IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Fall 2013 - 16

and they then have to be in contact with SRDI. Banglalink has a framework agreement with the Department of Agriculture. SRDI automatically comes under
this umbrella agreement. This MoU assists in ensuring access to government offices as may be required
specifically for these software updates. According to
Banglalink
"the farmers using the service are at the higher
end of the education and farm income scales.
They are the more progressive farmers, the innovators, the early adopters. Most small farmers want to play safe. They can't afford to take
risks. Small farmers ask, if they use the service
and something goes wrong, who or how will
they be compensated. The usual fertilizer recommendation through the fRS is much lower
than current use. It is strange to the farmer that
it is so much less. The farmer's perception is
that more fertilizer means a better yield. They
don't understand how less fertilizer can lead to
a higher yield."
To date the fRS service has not been widely used
and is not yet profitable for the company. However,
the fRS is one service among many and is seen as
a positive contributor to the overall Agri Help Line
service, which itself is not yet financially successful.
The overall Agri Help Line service currently handles
a total of 30 000 relevant calls per month considering average calls over a period of three years. (with
the fRS being a relatively small component of this).
Banglalink however, sees immense possibilities for
growth as they are currently only engaging with 1%
of the population.

The FRS and its Effects/Benefits
Effects on Fertilizer Expenditures
The new service was launched in July 2009 and has
shown positive results. According to an independent
study commissioned by Katalyst to review the impacts
of the fRS system, users of the recommendation service have experienced two main benefits: reduced costs
for using fertilizers (in some cases up to 25%) and
higher crop yields (in some cases as much as 15%).6
Effects on Crop Yields
A total of 100 farmers from 10 Upazilas were identified for primary data collection through individual
interviews using a pre-coded questionnaire set by
Katalyst. Almost half (49%) of the respondents had
studied up to class ten indicating that more educated

farmers quickly understood the new technique of
fertilizer recommendations and responded accordingly. More than half (53.8%) of the respondents'
family had incomes in the (very low) BDT 10 000
range, with almost 76% of the respondents' family
monthly income up to BDT 15 000. This correlates
with national family incomes in rural areas that would
be classified as being either poverty or middle class
income level, i.e., the identified sample roughly corresponded to the national income levels for rural areas.
More than 97% of growers realized more production than during the previous year by applying the
fertilizer recommendations, 81.7% indicated that their
costs had declined, and 50% observed that the productivity of their land was greater than for the previous
year. A negligible percentage of growers (9.6%) indicated a negative impact from applying the recommendations - "The land was less fertile than the previous
year" (5.8%) and "Required more cost" (3.8%) - felt
there were some negative impacts resulting from the
application of the fertilizer recommendations [20].
More than 86% of growers saw a need for training where they could clarify issues, ask questions, and
receive instant feedback. Sometimes, they could not
remember all the instructions given by telephone and
found that calling time was costly. Almost 80% of the
respondents expect training facilitated by GPCIC at
their locality and refresher courses to cover the drawbacks and confusion in applying the method. More than
64% of the respondents suggested launching advocacy
and mobilization meetings and events to educate more
farmers on the subject.In response to the question about
future plans, 100% of the respondents indicated that
they would continue applying the method [21].
Environmental and Other Potential
Benefits of FRS
The impact on the environment of using excessive fertilizer has been quite negative. Excessive chemical fertilizer use causes a reduction in soil fertility and over
time the result is a need for ever increasing fertilizer
use to maintain the same level of continued production
[13]. Also when it rains, excess fertilizer is washed into
open water bodies, creating pollution in the water. The
people in villages are dependent on these water bodies
for their daily needs. They use this water for household
work and bathing. So the polluted water gets into the
system and causes different long and short term complications to the health of the villagers.7
The farmers handle large quantities of chemical
fertilizers with little knowledge or understanding
of the possible health impacts - And at times direct
health related complications arise from handling
fertilizers.

Assessment of the feasibility of different ICT channels in offering fertilizer
recommendation [20].
16

Internal communication.
IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

fALL 2013

http://www.subject.In

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Fall 2013