Research and Advocacy don’t mix

By Sosimo Ma. Pablico

In the scientific tradition, a researcher is expected to exclude his biases from his studies.  However, some researchers seem to use their studies to find support for their own biases.  For instance, there is this researcher who advocates the use of farm wastes instead of commercial organic fertilizers to minimize external inputs.  There’s nothing wrong about advocating the use of farm wastes as nutrient sources for crops as long as research is not used to prove that these are as good, if not better than high quality organic fertilizers.

For instance, our attention was caught by the  research abstract of an-going study on the long term effects of organic fertilizers in irrigated lowland different organic materials available at the farm level (raw chicken manure, rice straw, wild sunflower) were compared with a commercial organic fertilizer mixed with inorganic fertilizer (half of 120-40-40 kg/ha). 

The findings showed that the yield of plants (7.2 t/ha) applied with 0.5 t/ha of commercial organic fertilizer plus half of the inorganic fertilizer rate was much lower than those applied with 3 t/ha raw chicken manure (8.2 t/ha), 10 t/ha rice straw (7.9 t/ha), and 10 t/ha rice straw + inoculant (8.0 t/ha).  In fact, the yields of plants applied with commercial organic fertilizer and those with 3 t/ha wild sunflower were similar.

It would be extremely absurd if, in combination with half the recommended inorganic fertilizer rate, the raw chicken manure would produce a much higher yield than processed pure chicken manure.  This is because both are pure chicken manure. The only difference is that raw chicken manure is not ready for use by the rice plants; it has to undergo decomposition first.  In contrast, high quality processed chicken manure is already ready for use by the plants.  So I sent a text message to the head researcher asking about the base material of the commercial organic fertilizer used in the study.

The answer was that the base material is not known as the bag did not indicate it , but the NPK content is 1 – 3 percent.  Wow, you can really expect a low yield under conditions of unknown base material and low NPK content.  One can even guess that the chicken manure content is almost nil.  So I suggested that a commercial organic fertilizer with known base material of 100 percent chicken manure like Durabloom may as well be used in the study.  I even said further that the bio-organic fertilizer could be provided free for the trial.

The answer I got was: The trial does not promote commercial organic fertilizer, but to compare its effects with the many farm wastes that farmers can use as soil organic supplement. “While your offer is free for the trial, is it also free to farmers?  Farm wastes are free.”  No question about it, a farmer has everything to gain from recycled farm wastes like rice straw.  However, 10 tons of rice straw could not be produced per hectare.  One can produce an average of only 5 t/ha, according to PhilRice trainor Rolly San Gabriel who is also a farmer.  If all farmers recycle their rice straw, where do they get the remaining 5 t/ha?

At the very outset, the study looks highly biased.  It appears that the researcher is using low quality commercial organic fertilizer, which now abounds in the market, so that the data would show that farm wastes, including raw chicken manure, are a lot better.  Of course, that would depend on the commercial organic fertilizer one is talking of. Unlike the material used this study, Durabloom contains at least 2 percent nitrogen, 3 percent phosphorus and 2 percent potash.

I can not speak well of other commercial organic fertilizers with dubious quality like a certain brand that was dumped in Laguna but farmers would not use it. In Tabacao, Talavera, about 1,200 bags of “organic fertilizer” provided for free to farmers last year are rotting because the farmers don’t want to use it.  In other places, the smell of the organic fertilizer given free by the government to farmers who planted hybrid rice was so obnoxious. I am informed that one manufacturer adds rice hull ash (a cementing agent) to his base material.

Back to the long term study, the abstract stated that it has two objectives: to determine the effects of continuous use of different organic materials alone or in combination with the full or half rates of inorganic fertilizer on rice yield, and assess the effects of long term use of organic materials on soil physic-chemical properties and microbial population.  A researcher immersed in the ethics of scientific inquiry would not exclude any possible variable that would give a better light on the findings. 

In this particular long term study, Durabloom appears not qualified to be included among the materials for testing even if it is clear that it’s base material is pure chicken manure that went through microbial, enzymatic and thermal processing for at least one month.  As the researcher insinuated, it is because Durabloom is not free to farmers. However, the organic fertilizer used in the study is also not free.

It is possible that the researcher does not want to use Durabloom instead of the cheap commercial organic fertilizer because the results would be totally different.  One has no right to conduct research if the intent is advocacy because research and advocacy do not mix.  If one advocates something, he already has preconceived notions about its advantages over others.  Instead of being a researcher, be an extension worker or put up your own NGO [non-government organization] if you advocate something.

(Readers may reach columnist at spablico@yahoo.com. For past columns, click http://sundaypunch.prepys.com/archives/category/opinion/harvest-time/ For reactions to this column, click “Send MESSAGES, OPINIONS, COMMENTS” on default page.)

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments