viewpoint
July 2014
with John Barnes – Managing Director
It’s really encouraging to have farmers looking for new solutions. It always starts on the farm, no matter how sophisticated and hi-tech the scientific community become or how much money is spent, change comes from those who are out there doing the business on the ground. We at Fertilizer New Zealand can feel a significant shift in farmer attitudes and welcome the enquiries that we are receiving from people wanting to farm in a more profitable and sustainable way.
As we have been saying for years now, this does not mean throwing out the baby with the bath water and reverting to some sort of stunted pathetic pasture upon which no commercial farmer could support a modern farming system. Up until recently that has been the scare tactic presented to our farmers and it is the old TINA argument… “There Is No Alternative!!!” There is always another way and farmers are the very best at finding other ways. If one product is causing problems with leaching and residues left in the soils then one simply moves to another product that does not have these same problems… it’s as easy as that.
I recently received a copy of a report from Parliament’s Primary Production Select Committee. They have seen fit to ask for a briefing from the New Zealand Fertiliser Quality Council which is what we know as Fertmark. This is yet another indication that change is afoot.
What I found interesting is the type of issues that they have been discussing. Among them were the auditing of fertiliser products which Fertmark said was re-invigorated in 2013. Run-off contamination, growth promoting compounds, cadmium in the soil, organic and biological fertilisers and funding for new product testing were all subjects that were discussed by the committee. I am not going into any depth on these subjects but we have talked about these things many times in our newsletters.
I can only commend the committee for their interest in this vital area of farm inputs. It is something that is of huge concern throughout the country, with articles on these subjects appearing in every newspaper and farming journal that you pick up. We are delighted that the concerns of the farming community are being heard by those that represent us.
But as I said in the beginning, it is our farmers who are leading this positive change and this report I take as reinforcement that their concerns are being heard.
I have recently read a book called “The Ideal Soil – A Hand Book for the New Agriculture” by Michael Astera. It is full of good material which I agree with. This book describes how over time the soils in the USA have become degraded due to a range of farming practices, but more to the point, how these soils can now be corrected by a new way of thinking. Here is a quote from the book:
The New Agriculture will not come about through dogmatic insistence on simplistic solutions such as adding organic matter to the soil, nor through force-feeding of synthetic fertilizers and applying toxic rescue chemicals to address the inevitable problems. The answers will not be found in energy intensive technology or artificial micro-environments. The solutions certainly won’t be found by refusing to look outside whatever idealogical box one has adopted or been convinced to adopt.
What we have today is a fragmented agriculture, yet we needn’t be suffering this collective delusion and separation; it serves no useful purpose for mankind or Nature but only divides us. So here’s a proposal: What if we were to take agriculture to another level, a higher level, by pulling together the best from all modern knowledge and combining it with the traditional wisdom accumulated over the span of human history? If we were to include the sciences of soil chemistry and nutrition (new tools in the 1000’s of years history of agriculture), with a modern understanding of soil and plant biology (also new tools), and our modern knowledge of energy, both electromagnetic and subtle? The only questions we need to ask are: What works and will continue to work, and what hasn’t worked in the past or doesn’t work now? No special emphasis would be laid on any one dogma or school of agriculture; the focus would be on soil health, nutrition, sustainability, and efficiency. The emphasis would be on constant improvement in health: of the land, the plants, the animals, and the people.
We would be looking for a system that works well with any crop in any climate, producing high yield, high quality, and high nutritional values while sharply reducing insect and disease problems. The plants would thrive and be superbly healthy because they would have all the nutrients they desire available free-choice. The immune systems of the plants and soil would be strong and healthy; insects and disease are not attracted to strong, healthy plants. The animals and people consuming the plants would get the most highly nutritious food it was possible to grow. People wouldn’t overeat because their body wouldn’t be craving an essential mineral, carbohydrate, amino acid, or lipid. Diseases such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and the auto-immune diseases would become things of the past. Children would grow up able to develop to their full genetic potential; their intelligence and strength would no longer be limited by malnutrition or toxic chemicals. Fewer acres of crop land could feed more people and animals, sustainably, as emphasis shifted from quantity to quality.
While it is not widely known, the basis of “The New Agriculture” already exists and has done for many years. The basic science of soil mineral balance and its relation to health and nutrition has been known over the past 60 plus years. The disappointing bit is that it has been buried and ignored. It has been hidden from the schools and practitioners of agriculture. It is not mentioned or if it is, mentioned disparagingly in our various agricultural colleges. Closer to home, it is a sad fact that we are in the situation where it is difficult to create change. The status quo means change will happen slowly if at all, apart for some tweaking around the edges and a computer programme which “proves” there is no leaching. The message is stick with what we have now.
What a tragedy that with all the international knowledge we have, and new products that we now have available to us that we still get stuck in the mid 1950’s technology while the rest of the world get the productive edge on us. I for one would welcome the opportunity to sit around the table and develop a “New Agriculture” that lifts production while keeping our precious country clean and green.