Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] A History of Organic Farming--

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] A History of Organic Farming--
  • Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 08:12:45 -0700


A History of Organic Farming--
Transitions from Sir Albert Howard's War in the Soil to the USDA National
Organic Program
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/history-organic-farming.html
By Joseph Heckman, PhD

Many people active in organic agriculture today are unaware of the
important role played by Sir Albert Howard1 and others of his generation,
including F.H. King, Walter Northbourne, Lady Balfour, J.I. Rodale, and
Louis Bromfield, in the development and diffusion of organic farming
concepts. For a better understanding of organic concepts there is still
much that can be learned from reading the foundational writings of Sir
Albert Howard. The recent rapid growth of the organic movement has resulted
in a loss of connection with the historical figures and roots of organic
agriculture.

Scientists conducting organic farming research, farmers considering organic
transition and the general public may benefit from knowing more of this
history. It remains to be seen how much the situation has changed from the
assessment more than two decades ago by Richard Harwood: "There is an
extremely dismal record of attempts in the USA to scientifically approach
the study of organic agriculture."2 Also, the effective practice of organic
farming requires more than a superficial knowledge of the USDA rules for
organic certification.3

These and other assertions made in this paper are based on an analysis of
the historical literature, over two decades of professional experience as
an agronomist, and many years of collected observations as the son of an
organic farmer, Norbert J. Heckman of Yorkshire, Ohio,4 who began farming
by the organic method around 1950.

Here I will briefly review the life and work of Howard and other historical
figures involved in the development, evolution, and diffusion of organic
agricultural concepts from the international stage to the United States,
focusing on the most significant features and milestones of what is a long
and complex history.

A more comprehensive and related review is provided by Conford in The
Origins of the Organic Movement.5 Although biodynamics6 is an important
branch of organic farming that was founded by Rudolf Steiner, it is not a
focus of this article, which is primarily concerned with Howard's
contributions. Furthermore, it has been noted elsewhere5 that Howard "was
uncompromisingly skeptical about Steiner's biodynamic cultivation."

Telling a history of organic farming--as with other great movements, such
as alternative medicine--requires exploring the interplay between science,
social values, economics and the recalcitrance of established organizations
to adopt new approaches. In tracing the historical trajectory from the
genesis of Howard's major organic concepts and practices (a living
connection between soil fertility and plant and animal health, the Law of
Return and composting) to the widespread adoption of these beliefs and
practices, one encounters a series of battles between intellectual and
economic stakeholders. Although support for the organic movement has grown
with public awareness, opposition to it has never gone away. These issues
are reflected in the history of Howard's contributions to organic farming.

The story of this development of organic concepts in the 1930s to their
fate as expressed in the current USDA National Organic Program occurred in
a series of stages--the development of organic concepts and methods,
polarization around them, then their recognition, accommodation, and
finally their further extension.

Sir Albert Howard

Sir Albert HowardAlthough some concepts of organic farming predated his
work, today Sir Albert Howard (1873-1947) is regarded by most as the
founder and pioneer of the organic movement.5,6,7 Born into an agricultural
life, he never strayed far from it. Raised on a farm in England, and
educated at Cambridge, he served for a time (1899 -1902) as mycologist in
the Imperial Department of Agriculture for the West Indies, before
returning to England to teach agricultural science from 1903-1905 at
South-Eastern Agricultural College at Wye.7 He then moved to India where,
for twenty-six years he directed several agricultural research centers
before permanently returning to England in 1931.

It was after his return that he became well known for his concepts and
philosophy of organic farming. Drawing on his many years of agricultural
research experience, he wrote several widely read books espousing his
concepts and theories of composting, soil fertility, and health and
disease.

In 1943, Howard published the book, An Agricultural Testament, in which he
described a concept that was to become central to organic farming--the
importance of utilizing available waste materials to build and maintain
soil fertility and humus content.8 According to what he called "the Law of
Return," he strongly advocated the recycling of all organic waste
materials, including sewage sludge, back to farmland.

Recalling his experiences in India, he described his original "Indore"
(after a region in India) method of composting. Here he prescribed a
certain pile size, heat, moisture, aeration, and mix of plant, animal,
urine-soaked earth, and ash materials as a proper composting recipe.8.9
Especially important to a good mix of composting materials, Howard
stressed, were residues from both plants and animals.

He was not alone in his thinking and found support for his ideas on soil
fertility and the need for effective recycling of waste materials to
farmland in F.H. King's book,10 Farmers of Forty Centuries, Permanent
Agriculture in China, Korea, and Japan, which appeared in 1911 but then lay
in relative obscurity. Such sustainable soil fertility management was
vividly described by Victor Hugo11: "Not a Chinese peasant goes to town
without bringing back with him, at the two extremities of his bamboo pole,
two full buckets of what we designate as filth. Thanks to human dung, the
earth in China is still young. . ."

In Farming and Gardening for Health or Disease (later published as Soil and
Health), Howard introduced the idea that disease, whether in plants,
animals or humans, was caused by unhealthy soil and that organic farming
techniques would make the soil and those living on it, healthy.12 As
evidence he cited his observations that animals fed with crops grown in
humus-rich soil were able to rub noses with diseased animals without
becoming infected. More generally he argued that crop and animal health was
a birthright and that the correct method for dealing with a pathogen was
not to destroy the pathogen but rather to try to learn from it or to "make
use of it for tuning up agricultural practice."12

Humus Versus Inorganic Minerals

Justus von LiebigHoward's concept of soil fertility was centered on
building soil humus with an emphasis on a "living bridge" between soil
life, such as mycorrhizae and bacteria, and how this chain of life from the
soil supported the health of crops, livestock and mankind.12 While Howard
acknowledged that soluble salts from humus were important to plant
nutrition he also wrote that plants "do compensate themselves by absorbing
organic nitrogen."12 Here, Howard disagreed with both Albrect Daniel Thaer
(1752-1828) who advocated the Humus Theory of Plant Nutrition and with
Justus von Liebig (1803-1873) who advocated that plants "find new nutritive
material only in inorganic substances."13

Like many of his generation, Howard was probably not aware of the work of
Carl Sprengel (1787 -1859), when he described Liebig's "work as a great
advance," and "illuminating" and that "artificial fertilizers were born out
of the abuse of Liebig's discoveries."12 Sprengel, Thaer's student, refuted
the humus theory and played an important role in the development of the
theory on mineral nutrition of plants, and the formulation of the Law of
the Minimum.13 Liebig never acknowledged Sprengel's discoveries and passed
them off as his own.13 (Liebig is often given sole credit for these
discoveries still today in soil science textbooks.14) Since he was
indefatigable in his struggle for the acceptance of the doctrine of mineral
nutrition of plants, Liebig used his reputation as a world-renowned and
celebrated scientist to devalue the important role of humus in soil
fertility and soil quality.13

While Howard recognized the significance of Liebig's writings on
agricultural chemistry, he was no Leibig devotee. Howard thought that
Liebig was "a sinner" for vigorously combating the so-called humus theory
and instituting the so-called "NPK mentality,"12 that is, the practice of
fertilizing only or principally with nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.
One of Howard's main criticisms was that Liebig focused attention on soil
chemistry to the neglect of soil biology and physics.12 As a result of this
single-minded focus on chemistry, the once-great appreciation for soil
organic matter fell to a position of low esteem. In recent decades,
however, there has been a renewed appreciation for soil organic matter.15
Howard never lost his appreciation for humus and continued to extol its
profound influence on the health of soils, plants, animals, and mankind.

While the Sprengel-Liebig Law of the Minimum became a widely accepted
agronomic principle,13,14 an appreciation for Howard's Law of Return was
limited mostly to organic farmers. Consequently, in non-organic farming
versus organic farming, the value placed on the return of organic waste
materials to the land has typically been viewed differently. With ready
access to concentrated chemical fertilizers in non-organic farming,
disposal became the primary interest in land application of organic waste
materials. In organic farming a high value continues to be placed on
organic waste materials for building and maintaining soil organic matter
content as well as nutrient recycling.

Although Howard knew that certain nutrients could be severely limiting in
some soils, he opposed using chemical fertilizers,5 even though they could
more easily correct specific nutrient limitations than could the use of
compost. Thus, Howard's extreme position against any use of chemical
fertilizers created a challenging situation for organic farmers attempting
to balance nutrient supply, for example, to effectively deal with the Law
of the Minimum. Howard's hard-line position against the use of chemical
fertilizers, however, was not shared by some of his contemporary supporters
who felt that the use of artificial fertilizers could sometimes be
justified.4 Howard was, however, open to the use of some naturally
occurring mineral sources such as pulverized rocks.8,17

Liebig's absolute concept of "only" inorganic nutrient uptake by plants is
obviously inaccurate18 and yet it has persisted in modern soils
literature.19 This represents a case of mechanistic rigidity in the history
of science that illustrates a lack of a functional understanding of natural
systems.20 Likewise, the hard-line position of Howard against the use of
any chemical fertilizers may represent a case of extremism. Moreover,
Howard's extreme position contributed to the common but mistaken impression
that organic is simply defined as farming without the use of synthetic
fertilizers.

Other Discoveries

In Howard's long and distinguished career as a scientist he made
discoveries and contributions relating to a wide range of areas beyond
composting and soil fertility. These areas included plant breeding,
irrigation, mycorrhizae root systems, soil aeration, fruit tree
cultivation, post-harvest produce transport, weed management, and diseases
of plants and humans.12,21 For these sound contributions to agriculture he
was knighted in England. While having earned the respect of his scientific
peers, in his later years Howard became extremely critical of the
agricultural establishment.16,21,22 His ideas on humus, soil fertility, and
disease became viewed as exaggerations of otherwise fundamentally sound
ideas and he was becoming known as an extremist.21

In 1946, he acted out his new role of agricultural activist most
explosively in The War in the Soil.16 He opened this book with the powerful
assessment that: "The war in the soil is the result of a conflict between
the birthright of humanity--fresh food from fertile soil--and the profits
of a section of Big Business in the shape of the manufacturers of
artificial fertilizers and their satellite companies who produce poison
sprays to protect crops from pests and who prepare the various remedies for
the diseases of live stock and mankind." Howard loudly criticized field
plot and statistical methodology used in classical research at the
Rothamsted agricultural experiment station that was established to compare
the long-term effects of artificial fertilizers (inorganic chemical
fertilizers) and manure. He thought that these studies were flawed because
they did not exclude invasion from burrowing earthworms into the chemically
fertilized plots, relied on continuous cultivation without crop rotation,
and used new seeds from an outside source.

A True Comparison

A true comparison of organic farming to non-organic farming, Howard argued,
would not be an easy task.16 For example, he suggested that such a
comparison should begin with "two large areas of similar worn-out land side
by side" and a period of at least ten years. He insisted that a minimum of
five years was required for the conversion to an organic system.16 He
further suggested that such a study should compare responses of soils,
earthworms, crops and livestock.

Clearly Howard favored the study of whole systems over reductionism. Such a
study comparing organic and non-organic farms was attempted from 1939 to
1969 in England by Lady Eve Balfour. Her observations from this comparison
of whole farms were described in her widely read book The Living Soil and
The Haughley Experiment first published in 1943 and republished in 1974.23

What Is Organic?

Although Howard was a passionate advocate of organic farming, he did not
coin the term "organic" in reference to this system of agriculture. But in
1940, in An Agricultural Testament, Howard describes the main
characteristics of what he called "Nature's farming": "Mother earth never
attempts to farm without livestock; she always raises mixed crops; great
pains are taken to preserve the soil and prevent erosion; the mixed
vegetable and animal wastes are converted into humus; there is no waste;
the processes of growth and the processes of decay balance one another;
ample provision is made to maintain large reserves of fertility; the
greatest care is taken to store the rainfall; both plants and animals are
left to protect themselves from disease."8

Walter Northbourne was apparently the first to apply the word "organic" in
application to farming. In 1940, Northbourne published an influential book,
Look to the Land, in which he elaborated on the idea of the farm as an
"organic whole"--in the philosophical sense "organic" refers to "having a
complex but necessary interrelationship of parts, similar to that in living
things."

This concept of organic is similar in many respects to the holistic ideas
more recently expressed by James Lovelock in the Gaia Hypothesis and Lynn
Margulis in her book Symbiotic Planet, but on the smaller scale of a whole
farm as a symbiotic unit.25 In this respect the organic farmer functions in
concert with the symbiotic unit by being in daily contact with and having a
feeling for the whole farm organism. It is also important to distinguish
this meaning of "organic" as it applies to a system of farming from the
common misunderstanding that "organic" specifically refers to the carbon
based chemistry of the fertilizers that are often used in organic farming.

Polarization into Organic versus Non-Organic

While Howard played a pivotal role in developing the concepts of organic
farming and popularizing them around the world, he was also a polarizing
figure. The period from about 1940 to 1978 may be called the era of
polarization of agriculture into organic and non-organic camps. During this
period there was little effective dialogue between the organic community
and conventional agriculture. American businessman and publisher, Jerome
Rodale, was an early convert to organic farming as a result of reading the
works of Howard.26,27 So moved was Rodale by Howard's organic vision--which
he described as like being hit by a "ton of bricks"--that he purchased a
farm near Allentown, Pennsylvania, and began experimenting with composting
and organic farming techniques.

In 1942, Rodale began publishing Organic Farming and Gardening magazine
with Howard serving as the associate editor.26 Through this magazine and
other publications Rodale diffused and popularized organic concepts in the
United States.27 Rodale's 1945 book Pay Dirt,17 with an introduction by
Howard, summarized organic farming concepts for a wide audience. His
missionary zeal for promoting organic farming in the USA is suggested by
the title of his 1948 book,26 The Organic Front, which followed on the
heels of Howard's book, The War in the Soil. Both Howard and Rodale saw the
conflict of organic versus non-organic agriculture as a struggle between
two different visions of what agriculture should become as they engaged in
a war of words with the agricultural establishment.16,28

Although Howard was not a fan5 of biodynamic farming,6 Rodale was
interested in the work of Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, a protégé of Rudolf
Steiner. Rodale often visited Pfeiffer's farm in Pennsylvania to share
ideas, and he published articles by Pfeiffer in Organic Farming and
Gardening magazine.

Firman E. BearInitially agriculturalists from the non-organic establishment
largely ignored the organic farming movement. Agricultural colleges and
experiment stations, however, were increasingly besieged with letters of
inquiry from the public and it became impossible to ignore the organic
movement. One of the first attempts to respond to the organic advocates was
undertaken by Firman E. Bear, a prominent soil chemist from Rutgers
University, who in a 1947 article "Facts...and Fancies About Fertilizer,"30
referred to Sir Albert Howard, E.B. Balfour, J.I. Rodale, and E.H. Faulkner
as "gloomy prophet[s]." Similarly, in 1963, Emil Truog, a soil scientist at
the University of Wisconsin, called the "Organic School" a "cult."31 Other
articles critical of the organic movement were published during this period
of polarization such as "Organic only? -- Bunkum!"32 and "The Great Organic
Gardening Myth."33

These critics argued that there is no difference between nitrogen derived
from organic materials and inorganic fertilizer nitrogen because organic
sources needed to be mineralized to ammonium or nitrate (for example,
inorganic N) before they are available to plants. This notion that plants
only uptake inorganic forms of nutrients may be traced back to the writings
of Liebig and persists to this day in literature that is critical of
organic farming.19 Current literature, however, provides evidence that some
plants can uptake and utilize limited amounts of organic forms of nitrogen
such as amino acids and peptides.18 Not only were those early arguments
incorrect, but they also misrepresented the principles of organic farming
as if it were defined by carbon (organic) chemistry rather than a
philosophy of living systems. Another implied argument is that the
biological processes occurring in the soil and responsible for
mineralization are of no value to soil quality. Recently, however, there
has been an increasing appreciation for the biological processes associated
with the soil food web.15 This may be seen as a rebirth of Howard's
thinking regarding important biological linkages between soil organisms
that extend to and influence the health of crops, livestock, and man.

Notable American advocates of building soil fertility by using organic
farming methods included Louis Bromfield and Edward Faulkner, both of whom
were popular agricultural writers but not organic purists.5,16,34,35 In
addition to novels that were made into movies by Hollywood, Louis Bromfield
published the widely read books Pleasant Valley (1945), Malabar Farm
(1948), and Out of the Earth (1950).35,36,37 Edward Faulkner, author of the
best selling book Plowman's Folly (1943), was a controversial figure in his
time but is now regarded as a pioneer of no-till and conservation tillage
farming.34,38

The era of polarization also occurred at a time when problems in soil
fertility and in crop pest control were being treated by the so-called
"miracles" of chemistry. Technical optimism39,40 was not, however, limited
to agriculture but also prevailed in all facets of life during the era
lauded by Time Magazine in 1961 as the "Age of Science." Atomic power, for
example, was being sold to the public with unbounded optimism as a safe and
almost unlimited power source that would be too cheap to meter.40

Rachel CarsonIn agriculture, the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel
Carson in 1962 began a change of focus and attention as it ignited the
environmental movement while raising concerns about the excessive use of
pesticides in agriculture.41,42

Over the next two decades public interest in the organic method continued
to grow. For example, the circulation of Organic Gardening magazine
increased from 260,000 in 1960 to 1,300,000 in 1980.27 Many factors, such
as the migration of some people from the cities to the country, the growing
environmental movement, and the anti-establishment social revolution, were
responsible for the increasing popularity of Rodale Press publications. A
review article27 about the Rodale press and Organic Gardening stated that
"Over time, the polarization between land-grant colleges and Rodale Press
decreased to the extent that a few organic gardening courses began to
appear about 1970, serving mostly students who were not in the applied
agricultural departments." The agricultural community, however, being very
proud of its recent success in markedly increasing productivity using
agricultural chemicals, continued to reject organic farming as a viable
alternative.45

Recognition for Organic Agriculture

The period from 1979 to 1990 may be described as the era of recognition for
organic farming at a national level in the USA. With a growing public
interest in organic food and farming, interest in establishing standards
for organically produced foods also increased.44 As a sign of the new
times, in 1979, California passed a law establishing a legal standard for
organic production.

Under the direction of Secretary of Agriculture, Robert Bergland, the USDA
began surveying the organic farming sector. In 1980, the USDA published the
Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming for the express purpose of
"increasing communication between organic farmers and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture."45 In 1981, the American Society of Agronomy held a
Symposium on Organic Farming to examine the question "Can organic farming
contribute to a more sustainable agriculture...?" They concluded: "The most
probable answer is that it most definitely can..." also "...the soils for
the two farming systems may be quite different, each with its own unique
chemical and biological properties and crop production capabilities ."46
Although the USDA publication45 did not cite Howard's work on organic
farming, the American Society of Agronomy symposium publication,46 Organic
Farming: Current Technology and its Role in a Sustainable Agriculture, did.

This new attention and recognition led to a backlash in 1981 from the
incoming Reagan administration which tried to bury the USDA Report and
Recommendations on Organic Farming.47 The new administration also abolished
the recently established position of Organic Resources Coordinator, held by
Garth Youngberg, who had been a member of the USDA Study Team for Organic
Farming. During this time a former Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz,
released his infamous statement that millions would starve if all farmers
adopted organic methods.43 Clearly the USDA and the US political structure
were not ready to promote widespread adoption of organic farming.

In spite of the changing political situation at the national level, the
already published USDA Report and Recommendations on Organic Farming
continued to be read, and served to stimulate a growing interest in organic
farming. A few land-grant colleges began to offer courses in organic
farming to serve the interests of applied agricultural students.27 In the
early 1980s, when organic farming was deemed a subject area worthy of
classroom time and attention, this author (at that time as a graduate
student at the University of Maryland) recalls feeling that this
represented a significant level of recognition for what was previously
considered unacceptable in academic agriculture.

It was also around this same time that some advocates for organic farming
began supporting the term "sustainable agriculture" in hopes that it would
invite respect for organic farming.47 One of those advocates, Garth
Youngberg, later established an effective professional organization to
support sustainable agriculture, now known as the Henry A. Wallace
Institute for Alternative Agriculture. Under the broader umbrella of
sustainable agriculture, this institute has been an important supporter of
organic farming. While organic farming and sustainable agriculture are both
part of the alternative agriculture movement, these terms are not
synonymous.

While the conflict16 that Howard described as a "War in the Soil" did not
end in the 1980s, organic farming was clearly gaining a new level of
legitimacy and recognition. In the 1980s, while summit meetings occurred
between the two Cold War powers, there was also a kind of "Summit Meeting"
held between the Rodale Press (representing organic farming) and The
Fertilizer Institute and the Potash and Phosphate Institute (representing
the chemical fertilizer industry).48 Also in the 1980s, some USDA
scientists carried out research in association with the Rodale Institute.49
Accommodation for Organic Agriculture

The passage of the Federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 marks an
era of accommodation for organic farming in the USA.50 This act set out to:

* Establish national standards governing the marketing of organically
produced products;
* Assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent
standard;
* Facilitate interstate commerce in both fresh and processed organic
foods.

The writing of the official USDA rules for what defined organic farming and
organic food required more than a decade. Initially, the proposed standards
did not prohibit the use of sewage sludge, food irradiation and genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). But these initial allowances resulted in an
enormous public outcry which eventually led to their elimination from the
final rules, which were officially unveiled with labeling as USDA Certified
Organic on October 21, 2002.

Although it is impossible to know today what Howard would think of the USDA
rules, it is interesting to note that he encouraged the use of sewage
sludge because the recycling of human manure was consistent with the Law of
Return. Nevertheless, given Howard's concern over poison sprays it seems
unlikely that he would approve of the contaminating substances that are now
known to be present in some sewage sludges.51 Although GMOs were not an
issue in Howard's time, his stated position against artificial insemination
would seem to suggest opposition to other such "artificial" technologies.12
The USDA rules which allow for the use of some synthetic micronutrient
fertilizers, when a need is demonstrated, would seem to collide with
Howard's opposition to the use of any chemical fertilizer.16

As far back as 1942, J.I. Rodale presciently predicted: "One of these fine
days the public is going to wake up and will pay for eggs, meat,
vegetables, etc., according to how they were produced."26 In the early
years of the organic movement and before there was a significant market for
organic products, organic farming was done out of a passion for the
philosophy.3 Today, with the growing demand for organic products, price
premiums are, in some cases, attracting new converts to organic farming for
financial survival. While organic farming and organic food continues to be
the target of criticism by skeptics in agriculture and food science, USDA
Certified Organic appears to be here to stay. During the last 15 years, the
market demand for organically produced food has increased by about 20
percent annually.52 Nationally, organic product sales currently exceed $8
billion and there is an estimated 2.3 million acres farmed
organically.52,53,54 With new incentives from the USDA to transition land
into certified organic production, these growth trends are actively
encouraged.54

Beyond USDA Certified Organic

The establishment of USDA standards for organic production was an important
milestone in the organic movement. It also served to formally define
organic as "A production system that is managed in accordance with the
Organic Foods Production Act and regulations to respond to site-specific
conditions by integrating cultural, biological and mechanical practices
that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve
biodiversity."53 This definition, however, has not satisfied all within the
organic movement.55,56 Some would like to see a greater emphasis placed on
issues such as locally produced foods, biological diversity, raising
livestock humanely and on pastures, certified raw dairy foods, renewable
energy, environmental stewardship, subtle energies, and social
justice.56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63

Sir Albert Howard would likely be dissatisfied with the current status of
the organic movement. In 1946 he declared:16 "The downfall of the
artificial manure industry and of its satellite companies will mark the end
of the war in the soil. . . . The last episode in the war in the soil is
the conversion of the agricultural experiment stations and the agricultural
colleges all over the English-speaking world from inorganic to organic
farming."

While the agricultural chemical industry exhibits no sure sign of a
downfall, there has been some progress in the conversion of agricultural
experiment stations and colleges to organic farming. Some land grant
universities as well as other agricultural institutions are now offering
courses in organic production and are establishing certified organic
experiment station land.52 Iowa State University has already employed
America's first organic agriculture extension specialist.54 Similar
positions are being created at other institutions. It is impossible to
predict the outcome of this current trend. It is, however, quite possible
that non-organic agriculture will benefit from the research and extension
programs on soil fertility and pest management conducted under the organic
model. For example, studies have shown that in some cases organic
management of soils may reduce pest preference for the crop.65 Research
towards a better understanding of such biological processes involved would
benefit agriculture in general.

Ignoring Howard's Law of Return has resulted in the accumulation and poor
utilization of manures and other organic wastes in some regions of the
United States. Meanwhile a tendency to practice the Law of Return
excessively by some organic and non-organic farmers has caused nutrients
such as phosphorus to accumulate in soil to levels of environmental
concern.66 Transitions to organic farming on soils that today often have a
higher nutrient status due to previous chemical fertilizer input may
benefit subsequent organic production but careful attention to the Law of
Return will be required to maintain soil fertility.

The current ban on the use of human manure in organic farming makes
complete nutrient cycling--as originally recommended by Howard--difficult
if not impossible for wide-scale sustainable organic farming. Composting
and recycling systems, as described in The Humanure Handbook, A Guide to
Composting Human Manure by Joseph Jenkins,67 could help solve the human
manure problem provided the emotional, technical and policy concerns can be
overcome. Although careful attention to Howard's Law of Return can never
reach 100 percent efficiency in nutrient cycling, there is a huge potential
for improving the recycling of plant and animal wastes to restore and
maintain soil fertility in the USA and the world.68 To the extent to which
research, extension, and agricultural policy encourages the effective
utilization of waste materials with their associated nutrients for soil
fertility maintenance, as originally envisioned by Howard, the need for
chemical fertilizers could be reduced accordingly.

Howard contributed significantly to developing the art and science of
composting9 that continues in today's organic farming but with new
standards for compost pile temperature maintenance and turning. While the
USDA standards for composting are important for ensuring protection from
pathogens that can come from manure, the greater requirements for equipment
and capitalization has unfortunately discouraged the composting of manure
by some smaller organic farmers.

While much of Howard's passion and vision for an organic agriculture has
not come to fruition in the National Organic Program nor in the current
status of organic farming in the USA, Howard and other organic advocates
did inspire generations of farmers, gardeners, and consumers to change
their philosophical views on waste materials, soil management, soil
quality, health and disease, pesticides, synthetic materials, and the
environment.39,43,69 Tension and debate continues between the different
philosophical, political and scientific ideas and ideals of organic and
non-organic farming and even within the organic farming community itself.
As these differences play out, they can be a positive and creative force to
stimulate new lines of agricultural research leading to more
environmentally sound and sustainable agriculture, provided there is open
communication and the prevailing agricultural paradigms are allowed to be
questioned.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Lloyd Ackert, Department Of History of
Science and Medicine, Yale University and James Strick, Department of Earth
and Environment and Program in Science, Technology and Society at Franklin
& Marshall College for their valuable suggestions concerning the history of
science. This contribution is sponsored by the Council on History,
Philosophy, and Sociology of Soil Science, Soil Science Society of America.

Sidebars
The Law of the Minimum

The Law of the Minimum is an ecological principle that considers the proper
balance among factors required for the growth of a living organism. If, for
example, plant growth is constrained because phosphorus is the most
limiting factor, adding more of some other less-limiting nutrient will not
increase plant growth until the need for phosphorus is satisfied. Even when
other nutrients are in good supply, plant growth will not be greater than
the amount permitted by the level of available phosphorus.

An analogy useful to illustrate the Law of the Minimum concept is that of a
chain with a weak link. The chain is no stronger than its weakest link.

Justus von Liebig, a famous agricultural chemist, is usually credited with
having first published (1840) the concept of the Law of the Minimum, but
the essence of Law of the Minimum, in reference to soil fertility, was
first conceived by Carl Sprengel around 1828. The research of Carl Sprengel
showed that a major benefit of humus to soil fertility was that it could
supply mineral nutrients to plants but at the same time plants could be
grown without humus if the necessary inorganic minerals were supplied.

Once it became known that plants could be grown without soil organic
matter, or humus, so long as there was an adequate supply of all essential
mineral nutrients, Liebig used his fame as a chemist to devalue the
important role of humus to soil fertility and promote inorganic mineral
fertilizers as all that was necessary. More fascinating historical details
can be found in an article entitled "On the Origin of the Theory of Mineral
Nutrition of Plants and the Law of the Minimum" published in Soil Science
Society America Journal 63:1055-1062 (1999).

The Law of Return

The Law of Return was a teaching principle that Albert Howard used to
encourage the adoption of farming practices that would follow nature's
example of recycling all natural and organic waste products back to the
soil. To illustrate the Law of Return concept, Howard wrote about how, in a
forest, all dead plant and animal residues are added to the soil and how
they serve to enrich the soil in humus. Minerals contained in the dead
plant and animal residues are also recycled by this natural process, which
occurs in all native forests and grasslands.

When man converts land to agriculture and harvests crops and livestock from
the fields, mineral nutrients are removed from the soil. The failure of man
to effectively return the waste products of agriculture back to the land
results in mineral depletion of soil and represents a lost opportunity to
build soil humus. Building soil humus is vital to maintaining soil quality
and healthy soil biological activity. This was of great concern to Albert
Howard, who strongly advocated the Law of Return as a key principle of soil
fertility management.

While the importance of recycling natural wastes products back to the soil
is a highly valued practice in organic farming, it is widely neglected in
modern agricultural systems. Conventional agriculture, often practiced
without an ecological foundation, tends to separate livestock production
from crop production and treats manures and other natural waste materials
as a liability (because they are bulky and expensive to transport) or
simply as a waste product in need of disposal. The frequent failure of
conventional agriculture (as a result of poor farming system design) to
effectively recycle and utilize natural waste products for sustainable soil
fertility management has increased the need to manufacture chemical
fertilizers as a replacement for lost soil fertility.

All people who consume food and fiber products from agriculture, including
those who are not farmers, have a responsibility to participate in the
recycling of nutrients embedded in natural waste products back to the soil.
When food wastes, such as peelings, bones, spoiled leftovers etc., are
placed in landfills, instead of being composted and returned, they become
lost opportunities for building and maintaining soil fertility for future
generations. Mineral nutrients are truly a renewable resource when managed
as such. That is to say, minerals can be reused repeatedly to grow crops
and livestock without exhaustion through a renewable agricultural system
that effectively recycles these nutrients.

Modern societies could learn from traditional cultures that knew how to
design living systems where everyone was a participant in sustaining soil
fertility. One way that this could be achieved, for example, would be by
becoming active participants in sustaining soil fertility through community
supported agriculture (CSA). The members could return natural organic waste
materials to the farm for composting when they visit the farm to pick up
vegetables, eggs and milk.

The Law of Return is a useful ecological principle which, if more widely
taught and practiced by society, could, in addition to sustaining soil
fertility, contribute to the resolution of a number of environmental
problems. For example, it could diminish the need for more landfill space,
reduce energy demand for fertilizer manufacture and decrease the need to
strip mine for raw materials such as rock phosphate ore.

A few caveats, however, must be mentioned here. Firstly, waste materials
must be kept free of contamination from heavy metals or other hazardous
substances. Secondly, the waste materials must be properly composted to
destroy pathogens. Thirdly, farmers should be aware of the fact that the
recycling of agricultural waste products often does not in itself do a
satisfactory job of providing all of the minerals needed to achieve a
fertile soil in a proper balance. Thus, in addition to practicing the Law
of Return principle, mineral supplements or fertilizers are sometimes
needed. This is a result of nutrient losses from soil by leaching and
erosion. Also, some soils have been depleted due to unsustainable farming
practices and other soils are inherently low in their natural capacity to
supply nutrients from their inception.

REFERENCES

1. Tate, W.B. The development of the organic industry and market: an
international perspective. In N.H. Lampkin and S. Pade (eds) l. The
Economics of Organic Farming. p. 11-25.
2. Harwood, R.R. 1984. Organic farming research at the Rodale Research
Center. p. 1-17. In: D.F. Bezdicek, J.F. Power, D.R. Keeney and M.J. Wright
(eds). Organic Farming: Current Technology and Its Role in a Sustainable
Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
Soil Science Society of America. Madison, WI. P. 1-17.
3. Thicke, F. 2003. Ecological Organic Agriculture. Acres USA.
September: p.21.
4. Rodale, J.I. 1956. Places to Visit. Organic Gardening and Farming.
July: p. 56.
5. Conford, P. 2001. The Origins of the Organic Movement. Floris Books.
Glasgow, Great Britain.
6. Steiner, R. 1958. Agriculture: a course of eight lectures. Biodynamic
Agriculture Association. London, England. p. 175.
7. Gieryn, T.F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the
Line. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Il. p. 233-335.
8. Howard, A. 1943. An Agricultural Testament. Oxford University Press,
New York.
9. Fitzpatrick, G.F., Worden, E.C., and Vendrame, W.A. 2005. Historical
development of composting technology during the 20th Century.
HortTechnology 15:48-51
10. King, F.H. 1911. Farmers of Forty Centuries. Rodale Press. USA.
11. Schwartz, R. 2001. France in the Age of Les Misérables. Mount
Holyoke College. Web site:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255-s01/index.html (verified
19 May 2005).
12. Howard, A. 1972. The Soil and Health. Schocken Books. NY.
13. van der Ploeg, R.R. Bohm, W. and Kirkham, M.B. 1999. On the origin of
the theory of mineral nutrition of plants and the law of the minimum. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 63:1055-1062.
14. Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil. 2002. The Nature and Properties of Soils.
Thirteenth Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
15. Magdoff, F.R. and Weil, R.R. 2004. Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable
Agriculture. CRC Press.
16. Howard, A. 1946. The War in the Soil. Rodale Press. Emmaus, PA.
17. Rodale, J.I. 1946. Pay Dirt. Rodale Press, Inc., Emmaus, PA.
18. Owen, A.G. and Jones, D.L. 2001. Competition for amino acids between
wheat roots and rhizosphere microorganisms and the role of amino acids in
plant N acquisition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33:651-657.
19. ENVIRO-BRIEFS No. 1. Crop plants take up (absorb) nutrients only in
inorganic form. Web Site: www.ppi-ppic.org/enviro-briefs. (verified 19 May
2005).
20. Reich, W. 1973. Ether, God and Devil. Farrar, Straus & Giroux. New
York.
21. Hershey, D.R. 1992. Sir Albert Howard and the Indore Process.
HortTechnology 2:267-269.
22. Darwin, C. 1945. Darwin on humus and the earthworm. In A. Howard
(ed). The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action with Observations
on their Habits. Faber and Faber, London. P. 9-18
23. Balfour, E.B. 1976. The Living Soil and the Haughley Experiment.
Universe Books. New York.
24. Scofield, A.M. 1986. Organic farming-the origin of the name.
Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 4:1-5.
25. Margulis, L. 1998. Symbiotic Planet. Basic Books, New York, NY.
26. Rodale, J.I. 1942. An introduction to organic farming. Organic
Farming and Gardening. May 1942.
27. Kelly, W.C. 1992. Rodale Press and Organic Gardening. HortTechnology
2:270-271.
28. Rodale, J.I. 1984. The Organic Front. Rodale Press. Emmaus, PA.
29. Mergentime, K. 1994. History of Organic. Web Site:
www.ofrf.org/press/otherreports.html (verified 19 May 2005).
30. Bear, F.E. 1947. Facts...and fancies about fertilizer. Plant Food
Journal. April: p.1-6.
31. Truog, E. 1963. The organic gardening myth. Soil Survey Horizons
4:12-19.
32. Truog, E. 1946. Organics only? -- Bunkum!. The Land 5:317-321.
33. Manchester, H. 1962. The great organic gardening myth. Readers
Digest. July: p.102-105
34. Beeman, R. 1993. The Trash Farmer: Edward Faulkner and the Origins of
Sustainable Agriculture in the United States, 1943-1953. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture 4: 91-102.
35. Bromfield, L. 1945. Pleasant Valley. Harper, New York.
36. Bromfield, L. 1948. Malabar Farm. Harper, New York.
37. Bromfield, L. 1950. Out of the Earth. Harper, New York.
38. Faulkner, E.H. 1943. Plowman's Folly. Grosset & Dunlap. New York.
39. Harwood, R.R. 1990. A History of Sustainable Agriculture. In C. A.
Edwards, R. Lal, P. Madden, R.H. Miller and G. House. Sustainable
Agriculture Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa. p.
3-19.
40. Ford, D. 1982. The Cult of the Atom. Simon and Schuster, New York.
41. Carson, R. 1963. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
42. Beyl, C.A. 1992. Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and the Environmental
Movement. HortTechnology 2:272-275
43. Lotter, D.W. 2003. Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 21:59-128.
44. Oelhaf, R.C. 1978. Organic Agriculture, Economic and Ecological
Comparisons with Conventional Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
45. United States Department Agriculture, USDA. 1980. Report and
recommendations on organic farming. USDA 620-220-3641. p.94.
46. Bezdicek, D.F., Power J.F., Keeney, D.R. and Wright, M.J. (eds) 1984.
Organic Farming: Current Technology and Its Role in a Sustainable
Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America,
Soil Science Society of America. Madison, WI.
47. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center. Oral History
Interview Series. Web site: www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/ (verified on 19 May
2005).
48. Nowels, K.E. 2002. Happy trails. CropLife July: p. 30-32.
49. Liebhardt, W.C., R.W. Andrews, M.N. Culik, R.R. Harwood, R.R. Janke,
J.K. Radke, and S.L. Rieger-Schwartz. 1989. Crop Production during
Conversion from Conventional to Low-Input Methods. Agronomy Journal 81:
150-159.
50. Congressional Record. 1990. Public Law 101-624, 28 Nov. 1990. Food,
Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990. Title XXI, Organic
Certification. Congressional Record S10959, Washington, D.C.
51. Harrison, Ellen. 2005. Cornell Waste Management Institute.
http://cwmi.css.cornell.edu/Sludge.html (verified 19 May 2005)
52. Walz, E. 2004. Fourth National Organic Farmers' Survey: Sustaining
Organic Farms in a Changing Organic Marketplace. Organic Farming Research
Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA.
53. USDA-ERS (USDA-Economic Research Service).2004. USDA-ERS, Washington,
D.C. Web site: www.ers.usda.gov/data/Organic/ (verified 19 May 2005).
54. USDA-AMS (USDA-Ag. Marketing Service). 2004. USDA-AMS, Washington,
D.C. Web site: www.ams.usda.gov/nop (verified 19 May 2005).
55. Fromartz, S. 2002. Why I can no longer say I am "certified organic".
NY Times. 10/14/02.
56. Norberg-Hodge, H. 2000. Is organic enough? Ecologist 30:45
57. Fallon, S. 2005. Weston A. Price Foundation. Web site:
www.realmilk.com (verified 19 May 2005).
58. Johnson, J. 2003. Quantum Agriculture, A Complementary Approach to
Sustainable Agriculture. Windsor, CA.
59. Claymond, H.J. 1985. Preliminary indications for an energetic concept
of soil fertility. Offshoots of Orgonomy 11:8-12.
60. Andersen, A.B. 1989. The Anatomy of Life & Energy in Agriculture.
AcresUSA. Kansas City, Missouri.
61. DeMeo, J. 2002. Orgone Accumulator Stimulation of Sprouting Mung
Beans. Pulse of the Planet 5:168-175.
62. Cierpka, T. and Geir, B. 2003. A social agenda for organic
agriculture. In Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(ed). Organic Agriculture, Sustainability Markets and Policies. CABI
Publishing, Wallingford, UK. P.171-173.
63. Organic Trade Association. 2005. Grocery Store Wars. Web Site:
http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html. (verified 9 June 2005)
64. Delate, K. and J. DeWitt. 2004. Building a Farmer Centered Land Grant
University Organic Agriculture Program: A Midwestern Partnership. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Sysyems. 19:80-91.
65. Phelan, P.L. 2004. Connecting Belowground and Aboveground Food Webs:
The Role of Organic Matter in Biological Buffering. In F. Magdoff and R.R.
Weil (Eds.) Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture. CRC Press. p.
199-225.
66. Mikkelson, R.L. 2000. Nutrient Management for Organic Farming: A Case
Study. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education 29:88-92.
67. Jenkins, J. 1999. The Humanure Handbook, Guide to Composting Human
Manure. Jenkins Publishing, Grove City, PA. Web site:
www.jenkinspublishing.com (verified 19 May 2005).
68. Magdoff, F.R., L.E. Lanyon, and W. Liehardt. 1997. Nutrient Cycling,
Transformations, and Flows: Implications for a More Sustainable
Agriculture. In D.L. Sparks (Ed.), Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 60. Academic
Press, Boca Raton, FL. p. 2-73.
69. Soule, J.D. and J.K. Piper. 1992. Farming in Nature's Image, An
Ecological Approach to Agriculture. Island Press, Washington, D.C.;
Treadwell, D.D., D.E. McKinney, and N.G. Creamer. 2003. From Philosophy to
Science: A Brief History of Organic Horticulture in the United States.
HortScience, 38:1009-1013; Grubinger, V. 1992. Organic Vegetable Production
and How it Relates to LISA. HortScience, 27:759-760.

About the Author

Joseph HeckmanJoseph Heckman is a professor in the Plant Biology &
Pathology Department at Rutgers University. This article was presented at
Wise Traditions 2006, the 7th annual conference of the Weston A. Price
Foundation and first appeared in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.
Permission to reprint this article has been granted by Cambridge University
Press.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing
Arts,
the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2006.
-----------






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page