3 THE THEORY OF NATURAL FARMING
1. The Relative Merits of Natural Farming and Scientific Agriculture
Two Ways of Natural Farming
Although I have already shown in some detail the differences between natural farming
and scientific farming, I would like to return here to compare the principles on which
each is based. For the sake of convenience, I shall divide natural farming into two types
and consider each separately.
Mahayana Natural Farming: When the human spirit and human life blend with the
natural order and man devotes himself entirely to the service of nature, he lives freely as
an integral part of the natural world, subsisting on its bounty without having to resort to
purposeful effort. This type of farming, which I shall call Mahayana natural farming, is
realized when man becomes one with nature, for it is a way of farming that transcends
time and space and reaches the zenith of understanding and enlightenment.
This relationship between man and nature is like an ideal marriage in which the
partners together realize a perfect life without asking for, giving, or receiving anything of
each other. Mahayana farming is the very embodiment of life in accordance with nature.
Those who live such a life are hermits and wise men.
Hinayana Natural Farming: This type of farming arises when man earnestly seeks
entry to the realm of Mahayana farming. Desirous of the true blessings and bounty of
nature, he prepares himself to receive it. This is the road leading directly to complete
enlightenment, but is short of that perfect state. The relationship between man and nature
here is like that of a lover who yearns after his loved one and asks for her hand, but has
not realized full union.
Scientific Farming: Man exists in a state of contradiction in which he is basically
estranged from nature, living in a totally artificial world, yet longs for a return to nature.
A product of this condition, scientific farming forever wanders blindly back and forth,
now calling upon the blessings of nature, now rejecting it in favor of human knowledge
and action. Returning to the same analogy, our lover here is unable to decide whose hand
to ask in marriage, and, while agonizing over his indecision, imprudently courts the
ladies, heedless of social proprieties.
Absolute World
Mahayana natural farming (philosopher’s way of farming) = pure natural farming
Relative World
Hinayana natural farming (idealistic farming) = natural farming, organic farming
Scientific farming (dialectical materialism) = scientific agriculture
The Three Ways of Farming Compared: These may be arranged as above or depicted
in the manner shown in Fig. 3.1.
1. Mahayana natural farming: This and scientific farming are on entirely different
planes. Although it is a bit strange to directly compare the two and discuss their relative
merits, the only way we have of expressing their value in this world of ours is by
comparison and contrast. Scientific agriculture draws as much as it can from natural
forces and attempts, by adding human knowledge, to produce results that eclipse nature.
Naturally, proponents of this type of farming think it superior to natural farming, which
relies entirely on the forces and resources of nature.
Philosophically, however, scientific farming cannot be superior to Mahayana natural
farming because, while scientific farming is the sum of knowledge and forces extracted
from nature by the human intellect, this still amounts to finite human knowledge. No
matter how one totals it up, human knowledge is but a tiny, closely circumscribed
fraction of the infinitude of the natural world. In contrast to the vast, boundless, perfect
knowledge and power of nature, the finite knowledge of man is always limited to small
pockets of time and space. Inherently imperfect as it is, human knowledge can never be
collected together to form perfect knowledge.
As imperfection can never be the equal of perfection, so scientific farming must
always yield a step to Mahayana natural farming. Nature encompasses everything. No
matter how desperately he struggles, man will never be more than a small, imperfect part
of its totality. Clearly then, scientific farming, which is inherently incomplete, can never
hope to attain the immutable absoluteness of natural farming.
2. Hinayana natural farming: This type of farming belongs in the same world of
relativity as scientific farming, and so the two may be directly compared. Both are alike
in that they are derived from that nature which is verified with discriminating knowledge.
But Hinayana farming attempts to cast off human knowledge and action and devote itself
to making the greatest possible use of the pure forces of nature, whereas scientific
farming uses the powers of nature and adds human knowledge and action in an effort to
establish a superior way of farming.
The two differ fundamentally and are diametrically opposed in their perceptions,
thinking, and the direction of research, but to explain the methods of Hinayana farming
we have no choice but to borrow the terms and methods of science. So for the sake of
simplicity, we shall place it temporarily in the realm of science. In this respect, it
resembles the position of the Eastern arts of healing vis-Ã -vis Western medicine. The
direction in which Hinayana natural farming points leads beyond the world of science
and to a rejection of scientific thinking.
Borrowing an analogy from the art of sword fighting, Hinayana natural farming may
be likened to the one-sword school that is directed toward the center, and scientific
farming to the two-sword school that is directed outward. The two can be compared. But
Mahayana natural farming is the unmoving no-sword school, comparison with which is
impossible. Scientific farming uses all possible means at its disposable, increasing the
number of swords, whereas natural farming tries to obtain the best possible results while
rendering all means useless, in effect reducing the number of its swords (Hinayana) or
doing entirely without (Mahayana).
This view is based on the philosophical conviction that if man makes a genuine effort
to approach nature, then even should he abandon all deeds and actions, nature will take
each of these over and perform them for him.
3. Scientific farming: Pure natural farming should therefore be judged on
philosophical grounds, while scientific farming should be evaluated on scientific grounds.
Because scientific farming is limited to immediate circumstances in every respect, its
achievements may excel in a restricted sense but are invariably inferior in all other ways.
In contrast, natural farming is total and comprehensive, so its achievements must be
judged from a broad, universal perspective.
When scientific methods are used to grow a fruit tree, for example, the goal may be to
produce large fruit, in which case all efforts will be concentrated to this end. Yet all that
will be achieved is the production of what may, in a limited sense, be regarded as large
fruit. The fruit produced by scientific farming is always large—even unnaturally so—in a
relative sense, but invariably has grave flaws. Essentially, what is being grown is
deformed fruit. To determine the true merit of scientific farming, one has to decide
whether producing large fruit is truly good for man. The answer to this should be
obvious.
Scientific farming constantly practices the unnatural without the slightest concern, but
this is of very great significance and invites the gravest of consequences. The
unnaturalness of scientific farming leads directly to incompleteness, which is why its
results are always distorted and at best of only local utility.
As the diagram in Fig. 3.2 shows, scientific farming and Hinayana natural farming
both occupy the same dimension and may be described as “circles” of equal diameter,
although one large difference is the very irregular contour of scientific farming.
The irregular shape of scientific farming represents the distortions and imperfections
arising from the collection of narrow research findings of which it is made. This contrasts
sharply with the perfect circle that signifies the perfection of nature toward which
Hinayana natural farming aspires.
Because the nature seen by man is just a superficial image of true nature, the circle
representing Hinayana farming is drawn much smaller than that for Mahayana natural
farming. Mahayana farming, which is nature itself, is superior in every respect to the
other ways of farming.
Scientific Agriculture: Farming without Nature
Constant changes in crop-growing practices and the shifting history of sericulture and
livestock farming show that while man may have approached natural farming in some
ages, he leaned more toward scientific agriculture in others. Farming has repeatedly
turned back to nature, then moved away again. Today, it is headed toward fully
automated and systematized production. The immediate reason for this trend toward
mechanized agriculture is that artificial methods of raising livestock and scientific crop
cultivation are believed to give higher yields and to be more economically advantageous,
meaning higher productivity and profits.
Natural farming, on the other hand, is seen as a passive and primitive way of farming,
at best a laissez-faire form of extensive agriculture that gives meager harvests and paltry
profits.
Here is how I compare the yields for these three types of farming:
1) Scientific farming excels under unnatural, man-made conditions. But this is only
because natural farming cannot be practiced under such conditions.
2) Under conditions approaching those of nature, Hinayana natural farming will yield
results at least as good as or better than scientific farming.
3) In holistic terms, Mahayana natural farming, which is both pure and perfect, is
always superior to scientific farming.
Let us take a look at situations in which each of these excels.
1. Cases Where Scientific Farming Excels: Scientific methods will always have the
upper hand when growing produce in an unnatural environment and under unnatural
conditions that deny nature its full powers, such as accelerated crop growth and
cultivation in cramped plots, clay pots, hothouses, and hotbeds. And through adroit
management, yields can be increased and fruit and vegetables grown out of season to
satisfy consumer cravings by pumping in lots of high technology in the form of chemical
fertilizers and powerful disease and pest control agents, bringing in unheard-of profits.
Yet this is only because under such unnatural conditions natural farming does not stand a
chance.
Instead of being satisfied with vegetables and fruit ripened on the land under the full
rays of the sun, people vie with each other to buy limp, pale, out-of-season vegetables
and splendid-looking fruit packed with artificial coloring the minute these appear in the
supermarkets and food stalls. Under the circumstances, it is no surprise that people are
grateful for scientific farming and think of it as beneficial to man.
Yet even under such ideal conditions, scientific farming does not produce more at
lower cost or generate higher profits per unit area of land or per fruit tree than natural
farming. It is not economically advantageous because it produces more and better product
with less work and at lower cost. No, it is suited rather to the skillful use of time and
space to create profit.
People construct buildings on high-priced land and raise silkworms, chickens, or hogs.
In the winter they grow tomatoes and watermelons hydroponically in large hothouses.
Mandarin oranges, which normally ripen in late autumn, are shipped from refrigerated
warehouses in the summer and sold at a high profit.Here scientific agriculture has the
entire field to itself. The only response possible to a consumer public that desires what
nature cannot give it is to produce crops in an environment divorced from nature and to
allow technology that relies on human knowledge and action to flex its muscle.
But I repeat, viewed in a larger sense that transcends space and time, scientific
farming is not more economical or productive than natural farming.This superiority of
scientific farming is a fragile, short-lived thing,and soon collapses with changing times
and circumstances.
2. Cases Where Both Ways of Farming Are Equally Effective: Which of the two
approaches is more productive under nearly natural conditions such as field cropping or
the summer grazing of livestock? Under such circumstances, natural farming will never
produce results inferior to scientific agriculture because it is able to take full advantage of
nature’s forces.
The reason is simple: man imitates nature. No matter how well he thinks he knows
rice, he cannot produce it from scratch. All he does is take the rice plant that he finds in
nature and tries growing it by imitating the natural processes of rice seeding and
germination. Man is no more than a student of nature. It is a foregone conclusion that
were nature—the teacher—to use its full powers, man—the student—would lose out in
the confrontation.
A typical response might go as follows: “But a student sometimes catches up with and
overtakes his teacher. Isn’t it possible that man may one day succeed in fabricating an
entire fruit. Even if this isn’t identical to a natural fruit, but just a mere imitation, might it
not possibly be better than the real thing?”
But has anyone actually given any thought to how much scientific knowledge, to the
materials and effort, it would take to reproduce something of nature? The level of
technology that would be needed to create a single persimmon seed or leaf is
incomparably greater than that used to launch a rocket into outer space. Even were man
to undertake a solution to the myriad mysteries in the persimmon seed and attempt to
fabricate a single seed artificially, the world’s scientists pooling all their knowledge and
resources would not be up to the task.
And even supposing that this were possible, if man then set his mind on replacing
current world fruit production with fruit manufactured in chemical plants that rely solely
on the faculties of science, he would probably fall short of his goal even were he to cover
the entire face of the earth with factories. I may appear to be overstating the case here, yet
man constantly goes out of his way to commit such follies.
Man today knows that planting seeds in the ground is much easier than going to the
trouble of manufacturing the same seeds scientifically. He knows, but he persists in such
reveries anyway.
An imitation can never outclass the original. Imperfection shall always lie in the
shadow of perfection. Even though man is well aware that the human activity we call
science can never be superior to nature, his attention is riveted on the imitation rather
than the original because he has been led astray by his peculiar myopia that makes
science appear to excel over nature in certain areas.
Man believes in the superiority of science when it comes to crop yields and aesthetics,
for example. He expects scientific farming, with its use of high-yielding techniques, to
provide richer harvests than natural farming. He is convinced that taller plants can be
grown by spraying hormones on rice plants grown under the forces of nature; that the
number of grains per head can be increased by applying fertilizer during heading; that
higher-than-natural yields can be attained by applying any of a host of yield-enhancing
techniques.
Yet, no matter how many of these disparate techniques are used together, they cannot
increase the total harvest of a field. This is because the amount of sunlight a field receives
is fixed, and the yield of rice, which is the amount of starch produced by photosynthesis
in a given area, depends on the amount of sunlight that shines on that area. No degree of
human tampering with the other conditions of rice cultivation can change the upper limit
in the rice yield. What man believes to be high-yielding technology is just an attempt to
approach the limits of natural yields; more accurately, it is just an effort to minimize
harvest losses.
So what is man likely to do? Recognizing the upper limit of yields to be set by the
amount of sunlight the rice plants receive, he may well try to breach this barrier and
produce yields higher than naturally possible by irradiating the rice plants with artificial
light and blowing carbon dioxide over them to increase starch production. This is
certainly possible in theory, but one must not forget that such artificial light and carbon
dioxide are modeled on natural sunlight and carbon dioxide. These were created by man
from other materials and did not arise spontaneously. So it is all very well and good to
talk of additional increases in yield achieved over the natural limits of production by
scientific technology, but because such means require enormous energy outlays they are
not true increases. Even worse, man must take full responsibility for destruction of the
cyclic and material order of the natural world brought about by the use of technology.
Since this disruption in the balance of nature is the basic cause of environmental
pollution, . man has brought lengthy suffering down upon his own head.
The Entanglement of Natural and Scientific Farming
As I mentioned earlier, natural farming and scientific farming are diametrically
opposed. Natural farming moves centripetally toward nature, and scientific farming
moves centrifugally away from nature. Yet many people think of these two approaches as
being intertwined like the strands of a rope, or see scientific farming as repeatedly
moving away from nature, then returning back again, something like the in-and-out
motion of a piston. This is because they believe science to be intimately and inseparably
allied with nature. But such thinking does not stand on a very firm foundation.
The paths of nature and of science and human action are forever parallel and never
cross. Moreover, because they proceed in opposite directions, the distance between nature
and science grows ever larger. As it moves along its path, science appears to maintain a
cooperative association and harmony with nature, but in reality it aspires to dissect and
analyze nature to know it completely in and out. Having done so, it will discard the
pieces and move on without looking back. It hungers for struggle and conquest.
Thus, with every two steps forward that science takes, it moves one step back,
returning to the bosom of nature and drinking of its knowledge. Once nourished, it
ventures again three or four steps away from nature. When it runs into problems or out of
ideas, it returns, seeking reconciliation and harmony. But it soon forgets its debt of
gratitude and begins again to decry the passiveness and inefficiency of nature.
Let us take a look at an example of this pattern as seen in the development of
silkworm cultivation.
Sericulture first arose when man noticed the camphor si!k moth and the tussah
spinning cocoons in mountain forests and learned that silk can be spun from these
cocoons. The cocoons are fashioned with silk threads by moth larvae just before they
enter the pupal stage. Having studied how these cocoons are made, man was no longer
satisfied with just collecting natural cocoons and hit upon the idea of raising silkworms to
make cocoons for him.
Primitive methods close to nature are believed to have marked the beginnings of
sericulture. Silkworms were collected and released in woods close to home.
Eventually man replaced these wild species with artificially bred varieties. He noticed
that silkworms thrive on mulberry leaves and that, when young, they grow more rapidly
if these leaves are fed to them finely chopped. At this point, it became easier to raise
them indoors, so he built shelves that allowed him to grow large numbers of worms
inside. He devised feeding shelves and special tools for cocoon production, and became
very concerned about optimum temperature and humidity. The methods used during this
long period of sericulture development demanded a great deal of hard labor from farming
households. One had to get up very early in the morning, shoulder a large basket, and
walk out to the mulberry grove, there to pick the leaves one at a time. The leaves were
carefully wiped free of dew with dry cloths, chopped into strips with a large knife, and
scattered over the silkworms on the tens and hundreds of feeding shelves.
The grower carefully maintained optimum conditions night and day, taking the
greatest pains to adjust room temperature and ventilation by installing heaters and
opening and closing doors. He had no choice; the silkworms improved by artificial
breeding were weak and susceptible to disease. It was not uncommon for the worms, after
having finally grown to full size, to be suddenly wiped out by disease. During spinning of
the silk from the cocoons, all the members of the family pitched in, rarely getting any
sleep. Growing and care of the mulberry trees also kept farmers busy with fertilizing and
weeding. If a late frost killed the young leaves, then one usually had no choice but to
throw away the whole lot of silkworms.
Given such labor-intensive methods, it should come as no surprise then that people
began to look for less strenuous techniques. Starting 15 to 20 years ago, sericulture
techniques that approach natural farming spread widely among growers.
These methods consisted of, for example, throwing branches of mulberry leaves onto
the silkworms rather than picking and chopping leaves. Once it was learned that such a
crude method works for young silkworms as well as the fully grown larvae, the next
thought that occurred to growers was that, instead of raising the worms in a special room,
they might perhaps be raised outdoors in a small shed, under the eaves, or in a sort of
hotbed. On trying the idea out, growers found that silkworms are really quite hardy and
never had to be raised under constant temperature and humidity conditions. Needless to
say, they were overjoyed. Originally a creature of nature, the silkworms thrived outdoors
day and night; only man feared the evening dew.
As advances were made in rearing methods, silkworms were raised first under the
eaves, then outdoors, and finally were released into nearby trees. Sericulture appeared to
be headed in the direction of natural farming when all of a sudden the industry fell upon
hard times. The rapid development of synthetic fibers almost made natural silk obsolete.
The price of silk plummeted, throwing sericulture farms out of business. Raising
silkworms became regarded as something of a backwards industry.
However, the growing material affluence of our times has nurtured extravagant tastes
in people. Consumers rediscovered the virtues of natural silk absent in synthetic fibers,
causing silk to be treated once again as something of a precious commodity. The price of
silk cocoons skyrocketed and farmers regained an interest in silkworm cultivation.
Yet by this time the hard-working farmer of old was gone, so innovative new
sericulture techniques were adopted. These are purely scientific methods that go in a
direction opposite to that of natural farming: industrial sericulture. Artificial feed is
prepared from mulberry leaf powder, soybean powder, wheat powder, starch, fats,
vitamins, and other ingredients. It also contains preservatives and is sterilized. Naturally,
the silkworms are raised in a plant fully outfitted with heating and air conditioning
equipment; lighting and ventilation are adjusted automatically. Feed is carried in, and
droppings carried out, on a belt conveyor.
If disease should break out among the worms, the room can be hermetically sealed and
disinfected with gas. With all feeding and cocoon collection operations fully automated,
we have reached an age in which natural silk is something produced in factories.
Although the starting material is still mulberry leaves, this will probably be replaced by a
totally synthetic feed prepared from petrochemicals. Once an inexhaustible supply of
cocoons can be produced in factories from a perfect diet, human labor will no longer be
required. Will people then rejoice at how easily and effortlessly silk can be had in any
amount?
Sericulture has in this way shifted repeatedly from one side to another. From natural
farming it moved to scientific farming, then appeared to move a step back in the direction
of natural farming. However, once scientific farming begins to get under way, it does not
regress or turn back but rushes madly onward along a path that takes it away from nature.
The intertwining of natural farming and scientific farming can be depicted as shown in
Fig. 3.3. Narrowly defined natural farming, which includes organic farming, proceeds
centripetally inward toward a state of “nothingness” (Mu) by the elimination of human
labor; it compresses and freezes time and space. Modern scientific farming, on the other
hand, seeks to appropriate time and space through complex and diverse means; it
proceeds centrifugally outward toward “something-ness,” expanding and developing as it
goes. Both can be understood as existing in a relative relationship in the same dimension
or plane. But although the two may appear identical at a given point, they move in
opposite directions, the one headed for zero and the other for infinity.
Thus, seen relatively and discriminating, the two readily appear to be in opposition,
yet intimately intertwined neither approaching nor moving away from one another,
advancing together and complementarily through time. However, because natural
farming condenses inward, seeking ultimately a return to the true world of nature that
transcends the world of relativity, it is in irreconcilable conflict with scientific farming,
which expands forever in the relative world.
2. The Four Principles of Natural Farming
I have already shown how natural farming is clearly and undeniably superior to
scientific farming, both in theory and in practice. And I have shown that scientific
farming requires human labor and large expenditures, compounds chaos and confusion,
and leads eventually to destruction.
Yet man is a strange creature. He creates one troublesome condition after another and
wears himself down observing each. But take all these artificial conditions away and he
suddenly becomes very uneasy. Even though he may agree that the natural way of
farming is legitimate, he seems to think that it takes extraordinary resolve to exercise the
principle of “doing nothing.”
It is to allay this feeling of unease that I recount my own experiences. Today, my
method of natural farming has approached the point of “doing nothing.” I will admit that
I have had my share of failures during the forty years that 1 have been at it. But because I
was headed in basically the right direction, I now have yields that are at least equal to or
better than those of crops grown scientifically in every respect. And most importantly: 1)
my method succeeds at only a tiny fraction of the labor and costs of scientific farming,
and my goal is to bring this down to zero; 2) at no point in the process of cultivation or in
my crops is there any element that generates the slightest pollution, in addition to which
my soil remains eternally fertile.
There can be no mistaking these results, as I have achieved them now for a good many
years. Moreover, I guarantee that anyone can farm this way. This method of “do-nothing”
farming is based on four major principles:
1. No cultivation
2. No fertilizer
3. No weeding
4. No pesticides
No Cultivation
Plowing a field is hard work for the farmer and usually one of the most important
activities in farming operations. In fact, to many people, being a farmer is synonymous
with turning the soil with plow or hoe. If working the soil is unnecessary then, the image
and reality of the farmer change drastically. Let us look at why plowing is thought to be
essential and what effect it actually has.
Plowing Ruins the Soil: Knowing that the roots of crops penetrate deep into the earth
in search of air, water, and nutrients, people reason that making larger amounts of these
ingredients available to the plants will speed crop growth. So they clear the field of weeds
and turn the soil from time to time, believing that this loosens and aerates the soil,
increases the amount of available nitrogen by encouraging nitrification, and introduces
fertilizer into the soil where it can be absorbed by the crops.
Of course, plowing under chemical fertilizers scattered over the surface of a field will
probably increase fertilizer effectiveness. But this is true only for cleanly plowed and
weeded fields on which fertilizer is applied. Grassed fields and no-fertilizer cultivation
are a different matter altogether. We therefore have to examine the necessity of plowing
from a different perspective. As for the argument that this helps increase available
nitrogen through nitrification, this is analogous to wasting one’s body for some
temporary gain.
Plowing is supposed to loosen the soil and improve the penetration of air, but does not
this in fact have the opposite effect of compacting(he soil and decreasing air porosity?
When a farmer plows his fields and turns the soil with a hoe, this appears to create air
spaces in the soil and soften the dirt. But the effect is the same as kneading bread: by
turning the soil, the farmer breaks it up into smaller and smaller particles which acquire
an increasingly regular physical arrangement with smaller interstitial spaces. The result is
a harder, denser soil.
The only effective way to soften up the soil is to apply compost and work it into the
ground by plowing. But this is just a short-lived measure. In fields that have been weeded
clean and carefully plowed and re-plowed, the natural aggregation of the soil into larger
particles is disturbed; soil particles become finer and finer, hardening the ground.
Wet paddy fields are normally supposed to be tilled five, six, or even seven times
during the growing season. The more zealous farmers have even competed with each
other to increase the number of plowing s. Everyone thought this softened the soil in the
paddy and let more air into the soil. That is the way it looked to most people for a long
time, until after World War II, when herbicides became available. Then farmers
discovered that when they sprayed their fields with herbicides and reduced the frequency
of plowing, their yields improved, This demonstrated that inter tillage had been effective
as a weeding process but had been worthless as a means for loosening the soil.
To say that tilling the soil is worthless is not the same as claiming that it is unnecessary to loosen the soil and increase its porosity. No, in fact I would like to stress,
more than anyone else, just how important an abundance of air and water are to the soil.
It is in the nature of soil to swell and grow more porous with each passing year. This is
absolutely essential for microorganisms to multiplying the earth, for the soil to grow more
fertile, and for the roots of large trees to penetrate deep into the ground. Only I believe
that, far from being the answer, working the soil with plow and hoe actually interferes
with these processes. If man leaves the soil to itself, the forces of nature will enrich and
loosen.
Farmers usually plow the soil to a depth of about four to eight inches, whereas the
roots of grasses and green manure crops work the soil down to twelve inches, fifteen
inches, or more. When these roots reach down deep into the earth, air and water penetrate
into the soil together with the roots. As these wither and die, many types of
microorganisms proliferate. These organisms die and are replaced by others, increasing
the amount of humus and softening the soil. Earthworms eventually appear where there is
humus, and as the number of earthworm’s increases, moles begin burrowing through the
soil.
The Soil Works Itself: The soil lives of its own accord and plows itself. It needs no
help from man. Farmers often talk of “taming the soil” and of a field becoming “mature,”
but why is it that trees in mountain forests grow to such magnificent heights without the
benefit of hoe or fertilizer, while the farmer’s fields can grow only puny crops?
Has the farmer ever given any careful thought to what plowing is? Has he not trained
all his attention on a thin surface layer and neglected to consider what lies below that?
Trees seem to grow almost haphazardly in the mountains and forests, but the cedar
grows where it can thrive to its great size, mixed woods rise up where mixed woods must,
and pine trees germinate and grow in places suited for pine trees. One does not see pines
growing at the bottom of a valley or cedar seedlings taking root on mountain tops. One
type of fern grows on infertile land and another in areas of deep soil. Plants that normally
grow along the water’s edge are not found on mountain tops, and terrestrial plants do not
thrive in the water. Although apparently without intent or purpose, these plants know
exactly where they can and should grow.
Man talks of “the right crop for the right land,” and does studies to determine which
crops grow well where. Yet research has hardly touched upon such topics as the type of
parent rock and soil structure suited to mandarin orange trees, or the physical, chemical,
and biological soil structures in which persimmon trees grow well. People plant trees and
sow seed without having the faintest idea of what the parent rock on their land is and
without knowing anything about the structure of the soil. It is no wonder then that
farmers worry about how their crops are going to turn out.
In the mountain forests, however, concerns over the physical and chemical
compositions of the topsoil and deeper strata are nonexistent; without the least help from
man, nature creates the soil conditions sufficient to support dense stands of towering
trees. In nature, the very grasses and trees, and the earthworms and moles in the ground,
have acted the part of plow horse and oxen, completely rearranging and renewing the
soil. What can be more desirable to the farmer than being able to work the fields without
pulling a plow or swinging a hoe? Let the grasses plow the topsoil and the trees work the
deeper layers. Everywhere I look, I am reminded of how much wiser it is to entrust soil
improvement to the soil and plant growth to the inherent powers of plants.
People transplant saplings without giving a thought as to what they are doing. They
graft a scion to the stock of another species or clip the roots of a fruit sapling and
transplant it. From this point on, the roots cease to grow straight and lose the ability to
penetrate hard rock. During transplanting, even a slight entanglement of the tree’s roots
interferes with the normal growth of the first generation of roots and weakens the tree’s
ability to send roots deep into the soil. Applying chemical fertilizers encourages the tree
to grow a shallow root structure that extends along the topsoil. Fertilizer application and
weeding bring a halt to the normal aggregation and enrichment of topsoil. Clearing new
land for agriculture by pulling up trees and bushes robs the deeper layers of the soil of a
source of humus, halting the active proliferation of soil microbes. These very actions are
what make plowing and turning the soil necessary inthe first place.
There is no need to plow or improve a soil because nature has been working at it with
its own methods for thousands of years. Man has restrained the hand of nature and taken
up the plow himself. But this is just man imitating nature- All he has really gained from
this is a mastery at scientific exposition.
No amount of research can teach man everything there is to know about the soil, and
he will certainly never create soils more perfect than those of nature. Because nature
itself is perfect. If anything, advances in scientific research teach man just how perfect
and complete a handful of soil is, and how incomplete human knowledge.
We can either choose to see the soil as imperfect and take hoe in hand, or trust the soil
and leave the business of working it to nature.
No Fertilizer
Crops Depend on the Soil: When we look directly at how and why crops grow on the
earth, we realize that they do so independently of human knowledge and action. This
means that they have no need basically for such things as fertilizers and nutrients. Crops
depend on the soil for growth.
I have experimented with fruit trees and with rice and winter grain to determine
whether these can be cultivated without fertilizers. Of course crops can be grown without
fertilizer. Nor does this yield the poor harvests people generally believe. In fact, I have
been able to show that by taking full advantage of the inherent powers of nature, one can
obtain yields equal to those that can be had with heavy fertilization. But before getting
into a discussion of why it is possible to farm without using fertilizers and whether the
results are good or bad, I would like to look first at the road scientific farming has taken.
Long ago, people saw crops growing in the wild and called this “growth.” Applying
discriminating knowledge, they proceeded from the notion of wild plant growth to plant
cultivation.
For example, scientists typically begin by analyzing rice and barley plants and
identifying the various nutrients. They then speculate that these nutrients promote the
growth of rice and barley. Next they apply the nutrients as fertilizer, and observing that
the plants grow as expected, they conclude that the fertilizer is what makes the crops
grow. The moment they compare crops grown with and without fertilizer and conclude
that fertilizer application results in taller, better yielding plants, people cease to doubt the
value of fertilizers.
Are Fertilizers Realty Necessary?: The same is true when one delves into the reasons
why fertilizers are thought to be essential to fruit trees. Pomologists normally begin with
an analysis of the trunk, leaves, and fruit of the tree. From this they learn what the
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contents are and how much of these components are
consumed per unit of annual growth or of fruit produced. Based on the results of such
analyses, fertilization schedules for fruit trees in mature orchards will typically set the
amount of nitrogen components at 90 pounds, say, and the amount of phosphates and
potassium at 70 pounds each. Researchers will apply fertilizer to trees grown in test plots
or earthen pots, and examining the growth of the tree and the amount and quality of fruit
it bears, will claim to have demonstrated the indispensability of fertilizer.
Learning that nitrogenous components are present in the leaves and branches of citrus
trees and that these are absorbed from the ground by the roots, man hits upon the idea of
administering fertilizer as a nutrient source. If this succeeds in supplying the nutrient
needs of the leaves and branches, man immediately jumps to the conclusion that applying
fertilizer to citrus trees is both necessary and effective.
If one works from the assumption that fruit trees must “be grown,” the absorption of
fertilizer by the roots becomes the cause, and the full growth of the leaves and branches
the effect. This leads quite naturally to the conclusion that applying fertilizer is necessary.
However, if we take as our starting point the view that a tree grows of its own accord,
the uptake of nutrients by the tree’s roots is no longer a cause but, in the eyes of nature,
just a small effect. One could say that the tree grew as a result of the absorption of
nutrients by the roots, but one could also claim that the absorption of nutrients was
caused by something else, which had the effect of making the tree grow. The buds on a
tree are made for budding and so this is what they do; the roots, with their powers of
elongation, spread and extend throughout the earth.A tree has a shape perfectly adapted
to the natural environment. With this, it guards the providence of nature and obeys
nature’s laws, growing neither too fast nor too slow, but in total harmony with the great
cycles of nature.
The Countless Evils of Fertilizer: What happens when the farmer arrives in the
middle of all this and spreads his fields and orchards with fertilizer? Dazzled and led
astray by the rapid growth he hears of, he applies fertilizer to his trees without giving any
thought to the influence this has on the natural order.
As long as he cannot know what effects scattering a handful of fertilizer has on the
natural world, man is not qualified to speak of the effectiveness of fertilizer application.
Determining whether fertilizer does a tree or soil good or harm is not something that can
be decided overnight.
The more scientists learn, the more they realize just how awesome is the complexity
and mystery of nature. They find this to be a world filled with boundless, inscrutable
riddles. The amount of research material that lies hidden in a single gram of soil, a single
particle, is mind-boggling.
People call the soil mineral matter, but some one hundred million bacteria, yeasts,
molds, diatoms, and other microbes live in just one gram of ordinary topsoil. Far from
being dead and inanimate, the soil is teeming with life. These microorganisms do not
exist without reason. Each lives for a purpose, struggling, cooperating, and carrying on
the cycles of nature.
Into this soil, man throws powerful chemical fertilizers. It would take years of research
to determine how the fertilizer components combine and react with air, water, and many
other substances in nonliving mineral matter, what changes they undergo, and what
relationships should be maintained between these components and the various
microorganisms in order to guard a harmonious balance.
Very little, if any, research has been done yet on the relationship between fertilizers
and soil microbes. In fact, most experiments totally ignore this. At agricultural research
stations, scientists place soil in pots and run tests, but more likely as not, most of the soil
microbes in these pots die off. Clearly, results obtained from tests conducted under fixed
conditions and within a limited experimental framework cannot be applied to situations
under natural conditions.
Yet, just because a fertilizer slightly accelerates crop growth in such tests, it is praised
lavishly and widely reported to be effective. Only the efficacy of the fertilizer is stressed;
almost nothing is said about its adverse effects, which are innumerable. Here is just a
sampling:
1. Fertilizers speed up the growth of crops, but this is only a temporary and local effect
that does not offset the inevitable weakening of the crops. This is similar to the rapid
acceleration of plant growth by hormones.
2. Plants weakened by fertilizers have a lowered resistance to diseases and pests, and
are less able to overcome other obstacles to growth and development.
3. Fertilizer applied to soil usually is not as effective as in laboratory experiments. For
example, it was recently learned that some thirty percent of the nitrogenous component of
ammonium sulfate applied to paddy fields is denitrified by microorganisms in the soil
and escapes into the atmosphere. That this came out after decades of use. is an
unspeakable injury and injustice to countless farmers that cannot be laughed off as just an
innocent mistake. Such nonsense will occur again and again. Recent reports say that
phosphate fertilizers applied to fields only penetrate two inches into the soil surface. So it
turns out that those mountains of phosphates that farmers religiously spread on their
fields year after year were useless and were essentially being “dumped” on the topsoil.
4. Damage caused directly by fertilizers is also enormous. More than seventy percent
of the “big three”—ammonium sulfate, super-phosphate, and potassium sulfate—is
concentrated sulfuric acid which acidifies the soil, causing great harm to it, both directly
and indirectly. Each year, some 1.8 million tons of sulfuric acid are dumped onto the
farmlands of Japan in the form of fertilizer. This acidic fertilizer suppresses and kills soil
microorganisms, disrupting and damaging the soil in a way that may one day spell
disaster for Japanese agriculture.
5. One major problem with fertilizer use is the deficiency of trace components. Not
only have we killed the soil by relying too heavily on chemical fertilizers, our production
of crops from a small number of nutrients has led to a deficiency in many trace elements
essential to the crops. Recently, this problem has risen to alarming proportions in fruit
trees, and has also surfaced as one cause of low rice harvests.
The effects and interactions of the various components of fertilizers in orchard soil are
unspeakably complex. Nitrogen and phosphate uptake is poor in iodine-deficient soils.
When the soil is acidic or turns alkaline through heavy applications of lime, deficiencies
of zinc, manganese, boron, iodine, and other elements develop because these become less
soluble in water. Too much potassium blocks iodine uptake and reduces the absorption of
boron as well. The greater the amount of nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium
administered to the soil, the higher the resulting deficiency of zinc and boron. On the
other hand, higher levels of nitrogen and phosphate result in a lower manganese
deficiency.
Adding too much of one fertilizer renders another fertilizer ineffective. When there is
a shortage of certain components, it does no good to add a generous amount of other
components. When scientists get around to studying these relationships, they will realize
just how complex the addition of fertilizers is. If we were prudent enough to apply
fertilizers only when we were certain of the pros and cons, we could be sure of avoiding
dangerous mistakes, but the benefits and dangers of fertilization are never likely to
become perfectly clear.
And the problems go on multiplying. Very limited research is currently underway on
several trace components, but an endless number of such components remain to be
discovered. This will spawn infinite new areas of study, such as mutual interactions,
leaching in the soil, fixation, and relationships with microbes.
Still, in spite of such intimidating complexity, ifa fertilizer happens to be effective in
one narrowly designed experiment, scientists report this as being remarkably effective
without having the vaguest idea of its true merits and drawbacks.
“Well yes,” the farmer all too easily reasons. “Chemical fertilizers do cause some
damage. But I’ve used fertilizers now for years and haven had any big problems, so I
suppose that I’m better off with them.” The seeds of calamity have been sown. When we
take note of the danger, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Consider also the fact that farmers have always had to struggle to scrape together
enough to buy fertilizer. Why, to give one simple example, fertilizers currently account
for thirty to fifty percent of the costs of running an orchard.
People claim that produce cannot be grown without fertilization, but is it really true
that crops do not grow in the absence of fertilizer? Is the use of fertilizers economically
advantageous? And have methods of farming with fertilizers made the lot of farmers
easier?
Why the Absence of No-Fertilizer Tests?: Strange as it may seem, scientists hardly
ever run experiments on no-fertilizer cultivation. In Japan, only a handful of reports have
been published over the last few years on the cultivation of fruit trees without fertilizer in
small concrete enclosures and earthen pots. Some tests have been done on rice and other
grains, but only as controls. Actually, the reason why no-fertilizer tests are not performed
is all too clear. Scientists work from the basic premise that crops are to be grown with
fertilizer. “Why experiment with such an idiotic and dangerous method of cultivation?”
they say. Why indeed.
The standard on which fertilizer experiments should be based is no-fertilizer tests, but
three-element tests using nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are the standard actually
used. Quoting the results of a very small number of insignificant experiments, scientists
claim that a tree grows only about half as much without fertilizer as when various types
of fertilizer are used, and the common belief is that yields are terrible—on the order of
one-third that obtained with fertilizers. However, the conditions under which these no fertilizer experiments were conducted have little in common with true natural farming.
When crops are planted in small earthenware pots or artificial enclosures, the soil in
which they grow is dead soil. The growth of trees whose roots are boxed in by concrete is
highly unnatural. It is unreasonable to claim that because plants grown without fertilizer
in such an enclosure grow poorly, they cannot be grown without fertilizers.
No-fertilizer natural farming essentially means the natural cultivation of crops without
fertilizers in a soil and environment under totally natural conditions. By totally natural
cultivation I mean no-fertilizer tests under “condition-less” conditions. However such
experiments are out of the reach of scientists, and indeed impossible to perform.
I am convinced that cultivation without fertilizers under natural circumstances is not
only philosophically feasible, but is more beneficial than scientific, fertilizer-based
agriculture, and preferable for the farmer. Yet, although cultivation without the use of
chemical fertilizers is possible, crops cannot immediately be grown successfully without
fertilizers on fields that are normally plowed and weeded.
It is imperative that farmers think seriously about what nature is and provide a
growing environment that approaches at least one step closer to nature. But to farm in
nature, one must first make an effort to return to that natural state which preceded the
development of the farming methods used by man.
Take a Good Look at Nature: When trying to determine whether crops can be grown
without fertilizers, one cannot tell anything by examining only the crops. One must begin
by taking a good look at nature.
The trees of the mountain forests grow under nearly natural conditions. Although they
receive no fertilizer by the hand of man, they grow very well year after year. Reforested
cedars in a favorable area generally grow about forty tons per quarter-acre over a period
of twenty years. These trees thus produce some two tons of new growth each year
without fertilizer. This includes only that part of the tree that can be used as lumber, so if
we take into account also small branches, leaves, and roots, then annual production is
probably closer to double, or about four tons.
In the case of a fruit orchard, this would translate into two to four tons of fruit
produced each year without fertilizers—about equal to standard production levels by fruit
growers today.
After a certain period of time, the trees in a timber stand are felled, and the entire
surface portion of the tree—including the branches,leaves, and trunk—is carried away.
So not only are fertilizers not used, this is slash-and-burn agriculture. How then, and from
where, are the fertilizer components for this production volume supplied each year to the
growing trees? Plants do not need to be raised; they grow of their own accord. The
mountain forests are living proof that trees are not raised with fertilizer but grow by
themselves.
One might also point out that because the planted cedars are not virgin forest, they are
not likely to be growing under the full powers of the natural soil and environment. The
damage caused by repeated planting of the same species of tree, the felling and
harvesting of the timber, and the burning of the mountainside take their toll. Anyone who
sees black wattle planted in depleted soil on a mountainside and succeeded a number of
years later with giant cedars many times their size will be amazed at the great productive
powers of the soil. When black wattle is planted among cedar or cypress, these latter
thrive with the help of the microbes present on the roots of the black wattle. If the forest
is left to itself, the action of the wind and snow over the years weathers the rock, a layer
of humus forms and deepens with the fall of leaves each year, microorganisms multiply
in the soil— turning it a rich black, and the soil aggregates and softens, increasing water
retention. There is no need for human intervention here. And the trees grow on and on.
Nature is not dead. It lives and it grows. All that man has to do is direct these vast
hidden forces to the growth of fruit trees. But rather than using this great power, people
choose to destroy it. Weeding and plowing the fields each year depletes the fertility of the
soil, creates a deficiency of trace components, diminishes the soil’s vitality, hardens the
topsoil, kills off microbes, and turns rich, living, organic material into a dead, inanimate,
yellowish-white mineral matter the only function of which is to physically support the
crops.
Fertilizer Was Never Needed to Begin With: Let us consider the farmer as he clears a
forest and plants fruit trees. He fells the trees in the forest and carries them off as logs,
taking the branches and leaves as well. Then he digs deep into the earth, pulling up the
roots of trees and grasses, which he burns. Next, he turns the soil over and over again to
loosen it up. But in so doing, he destroys the physical structure of the soil. After
pounding and kneading the soil again and again like bread dough, he drives out air and
the humus so essential to microorganisms, reducing it to a yellow mineral matter barren
of life. He then plants fruit saplings in the now lifeless soil, adds fertilizer, and attempts
to grow fruit trees entirely through human forces.
At agricultural research centers, fertilizer is added to potted soil devoid of life and
nutrients. The effect is like sprinkling water on dry soil: the trees thrive on the fertilizer
nutrients. Naturally, researchers report this as evidence of the remarkable effectiveness of
the fertilizer. The farmer simulates the laboratory procedure by carefully clearing the land
of all plant matter and killing the soil in the field, then applying fertilizer. He too notes
the same startling results and is pleased with what he sees.
The poor farmer has taken the long way around. Although I would not call fertilizers
totally useless, the fact is that nature provides us with all the fertilizers we need. Crops
grow very well without chemical fertilizers. Since ancient times, rock outcroppings on
the earth have been battered by the elements, first into boulders and stones, then into sand
and earth. As this gave rise to and nurtured microbes, grasses, and eventually great,
towering trees, the land became buried under a mantle of rich soil.
Even though it is unclear how, when, and from where the nutrients essential to plant
growth are formed and accumulate, each year the topsoil becomes darker and richer.
Compare this with the soil in the fields farmed by man, which grows poorer and more
barren each year, in spite of the large amounts of fertilizer constantly poured onto it.
The no-fertilizer principle does not say that fertilizers are worthless, but that there is
no need to apply chemical fertilizers. Scientific technology for applying fertilizers is
basically pointless for the same reason. Yet research on the preparation and use of
organic composts, which are much closer to nature, appears at first glance to be of value.
When compost such as straw, grasses and trees, or seaweed is applied directly to a
field, it takes a while for this to decompose and trigger a fertilizer response in the crops.
This is because microbes help themselves to the available nitrogen in the soil, creating a
temporary nitrogen deficiency that initially starves the crops of needed nitrogen. In
organic farming, therefore, these materials are fermented and used as prepared compost,
giving a safe, effective fertilizer.
All the trouble taken during preparation of the compost to speed up the rate of
fertilizer response, such as frequent turning of the pile, methods for stimulating the
growth of aerobic bacteria, the addition of water and nitrogenous fertilizers, lime, super phosphate, rice bran, manure, and so forth—all this trouble is taken just for a slight
acceleration in response. Because the net effect of these efforts is to speed up
decomposition by at most ten to twenty percent, this can hardly be called necessary,
especially since there already was a method of applying straw that achieved outstanding
results.
The logic that rejects grassed fields, green manure, and the direct application and
plowing under of human wastes and livestock manure changes with time and
circumstances. Given the right conditions, these may be effective. But no fertilizer
method is absolute. The surest way to solve the problem is to apply a method that adapts
to the circumstances and follows nature.
I firmly believe that, while compost itself is not without value, the composting of
organic materials is fundamentally useless.
No Weeding
Nothing would be more welcome to the farmer than not having to weed his fields, for
this is his greatest source of toil. Not having to weed or plow might sound like asking for
too much, but if one stops to think about what repeatedly weeding and running a plow
through a field actually means, it becomes clear that weeding is not as indispensable as
we have been led to believe.
Is There Such a Thing as a Weed?: Does no one question the common view that
weeds are a nuisance and harmful to the raising of crops?
The first step that those who distinguish between crops and weeds take is to decide
whether to weed or not to weed! Like the many different microorganisms that struggle
and cooperate in the soil, myriad grasses and trees live together on the soil surface. Is it
right then to destroy this natural state, to pick out certain plants living in harmony among
many plants and call these “crops,” and to uproot all the others as “weeds”?
In nature, plants live and thrive together. But man sees things differently. He sees
coexistence as competition; he thinks of one plant as hindering the growth of another and
believes that to raise a crop, he must remove other grasses and herbs. Had man looked
squarely at nature and placed his trust in its powers, would he not have raised crops in
harmony with other plants? Ever since he chose to differentiate crop plants from other
plants, he has felt compelled to raise crops through his own efforts. When man decides to
raise one crop, the attention and devotion he focuses on raising that crop gives birth to a
complementary sense of repulsion and hate that excludes all else.
The moment that the farmer started caring for and raising crops, he began to regard
other herbs with disgust as weeds and has striven ever since to remove them. But because
the growth of weeds is natural, there is no end to their variety or to the labors of those
who work to remove them.
If one believes that crops grow with the aid of fertilizers, then the surrounding weeds
must be removed because they rob the crop plants of fertilizer. But in natural farming,
where plants grow of their own accord without relying on fertilizers, the surrounding
weeds do not pose any problem at all. Nothing is more natural than to see grass growing
at the foot of a tree; no one would ever think of that grass as interfering with the growth
of the tree.
In nature, bushes and shrubs grow at the foot of large trees, grasses spread among the
shrubs, and mosses flourish beneath the grasses. Instead of cut-throat competition for
nutrients, this is a peaceful world of coexistence. Rather than seeing the grasses as
stunting shrub growth and the shrubs as slowing the growth of trees, one should feel
instead a sense of wonder and amazement at the ability of these plants to grow together in
this way.
Weeds Enrich the Soil: Instead of pulling weeds, people should give some thought to
the significance of these plants. Having done so, they will agree that the farmer should let
the weeds live and make use of their strength. Although I call this the “no-weeding”
principle, it could also be known as the principle of “weed utility.”
Long ago, when the earth began to cool and the surface of the earth’s crust weathered,
forming soil, the first forms of life to appear were bacteria and lower forms of plant life
such as algae. All plants arose for a reason, and all plants live and thrive today for a
reason. None is useless; each makes its own contribution to the development and
enrichment of the biosphere. Such fertile soil would not have formed on the earth’s
surface had there been no microorganisms in the earth and grasses on the surface. Grasses
and other plants do not grow without a purpose.
The deep penetration of grass roots into the earth loosens the soil. When the roots die,
this adds to the humus, allowing soil microbes to proliferate and enrich the soil.
Rainwater percolates through the soil and air is carried deep down, supporting
earthworms, which eventually attract moles. Weeds and grasses are absolutely essential
for a soil to remain organic and alive.
Without grasses growing over the surface of the ground, rainwater would wash away
part of the topsoil each year. Even in gently sloping areas, this would result in the loss of
from several tons to perhaps well over a hundred tons of soil per year. In twenty to thirty
years, the topsoil would wash entirely away, reducing soil fertility to essentially zero. It
would make more sense then for farmers to stop pulling weeds and begin making use of
their considerable powers.
Of course, it is understandable when farmers say that weeds growing wild in rice and
wheat fields or under fruit trees interfere with other work. Even in cases where
cultivation with weeds appears to be possible and even beneficial in principle,
monoculture is more convenient for the farmer. This is why, in practice, one must adopt a
method that utilizes the strength of weeds but also takes into account the convenience of
farming operations—a “weedless” method that allows the weeds to grow.
A Cover of Grass Is Beneficial: This method includes sod and green manure
cultivation. In my citrus orchard, I first attempted cultivation under a cover of grass, then
switched to green manure cultivation. Now I use a ground cover of clover and vegetables
with no weeding, tillage, or fertilizer. When weeds are a problem, then it is wiser to
remove weeds with weeds than to pull weeds by hand.The many different grasses and
herbs in a natural meadow appear to grow and die in total confusion, but upon closer
examination, there are laws and there is order here. Grasses meant to sprout do so. Plants
that flourish do so for a reason; and if they weaken and die, there is a cause. Plants of the
same species do not all grow in the same place and way; given types flourish, then fade in
an ongoing succession. The cycles of coexistence, competition, and mutual benefit repeat
themselves. Certain weeds grow as individuals, others grow in bunches, and yet others
form colonies. Some grow sparsely, some densely, and some in clumps. Each has a
different ecology: some rise up over their neighbors and overpower them, some wrap
themselves around others in symbiosis, some weaken other plants, and some die—while
others thrive—as undergrowth.
By studying and making use of the properties of weeds, one weed can be used to drive
out a large number of other weeds. If the farmer were to grow grasses or green manure
crops that take the place of undesirable weeds and are beneficial to him and his crops,
then he would no longer have to weed. In addition, the green manure would enrich the
soil and prevent its erosion. I have found that by “killing two birds wity one stone” in this
way, growing fruit trees and tending an orchard can be made easier and more
advantageous than normal methods. In fact, from my experience, there is no question that
weeding in orchards is not only useless, it is positively harmful.
What about in the case of crops such as rice or barley? I believe that the coexistence of
surface plants is true to nature, and that the no-weeding principle applies also to rice and
barley cultivation. But because the presence of weeds among the rice and barley
interferes with harvesting, these weeds have to be replaced with some other herb.
I practice a form of rice-barley succession cropping in which I seed barley together
with clover over the standing heads of rice, and scatter rice seed and green manure while
the barley is up. This more nearly approaches nature and eliminates weeding. My reason
for trying such a method was not that I was tired of weeding or wanted to prove that
cultivation is possible without weeding. 1 did this but of dedication to my goals of
understanding the true form of rice and barley and of achieving more vigorous growth
and higher yields by cultivating these grains in as natural a way as possible.
What I found was that, like fruit trees, rice and barley too can be grown without
weeding. I learned also that vegetables can be grown in a state that allows them to go
wild, without fertilizer or weeding, and yet attain yields comparable to normal methods.
No Pesticides
Insect Pests Do Not Exist: The moment the problem of crop disease or insect damage
arises, talk turns immediately to methods of control. But we should begin by examining
whether crop disease or insect damage exist in the first place. A thousand plant diseases
exist in nature, yet in truth there are none. It is the agricultural specialist who gets carried
away with discussions on disease and pest damage. Although research is done on ways to
reduce the number of country villages without doctors, no studies are ever run to find out
how these villages have managed to get by without doctors. In the same way, when
people spot signs of a plant disease or an insect pest, they immediately go about trying to
get rid of it. The smart thing to do would be to stop treating insects as pests and find a
way that eliminates the need for control measures altogether.
I would like to take a look now at the question of new pesticides, which has escalated
into a major pollution problem. The problem exists because, very simply, there are no
non-polluting new pesticides.
Most people seem to believe that the use of natural predators and pesticides of low
toxicity will clear up the problem, but they are mistaken. Many feel reassured by the
thought that the use of beneficial insect predators to control pests is a biological method
of control without harmful repercussions, but to someone who understands the chain of
being that links together the world of living organisms, there is no way of telling which
organisms are beneficial predators and which are pests. By meddling with controls, all
man accomplishes is destruction of the natural order. Although he may appear to be
protecting the natural enemies and killing the pests, there is no way of knowing whether
the pests will become beneficial and the predator’spests. Many insects that are harmless
in a direct sense are harmful indirectly. And when things get even more complex, as
when one beneficial insect feeds on a pest that kills another beneficial insect which feeds
on another pest, it is futile to try and draw sharp distinctions between these and apply
pesticides selectively.
Pollution by New Pesticides: With the problem of pesticide pollution, many await the
development of new pesticides that:
1. have no adverse effects on animal cells and act by inhibiting enzymes specific to
given insects, microorganisms, pathogens, plants, or whatever;
2. are degradable under the action of sunlight and microorganisms, and are totally nonpolluting, leaving no residues.
The antibiotics blasticidin S and kasugamycin were released onto the market as new
pesticides that meet these conditions, and used widely as preventive measures against rice
blast disease amid great clamor and publicity. Another recent area of investigation in
which many are placing much hope is pesticides prepared from biological components
already present in nature, such as amino acids, fatty acids, and nucleic acids. Such
pesticides, it is generally surmised, are not likely to leave residues.
One other new type of pesticide discovered recently and reported as possibly nonpolluting is a chemical that suppresses metamorphosis-regulating hormones in insects.
Insects’ secrete hormones that control the various stages of metamorphosis, from the egg
to the larva, the pupa, and finally the adult. A substance extracted from the bay tree
apparently inhibits secretion of these hormones.
Because these substances work selectively on only certain types of insects, they are
thought to have no effects on other animals and plants. But this is incorrect and shortsighted. Animal cells, plant cells, and microorganisms are basically all quite similar.
When a pesticide that works on some insect or pathogen is said to be harmless to plants
and animals, this is merely a word game that plays on a very minor difference in
resistance lo that substance.
A substance that is effective on insects and microorganisms also acts, to a greater or
lesser degree, on plants and animals. A pesticidal or bactericidal effect is referred to as
phytotoxicity in plants and pollution in animals and man.
It is unreasonable to expect a substance to work only on specific insects and microbes.
To claim that something does not cause pesticide damage or pollution is to make small
distinctions based on minor differences in action. Moreover, there is no knowing when
these minor differences will change or turn against us. Yet, in spite of this constant
danger, people are satisfied if a substance poses no immediate threat of damage or
pollution and do not bother to consider the greater repercussions of its effects. This
attitude of ready acceptance complicates the problem and aggravates the dangers.
The same is true as well of microorganisms employedas biological pesticides. Many
different types of bacteria, viruses, and molds are sold and used in a variety of
applications, but what effect are these having on the biosphere? One hears a lot lately
about pheromones. These are chemicals produced by organisms in minute quantities that
trigger very profound physiological changes or specific behavioral reactions in other
individuals. They may be used, for example, to attract the males or females of a given
insect pest. Even the use of chemo-sterilants together with such attractants and excitants
is conceivable.
Sterilization can be achieved by a number of methods, such as destruction of the
reproductive function by irradiation with gamma rays, the use of chemo-sterilants, and
inter specific mating. But no evidence exists lo support the claim that the effects of
sterilization are limited to just the insect pest. If, for instance, one insect pest were
entirely eliminated, there is no knowing what might arise in its place. No one has any
idea what effects a given sterilant used on one type of insect will have on other insects,
plants, animals, or man for that matter. An action as cruel as ruining and annihilating a
family of organisms will surely invite retribution.
The aerial spraying of mountain forests with herbicides, pesticides, and chemical
fertilizers is considered a success if a given weed or insect pest is selectively killed, or the
growth of trees improved. But this Js a grave error that can prove most dangerous.
Natural conservationists have already recognized such practices as polluting.
Spraying herbicides such as PCP does more than just kill weeds. This acts also as a
bactericide and fungicide, killing both black spot on living plants and the-many
putrefactive fungi and bacteria on fallen leaves. Lack of leaf decomposition seriously
affects the habitats of earthworms and ground beetles, on top of which PCP also destroys
microorganisms in the ground.
Treating the soil with chloropicrin will temporarily alleviate bacterial soft rot in
Chinese cabbage and the daikon radish, but the disease breaks out again two years later
and gets completely out of hand. This germicide halts the soft rot, but at the same time it
also kills other bacteria that moderate the severity of the disease, leaving the field open to
the soft rot bacteria. Chloropicrin also works against fusarium fungi and sclerotium fungi
that attack young seedlings, but one cannot overlook the fact that these fungi kill other
important pathogens. Is it really possible to restore the balance of nature by spraying an
array of bactericides and fungicides like this into a soil populated with such a large
variety of microbes?
Instead of trying to bring nature around to his own designs with pesticides, man would
be much wiser to step out of the way and lei nature carry on its affairs without his
interference.
Man is also kidding himself if he thinks that he can clear up the problem of weeds
with herbicides. He only makes things harder on himself because this leaves hardy weeds
resistant to herbicides or results in the emergence of totally unmanageable new strains of
weed. Somebody has come up with the bright idea of killing off herbicide-resistant weeds
such as Kentucky bluegrass that are spreading from road embankments by importing an
insect pest which attacks the weeds. When this insect begins to attack crops, a new
pesticide will have to be developed, setting into motion another vicious cycle-To
illustrate just how complex the interrelationships between insects, microorganisms, and
plants are, let us take a look at the pine rot epidemic spreading throughout Japan.
The Root Cause of Pine Rot: Contrary to the generally accepted view, I do not think
that the primary cause of the red pine disease that has afflicted so many forested areas of
Japan is the pinewood nematode. Recently a group of pesticide researchers at the Institute
of Physical and Chemical Research pointed to a new type of aohen-kin (“blue change
mold”) as the real villain, but the situation is more complicated than this. I have made a
number of observations that throw some light on the true cause.
1. On cutting down a healthy-looking pine in an infected forest, new pathogenic fungi
can be isolated from pure cultures of some forty percent of the trunk tissue. The isolated
fungi include molds such as kurohen-kin (“black change mold”) and three types of aohenkin, all of them new, undocumented pathogens foreign to the area.
2. Nematode infestation can be observed under a microscope only after a pine is a
quarter- or half-withered. Actually, the new pathogenic fungi arrived before the
nematodes, and it is on them that the nematodes are feeding, not the tree.
3. The new pathogenic fungi are not strongly parasitic, attacking only weakened or
physiologically abnormal trees.
4. Wilting and physiological abnormalities of the red pines are caused by decay and
blackening of the roots, the onset of which has been observed- to coincide with the death
of the matsutake mushroom, a symbiont that lives on the roots of red pines.
5. The direct cause of the death of matsutake mushrooms was the proliferation of
kurosen-kin (“black bristle mold”), a contributing factor for which was the increasing
acidity of the soil.
That red pine disease is not caused by just one organism became clear to me from 1)
the results of experiments I conducted on healthy trees in which I inoculated nematodes
directly into pines and placed long-horned beetles on the trees under a netting, all without
ill effect, and 2) the observation that even when all insect pests are kept off the tree, the
roots continue to rot, causing the tree to die. Matsutake mushrooms die when small potted
pine saplings are subjected to conditions of extreme dryness and high temperature, and
perish when exposed to a temperature of 30
0
C for one hour in a hothouse. On the other
hand, they do not die in alkaline soil by the shore with fresh water nearby, or on high
ground at low temperature.
On the assumption that red pine disease is triggered by acidification of the soil and
dying of the matsutake mushroom, followed first by parasitic attack by kurohen-kin and
other mold fungi, then by nematode infestation, I tried the following methods of control.
1. Application of lime to reduce soil acidification; in the garden, this can be done by
spraying with water containing bleaching powder.
2. Spraying of soil germicides; in gardens, the use of hydrogen peroxide solution and
alcohol chloropicrin disinfection is also okay.
3. Inoculation of matsutake spores grown in pure culture to promote root development.
These are the bare bones of my method of fighting pine disease, but what most
troubles me now is that, although we may feel confident of our ability to restore garden
trees and cultivate matsutake artificially, we are powerless to rehabilitate an ecosystem
that has been disturbed.
It is no exaggeration to say that Japan is turning into a barren desert. The loss of the
small autumn matsutake means more than just the perishing of a mushroom; it is a
solemn warning that something is amiss in the world of soil microbes. The first telltale
sign of a global change in weather patterns will probably appear in microorganisms. Nor
would it be surprising if the first shock wave occurred in the soil where all types of
microorganisms are concentrated, or even in mycorrhiza such as matsutake, which form a
highly developed biological community with very organic interactions.
Essentially, the inevitable happened where it was meant to happen. Red pine is a hardy
plant capable of growing even in deserts and on sandy beaches. At the same time, it is an
extremely sensitive species that grows under the protection of a very delicate fungus.
Man’s ability to control and prevent red pine disease may be a litmus test of his capacity
to halt the global loss of vegetation.
