Alternative Methods of Agriculture

206 Pages·1980·7.687 MB·English

by  R. BOERINGA (Eds.)

DEVELOPMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL
AND MANAGED-FOREST ECOLOGY, 10
alternative methods of agriculture
OTHER TITLES IN THIS SERIES
1. Plant Modification for More Efficient Water Use
byJ.F. Stone (Editor)
1975 xii + 320 pp.
2. Tree Ecology and Preservation
by A. Bernatzky
1978 viii + 358 pp.
3. Cycling of Mineral Nutrients in Agricultural Ecosystems
by M.J. Frissel (Editor)
1978 viii+ 356 pp.
4. Interactions Between Non-Pathogenic Soil Microorganisms and Plants
by Y.R. Dommergues and S.V. Krupa (Editors)
1978 xii+ 476 pp.
5. Ecology of Root Pathogens
by S.V. Krupa and Y.R. Dommergues (Editors)
1979x + 282pp.
6. Soil Disinfestation
by D. Mulder (Editor)
1979xiv + 368pp.
7. Management of Semi-arid Ecosystems
by B.H.Walker (Editor)
1979x + 398pp.
8. Management and Analysis of Biological Populations
by B.S. Goh
1980 (in preparation)
9. Comparison of Forest Water and Energy Exchange Models
by S. Halldin (Editor)
1979xi + 258 pp.
This volume is reprinted from
Agriculture and Environment
Vol.5, No. 1/2, pp. 1-200
DEVELOPMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL
AND MANAGED-FOREST ECOLOGY 10
alternative
methods
of agriculture
Edited by
R.BOERINGA
Nationale Raad voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek TNO,
Wageningen, The Netherlands
ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING COMPANY
Amsterdam - Oxford - New York 1980
ELSEVIER SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING COMPANY
335 Jan van Galenstraat
P.O. Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Distributors for the United States and Canada:
ELSEVIER/NORTH-HOLLAND INC.
52, Vanderbilt Avenue
New York, N.Y., 10017
ISBN 0-444-41893-8 (Vol. 10)
ISBN 0-444-41515-7 (Series)
© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1980.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other
wise, without the prior written permission of the publisher, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
P.O. Box 330, 1000 AH Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Printed in The Netherlands
V
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF AGRICULTURE
Description, Evaluation and Recommendations for Research
A translation of parts of the original Dutch report 'Altematieve Landbouw
Methoden' prepared in 1976 by the Canmittee for Research into Biological Methods
of Agriculture and published by the Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Doc
umentation (PUDOC), Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Translation: Gerry Paster
Editor: R. Boeringa, Wageningen (The Netherlands)
CONTENTS
Editorial. Alternative agriculture and man 1
History, realisation and arrangement of the report 5
Chapter 1. Introduction 11
Chapter 2. The extent of alternative agriculture 21
Chapter 3. Overview of the specific ideologies on which the alternative
methods of agriculture are based 23
3.1. Background 23
3.2. A.N.O.G.-agriculture 23
3.3. Biodynamic agriculture 25
3.4. Howard-Balfour agriculture 41
3.5. Lemaire-Boucher agriculture 43
3.6. Macrobiotic agriculture 53
3.7. Mazdaznan agriculture 82
3.8. Organic-biological agriculture 82
3.9. Veganic agriculture 108
Chapter 4. Cultivation methods 109
4.1. Tillage 109
4.2. Soil disinfection 110
4.3. Fertilising 110
4.4. Composting and humus balance 115
4.5. Soil cover 118
4.6. Crop rotation and multiple cropping 118
4.7. Other methods of cultivation 120
Chapter 5. Animal husbandry 123
Chapter 6. Diseases, pests and weeds 125
Chapter 7. Kilogram yields 131
Chapter 8. The quality of products cultivated by alternative methods 133
VI
Chapter 9. Damage to the environment as a consequence of alternative and
conventional agricultural methods 137
Chapter 10. Considerations on an extension of alternative agriculture 139
Chapter 11. Evaluation 143
11.1. Man's relationship to nature 143
11.2. The "naturalness" and the "biological" of agriculture 150
11.3. The level of production 156
11.4. Conservation of soil fertility 160
11.5. The quality of the alternatively-cultivated product 163
11.6. Diseases, pests and weeds 165
11.7. Energy use 167
11.8. Economic aspects 168
Chapter 12. Conclusions and recommendations for research 173
References 183
Appendices : Cultivation methods 189
Agriculture and Environment, 5 (1980) 1—4 1
© Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam — Printed in The Netherlands
Preface
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE AND MAN
TILO ULBRICHT, Editor-in-Chief, Agriculture and Environment
This volume is devoted to an English translation of selected parts of what has
come to be known as "The Dutch Report on Alternative Agriculture", in fact produced
by the Committee for Research into Biological Methods of Agriculture set up by the
Director-General of the Board for Agricultural Research and supported by a grant
from the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
I believe the subject matter of this book raises issues of quite fundamental
iitportance not only in relation to our professional concern for agriculture and
the environment, but also for ourselves, as individual human beings, and for the
societies in which we live. After a description both of the ideas and the
practical methods of various schools of alternative agriculture, the Report focuses
on certain key questions:
What is nature and man's place in it?
Are the terms "natural" and "biological" justified?
Could alternative agriculture give the same high
productivity as conventional agriculture?
Are present practices endangering the long-term
fertility of the soil?
Is the produce of alternative agriculture
of better quality? What is "better"?
How does alternative agriculture cope with
pests, weeds and diseases?
How does alternative agriculture deal with
the energy problem?
What are the economics of alternative systems?
Could alternative agriculture lead to a better
integration of nature, agriculture and man?
The Report explains the origin of this study: it was that unforeseen conse
quences of modern agricultural developments, particularly the iurpoverishment of
the environment, have undesirable effects on "other essential needs" (of man and
society). Concern about the natural environment and the effects on food of arti
ficial fertilisers and chemical pesticides was the starting-point.
The Committee came to the conclusion that many of the differences between
alternative and conventional agriculture are due to different conceptions of
nature and of man's place in nature. "Alternative methods of agriculture are
based on a different concept of the reality in which we live. " "The
2
subject matter is seen as a part of a greater total reality, which comprises
more than that which can be weighed, measured and counted." The Committee there
fore took the unusual but very sensible step of inviting a philosopher, Professor
Van Meisen, to discuss this theme (see Chapter 11).
He says that "before the rise of natural science, man experienced and saw
nature as one great cosmic order, a sort of macro-organism, in which all beings
had their own place and function" (my italics). Certain words there have a
special importance. Anyone who reads the literature of the great civilisations
of the past can confirm that man did actually experience nature as one great
cosmic order - in other words, he did not only think conceptually about nature
and the cosmos, he also felt it. Has the very predominantly intellectual develop
ment of the last few centuries and the kind of educational conditioning we have
all gone through cut us from being able to perceive the world with thought and
feeling? Is that why our uneducated feelings, once fed by the religions on which
past civilisations were based, not nourished by a purely mechanistic picture of
the universe, now so often rebel in mindless violence?
The cosmos in the past was seen as a hierarchical chain of beings on different
levels, each with a definite place. Man had a special place; on the one hand he
was very small, compared with the greatness of the whole; on the other hand, he
was a microcosm of that macrocosm, subject to and constructed on the basis of
the same immutable laws. Through the use of all his faculties (feeling and body
as well as mind) and his own being-efforts he could aspire to understand the whole
and become its conscious servant. From this point of view, it is only through
growing to understand the whole and through being able to see their place that
one can understand the role and interrelationships of the parts. The inverse -
to understand the whole from an analysis of the parts - is actually iitpDssible.
This is certainly very different from the view of positivist science, that man
is the accidental product of a random evolution and, as he is, can with his mind
alone understand nature and the world in which he lives.
I am struck by the discrepancy between what appears to be the underlying view
point of alternative agriculture (a view of nature that derives from a different
view of man and the cosmos) and the scientific or pseudo-scientific justifications
put forward for some of their particular practices. For example: the "vita-energy"
of the so-called macrobiotic system has no place in the great religious teachings;
tillage of the soil has been practised by all the great civilisations; none of
them have ascribed a special significance to eating uncooked food. It is important
to recognise that, unlike the basic view of the cosmos, these other ideas are
rather new and not part of it. Often they seem like a desperate imitation of
scientific thought, to lend respectability to unscientific - one should perhaps
say non-scientific - ideas, in a scientific age.
Thus I find myself in a paradoxical position. On the basis of many years of
study and the test of personal experience I am in deep sympathy with the tradi-
3
tional concept of the cosmos and man that seems to underlie alternative agriculture.
On the other hand, as a scientist I find myself very sceptical of many of the
other ideas put forward. For example, the idea of the biological transformation
of elements is one quite amenable to rigorous scientific test; as the Report
points out, the experiments are poor and show nothing. However, I think we should
strive to remain impartial and to admire the open-mindedness of the writers of the
Report. They have been scrupulously honest in distinguishing between description
(of ideas and practices), scientific fact, supposed fact (accepted by some and
not by others), and opinion. They have thought it worthwhile because, I believe,
they share some of the general unease about where our world is going, and distinguish
in alternative agriculture some positive features on which we might build in the
future. I mean such ideas as working with nature and recycling nutrients; sustaining
the health of the soil, plants and animals as far as possible by furthering natural
biological processes; extensive crop rotation; respect for the environment and
wild-life; not pushing agricultural systems to extreme limits for the sake of
maximum productivity at the expense of other factors; questioning whether our present
concepts of food quality are adequate, and so on. It is worth noting that such
ideas received strong and widespread support at the recent OECD Working Conference of
Directors of Agricultural Research (Paris, December 1979).
At the same time, we must not forget that science is continuously changing.
The Report regards the functional transfer of genetic information (regarded as
important by the Organic-Biological School) as improbable, but since it was
written we have discovered that genetic transfer can occur between a bacterium
{Agvobaoterium tumefaoiens) through a plasmid to a plant, and very recently a
plasmid has been discovered in yeast. These examples remind us how very limited
even our strictly scientific knowledge is.
The Report expresses considerable doubts about the ability of alternative
agriculture to maintain present production levels in developed countries if
practised on a really large scale, because most biological farmers use inputs
(manure, animal feed) from conventional agriculture. On the other hand - a
point the Report seems to have overlooked - some of its methods may be much
more appropriate to the developing countries, especially in those which have no
soil, no chemical industry and very limited foreign exchange with which to buy
increasingly expensive synthetic fertiliser and pesticides. Even apart from that
the undoubtable fact that there is an increasing public demand for its products,
the Report concludes that there is a case for scientific research on alternative
agriculture; it is already taking place, with Government support, in the
Netherlands. Quite apart from the benefits to agriculture and to our societies
as a whole that may result, there is the cultural shock experienced by the
scientists involved. Some dearly cherished assumptions and beliefs will be
challenged; it could be very beneficial.