Punjab is generally described as Pakistan’s food basket, and rightly so. Wheat, rice, cotton, maize, sugarcane, vegetables and fruits grown here feed millions of people and support a large part of the rural economy. But behind this impressive production is another story that deserves more attention: how much are we relying on chemical inputs to maintain it, and what are we getting in return?
Fertilizers and pesticides are not the enemy of agriculture. As an agricultural researcher, I would be the last person to argue that farmers should simply stop using them. The real question is whether we are using them efficiently, at the right time and in the right amount and whether the additional input is producing enough additional output to justify its economic, environmental and food-safety costs.
Official fertilizer statistics show that nutrient use in Punjab has fluctuated considerably rather than rising steadily. According to the National Fertilizer Development Centre, fertilizer consumption was about 152 kg of nutrients per hectare in 2015–16, rose to around 212 kg in 2016–17, and remained near 197 kg in 2021–22. The latest figures also point to a considerable nitrogen bias: in 2024–25, Punjab’s average use was around 148 kg of nutrients per hectare, with nitrogen accounting for roughly 114 kg, compared with about 32 kg phosphorus and only 1.7 kg potassium.
The issue, therefore, is not simply “more fertilizer”. It is balance and efficiency.
The same question applies to pesticides. National pesticide-use data show substantial fluctuations, including a peak of more than 232,000 tonnes in 2020. These figures are for Pakistan rather than Punjab, so they should not be presented as provincial consumption. Yet they illustrate the scale of chemical dependence in our agricultural system.
At the same time, crop yields have not increased in a simple straight line. Punjab’s Crop Reporting Service records annual yield estimates for major crops, and these figures vary considerably from year to year. Wheat, for example, averaged about 3,353 kg per hectare in Punjab in 2024–25, compared with 3,435 kg per hectare the previous year. Weather, irrigation, varieties, sowing dates, soil fertility and pest pressure all influence yield, so chemical use alone cannot explain these changes. This is precisely why we need to look at input-use efficiency rather than input quantity.
What happens after the chemical leaves the field?
The consequences of agricultural chemicals do not necessarily stop at the field boundary.
A study conducted in four cotton-growing districts of Punjab, Bahawalnagar, Muzaffargarh, Dera Ghazi Khan and Rajanpur — detected residues of several pesticides in shallow groundwater. The concentrations generally remained below the drinking-water limits used in that study, but the researchers nevertheless recommended continued monitoring of rural water resources. That finding is important because groundwater is not an abstract environmental issue in Punjab; it is a major source of drinking and irrigation water.
Fertilizers create similar concerns when nutrients are applied beyond crop requirements. Nitrogen can be lost through leaching, runoff and gaseous emissions, while phosphorus can move with soil and water. Over time, inefficient fertilizer use can contribute to nutrient imbalance, declining soil quality and contamination of water resources.
Food safety is another part of the picture. Punjab’s own Pesticide Residue Laboratory reports that, in its 2018-19 monitoring programme, 5% of tested samples had pesticide residues above maximum residue limits. Interestingly, the proportion reported for market samples was higher than for samples collected directly from farmers’ fields. The same laboratory also found that cooking reduced residues below the maximum residue limits in 79% of vegetable samples in a 2016–17 study. These findings do not mean that all food in Punjab is contaminated. Rather, they show why correct dosage, application timing and observance of the pre-harvest interval matter.
Then comes the question people understandably ask: what about cancer?
Punjab has a substantial cancer burden, but it would be scientifically irresponsible to draw a direct line from fertilizer or pesticide use to cancer statistics without exposure and epidemiological evidence. A population-based study of Lahore recorded 58,394 incident cancer cases during 2010–2019, with age-standardised incidence rates of 103.4 per 100,000 women and 65.6 per 100,000 men. Cancer, however, has many causes, and these figures cannot be attributed to agricultural chemicals.
What we do need is better research linking environmental exposure with health outcomes.
The question Punjab should be asking
The future of agriculture should not be framed as “chemical farming versus organic farming”. That debate is too simplistic for Punjab.
The more useful question is: Can we produce more safe food with less unnecessary chemical input?
The answer lies in better soil testing, balanced fertilization, split application of nitrogen, improved varieties, integrated pest management, biological and cultural control, proper pesticide selection and strict observance of pre-harvest intervals. Farmers also need reliable advice that is independent of commercial pressure.
Most importantly, Punjab needs a stronger system for connecting the dots. Fertilizer use, pesticide application, crop yields, soil health, groundwater quality, food residues and public-health data are often discussed separately. They should be studied together.
Punjab does not need less science in agriculture. It needs better science , science that measures not only how much we produce, but also what it costs our soil, water, food and future.
Wajeeh Ur Rehman, Siraj Ahmed, Sana Ullah, Dr. Asmat Ullah Malik
Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad