Land Health...A Forecast of a Direction in Agricultural Science (part 1)

Science is the name we have given to human interpretation of observed phenomena when the observations are recorded in accordance with certain, accepted rules. Scientific discovery comes about in one of two ways. Either through long and careful observation and recording of recurring natural happenings, or by first posing a question and then designing a series of repeatable controlled experiments until an answer emerges. By one or other of these two methods, or by a combination of both, all the 'rules' of cause and effect have been deduced, all 'natural laws' have been evolved, and all scientific 'facts' have been established. 

A few moments consideration must make it apparent that in consequence there are in all sciences at least three loopholes for error.

Firstly, the rules demand that 'scientific' observations be confined to those phenomena which can be apprehended by our five physical senses, thus whole realms of causation may be omitted from the resulting calculations and deductions, since reality is by no means confined to so narrow a field. Secondly, the human tendency to notice only those things for which we are looking leads frequently to failure to observe apparently unrelated, but possibly vital, factors in a given situation, and thirdly, in the experimental method, failure to ask the right question can lead to a totally misleading answer.

This is not to decry the value of science, but merely to deplore the attitude too frequently met with among scientific technologists and teachers of every age (though not of course in the ranks of top research scientists) that the scientific dogma belonging to their own day is infallible and unalterable. It is an attitude all the more surprising in that the whole history of science shows it to be subject to constant change.

The path of science is strewn with discarded dogmas. In attempting to discuss so controversial a question as land health, Particularly in its relationship to the incidence of pests and diseases in crops and livestock, it is as well to bear the above points in mind, especially the three loop-holes for error, since normal fragmentary research is more than usually vulnerable to these when it is applied to agriculture, which deals exclusively with complex patterns of life. Even here, laboratory research can of course be invaluable as an aid to interpretation, but only the land itself will give us the true facts to be interpreted.

A scientist with a European reputation once said to me - "When theory does not fit with practice, it is always the theory which must be wrong."

There are two current theories concerning the causation and control of pests and disease. They differ widely. It would therefore seem worth while to examine them in the light of what actually occurs in practice, and, in so far as this bears out any part of either, consider whether the time has not come to modify both and so evolve a new theory more consistent with the facts. It is this revaluation that I propose to attempt.

Let us first state the theories in juxtaposition and see where we get.

Orthodox Theory

(a) Diseases and pests have always existed from prehistoric times, and since the earliest recorded times heavy losses from these causes have been suffered by the cultivator.

(b) In view of (a) modern agricultural techniques cannot be held responsible,

(c) Modern spray policy has prevented, for the first time, heavy losses from these causes and has saved many a crop that would otherwise have been lost. Thus its advantages greatly outweigh its disadvantages.

Organic Theory

(a) Pests and diseases are symptoms of biological unbalance.

(b) Modern agricultural practices are largely responsible for this unbalance.

(c) Spray policy, besides being a potential hazard to health, still further increases this unbalance. Balance can be restored by organic farming and gardening methods and this is, therefore, the only sound long-term answer to the problem.

We will now consider these points in order.

(a) Unquestionably there is evidence that so-called pests and disease have always existed. Since the biotic pyramid consists of layers of different forms of life, each layer feeding the one above it and dependent on the ones below, it cannot indeed be otherwise. The difference between a natural wilderness community of iood chains and a modern agricultural one is that in the former the "fauna and flora by this very process ofperpetual battle within and among the species, achieve collective im- mortality . . . Paleontology offers abundant evidence that wilderness maintained itself for immensely long periods; that its component species were rarely lost, neither did they get out of hand."* This suggests that when a species is threatened with really destructive damage, inter- dependence has become imbalance. If so, we can concede the first clause of both theories, but perhaps restate them thus - Severe damage by pests and disease is a symptom of biological imbalance. Such imbalance occurs from time to time under both primitive and modern conditions, but much less so where an environment has not been subjected to the very rapid changes which modern man alone is capable of bringing about.

(b) In view of this re-statement of (a), which fits the facts, can modern agricultural practices be exonerated from all guilt? I think not. Remember our yardstick is practice, and what is in fact happening in practice is an ever increasing incidence of serious pest and disease infestation. As many as forty sprayings a year are now common in orchards and are apparently necessary to control pests where one or two sufficed a few years ago. In what way modern techniques may be at fault we will examine presently.

(c) Once serious imbalance has occurred and is allowed to continue, drastic remedies become necessary. It is unquestionably true that under in black currants, virus in iris, eelworm in potatoes and chrysanthemums, many of the diseases of fruit trees, most tomato diseases, strawberry virus, and many more. On farms, the following have resulted from a change to organic methods: a higher total solids content in all produce; the disappearance of deficiency diseases in livestock, including those only now beginning to be recognised as deficiency diseases, such as contagious abortion and mastitis. (It may be a coincidence that in 1952, the year when Francewas swept by the worst epidemic of foot and mouth disease in her history, no single case occured in a certain section of the Dordognevalley, in the department of Lot, where diversified peasant farming still follows the best traditional organic methods).

Such cases can be multiplied many times, and come also from Africa, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. They are, moreover, increasing every year. The numbers have long since passe the point of statistical significance. There must be something importan to learn from them. Why are they still ignored or discounted by orthodox scientific establishments? Are the scientists too busy looking for the wrong things. Or asking the wrong questions?