When Benson Wanjala started farming in his western Kenya village two and a half decades ago, his 10-acre farm could produce a bountiful harvest of 200 bags of maize. That has dwindled to 30. He says his once fertile soil has become a nearly lifeless field that no longer earns him a living.

Like many other farmers, he blames acidifying fertilizers pushed in Kenya and other African countries in recent years. He said he started using the fertilizers to boost his yield and it worked — until it didn’t. Kenya’s government first introduced a fertilizer subsidy in 2008, making chemical fertilizers more accessible for smaller-scale farmers.

Problems with soil health are growing as the African continent struggles to feed itself. Africa has 65% of the world’s remaining uncultivated arable land but has spent about $60 billion annually to import food, according to the African Development Bank. The spending is estimated to jump to $110 billion by 2025 due to increased demand and changing consumption habits.

“Inorganic fertilizers were never meant to be the foundation of crop production,” he said, later adding that because of “commercially inclined farming, our soils are now poor, acidic, and low in biomass resources, and without life!”

  • Wanderer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    What no one wants to accept is too many people on too little land. The earth is barely holding on.

    The soil is on it’s deathbed and we got a feeding tube keeping it going. Sure it will keep going. But at what cost.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not really, no. I have heard people mention it.

        I think some children have read it in school as guided learning. But it doesn’t seem to have much value because people never seem to have gained any knowledge from the book that they mention so I see no reason to read it. No argument or fact is ever generated from people reading the book and bring it up.

        Largely I come across is when people mentioned they have read it and have some knowledge how to be critical of it as parroted by some education curriculum. But is seems more of a English project like when I read Shakespeare and was asked what the author meant, rather than something based on science or economics with ideas and knowledge to be learnt.

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You don’t think a book is worth reading because educators use it as a critical thinking tool?

          You always appear to be have taken offense to having asking to be asked to think critically of Shakespeare and cannot see the value of those plays because of this offense.

          Fascinating.

          • Wanderer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The analysis of the piece is the educational purpose not the piece itself. Just like as mentioned Shakespeare. Are you suggesting I should use Shakespeare as to understand modern politics?

            Grapes of wrath means nothing to be because I haven’t read it. If there is any important facts within it then they will stand alone.

            Otherwise the argument for reading it is the same as the argument of “do your own research”.

            Provide something of note or don’t bother. Reading a fiction book isn’t my way of learning about the world and I don’t think it should be yours.