<table border=0 cellpadding=2 cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
<pre>The discussion about the efficiency of organic farming is an interesting
theme and it is not only a philosophical question, as Mike Wilsons seems to
believe. I myself am an engineer and I think I have a rather rational point
of view on these things. Anyway I am convinced that too much chemistry in
agriculture is not helpful for quality on the long run.
Starting with chemical fertilisers, which always provide only a part of the
elements that the crop needs, be it N, P, K or something else. It is no
secret that plants assume these elements well only if the soil has a certain
composition and structure and this is determined a lot by its
microbiological composition. Nitrogen gets washed off easily if the soil
does not fix it and therefore you need organic substance. If you never add
organic material and chemically kill the organic material that grows, on the
long run you will lower the fertility of the soil and also its productivity.
But what is more important, nature is not a simple mechanical construction,
but a very complex system. For instance why should inorganic nitrogen
fertilisers raise fungine disease of the leaves? But they do. And why should
natural hedges along your camps be good for the quality of the olives? They
do, and there are logical (+ACI-scientific+ACI-) reasons for it. Pesticides can
help
in an actual attack of parasites, but they leave residues on the fruit, in
the plant and in the ground. Are we sure about their effect on our health?
Several years ago north italian corn farmers used large quantities of
antracine to protect their crop and nobody knew about its negative effects
on our health. They polluted a huge part of the water and there were big
problems. This stuff is now forbidden by law. Do you remember DDT? We all
know its negative effects, but when it came out, people believed it would be
the solution for many problems.
As to herbicides, it is true that glyphosate (roundup) is one of the less
harmful herbicides. And it is also true that the grass around the olive
trees consumes too much nitrogen, so it should be limited. So it may be
comfortable to eliminate the grass with glyphosate, and here in Italy it is
the only herbicide allowed in +ACI-integrated agriculture+ACI-, which is
something
between organic and +ACI-industrial+ACI- agriculture. But the law allows a
maximum
of 2 treatments in a year and only directly around the trees, not for large
areas. Why? Because on the long run these synthetic composites may create an
alteration of the soil and might also create resistance in the herbs. By the
way, it is true that +ACI-everything is chemical+ACI-, but this does+AGA-t mean
anything. In fact, the question is not if it is +ACI-chemical+ACI- but if it is
synthetic and that means that it is a substance that does not exist in
nature or does not exist in these concentrations and thus disturbs the
natural balance. The plants, the animals and we ourselves have been adapted
throughout the evolution of millions of year to certain substances and
naturally we live(d) (and can survive) in a not very toxic environment. The
lots of synthetic substances that we produce nowadays pollute this
environment and cause diseases, sometimes direct intoxication, sometimes
nearly invisible changes that make us more sensible to certain diseases like
cancer and so on. This is true also for the plants. So I think it is a good
idea to reduce the use of synthetical substances in agriculture, where we
produce things to eat and drink, as much as possible.
I think there is a big difference between a country where millions starve
and where the introduction of synthetical fertilizers and herbicides may
save millions of lives, and countries where the problem is not to starve but
to live healthier and with a still better quality of life.
If there is so much wealth that people are willing to spend for living
better and healthier, it is a good idea to work for that.
I really don't believe in mysticism and I don't see what it could be good
for to fill a cowhorn with strange stuff and bury it at full moon in the
middle of your camp. This has nothing to do with scientific organic
agriculture, but with religion or religious-like believes which I can
respect but I don't share.
But I think it is not correct and not useful to put these things on one side
and put the industrial agriculture that does not care about +ACI-overall
health+ACI-
on the other side and tell us to choose between these two. There is a third
way, and that is the one that makes us aware of nature as it is and us being
part of it, willing or not, and that leads us to understand that nature is
neither mystical nor a machine that we can manipulate as we want to. We
understand too little to be sure about what we do. On the long run we have
to go +ACI-with+ACI- nature and not against it because otherwise we will go
against
ourselves. If this is philosophy, ok, then may be we need philosophy also in
agriculture.
Volker
</pre>
</td></tr></table>