Analyzing the Path of Agricultural Modernization from a Soil Science Perspective
After more than twenty years of working in soil and fertilizer experiments, due to the unexpected results of two experiments and some other opportunities, my views on soil and fertilizer underwent a great change. I had collected some materials and published an article titled "Where Should American Agriculture Go?" in Volume 22, Issue 1 of the semi-monthly magazine "Harvest Year" in 1972. Still not having said all I wanted to say, I later published "I Worry About Modern Agriculture," suggesting that my compatriots take American agricultural modernization as a cautionary tale and seek their own path.
In recent years, the more I have seen and heard, the more concerned I have become about domestic agriculture. I quite appreciate the story of the blind men feeling the elephant. My views on this issue are merely those of someone who, after groping for many years, has touched only a part of the elephant, but I do not know whether it is the elephant's leg or its tail. I offer this as reference for concerned people at home, and hope that everyone will piece together the parts they have each touched, so that perhaps we can understand most of the elephant.
Agriculture -- Everyone's Concern
The ancient saying goes: "Food is heaven for the people," which illustrates that agriculture is closely tied to humanity. There is also a Western saying: "As long as you eat, you are involved in agriculture." A magazine in Taiwan, China once used this saying as its masthead motto, paraphrased as: "Everyone eats three meals a day -- can you say you have nothing to do with agriculture?" The agricultural population of Taiwan, China accounts for about twenty percent of its population, and the importance of agriculture to the people is thus evident. Most people think that the agricultural population of the United States is only two percent, but when all those directly and indirectly related to agricultural production are counted, in terms of both capital and manpower engaged in the work, it remains one of America's massive enterprises.
The importance of agriculture in the development of human history has been much discussed. Guan Zhong of the Zhou Dynasty proposed more than two thousand years ago: "When the granaries are full, people know propriety and righteousness; when food and clothing are sufficient, people know honor and shame." In a broad sense, propriety and honor and shame should be what we today call culture. If human beings cannot eat their fill or do not eat properly, what culture is there to speak of? (Look at today's world situation: places where people cannot eat their fill have problems, and places where people do not eat properly have even more and bigger problems.) The French agronomist Voisin, and the American soil and water conservation experts Carter and Dale, among others, all have profound insights in their writings on how agriculture affects the development of human culture. Liebig, known as the father of modern agricultural chemistry, had a famous saying: "Rome threw away the fertility of Sicily into the sewer," because the wheat produced in Sicily was shipped boat by boat to Rome, carrying away the nutrients in Sicily's soil, which were then lost into the sewers with the Romans' excrement. The final outcome was that Sicily's soil fertility declined and could no longer produce wheat, and the Roman Empire fell along with it. No wonder an American said not long ago that when the United States ships grain to other countries, it should also ship those countries' soil back to America.
"Agriculture is the foundation of the state." Do not think that only China, with its agricultural foundation, has this saying. In fact, the truth of this saying can be applied to any country in the world.
Soil -- The Foundation of Agriculture
The foundation of agriculture lies in the soil -- "where there is soil, there is wealth." This is the wisdom of our ancestors from experience, and the word "wealth" here should refer to wealth in a broad sense. There was an American doctor named Nichols who, after many years of practicing medicine, suddenly suffered a heart attack. After going down some winding paths, he finally took the path of changing his diet, and only then recovered his health. Later, he wrote books based on his own experience, and his conclusion was also: only fertile land is humanity's permanent wealth.
Quite a few agronomists, after many years of work, have come to recognize the importance of soil in agricultural production. For example, the aforementioned agronomist Voisin wrote several books on soil and fertilizer. And Sir Howard of England, known as the father of modern "organic agriculture" (this term is not quite appropriate, but I cannot think of a better one for the moment, so I will continue to use it), studied plant pathology in university. After working in India for many years, he ultimately advocated maintaining soil fertility with organic fertilizers. He wrote several books, one of which is "Soil and Health." Coincidentally, a Mr. Fukuoka of Japan, renowned in international organic agriculture circles, accumulated more than thirty years of hands-on experience and created a "natural farming" cultivation method, mainly using mulching to maintain soil fertility. He also studied plant pathology in university.
Some doctors advocate maintaining human health through food. Food comes from the soil; without fertile soil, there is no nutrient-rich agricultural produce, and without that, there is no healthy body. They deeply recognize that soil is the foundation. Besides the aforementioned Dr. Nichols, Dr. Shelton said in his writings: if we want to improve the nutrition of food, we must include improving the soil. More than six hundred doctors in England once jointly published a Medical Testament, stating that modern diseases originate from abnormal diet and lifestyle. The drafter of that testament, Dr. Picton, wrote a book titled "Soil and Nutrition." And in the recently published (1986) book "The Food Factor" by Griggs, the last paragraph quotes a sentence from the writings of the Swiss doctor Bircher-Benner: (Nutrition is not the highest thing in life. But it is the soil on which the highest thing can either perish or flourish.).
"Nutrition is not the most important thing in life; the soil is the most important, for it can cause humanity to perish or to flourish."
Dr. Gerson, praised by one of the greatest figures of this century -- Dr. Schweitzer -- as an outstanding genius in the history of medicine, after many years of treating many diseases (including cancer) with food and nutrition, discovered that the nutritional value of food depends on the soil as well as factors such as its transportation, storage, and processing. He uniquely proposed that the human body's metabolism should include two parts: first, internal metabolism, which is the metabolism inside the human body that most people are familiar with; second, external metabolism, which should include 1. plants (food) 2. soil 3. the transportation, storage, and processing of food. Starting from a physiological standpoint, he not only regarded food as part of the body but further regarded the soil as part of the human body as well. If we understand his proposition, then when a medical expert was invited to attend a soil micronutrient symposium and began by saying to the assembled soil scientists (I was also present at the time): "The object of your work is people," we would not feel surprised.
Let me also cite a British economist, Schumacher (originally from Germany, after his death in the 1970s, the Schumacher Society was established in England to study and promote his ideas; there are similar societies in the United States as well). In his book "Small is Beautiful," which expounds his central ideas (a Chinese translation should already be available domestically), there is a chapter discussing land use (I suggest friends who study agriculture read this chapter). In this chapter, he begins by saying: "Land is undoubtedly the most important of material resources. From a society's land use, one can predict with considerable accuracy the future of that society." He advocated that human use of land should be guided by three goals, namely "health, beauty, and permanence," with a fourth goal, "productivity." He said that only this goal is agreed upon by experts in general. He also said that as long as the first three fundamental goals are achieved, the fourth goal is merely a by-product -- it will naturally be attained.
Where Should American Agriculture Go?
The above explains my views on agriculture and soil, letting readers know from what standpoint and perspective I view American agriculture, and letting discerning readers see just which part of the elephant this blind man has actually touched. The enormous and astonishing productivity of American agriculture "at present" is beyond doubt, but I say it is only "at present." Although many Americans are still reveling in this beautiful scene, some are already worrying about their long-term prospects. How much longer can such productivity at present be maintained?
Regarding the problems caused by American agricultural modernization, I have collected some materials, and domestic readers know at least something about them. Here I will first briefly describe a few points: (1) soil erosion leading to massive loss of topsoil; (2) pollution of soil and water sources causing health problems; (3) the energy problem; (4) the bankruptcy of family farms (on average over a thousand farm households go bankrupt each week), leading to the decline of rural towns; (5) because the aforementioned rural unemployed population flows into cities, the unemployment problem in America's large cities has become even more serious in recent years.
In 1972, when I published that article "Where Should American Agriculture Go?" in "Harvest Year," I expressed my concern for agriculture in Taiwan, China, hoping that it would not blindly imitate American factory-style or chemical-style agriculture. At that time, at least I myself had not noticed that American society was clearly discussing this issue. Perhaps I was being overly sensitive in asking "where should it go?" Now the situation is different.
In the early 1970s, American government agencies and universities did not acknowledge the existence of so-called "organic agriculture." They believed it was merely a backward and outdated method of agricultural production, not worth a glance. However, gradually, some farmers personally experienced the serious consequences of practicing chemical agriculture for many years, and so some "switched" to organic agriculture. During President Carter's administration, the Secretary of Agriculture, while vacationing in his hometown one year, personally saw his old friend "switch" from chemical agriculture to organic agriculture, and only then ordered the Department of Agriculture's research institutions to form a team to investigate "organic agriculture" in the United States and other countries, and in 1980 published a widely circulated investigation report, and also planned research on organic agriculture. But after President Reagan took office, the Secretary of Agriculture was of course replaced, and the organic agriculture research that was just about to begin died prematurely. Fortunately, some professors at American universities gradually changed their views. In 1981, the annual meeting of the American Society of Agronomy actually had a panel discussion on "organic agriculture." In 1984, the proceedings of that meeting were published, and the preface to this publication was jointly written by the presidents of three societies (the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America) for the 1983-84 term. It pointed out whether today's agricultural production should continue to use the current intensive production (referring to the current factory-style and chemical-style production methods), or adopt organic agriculture, or combine the two. This is a major issue facing humanity today and in future generations.
There is a nationwide educational television station in the United States that regularly broadcasts a rigorously produced science program every week called NOVA. The program covers a wide range, and in March 1984 it broadcast a program examining current American agricultural production. The program first showed the astonishing agricultural productivity, then showed the "shadow" side of current agriculture. In this one-hour program, it also included interviews with some farmers, agricultural workers, university professors, and government officials. This is a thought-provoking good program; it truly can be said that a conversation with you is worth ten years of reading, or perhaps it should be said that seeing is better than hearing a hundred times. I hope that this program can be purchased domestically (the price is not expensive), the dialogue translated into Chinese, and broadcast for our people and the broad masses of farmers to see. I will now translate the broadcaster's final words based on the dialogue script as follows:
"We all need an agriculture that is abundant in production and sustainable, so that our children and grandchildren can share the gifts the land gives them."
"Changing American agriculture toward a more sustainable path faces many long-standing and difficult-to-solve social problems."
Then he raised a series of questions:
"Do farmers have the right to use land improperly? Or should their rights be superseded by the public's right to protect basic resources?"
"Is the responsibility of scientists only to solve present problems? If their research results cause long-term aftereffects, are they also responsible?"
He also posed the following questions to the public:
"Is it fair that we judge the merits of our agricultural production methods only by this week's supermarket food prices? Should it also include our responsibility to the next generation?"
Finally he said: "These are all difficult questions, but our future rests on these questions."
From the articles of the above three society presidents, and from the words of this broadcaster, is not "Where should American agriculture go?" just about to emerge?