[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: John Hagelin: Old vs New Approach in Agriculture
J J wrote:
>
> B. McClinton <b.mcclinton@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in article
> <326C63E6.51E7@sk.sympatico.ca>...
> >
> > Historically, the plow has caused far more land degradation than
> fertilizers and
> > pesticides. Afterall, how fertile is the "fertile crescent," now? The
> negative
> > effects of soil erosion have been documented throughout history.....
>
> > ....With a growing world population, we need to be able to use all the
> management tools
> > available including cultural, biological and chemical technologies to be
> > sustainable.
> >
> > Blair McClinton
> > b.mcclinton@sk.sympatico.ca
>
> Blair...Interesting thoughts ... Financial sustainability (survival) is
> fundamental. But is the answer to keep perpetuating the same old
> distructive patterns just because they marginally work. They have been
> able to squeeze additional production for a period of time but at what
> cost. Is our soil any healthier that it was in 1964 before the
> intensification of high yield production strategies. The family farmer is
> being driven out; the costs of increased agriculture yields verses the
> profits are marginalizing the small producers who may really have a stake
> in protecting the land; and the soil is not getting any healthier. Are
> current production techniques- even those using new technologies really
> sustainable with the increasing world demand? It almost seems like there
> is a need for a new paradigm shift... I like these ideas of moving
> toward increasing the health of the soil, diversifying the varieties of
> crops grown, and more local self sufficiency.
> Long term rotation studies from in western Canada have shown that soil
quality improves (organic C, organic N, aggregate stability, etc.) with
fertilized treatments relative to unfertilized treatments. These
rotations also clearly show the negative effects of fallow which have the
lowest soil quality. (Fertilizer use was uncommon prior to 1970 here and
fallow-based rotations were the norm until the '80s) Other research has
also shown that soil quality can be further improved by using no-till
seeding systems. The concensus of agronomy researchers and no-till
farmers on the Canadian prairies is for no-till to be successful
diversified crop rotations are necessary. Ideally these rotations include
an equal mix of broadleaf and grassy crops, and include annual, biennial
and perennial growth habits.
Check out this site for some of the latest information on conservation
farming systems on the Canadian prairies:
http://paridss.usask.ca/index.html
>
> It begs the question of what truly ideal agriculture would be... that
> benefits the land as well as serving the financial needs of the
> agricultural producer and the health of the comsumer. These exotic
> desparate attempts at forcing more production from already strained natural
> resources (Monsanto's Roundup-ready seed for instance) seem destined to
> fail in the long run. Isn't it more of a bandaid than a long term
> solution. Despite all the hype, and the sensible sound of your logic, I
> think a little thought and creativity in the other direction (health and
> sustainability) would be valuable for everybody.
Over-reliance on any technology whether mechanical like the plow or
chemical will likely run into problems in the long run. The former has
been demonstrated throughout history and the latter with modern
monoculture agriculture. True sustainability will only be attainable with
the judicious use of the available technologies. I believe that limiting
which technologies are available for agriculture will not prove
sustainable in the long run. Research is now taking place which will help
show us how to best use available technologies in agriculture.
Regards,
Blair McClinton, P.Ag.
References: