Questioning the Status Quo (Part 1)
It is essential that we fully understand both our past and our present circumstances to enable the move toward a more sustainable future. Often this involves an honest appraisal of where we are at and how we got there, and to do this we need to look behind the veil at what is really happening. The “veil” in this case involves a bunch of commercially driven assumptions about how agriculture works. Many of us have blindly accepted the industry message because it has been sold as scientific progress and who are we to stand in the way of progress. The dictionary definition of “science” refers to “adherence to natural laws and principles” and much of what we have done in the name of agricultural science does not conform to this definition. In fact, the industry is driven more often by greed than real science. In this series of blogs, entitled “Questioning the Status Quo”, we will revisit some of the base assumptions underlying modern agriculture and examine their validity.
Accepted Rationale – Farm chemicals are a “necessary evil” if we are to successfully feed a burgeoning world population. Insects and disease would decimate production if not for chemical intervention.
Reality Check – Perhaps we should begin by asking when and why the “chemical experiment” came to be considered “necessary”. How did we ever grow crops for thousands of years without the chemical crutch? Did we subsist upon the meager remains of insect and disease ravaged crops? Were pre-industrial farmers prepared to accept these inevitable losses as a kind of preordained penance for food producers?
The answer is a resounding “No!”. The simple fact is that the increasing need for chemical intervention was directly linked to the adoption of soluble NPK fertilisers. When we dumbed down crop nutrition to just three key minerals, while continuing to remove 70 minerals with every crop, we effectively called in insects and disease. In a protection racket not unlike that favored by the Mafia, you create the pressure then offer the protection. In many cases the same people who sold the simplistic new fertilisers (and created the problem) also developed and supplied the solution – the “rescue chemicals” that were now required.
Pest pressure is a signpost to poor nutrition. Plants emit an infra-red radiation that varies according to their nutrition. The feelers on insects are in fact antennae that receive this information that will determine the insect’s feeding schedule. A healthy, well balanced plant emits a steady infra-red flow that signals an unhealthy meal for the insect marauders. Insects are not designed to manage the high sugars that are part of robust plant health. In some cases these sugars become toxic alcohol within the pest, in others the insects are less seriously affected. In both cases their reproductive potential is compromised and this defeats the whole reason that a species exists.
A nitrate packed, nutrient deficient plant, by contrast, sends out a staccato flow of infra-red radiation that literally calls in the insects. In the great scheme of things, the insect is a garbage collector designed to constantly remove the weak, to improve the overall gene pool. We grow garbage, the trash collector arrives on cue and so begins a war in which we effectively fired the first shot!
Why are excess nitrates so often involved? The fact is that nitrates are always taken into the plant with water, so there is an inevitable dilution of other minerals when nitrates are over-supplied. The watery, high nitrate plant will always have a low brix level (a measure of dissolved solids) and it will require much more chemical intervention. It is such a ludicrous situation because it cost hard earned dollars to over-supply the offending nitrates in the first place and now you are destined to shell out much more to compensate for your mistake.
Bringing out the chemical hammer to slam the soil diseases is similarly self defeating. The fungicides take out good and bad and the “good” just happen to be the creatures responsible for carbon sequestration and disease protection. Cellulose-digesting fungi offer major pathogen protection. Trichodema, for example, is a voracious cellulose digester/humus builder that predates upon a whole range of destructive disease organisms including Fusarium, Phytopthera, Rhizoctonia and Schlerotinia. The humus that these creatures produce is not only planet saving, it is a reservoir of the full range of minerals that govern nutrient density and associated insect resistance within the plant. Humus is also the home base for the organisms responsible for delivery of these minerals. When we knock out the beneficial fungi with fungicides, herbicides and nematicides, we inadvertently increase our need for insecticides. It’s good business if you are selling the chemicals but bad news for the rest of us.
Since the “chemical experiment” in agriculture began, a few short decades ago, there have been more chemicals applied to our soils and food every year without exception. However, in spite of these ever-increasing applications there has actually been an increase in overall pest pressure and associated crop losses every year. This is the definition of “unsustainable” and it must end!

April 8th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Exactly right! But I call insect pests and diseases God’s garbage collectors since this amazing complexity of nature didnt evolve but is just another excellent example of God’s intelligent design and creation. Insect pests were put there to protect us from ourselves and our ‘aberrant science’. The insect pests and diseases come to ‘take out’ food that makes us nutrient deficient and unhealthy with reduced natural immunity to disease. But we are too full of ourselves to recognise God’s hand in it, we make science our god and pay the price for our pride.
September 23rd, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Thanks for giving this inspiring article. Visit my very own!
April 27th, 2011 at 2:33 am
I wonder how we farmers can get off the chemical and fertiliser bandwagon and get back to being one with nature and the land again? We would love to, but fear the loss of income for those transitional years would be too taxing…It is my dream to send our farm back to where she was, only just 85 years ago.
I believe nature has all the answers to all lifes ailments – we are just not reading the signs and turning to what was miraculously created for us in the first place. We hold the keys to the door, and in many instances its just a matter of turning it. We need to learn more about our land from the Aboriginals and the people who rely on the earth – because we do too.
Nature over science anyday – remember, humans are a part of our natural world, we are not segregated so trust your connection to earth – listen to the earth, read the signs, (and articles like this great one) and unlock the secrets that are there, provided by nature, for the taking..
April 28th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Hi Angela,
I share your sentiments. However, there need be no risk in escaping the chemical treadmill. You are talking about a old paradigm. There is no sacrifice involved in embracing biological principles. There is not the issue of costly transition years that has dogged the organic movement. It is all about taking one step at a time while maintaining profitability throughout.
A simple, risk-free program for broad acre involves an inexpensive nutrition-based seed dressing combined with a mychorrizal innoculum. Your fertilisers are then magnified and stabilized with soluble humates which also serve as biostimulants to boost the all-important soil biology. A leaf test before flowering can then be used to determine appropriate foliar correctives before the business end of the season. These simple steps are risk- free and cost neutral as you can reduce fertiliser inputs due to the increased efficiency. I suggest that you speak to one of our agronomists and trial a small area so you will have have no further doubts about how to move forward.
Conventional agriculture is based upon the ludicrous concept of mastering and manipulating a natural system about which we know so little. As you pointed out, we are part of a natural world and we need to work with Nature rather than against her. Thanks for sharing
Warm regards,
Graeme