An excerpt from Science in Agriculture: Advanced Methods for Sustainable Farming, by Arden Anderson
Dr. Anderson will be a speaker again at this year’s Acres U.S.A. Eco-Ag Conference, 1-4 December in Madison, Wisconsin! conference.eco-ag.com
Whatever one’s trade or hobby, he acts within a belief system that sets up the rules and regulations by which he functions. These are called paradigms. Any time there is progress, one’s paradigm must and does shift or expand, allowing him to perform in a progressive manner. Over the past fifty or more years, agriculture has functioned, officially anyway, in a paradigm whose philosophy says that nature is flawed and must be controlled with man-made materials. This paradigm has placed agriculture in a state of constant war with nature, continuously battling pests and diseases.
A new paradigm is gaining acceptance due, in no small part, to solid science. To understand the unraveling of the old paradigm, one must understand the fundamental aspects of both the old and the new. One might say the old and new are analogous to singing monotone versus making music.
In this chapter, I will describe the two fundamental aspects of both real-world and conventional agriculture: the model and the logic. The real-world and conventional-agricultural model and logic will be compared to linear and nonlinear physics. I will give field examples and show how science demands the practice of biological agriculture, regardless of what methodology the farmer employs.
No matter what we do in life, there is a model of what we think things should be, by which we judge our position, and there is a logic by which we solve problems and execute our actions. The model is essentially our standards, and the logic is essentially our science.
In conventional agriculture, the model has the following elements:
- Food and fiber production constitutes a war.
- Nature is the adversary.
- Insect, disease, and weed pest are “normal” and evidence the wrath of God on mankind.
- Soil is inanimate.
- Nature is random, unintelligent, and flawed.
- Man knows a better way.
The logic of conventional agriculture, more properly described as the dogma of the conventional agriculture “church,” has the following elements:
- Reductionistic—The whole equals the sum of its parts and nothing more.
- Linear—Based on straight-line, in-vitro observation and principle; what you get out is only equal to or less than what you put in—purely entropic.
- If all else fails, get a bigger hammer.
On the other hand, the model of real-world agriculture has the following elements:
- Food and fiber production is a part of nature, where peaceful coexistence is the rule.
- Nature is the guide and guardian.
- Insect and disease pests are nature’s garbage collectors; weeds are nature’s caretakers.
- Soil is living and dynamic, analogous to the ruminant digestive system.
- Nature is ordered, intelligent, and perfect.
- Nature is the example to follow; she possesses the ideal plant, soil, and animal characteristics.
The logic of real-world agriculture contains the following elements:
- Wholistic—-The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
- Nonlinear—Keyed to tuning, based on harmonics, in-vivo observation, and principle.
- Energetics is the fundamental basis of all physiology, animate or inanimate.
Summing up the two systems, one might say that the conventional system is linear, functions with single variables, and adheres strictly to the theory of relativity, has no harmonics, and is a driven system. In essence, it is a messenger (symptom)-oriented system. The real-world system, on the other hand, is nonlinear, functions with many variables, makes use of harmonics, and is a functioning system. In essence, it is a message (cause)-oriented system.
The conventional system, being the old paradigm, is solidly instituted in the annals of modern society. It therefore needs no further elaboration. The real-world system, being the new paradigm, warrants further elaboration, to establish its right as successor.
There is an old story that seems to be the epitome of linear perception, the old paradigm of conventional agriculture. Six blind men each attempted to describe an elephant after touching it. Each one, however, touched a different part of the elephant and, consequently, each described the elephant differently. One man contacted the elephant’s leg and described the elephant as a tree; another felt the elephant’s trunk and proclaimed it was a large snake; another touched the elephant’s ear and described the animal as a great fan; another man felt the tail and described the elephant as a hanging rope; another touched the elephant’s side and contended it was a great wall; and the sixth man contacted the elephant’s tusk and described the animal as a spear. Each description was accurate from each man’s viewpoint, but none described the real elephant, showing that the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.
The moral of the story for purposes of this discussion is that the old paradigm, although accurate from its individual perspectives, has missed the true portrait of agriculture and all living systems. It has a flawed model and logic, rooted in entropy (perpetual degeneration), and therefore will inevitably decline. The new paradigm allows us to get at the causes of disharmony by selecting and using the proper tools, materials, and methodology to attune nature’s symphony.
In our studies of science and nature Heisenberg once said, “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
