HOME   AG. LIBRARY CATALOG   TABLE OF CONTENTS   NEXT CHAPTER

   N0 artist or artisan ever has such broad control of the medium through which he expresses his own character and personality as does the farmer or grazier in the control he can exercise over his land. The landman can create his own landscape, but the artist gives only his impression of it, and few pictures can rival those scenes that are found on a farm which has been cared for by one family for generations. Age constantly improves the cultivated landscape; lakes, hills, and the flowing streams all gain in beauty and usefulness under the mellowing hand of time. This beauty is forever changing as it is continuously being reflected in the life of the streams, the ponds and the soil, as well as in grasses, crops and trees. There is nothing still or dead in this scene in which the farmer lives and continues to live with the other life that is the moving enterprise of his farm. Everything that has life in this scene draws its life from the sun and water and from the soil and air. The scene is composed of these things and developed by time.

   Farming as we know it in Australia should produce scenes like these, but, unfortunately, there are very different landscapes which have been developed by man on which his hand has fallen as a destroying blight. There is a balance in nature which can be easily upset and the "rape of the earth" and the "violation of the landscape" describe a scene where this balance has been disturbed and which we know only too well. The two landscape pictures, the one that is all good and the other that is nearly all bad, may have started together on similar land and during the first decade or two may have remained very much alike. The factors that influenced them in the improvement of the one and the deterioration toward complete destruction of the other may have been very small or slight. Yet in the one case these factors produced a change in the balance of things which caused a movement in the downhill direction of ruin, while in the other the changed conditions of the environment resulted in an improvement.

   All types of life (including man) are concerned greatly with the environment in which they live. No matter how small or apparently insignificant this life, it still must adjust itself to its environment, and in so doing has its effect on the environment and becomes part of it. Sometimes the introduction of a new life species into a stable environment may so completely upset the balance as to cause drastic and rapid changes, which in their turn affect other forms of life in the environment.

   Human beings have a greater power than other life over material things and so may quickly change or modify the conditions to suit themselves. But there are some factors of the environment over which man has little or no control, and so he must adjust his pursuits accordingly. In the handling of land, for example, he must consider the effect of these uncontrollable factors on the new environment which he is trying to create. In agriculture, if the sum of all the factors that he can control, and those which he cannot control, add up to an imbalance against the soil, then the effect toward deterioration, which at first may only be slight, will ultimately result in the great damage to landscape now familiar to us as soil erosion. The giant erosion gullies, the multitude of erosion gutters, or the scene which discloses a great slice of the landscape stripped of its top soil, are all evidence of the final result of only this first slight but progressive, and later often accelerating, imbalance of the soil environment.

   However, all farms do not belong to one or the other category of these two opposite types. Most lie somewhere in between, and it is with these that we are now concerned. But, first, whatever examinations we may make of the broad fields agriculturally, our approach and conclusions, whether rightly or wrongly, pessimistic or optimistic, will be influenced mainly by just how we regard the soil.

   The science of soil has progressed to the stage of classifying and naming world soil groups. The structure of soil, its texture and chemical compositions, have become almost exact science and are of precise significance to those who so study them. The two great world soil groups are, first, the iron-aluminium soils--the pedalfers--and, secondly, the calcium soils--pedocals--and within these, all soils, varying with climatic effects, may be classified. On the other hand, and sometimes with little interest in these physical properties of soil, there is the soil biologist studying, identifying, classifying and naming the life species of the soil, which alone interests him. But a document must be looked at as a whole, and so soil as a field entity, with all its aspects taken together, should be seen as the basic factor in field agriculture.

   Some of the wide classifications of soil science deal with materials which are suitable as the physical basis of soil, but which, owing to the climatic environment, are certainly not soil, and though they may not be varied much by the application of minute quantities of other material or agricultural chemicals, these initial soil materials may be so profoundly affected by the stimulation of the other properties of soil that the life properties may be affected in great degree.

   So, always, the matters of greatest importance in the change and improvement of soil are those factors of soil life which are very responsive to the improvement or otherwise of soil climate. Therefore, the farmer, whether his land is a real soil or whether he is developing an agricultural soil from a physical material capable of being so converted to fertile soil, must consider always the effect on soil climate of all that he does on his land. In Australia, following each new development of chemical soil science, large areas of land constituting something which is less than soil are being transformed into agricultural soil which will support profitable farming and grazing businesses.

   The application of chemical fertilisers to Australian soils has grown greatly in recent years with mixed success. An inorganic fertiliser is a good servant but a bad master. Following the wide response of superphosphate in improving some pastures, this fertiliser was tried out eventually on a wide and ever-widening range of soil and other material merely "earths". The scope of the use and usefulness of superphosphate was found to be limited, at least by itself. The older use of the various lime products had set a pattern, which in varying degrees was followed in the use of superphosphate. Later the failure of superphosphate to produce, on some land, its early success stories was found to be due to another factor which, when provided for, extended again the use of superphosphates on the pasture lands. The addition of lime with superphosphate to neutralise its acidity, which had prevented the early establishment of clover species on some lands, was a notable advance. There was still more than one class of soil which produced no response in improved pasture. On complete and fertile soils neither superphosphate nor any other chemical fertiliser could show results. The lack of response to these chemicals on such soil was then a measure of proof of their fertility.

   After further work and scientific investigation on yet other soils, their lack of response to chemical treatment was said to indicate an absence of another and new mineral element or chemical, and so "trace elements" came into agriculture. While the quantity of the applications of superphosphate, which had so often produced amazing results, were extremely low, with as little as a mere hundredweight to the acre compared with 1000 tons of soil in only the top six inches of each acre, these new chemicals produced their also amazing results with minute applications of a few pounds down to an ounce to each acre of land. And so another new and fascinating advance was made in the science of soil, and Australian scientists were again, as they often have been in the past, world leaders in the discovery and successful use of trace elements. Following this basic chemical discovery, new scientific techniques were soon evolved for testing on all soils their response to the various trace elements. The result was, as with the story of superphosphates, another quick surge in the development of large tracts of land which until recently nobody wanted. Blocks of such land from a few thousand to over one million acres were rushed into project type development and on the basis of a major clement like 'super' and minor elements-the trace elements.

   Always these new advances, which were the results of the discoveries of farmers, agricultural officers and soil scientists, were paralleled by advances in bigger, faster and better mechanical equipment with which to use and apply the new knowledge to the land, and thus the development of new country became almost an accelerating process.

   Words of glowing praise and graphic "before and after" pictures, which often showed the "before" as arid nothingness to the "afters" utopian lushness, told and retold the story, and still on and on it goes. Can it be wondered at that the chemical science of soil has completely dominated agricultural thinking for a decade or so, and that those who would hesitatingly mention that there are as well other factors to this matter, are as a voice crying in a wilderness. But that there are very important other factors for consideration is proved and can be seen, and even on those parts of Australia where the chemical fertilisers have been in use longest and where they are now considered the main core of grazing and crop land management.

   In passing, it may be as well to mention the use of artificial fertilisers for growing wheat. In the production of this and other cereals the artificial was almost exclusively superphosphate, and there is no doubt that over very considerable areas in all States of Australia the application of this artificial fertiliser made the whole difference between an unprofitable or a profitable crop. Along with the early tendency of those farmers living in the wheat-growing areas to be solely wheat farmers, marched a deterioration of their soils, which was at first seen in the changing and deteriorating structure of their soil and later in widespread soil erosion. There is no doubt in my mind that the increased prices of wool following the second world war and the conversion of much badly erosion-damaged wheat land to sheep pasture, and coupled with a succession of better rainfall seasons, has done more to check the accelerated rate of soil erosion than has the combined efforts of all Soil Conservation Departments.

   With the earlier increase in wheat production resulting from the use of superphosphate not only was there this loss of soil fertility as evidenced by deteriorating structure and soil erosion, but at the same time there was a notable and continuing drop in the quality and food value of the wheat. The grain was in many cases just not fit for human consumption, and on this being gradually realised, but called by some other name such as "poor baking quality" or "good biscuit wheat", those areas which were still producing good-quality wheat became of great importance to the whole wheat and flour industry simply because the poor-quality wheat could be used satisfactorily when mixed with a sufficient quantity of good grain. But this now scarcer good-quality wheat came from those areas already mentioned as fertile and on which superphosphate had no effect.

   In New South Wales the north-western wheat area was in this general category, so it may be as well to examine the effect of wheat cropping on these soils where superphosphate was not in general use. Here again we find a general but less noticeable deterioration of the soil, which in its damaged condition still does not show a worthwhile result from superphosphates. Therefore, the lack of response is not a true indication of fertility on these north-western soils. The soils of Queensland's Darling Downs, where good-quality wheat is grown, as indicated by its relatively high protein content, are similar, since here also there is evidence of declining soil fertility in the march of soil erosion but no general lack of available phosphate in the deteriorating soil.

   From this brief glance at soil in relation to the use or otherwise of superphosphate, there is no evidence that superphosphate has any material effect either way in destroying or maintaining soil structure or causing or mitigating soil erosion. The evidence suggests that the effect of superphosphate is governed solely by the condition of the natural phosphate in the soil. If the natural phosphate is readily available there is no response to the artificial product, and if it is not readily available then the response is very significant. It does not in any way indicate the actual content of phosphate in either of these soils. So it is generally with all artificial fertilisers, whether they be of the trace variety or the major elements. The apparent result merely discloses whether or not the soil, in its condition when the application of the artificials was made, contains or does not contain the added elements in a form or condition which is suitable and available for the nutrition of plants.

   It is very important to realise the full implications of these factors, since there is no indication or otherwise that the results would be constant if other soil factors were changed. For instance, if these soils were improved as to their soil climate for two or three years only, would the results and responses be as before or would it be found that the apparent deficiency in the soil of all or some of the major or trace elements had disappeared?

   As with the major elements, so the trace elements were found to be effective not only in bringing large new areas into the class of agricultural land, but in improving pasture production and enabling new and better grass and clover species to be grown successfully on land now deteriorated and which was occupied first in the earlier days of our history. Now some of these responsive soils had been greatly changed from their original condition prior to the successful application of trace elements and in no small measure many detrimental alterations had taken place during the use of the major elements. On large areas of old wheat land the soil had been cultivated in the orthodox fashion which insisted that cultivation produce a "fine seed bed" of often powder-like fineness, and causing each year an increasing tendency for the soil to surface puddle and seal in the rains after each cultivation. The entry of rainwater was thus increasingly retarded, and so one of the important three factors of soil climate, namely moisture, was restricted in a climatic environment which was short of moisture in the first place. The widespread belief in and the use of summer fallow, which left the soil in this finely cultivated condition, so that it could absorb a complement of moisture from any rains for the growth of the following crop, only damaged the soil further. On occasions following cultivation for summer fallow and prior to the first fall of rain but with some moisture present, the soil responds quickly to the better air conditions, and the organic matter present, notably the roots of previous crops and grasses, quickly becomes incorporated into the soil. This occurs only if and to the extent that moisture is present. If rain occurs before the existing moisture is used by the soil in this process or evaporated by the heat and winds of summer, then a stronger circle of soil improvement ensues. The result is two-fold--first, moisture is stored as was intended to result from the summer fallow, and, secondly, the soil itself is improved. Despite the fact that the cultivation is of the wrong type for storing rainwater in the soil, it still does usually allow more to enter than would be absorbed into the soil if it were left uncultivated in its settled and compacted or scaled condition. There had to be a reason why grain farmers continued to use summer fallow, and obviously that reason was simply that summer fallow was found to work. As some soils continued to deteriorate and by their sealed condition restrict further the absorption of rainfall, summer fallow became in many instances the measure of success of the following crop. Now, rain at the right time for the soil, and each time it needs it for only two years, will, without any effort on the part of the farmer, appreciably improve the soil. So the summer fallow, as we have seen, even with the worst type of overfine cultivation, can produce a similar but transitory soil improvement. But as appears to be the case in so many agricultural matters, few things are wholly good or wholly bad, and so the summer fallow, which provides generally a temporary condition of improved soil aeration, promotes at the same time the rapid loss of moisture from the soil. If the balance of the good and bad of these matters is against the soil even slightly, then, by the very nature of the process of soil deterioration, the end point of destruction that will result from the continuance of these methods will be the same as it would have been if the balance against the soil had been much greater.

   Over the last few years many of those who earlier insisted on the fine-seedbed type of cultivation now have realised that as well as promoting the early germination and establishment of the grain or other crop, it also tipped the balance against the soil, thereby promoting its deterioration. Also it came to be realised that moisture in contact with the seed, and not the fine seed bed itself, is the critical factor in the germination of seed.

   Without condemning either the use of superphosphate or the principle of the summer fallow (and, indeed, there is nothing in these discussions yet to condemn either), can the balance which is against the soil in these two techniques be influenced in favour of the soil? Obviously superphosphate, or something else, is still necessary, because without it on this soil there is little or no crop, be it cereals or grass. Superphosphate was in many cases the factor that first permitted profitable cropping, and while the soil remains as it was or continues to deteriorate and erode, superphosphate must be needed. Therefore, it is necessary to go to the soil itself and determine first whether it can be changed, and, secondly, what methods may be used to improve it. There appears to be little point in further investigating various other chemical fertilisers, for, if these have not already been tried, there is the direct evidence from long observation that these applications, while possibly not causing soil deterioration, certainly on their own have not prevented it. The first avenue of possible improvement lies in the field of cultivation, and the second may be through a pasture stage.

   Inorganic fertilising of Australian soils may have helped the agricultural industries, but it is not their salvation. There are other avenues to be taken of which one is a new approach to cultivation methods. The following incident is illustrative:

   One of my men in the course of his duties visited a client who had been notably successful in growing wheat by using cultivation procedures suggested by us with his Graham plow. Standing on the verandah of the farmer's home, they were looking over two adjoining paddocks which had recently been plowed in preparation for wheat crops. One paddock, the neighbour's, had been cultivated with a disk plow which had produced the fine seed bed thought necessary, and the other, the farmer's, had been cultivated with the Graham to our recommended depth, which, in this case, was about one inch deeper than the disk-cultivated land of the neighbour's adjoining paddock. Suddenly the farmer said, "Watch this". The "this" was a whirlwind, or willy-willy, in Queensland parlance, where the incident occurred, which entered the neighbour's paddock, whirling a dark thick column of his fine seed bed high into the sky. As they watched, it increased in size and blackness and moved across the neighbour's paddock and entered our farmer's paddock. Immediately it ceased to pick up dust so that the lower part of the column was practically clean air with only pieces of dry grass or stubble whirling about. These pieces indicated that the willy-willy was still twisting at its full speed, probably upwards of 50 miles per hour. All was soon over and an immediate examination of our farmer's paddock, initially left somewhat rough and cloddy, showed it contained considerable quantities of very fine soil particles or dust with the clods. The fact that the dust (or fine clay particles) did not rise indicates that the effective wind velocity of the willy-willy at the fine dust zone had been reduced by the special cultivation to less than ten miles per hour.

   Now the fact that our farmer friend did not lose any soil under his method of cultivation and the neighbour did from his fine seed bed is not the really significant point to the story What appears to me to be so very important is the fact that a method of cultivation reduced wind velocity very drastically; wind which, on other occasions, may continue for days to draw critical quantities of moisture out of the soil and to its great detriment.

   The results of soil cultivation depending on the methods used can be beneficial or detrimental, especially in regard to increasing or decreasing soil moisture content.

   All farmers are familiar enough with this fine-seed-bed type of cultivation, the continuous year-by-year pulverising of the soil, with its very serious deteriorating effect. Similarly, this constant depth plowing method produces a compacted subsoil layer and a plow-sole.

   These compacted horizons, plow-soles or hardpans, as they are variously named, are produced by such cultivation methods in as short a time as three years to my knowledge. They always have the effect of restricting the activity of the many important movements in the soil such as moisture, air and soil life. The active or vital depth of a soil, formerly six inches deep, may be reduced to only two inches, and, as always, when the practices that cause soil deterioration are continued, the process of destruction is progressive. So also is the process of soil improvement. On these partly-destroyed soils, or on any soil for that matter, a period during which improved cultivation (as far as soil itself is concerned) is practised, may so swing the scales in favour of the soil as to promote and maintain for a considerable number of years an improved and improving soil. A cultivation such as that produced by our Graham plow and regulated as to a depth that penetrates an inch only into the compacted layer will have a markedly beneficial effect immediately soil moisture requirements are supplied by the first following rain. But always no one soil treatment, be it through the various chemicals that may be applied or a particularly beneficial cultivation or any other matter, will produce a fertile soil. The critical factors are (1) improved soil climate and (2) the necessarily progressive nature of all soil improvements. It seems to me, from my own experiences and experiments in these matters, that a truly beneficial influence, whatever it may be, needs to be maintained generally for three years in order to produce a condition of new fertility in the soil which will then enable the soil to continue its own improvement.

   The problem is how to get the most benefit from cultivation and other practices, including the use of chemical fertilisers. If special types of cultivation (embracing the correct control of depth according to the present condition of the soil and, as far as may be, done at the appropriate time of the year in relation to the continuously important factors of moisture, warmth and air in the soil) will greatly improve the fertility of soil, can this improvement then affect the question as to the most beneficial function of both the major and the trace elements? All my work supplies a definite affirmative to this question.

   Agricultural practices should be designed to accelerate nature's beneficial processes. I propose to put a number of questions and give what I believe to be the answers and finally to give my opinion on what is the main basis of the production of healthy crops and pastures.

   Superphosphate has assumed such a dominating influence in the agricultural views of some soil scientists and great numbers of farmers and graziers that many apparently believe that the whole agricultural development of this continent, both past, present and future, was and is vitally tied up with the chance occurrence of large phosphate supplies easily available on neighbouring islands. But it is extremely unlikely that the actual overall phosphatic content of our soils has been increased by one ton with all the countless tons of our imports of this still very important artificial fertiliser. What, for instance, was the weight of phosphate, including the plant available and unavailable types, that was carried to sea in a period of five weeks when six major floods occurred in the Hawkesbury River of New South Wales. As I saw it then, the floods were not water, but soup, its ingredients the finest and most valuable constituents of soil. At the same time other rivers were likewise transporting to the ocean not only phosphates but every other valuable soil element. While it is a mere matter of conjecture as to what our phosphatic profit and loss account does show, and while it is not perhaps of any real importance to know the answer, it is vitally important to have the answer to the question as to what is the correct inference to be drawn from the varying results of all artificials and what is their proper or most beneficial function in Australian agriculture generally.

   The answer, I believe, is to be found in the reactions to these artificials when they are applied on soils which are being improved by other means. I refer to the control and improvement of soil climate. Certain trace elements applied to soil have certain very desirable results. What would be the results if at the same time Keyline soil development techniques were applied, methods which are designed to improve the soil climate by means already discussed? Again, what would be the results if the trace elements found to be of outstanding benefit to this soil were applied after the soil had undergone a Keyline programme of soil improvement for the previous two or three years?

   It is fairly certain that the successful application and satisfactory results from particular trace elements is directly related to the actual condition of the soil at the time of the application. The results could be completely different if a poor, sealed and compacted soil was first considerably changed by using methods of cultivation or treatments that improved the soil by first improving the soil climate.

   Again, if the soil is one that the artificial chemical has been solely responsible for bringing into the category of agricultural land, would these soil climate control methods accomplish a similar improvement without the critical element?

   I believe that the answer to these questions in at least the majority of cases is that the methods involving, firstly, a direct improvement in soil climate, would produce results on their own far superior to the results of the trace elements on their own. If this were so, would the trace element be abandoned as a method of soil improvement? The answer to this question is simply no, and the reason is a direct one concerning time and money. The results from trace elements are very rapid, and they would almost always have the great advantage of promoting quicker initial growth, when compared with root organic accumulation, the main basis of the high development of soil in Keyline. The releasing of trace elements that are initially in the soil and not available in their present state to plants, is much slower than this almost immediate response of the applied trace elements. The controls or influences of soil climate do not operate to release mineral elements until the new cycle of improvement is well under way. From my own observation the period that must elapse before any effect is strongly evident is from twelve to fifteen months, but our experiments do not yet cover a sufficiently wide field for me to be sure whether this time is relatively constant or otherwise. In climatic conditions similar to those on my own farms this time factor appears to be relatively constant, but reports on these matters from dryer areas are conflicting, some suggesting the apparent release of a trace element within a few months of the first rain on the new cultivation, and others, that two years or a little more brings the desirable release. No doubt the actual chemical association of the element is a factor also with climate and weather conditions. The very important effect though to the landman who is developing a pasture and strictly following a Keyline programme, is that the application of the trace element saves valuable time, and therefore should be used as a "trigger" element to quickly get a stronger fertility cycle under way. With the new soil programme I am now advocating it is my belief that it is generally unlikely that there will ever be any need for a second application of trace elements.

   In these discussions there is no indication of a case against the use of trace elements where they are at present recommended by our Agricultural Departments, but there is this new view as to just what these results mean.

   The very small quantities involved in the application of trace elements against the weight of the soil which they so profoundly influence is a very strong argument against those who maintain that all such soils are completely deficient in these chemical elements. Considering soil six inches deep, some of these effective applications are in the proportion of one part in ten to twenty million. Surely the chemist, who with the finest laboratory at his disposal must still employ all his skill to produce any metal or chemical in an absolutely pure state, should not credit nature with such freak accidental "purity" as would be involved if such absolute-deficiency theory were true. All these trace elements which have been found to be so necessary on some soil or soil materials are quite evidently also widely and in many places liberally distributed throughout all soil and soil materials that do not require their application. It is from the evidence of these latter soils, producing as they do much dust to the atmosphere, the dust which housewives generally find in sufficient quantities inside the house to warrant removal each day, that of itself make such a general theory untenable and indicate that such absolute trace element deficiencies are rare.

   What is to be said for the major elements? Is there anything relevant as to their true province in agriculture indicated in these discussions on trace elements?

   It was stated earlier that little changes in their present orthodox use could be contemplated unless soil was first considered in a changed and improved condition. As with the trace elements, it seems likely that the major elements are generally present in those soils also which show the best responses to their use. But on these soils the elements are again in an unavailable condition as far as plants are concerned, or alternatively, the rate at which they naturally become available is too slow.

   So it may be asked again, is there anything wrong with these chemical fertilisers in themselves, and then are they being used generally in the best possible way? Before directly answering these questions, some materials not yet soil and described as soil materials are at present being improved into agricultural soils by many farmers and graziers and can be included in this survey.

   The methods being employed in making this soil are either through various procedures of cultivation in conjunction with the sowing of clovers and grasses and adding chemical fertiliser, or, alternatively, through the application of these without any cultivation of the original material. This soil material is being converted to something better than it was via a pasture stage, although seldom does the grazier think directly about it in this way. But it should be the general approach to all soil. Whatever the type of fertility of the soil with which the landman deals, he should consider his main task one of improving his soil by the processes of farming and grazing. And now for the question: Is there anything wrong with the chemical fertilisers themselves? This is a controversial topic that has been going on for a long time. Unfortunately, no judges of the matter have been found and appointed whose verdicts are acceptable to both sides, but in the final analysis the landmen, given the advantage of time, will determine the correct answer. There were originally two extreme schools of thought on the matter; one, the exponents of chemical fertilisers as almost the be all and end all of agriculture, and, two, the "organic school", which just as wholeheartedly condemned every artificial as injurious to the soil, to the health of plant and animal life, and, finally, to the health, well-being and long life of the human population.

   Now the chemical school could show wonderful results which never lost in the before and after pictures with which they continuously supported their claims. Furthermore, because chemical fertilisers are very big business, and big business, very sensibly, always allocates appropriate moneys for special advertising and public relations generally, the chemicals had the advantages of the big money. On the other hand, there is little or no money to be made in the advocacy of the organics in farming. When organic fertilisers such as composts and farmyard manure were claimed, and more often than not, in my opinion, proved to be superior and in fact something more than superior in that they were right, logical and natural, it became a simple matter for the chemical adherent to analyse the organic fertilisers and show that on the chemical analysis they offered less in value of the basic chemical known to be plant foods than did the artificial fertilisers. Then the organic school believed in the "cycle of life" and that everything that came from the soil should be returned to the soil to complete the cycle and continuously improve the soil. The adherents of the chemicals then could show that in the modern world, with its various waste disposals, including water-borne sewage, the cycle of complete return was impossible in a general way, even if possible in some instances by concentrating the waste of other lands on to the organics farms. Therefore, they argued that the chemicals taken by the plant and animals from the land must still be returned by artificial fertilisers. It is my view that eventually all agricultural land should be capable of supporting its own fertility without the additions of outside chemical fertilisers or organic materials other than those produced by the land itself; but more of this later.

   There is no doubt that each school of thought not only had its effect on the landmen, but on each other as well. Nowadays there is wide publicity given to the value of humus and organic matter in the soil by the actual makers of artificial fertilisers. When artificials on their own completely failed to hold even the original fertility of the soil and widespread erosion marched always with the use of these chemicals, then the artificial fertiliser people had to borrow from the organic adherents.

   The organic school, by excluding the uses of artificial chemicals from their agriculture were able to prove, again in my opinion, that the use of these exclusively organic methods produces a fertile soil that reflects itself in the health of plants and animals which were almost completely immune to the diseases and pests which were the curse of chemical farming methods. The adherent of the organic school did not encounter the erosion problems of the chemical school.

   In organic farming various minerals in the natural form but suitably crushed may be added to the soil, so that there are processes common to each school. The addition of the natural lime products and various other rock products are advocated by both.

   Generally any of these materials that are in a more or less natural form may be applied to the soil and not disturb unduly the complex of the soil life. If chemicals which could not naturally come into soil in its original conditions are applied, then it is next to impossible to predict all the consequences that may follow. There is no doubt that the excess application of such chemical fertilisers has a very definite effect on the soil-life populations. One fertiliser will destroy a certain species and accelerate the development of another, and the reverse could be true of yet other chemicals, and in the whole complex of soil life gradual changes may take place with the repeated applications of specific chemicals. These changes could then affect plants, animals and people in a very positive and detrimental manner. There is not sufficient knowledge of their direct results on health, because the issues are always clouded by other factors. For instance, if it were proven that certain maladies of people were common to those areas using artificial fertilisers, it would also be found that those same countries so refine and denature their foods that this factor could cause their illnesses.

   These, then, and very briefly are the considerations which have exercised my own mind, and no doubt many other farmers, in the approach to soil improvement through the use or otherwise of artificial fertilisers.

   It is my firm conviction that any system of farming and grazing which will create conditions in soil which increase its organic life is creating simultaneously a sound and sure basis for healthy pastures and crops.

   I have decided in my own case to assume that any chemical not a natural ingredient of soil should be considered as probably very harmful to soil and the general health of all life which comes from the soil. Artificial fertilisers that can be observed to destroy the earthworm, for instance, could be a real danger, and for this reason would play little or no part in my own work. Again, fertilisers that noticeably spoil the flavour of fruits and vegetables will probably be injurious to the cattle or pasture so treated. While vegetables, produced in my own yard from soil treated by composts, were of excellent flavour, I have often noted both the unpleasant smell in cooking and the taste of vegetables raised on artificials. I believe that some artificials are very harmful to soil and to everything that depends on soil and that their use should be very carefully controlled. But all artificial fertilisers do not have the same degree of harmful effects. While sulphate of ammonia quickly affects the earthworm population, continuous applications of superphosphate had no noticeable effects on these indicators of good soil until after the third year. This last experiment was conducted on my own property, where two similar-sized paddocks were treated identically as to keyline cultivation and stocking control, except that one paddock had an initial dressing of one hundredweight of superphosphate while the other had three hundredweights applied each year. The stock reactions were watched, but there was none until after the end of the third year, when it was found that the cattle concentrated unduly on the one hundredweight paddock. The two paddocks adjoined and with the common gate left open for free movement the stock at this time very definitely favoured the one hundredweight paddock. After the third year they were often driven back into the heavy -superphosphate dressed paddock but would not eat it down, so that the one paddock was nearly bare while the second carried plenty of grass which the stock refused. At the same time there were then fewer earthworms in evidence in the second paddock. In 1956 number one paddock yielded a good crop of mushrooms and number two, with the heavy application of superphosphate, had no mushrooms.

   On the other hand, an experiment to improve soil and develop pasture without the use of superphosphate or any other fertiliser as compared with the initial use of one hundredweight of the superphosphate showed two things very clearly. One, that my own soil can be developed by Keyline methods without superphosphate, and two, that then it takes longer. The conclusion is that where superphosphate is effective in an orthodox manner on certain soil, then Keyline methods are much faster if an initial application of the artificial is used. Further, in good seasons soil development in Keyline proceeds very satisfactorily with a one hundredweight initial application, but if the season is dry and no climax development takes place in the soil after the first application, then a second application is an appreciable advantage. Many other experiments of our own tend to confirm the belief that superphosphate is much more valuable when used in Keyline methods to directly improve the soil by providing the initial "kick" for the rapid development of the pasture root system, which then is the real basis for soil and pasture development, than it is when used simply to stimulate pasture growth. There is quite a lot of evidence then that superphosphate is much more valuable to the poorer agricultural land than even the present methods of use indicate. While formerly it marched with soil erosion it should now be a powerful factor in excluding soil erosion by assisting in the most important work of soil development.

   There are many other pointers to the use and results of the various methods of superphosphate applications, and I have for many years been very interested to hear farmers, with many more years of experience than myself, speak of their experiences. I have now met and talked at length with a group of farmers and graziers who have had approximately thirty years of experience with the use of superphosphates. They all have a similar story to tell, a story of outstanding importance that should be told again and again in every newspaper and periodical that caters for the landman.

   Each of them told me that he was considered a crank by other farmers when he started the use of superphosphate to develop improved pasture, but, on the other hand, was considered a progressive farmer by soil scientists and, of course, by himself. They all applied superphosphate generally each year and saw their poor pasture develop a higher and higher carrying capacity. The top dressing, with various added pasture seeds, was spread by similar means by each of them. Then, after some years, the period varied with each farmer, something went wrong. With some the higher carrying capacity was followed by higher and higher lamb mortality rates, more disease, and, as one put it, queer behaviours in the flock. There was more need to be a progressive farmer to keep up with the newest cures for the newest diseases and troubles. Pastures that had been their pride and pleasure later collapsed and some of the farmers faced disaster. Great efforts were made to determine the cause of the troubles with every help being given from the various sciences of agriculture. There was a consistent pattern to the various accounts, although the causes and cures were not the same. The pasture which was developed with the aid of the superphosphates had gradually become shallower rooted, and so the plant nutrients other than the applied phosphate, were progressively extracted from a very shallow horizon of the soil. Eventually one or other of these elements was gone, and the collapse of the pasture resulted. In some instances it required twelve months to determine what element deficiency had caused the trouble, but whatever it was or how it had happened, each farmer had had a very bad shock. With the application of the missing element some sort of recovery took place, and each was able to carry on again, some with the help of bank finance. But while the pasture recovered, the health of stock and survival rates were not good. Often the pasture was plowed up in some paddocks and a crop grown. On this land the following pasture was better, with notably less health troubles. This is explained by the fact that a very considerable mass of old and dead pasture roots, aerated by the plowing, became more or less rapidly incorporated into the soil by the quick development of the soil-life species and a new surge of biological fertility developed with an almost immediate if perhaps short-lived response in the healthy pasture and stock. Always with these farmers was the fear of another collapse and they commenced to look for other means of safely holding their pastures. It seemed to me that the length of time their pasture lasted in apparently flourishing conditions was very closely related to their climate. The better the climate the longer the period before the collapse. One farmer opined that the continuous dressing of superphosphate had made the pasture lazy. It simply took the line of least resistance and grew only shallow roots in the very surface of the soil where the superphosphate was applied.

   Another compared his pasture failure to feeding a jackass (Kookaburra) at the doorstep. Eventually, so he said, the bird becomes completely dependent and if not given the food he needs he forgets to hunt his own and will be found dead on the doorstep if the householder is away for any length of time. The pasture roots, when the deficiency becomes critical, cannot go down into the soil below, which has probably become dead because roots and the full soil life do not live there.

   With the long experiences of these farmers in mind, I formed the habit of looking for the answer, or rather the explanation of any wide successes based solely on the applications of artificial fertilisers. Once it was claimed that a very famous stud bred all its stock on pasture dressed with a continuous yearly application of superphosphate, it being inferred that the quality of the stud was indeed dependant on this "improvement". Later a man who had worked there, on being asked somewhat casually on the running of the stud, disclosed the real facts. The stud animals were really pampered with the best food purchased from outside the area and the farm pastures played a very minor part. Other famous sheep studs with the finest of animals are fed almost entirely on the natural pasture, but slightly improved, and take their real breeding from the complete quality of the natural soil.

   Then I had the rather wonderful experience of visiting, with two of my own men, an area of pasture which had received a yearly application of three to four hundredweights of superphosphate per acre for thirty years, and, we were told, never been dry or even short of water. It was irrigated land. Under such circumstances it is difficult not to ask pointed questions which often, by the mere perversity of human nature, are countered in a manner to disguise the real truths which one wants to know. However, I signalled my men, whom I could see were anxious to ask the questions, to wait for the story to unfold itself; and a very interesting and informative story it was.

   On this area carrying capacity ranged from nine sheep per acre in the winter to thirty-three per acre in the summer, with an average of seventeen sheep to the acre all the year round. Immediately lambs were born on the pasture both the lambs and their ewes were moved to dry, undeveloped, unirrigated land, where they remained to rear them. Older sheep were then placed in the pasture paddock. But no lamb could be raised on this wonderful irrigated pasture; it seemed that they just died. Other sheep could not be kept too long on the pasture because they did not do well. No lamb had ever been born and survived to a ewe born on the irrigated pasture paddock.

   In other words, this pasture was not capable of breeding anything. It was manifestly well supplied with some of the growth factors, but what about the others? Would this pasture affect hereditary factors in the sheep that were fed there for a time after they were raised to a suitable age on the completely undeveloped land?

   We asked to be permitted to examine the soil of the pasture area with a spade. This was readily assented to but caused a surprise. We dug down into the soil for perhaps a foot, disclosing a near perfect moisture condition to this depth. The bulk of the pasture roots were confined to the top two inches of soil, but there was more root growth, although little enough, below this depth than I have ever found in a heavily superphosphate-dressed pasture without irrigation. The continuous but slow movement of water through the clayey soil probably carried superphosphate with it, encouraging a few roots of cocksfoot to go down. The soil itself in the top inches had a pleasant smell, but below the top there was no smell whatever. There were earthworms present in the soil of a size which to me indicated an age of up to two months, but of this I cannot be sure. However, the largest were about two inches long and of a thickness near eight-gauge fencing wire.

   The pasture itself appeared to be almost entirely composed of cocksfoot and white clover, but the cocksfoot, although evidently a profuse growth, was so small and narrow of leaf that it was necessary to examine it near the crown to realise that it was really cocksfoot. The leaf of the white clover was extremely small, a leaf being of the size of the half of a little finger nail. The nodules (rhizobium) on the roots were very white and clustered tightly under the crown in perhaps half an inch of soil.

   Apart from a very shallow "renovation" at infrequent intervals over the years our spade work was probably the only time the soil had been disturbed.

   One subdivision of the pasture area, which was without stock at the moment, appeared to have a good sward of grass ready for stock. We enquired as to how long since it was eaten off and were told it was both eaten off and watered fourteen days earlier. On our comment that the irrigation water had produced a very quick growth we were told that the growth following irrigation had been very slow but that a shower of rain only four days prior to our visit had produced the main result.

   Here then was a soil never short of water and with all the advantages of regular and adequate dressings of superphosphate producing evidently a great bulk of pasture to carry its heavy stocking rate yet incapable of providing the necessary unknown factors or ingredients of health which would enable it to breed stock or even carry the same sheep for any lengthy period. On similar adjacent soil but with no extra water on the 17-inch or 18-inch rainfall country and with no added artificials, sheep could live, maintain good health and propagate their species. Surely there can be little doubt that the methods of irrigation and pasture management followed are very much at fault. The fact that the pasture is still high producing after so many years would be of little consequence if it was not supported by the natural unirrigated unfertilised land available, which, after all, does supply the unknown health factors that enables the sheep to live.

   A totally different but equally interesting area came under my notice where exceptionally heavy cattle stocking rates had been carried on deep river silts. No superphosphate dressings were employed earlier, but when carrying capacity declined seriously superphosphate was applied without success. However, an examination with a spade disclosed the story. Although the rich black river silt soil was many feet deep, the spade showed that only the top inch or two was being used by the roots of the pasture species. Indeed, the main root of white clover had penetrated to two inches only and had then rotted off to an inch below the soil surface and produced laterals which grew out horizontally and just below the soil surface.

   Here in this instance is soil deterioration on a soil formerly of completely outstanding productiveness, that is unassociated with any artificial fertiliser and on which the later application of superphosphate and other additives had no effect in either improving or worsening the deteriorating condition of the soil. It can be seen therefore that factors other than heavy dressings of artificial fertilisers can cause a soil to lose its fertility depth and restrict pasture roots to the top inch or two of a formerly very deep and exceedingly fertile soil. The deep silts are generally good irrigation land, as they have good drainage and therefore satisfactory aeration, but irrigation water applied without due consideration to the maintenance of good aeration and coupled with the compacting effect on soil occasioned by the very heavy stocking rates can eventually have this effect. Our recommendation on the occasion of the black river silts was the simple and obvious one of Keyline. The soil was first cultivated to a depth of three inches with the chisel plow immediately stock were moved off and before the land was again irrigated. Irrigation was applied after one day and produced a result in rapid growth better than anyone remembered having noted before. This land was just about as flat as land can be, so it was further recommended that a second cultivation at an angle to the first be undertaken during the same irrigation season and under the same conditions as the first cultivation. It was expected that this very simple procedure of Keyline would quickly restore the soil to its former effective depth, and with the farmer watching his soil as much as he usually watches his pastures and stock he would know what it needed in the future.

   Also in relation to the flat land irrigation pastures, last year I spoke to a meeting of farmers and graziers in a Victorian irrigation district and made comments on a similar strain in regard to the management of irrigated pasture. Following my talk, questions and discussions led to my, making a recommendation of a definite procedure which I am sure was at first not in accordance with the ideas of all present. However, a few months later one of the farmers present at the meeting called at my Sydney office to inform me of his spectacular success which followed this treatment on his irrigated pastures. In this instance again artificials had not played a part.

   In another instance a notable and long-established pasture which resulted from the yearly application of artificial fertilisers caused grave concern to the owner, as the lamb mortality rate gradually increased until it reached 40% of marked lambs. The pasture was not supplying a complete and healthy diet, but a single cultivation which aerated the soil to the depth of the pasture root zone evidently caused the rapid change which at the next lambing produced a very satisfying result in reduced mortality in his lambs. A further year of due consideration of the soil climate which will promote the healthful change in the soil will largely solve this problem.

   Similar stories come from other countries as well. A report from the last Grasslands Conference in New Zealand recorded that it was now generally impossible to breed from year-old heifers in a certain New Zealand district. The course of the district's pasture development had followed that of almost complete reliance on heavy applications of superphosphates which produced very large returns of butter fat. The conference seemed very concerned with the development of a proper system for the reporting by farmers of these infertility records and then handed the problem to the veterinary scientists. But it seems again a clear case for the soil scientists with the condition of the animals clearly reflecting the unhealthy soil condition. Along with the dependance on artificials for the production of grass there appears to march these conditions of animal ill heath, a condition which is generally a reflection of the soil's loss of balance. If it is accepted that a completely fertile soil naturally produces healthy plants and animals then no other inference can be drawn in these cases.

   In my opinion the answer to the question--is there anything wrong with the artificials themselves?--is generally in the negative, but with notable instances where there are some which could better be excluded altogether. The answer to the query is there anything wrong with the present and orthodox uses of artificial fertilisers must be a positive. I believe that there is something very wrong, and that it is occasioned in the first place by a generally too narrow approach to all factors of soil fertility. Certain growth factors of plants have been discovered, identified and manufactured and applied to soil as artificial fertilisers to directly increase the growth of plants. But not all growth factors in the soil are understood, and we certainly know very little of other factors at least as important. These unknowns operating through the soil affect the plant, its health, and constitution, and its susceptibility to disease and pests. Through the plant an effect is produced in animals later, and in humans eventually. Artificial fertilisers are relied on too much and oversupplied in man cases. They can, however, be an extremely important factor in the totality of soil fertility when they are properly considered in relationship to the important factors of soil climate.

   The intensive use of the year-by-year applications of artificial fertilisers (generally superphosphate) to pastures is, in my opinion, wasteful of both the superphosphates and the real potential fertility of the soil. Poor soils can be turned into highly fertile soil and carry very productive pastures, and superphosphates, as an initial application at the start of a three-year programme of soil development, can be of great value in speeding up the soil's improvement. More superphosphates than is now used could be applied in this manner over a greatly widened area of Australia. But there is danger in the general overuse of artificial fertilisers. I believe it should be used somewhat sparingly on the procedure suggested, and more in the manner of a drug which will cure disease (the disease of infertility), and promote health when good plant food produced by the improved soil itself, and not drugs become the normal healthy cycle.