Hi Robert >Keith Addison wrote: > > > > > He knew what the basic wealth is, very wise. You'd think of course an > > agricultural research scientist would know that, but so many don't, > > even today. Yields! Efficiency! > > Having grown up in the era of the "green revolution", it's been very >hard to accept that "modern" farming practices are detrimental. I >remember watching films at school touting the victory of modern farming >over pestilences, and how increased yields were wiping out hunger. Much >of this propaganda tied directly into the jingoism taught as fact by the >entire culture around me as I grew to adulthood, so it was easy to >dismiss my uncle's concern as "third world sour grapes". > > Further, the fertilization / pesticide / herbicide cycle harks back >to the 19th century idea that putting something into the soil means you >can take something out of it.
Well, that's true, but... >(I can't remember from whence that >originated.) From Baron Justus von Liebig. >This mentality leads to chemical inputs--e.g. the plants >don't care what kind of nutrients they're receiving, as long as they are >nutrients! So, we sterilize our soil in an effort to grow plants. . . That's right (no it's wrong!), it's called "NPK thinking", all that's needed is to provide the Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium that the crop will remove, with several myths attached: - that only these "major nutrients" matter - though the list kept being expanded until eventually there were 45 or so, including "micro-nutrients", plus the addition of the "law of the little bit", which holds that the nutrient, major or minor, that's missing is the constraining factor, no matter if all the others are "right"; - that humus and its associated "soilfoodweb", the soil's teeming micro-life, simply didn't matter - the soil itself didn't matter, beyond being stuff that conveniently props the plant up (maybe). This sums it up: "To grow a plant such as a sunflower successfully with chemicals, all that was necessary to know was the composition of the ash. If the inorganic materials were supplied as chemicals soluble in water and in about the proportions that they occur in soil water, a plant could be grown to full size and maturity in water cultures. Hydroponics is the modern version of the Liebig ideas." (Howard) And (also Howard): "The principle followed, based on the Liebig tradition, is that any deficiencies in the soil solution can be made up by the addition of suitable chemicals. This is based on a complete misconception of plant nutrition. It is superficial and fundamentally unsound. It takes no account of the life of the soil, including the mycorrhizal association -- the living fungous bridge which connects soil and sap. Artificial manures lead inevitably to artificial nutrition, artificial food, artificial animals, and finally to artificial men and women." As is now plain to see. Liebig subsequently retracted these ideas, though the retraction has been, one can only say, censored, suppressed - it's very hard to find. He'd written this, in 1855: "Unfortunately the true beauty of agriculture with its intellectual and animating principles is almost unrecognized. The art of agriculture will be lost when ignorant, unscientific and short sighted teachers persuade the farmer to put all his hopes in universal remedies, which don't exist in nature. Following their advice, bedazzled by an ephemeral success, the farmer will forget the soil and lose sight of its inherent values and their influence." Not very Liebigean, one would think. And then this, towards the end of his life: "I had sinned against the wisdom of our creator, and received just punishment for it. I wanted to improve his handiwork, and in my blindness, I believed that in this wonderful chain of laws, which ties life to the surface of the earth and always keeps it rejuvenated, there might be a link missing that had to be replaced by me--this weak, powerless nothing. "The law, to which my research on the topsoil led me, states, 'On the outer crust of the earth, under the influence of the sun, organic life shall develop'. And so, the great master and builder gave the fragments of the earth the ability to attract and hold all these elements necessary to feed plants and further serve animals, like a magnet attracts and holds iron particles, so as no piece be lost. Our master enclosed a second law unto this one, through which the plant bearing earth becomes an enormous cleansing apparatus for the water. Through this particular ability, the earth removes from the water all substances harmful to humans and animals--all products of decay and putrefaction, of perished plant and animal generations. "What might justify my actions is the circumstance, that a man is the product of his time, and he is only able to escape the commonly accepted views if a violent pressure urges him to muster all his strength to struggle free of these chains of error. The opinion, that plants draw their food from a solution that is formed in the soil through rainwater, was everyone's belief. It was engraved into my mind. This opinion was wrong and the source of my foolish behavior. "When a chemist makes a mistake in rating agricultural fertilizers, don't be too critical of his errors, because he has had to base his conclusions upon facts which he can't know from his own experience, but rather, has to take from agricultural texts as true and reliable. After I learned the reason why my fertilizers weren't effective in the proper way, I was like a person that received a new life. For along with that, all processes of tillage were now explained as to their natural laws. Now that this principle is known and clear to all eyes, the only thing that remains is the astonishment of why it hadn't been discovered a long time ago. The human spirit, however, is a strange thing. Whatever doesn't fit into the given circle of thinking, doesn't exist." Quite an admission. But then came the First World War, and when peace broke out in 1918 the huge munitions factories bent on using Fritz Haber's nitrogen-fixation process to make explosives were left without a market. It was round about then it started becoming quite difficult to find evidence of Liebig's retraction of his basis for chemical agriculture. And we've (almost) never looked back, unfortunately. > Then I went to college. Watershed restoration had become somewhat >of a passion for me, and since biology was part of my major, I really >wanted to see forests "return" to their natural state. Surprisingly, I >learned that soil is the key to a healthy forest ecosystem--it's teeming >with microscopic life, and without it, plants cannot thrive. (This >makes sense when we really think about it. Root systems can only uptake >what exists in the soil. Some of it - for instance, most of the phosphorus that farmers buy and apply they're adding to phosphorus-rich soils, and most of it simply joins the existing stores in a form unavailable to plants, without the intervention of soil micro-organisms, that is. Adding too much of one thing, or too little, locks up other nutrients which become unavailable to the plants even when they're there in abundance. "Why do our sheep have a copper deficiency when there's plenty of copper in our soil?" a so-called "conventional" farmer asked me. He couldn't take it in though, too programmed. >Micro organisms do a lot of chemistry work on >the plant's behalf.) Ultimately, my uncle was right. If we take care >of the soil, the soil will take care of us. "Feed the soil, not the plant." Have you seen our Small Farms Library Robert? If not, please go there right now! http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html Small Farms Library - Journey to Forever > Now, as spring approaches (it's only February, but my fruit trees >are ALREADY budding--you'd think I was back in California!) and everyone >in the neighborhood is buying pesticide spray, I'm worrying about my >strategy for soil remediation this year. I found a place that is giving >away composted goose manure, and I'm waiting for the local recycling >depot to open so I can mix a bunch of compost and get some organic >material into the dirt for my flower beds and fruit trees. A fruit tree takes up an important part of the nourishment required for the fruit harvest in the preceding autumn. > A couple of weeks ago I was emptying out my own compost bin and >noticed earthworms in the compost! (I have never seen an earthworm on >this property. . .) Ah, then you're well away, you'll win, only a matter of time. >It may take time to get my garden functioning, but >I have to start with soil. Otherwise, I'll be spraying everything to >kill bugs and force my plants to grow, just like my neighbors do. > > > What do you do when it happens socially, face to face? > > This is a hard question. Intellectual interchange is a different >concept than mere gainsaying and ridicule of another person's >perspective, yet the latter is often mistaken for the former. When I >encounter people who are unwilling to think I have a hard time >restraining my desire to belittle or ridicule. My favorite mechanic >believes that I.Q. is a static number, so that as population increases, >overall intellectual capacity declines. . . A nice conundrum! Which came first, the idea or the corresponding observation? But I think it's possible to observe quite the opposite too. > I think of people as a resource, rather than a liability. However, >attitude makes a HUGE difference in any single person's ability to >effect positive change. I have little tolerance for anyone who thinks >too highly of himself. (Besides, I've read somewhere that "God opposes >the proud, but exalts the humble.") Likewise, though I come from a >great country, one doesn't have to look to hard to realize that it's far >from perfect. People who think America can do no wrong are living in a >self imposed fantasy. > > > Just smile and > > accept it? Why should you accept it here? Perhaps some people don't > > mix enough with others who might have different views from their own, > > but then they should, and they surely should be aware that a list > > like this isn't their local bar. > > This is a very diverse forum, and many people who post here have >political views considerably to the left of mine. That doesn't mean >their perspectives have no merit, nor is the criticism frequently >leveled at my country lacking in at least some truth. The great majority of it comes from Americans though. >It's not always >pleasant to read, but I don't see how lashing belligerently at the >critics solves the problems about which they complain, nor does doing so >change any minds. The arrogance I've read from some of my own >countrymen merely serves to reinforce the stereotype of myopic jingoism >common among a people whose perspective simply cannot accomodate any >view other than their own. Perhaps it's easier for me to handle the >critics of America because I live as a guest in someone else's country, >a place where "America bashing" is part of the cultural identity. (It's >harmless, and really quite funny--especially when people doing the >"bashing" learn that I'm an American!) > > What I wish the jingoists among us would learn, is that our friends >around the world truly are our friends. Many nations who have >criticized our policies have stood shoulder to shoulder with us on the >battlefield. Others have deep economic and social ties to us that >should not be taken lightly. We should be quicker to listen and slower >to respond, I think. Hear hear! Fortunately many Americans do have that view, I'd like to believe those who don't are just a minority, if a noisy one. > > So do I, but maybe it's just an unaccustomed awkwardness in strange > > company, they feel defensive so they overcompensate or something... > > Huh, paperback psychology, sorry. > > That's precisely why I was asking: "What are you afraid of?" > > > Could this be the answer? > > > > "Imagine how different politics would be if debates were conducted in > > Tariana, an Amazonian language in which it is a grammatical error to > > report something without saying how you found it out. ... In some > > languages, including Tariana, you always have to put a little suffix > > onto your verb saying how you know something - we call it > > "evidentiality"... If you don't say how you know things, they think > > you are a liar." > > Interesting! But if we're bring a perspective of "I'm not going to >compare my sources with your sources" into the discussion, even such >linguistic restraints would not constrain the underlying attitude. As >long as one person believes he is superior, there is no sense in >discussing anything. That individual merely justifies his a priori >assumptions as correct and dismisses all evidence to the contrary. I'm afraid you're right. :-( > Besides, as the recent discussion on climate change has illustrated, >it is more intellectually laborious to weigh each claim and counter >claim on its own merit. Most people lack the time and energy to become >well informed. > > > http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opinterview.jsp;jsessionid=KNBHENH > > KEGCH?id=ns24321 > > For want of a word > > This pointed me to an article on wheel chair design. . . The link's been broken in transmission, you have to join it up again - you missed the "KEGCH?id=ns24321" bit. Give it another try. > > Hope you're better now, take care. > > > > My right eye is still swollen. (I've never had flu in the eyes >before!) That sounds most unpleasant. >I put in a 12 hour day at work yesterday and was very tired >about half way through, but I rested well last night. Thanks for your >concern! We're too euphemistic about "just" a cold or "just" the flu, it's miserable stuff. regards Keith >robert luis rabello >"The Edge of Justice" >Adventure for Your Mind >http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782 ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
