2011. 57-70. Print.

Mkpado, M, and R Onuoha. "Refined Indigenous Knowledge as Sources of Low Input Agricultural Technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa Rural Communities: Nigerian Experience." International Journal of Rural Studies (IJRS). 15.2 (2008): 1-11. Web. 1 Oct. 2012. <http://www.vri-online.org.uk/ijrs/Oct2008/Low-input agricultural technologies in sub-saharan Africa.pdf>.

Oxfam International. 2012. Photograph. Flickr. 1 Oct 2012.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/oxfam/6909399053/>.

Sustainable Sanitation. 2007. Photograph. Flickr. 1 Oct 2012.
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/5011408507/>.

Uchendu, Egbezor. Beyond the Primary Commodity Trap: Essays on Politics and Poverty in Africa. 1st ed. London: Adonis & Abbey, 2009. Print.


Vlek, PLG. "The Role of Fertilizers in Sustaining Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa." Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 26.1-3 (1990): 327-39. SpringerLink. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/j116371447874177/>.