1

Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food Production

Final Report CF # 3/08

This study was carried out with the support of the

National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme

By

M. Jahiruddin, Principal InvestigatorM. R. Islam, Co-Investigator

M. A. Momen Miah, Co-Investigator

Department of Soil ScienceBangladesh Agricultural University

May 2010

2

This study was financed under the Research Grants Scheme (RGS) of the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme (NFPCSP). The purpose of the RGS was to assist in improving research and dialogue within civil society so as to inform and enrich the implementation of the National Food Policy. The NFPCSP is being implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), Ministry of Food and Disaster Management with the financial support of EU and USAID.

The designation and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO nor of the NFPCSP, Government of Bangladesh, EU or USAID and reflects the sole opinions and views of the authors who are fully responsible for the contents, findings and recommendations of this report.

May 2010

i

Constraints of Farmers’ Access to Fertilizer for Food Production

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fertilizer is a major input for crop production. Fertilizers that are most commonly used by

the farmers of Bangladesh are urea, TSP and MoP, of which urea alone shares 70-75% of

the total fertilizer use. Fertilizer use in this country has increased over time due to

expansion of irrigation facilities and depletion of soil fertility induced by higher cropping

intensity and cultivation of high yielding crop varieties.

In 2008, a fertilizer crisis had arisen in the country. The farmers could not buy urea fertilizers

in required amounts in time because of insufficient availability. They were unable to buy

non-urea fertilizers like TSP and MoP in needed amount because of the high price. Further

the farmers were not getting expected benefits from the use of mixed and non-urea fertilizers

due to adulteration. Considering these issues, the present study was undertaken in November

2008 for one year with the following objectives: (i) to identify the constraints of farmers’

access to fertilizer, (ii) to evaluate fertilizer marketing systems, and (iii) to suggest

modification of existing fertilizer policies to mitigate the constraints.

Suitable approaches and tools were followed to achieve the objectives of the study. The

approaches included consultation of relevant documents and reports, key informants’

interview (KII), and a household survey. The Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) who is

the key person for fertilizer issues at the upazila level and who deals with the projection of

fertilizer demand, its distribution to the dealers and monitoring of sale was interviewed.

The interviews (KII) were conducted in 11 upazilas across the country: Phulpur

(Mymensingh), Kalihati (Tangail), Gabtali (Bogra), Ulipur (Kurigram), Kaharol

(Dinajpur), Naogaon Sadar, Paba (Rajshahi), Doulatpur (Kushtia), Faridpur Sadar,

Chandina (Comilla) and Bahobol (Habiganj).

A household survey of individual farmers and interviews were carried out in three villages

under three upazilas: Panihari (Phulpur upazila), Chak-Sekendar (Gabtali upazila) and

Harang (Chandina upazila). A total of 75 farmers consisting of 25 in the marginal category

(owning <0.5 ha land), 25 in small category (0.5-1.0 ha land) and 25 medium category

(1.0-2.5 ha land) farmers in the three villages. A structured questionnaire was followed for

ii

the survey. Data of fertilizer use and farmers’ characteristics, along with farmers’ response

to the constraints of accessibility to fertilizers were collected.

The fertilizer demand in Bangladesh is met by domestic production and import. For urea, a

significant portion of the demand is met from local production and for non-urea fertilizers,

a significant demand is met by import (about 90% import for TSP, 100% for MoP and

about 50% for DAP) which is largely done by the private sector and a small portion by

BADC.

In Bangladesh at present there are six urea producing factories, one TSP and one for DAP all

which are under the control of Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation (BCIC). The six

urea factories have the maximum annual production capacity of 23.2 lakh tons, but the

capacity has come down to 12.8 lakh tons production in 2008-09. The rest amount of urea

demand is met by import from KAFCO (privately run in Bangladesh) and other countries

such as KSA, Kuwait and China.

Regarding fertilizer prices, urea is being sold at Tk.12/kg, with effect from June 2008.

Price of non-urea fertilizers was quite high in 2008: TSP 80/kg, MoP Tk. 75/kg and DAP

Tk. 85/kg. The new Government has revised its price, now the rate (as of November 2009)

is Tk. 22/kg TSP, Tk. 25/kg MoP and Tk. 30/kg DAP. These prices are noted to be

affordable to the farmers.

Projection of fertilizer demand is an important aspect for fertilizer availability to the

farmers. The Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) estimates the fertilizer demand, primarily

based on previous year allocation and not based on soil fertility level. A fertilizer demand

projection model has been developed under this study, based on soil fertility status of an

area. It is simple and useful model, which can be efficiently used as a tool for assessing

fertilizer requirement of different crops at different scales (plot, farm, upazila, district and

national scales).

Distribution channels for both urea and non-urea fertilizers are similar. The same BCIC

dealers lift out the urea fertilizer from the factory gate and buffer godowns, and TSP

fertilizer from factory gate and importers’ warehouse. The BADC dealers collect non-urea

fertilizers from BADC godown only. The farmers can buy fertilizers both from dealers

(union level) and retailers (ward/village level).

iii

The quality of non-urea fertilizers is often below standard, with more than 80%

adulteration for mixed fertilizers (NPKS), above 50% adulteration for privately imported

SSP and TSP, and 25-30% adulteration for MoP and DAP. Adulteration might occur at the

storage and distribution places. This is an alarming situation. Quality of locally produced

fertilizers is quite good.

In 2008, the main constraint of farmers’ access to urea fertilizer was the inadequate

availability of fertilizer for introducing the controlled sale system where urea was sold in

4-5 days a week in presence of a Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officer (SAAO). For non-urea

fertilizers like TSP, MoP and DAP, the main constraint was found to be high price.

However, the situation has much improved and those two constraints are no longer valid.

The new Government has withdrawn the controlled sale system and revised the non-urea

fertilizer price twice, with 50% reduction each time. Farmers have no complaints about

the present sale system of urea (no card/slip, dealers’ shop open 7 days a week). Now the

farmers can buy urea in required amount for use in their crops.

From the fertilizer use data, it appeared that farmers were using fertilizers less than the

requirement. There were negligible differences for urea, considerable difference for TSP

and remarkable difference for MoP, even in 2009 when price of non-urea fertilizer was

substantially reduced. This created unbalanced use of fertilizers which produces negative

impact on soil fertility and crop yield. The principal reason for lower use of TSP and MoP

fertilizers was determined to be the lack of adequate knowledge and motivation about the

benefits of non-fertilizers on soils and crops.

Fertilizer use was found to be significantly correlated with farm size (r = 0.844 for urea, r

= 0.524 for TSP and r = 0.665 for MoP) and annual income (r = 0.684, 0.477 and 0.596,

respectively). So, the marginal farmers use lesser amount of fertilizers than the small

farmers, and the small farmers use lesser amounts than the medium farmers. Other

characteristics such as age, education, family size, farming experience, training

experience, communication exposure and use of organic fertilizers by farmers did not

show significant relationship with their chemical fertilizer use.

Farmers are interested in using urea super granule (USG) in rice cultivation since it

reduces urea use by 25-30% and increases yield by 20-25%. The lack of adequate

availability of USG in the market is a major constraint. Promotion of USG technology

would save urea fertilizer demand to a considerable extent.

iv

Overall, the study indicates that inadequate availability of urea fertilizers and the high

price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) were the major constraints for fertilizer access

and use in 2008. These constraints have been largely removed in 2009 with the change of

fertilizer sale and price policies by the new Government. Now, the major issues are related

to fertilizer (non-urea) adulteration, unbalanced fertilizer use and fertilizer use at lower

rates by the marginal and small farmers.

Recommendations

Fertilizer supply and distribution

The present policy of urea production, import and distribution under the

Government control should be continued.

In the case of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, DAP and MoP), the on-going policy of

private sector import mainly distributed by the Government control can be

continued. Strong monitoring is needed at storage and distribution points to check

adulteration of the fertilizers.

Fertilizer estimation template

The fertilizer template developed in this study can be considered for use by the

Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) for fertilizer demand estimation. This template

can also be used from micro to macro levels i.e. from farm to country levels.

Fertilizer prices and sale system

Present price of urea (Tk. 12/kg) and that of non-urea (TSP Tk. 22/kg, MoP Tk.

25/kg and DAP Tk. 30/kg) are affordable to the farmers.

The present system of urea sale (no slip or card system, dealer shop open all days)

is quite good for the farmers to purchase and use in required amount of urea for

their crops.

Fertilizer use by farmers

Policy support is needed to increase the ability of marginal and small farmers to

buy fertilizers.

Training, field demonstration and motivational work need to be strengthened so

that the farmers can use balanced fertilization.

v

CONTENTS

PAGEEXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. OBJECTIVES 4

III. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Consultation of documents and reports 4

3.2 Key Informants’ Interview 4

3.3 Household survey 5

3.4 Data analysis 5

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Fertilizer supply and prices 6

4.1.1 Fertilizer production and import 6

4.1.2 Fertilizer supply versus requirement 7

4.1.3 Fertilizer estimation template 9

4.1.4 Fertilizer pricing 10

4.2 Fertilizer distribution/marketing systems 12

4.2.1 Urea fertilizer distribution/marketing system 12

4.2.2 Non-urea fertilizers distribution system 15

4.2.3 Adulteration 15

4.3 Fertilizer use 16

4.3.1 Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers 18

4.3.2 Relationship between farmers fertilizer use and their characteristics 20

4.3.3 Fertilizer use gap 21

4.3.4 Unbalanced use of fertilizers 23

4.3.5 Issues related to excess urea use 26

4.3.6 USG technology for reduction of urea use 26 4.4 Stakeholders’ perception on constraints of farmers’ access to fertilizers 28

4.4.1 Access to urea fertilizer 30

4.4.2 Access to non-urea fertilizers 32 V. KEY FINDINGS 33

VI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

VII. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 35

VIII. CONCLUSIONS 35

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS 36REFERENCES 37ANNEXURES 38

vi

LIST OF TABLES

No. CAPTION PAGE

1. Amount of production and import of urea, TSP and MoP (‘000 t) 8

2. Projection of requirement, production, import and prices of fertilizers during 2008-09

8

3. Month-wise requirement and supply of urea fertilizer in 2007-08 in Paba Upazilla

9

4. Fertilizer price in the local and international markets 11

5A. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. Aman/T. Aus rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

19

5B. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

20

6. Correlation between farmers’ fertilizers use and theircharacteristics (n=75)

21

7A. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

22

7B. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

23

8A. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

24

8B. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

24

9. N-P-K balance during the years 1989-90 to 2008-09 27

10. Effect of USG application on the yield of wetland rice 28

11. Constraints of farmers’ access to urea fertilizer 29

12. Constraints of farmers’ access to non-urea fertilizers 31

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

No. CAPTION PAGE

1. Organic matter, phosphorus, potassium and zinc status of Bangladesh soils

2

2. Fertilizer consumption during 1980-2008 (average of 5 years) 3

3. Changes in fertilizer price from 1991 to 2009 11

4. Distribution and marketing flowchart for urea fertilizer 13

5. Distribution and marketing flowchart for non-urea fertilizers

(TSP, MoP and DAP)

14

6. Adulteration of different fertilizers 16

7. Trends of fertilizer use (t yr-1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09 17

8. Trends of fertilizer use (kg ha-1 yr-1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09 17

LIST OF ANNEXURES

No. CAPTION PAGE

1. Study sites (upazila): Phulpur, Kalihati, Gabtali, Kaharol,

Naogaon sadar, Paba, Chandina, Faridpur sadar, Bahobol,

Doulatpur and Ulipur

38

2. Production capacity of different fertilizer plants 39

3. Template for calculation of fertilizer requirement 40

4. Upazila Fertilizer Monitoring Committee 41

5. Consumption (MT) of different fertilizers in Bangladesh during

the last 40 years

42

6. Salient features of the farmers’ characteristics in the studied

areas (n = 75)

43

7 Total N+P+K input and output in Bangladesh 44

8. N+P+K Balance (kg ha-1) in different AEZs of Bangladesh 44

viii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AEO

AEZ

BARC

BAU

BCIC

Agriculture Extension Officer

Agro-ecological Zone

Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council

Bangladesh Agricultural University

Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation

DAE

DAP

FAO

FCO

FPMU

KAFCO

MoA

MoI

MoP

MMIS

NAP

NAEP

NFNP

NFPCSP

OM

SAAO

SRDI

TRT

TSP

TAT

UAO

UFO

ULO

USG

UNO

Department of Agricultural Extension

Diammonium phosphate

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Fertilizer Control Order

Food Planning and Monitoring Unit

Karnaphuli Fertilizer Co. Ltd.

Ministry of Agriculture

Ministry of Industries

Muriate of potash

Market Monitoring Information Systems

National Agriculture Policy

New Agricultural Extension Policy

National Food and Nutrition Policy

National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme

Organic matter

Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officer

Soil Resource Development Institute

Thematic Research Team

Triple super phosphate

Technical Assistance Team

Upazila Agriculture Officer

Upazila Fisheries Officer

Upazila Livestock Officer

Urea Super Granule

Upazila Nirbahi Officer

CONSTRAINTS OF FARMERS’ ACCESS TO FERTILIZER FOR FOOD PRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Over the last 2-3 decades, enormous pressure has been exerted on the land resources of

Bangladesh to increase food production for its vast population. Intensification of

agricultural land use has increased remarkably coupled with the use of modern crop

varieties. This has resulted in deterioration of soil fertility and depletion of organic matter

(Fig. 1). Thus, use of chemical fertilizers and addition of organic manure are important for

restoration of soil nutrient base and for sustenance of crop productivity.

The total land area of Bangladesh is estimated to be about 14.84 million hectares (ha) of

which 8.29 million ha are used for agriculture. Physiographically, the country comprises

three types of lands: floodplains (80%), terraces (8%) and hills (12%). Crop cultivation is

intense in floodplain areas. The country has 30 agro-ecological zones (AEZ) based on land

form, land types, soil characteristics, and climate. The major crops include rice, wheat,

jute, cotton, sugarcane, vegetables, oilseeds, pulses, tuber crops, tobacco and tea.

However, rice alone covers about 75% of arable land and the cropping pattern is mainly

rice based, with on an average 179% cropping intensity.

Fertilizer, next to seed, is an essential input to production. Fertilizer use (ammonium

sulphate) in this country was introduced in early 1950s when nitrogen deficiency was first

identified. Since then as time advanced, new nutrient deficiencies have appeared.

Eventually the farmers started to use other fertilizes such as TSP, MoP, and gypsum.

Micronutrient fertilizer such as zinc sulphate were introduced in early 1980s and boric

acid in early 1990s when zinc deficiency in rice and boron deficiency in wheat were

identified.

Fertilizer use in this country has increased over time (Fig. 2), primarily due to increasing

cropping intensity accompanied with cultivation of high yielding varieties and expansion

of irrigation facilities. Fertilizer consumption is the highest for rice cropping. Fertilizer use

can contribute to 50% crop production (Pradhan, 1992). Therefore, it is imperative to

2

Fig. 1 Organic matter, phosphorus, potassium and zinc status of Bangladesh soils

3

Fig. 2 Fertilizer consumption during 1980-2008 (average of 5 years)

provide adequate and timely supply of fertilizers to the farmers so that farmers have good

access to fertilizers to ensure higher and sustainable food production.

Farmers’ access to fertilizers may be constrained due to lower availability of fertilizers and

lower ability of farmers to buy fertilizers. Fertilizer availability is affected by lack of proper

management which is related to demand, supply, marketing/ distribution, and sales system.

Low accessibility to fertilizers would lead to low use of fertilizers and in turn would impact

lower crop production. Crop production may also be hampered due to farmers’ low access to

quality fertilizers. Unbalanced use of fertilizers might be another factor of fertilizer

management issue.

In 2008, there were serious complaints from the farmers that they were unable to buy urea

fertilizer in required amount and further they had to wait for many hours to buy this fertilizer.

During that time urea was sold through a card/slip system i.e. controlled system in a limited

period of time. The fertilizer crisis in the country is predominantly noted with urea and the

crisis often arises in the peak seasons, February-March for Boro rice, August-September for

transplant Aman rice and November-December for rabi crops (wheat, maize, pulses and

vegetables).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Fer

tili

zer

('o

oo

t)

1980

-85

1985

-90

1990

-95

1995

-00

2000

-05

2005

-08

Year

Others

MoP

TSP

Urea

4

For non-urea fertilizes such as triple superphosphate (TSP) and muriate of potash (MoP) the

farmers, especially the marginal and small categories, had sufficiently low access to the

fertilizers because of high fertilizer price on one hand and lack of adequate motivation on the

other hand. There are more than six million marginal and small farm households in this

country who do not produce enough food grains that they require over the year. The situation

gets worsen when crop production suffers from inadequate use of inputs.

Considering the above points in view, the present study was undertaken in November 2008

for one year to investigate the constraints of fertilizer access and use at farm level.

II. OBJECTIVES

The study aimed at achieving three objectives, as follows:

i. To identify the constraints of farmers’ access to fertilizer

ii. To evaluate the fertilizer marketing system

iii. To suggest modifications of existing fertilizer policies to mitigate the constraints

III. METHODOLOGY

Suitable approaches and tools were followed to achieve the objectives of the study. Data

were collected in three ways: (i) consultation of relevant documents and reports, (ii) key

informants’ interview (KII), and (iii) household survey. They are briefly described below.

3.1 Consultation of documents and reports

Some policy documents viz. National Agriculture Policy (NAP), Fertilizer Control Order

(FCO), National Food and Nutrition Policy (NFNP), National Food Policy (NFP) and New

Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) were consulted. Various reports and publications

that related to fertilizer use and management were studied (Karim, 2009; Shah et al., 2008;

Kafiluddin and Islam, 2008; Mandal, 2008 and BARC, 2000). These reports and

publications have provided some background information.

3.2 Key Informants’ Interview

The Key Informants’ Interview (KII) was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire

and persons interviewed were from the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE):

Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO), Agriculture Extension Officer (AEO) and Sub-

Assistant Agriculture Officer (SAAO). This interview was accomplished in 11 upazilas

5

across the country: Phulpur (Mymensingh), Kalihati (Tangail), Gabtali (Bogra), Ulipur

(Kurigram), Kaharol (Dinajpur), Naogaon Sadar, Paba (Rajshahi), Doulatpur (Kushtia),

Faridpur Sadar, Chandina (Comilla) and Bahobol (Habiganj) (Annex. 1).

3.3 Household survey

Household survey was conducted in three upazilas: Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina. It was

performed through Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and individual farmer interviews. The

Individual Farmer Interview was conducted in three selected villages under three upazilas:

Panihari (Phulpur upazila), Chak-Sekendar (Bogra upazila) and Harang (Chandina

upazila). The household survey was carried out once in February-March, 2009 in the three

villages and once in November, 2009 in Panihari village of Phulpur upazila with the same

farmers. Agriculture was the main occupation and rice cultivation was very intense in

these study areas.

The household survey included the farmers who were directly involved in rice production

activities. A total of 75 farmers consisting of 25 marginal category (<0.5 ha land), 25

small category (0.5-1.0 ha land) and 25 medium category (1.0-2.5 ha land) farmers over

the three villages and upazilas were included in the interview. A structured questionnaire

was used for this survey. Simple and direct questions, and some scales whenever needed,

were used in the interview schedule. Data of fertilizer use and farmers’ characteristics,

along with farmers’ response to the constraints of accessibility to fertilizers were collected.

Characteristics of farmers such as age, education, farm size, family size, farming

experience, annual income, training experience, communication exposure, and use of

organic fertilizers by the farmers were collected.

3.4 Data analysis

After completion of the household survey, the data were compiled, tabulated and analyzed.

Qualitative data were converted to quantitative data by means of suitable scoring wherever

required. Correlation analysis was performed for exploring relationship of farmers’

fertilizer use with their characteristics.

6

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Fertilizer supply and prices

4.1.1 Fertilizer production and import

Fertilizer demand in Bangladesh is met from both local production and import. It is noted that

the local production of fertilizers is decreasing and the import of fertilizers is increasing to

meet the increasing demand of fertilizers (Table 1). The most commonly used fertilizers in

this country are urea, TSP and MoP, of which urea alone covers 70-75% of the total fertilizer

use.

In Bangladesh, there are six urea factories having the maximum annual production capacity

of 23.2 lakh tons urea and 12 thousand tons ammonium sulphate (Annex. 2). Ammonium

sulphate is especially used in tea cultivation since this fertilizer produces acidity in soil which

is favourable for tea growing. The production capacity of urea factories has declined, with a

record of 12.8 lakh tons (56% of the maximum capacity) production in 2008-09 (Table 1);

the rest amount (about 44%) of urea is imported from KAFCO (Karnaphuli Fertilizer Co.

Ltd., Chittagong) and other countries such as KSA, Kuwait and China. KAFCO is run

privately in Bangladesh.

Of the six urea factories, four factories such as Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory (Fenchuganj),

Polash Urea Fertilizer Factory (Polash), Urea Fertilizer Factory (Ghorashal) and Zia

Fertilizer Co. (Ashuganj) are running at risk and producing urea much below their

capacities (Khaleque, 2009). The other two factories (relatively new) are not operating at

all times due to shortage of gas supply. This situation merits consideration while

projecting urea fertilizer production for the next year(s).

The country has one TSP factory, with the capacity of annual production of 1 lakh ton TSP,

1.2 lakh tons SSP and 60 thousand tons gypsum. There is one DAP factory which has a

capacity of producing 800 tons DAP/day (Annex. 2). Domestic production of TSP is not at

all adequate to meet the demand of the country. Additional requirements of TSP (about 90%)

and DAP (about 50%) and full MoP (100%) are imported, mainly from USA, Tunisia,

Australia, Jordan, Morocco and China.

All the fertilizer factories in Bangladesh (except KAFCO) are controlled by the

Bangladesh Chemical Industries Corporation (BCIC), under the Ministry of Industries

(MoI). For urea fertilizer, both production and import are controlled by the Government

7

(BCIC) and for non-urea fertilizers i.e. TSP, MoP and DAP import is accomplished by the

private sector and BADC. During 2008-09, private sector imported 150 thousand tons TSP

and 145 thousand tons MoP, and the BADC imported 75 thousand tons TSP and 77

thousand tons MoP (Table 1).

4.1.2 Fertilizer supply versus requirement

The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), in consultation with the Department of Agricultural

Extension (DAE) made its recommendation on the annual requirement of fertilizers

through a field survey. The MoA makes a total exercise of production, import, and price

fixation, as shown in Table 2. When this projection is compared with supply (production +

import) at national scale (Table 1), it shows a gap, with the supply being lower than the

projected requirement (Table 2). But a different situation was observed at upazila level.

For example, in Paba upazila (Rajshahi district) in 2007-08 the annual requirement for

urea was 11600 tons and against it the supply was 8057 tons (Table 3). However, this

lesser amount of supply has not affected the farmers’ accessibility to fertilizers as

expressed by the UAO. It is learnt that the UAO generally places requirement on an

amount higher than the actual requirement as because their experience shows that

allocation/supply is given in amounts less than the demand. Projection of fertilizer requirement is an important aspect of its availability to the farmers.

The Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) estimates fertilizer demand for an upazila based

on a survey of cultivable land and crops, ignoring soil fertility level. Every year cropping

intensity as well as use of modern varieties (HYVs and hybrids) is increasing in one hand

and soil fertility is decreasing on the other, which demands more fertilizer requirement.

The cropping intensity (CI) at present is about 179%. High and medium high lands

constitute about 65% of the total arable land where cropping intensity has exceeded 200%.

Nevertheless, every day about 220 ha arable land is going out of cultivation for other

purposes (Karim, 2009). So, these factors need to be taken into account while calculating

fertilizer demand.

Distribution of fertilizer requirement and allocation over the months of a year is also

important. Usually about 60% of the total annual requirement of fertilizers is used during

Boro rice season from January through March. Crisis of urea fertilizer arises commonly in

Boro rice season. Supply of TSP and MoP is more important for rabi crops e.g. potato,

maize, vegetables, etc.

8

Table 1. Amount of production and import of urea, TSP and MoP (‘000 t)

Year Urea TSP MoP

ImportProduction Import Total Production Import Total

2000-01 1883 228 2111 68 363 431 363

2001-02 1546 702 2248 68 341 409 341

2002-03 2057 190 2247 66 328 394 328

2003-04 2164 186 2350 65 369 434 369

2004-05 2200 287 2487 65 451 516 451

2005-06 1700 900 2600 60 374 434 210 Pvt

2006-07 1700 815 2515 60375 Pvt.

125 BADC

560 250 Pvt.

1 BADC

2007-08 1400 1000 2400 50237 Pvt.

168 BADC

455 290 Pvt.

69 BADC

2008-09 1280 1220 2500 30150 Pvt.

75 BADC

255 145 Pvt.

77 BADC

Source: Kafiluddin and Islam, 2008

Table 2. Projection of requirement, production, import and prices of fertilizers in 2008-09

Fertilizer Requirement(Lakh MT)

Supply (Lakh MT)

Production Import Total

Urea 28.50 15.00 13.50(4.50 KAFCO)

28.50

TSP 5.00 0.50 0.50 (BADC)4.00 (Pvt.)

5.00

MoP 4.00 - 0.50 (BADC)3.50 (Pvt.)

4.00

DAP 2.00 1.00 1.00 (Pvt.) 2.00

SSP 1.00 1.00 Embargo 1.00

Gypsum 1.50 0.60 fromTSP complex

0.90 (Pvt.)1.50

ZnSO4 0.50 0.10 0.40 0.50

Amm. sulphate 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.25

MgSO4 0.20 0.20 0.20

Source: Kafiluddin and Islam, 2008

9

Table 3. Month-wise requirement and supply of urea fertilizer in 2007-08 in Paba Upazila

Month Requirement

(MT)

Supply

(MT)

July 450 320

Aug. 945 571

Sept. 900 539

Oct. 518 468

Nov. 1028 630

Dec. 1500 965

Jan. 1750 1543

Feb. 2250 1101

March 1166 728

April 403 350

May 370 437

June 320 405

Total 11600 8057

Source: Upazila office, Paba, Rajshai[

4.1.3 Fertilizer estimation template

Fertilizer requirement of a crop in an area should be calculated based on the level of soil

fertility. It is the best if current fertility level is known based on soil testing information

which is available through oil testing services obtainable from 16 soil testing laboratories

of SRDI, across the country. However, for the estimation of fertilizer demand, the general

fertility level at AEZ or upazila level, as determined by the SRDI (BARC, 2005) can be

used.

An attempt has been made to develop a fertilizer estimation model for crops of an area,

based on the soil fertility level and fertilizer rates for crops, as appeared in the National

Fertilizer Guide (BARC, 2005), following excel programme (Annex. 3). This template is

simple and easy to use for estimation of fertilizer requirement for different crops at micro

and macro levels i.e. farm, upazila, district, division and country levels. The UAO can

consider using this template to estimate efficiently the annual demand of fertilizers.

10

There is a fertilizer dose against the soil fertility status (very low, low, medium and

optimum) of an area or AEZ for each crop, according to the National Fertilizer Guide

(BARC, 2005). This programme had established a link between soil fertility level and

fertilizer requirement. An example is given below:

Crop: Boro rice (var. BRRI dhan 29)

Soil nutrient level Fertilizer requirement (kg ha-1)

Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium

Optimum 0-40 0-7 0-23

Medium 41-80 8-14 24-46

Low 81-120 15-21 47-69

Very low 121-160 22-28 70-92

4.1.4 Fertilizer pricing

Fertilizer price should be affordable to the farmers so that they can buy the required

quantity of fertilizers for use in crop production. The Government always gives high

subsidy on pricing of urea fertilizer so that it is within the purchasing capacity of the

farmers. Before 10 June 2008, the Bangladesh Government provided Tk 2200.00 subsidy

per ton for domestically produced urea fertilizer and Tk 25000.00 subsidy per ton for

imported urea. The dealers lifted urea from BCIC urea mill gates at Tk 4800.00 per ton

and imported urea from buffer godown at Tk 5300.00 per ton. That time the dealers sold

urea among the farmers at the rate of Tk 6 per kg. On 11 June 2008, the government

reduced the subsidy on urea and fixed urea price at the mill gate at Tk 10000.00 and at the

buffer gate Tk 10700.00. The dealers sell urea among the farmers at the rate of Tk 12 per

kg. This price is now on.

Price of non-urea fertilizers viz. TSP and MoP went high in 2006-07 and 2007-08, the

main reason was that their rate in the international market was high (Fig. 3, Table 4). In

2008, the rate of TSP was sold at Tk 80/kg, MoP at Tk 75/kg and DAP at Tk. 85/kg.

However, the new Government revised the rates twice, once in January and another in

November 2009, with almost 50% reduction each time. So the fertilizer prices in January

2009 went down to Tk 40/kg TSP, Tk 35/kg MoP and Tk. 45/kg DAP and it further came

down to Tk 22/kg TSP, Tk 25/kg MoP and Tk. 30/kg DAP in November 2009. The

Government is giving 15% subsidy to the non-urea fertilizers.

11

Fig. 3 Changes in fertilizer price from 1991 to 2009

Table 4. Fertilizer price in the local and international markets

FertilizerJuly-Aug. ‘07(Tk/kg)

July-Aug. ‘08 (Tk/kg)

July-Aug.‘09(Tk/ kg)

Nov.-Dec‘09(Tk/kg)Indian mkt

Local market(Tk/kg),before Nov.09

Local market(Tk/kg), from Nov.09

Urea 52 17 16 7.50 12 12

TSP 79 16 198

(SSP) 40 20

MoP - - 35 7.60 35 25

DAP 80 22 20 14.40 45 30

Source: Fertilizer Market Bulletin, September 2009

Comparing the fertilizer price of Bangladesh with that of India, it is noted that the

fertilizer price is lower in India than in Bangladesh (Table 4). This will enable purchase of

fertilizers from domestic sources rather than procure it through unofficial routes from

India.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

199

1-92

199

2-93

199

3-94

199

4-95

199

5-96

199

6-97

199

7-98

199

8-99

199

9-00

200

0-01

200

1-02

200

5-06

2007

2008

2009

Year

Pri

ce

of

fert

ilize

r (T

k/5

0 K

g) Urea

TSP

MoP

12

4.2 Fertilizer distribution/marketing systems

4.2.1 Urea fertilizer distribution/marketing system

Urea fertilizer distribution/marketing system is shown by a flowchart (Fig. 4). Urea

production, import and distribution are all controlled by the Government. The BCIC

appointed dealers at union level, with the allotment by the Upazila Fertilizer and Seed

Monitoring Committee, lift out urea fertilizer from factory gate and buffer godown. Very

recently (November 2009), 5-9 fertilizer retailers have been appointed at ward/village

levels in each union to make fertilizers readily available to the farmers. So, the farmers can

buy urea from both dealers and retailers. The Market Monitoring Information Systems

(MMIS) under the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) collect and update fertilizer distribution

data.

The district level and the upazila level committees monitor fertilizer distribution and sale.

In October 2009 the Governmentformed a new Upazila Fertilizer and Seed Monitoring

Committee consisting of more than 25 members including local MP, upazila chairman and

vice-chairman, UP chairmen, UNO, UAO, ULO, UFO, OC and some others (Annex. 4).

The previous committee had only 7 members. It would be difficult to call such a large

meeting and take decision in this meeting. The new committee has appointed 5-9 sub-

dealers (retailers) in each union. But it is reported that the retailers are not evenly

distributed in every upazila. So, the benefits of retailers may not be achieved in all

upazilas

13

Fig. 4 Distribution and marketing flowchart for urea fertilizer

Local production(6 factories)

BCIC import

Factory gate and buffer stocksin district godown

BCIC dealers collect fertilizer from factory

gate and buffer godown union

Retailers

Farmers can buy fertilizer from both dealers and retailers

National committee gives allotment to the District Fertilizer & Seed

Monitoring Committee

District committee gives allotmentto the Upazila Fertilizer & Seed

Monitoring Committee

Upazila committee gives allotment to the BCIC dealers at union level

14

Fig. 5 Distribution and marketing flowchart of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP)

Local production( 1 TSP and 1 DAP factory)

Private import(and BADC)

Importers warehouse (godown),factory gate (and BADC godown)

BCIC dealers collect fertilizer from warehouse and factory gate;(BADC

dealers collect only from BADC godown)

Retailers

Farmers can buy fertilizer from both dealers and retailers

National committee gives allotment to the District Fertilizer & Seed

Monitoring Committee

District committee gives allotmentto the Upazila Fertilizer & Seed

Monitoring Committee

Upazila committee gives allotment to the BCIC dealers at union level

15

4.2.2 Non-urea fertilizers distribution system

Fig. 5 shows the distribution/marketing system of non-urea (TSP, DAP and MoP)

fertilizers. These fertilizers are mainly imported and largely by private sector and a small

portion by BADC. Unlike urea fertilizer which is dealt by the MoI, the MoA deals with

non-urea fertilizers. Distribution channel is mostly same as that of urea that the same

BCIC dealers also lift out non-urea fertilizers from factory gate (Chittagong TSP complex

Ltd. and Chittagong DAP Fertilizer Co. Ltd.) and importers’ warehouses. Warehouses are

located at Chittagong, Narayanganj, Naopara (Jessore) and Baghabari (Sirajgonj). There is

a limited number of BADC appointed dealers across the country and they collect non-urea

fertilizers from exclusively BADC godown. Farmers can buy non-urea fertilizers from

BCIC and BADC dealers and retailers.

4.2.3 Adulteration

Non-urea fertilizers, particularly those imported and marketed through private channels

are frequently reported to be adulterated. The farmers of Kaharol upazila of Dinajpur

district during focus group discussion (FGD) reported that they used mixed fertilizers

(NPKS) in rabi crops of 2008 since the price of non-urea fertilizers was very high. It was

unfortunate that they did not obtain expected benefits of its use. Similarly many farmers

complained about privately imported TSP fertilizer for its effectiveness. It was apparent

that the farmers are misled sometimes by the fact that the SSP fertilizers are sold as TSP.

The SSP (single super phosphate) contains phosphorus three times less compared to TSP.

This SSP is privately imported from India. Farmers buy this fertilizer as the price is low.

On the other hand, the farmers are happy with effectiveness of locally produced TSP

fertilizer.

Adulteration of fertilizers is clearly evidenced in the SRDI report (2007-08). The scientists

of SRDI analyzed several hundred fertilizer samples from market and other sources such

as DAE, NGOs, law enforcing agencies, dealers etc. The maximum adulteration was

found with mixed fertilizers (81%), followed by SSP (62%), TSP (55%), DAP (31%) and

16

No. of samples analyzed 216 668 183 628 64 199No. of samples adulterated 10 175 57 323 40 161Samples adulterated (%) 5 26 31 55 62 81

Fig. 6 Adulteration of different fertilizers (SRDI report, 2007-08)

MoP (26%) (Fig. 6). They found that locally produced TSP and SSP, and urea irrespective

of production and import are minimally adulterated or are not adulterated. Further they

added that fertilizers collected from Chittagong port were generally of the expected

standard. Thus, it is likely that adulteration of fertilizers might take place in the importers’

storage godown (Chittagong, Naryanganj, Noapara and Baghabari).

Fertilizer demand forecasts are set and supply is monitored by the National Fertilizer

Committee (NFC) and under NFC there is a technical sub-committee at BARC which has the

mandate to approve new fertilizers, standardization and ensure quality. Fertilizer supply,

marketing and quality is regulated by the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO). Strong monitoring

and action is needed to ensure availability of quality fertilizers to the farmers.

4.3 Fertilizer use

The use of chemical fertilizers in Bangladesh agriculture started with import of 2698 tons

of ammonium sulphate in 1951. The use of urea and TSP began in 1957-58. Muriate of

potash (MoP) was added to the fertilizer schedule from 1960. As the time advanced, soil

fertility declined for increasing cropping intensity (195% at present) accompanied with

increasing HYV crops. As a result, fertilizer consumption increased which is reflected in

total consumption as well as in consumption per unit area (Figs. 7 and 8). The highest

fertilizer consumption occurred during 2005-06 with the record of 40 lakh tons fertilizer

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ad

ult

erat

ion

(%

)

Urea MoP DAP TSP SSP MF

17

0

900

1800

2700

3600

4500

19

89

-90

19

91

-92

19

93

-94

19

95

-96

19

97

-98

19

99

-00

20

01

-02

20

03

-04

20

05

-06

20

07

-08

Year

Fert

iliz

er

use (

ton

)

Urea

TSP

MoP

Total

0

90

180

270

360

450

1989

-90

1991

-92

1993

-94

1995

-96

1997

-98

1999

-00

2001

-02

2003

-04

2005

-06

2007

-08

Year

Fer

tiliz

er u

se (

kg/h

a/yr

)

Urea TSP MoP Total

Fig. 7 Trends of fertilizer use (t yr -1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09

Fig. 8 Trends of fertilizer use (kg ha-1 yr-1) during 1989-90 to 2008-09

18

consumption where urea consumption was 26 lakh tons (65%), TSP 4.5 lakh tons (11.5%),

MoP 3.0 lakh tons (7.5%) and others (SSP, DAP, ammonium sulphate, potassium

sulphate, gypsum, zinc sulphate, boric acid, N-P-K mixed fertilizers) 6.5 lakh tons (16%)

(Annex. 5). It appeared that total fertilizer consumption decreased by 11% in 2006-07 and

by 17 % in 2007-08 over 2005-06, and fertilizer management was a major factor for this

decline, as discussed in the following section.

4.3.1 Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers

Fertilizer use by farmers was evaluated over 75 farmers (25 marginal, 25 small and 25

medium categories) of three upazilas such as Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina. Fertilizer use

by rice was especially taken into account since the crop covers 70-75% of the total

fertilizer consumption in this country. The three upazilas under study were rice intensive

areas. In these areas farmers hardly use organic fertilizer in rice cultivation.

Concerning urea fertilizer, the three categories of farmers (marginal, small and medium)

over the three upazilas used this fertilizer with the range of 156-168 kg ha-1 in 2008 Boro

rice showing the order: medium farmers > small farmers > marginal farmers (Table 5A).

Some differences were found between the upazilas, with the highest use in Phulpur (171

kg ha-1 on an average), followed by Gabtali (166 kg ha-1) and Chandina (150 kg ha-1)

which can be attributed to the difference in soil nitrogen (N) levels that the N level of

Chandina upazila (AEZ 16) is at low level while the N status of the other two upazilas

(AEZs 9 and 4) are at very low to low levels (BARC, 2005). Similar trend was observed

with T. Aman rice in 2008 (Table 5A).

Regarding TSP fertilizer, farmers’ use depended on the land holdings showing that the

marginal group used TSP @ 34.8 kg ha-1 (on an average), the small group used 47.9 kg ha-

1 and the medium group of farmers used 55.0 kg ha-1 (Table 5A). The TSP use also varied

with upazilas showing an order of Phulpur (51.0 kg ha-1), Chandina (45.5 kg ha-1) and

Gabtali (41.2 kg ha-1). This variation is attributable to the motivation gap in use of TSP in

three upazilas.

Like TSP use, the farmers having more land used more MoP and the farmers having less

land used less MoP. On an average, the marginal farmers applied MoP @ 25.9 kg ha-1, the

small farmers applied 32.7 kg ha-1 and the medium farmers applied 44.5 kg ha-1 (Table

6A). Further like TSP use, the Phulpur farmers used relatively more MoP, compared to the

Gabtali and Chandina farmers, the rates being 28.3 kg ha-1 and 29.1 kg ha-1, respectively.

This variation is an indication of the motivational gap in use of MoP by the farmers of the

three upazilas.

19

Table 5A. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. Aman/T. Aus

rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

a). Urea (kg ha-1)

Farmer’s

category

Boro rice T. Aman rice

Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila average

Phulpur Gabtali Chandina(T. Aus)

Upazila average

Marginal 166 156 147 156 104 121 90 105

Small 171 169 150 163 133 124 96 118

Medium 176 174 153 168 147 132 126 135

Farmer

average

171 166 150 162 128 126 104 119

b). TSP (kg ha-1)

Farmer’s

category

Boro rice T. Aman rice

Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila average

Phulpur Gabtali Chandina(T. Aus)

Upazila average

Marginal 45.9 19.7 38.7 34.8 11.9 13.5 14.7 13.4

Small 50.2 50.6 42.8 47.9 17.1 11.3 22.0 16.8

Medium 56.8 53.3 55.0 55.0 17.1 18.1 30.4 21.9

Farmer

average

51.0 41.2 45.5 45.9 15.4 14.3 22.3 17.4

c). MoP (kg ha-1)

Farmer’s

category

Boro rice T. Aman rice

Phulpur Gabtali Chandina Upazila average

Phulpur Gabtali Chandina( T. Aus)

Upazila average

Marginal 45.5 9.8 22.5 25.9 7.0 6.7 19.6 11.1

Small 42.7 29.7 25.7 32.7 11.9 7.8 26.9 15.5

Medium 49.0 45.4 39.1 44.5 17.1 9.1 33.1 19.8

Farmer

average

45.7 28.3 29.1 35.5 12.0 7.8 26.5 15.4

20

Table 5B. Fertilizer use by different categories of farmers in Boro and T. Aman rice

of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1)

Marginalfarmers

Smallfarmers

Mediumfarmers

Farmer average

Marginalfarmers

Smallfarmers

Mediumfarmers

Farmer average

Urea 193 203 211 202 130 136 151 139

TSP 40 47 74 54 15 18 25 18

MoP 37 46 69 51 9 19 26 19

Viewing the fertilizer use in 2009, the situation has improved over 2008 due to

improvement of the fertilizer management system. The controlled sale system as operated

in 2008 is withdrawn. In the present system, urea is sold all days of the week, with no card

or slip system. Farmers can now buy necessary quantity of fertilizers. On the other hand,

this year in January with the succession of the new Government, the price of TSP and

MoP has been revised; TSP fixed at Tk. 40/kg from Tk. 80/kg, MoP at Tk. 35/kg from Tk

75/kg and DAP from at Tk. 45/kg from Tk. 85/kg. The present non-controlled system of

urea sale and lowering of TSP and MoP price have produced a positive effect on fertilizer

use. For example, the farmers of Phulpur upazila in 2008 used urea @ 171 kg ha-1 in Boro

rice and 128 kg ha-1 in T. Aman rice, and the same farmers in 2009 used urea @ 202 kg

ha-1 in Boro rice and 139 kg ha-1 in T. Aman rice, the later shows almost the same as the

recommended dose of urea for the crops and upazila concerned (Table 5B).

4.3.2 Relationship between farmers’ fertilizer use and their characteristics

Relationship between farmers’ fertilizer use (urea, TSP or MoP) and their characteristics is

examined by correlation test, the correlation co-efficient i.e. ‘r’ value is treated as an

indicator of their relationship. Fertilizer use was significantly correlated with farm size (r

= 0.844 for urea, r = 0.524 for TSP and r = 0.665 for MoP; n =75) and annual income (r =

0.684, 0.477 and 0.596, respectively). So, farm size and annual income had positive

influence on fertilizer use. Farmers’ other characteristics such as age, education, family

size, farming experience, training experience, communication exposure and use of organic

fertilizer did not influence chemical fertilizer use (Table 6). Salient characteristics of the

farmers are shown in Annex. 6.

21

Table 6. Correlation between farmers’ fertilizers use and their characteristics (n=75)

Variables Urea use TSP use MoP use

Age -0.026 0.074 0.079

Education 0.045 -0.163 -0.054

Farm size 0.844** 0.524** 0.665**

Family size 0.062 0.122 0.090

Farming experience 0.018 0.169 0.188

Annual income 0.684** 0.477** 0.596**

Training experience 0.125 -0.013 0.014

Communication

exposure 0.149 0.033 0.086

Use of organic

matter 0.009

-0.009

0.076

Figures denote ‘r’ values.

** = Significant at 1% level of probability

4.3.3 Fertilizer use gap

The fertilizer use gap is calculated as the difference between recommended dose and

farmers’ practice of fertilizer use and is expressed as percentage. Farmers’ use rate for all

three fertilizers (urea, TSP and MoP) was always lower than the recommendation,

although it varied with the upazilas (Table 7A). However, the variation was small in 2008

or negligible in 2009 for the case of urea, but variation was found to be high for TSP and

very high variation for MoP, showing an unbalanced fertilizer use. Again, considering

upazila variation, the gap between recommendation and use for non-urea fertilizers (TSP

and MoP) was wider in Gabtali and Chandina, and narrower in Phulpur. As an example,

the farmers of Phulpur upazila in 2008 Boro rice used 22% less TSP than the

recommended rate while the Gabtali farmers used 37% less and the farmers of Chandina

upazila used 29% less TSP. The corresponding gaps for MoP use in three upazilas were

49%, 69% and 68%, respectively.

The reason for lower rate of fertilizer use is different for urea from TSP and MoP. Urea

was less used in 2008 Boro season due to constraints of physical availability for controlled

(card/slip system) sale system. TSP and MoP were minimum used due to high price on

one hand and lack of motivation on the other.

22

Table 7A. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

a). Phulpur upazila (Boro – Fallow-T. Aman)

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

Urea 209 171 38 18 146 128 18 12

TSP 65 51 14 22 27 15 30 67MoP 90 46 44 49 56 12 54

82

RD = Recommended dose

b). Gabtali upazila (Boro – Fallow-T. Aman)

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

Urea 209 177 32 15 145 126 19 13

TSP 65 41 24 37 21 14 31 69

MoP 90 28 62 69 48 8 58 87

c). Chandina upazila (Boro – T. Aus -Fallow)

FertilizerBoro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aus rice (kg ha-1)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

Urea 176 150 26 15 117 104 13 11

TSP 65 46 19 29 27 22 5 18

MoP 90 29 61 68 48 27 29 52

23

Table 7B. Fertilizer use gap in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 at Phulpur upazila

Fertilizer Boro rice (kg ha-1) T. Aman rice (kg ha-1)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

RD Use Gap Gap(%)

Urea 209 202 7 3 146 139 7 5

TSP 65 53 12 18 27 18 9 33

MoP 90 51 39 43 56 19 37 66

In 2009, virtually no gap existed between recommended dose and farmers’ practice for

urea, and for TSP and MoP, although not significant, the difference had reduced. As

discussed earlier, the situation has improved because of withdrawal of controlled sale

system of urea and reducing the price of non-urea fertilizers. So, the benefit has been

reflected in fertilizer use in Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 (Table 7B).

4.3.4 Unbalanced use of fertilizers

Fertile soil is a prerequisite for obtaining satisfactory yield of a crop. A soil is called fertile

when it supplies nutrients in an adequate amount, with a suitable proportion. Fertilizers are

applied to soil to enhance ability of a soil to supply nutrients to plants adequately as well

as proportionately in order to overcome nutrient deficiency and to ensure higher crop

yield.

It appeared from the farmers’ fertilizer use data that they used unbalanced amount of urea,

TSP and MoP fertilizers across the three upazilas (Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina).

Although the farmers applied less amount than the recommended rate for all three

fertilizers (urea, TSP and MoP), the variation was more pronounced for the case of potash

fertilizer i.e. MoP and the variation was little for urea. This point has been discussed in the

previous section (4.3.1).

The farmers of Phulpur upazila used fertilizers with a N-P-K ratio of 3.4–0.4-1.0 for Boro

rice against the recommended ratio of 2.1-0.3-1.0, and 9.8-0.5-1.0 for T. Aman rice

against the recommendation of 2.4-0.2-1.0 (Table 8A). The N-P-K ratios for Boro and T.

Aman rice in Gabtali upazila were 5.4-0.6-1.0 and 14.5-0.7-1.0, respectively where

recommended N-P-K ratios being 2.1-0.3-1.0 and 2.8-0.2-1.0, respectively. In Chandina

upazila, the farmers applied fertilizers in a ratio of 4.6 N : 0.6 P : 1.0 K for Boro rice and

24

Table 8A. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro and T. Aman rice of 2008 in Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina upazilas

a). Phulpur upazila

Nutrient Nutrient status in soil

Boro rice T. Aman riceRecommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Recommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio

N VL-L 96 2.1 79 3.4 67 2.4 59 9.8P L-M 13 0.3 10 0.4 5.4 0.2 3.0 0.5K L 45 1.0 23 1.0 28 1.0 6.0 1.0

b). Gabtali upazila

Nutrient Nutrient status in soil

Boro rice T. Aman riceRecommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Recommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio

N VL-L 96 2.1 86 6.1 67 2.8 58 14.5P L-M 13 0.3 8.2 0.6 4.2 0.2 2.8 0.7K L 45 1.0 14 1.0 24 1.0 4 1.0

c). Chandina upazila

Nutrient Nutrient status in soil

Boro rice T. Aus riceRecommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Recommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio

N L 81 1.8 69 4.6 54 2.3 48 3.4P L-M 13 0.3 9.2 0.6 5.4 0.2 4.4 0.3K L 45 1.0 15 1.0 24 1.0 14 1.0

Table 8B. Recommended and farmers’ practice of NPK fertilizers for Boro and T. Aman rice of 2009 in Phulpur upazila

a). Phulpur upazila

Nutrient Nutrient status in soil

Boro rice T. Aman riceRecommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Recommended practice

Farmers’ practice

Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio Dose (kg ha-1)

Ratio

N VL-L 96 2.1 93 3.6 67 2.4 64 6.4P L-M 13 0.3 11 0.4 5.4 0.2 3.6 0.4K L 45 1.0 26 1.0 28 1.0 10 1.0

25

3.4 N : 0.3 P :1.0 K for T. Aus rice, the ratios as recommended were 1.8 N : 0.3 P : 1.0 K

and 2.3 N : 0.2 P : 1.0 K for the two crops, respectively. The unbalanced use of fertilizers

is likely to influence imbalanced uptake of nutrients which causes lower crop yield. This

was the situation in 2008.

The fertilizer use ratio has improved in 2009 for withdrawal of controlled sale system for

urea coupled with lowering the price of TSP and MoP fertilizers. For instance, in Phulpur

upazila, the N-P-K ratios for 2008 Boro and T. Aman rice were 3.4-0.4-1.0 and 9.8-0.5-

1.0, which in 2009 became 3.6-0.4-1.0 and 6.4-0.4-1.0, respectively (Table 8B). However,

still the N-P-K use ratio is far from satisfactory. This result indicates that farmers are not

motivated to use non-urea fertilizers, chiefly MoP.

The N-P-K use ratios for the small and marginal farmers were found almost same. So, for

an adequate use of non-nitrogen fertilizers, fertilizer price and farmer’s ability are not the

sole reason. Rather the best reason is knowledge gap or lack of awareness of farmers.

Although, farmer’s awareness about fertilizer use has increased due to extension activity,

farmers’ adoption of TSP and MoP use has not yet reached the required level.

The present study clearly indicates that farmers are using very low amount of potassium

fertilizer for crop production, which is mainly creating an imbalance in the fertilizer mix

required for the desired effects. Thus, potassium uptake by crops far exceeds potassium

addition through fertilizer. Consequently, a substantial amount of of potassium is being

mined from the soil each year. This is in agreement with the nutrient balance (input-

output) study of Rijpma and Jahiruddin (2004) who reported a serious mining of K in the

country’s soil-plant system (Annex. 7) and they observed that the extent of nutrient mining

varied with different AEZs (Annex. 8). Nutrient mining may eventually cause soil

degradation and affect crop production.

It is learnt from farmers’ group discussion (FGD) that farmers are using very little amount

of organic matter to soil, although it is important for sustainable soil fertility and crop

productivity. To supply nutrients for higher crop production, it is not judicious to just

increase the use of chemical fertilizers. The organic sources of plant nutrients viz.

cowdung, poultry manure, compost, bio-slurry, green manure, crop residues, solid wastes

etc. need to be considered in fertilizer scheduling for obtaining satisfactory crop yield

without incurring loss to soil environment.

26

4.3.5 Issues related to excess urea use

The farmers of Bangladesh have been using an unbalanced mix of N-P-K fertilizers since

a long time (Table 9) which indicates that they are using relatively more urea fertilizers

and less non-urea fertilizers. They are using urea-nitrogen 7-15 times higher than

potassium. A similar observation has been made in the present study. However, it does not

mean that the farmers are using excess amount of urea than the requirement. As per recent

years’ record (Table 10) the farmers of this country are using urea at around 140 kg ha-1

yr-1, which is not higher than the recommended rate of urea for the rice-rice cropping

system. Thus, sometimes we misunderstand about the extent of urea fertilizer use. If we

compare the fertilizer use with the other countries, it appears that Bangladesh is using less

amount of fertilizers compared to many other countries such as China, Korea, Vietnam,

Japan and Malaysia, and is using more fertilizers in comparison with India, Myanmar,

Nepa, Philippines and Nepal (RAP, 2002). Niino (2009) viewed that the farmers of south

Asia including Bangladesh use excess amount of urea. However, these findings cannot be

generalized. It is location specific and depends on the level of farmers’ motivation.

4.3.5 USG technology for reduction of urea use

Use of USG is a modern technology to save prilled urea (PU)-nitrogen in wet land rice

cultivation. The interviewing KIIs and farmers were of the same opinion, “USG is better

than prilled urea (commonly used urea) as a source of nitrogen since it saves urea-nitrogen

use and increases rice yield”. It is largely used in Tangail areas. USG is a granular form of

urea which is prepared from commonly used PU by briquette machine. Thus, properties of

USG are obviously same as that of PU. USG is placed at 8-10 cm depth in the centre of

four rice hills after 7-10 days of transplanting. It is well documented that less than 50% of

the urea applied is absorbed by rice plant and the rest is lost through some processes, e.g.

denitrification, leaching and volatilization. This loss is reduced to a great extent when

USG is used.

Application of USG can save about 25% nitrogen use accompanied with about 20% higher

rice yield (Table 10), and thus it reduces the cost of rice cultivation. The technology has

one disadvantage is that it is labor-some to place urea granule (1 laborer can place USG in

33 decimal or 0.135 ha land in 5 hours time). Recently, the BARI scientists have

developed a cost-effective USG applicator machine which would save labor for its

application. Presently it’s a constraint that USG is not adequately available in the market.

27

Table 9. N-P-K balance during the years 1989-90 to 2008-09

YearNitrogen

(kg ha-1 )

Phosphorus

(kg ha-1 )

Potassium

(kg ha-1 )N-P-K ratio

1989-90 68.6 10.5 6.5 10.6: 1.6: 1

1990-91 66.7 11.3 8.2 8.1: 1.4: 1

1991-92 77.7 10.1 7.6 10.3: 1.3: 1

1992-93 78.8 2.4 7.0 11.3: 0.3: 1

1993-94 80.9 5.2 5.8 14.0: 0.9: 1

1994-95 90.1 0.3 8.6 10.4: 0.1: 1

1995-96 106.0 2.5 8.8 12.1: 0.3: 1

1996-97 110.4 1.6 12.4 8.9: 0.2: 1

1997-98 98.1 1.4 11.0 8.9: 0.2: 1

1998-99 100.2 3.9 12.1 8.3: 0.3: 1

1999-00 113.5 8.3 15.6 7.3: 0.5: 1

2000-01 112.5 9.4 7.7 14.6: 1.2: 1

2001-02 120.5 9.9 14.2 8.5: 0.7: 1

2002-03 121.2 8.8 15.9 7.6: 0.6: 1

2003-04 127.5 10.6 19.2 6.7: 0.6: 1

2004-05 135.7 9.7 20.9 6.5: 0.5: 1

2005-06 142.7 10.7 17.9 8.0: 0.6: 1

2006-07 138.9 8.2 13.8 10.1: 0.6: 1

2007-08 133.3 7.2 12.1 11.0: 0.6: 1

2008-09 139.7 3.6 9.6 14.6: 0.4: 1

28

Table 10. Effect of USG application on the yield of wetland rice

T. Aman rice (BRRI dhan 31), 2006 Boro rice (BRRI dhan 29), 2007

N rate

(kg ha-1)

N source Grain yield

(t ha-1)

NUE (kg

grain /kg N)

N rate

(kg ha-1)

N

source

Grain yield

(t ha-1)

NUE (kg

grain /kg N)0 - 2.80 - 0 - 2.43 -

50 USG 3.80 20.0 50 USG 4.53 28.0

50 PU 3.62 16.4 50 PU 3.46 13.7

75 USG 4.51 22.8 75 USG 5.13 27.0

75 PU 4.45 22.0 75 PU 4.28 18.5

100 USG 4.37 15.7 100 USG 4.46 16.2

100 PU 4.27 14.7 100 PU 4.32 15.1

LSD (5%) - 0.41 - LSD (5%) - 0.78 -

Source: BRRI Annual Research Review, 2006-07

4.4 Stakeholders’ perceptions on constraints of farmers’ access to fertilizers

Constraints related to farmers’ access to urea and non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) were

evaluated through interviewing Upazila Agriculture Officers (UAO) of 11 upazilas and 75

farmers of three upazilas (Phulpur, Gabtali and Chandina). The constraints and the opinion

index score (OIS) against each constraint are stated in Tables 11-12. The constraints as

identified were of primarily two types, one is physical constraint and other is economic

constraint. Physical constraint refers to the insufficient accessibility to fertilizer so that

farmers can not buy required quantity of fertilizers, when needed. Economic constraint

indicates low ability of farmers, especially the small and marginal groups, to buy

fertilizers on cash payment. However, these two principal constraints were found to differ

between urea and non-urea fertilizers. From the start until end of this study i.e. November

2008 to October 2009, some important changes have occurred in fertilizer policies. The

sale system for urea fertilizer has been changed from controlled system to non-controlled

system and price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP) has been revised to lower

rates. Thus, comparison has been made between two years (2008 and 2009) for old and

new systems of fertilizer management.

29

Table 11. Constraints of farmers’ access to urea fertilizer

a) KII opinion

Sl.

No.

Constraints Opinion index

score

2008 2009*

1 Farmers can not buy urea fertilizer in required amount under

the controlled (with card/slip) sale system in 2008 and under

the non-controlled (with no card/slip) sale system in 2009.

33

(60%)

0

2 Controlled sale system was cumbersome and farmers were to

spend several hours in collecting urea fertilizer in 2008.

36

(65%)

NA

3 Farmers use urea fertilizer from their own experiences. 24

(44%)

23

(42%)

4 Farmers use urea fertilizer more than recommendation. 15

(27%)

18

(33%)

5 Shared croppers use less urea fertilizer in shared land than in

their own lands.

21

(38%)

15

(27%)

6 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of urea

fertilizer.

12

(22%)

12

(22%)

Scale: 0-5 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Medium, 4 = High, 5 = Very high)Opinion index varies from 0 to 55 (n = 11 UAOs)* up to October 2009 NA= Not applicable

b) Farmer opinion

Sl. No.

Constraints Opinion index score

2008 2009*

1 Farmers can not buy urea fertilizer in required amount

under the controlled (with card/slip) sale system in 2008

and under the non-controlled (with no card/slip) sale

system in 2009.

171

(76%)

0

2 Farmers were to spend several hours in collecting urea

fertilizer in controlled sale system in 2008.

190

(84%)

NA

3 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of urea

fertilizer.

69

(31%)

65

(29%)

Scale: 0-3 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High)

Opinion index varies from 0 to 225 (n = 75)* up to October 2009 NA= Not applicable

30

4.4.1 Access to urea fertilizer

Farmers’ access to urea fertilizer, as observed in 2008 Boro and T. Aman seasons, was

predominantly interrupted due to lower availability of this fertilizer to the farmers for

introduction of the controlled sale system. Under the system, the Government dealer

(BCIC appointed) would sell urea 4-5 days a week in presence of a Sub-Assistant

Agriculture Officer (SAAO). Farmers could not buy required quantity of urea fertilizer,

when needed and moreover they had to wait for several hours in collecting this fertilizer

from the dealer. These were the principal constraints for farmers’ access to urea fertilizer,

as opined by UAOs and farmers in 2008 (Table 11). The low fertilizer accessibility

resulted in low use of urea in the crop field, as discussed in section 4.3.1. In the controlled

system of fertilizer sale, the DAE personnels (DD, UAO, AEO, SAAO) were heavily

engaged in fertilizer management activity and they had the minimum opportunity to give

time and effort for their core activities i.e. technology transfer. That time, the Government

administration (UNO, UAO) was also loaded with fertilizer issue.

In January 2009, with the formation of the new Government the controlled system of urea

sale was withdrawn. In the new/present system, the farmers can buy urea all days a week

and thus they can apply urea fertilizer to the field as per crop requirement. From January

until October this year there is no report of fertilizer (urea) crisis, so the new system is

working well. At the end of a day, the fertilizer dealer communicates about sale position to

the UAO.

Economic constraint is relatively a less important factor at present for farmer’s

accessibility to urea fertilizer. Quantity of use is a constraint to be considered. It also

appears that shared croppers, as reported, use generally less fertilizer in shared lands than

in their own lands. The UAOs were of the opinion that some farmers (around 30%) use

excess urea than needed (Table 11), although this is not supported by the findings of

household survey, as described in section 4.3.1

31

Table 12. Constraints for farmers’ access to non-urea fertilizers

a) KII opinion

Sl.

No.

Constraints Opinion index score

2008 2009*

1 Price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is high. 45

(82%)

30

(55%)

2 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of

non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP).

42

(76%)

36

(65%)

3 Farmers use non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) less than

recommendation.

49

(89%)

42

(76%)

4 Shared croppers use less non-urea fertilizers (TSP and

MoP) in shared land than in their own lands.

27

(49%)

21

(38%)

5 Farmers do not use balanced dose of fertilizers. 51

(93%)

49

(89%)

6 Quality of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is

generally low.

30

(55%)

29

(53%)

Scale: 0-5 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Very low, 2 = Low, 3 = Medium, 4 = High, 5 = Very high)Opinion index varies from 0 to 55 (n = 11 UAOs)* up to October 2009

b) Farmer opinion

Sl.

No.

Constraints Opinion index score

2008 2009*

1 Price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is high. 191

(85%)

140

(62%)

2 Marginal and small farmers can not afford the cost of

non-fertilizers (TSP and MoP).

195

(87%)

156

(69%)

3 Quality of non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) is

generally low.

93

(41%)

84

(37%)

Scale: 0-3 (0 = Do not agree, 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High)

Opinion index varies from 0 to 225 (n = 75)* up to October 2009

32

4.4.2 Access to non-urea fertilizers

Accessibility to non-urea fertilizers such as TSP and MoP, as observed in 2008, was

constrained by high price of fertilizer which went beyond the buying capacity of farmers,

especially the marginal and small farmers (Table 12). In 1-year time, the price of non-urea

fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP) has been revised twice (January and November, 2009)

and the price has come down which, although not significant, has rendered some positive

effect on the scale of its use by the farmers. The lower accessibility to non-urea fertilizers

has resulted in unbalanced use of fertilizers. Low quality non-urea fertilizer is another

factor for low access to or use of non-urea fertilizers. Fertilizer pricing, adulteration and

unbalanced fertilization have been discussed in details in the previous sections (4.1.2,

4.1.4 and 4.2.3).

It is observed that shared croppers have low access to fertilizers due to the tenant system.

The owners usually do not bear the cost of inputs (e.g. fertilizers) and the tenant period is

usually short-term. Many farmers are of the view that that they do not use sufficient

fertilizers in crop field because of unsatisfactory price of farm produce (rice).

33

V. KEY FINDINGS

i. Domestic production of fertilizers is not adequate to meet the demand of the country, so

the additional requirement is met by import. Local production of urea and TSP over the

years has decreased and in return the import has increased. For urea, both production

and import are under the control of the Government (MoCI). For non-urea fertilizers

(TSP, MoP and DAP), import is largely done by private sector and a small portion by

BADC. Distribution channels for both urea and non-urea fertilizers are basically same.

The same BCIC dealers lift out both types of fertilizers (urea from factory gate and

buffer godown, and TSP from factory gate and importers’ warehouse). The BADC

dealers collect non-urea fertilizers from BADC godown only. The farmers can buy

fertilizers both from dealers (union level) and retailers (ward/village level).

ii. Quality of non-urea fertilizers is often below standard. Although use of mixed fertilizers

(NPKS) is encouraging in order to improve balanced fertilization, unfortunately, the

quality of available mixed fertilizers is highly sub-standard (>80% adulteration), and

for SSP and TSP adulteration is above 50%. Privately imported fertilizers are more

adulterated and this happens possibly at the storage and distribution points. This is

alarming. Quality of locally produced fertilizers is up to mark.

iii. Crisis of urea fertilizer had arisen in 2008 due to introduction of controlled system of

fertilizer sale (card/slip system, sale 3-4 days a week). Farmers have no complaints

about present sale system of urea (no card/slip, sale 7 days a week). Now they can buy

and apply urea in required amount for their crops.

iv. Price of urea is Tk. 12/kg, with effect from June 2008. Price of non-urea fertilizers

was quite high in 2008 (Tk. 80/kg TSP, Tk. 75/kg MoP and Tk. 85/kg). The present

Government has revised the price, now the rate is Tk. 22/kg TSP, Tk. 25/kg MoP and

Tk. 30/kg DAP (as of November 2009). The present prices of the fertilizers are

affordable to the farmers.

v. Farmers’ fertilizer use was related to their land holdings, showing that marginal

farmers use lesser amount of fertilizers than small farmers and similarly, small farmers

use lesser amount than medium farmers. Farmers are not using balanced dose of

fertilizers. They are using urea dose close to the recommended dose, TSP dose was

34

lower than recommendation and MoP dose was much lower than recommendation,

creating an imbalance in N-P-K use. This would affect crop yield.

vi. Farmers are using low to very low dose of non-urea fertilizers, with almost no

application of micronutrients which apparently is not due to exclusively high price.

Farmers are not adequately motivated with use of non-urea fertilizers although it is

important to obtain the potential yield of a crop.

vii Farmers are interested in using urea super granule (USG) in rice cultivation since it

reduces use of urea by 25-30%. The one limitation is that it is labor-intensive place

urea in the centre of four rice hills, however recently BARI and some other

organizations have developed urea applicator machine which would solve this

problem. Promotion of USG technology and organic fertilizer use would greatly

reduce the urea fertilizer demand in this country.

VI. POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are given under major issues, as stated below:

Fertilizer supply and distribution The present policy of urea production, import and distribution under the

Government control should be continued.

For the case of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, DAP and MoP), the on-going policy of

private sector import mainly and distribution by the Government control can be

continued. Strong monitoring is needed at storage and distribution points to check

adulteration of these fertilizers.

The SRDI laboratories (under MoA) can analyze fertilizer samples at random from

market in every six months and report to the National Fertilizer Committee (NFC).

Fertilizer estimation template The fertilizer template as developed in this study can be considered for use by the

Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) for fertilizer demand estimation. This template

can also be used from micro to macro levels i.e. from farm to country levels.

Fertilizer prices and sale system Present price of urea (Tk. 12/kg) and that of non-urea (TSP Tk. 22/kg, MoP Tk.

25/kg and DAP Tk. 30/kg) are affordable to the farmers.

35

The present system of urea sale (no slip or card system, dealer shop open all days)

is quite good for the farmers to buy and use required amount of urea for their

crops.

Fertilizer use by farmers Policy support is needed to increase the ability of marginal and small farmers to

buy fertilizers.

Training, field demonstration and motivational work need to be strengthened so

that the farmers can use balanced fertilization.

Use of USG technology and organic fertilizer needs to be promoted to reduce the

use of prilled urea.

VII. AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

i. Growth of agriculture and fertilizer demand over the next 10 years

ii. Potentials and opportunities of using organic fertilizers

iii. Constraints for adoption of balanced fertilization

iv. Impact of climate change on land and soil resources

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate availability of urea fertilizer and very high price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP

and MoP) were the major constraints for fertilizer access and use in 2008. These

constraints are largely removed in 2009 for the change of fertilizer sale and price policies

by the new Government. In the new (present) system, urea is being sold 7 days a week,

with no slip/card system and the price of non-urea fertilizers (TSP, MoP and DAP) has

come down with twice revisions. However, still farmers are not using required amount of

non-urea fertilizers (TSP and MoP) which is attributable to the knowledge gap due lack of

adequate motivation approach. This low use of TSP and MoP fertilizers is creating an

imbalance in soil-plant system which in turn would have negative impact on crop yield.

Quality of non-urea fertilizers is often below standard, above 80% adulteration for mixed

fertilizers and above 50% adulteration for SSP and TSP. Urea production (from six

factories) is declining with time and consequently, import is increasing to meet the

demand. Use of USG can save prilled urea use by at least 25-30%. When a fertilizer crisis

it should be investigated immediately so as to suggest any change in policy to solve the

problem.

36

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was carried out under the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening

Programme (NFPCSP), with financial support of European Commission, USAID, FAO

and Bangladesh Government. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Ad Spijkers

(FAO representative in Bangladesh) and Mr. Fiorillo Ciro (Chief Technical Advisor,

NFPCSP) for their nice help and cooperation in carrying out this study.

I would like to extend my gratefulness to Dr. Nathalie Bouche (Economist), Dr. Shaikh

Abdus Sabur (Availability Advisor) and Dr. Lalita Bhattacharjee, (Nutritionist), members

of the NFPCSP Technical Assistance Team (TAT) for monitoring the execution of this

study, and providing suggestions in the questionnaire development and reviewing the

progress reports and technical outputs.

I would like to extend cordial thanks to Dr. Rezaul Karim Talukder (Physical & Social

Advisor) and Dr. Ferdous Alam (Economic Access Advisor) for their constructive

criticism and fruitful suggestions in the review meetings. Special thanks are due to Dr. Nur

A Khondaker (Research Grants Administrator, NFPCSP) for his help and cooperation

throughout the period of this study.

I would like to acknowledge the help and cooperation of the Food Planning and

Monitoring Unit (Ministry of Food and Disaster Management) and the Thematic Research

Teams (TRT). Cordial thanks are also extended to all other people of the Project

Management Unit (NFPCSP) for their cooperation in carrying out this study.

I wish to express sincere thanks to the Vice-Chancellor, and the Head, Department of Soil

Science of Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU), Mymensingh for all out help and

cooperation during project period.

Prof. Dr. M. Jahiruddin

Principal Investigator of the project

Department of Soil Science

BAU, Mymensingh

37

REFERENCES

BARC, 2000. Bangladesh NARS-2020. A Vision for Agricultural Research.

BARC,Dhaka.

BARC, 2005. Fertilizer Recommendation Guide. BARC, Soils Pub. 45, Dhaka.

Kafiluddin, A. and Islam, M. S. 2008. Fertilizer distribution, subsidy, marketing,

promotion and agronomic use efficiency scenario in Bangladesh. IFA Crossroads,

Asia-Pacific 2008, held in Melbourne, Australia, 16-18 December, 2008.

Karim, Z. 2009. Farm level fertilizer management in Bangladesh. Key note paper

presented at the Consultative Workshop on Farm Level Fertilizer Management

organized by FAO/MoA, held at CIRDAP, Dhaka, 19 February 2009.

Khaleque, K. A. 2009. Fertilizer – A Big Bother for Bangladesh. Internet Search.

Mandal, M.A. 2008. World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and

Bioenergy – Bangladesh Perspectives. Keynote paper presented at the World Food

Day 2008 seminar, organized by the MoA, GoB at the Bangladesh-China

Friendship Conference centre, Dhaka.

Nino, Y. 2009. Regional Fertilizer Outlook. Paper presented at the Consultative

Workshop on Farm Level Fertilizer Management organized by FAO/MoA, held at

CIRDAP, Dhaka, 19 February 2009.

Pradhan, S.B. 1992. Status of fertilizer use in developing countries of Asia and the Pacific

Region. In: Proc. Regional FADINAP Seminar, Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 37-47.

RAP, 2002. Selected Idicators of Food and Agriculture Development in Asia-Specific

Region (1991-2001), RAP Publication: 2002/19, Bangkok, October 2002.

Rijpma, J. and Jahiruddin, M. 2004. National strategy and plan for use of soil nutrient

balance in Bangladesh. Final report of short term assignment, SFFP-DANIDA.

Shah, A.L., Rahman, M. S. and Aziz, M. A. 2008. Outlook for fertilizer consumption and

food production in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Environ. (Special issue) 4: 9-

26.

38

ANNEXURES

Annex 1. Study sites (upazila): Phulpur, Kalihati, Gabtali, Kaharol, Naogaon Sadar, Paba, Chandina, Faridpur Sadar, Bahobol, Doulatpur and Ulipur

39

Annex 2. Production capacity o different fertilizer plants in Bangladesh

Fertilizer plant Location Year of installation

Annual production capacity

Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory

Fenchuganj, Sylhet

1961 1,06,000 MT urea, 12000 MT Amm. sulphate

Urea Fertilizer Factory Ltd.

Ghorashal, Narsingdi

1970 4,70,000 MT urea

Zia Fertilizer Co. Ltd.

Ashuganj,Sylhet

1981 5,28,000 MT urea

Polash Urea Fertilizer Factory Ltd.

Polash,Narsingdi

1985 95,000 MT urea

Chittagong Urea Fertilizer Co. Ltd.

Rangadia, Chittagong

1987 5,61,000 MT urea

Jamuna Fertilizer Co. Ltd.

Sarishabari, Jamalpur

1994 5,61,000 MT urea

Total annual production capacity 23,21,000 MT urea

TSP Complex Ltd. Patenga, Chittagong

1976 1,00,000 MT TSP,1,20,000 MT SSP

DAP fertilizer Co. Ltd. Rangadia, Chittagong

2006 800 MT /day

Kharnaphuli Fertilizer Co. Ltd. (KAFCO)

Rangadia, Chittagong

- 6,80,000 MT granular urea, 1,50,000 MT anhydrous ammonia

KAFCO is an export oriented international joint venture Co., with shareholding and support of the Govt. and private sectors of Bangladesh, Japan, Denmark and theNetherlands.

40

Annex 3. Template for calculation of fertilizer requirement

Example:

Upazila PhulpurAEZ 9

CD(T/ha) 3PM(T/ha) 0Com(T/ha) 0

Chem. fert.reqd. (kg/ha) Manure eq. fert. (kg/ha)

Crop Urea TSP MoP Urea TSP MoPT.Aman 143.5 40.0 66.0 CD 29.3 22.5 30.0Wheat 195.7 80.0 126.0 PM 0.0 0.0 0.0Potato 208.7 80.0 160.0 Comp 0.0 0.0 0.0Maize 228.3 120.0 126.0Boro 260.9 70.0 116.0

Adjusted chem. fert. (kg/ha)Crop Urea TSP MoPT.Aman 114.1 17.5 36.0Wheat 166.3 57.5 96.0Potato 179.3 57.5 130.0Maize 198.9 97.5 96.0Boro 231.5 47.5 86.0

41

Annex 4. Upazila Fertilizer Monitoring Committee

A. New Committee (October 2009)

Sl. No. Members Position

1 Local MP Advisor

2 Upazila Chairman Advisor

3 Upazila Vice-Chairman Advisor

4 Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) Chairman

5 Upazila Fisheries Officer (UFO) Member

6 Upazila Livestock Officer (ULO) Member

7 Upazila Rural Development Officer (URDO) Member

8 Upazila Cooperative Officer (UCO) Member

9 Officer-in Charge (OC) Member

10 All UP Chairman Member

11 BADC Fertilizer/Seed Representative Member

12 BFA representative Member

13 BDR representative (Border area) Member

14 Farmer representative

(nominated by Upazila Council)

Member

15 President, Upazila Press Club Member

16 Upazila Agriculture Officer Member-Secretary

B. Old Committee (Before October 2009)

Sl. No. Members Position

1 Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) Chairman

2 Upazila Fisheries Officer (UFO) Member

3 Upazila Livestock Officer (ULO) Member

4 Officer-in Charge (OC) Member

5 BADC Fertilizer/Seed Representative Member

6 BFA representative Member

7 Upazila Agriculture Officer Member- Secretary

42

Annex 5. Consumption (MT) of different fertilizers in Bangladesh during the last 40 years

Years Urea TSP SSP DAP MoP Gypsum Zinc

sulphate

Amm.

sulphate

Others Total

1965-66 832 200 --- --- 27 --- --- --- 20 1059

1970-71 2123 749 --- --- 171 --- --- --- --- 3043

1975-76 3119 1090 --- --- 221 --- --- --- 19 4449

1984-85 831801 345670 --- 403 69271 1379 1217 --- 10480 1260221

1989-90 1369237 479767 718 --- 118633 67808 5180 1785 18 2043176

1990-91 1323397 514761 12120 --- 149761 101782 2743 2763 211 2107538

1991-92 1533481 456672 36201 --- 137135 115334 3805 4797 --- 2287425

1992-93 1547407 107002 119828 2010 126083 108140 722 4992 --- 2316184

1993-94 1578955 234185 170608 28675 103875 86051 5200 10036 97 2217682

1994-95 1748459 12294 533485 1837 154240 77161 --- 2491 --- 2640620

1995-96 2045535 111095 596881 --- 155881 103577 1029 8692 --- 3022690

1996-97 2119883 72629 525285 --- 219302 86611 1161 11692 --- 3036563

1997-98 1872725 62382 473295 6778 193496 113430 661 9716 --- 2732483

1998-99 1902024 170247 362370 38633 210748 128215 269 12418 --- 2824924

1999-00 2142100 360000 332000 169000 270000 130000 15400 13500 --- 3432000

2000-01 2111000 405000 121000 94000 133000 140000 15500 13500 13000 3046590

2001-02 2248000 425000 127000 127000 243000 96000 3000 13500 10000 3292500

2002-03 2247000 375000 133000 121000 271000 100000 5000 13500 13000 3278500

2003-04 2350000 450000 120000 200000 325000 120000 6000 13500 26000 3610500

2004-05 2487000 410800 163900 161000 352700 68700 10000 20000 99000 3773500

2005-06 2600000 450000 125000 175000 300000 150000 25000 20000 160000 4005000

2006-07 2515000 340000 122000 115000 230000 72000 26000 25000 120000 3565000

2007-08 2400000 300000 120000 100000 200000 65000 25000 24000 100000 3334000

2008-09 2500000 150000 - 17000 75000 - - - - -

43

Annex 6. Salient features of the farmers’ characteristics in the studied areas (n = 75)

Sl. No. Selected characteristics

Scoring system

Range

Categories

Respondent

Pos

sibl

e Sc

ore

Obs

erve

d S

core

No. (%) MeanStd. dev.

1. AgeActual years

-

20-7

5 Young (35)Middle (36-50)Old (>51)

223122

29.3 41.4 29.3

45.4 13.89

2. EducationYears of schooling

-

0-12

Illiterate (0)Can sign only (0.5)Primary (1-5)Secondary (6-10) Above secondary (>10)

131421216

17.318.728288

5 4.22

3. Farm size Hectare -

0.22

-4.0

5 Small (<0.5)Medium (0.51-1)Large (>1)

332715

443620

0.876 0.821

4. Family sizeNo. of

members

-

2-19

Small (≤ 4)Medium (5-6)Large (>6)

23 15 47

30.720

49.36.48 2.93

5.Farming experience

Years of farming

-

3-50

Low (≤15)Medium (16-30)High (>30)

19 40 16

25.353.421.3

23.52 11.55

6. Annual income ‘000’Tk. -

13-3

37

Low (≤50)Medium (51-100)High (>100)

22 30 23

29.340

30.788.27 61.13

7.Training experience

Days -

0-15

Low (≤5)Medium (6-10)High (>10)

493

23

66.24.1

29.74.77 6.16

8.Communication exposure

Rated score 0-

30

1-15

Low (≤5)Medium (6-10)High (>10)

40 323

53.342.7

45.99 2.78

9.Use of organic matter

ton -

0-15

Low (≤5)Medium (6-10)High (>10)

43 21 11

57.328

14.75.24 4.94

44

Annex 7. Total N+P+K input and output in Bangladesh (Source: Rijpma and Jahiruddin, 2004)

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

1 2 3 4 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29

AEZ No.

N+

P+

K B

alan

ce (

kg/h

a)

N P K

Annex 8. N+P+K Balance (kg ha-1) in different AEZs of Bangladesh (Source: Rijpma and Jahiruddin, 2004)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

N+P

+K (

kg/h

a)

Total outputs

Total inputs