The diversified forest takes care of pests, both insects and intruding plants, all by itself. This process is necessary and it is simply called "balance". It is an equation of sorts where one side equals the other.
In a balanced forest or agro forest everything there is a mutual benefit to the existence of most every biological and botanical member of that community.
For whatever reason, when we see an imbalance what used to be mutually beneficial relationships become less mutual and biological greed takes place, thus, there is an insurgence of pests. The first answer to this is to re-establish the ecological balance and let Mother Nature handle the pests.
In the realm of traditional agriculture we see such an imbalance that Mother Nature cannot handle that problem and man must take steps. In the old, old days the uses were organic and then commercial pressures to produce more, quicker and cheaper took over using the organic methods as the models. In a few short generations the chemistry became less and less similar to the organic methods. For instance DDT, which was banned in the USA in 1972 nearly wiped out several species of birds when the insect pests were the target. What is amazing is that in most of the Third World the use of DDT persists.
With the development of hybrid farming and its prevalence today the actual plant that the farmer grows diverts most of its energy to producing a bigger, fancier and more abundant crop for harvest. Therefore, what energy it previously devoted to fighting pests must be replaced by chemicals from his farmer friend. All of this extra protection carries with it a price tag to the farmer and consumer.
The Frog and Boiling Water
The costs have crept up on us over the generations to the point that we only measure the additional cost this year over last year and the farmer accepts the cost increase because he has been told that his production will increase even more than the cost. The consumer has no choice but to accept the "marginal increase", besides that is inflation and everyone accepts that.
The cost of producing a crop of hearty, healthy and nutritional fruit and vegetables two hundred years ago did not include 10 generations of price increases from agri-science providing "newer and better" ways of increasing production. Over that period of time the small family farmer has been nearly replaced by giant commercial farms geared to high production by quantity and volume rather than by nutritional value. Except for the biological functions of the plant's actual growth this process is so far distant from Mother Nature's plan that it is totally in the hands of mankind to keep it sustainable. Like the frog sitting in the water that once was cold and not noticing that now it is very much warmer and slowly getting even warmer until soon it will actually be hot and then even boiling ... at what point will the frog no longer be able to jump out of the water?
Sustainability?
In realm of Mother Nature if mankind keeps its hands off and the system sustains itself it may be said that the system is self-sustainable. On the contrary, if mankind must sustain it by hands-on it is a system that will die or digress to the point of no productivity if man merely steps backward removing his touch.
A Quandary
Do we continue the way we have been "developing" for the past two hundred years for the next two hundred years or do we change back toward having a more balanced Mother Nature that can provide us with sustainable food from the forest? Around the world, both First and Third, the soil conditions of the farms
is reaching salinity levels from artificial additives that jeopardize
productivity. One answer is for mankind to find another additive.
Another answer is to head in the other direction back toward "balance".
Like the frog and the boiling water it is opined that the water is nearing the temperature that if he does not jump out he will soon begin to cook without even knowing it.
Recent Comments