Deconstructing Unsustainable Agriculture

The Green Revolution refers to the dramatic increase in food calorie production brought about by the following developments: I) selective breeding of high yielding crops with added resistance to common diseases; ii) extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides; iii) mechanization of crop harvesting. Beginning in the 1940s, the Green Revolution successfully overcame the famine that developed in many developing countries and allowed for massive population increases worldwide.

Large-scale industrial agriculture has greatly reduced the cost of food production leading to shared economic benefits for consumers and large corporations. Scientific progress in genetic engineering, along with targeted investments by industry, has further increased crop productivity through the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The main use of GMO is to provide food products that are resistant to toxic chemicals, which can then be used to prevent the growth of competing weeds. These toxic chemicals (pesticides) are freely applied to crop fields until some weeds acquire the same protective genes. Food crops then require further genetic modification to resist newer pesticides to which weeds are susceptible, at least for a time. Another government that allowed the use of GMOs has been to restrict the viability of seeds produced by “proprietary” crops. Widespread contamination of all farmland with toxic pesticides puts organic farming at a competitive disadvantage, but the decision to use modified GM seeds creates industry dependency and a continuing risk of financial abuse.

Not only is there widespread pesticide contamination in other farmland, but traces of the toxins can soon appear in grazing animals, pets, and humans. It is particularly troublesome that pesticides can now be easily detected in the cord blood of newborns, as well as in municipal drinking water.

The use of fertilizer also has a downside, since the only relevant success criterion is overall productivity in terms of calories. In addition to the nutrients required for growth, many plant species will, under natural conditions, produce secondary metabolites with no apparent major benefit to the plant, but with significant benefits for animals and humans. Various vitamins and various trace minerals fall into this category. Their levels in plants grown on heavily fertilized soils are significantly lower than in organically grown crops. The consequence of many foods being deficient in various micronutrients has not been realistically addressed by either industry or government.

While agriculture contributes to an unhealthy environment, it has also suffered from industrial pollution from mining, production and waste disposal. Instead of maintaining and promoting plant growth, some irrigation water sources are now seen as the cause of stunted growth. Relatively large quantities of toxic water are now retained as it is forever useless for irrigation.

For progress to happen, it is necessary to replace unintentional practices that lead to unsustainable agriculture with a more sensible and sensible approach. The following three areas are the most important. I) Reduce pesticide use and instead rely on the natural interaction of competing living organisms to design non-toxic methods to support the growth of food crops. ii) Reduce the use of nutrient-restricted fertilizers and ensure the availability of a full range of micronutrients and trace minerals in soils. iii) Increase the kinetic activity of water used to support plant growth and apply the same principle of water activation to help decontaminate currently unavailable water sources. Each approach will be briefly summarized:

1. The web of life includes interactive dependencies and rivalries among various organisms. Decreased food production can result from the overgrowth of certain microorganisms that can directly damage a food crop, or the overgrowth of competing plants such as weeds that may outperform the food crop. The answer to both questions is to understand the biology of the offending species and its natural predators. Efforts can then be devised to lower the relative performance of these natural predators so that competitive advantage is returned to the food crop. An underlying principle is that the advantage goes to whichever strain has the better alternative cellular energy (ACE) pathway, as this pathway appears to provide somewhat of a universal defense against many pathogens. The ACE pathway is expressed as the dynamic activity of bathing water inside living cells. Dynamic activity is defined as KELEA (kinetic energy-limiting electrostatic attraction). Using KELEA activated water, it can be introduced into crops or potentially drawn directly into the plant from the environment. The feasibility of the first approach with rice and cane sugar has been demonstrated and published, while efforts to develop the second approach are ongoing.

2. Replenishment of over-fertilized fields with chemicals required for trace minerals and micronutrients can be accomplished using a variety of crops such as humic/fulvic acids, respectively, and a variety of native vegetation not currently grown with fertilizers. The possibility of using Kudzu as a secondary source is noteworthy.

3. The utility of KELEA-activated water in increasing the productivity of food crops goes far beyond the question of increased defense against infectious agents. KELEA contributes to the overall productivity of plants, including in some cases delayed senescence. It can also greatly extend the shelf life of harvested plants. Another potential benefit of water activation of KELEA is that it loosens the intermolecular hydrogen bond, which leads to the separation of many toxic chemicals from the water molecules so that the chemicals can be removed more easily.

KELEA’s methods of water and plant activation are actively followed to determine the most suitable ones for a variety of applications. Essentially, the methods are inexpensive and relatively easy to implement even in large-scale environments. This effort goes against the vested interests of manufacturers of fertilizers, pesticides and GMOs. It is also inappropriate to restrict effort by business entities seeking to capitalize on an urgent humanitarian need. The extent of coverage is beyond the scope of a single charity. Sharing responsibility for a collaborative project, however, is of little interest to these organizations because they rely on unique issues to attract private donors. To implement these studies, the source of funding must be freshly minted from the Federal Reserve, which is essentially a capital tax on currency.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *