|
|
| Friday, May 1, 2009 |
“I have lived a healthy country existence practically all my life, and for the last 25 years of it I have been actively engaged in farming. I am physically robust, and have never suffered a major illness, but until 1938 I was seldom free in winter from some form of rheumatism, and from November to April I invariably suffered from a continual succession of head colds.
I started making compost by Howard’s method using it first on the vegetables for home consumption.... That winter I had no colds at all and almost for the first time in my life was free from rheumatic pains even in prolonged spells of wet weather.”
Fifty years later there still exists an intensely polarized dispute about the right way to garden and farm. People who are comfortable disagreeing with Authority and that believe there is a strong connection between soil fertility and the consequent health of plants, animals, and humans living on that soil tend to side with the organic camp.
People who consider themselves “practical” or scientific tend to side with the mainstream agronomists and consider chemical agriculture as the only method that can produce enough to permit industrial civilization to exist.
For many years I was confused by all this. Have you been too? Or have you taken a position on this controversy and feel that you don’t need more information? I once thought the organic camp had all the right answers but years of explaining soil management in gardening books made me reconsider and reconsider again questions like “why is organic matter so important in soil?” and “how much and what kind do we need?” I found these subjects still needed to have clearer answers. This book attempts to provide those answers and puts aside ideology.
A Brief History of the Organic Movement
How did all of this irresolvable controversy begin over something that should be scientifically obvious? About 1900, “experts” increasingly encouraged farmers to use chemical fertilizers and to neglect manuring and composting as unprofitable and unnecessary. At the time this advice seemed practical because chemicals did greatly increase yields and profits while chemistry plus motorized farm machinery minus livestock greatly eased the farmer’s workload, allowed the farmer to abandon the production of low-value fodder crops, and concentrate on higher value cash crops.
Perplexing new farming problems—diseases, insects and loss of seed vigor—began appearing after World War 1. These difficulties did not seem obviously connected to industrial agriculture, to abandonment of livestock, manuring, composting, and to dependence on chemistry.
The troubled farmers saw themselves as innocent victims of happenstance, needing to hire the chemical plant doctor much as sick people are encouraged by medical doctors to view themselves as victims, who are totally irresponsible for creating their condition and incapable of curing it without costly and dangerous medical intervention.
Farming had been done holistically since before Roman times. Farms inevitably included livestock, and animal manure or compost made with manure or green manures were the main sustainers of soil fertility. In 1900 productive farm soils still contained large reserves of humus from millennia of manuring. As long as humus is present in quantity, small, affordable amounts of chemicals actually do stimulate growth, increase yields, and up profits. And plant health doesn’t suffer nor do diseases and insects become plagues.
However, humus is not a permanent material and is gradually decomposed. Elimination of manuring steadily reduced humus levels and consequently decreased the life in the soil. And (as will be explained a little later) nitrogen-rich fertilizers accelerate humus loss. |
posted by neptunus @ 12:39 AM
 |
|
|
|
|
