Why Inferior Plants?
A number of factors may cause weak and inferior plants. But one of the most important factors is a depleted or unbalanced soil.
A professional soils consultant for Brookside Laboratories of New Knoxville, Ohio has stated: "We are proving today that sick soils produce sick plants and sick plants produce sick animals and humans. There are about one hundred of us who work with about 10,000 farmers at the present time. The overwhelming majority of them have already discovered that in a truly healthy soil our crops are not attacked by insects because God created these pests to destroy sick plants so that they cannot reproduce themselves."
In times past, this interrelationship of soil, plants and insects was recognized. In 1870 the American journalist Horace Greeley reported: "Multiplication of insects and their devastations are largely incited by the degeneracy of our plants caused by the badness of our culture. I presume that wheat and other crops could not be devastated by insects if there were no slovenly, niggard, exhausting tillage methods used. But when the fields of western New York were first tilled there were few insects; but after crops of wheat had been taken from those fields until they had been well-nigh exhausted of crop-forming elements, we began to hear of the desolation wrought by insects."
Mr. Greeley had understanding that most seem to lack today. In this day and age ever so few see any relationship between our depleted soils, the use of incomplete synthetic fertilizers and the alarming increase in insect pests.
It is to their great shame that most agricultural institutions have been preoccupied with research involving palliatives such as pesticides. They have utterly neglected research into how to correct the CAUSE of insect pests.
The information gleaned from the smattering of work that has been done, however, bears out the validity of the principles just presented.
Dr. William Albrecht of the University of Missouri showed that spinach grown in fertile soil resisted the attack of thrips, while that grown on poor soil was destroyed by these insects.
Dr. Leonard Haseman, also of the University of Missouri, found that the greenhouse white fly attacked tomatoes only where there was a phosphorus or magnesium deficiency in the soil. Chinch bugs thrive and multiply where corn is grown under conditions of nitrogen deficiency such as on eroded and poor hillsides (Journal of Economic Entomology, Feb. 1946).
Work done at the University of Florida shows that both the rate and the source of nitrogen has a pronounced effect on the susceptibility of grass to chinch bug damage. Grass receiving high rates of inorganic nitrogen was severely damaged by the bugs, in contrast with the grass receiving nitrogen from an organic source (Wallace, Nematoligica 6, 1961).
The Haughley Research Farms in England, operated over four decades, now under the world-renowned Soil Association, has found in actual practice that crops grown on soil built up by natural manures were much more resistant to pest-inviting weaknesses than crops grown with the aid of chemicals.
We are observing the same results in our Ambassador College Agricultural Research Program.
Even under the best conditions, insects may destroy a small percentage of the crop. But is this in itself bad? The loss of the weakest part of the crop assures the food value of the remaining part.
You would think that the prospect of growing quality products which resist insects and render pesticides unnecessary would cause great excitement.
But not so. This solution — the only REAL solution — runs counter to the greed of human nature and the vested interests of our social and economic system. And it appears that man would rather perish than change that!
Now note another pest-producing practice which is so near and dear to modern agriculture.
Monoculture Upsets Natural Balance
In the natural state, the earth always raises varied crops. But in some areas of our modern world, it is a rare sight to see mixed-crop cultures.
Yet it is well known that growing plants in large tracts of uniform crops is not natural and will attract abnormal amounts of insects. The greater the area under one crop and the extent to which that crop is grown exclusively year after year, reducing soil quality, the greater the potential problem.
The Colorado beetle is an example of what happens when man begins to simplify agriculture and farm one crop exclusively. This beetle used to be harmless, feeding principally on smart weed which it hunted out from among many other plants. When huge fields of potatoes were newly introduced to Colorado, however, the beetle suddenly found itself in the midst of mile after mile of green potato fields — a beetle's "paradise." As a result, this beetle multiplied so rapidly that within a few short decades it literally ate its way 2,000 miles to the Atlantic coast!
Similar examples could be repeated many times from all parts of the earth. Yet unfortunately, our entire modern farming method is geared toward extensive crop monoculture. To many it would be unthinkable to even suggest that this practice be changed! Yet many have successfully changed of their own free will.
Other sound principles of agriculture which farmers often neglect are the failure to rotate the crop to minimize insect reproduction; or to observe the correct time for planting; or to grow trees and hedges which encourage insect-eating birds to visit the farm.
Weeds and Herbicides
Herbicides to kill weeds are another major segment of the poison-spray pollution problem in agriculture. In the U.S., crop losses from weeds equal the combined losses from insects and diseases and run second only to those caused by soil erosion. American farmers lose about $2.5 billion annually to weeds and spend another $2.5 billion fighting weeds.
For example, corn acreage treated with herbicides rose from 10 percent in 1950 to almost 60 percent in 1966. Many other crops showed similar increases (1966 USDA Survey).
Discovery and exploitation of herbicides — weeds killers — has been both rapid and recent. About half of the present commercial herbicides were unknown ten years ago! Some experts predict the number of herbicides will double in the next ten years and perhaps double again in the following decade. So we see here the same vicious cycle as with the pesticides.
The Purpose of Weeds
As with insect pests, few seem to realize that weeds have a purpose. In the preface to his book Weeds, Guardians of the Soil, Joseph Cocannouer lists some of the purposes of weeds:
1. They bring minerals, especially those which have been depleted, up from the subsoil to the topsoil and make them available to crops. This is particularly important with regard to trace elements.
2. When used in crop rotation they break up hardpans and allow subsequent crop roots to feed deeply.
3. They fiberize and condition the soil and provide a good environment for the minute but important animal and plant life that make any soil productive.
4. They are good indicators of soil condition, both as to variety of weed present and to condition of the individual plant. Certain weeds appear when certain deficiencies occur.
5. Weeds are deep divers and feeders and through soil capillarity they enable the less hardy, surface feeding crops to withstand drought better than the crop alone could.
6. As companion crops they enable our domesticated plants to get their roots to otherwise unavailable food.
7. Weeds store up minerals and nutrients that would be washed, blown or leached away from bare ground and keep them readily available.
Obviously, these purposes and benefits are listed only as general guidelines and do not apply to all weeds under all conditions.
F. C. King in his book The Weed Problem: A New Approach also reveals that weeds build up and protect the soil and, co-existing with domestic crops, can help make soil nutrients available to these crops. This author states that we are "hopelessly wrong in believing weeds to be useless plants and in devoting our energy to their suppression, instead of studying to employ them" (p. 17).
In England it has been reported that when lawns become deficient in lime, daisies appear. The daisies are found to be rich in lime which they manufacture in their tissues. Lime is inserted into the soil when the daisies die and decay. When the soil becomes sufficiently enriched with lime, the daisy "problem" disappears.
When weeds become so abundant that they interfere with crop production, it ought to be recognized that the cause of the problem is not the weeds, but the depleted soil which the weeds are trying to protect and build up. Instead of destroying such weeds wholesale with herbicides while our soil continues to be degraded, we need to get busy and build up the soil so the weeds will naturally reduce themselves.
Solving the Problem
Here, then, is where we stand in regard to the pollution problem caused by pesticides, herbicides and such chemicals.
Is it possible to survive if we continue to use ever stronger chemicals in ever greater quantities? No!
Is it possible to survive if we quit using pesticides? Yes! Many farmers — large and small — are successfully doing it!
Will this be easy? For many, No! This is because the solution to the problem is to restore natural fertility to the soil. And as Professor Cocannouer has well stated:
"Bringing a piece of land back to permanent fertility is probably the most difficult of all farm operations. Too often the farmer fails to make a go of his soil building because he doesn't acquaint himself thoroughly, before starting, with all the adverse factors he is going to have to fight. He gets discouraged because he does not see the size of the job of remaking land that has been weakened for fifty or a hundred years. He has more than likely been schooled to expect the quick response that land makes to stimulants. He forgets that now he is building for permanency, not merely stimulating."
Obviously the biggest hurdle will be changing our attitudes and accepting the fact that the way to success is to WORK WITH natural laws, NOT DEFY them. Once this decision is made, the rest is remarkably simple by comparison.
To build up our land in harmony with the natural laws of agriculture would temporarily disrupt every part of society. Food prices in some areas might fluctuate wildly for a season or so and there would probably be temporary shortages of certain items (though no starvation as many assume). Many have been surprised at how smooth and successful the transition can be when right principles are applied.
Huge tracts of monoculture would have to be broken up and planted into smaller fields on a crop rotation basis. Because natural farming methods involve more intensive care that can often be given only by human hands, many millions from our crowded cities would need to move back to the land.
A crash program in research and education to natural methods would have to be carried out immediately — and administered by the highest-level governmental agencies — in order to make a successful transition on a national level.
Such a national program would take far more cooperation than putting a man on the moon — but it would also be far more rewarding.
And it could be done!
And the beautiful part of it is that many scattered individuals are already sold on the idea and have already proved that the system works on the individual level. How much better would it be if a whole nation decided to use the right system.
Will We Choose the Right Way?
Pesticides and herbicides are only one aspect of the pollution problem in agriculture that must be solved if man is to survive. Future articles will deal with other aspects of the problem and will also explain further how a system of agriculture based on working in harmony with nature's laws could be made to work.
Such a system, properly applied, could result in happy, healthy people, an abundant supply of wholesome food for all, a stable economy, an improved environment and a truly high standard of living.
Will we choose this solution? Human nature being what it is, it is extremely doubtful. If this only real solution seems too difficult, ask yourself just one question:
Is survival worth it?