Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
J.Jenks wrote
The Stuff Man's Made Of
in 1959. Like Howard, quoted in the previous
chapter, Jenks believed that the soil held a key position in the wholeness of nature,
and that all non-living amendments, such as man-made fertilizers and pesticides, were
fraught with danger; their increasing use could upset 'the balance of nature' so that
civilization itself would founder.
Such extreme views prejudice their own case if they are not quickly borne out
by experience. Nevertheless, echoes of this fear return from time to time, as in the
terms of reference of the Agricultural Advisory Council in 1969 which were to con-
sider whether “the inherent fertility of the soil was being eroded and the fundamental
structure of the soil damaged beyond repair”. The 'orthodox' school can also be ac-
cused of adopting a dogmatic view at times. A German programme of agriculture and
forestry research stated (in translation) that “these experiments and investigations are
most important in order once and for all to get a precise basis for a final rejection of
the erroneous teaching of the enemies of our ways of fertilizing”.
The 'muck and magic' school, as it was once called, has survived and gained in
standing by adopting a more critical approach and dropping some of its wilder claims.
The current attitude is well summarized in a recent topic
Biological Husbandry: a
Scientific Approach to Organic Farming.
Here we read that the movement embraces
two lines of approach. First, there will always be a purist school. This eschews the use
of all artificial agrochemicals which have come to dominate so-called conventional
agriculture in the industrialized countries. It relies on sound crop rotation practices
with a careful balance between crops and stock, or between crops, green manures and
legumes. Timeliness of operations, such as ploughing and cultivating, is also para-
mount. This can only be achieved on a farm scale with the proper equipment - no
room for your 'good life' amateurism here. Such an approach may be thought of as
providing a standard, or control, against which more conventional practices can be
compared.
Secondly, there will also be those who believe in a “complete biological ap-
proach…but with the use of chemicals for problem solving or crop topping-up, which
will not do any harm to the biological life or condition of the soil”. The most ortho-
dox farmer or soil scientist could say amen to that - if it did not cost too much. Today,
much research is directed towards monitoring pests such as aphids and pea moth so
as to avoid unnecessary, prophylactic or insurance spraying. On a global scale, the
more 'purist' organic farming approach is likely to cause more famine than 'chemic-
al' farming. The recycling of nutrients needs to be combined with the selective use of
agrochemicals to control difficult pests and diseases.
Recent measurements in Britain of net farm income, per £ of energy used, sug-
gest that organically run farms are not markedly different from conventional ones.
