POSTBag
I am writing to express my concern about the short-sightedness of some of the proponents of organic farming practices in Thailand. We see a fairly steady stream of articles (and sometimes letters) in this newspaper advocating a switch from chemical to organic fertilisers, primarily on the grounds of the lower costs.
As an agricultural scientist with more than 40 years of experience specialising in soils and fertilisers, I believe that the well-meaning advocates of organic farming may be taking Thailand down a dangerous path. It is a simple fact that to maintain crop yields at an economically viable level requires that the removal of nutrients in crop products be balanced by the input of nutrients, otherwise nutrient depletion occurs and sooner or later crop yields will decline. Organic fertilisers do not provide sufficient amounts of the required nutrients. In other words, organic farming systems are usually not sustainable. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
It is true that in some areas with naturally fertile soils or where fertilisers have been added over a period of years it is possible to cut back, or even stop further additions of chemical fertilisers for a while. But this situation can't continue for too long, otherwise crop yields will suffer as nutrients continue to be removed.
It is also true that organic wastes have some fertiliser value because of the nutrients they contain, but to depend on these sources in commercial farming operations is simply not feasible. To rely on the recycling of organic materials alone amounts to recycling poverty. However, it is in everyone's interest to make use of organic fertilisers to minimise the input of chemical fertilisers, which are becoming increasingly expensive.
No, organic farming is a "road to nowhere" in the longer term. Put simply, we can't feed the world, or Thailand for that matter, with organic farming. We should be aiming for integrated plant nutrient management, as advocated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In this way we can shoot for maximum economic yields of crops whilst minimising the cost of input and any negative impact on the environment.
It would be dangerous to let the preaching of often ill-informed advocates of organic farming and the greed of some businessmen, who are taking money from farmers under false pretences, deter us from making the best use of chemical and organic fertilisers in an integrated way. The pursuit of sustainability cares as much for the environment as it does for high output and the farmers' pocket.
KEITH SYERS
-----
Emphasis on climate hurts economy
Your InSight column of July 13, 2008 quotes Denmark's Minister of Climate and Energy stating that the country's energy policy consists of reducing CO2 emissions, promoting renewable energy sources, and pushing an international agenda for carbon trading between developed and developing countries.
Before one takes this minister of climate seriously, one should consider that the Danish economy under her government's care is in recession. A country that has created a cabinet level post for "climate" affairs has made brash assumptions about a relationship between human activity and climate that trivialises the real questions with respect to the global warming issue.
As for carbon trading, I find it to be a thinly disguised method of neo-colonialism. It will keep the rich countries rich and the poor countries poor by allowing developed countries to pay undeveloped countries to stay undeveloped.
CHA-AM JAMAL
-----
Environmentalism can bridge the gap
As a secular, objective observer, it is difficult to understand why there is so much purportedly religiously-based anger and conflict throughout the world.
The teachings of Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity would seem to have much in common. Buddhist and Islamic teaching seem to be scientifically-based and both are opposed to aggression, but justify self-defence, as do the other two religions. Islam, Judaism and Christianity all refer to Moses and Abraham and God as being the overall power. All four teachings speak of peace and tolerance. Buddhism is a state of mind accepting nature as predominant. Surely, the other three, believing that God created the Earth presuppose that God is manifested in the earth. Therefore, all four teachings should cause total respect for all that is on the Earth: this is environmentalism. This common interest is shared by all, whatever their faith or belief.
To not respect our precious environment is to oppose all four teachings. Is this not a basis for talking? Is this not the way forward for all? Is this common dependency not paramount, transcending all other matters, which pale into trivia by comparison. Were we all to adhere to the teachings of the Koran, Buddha, the Bible and the Torah, unity would follow and consideration for the environment would be paramount.
UNBIASED SECULARIST
-----
Soldiers' rights
The general who told the public to openly be defiant to the Samak administration should be fired from the army for insubordination. There is no such thing as freedom of speech when in the military, regardless of whether one wears the army uniform during the speech. If he disagrees with the government policy, the general should report it through the chain of command. Otherwise this could be a bad example, encouraging any soldier to air his or her grievances in public. How could the military maintain its order and discipline in such a situation?
AROON SUANSILPPONGSE
-----
Driving on faith
I agree with Ian Paul (Postbag, 12 July 2008) that this country needs its road users to exercise a lot more road sense. However, it is not within the psyche of most Thais to change their attitude to road use.
Buy a truck, have it blessed at the temple and everything is OK. Ride a motorcycle and make sure to wear a Buddha amulet or three and everything is OK. My local hospital has a yellow junction box, obviously to allow emergency vehicles to enter and exit. Beside that is a large zebra crossing. The lights go red and the vehicles enter the zebra crossing, and every vehicle fills the junction box, so if an ambulance exits the hospital it is stuck in the middle of the road.
SEAN DOLIER
Sakon Nakhon
-----
Write us:
136 Na Ranong Road, Klong Toey, Bangkok 10110, Thailand -fax:022403666 -email:postbag@bangkokpost.co.th
Please send your comments on Perspective articles to perspective@bangkokpost.co.th
Prev
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next
