The practical significance of green ecological planting lies in making agriculture green

Recently, the director of the "Rural Economy Department of the Development Research Center of the State Council" published a signed article in a top official media outlet, expounding on the lofty view of "making agriculture green," and the most "brilliant" passage is as follows:

"In recent years there have been quite a few misconceptions about green agriculture, some of which have even spread widely and had considerable influence. For example, as soon as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, feed and additives are mentioned, many people feel repelled; as soon as the quality and safety of agricultural products are mentioned, many people think of developing organic agriculture and purely natural agriculture. In some public opinion propaganda and advertising promotions, quality and safety are often equated with not using chemical fertilizers or pesticides and not feeding feed or additives. Under this social atmosphere, in proposing the new goal of making agriculture green and achieving green-oriented development of agriculture, we must prevent going to extremes and prevent the one-sided resistance to and rejection of the application of modern scientific and technological achievements in agriculture. Making agriculture green absolutely does not mean retreating to the traditional agriculture that predates industrial civilization. The agriculture of that time was of course green and organic, but how could that kind of agriculture possibly feed so many people today? Planting without chemical fertilizers and pesticides and livestock farming without feed and additives can exist in small amounts, but it is difficult for them to become the mainstream of modern agriculture. Research on our country's several-thousand-year history of agricultural development shows that under conditions of using human and animal power, farmland without fallowing and with rotation, and relying on human and animal manure to maintain soil fertility, to achieve a balance of nitrogen, this main nutrient element, grain yield per mu could only reach 100 kg. This is far from the 400 kg per mu that modern agriculture can achieve." The passage above contains several thought-provoking viewpoints and their errors, which the author will explain one by one.

1. The judgment of basic national conditions is still objective

Mr. Director said that "planting without chemical fertilizers and pesticides and livestock farming without feed and additives" cannot feed China's nearly 1.4 billion people. This judgment is objective. In Chapter 3 of The Population Predicament, the author detailed the severe consequences of environmental pollution, food contamination and deterioration of food quality caused by vicious population expansion:

"The problem is very clear: in order to solve the problem of 1.34 billion people 'eating their fill,' we can only use large amounts of chemical fertilizers to increase output, large amounts of pesticides to 'snatch food from the mouths of insects,' large amounts of plant and animal hormones to shorten the growth cycles of plants and animals so as to increase output batches, large amounts of antibiotics to increase the breeding density of livestock, poultry, fish and shrimp as much as possible, and at the same time also large amounts of agricultural film to plunder soil fertility and raise grain production capacity in high-cold and high-altitude areas. In addition to this, we also need to use all other scientific and technological means to increase food supply as much as possible, even though the safety of some 'high-tech' means is unclear, such as genetically modified food technology"; "none of this can take food contamination and environmental pollution into account, and we can only watch helplessly as these pollutions form a vicious cycle and accumulate and worsen."

It is obvious that "if the five 'food-reduction effects' of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, plant and animal hormones, antibiotics and agricultural film are added together, that is, if the 'sustainable green ecological food planting and breeding model' were promoted nationwide and the large-scale use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, plant and animal hormones, antibiotics and agricultural film were stopped, then the food produced in our country probably could not even feed half the population."

The reason the author first affirms Mr. Director's above judgment is that this judgment is China's basic national condition and the basis for our discussion of the issue. If this basic national condition is ignored, China's future will be seriously misjudged.

2. Misjudging the historic significance of the awakening of public awareness of green ecology and environmental protection

For more than 30 years, because of the enormous total population, we could only use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and genetically modified foods to "fill" the people, and because of this "fed" a generation of young people and their children. This "boiling a frog in warm water" style of gradual change made several generations of Chinese, old, middle-aged and young, lose their vigilance. However, in recent years, with the exposure of a series of vicious food incidents, with Chinese people afflicted by a series of inexplicable diseases, and with one young life after another suddenly cut short by unprepared-for cancer, people's awareness of green ecology and environmental protection finally began to awaken. This "ray of sunlight," initially pursued by environmental pioneers, quickly awakened the public. People began to pursue green, ecological and environmentally friendly things, began to regard chemical fertilizers, pesticides and plant and animal hormones as poisons, and, exactly as Mr. Director said, people began to esteem "organic agriculture and purely natural agriculture," and it "spread widely and had considerable influence."

This is undoubtedly a great progress in Chinese society, but unfortunately, Mr. Director defined this major progress as "misconceptions about green agriculture."

3. A low-level common-sense error

The reason Mr. Director regards green agriculture as a "misconception" stems from a very low-level common-sense error of his. He deliberately fabricated data, saying that "research on our country's several-thousand-year history of agricultural development shows that under conditions of using human and animal power, farmland without fallowing and with rotation, and relying on human and animal manure to maintain soil fertility, to achieve a balance of nitrogen, this main nutrient element, grain yield per mu could only reach 100 kg. This is far from the 400 kg per mu that modern agriculture can achieve."

Natural agriculture and traditional agriculture's "grain yield per mu could only reach 100 kg"? The author could not believe his own eyes! This is exactly the opposite of the mainstream media in 1958 "boasting" grain yield per mu into tens of thousands or more than a hundred thousand jin, but the nature is equally vile, namely, relying on a high position of discourse power to mislead the public, the intellectual circles, the academic circles, and the management and decision-making levels with data that clearly violates common sense.

As a researcher and scholar, especially a scholar at an official high-level research institution, one should not make such a low-level common-sense error, but the error truly exists, and the author can only speculate that Mr. Director is either academically incompetent and lacking in virtue (aloof and lofty, having neither seriously studied historical materials nor had experience going down to the grassroots and into the fields), or academically degenerate. If this "strange article" were seen by central leaders who had been sent-down youth and had farmed, it would inevitably bring severe reprimand and a thorough scolding. Because this is just too absurd.

First, the basis for the survival of our Chinese nation for several thousand years is natural agriculture and traditional agriculture, whose characteristic is precisely "using human and animal power, relying on human and animal manure and green manure to maintain soil fertility." If it really had been "grain yield of 100 kg per mu," then how could it have developed into a great country with a population of hundreds of millions; from 1950 to 1980, our country used very little chemical fertilizer and pesticides. If it really had been "grain yield of 100 kg per mu," would it not have starved most Chinese people to death?

Second, the historical data of the National Bureau of Statistics completely do not support the conclusion of "grain yield of 100 kg per mu."

In 1952 the national average grain yield per mu was indeed only 88.1 kg/mu, but that was the "national average," that is, the average calculated using the country's total grain output and the country's sown area, while the national sown area includes large amounts of poor and barren land cultivated extensively with low yields. In general agricultural areas, if one calculates the national average annual grain output using "summer grain + autumn grain" and "early rice + autumn grain," they were 148.1 and 235.9 kg/mu respectively. The average annual grain output of the truly main grain-producing areas was far higher than this average level. (Generally speaking, summer grain mainly includes wheat and early rice, and autumn grain mainly includes corn, soybeans, single-season rice, middle rice and late rice, but the combinations differ in different regions.)

By 1970, the conditions of "human and animal power, farmland without fallowing and with rotation, and relying on human and animal manure and green manure to maintain soil fertility" were still basically satisfied nationwide. Compared with 1952, the greatest improvement was that in many places water conservancy was built and land was converted into paddy fields. That year the national average grain yield per mu was 134.1 kg/mu, while the national average grain output calculated from "summer grain + autumn grain" and "early rice + autumn grain" was 218.2 and 384.5 kg/mu respectively.

Third, in those areas with particularly superior natural conditions, the yield per unit area of traditional agriculture with intensive cultivation was far higher than that of general main grain-producing areas. For example, in 1983, the year when the nationwide rural areas fully implemented the "contract responsibility system," the author's immediate superior (the party secretary of a hydropower plant) went home to harvest rice. At my request, he specially set aside 1 mu of field to measure the yield, and the result was that it weighed more than 1,500 kg on the spot (wet grain), which converted to 1,200 kg/mu of yellow grain (dry grain). In the 1970s, the local wheat yield was 400-500 kg/mu, while the average annual grain yield could generally reach or even exceed 1,500 kg/mu (locally wheat was planted in small spring and rice in large spring). Around 1980, the locality had already begun to use "local chemical fertilizer" industrial ammonia water to increase nitrogen nutrition, but pesticide use was extremely small. The author spent his adolescence and youth there and often went deep into the countryside. The local per capita land was only a few fen of land. To support a whole family on such little land, farmers could only carry intensive cultivation to the extreme, and together with superior climatic conditions, the per-unit yield was the "top" in the country. It is said that when Chen Yonggui was vice premier, he did not believe that local wheat yield exceeded 1,000 jin, and once sent someone to make a private investigation, and finally confirmed it.

Fourth, because for more than 30 years (especially in the last 20 years) large amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been used, farmland has generally been "poisoned." Even so, if the "six major harms" spoken of by Jiang Gaoming (namely chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, hormones, agricultural film and genetically modified organisms) are resolutely abandoned, the farmland will also gradually "detoxify" and regain vitality, returning to green and ecological conditions.

In July 2006, researcher Jiang Gaoming of the Institute of Botany of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, after completing a series of theoretical demonstrations of green ecological planting techniques, went to Jiangjiazhuang Village, Pingyi County, Shandong, and rented 40 mu of the village's worst farmland, naming it "Hongyi Ecological Farm," and began his ecological agriculture experiment. He led a group of graduate students, and after 5 years of hard work, finally achieved abundant results. After abandoning the "six major harms," the farmland became more and more fertile through a series of ecological technical measures; Hongyi Ecological Farm's single-season output was 480.5 kg/mu for wheat and 547.9 kg/mu for corn, and the annual grain output per unit area reached 1 ton/mu, which is comparable to the per-unit yield level of locally cultivated land using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

In early 2014, the author and Dr. Xiong Hang, who had returned to China for an investigation, together surveyed rural Sichuan and found that Shuanghe Village in Jianyang had already achieved comprehensive ecological planting, including ecological planting of all rice and ecological planting of all crop varieties in the whole village. Starting in 2010, under the leadership of township agricultural technology cadres and village cadres, and with the help of the rice ecological planting technology of the Provincial Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the village started with ecological rice planting, creatively innovated green ecological planting technology, and comprehensively advanced ecological planting in the whole village in a step-by-step manner. In only 3 years, the village's green ecological planting covered all crop varieties in the whole village (including rice, rapeseed, wheat, corn, sweet potato, soybeans, various minor grains, many kinds of vegetables and fruits, etc.) and more than half of the farmland. At present, all farmland in the village practicing ecological planting has completely stopped using chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides and hormones, and pesticide use on other farmland has been reduced by more than 70%; the vast majority of villagers also completely reject hormone feed for their poultry and livestock, and their breeding cycle is about 1 year. Therefore, the village's agricultural products have become the first choice for urban residents in nearby areas buying green ecological food.

During the on-site survey, what surprised the author was that Shuanghe Village's first year of ecological rice planting did not suffer a large yield reduction. The autumn harvest yield measurement showed that the average yield of ecologically planted hybrid rice was about 450 kg/mu, only a 10% reduction per mu compared with the case of using chemical fertilizers and pesticides (about 50 kg or so). By the third year, the per-unit yield of ecologically planted hybrid rice (farmers may not keep their own seed) increased to 520-530 kg/mu, and the average yield of conventional rice (farmers may keep their own seed, but the yield is slightly lower) also reached 450 kg/mu (in the 2015 autumn harvest, the per-unit yield of conventional rice trial-planted and harvested early in part of the village reached as high as 682.1 kg/mu). This shows that green ecological planting is already no inferior to the local per-unit yield level using chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

It can thus be seen how absurd Mr. Director's view that traditional agriculture's "grain yield per mu could only reach 100 kg" is.

4. "Greened" agriculture is "pseudo-green agriculture"

Mr. Director said that "the green agriculture we pursue now is in essence intensive agriculture supported by science and technology and based on modern inputs." The "modern inputs" serving as the "basis" here are nothing other than synonyms for chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, hormones, antibiotics, agricultural film and genetically modified organisms. Because without these toxic and harmful things, "modern intensive agriculture" cannot function.

For example, "modern intensive agriculture" in planting is mainly manifested as "large-scale planting" and "greenhouse planting." For the former, chemical fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides are indispensable; for the latter, two elements, hormones and agricultural film, must also be added. In addition, in other non-intensive "modern agriculture," the above five major production factors have already penetrated the whole country, and even in those sparsely populated remote mountainous areas, farmers are already using herbicides.

In the past two years, when the author lectured to officials receiving training, township cadres and village cadres, he asked them, "Some people advocate completely stopping the use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides and hormones. Do you think this is possible?" In all the training classes, everyone (including frontline farmers) said unanimously, "This is impossible!" It can thus be seen that the "four major harms" of "modern agriculture" have already penetrated into the "marrow" of Chinese agriculture.

But the serious problem lies in the fact that the pollution from these "four major harms," plus the hormone and antibiotic pollution from "modern livestock farming" (together forming what is later called the "five major harms," including chemical fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, plant and animal hormones, and antibiotics), has already created a severe situation nationwide: "The amount of agricultural and rural non-point source pollution is even greater than urban or industrial point source pollution, and in some places the indicators of agricultural source pollutants even exceed the sum of industrial and urban domestic pollution."