Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)


Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang



efficient as those, say, in Holland, it would be easy. But most are not.

Building the necessary institutions for effective technical assistance requires time and patience. As pointed out by Broekmeijer (1966), we are

thinking in terms of centuries, not simply decades.

Much has been written recently about the world food problem, sometimes garnished with such catch phrases as “the race between food and

population” or “the oncoming famine.” Yet it is highly doubtful that food

situations in the 95 less developed countries are as bad now as they were

earlier. Most people in these countries formerly took famine, flood, and

pestilence for granted as man’s inevitable tragedies. Since 1940, world

communications have improved. Many people from advanced countries

have traveled in the less developed countries. In turn, people from the

less developed countries have visited the advanced countries. They now

know that floods, famine, and pestilence can be avoided.

Certainly most have food problems. With the wide introduction of

medicine and sanitation, many of the less developed countries have experienced great decreases in death rates with corresponding increases in

population. Bogue ( 1 967) points out that current evidence suggests that

the birth rate may be on the way down, especially in those countries

where individuals have some social security besides many sons.

Poor people in these countries hope for better standards of living,

including many of the conveniences developed by the advanced countries

only within this century. Yet they need to be reminded that each of the

advanced countries without exception got its start toward economic

development from a reasonably efficient agriculture. Although people in

the less developed countries want some of the new things, the great

majority of them do not want to become Englishmen, Frenchmen, or

Americans. Instead they want to develop their own culture in their own

way and fit the new ways into their culture. As pointed out by Martin

and Knapp (19671, economic planning must be done differently in different countries.

Based on our experience, it seems clear that one cannot discuss even

briefly suggestions for increased food production in one or more countries

without also relating the suggestions to general economic development,

better use of all resources, equitable distribution of the national product,

improved living standards, and local cultures.

Since much that has been learned about science and its application to

farming and to the other sectors of agriculture has come from western

Europe and the United States, difficult problems of communications arise

in giving people the benefit of this knowledge in terms they can use with

understanding. Change needs to start where the people are, with their


11 I

skills, their culture, and their hopes and aspirations. Not much in the way

of advanced techniques can be transferred, even if it were desirable to do

so, from farmers in the advanced countries to farmers in the less developed countries. Nor are any two of these countries facing exactly the

same problems. Nor do they have the same potentials. Nor are they at

similar stages of cultural and economic development.

In some of the less developed countries there are religious and social

ideas that conflict with science or with the technology based on science.

With great patience and tact ideas can be changed slowly without damage

to the cultural systems, but certainly few other changes should be even

attempted at the start.

The modern systems of agriculture contrast with most of those in the

less developed countries. In the advanced countries the proportion of

agricultural workers on farms has been declining at an accelerating rate

for many years. In the United States, for example, perhaps only about

one-fifth of the labor force in agriculture works on farms. The majority

of people working in agriculture live in towns and cities. They make

machines, chemicals, and other supplies for farmers; process, transport,

and market farm products; and perform research, educational, financial,

and other services for both the farming and industrial sectors of agriculture.

This highly complex system we call “modern agriculture” requires a

host of highly skilled workers, technicians, managers, and scientists to

keep it going. Such systems evolved in educated societies along with

scientific research and its application, educational institutes, and dynamic

governmental systems. Then too, the agricultural system evolved in close

association with many other production and service activities.

It should be evident that technical assistance to the less developed

countries requires highly trained people with deep knowledge in those

scientific disciplines essential to agriculture and enough knowledge of

the broad field to understand how the several parts fit together. Those

giving technical assistance must be able to diagnose problems and potentials in natural and cultural environments unlike their own. Most

improvements need to be invented on the spot to fit both the local kinds

of soil and the social environment. Scientists must be able to communicate with the governments and people of the countries they assist in terms

of the local cultural systems.

By three broad ways can the total amount of food, fiber, and other

agricultural products be increased:

1. By improving the management of the many kinds of soil already

being used for crops;



2. By developing and managing well potentially arable soils not now

used for crops; and

3. By reducing preventable losses of farm products between the fields

of the cultivators and the kitchens of the consumers. Such losses are less

in modern agricultural systems. They result from diseases, insects,

rodents, and poor harvesting methods on farms, and from inadequate

processing, storage, and transport.

Improvements along any of these lines or some combination of them

depend on parallel development of the industrial and service sectors of

agriculture, including adequate transport, advisory services, and the like.


The Principle of Interactions in Soil Use

The most important single principle for guiding improved farming and

agricultural development is the principle of interactions: Each practice or

each program within a system affects all other components of the system,

so that a proper combination gives a far greater result than the sum of the

several components considered singly (Kellogg, 1962a). The principle

of interactions has been cryptically defined as a peculiar kind of mathematics from which the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.

In technical assistance for agricultural development, this principle

guides the process at several levels: (1) reliable interpretations of the

responses of a soil to alternative management systems from field study of

its characteristics; (2) working out the most effective combination of

practices for a system of managing each specific local kind of soil by

people of known skills and with the facilities to give optimum production

on a sustained basis; (3) fitting together a management scheme for a

whole farm or group of holdings having unlike kinds of soil and different

enterprises; (4)an effective balance of services needed for an existing or

potential farming community to be successful; ( 5 ) organizing common

services for two or more resource uses in the economic development of a

large area or region; and ( 6 ) a balance of emphasis between the many

aspects of a national plan or system for economic and agricultural

progress, considering the skills of citizens, patterns of resources, sources

of revenue, transport facilities, and the like.


Each farmer makes his arable soil from either a natural soil or an old

arable soil. He may change it only a little or he may change it drastically

by reshaping the surface for water control, by adding fertilizers to correct

plant nutrient deficiencies, by adding other materials to correct acidity

or alkalinity or to improve the structure of the soil, or by tilling in depth.


I I3

Within his skills and with the facilities available to him, he tries to make

the soil as nearly ideal as practicable for the crops most likely to grow

well. Only a tiny fraction of the soils of the world produce well under

simple management that includes only clearing, plowing, seeding, and

harvesting. For most crops the farmer needs a stable soil that water, air,

and roots can penetrate deeply in order to have a large volume of soil

for storing water and plant nutrients and for releasing them to the roots

of the plants.

For each kind of soil, and the associated climate and length of day,

standards can be designed for the combinations of characteristics that

an arable soil should have for the most rewarding results. No soilmanagement practice or system is universally beneficial. A well-proved

system for one kind of soil may be harmful or perhaps wasteful on another

kind, even in an adjoining field.

Because the effect of any single soil characteristic depends on the host

of other characteristics in the combination that makes a soil of a certain

kind, we cannot make useful generalizations in terms of a single soil

characteristic or even of only three or four. Few useful statements about

soil management can be made about salty soils, hilly soils, clayey soils,

red soils, or the like.

Because of differences in clay minerals, some kinds of gently sloping

clayey soils are slowly permeable to water and have a high erosion

hazard under cultivation, whereas other kinds of clayey soils are so

permeable to water that crops can be grown without significant erosion

even on soils with 40 percent slope. (Fig. I).

Every productive hectare of arable soil in the world has at least four

basic conditions, appropriately related to one another and to the local

kind of soil. A balanced combination may have been arrived at over

years of trial-and-error or through planning with the aid of science. If

adequate practices for any one of the conditions are neglected, little can

be expected from the other practices. Some unique kinds of soil respond

well to only a very few combinations of practices; other kinds of soil

have a wider range of alternatives. The four basic conditions are:

1. The arable soil needs a balanced supply of plant nutrients for

acceptable yields. For the best results, at least some chemical fertilizers

are nearly always necessary to supplement the supply of one or more of

the many essential plant nutrients within the soils plus that contributed

by compost, manures, crop residues, and green manures. Thus the kinds

and amounts of fertilizers to use depend on the soil, other practices, and

expected costs and returns. Fertilizers are especially critical in areas of

high rainfall and leaching, all the way from the cool temperate regions

to the humid Tropics (lgnatieff and Page, 1958).

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về


Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)