Hugh Martin A FEW weeks ago Mr. Gilpin Hudson, a cane farmer from St. Catherine, won the "Letter-of-the-Day" award with his assertion that the low 2003 sugar crop was a consequence of a poor root system in the local cane varieties. He was echoing the theory Mr. Mark Brooks has been expounding for the past five years.
Mr. Brooks is a man with a mission. It is his relentless pursuit of a theory that the decline in sugarcane production in Jamaica has been due, not to unfavourable weather conditions and poor farm management practices (as the major players in the industry claim) but simply to disease. This disease, he believes, is found in the soils all over the country and is responsible for destroying the roots of the sugarcane plant and other crops as well. Without healthy roots the plant is unable to absorb the moisture and the nutrients that are provided by the application of water and fertilisers. They are therefore unable to grow vigorously or to produce the sugar effectively hence the continued decline in production and productivity.
The argument is convincing and Mr. Brooks articulates it well; so well that in 1999 he was successful in getting the local media and some members of the Houses of Parliament to accept the claim of a new disease threatening the sugar industry. Arising from this was one of the biggest controversies to take place in the agricultural sector in recent years as the sugar authorities resolutely denied that there was any new disease posing a threat to the industry. Mr. Brooks did not come to this crusade as a result of some sudden revelation. As managing director of Richmond Farms, St. Ann, he achieved reasonable sugarcane yields up to 1992 of 30 tons/acre (approximately 75 tons/hectare). However by 1995 this had fallen to 13 tons/acre and he knew he was in trouble. Thus began his quest to find the reason for this decline.
The Sugar Industry Research Institute (SIRI) investigators concluded that his problem was a result of unfavourable conditions in the soil created by the innovative cultivation practices he was trying. This did not satisfy him so he launched into his own research which took him back into the early history of sugar in Jamaica and to the corners of the world where sugar is grown. He invited scientists from the United States to look at his and other farms with similar conditions and has felt vindicated by some of their findings.
However, only a handful of other farmers, including Messrs. Mark Kerr-Jarrett of Barnett Estates and Gilpin Hudson have supported his view. He has claimed support also from one local scientist, Dr. Phyllis Coates-Beckford of the UWI whose work on breadfruits proved that the decline in yields of that crop and several others was due to a soil-borne disease. The majority of cane farmers and agricultural scientists however have steadfastly resisted the theory.
The whole thing came to a head in September of 1999 with a meeting at the Golf View Hotel, Mandeville. Farmer after farmer who had been getting good yields, and sugarcane agronomists and other scientists, disagreed vehemently with Brooks's presentation. A task force was set up to examine the claims and to put an end to the controversy. In the meanwhile the visiting scientists, while confirming that many disease pathogens were observed in the soils examined, were emphatic that there was no new sugarcane disease. This coincided with the findings of the task force comprised of highly respected local scientists and was nothing new to most farmers and agriculturists.
Crop rotation has been an age-old response to this where the land is rested regularly by a change of the kind of crop grown on it year after year. In a plantation crop such as sugarcane however, where land is limited it is allowed to ratoon on the same location for up to six years before being taken out or replanted. The soil pathogens tend to multiply over time and affect the plant adversely resulting in a decline in yields as the roots become progressively affected. It is a condition known worldwide as sugarcane yield decline and not a new disease. But while Brooks has finally conceded this, he remains convinced that it is the main cause of the low yields over the past several years and that the principal method of dealing with the problem is to fumigate the soil as is done in North America for various other crops.
On the other hand, SIRI's Agricultural Services Manager, Mr. Trevor Falloon who has had experience with fumigation at Worthy Park, is totally against it on the ground that the environmental hazards alone make it a bad idea. Soil fumigants are among the more toxic pesticides and their use could have implications for the integrity of our streams and ground water supplies. In any case he believes that sugarcane yield decline as a result of soil-borne disease pathogens are best dealt with by proper agronomic practices such as regular replanting with newer improved varieties, rotation of crops and timely application of inputs.
He points to the fact that much of that has not been taking place on many farmers' holdings due to the lack of funds, the high price of inputs and the lower price received for cane in the crop years preceding the one just ended. Experiments being carried out by SIRI have confirmed that much higher yields are realised on soils that have been rotated and without chemical treatment than on those that continue to grow the same crop or variety continuously.
One could conclude that Mr. Brooks and Mr. Hudson, in continuing this quest, might be increasing their knowledge base with the considerable research they've done but may also be guilty of tilting at windmills.
Hugh Martin is a communications specialist and farm broadcaster. E-mail: humar@cwjamaica.com
