How can we reverse China's fertilizer dependency?

Surveys in Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces in the major grain-producing provinces have found that the application of chemical fertilizers has played a positive role in increasing grain production in recent years, but it has also caused some farmers to suffer from “fertilizer dependence”. Industry insiders pointed out that the total amount of chemical fertilizer used in China is too high, and overuse of chemical fertilizers will bring about the degradation of soil quality, food production and other consequences, threatening food security and affecting the sustainable development of China's agriculture.

Classical economics has a saying: "Land is the mother of wealth, and labor is the father of wealth." These words are particularly important and urgent when viewed from the perspective of China. The land cannot make a fortune, and labor does not necessarily become rich. If we say that the latter highlights the pattern in which income distribution needs to be adjusted, then the myth of the land is the historical crux of the issue of agriculture, rural areas and farmers. Soil degradation and chemical fertilizer dependence seem to be a matter of food security; however, in fact, in the four major elements of land, labor, capital, and technology, the risk of land quantity or quality corresponds to the absence of skin. Will be attached to the heavy worry.

But when I saw food, I heard that the land was crying. Fertilizers are advancing rapidly in Chinese agriculture, and singing is nothing more than a chord of “amounting quantity but not quality”. According to the annual report of Jilin Provincial Bureau of Statistics, the amount of chemical fertilizer used in Jilin Province was 500,000 tons in 1984, and by 2010, the amount of chemical fertilizer used has reached about 5 million tons, an increase of 10 times—corresponding to this It is the stage of Jilin Province's grain production that has jumped from 20 billion kilograms to 50 billion kilograms in the past 30 years. According to statistics, China's annual fertilizer use is more than 54 million tons. In 2009, the use of chemical fertilizer per hectare of land in China was 341 kg, which was higher than that of other countries in the world. Too much use of chemical fertilizers will sooner or later lead to linkage problems. The problem is obviously not only in the soil domain: For example, most of the excess nitrogen and phosphorus flows into the water body, resulting in eutrophication of the water body; ammonia emissions cause atmospheric pollution, oxidation of Asia Nitrogen emissions cause the greenhouse effect—At the moment the fertilizer opens the door to increasing grain production, it also opens the “Pandora Box” of the ecological environment.

If you compare the environmental costs of overusing chemical fertilizers with digital gratifying food production, you can hardly say how much cheaper we are. In the face of decadent ecological costs, what may be repeated is nothing more than a thirst-quenching story. We often say that technology changes humans, but there are still things that cannot be changed by science and technology, such as the laws. The amount of grain that can be produced in one mu of land is not determined by chemical fertilizers, not determined by statistics, but determined by the law of survival and development on this land.

The fact that chemical fertilizers produce high-yielding food, bloody coal, and the speed of death is still a matter of essence. Fertilizers are used by farmers, but do "fertilizer dependency syndromes" really require farmers to "take medicines"? Coincidentally, a few days ago, the media reported the "drug dependence" of the aquaculture industry. The reporter visited some big aquatic provinces and found that: "From the production to the circulation, although the "residual drug" testing rate continues to increase, but the production field "veterinary drugs "Fish use" and "human medicine fish use" are still undercurrents ... "fertilizer dependence" or "drug dependence", but it is the same move that is the same as other people. As a producer of rational economic people, despite the suspicion of ethical misconduct, but the power of checks and balances between the market system and public management? May wish to ask if there are different prices for different grades of rice, and if land use can be included in the scope of public governance, the status quo that “the more fertilizer is used, the more profitable” must be irreversible?

Japan’s ancient training cloud: “Before planting, do soil first and cultivate people before doing soil”. Land degradation is just as dreadful as downgrading of human character. Biochemical technology is further developed, and agricultural products are always playing magic under the law of conservation of energy. The last month’s news was blushing: a Japanese company that rented more than 1,500 acres of land in Laiyang, Shandong Province, planted and raised cattle. For the Japanese who farmed at their homes, the local farmers slowly "disappointed" because Japanese companies do not fight pesticides, do not use fertilizers, and even have grass in the ground. They think this is ruining the land. Japan's agricultural enterprises, which "shunned the sun," became a joke in the eyes of "fertilizer agriculture."

When the land is full of fertilizers, the clean soil is as rare and valuable as clean water droplets. What is the value of science and technology? What is the boundary of order of survival? What is the fear of natural law? ... "Fertilizer dependency" is just a wake-up call to respond sooner or later - and the peasants are just dragons, not the protagonists.