'THE THEORY OF NATURAL FARMING' - The Relative Merits of Natural Farming and Scientific Agriculture - Two Ways of Natural Farming - 'MASANOBU FUKUOKA'

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-à-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.