As a person living on the 'battle-front' of commercial agriculture in Tasmania I can say that 'modern farming techniques' certainly do NOT take steps to minimise the depletion in the quality of our soils and agricultural produce (not to mention our drinking water).
In rural Tasmania heavy repeated application of pesticides continues repeated times each year on vegetable crops. This occurs whilst the State Government promotes our produce as being 'clean and green'.
Residents (including ourselves) have had our drinking water tanks polluted with Simazine (a likely carcinogen that accumulates in body tissue) from the thrice annual aerial spraying that occurs. The drift carries for many kilometres.
Meanwhile the farming soils are regularly eroded by the common practice of tractor ploughing the soil. In our area of reasonably heavy rainfall you just have to walk along a creek or river bordering these farms to see where the topsoil is ending up.
The regular application artificial fertilisers and lime, for instance, is not conducive to the normal microbiological health of soils and worms are not exactly abundant in these regularly-abused soils.
Whilst the state government assures the public that we are safe by simply boiling any drinking water that comes from local streams and rivers they fail to point out a critical bit of information. That is, that if you boil water contaminated with nitrogenous fertiliser the application of heat to that water makes it far more toxic to the unfortunate drinker.
The application of heat to pesticide-contaminated water is also a practice worth worrying about.
In short, the soil (and water) is treated 'like dirt'.
Local vegetable farmers we talk to openly admit that they do not eat their own produce.
This is an issue being explored on an ongoing basis on the Tasmanian email groups. With my family suffering from rare and unexplained endocrine tumours we take this subject very seriously.
Kind regards Brenda Rosser PS: I attach one of the Tasmanian postings relating to this issue below.
Hello,
Oh Yea! We who understand the fundamental truth that all life begins in the soil must keep telling anyone who will listen!
Paul
HERBICIDES SHOULD BE ELIMINATED March 27, 2001 The Expositor (Brantford) A8 Werner Broschinski writes in this letter that for herbicide advocate Donald Page to admit that the products he endorses are unnecessary health hazards would require a wrenching reorientation of his views on agriculture, which he tells us are based on science. ("Pesticide discovered during research on food production,'' March 24.) Unfortunately, says Broschinski, the kind of science Mr. Page subscribes to regards the precious layer of top soil, on which human life depends, as something to be beaten up, gassed and poisoned so that it will cooperate in the production of crops. Broschinski says that such stone age science treats the soil like dirt and perceives its value as little more than a support for holding up the plant. Mr. Page's science smacks of little more than sophistry in the service of commerce. Real soil science respects the soil and regards it as a living organism, which it is. Healthy soil teems with the life of countless microorganisms, which are the real producers of our food as they facilitate plant growth in various ways. But harsh fertilizer salts and toxic agro-chemicals kill these friendly and essential microorganisms and disrupt their balance in the soil resulting in sick and weakened soil which translates into sick and weakened crops prone to weed infestation and insect attack. For according to the Darwinian principle of natural selection, all the weeds and insects are doing is removing plants unfit to grow and thus presumably, unfit to eat. Sir Albert Howard, one of the leading agricultural thinkers of the 20th century, understood this as he identified the horns of the modern farming dilemma: partial and imbalanced fertilization, and toxic rescue chemistry. Mr. Page would do well to consider a quote from Sir Howard's book, An Agricultural Testament which captures the essence of the problem: ``When the finance of crop production is considered together with that of the various social services which are needed to repair the consequences of an unsound agriculture, and when it is borne in mind that our greatest possession is a healthy, virile population, the cheapness of artificial manures disappears altogether. In the years to come chemical manures will be considered as one of the greatest follies of the industrial epoch. The teachings of the agricultural economists of this period will be dismissed as superficial.'' Given the basic premises of nature, then, Broschinski says that one cannot regard Mr. Page's views as anything but superficial. The widespread use of herbicides, pesticides and fungicides does not offer any meaningful and lasting solutions to world food problems. In fact, the chemicals are bringing the problems, not the solutions. The "big lie'' is that if you want to farm successfully, you have to use these chemicals. Thousands of North American farmers farm successfully without using agro-chemicals -- they are the organic growers. The bottom line is that North American agriculture should be eliminating herbicide use rather than conjuring up new and exotic ways to extend and expand it. -- Paul de Burgh-Day <paul at deburghday.com> Box 132 Sheffield Tasmania 7306 Australia Tel: 61(0)3 6363 5060 Fax: 61 (0)3 6363 5065 or 61 (0)3 8660 2166 (FaxBank)