Dear Editor,
The rice farmers are faced with disappearing markets, something which has been exacerbated by the rising costs of production and low prices. This has been further compounded by the fact that the quality of rice is now greatly compromised because of the recent infestation of paddy bugs and other pests, and our pleas for support to have this eradicated have fallen on deaf ears.
This worst-case scenario is a direct result of inaction by the relevant agencies which instead of enabling the government’s policy on agriculture, are disabling it.
For example, the farmers’ efforts to lower their high cost of production through mechanization, instead of being supported are met with a nonchalant and unconcerned attitude by the Pesticide and Toxic Chemicals Control Board (PTCCB) which ruled that while aerial application of seed and fertilisers is permitted, the application of pesticides must be done manually, even though the aerial application of pesticides was being done in the Mahaica area as recently as September 2015. It is uneconomical for farmers to do aerial application of two processes and then resort to the third manually, and this is further compounded by the reality that the manpower is not available for same.
The PTCCB have made a number of findings which are not backed by any evidence and are filled with conjecture and rhetoric. The PTCCB stated that their main concern is that aerial spraying posed a threat to human health and the environment, and emphasis was placed on the aerial spraying issue at Skeldon in 2009. However, the PTCCB itself had concluded that “the findings were inconclusive” in that instance (PTCCB Report 2009 Paragraph 7 ‘Com-plaints and Investigations’).
Moreover, recommendations were made and GuySuCo was allowed to continue aerial spraying. Prior to this, in 2007, nearly 400 workers at Skeldon alleged that they were sprayed with chemicals and of this number 79 were treated and sent home while two were hospitalized for a few days. The matter was investigated and yet again the findings were ‘inconclusive’. Even at that time GuySuCo was allowed to continue its aerial spraying. Why is GuySuCo the beneficiary of this preferential treatment over the rice farmers? Is sugar more important than rice? Rice farmers at no time have been allegedly culpable in relation to such activities. Furthermore, the question should be asked as to what measures were taken by the PTCCB since 2009 to establish baseline data on which to found subsequent investigations of complaints?
The PTCCB made submissions also that GuySuCo sprays in isolated areas and that herbicides and pesticides are trapped in waterways that are not near populated areas. (The allegations above certainly did not bear testimony to this.) I want to state here that even with all the aerial spraying done by GuySuCo, the trenches and canals provide fish such as hassar, which are caught and consumed on a daily basis. Many persons do this for a living on all the estates! Moreover, in the past sugar workers would use the canal waters for drinking and bathing with no ill-effect. One would expect with GuySuCo’s high level of spraying that the waterways would have been so contaminated that such fishing activities would have been impossible.
On the other hand, the use of insecticides in the rice industry is on a much smaller scale, so it boggles one’s intelligence to fathom how the waterways will be contaminated by aerial spraying and will not be contaminated by manual spraying when manual spraying is applied in a more indiscriminate manner; when the containers are also dumped indiscriminately; and the spray cans are washed indiscriminately in the trenches and canals. All of these lead to greater contamination. In relation to GuySuCo spraying in isolated areas, rice farmers do not do aerial spraying near homesteads and houses. Members of the PTCCB should avoid making decisions based on secondary information and hearsay evidence; they should stop allowing their laptops to make decisions and venture into the rice fields and get first-hand data and information in the real life situation.
The rice farmers in Regions 4, 5 and 6 are extremely vexed with this unwarranted development which is now threatening their livelihood, and they are adamant that aerial spraying is the answer to their present dilemma and the way forward for the rice industry. They intend to meet with the media to highlight this move stymieing their progress in the rice industry.
The rice farmers are contending:
– The price for paddy is at an all-time low and to remain viable they need to reduce costs and increase productivity drastically.
– Currently the rice industry is plagued with high insect damage significantly reducing the yield per acre.
– Aerial spraying is more cost effective since the cultivation is more evenly sprayed and in a more timely and efficient manner. During manual spraying paddy bugs simply migrate to the neighbouring plots and return when it is safe to do so. Aerial spraying thus greatly reduces pest damage and improves yield per hectare. It also enhances the quality of the paddy and ensures that farmers get a higher price.
– Aerial spraying provides for more pinpoint accuracy in spraying and much more reduced drift as the aircraft flies much lower in order to reduce air drifting of chemicals.
– Manual application by knapsacks and boom sprayers tends to concentrate the chemicals in localized areas and the upper hand movement allows for more wind drift of chemicals; on the other hand, aerial spraying provides for an even spraying surface with greater pressure to avoid such wind drifts.
– The environmental pollution due to the improper disposal of plastic bottles, plastic packages and other used chemical containers is evident throughout the farmlands where manual spraying is done. This indiscriminate dumping of these empty pesticide containers with toxic residues can severely affect plant and aquatic life, birds and humans.
– Accidental spillages by farmers who do manual spraying are hardly controllable.
– The trampling of the rice plants by manual sprayers and fertilizer hands accounts for more than six per cent loss of yield per acre. This is avoidable waste. This means that a rice farmer stands to lose nearly 3-4 bags of paddy per acre!
– In addition, less pesticides and fertilizers will be used thus reducing costs again.
– Lastly, the timely broadcasting of paddy, fertilizers and pesticides means an increase in efficiency and productivity.
It is time for the intervention of the Minister of Agriculture and the government to demonstrate that there is real concern for the welfare of the struggling rice industry.
Yours faithfully,
H Yusuf
