Smart Fertilization Strategy Shields PHL Agriculture from Soil Decline

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

A rapid appraisal by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) probes how combining organic and inorganic fertilizers could stabilize Philippine agriculture amid rising costs and environmental threats.

The study “Prospects for Widespread Adoption of Organic‑Based Fertilizers in the Philippines: A Rapid Appraisal” (Series No. 2024‑30) underscores the urgency of diversifying fertilizer use in the country.

Conducted by PIDS researchers Roehlano Briones, Helena Pastolero, and Ivory Galang, the paper highlights ecological damage and economic pressure wrought by an overreliance on inorganic fertilizers.

Modern conventional farming in the Philippines has leaned heavily on chemical inputs to maximize yields, but long‑term effects on soil health and water systems loom large.

From 1961 to 2022, nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizer use surged more than fivefold—rising 5.3, 5.5, and 5.2 times respectively—reflecting a national shift toward mineral-based inputs.

This shift has undercut traditional organic practices: the share of manure in total nitrogen applications dropped from 39 percent in 1961 to a mere 16 percent in 2021.

Despite growing organic fertilizer use—37 percent of palay farmers used some form in 2022—only about 5 percent practice full organic farming.

In 2021, inorganic fertilizer prices skyrocketed—urea nearly tripled by May 2022—raising alarm and prompting exploration of nutrient management alternatives.

The government responded with heavy subsidies for inorganic fertilizers to protect food security, but this prioritization pits immediate yield needs against long‑term environmental costs.

Inorganic fertilizers are efficient for rapid nutrient delivery and yield boosts when used correctly at recommended rates.

However, chronic use causes soil acidification, depletion of organic carbon, reduced biodiversity, nutrient loss through leaching and volatilization, and overall soil degradation.

As an alternative, the PIDS paper discusses integrated nutrient management (INM), agroecology, regenerative and conservation agriculture, circular farming, and nature-based solutions.

Central to all these systems is the use of organic-based fertilizers—compost, manure, microbial inoculants—to rebuild soil structure, enhance water retention, and promote microbial activity.

Organic-based fertilizers release nutrients slowly, reducing losses and sustaining soil fertility over time.

Yet, the study makes clear that fully organic agriculture (100 percent abandonment of inorganic inputs) is not feasible in the Philippines due to nitrogen scarcity.

Local organic sources provide less than 1 percent of the country’s nitrogen needs based on 2023 inorganic fertilizer imports.

This nitrogen gap underscores dependency on chemical fertilizers unless imports drop drastically or domestic production of organic inputs scales up exponentially.

The Department of Agriculture (DA), through its Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), promotes the Balanced Fertilization Strategy (BFS), which mixes organic fertilizers, biofertilizers, and mineral inputs tailored to soil analyses.

Studies confirm that BFS delivers the best of both approaches: high yields, economic returns, soil improvement, and reduced environmental strain.

Yet, barriers to organic fertilizer adoption persist.

Smallholder farmers face high labor demands for farm-level composting, logistical challenges in collecting raw materials such as crop residues and animal waste, and costs for commercial organic products.

Vermicompost, for instance, costs around PHP 320 per kilogram of nitrogen—more than three times the effective cost of urea at PHP 96/kg‑N, despite urea’s substantial nutrient losses.

Additionally, organic products often have undesirable smells, inconsistent availability, and slow nutrient release—deterring farmers who need speedy results.

Nevertheless, adoption drivers include group memberships (e.g., farmer cooperatives), access to extension support, subsidies, prior drought experience, and farm size.

Return on investment is compelling: studies show that long-term yields from combined manure and chemical applications outperform pure chemical regimens.

Economies of scale also favor commercial production of organic fertilizers: the cost per unit nitrogen declines significantly with larger-scale operations.

Farmers who produce organic amendments independently may pay higher effective labor costs, while microenterprises and SMEs benefit from more efficient, mechanized processing.

The study outlines demand and supply realities based on field interviews.

Main sources of demand include organic growers using on‑farm composting, vermicast, and liquid manures; balanced fertilization practitioners also supplement with government-provided compost.

Commercial uptake grows when government agencies purchase and distribute green products—showing public procurement can drive market expansion.

On the supply side, compost provision often comes from cooperatives or small local enterprises; more complex products like microbial inoculants are produced at scale by larger firms.

Yet producers struggle to gather enough raw materials—crop byproducts, animal manure, water hyacinth, market wastes—at competitive cost.

Several government programs influence the landscape.

The National Organic Agriculture Program (NOAP) supports organic farming via livelihood programs and community-based certification like the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS), but organic areas remain limited and uneven.

Certified organic land has waxed and waned, failing to sustain initial gains in recent years.

Meanwhile, the BFS under the DA’s “OneDA” banner promotes combined use of organic and inorganic inputs, supplemented by biofertilizer subsidies, but the bulk of government allocations still favor conventional fertilizer.

Competitive dynamics raise concerns: inorganic fertilizer firms reportedly discourage dealers from offering organic products, and some regulations may require disclosure of proprietary information from organic companies.

During a June 26 PIDS forum on INM, Ivory Galang stressed the importance of a science‑based approach to fertilization.

Galang noted that urea prices surged to PHP 3,000 per 50‑kilogram bag in 2021–2022, creating urgency for change.

“This is what we call the balanced fertilization strategy,” she said.

Co‑author Helena Pastolero cited UPLB data showing that in 2023, domestic organic inputs could supply only 0.49 percent of required nitrogen for Philippine soils.

She described INM as the middle path, blending compost with targeted mineral fertilizer to rejuvenate soil health, improve yields, and enhance climate resilience.

Pastolero highlighted innovations like biostimulants—microbes such as Trichoderma and Bio‑N that bolster nutrient uptake and stress tolerance.

She emphasized compost quality, advising fully decomposed material: “Squeeze a handful of compost; if water drips, it needs more time.”

UP Los Baños Professor Emeritus Virginia Cuevas shared long‑term research showing rice yields using 50 percent chemical fertilizer plus compost and microbial inoculants equaled or exceeded full‑chemical applications.

“Organic matter from compost increases soil water holding capacity… which is the answer to the problem presented by the Department of Agriculture,” she said.

Cuevas noted that rice fields using this mix maintained productivity during drought, underscoring its role in adapting to climate change.

To ease labor costs of composting, she proposed in‑situ rapid composting and mechanisation, as well as use of abundant waste streams like water hyacinth (which contains 4 percent nitrogen) and market discards.

The forum also tackled policy gaps.

Lead author Roehlano Briones observed that organic growers often match or beat yields of conventional farmers, but remain niche players.

“There’s a small, narrow market segment that has adopted organic farming,” he said.

He urged stronger government involvement across the supply chain—from raw material sourcing to packaging, distribution, soil mapping and research.

Briones revealed that the last national soil map was done in the 1970s.

Briones also proposed restructuring fertilizer subsidies, gradually shifting financial support from inorganic to organic fertilizers and biofertilizers.

Experts at the forum argued that fertilization policies matter greatly, given climate stress, food security, and supply chain vulnerabilities.

Dr. Cuevas said, “If these recommendations are properly implemented, rice self‑sufficiency is on the horizon—provided, however, that rice is not used as a political commodity.”

The study concludes that while inorganic fertilizers continue to dominate, significant use of organic inputs already exists—especially in vegetable production—indicating latent potential.

For expanded adoption, major challenges must be confronted: ensuring steady access to raw materials, strengthening marketing and distribution, enhancing training through extension services, and retooling subsidy programs.

Policy recommendations include reinforcing NOAP and PGS labeling, reviewing organic fertilizer regulation to promote competition, implementing phased subsidy reprioritization, allocating area‑based R&D, and investing in soil mapping.

A proposed value‑chain initiative would link agro‑processing, livestock, and poultry industries to organic fertilizer production—creating a circular supply of raw materials for compost and inoculant firms.

The BFS framework could balance food production with environmental stewardship by leveraging both organic inputs and chemicals.

Given fertilizer prices, soil degradation, and existential pressures from extreme weather, a smarter, science-based fertilization strategy has emerged as a national imperative.

The PIDS discussion paper signals a turning point: the road to a resilient, self‑sufficient, and sustainable Philippine agriculture depends on strategic integration—not rejection—of chemical fertilizers.