THERE’S a new fad among Malaysians – shaping balls of mud and then tossing them into rivers and ponds.

It is all part of the noble effort to clean up our foul waterways. And much to the surprise of many sceptics, these pains seem to be bearing fruit.

Hard at work: Volunteers in Penang shaping EM mudballs for a river clean-up.

In Penang, Sungai Pinang and Sungai Mas are said to be less murky and smelly after thousands of mudballs were thrown in.

In Sungai Kelian in Tanjung Bungah, Penang, the transformation appears almost miraculous: after three months of mudball treatment between March and June at the estuary, the metre-thick black sludge that smothered the riverbed has disappeared, leaving behind a sandy bottom.

Although photographs taken last week show the estuary to be silting up again, the black muck that has for years sullied the rivermouth appears to be gone for good.

The mudballs worked because they have been enriched with Effective Micro-organisms (EM), a consortium of “good” microbes that can degrade pollutants (see sidebar) such as those contained within the noxious sludge that chokes riverbeds.

Sounds too good to be true? It is. Before everyone gets all excited over these wonderballs, here are some words of caution from scientists and even EM advocates themselves: they are not a cure-all to the problem of polluted rivers. The efficacy of EM mudballs will not last – not when pollutants continue pouring into rivers.

So while EM can work wonders, many question its long-term viability – particularly in Malaysia where rivers are still a toxic brew of rubbish, sewage, industrial effluent, eroded soils, chemical-laced runoffs from farms, untreated grey water (from kitchens and bathrooms), stormwater and nasty runoffs from wet markets, pasar malam sites, eateries, car washes and car workshops.

“What happens once we stop dumping the mudballs? It is a costly exercise which does not create a sustainable solution. I do not recommend it,” says Datuk Dr Zaini Ujang, professor in environmental engineering at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

“This is not the way to solve environmental problems. We’re allowing the river to be polluted, then treat it. The principle of any river rehabilitation is to identify the sources of pollution, then treat the pollution … not treat the pollution after it has gone into the river.”

The vice-chancellor who has vast experience in wastewater management is also concerned over potential side-effects.

“We might be altering the environment and allowing it to take place without proper monitoring.

“In a waste treatment plant, the confined environment allows us to control and monitor some 20 parameters in the treatment process, such the type of micro-organisms, temperature, turbidity and retention time.”

The promising nature of EM mudballs has prompted Dr K. Kalithasan of Global Enviroment Centre to test them out.

He has used them twice in Sungai Way, Selangor, since three months ago, under a “river care” project funded by Guinness Anchor Bhd Foundation.

“The water quality showed an improvement but it is too early to attribute it to the mudballs. It could be because rains have diluted the pollution.”

Kalithasan does not believe that EM can do wonders in one application.

“Once you stop using it and pollution gets back into the river, you’re back to zero. EM is not a permanent solution. Provided it is used widely in all activities, then it can work, such as in Japan, where communities use it in their daily chores such as washing and cleaning.”

The Department of Environment has yet to study the use of EM mudballs in river rehabilitation.

“DOE’s approach to clean up rivers has always been to handle at source,” says director-general Datuk Rosnani Ibarahim.

“Pollution can come from various sources, hence the various degree and complexity of parameters to be treated to remove the toxic constituents. I do not know much about mudball but it might not work that well because water in the river moves and dilution will render the mudball less effective.

“I understand it is a kind of micro-organism, hence it can only best treat the organic components of water pollution. What will happen to the inorganic components discharged by all kinds of industries?”

EM advocates admit that merely dumping a few hundred EM mudballs (also called bokashi mudballs) will not do the trick.

“Such events are more to demonstrate that the technique works. After that we must encourage people to treat pollution at source,” says Soo Lee Choo of EM Admins, a consultancy in Penang.

He says this will entail sewage treatment plants and industries using EM to render their discharges clean enough for release into rivers.

He also encourages households and hawkers, who are major sources of river pollution, to use EM for cleaning purposes as the resulting wastewater will be non-polluting.

Abdullah Ismail, director of Jamof, the licensed retailer of EM in Malaysia, shares Soo’s views.

“To treat the river itself, you can use EM mudballs. After that, you must think about how to handle the other pollution such as sewage, household waste and industrial discharges.

“I have told government agencies that just treating the water in the river is a waste of money. The river will revert back to its polluted state if the pollution is not stopped.”

He also encourages communities to use EM at home. “They should stop dumping kitchen waste but compost it using EM, then pour the liquid that is produced into drains and rivers.”

He says this EM-enriched solution will help keep drains, sewers and streams clean.

Costly exercise?

As EM mudballs must be applied in large numbers and over a period of time for them to work, this remedy might prove costly.

It was reported that the state of Johor had spent RM1.5mil on EM in the last two years, and will spend another RM1.5mil this year.

Soo, however, says using EM technology is among the cheapest methods to clean up rivers.

He says the EM solution costs RM22 per litre and can be mixed to form up to 20 litres. And by relying on volunteers to make the mudballs, costs are further reduced.

He says the Sungai Kelian project used up 40,000 mudballs and 12,000 litres of EM solution at a cost of RM100,000, which was covered by corporate sponsors.

“We spent only a fraction of what the Government did. And we see results. Mechanically dredging rivers will cost about RM4mil for 1km.”

The EM mudballs, he adds, need to be applied intensively only initially – once a week for the first two to three months. After that, fewer balls are used and they are thrown only fortnightly and then, monthly.

“We estimated that if only 10% of the population in the Sungai Kelian river basin spends RM10 to RM20 a month to make mudballs, we can move the river from Class III to Class I,” says Soo, a retired property developer who now goes around giving talks on EM.

But for EM mudballs to work, they have to be continuously tossed into the river. A single pitch cannot mop up all the dirt and would only amount to wasted funds.

But many such one-off events, with no long-term viability, have taken off.

One example: in December 2006, the Drainage and Irrigation Department spent RM100,000 to dump EM mudballs into Taman Aman Lake in Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

It was not followed up with more mudballs treatment and prevention of pollution into the lake. And so, the lake remains dirty.

Quick fixes are always appealing. It is feared that state governments, local councils and even community groups, all desperately wanting to restore rivers, will seek the easy way out by resorting to flinging balls of mud.

Until we stem pollution from entering our rivers, dumping mudballs is futile – their cleansing effect will only be fleeting.

—– ——

The microbial way

IN 1982, Dr Teruo Higa of the University of Ryukyus in Okinawa, Japan, discovered a group of naturally occurring micro-organisms which can be combined for various beneficial uses. He named them Effective Micro-organisms (EM) and patented the name.

As a commercial product, it is registered and sold as EM•1 by licensees worldwide. The major micro-organisms in EM•1 are lactic acid bacteria, yeast and phototrophic bacteria.

Higa initially developed EM as an alternative to the use of chemicals in agriculture. Through research over time, EM was found to be effective in other fields, including environmental remediation and livestock operations.

How it works

The micro-organisms in EM•1 have various functions. Through the production of lactic acid, lactic acid bacteria inhibit the growth of pathogenic micro-organisms. Yeast produce biologically-active agents such as amino acids and polysaccharides. Phototrophic bacteria utilise solar energy to metabolise organic and inorganic substances, hence its use in waste treatment.

In a healthy environment, living beings or micro-organisms live in a balance. In bad environments (such as a polluted river or industrial wastewater), the amount of beneficial micro-organisms are reduced while putrefying micro-organisms have become dominant. To restore such degraded environments, it is critical to transform the microflora by increasing the number of beneficial micro-organisms. Applying EM solution is said to do this.

In Malaysia, EM•1 is produced by Jamof at its factory in Bukit Tinggi, Johor (under licence by Higa’s EM Research Organisation). It contains only micro-organisms that are found locally and is sold at around RM22 a litre. This EM concentrate has to be “activated” – by mixing with molasses, salt and water, then left for five days – before use, otherwise the micro-organisms remain dormant.

The EM-activated solution (EM-AS) is used in farming (as fertiliser and to suppress soil pathogens), aquaculture (added to feed and to kill harmful bacteria in ponds), animal husbandry (to reduce ammonia smell in waste and added to animal feed to improve digestion), to accelerate the decomposition of wastes and to treat wastewater. It is also being promoted for general cleaning purposes in homes.

Garbage enzyme (made by fermenting vegetable and fruit waste with jaggery and water for three months) is being promoted as a home-made version of EM. Soo Lee Choo of consultancy firm EM Admins, however, cautions that garbage enzyme differs in content from EM.

He says garbage enzyme should be used with care as one can never be sure of what micro-organisms it contains as these depended on what waste was used in the fermentation. EM, on the other hand, is a consortium of some 80 different microbes which are cultured in a controlled environment.

Why mudballs?

If EM-activated solution is sprayed into flowing rivers, it would just disperse before making an impact. An EM mudball, on the other hand, will sink into the river substrate and there, slowly disintegrate, allowing the EM to escape into the water.

The mudballs are a mixture of clay soil, rice bran, EM-activated solution, molasses and bokashi (rice bran fermented with EM and molasses). For river clean-ups, the recommended dosage is between one and 10 mudballs (depending on the severity of the pollution) for 1sqm. Often, EM-activated solution is also pumped into the substrate for faster result.

The EM is said to inhibit the growth of algae and break down polluting sludge that has accumulated in riverbeds. Soo says EM is capable of treating both organic and inorganic waste, including chemicals and heavy metals such as mercury and arsenic.

—— ——