Since September, I’ve been asked several times, “Is the government telling farmers that they have to quit using chemical fertilizer?” The short answer is no.
We have watched large organized farmer protests in Holland and other countries because they thought that their government was forcing them to stop using chemical fertilizer.
This subject will require more time to give all the answers than can be covered in a little column in the paper. This will be a very short, condensed version.
Fifty some years ago when I attended Agricultural College, crop science professors told the class that it was better economically to dump the manure over the hill and buy chemical fertilizer to spread on our fields because it took more time and money to haul and spread manure than it was worth compared to buying and spreading commercial fertilizer.
Back in the early 1960s, many farmers didn’t use any . . .
chemical fertilizer and some didn’t even soil test or spread their manure where it would be most needed. Nobody used liquid manure so most of the urine part of the manure either ran off into a ditch, or was not even considered useful as fertilizer. Even though the professors were telling us that manure could be replaced with chemical fertilizer, we knew that there was more good in the manure than just nitrogen, phosphorus and potash and a few micro elements.
Back in the 1960s very little thought was given to the life in the soil or in the manure. We also discovered later that many agricultural colleges received grants or projects for profit from the chemical companies and companies who make sprays to kill weeds and owned seed companies. Although there was one class about micro-biology, it was years later before it was considered by crop consultants and never mentioned by fertilizer salesmen.
As crop yields increased over the years, crop advisers recommended and farmers began increasing the amounts of chemical fertilizer applied per acre, because increased fertility was required for larger yields. Weed free crops and more than enough fertilizer to grow the crop became the standard on most farms.
Years that the weather wasn’t warm enough or rain was also lacking, the crop didn’t use all the fertilizer or chemical sprays applied and some of this extra fertilizer was carried away into tile drains, ditches, creeks, rivers, lakes and eventually the ocean. This resulted in increased algae blooms and other aquatic weeds that were more hindrance than help to the health of our world. The farmers were not all to blame for this pollution. Runoff from golf courses, lawns, gardens, and even weed killers used to rid walkways, roads, and parking lots of weeds cause a large part of our water pollution problem.
Many of the chemicals developed for warfare like mustard gas, chemicals used to create gas in the gas chambers, and agent orange used to defoliate forests and make it easier for pilots to see the enemy were later modified to be used as weed killers and other pesticides used by farmers. Use of some of these chemical sprays was restricted and some were even removed from the market when they were proven to cause deformation, contribute to cancer, or change the sexes in some animals. Recently some chemicals have been proven to increase death in the bee populations and now have restricted use or been removed from the market.
Although many farmers have never been told, some herbicides are also registered as bactericides which can kill beneficial gut bacteria in many animals and in the soil. Some weed killers can chelate minor elements necessary for life of the fetus, or efficient use of major elements necessary for plant growth. Some residues of these chemicals are cumulative and can remain in the soil for more than a decade affecting efficient use of soil fertility even though the soil test proves that nutrients are there.
Many of the governments in our world have realized that for the future of mankind it is best to reduce the use of both commercial fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides.
It has taken generations for farmers to accept and adapt to extensive use of chemical fertilizer and depend on chemical sprays to rid the fields of weeds. It will take many more years for farmers not familiar with farming with reduced use of chemicals, to adapt to this new (old) way of farming.
A few agricultural colleges have been proving that this new (old) way of farming can be just as productive and maybe more profitable than the extensive use of chemicals that we have become accustomed to in the last 50 years.
