Small farms are where agricultural advances are nurtured. New ideas are conceived every day by the folks who are solving Nature's puzzles. Since I turned in the original manuscript for this book six years ago, I have traveled to Europe once again to see what was new there, spent a month with organic with organic growers in Australia, and continued to develop and refine my thinking. I have benefited from the suggestions of those who read the book and wanted more information on certain subjects or wanted data on areas I did not cover. New equipment options are now being imported or manufactured here in the U.S. And in some cases I have finally made up my mind, buy acquiring more information, on points where I was ambivalent.

The revisions run the gamut from small changes in detail, to adding a lot of new material to some chapters, to adding whole new chapters where appropriate. I have added scientific references in footnotes for readers who wish to pursue a particular subject in greater depth. I have greatly expanded the material in the chapters on plant-pest balance because the subject is of particular interest to me and of great significance in understanding how the vegetable grower fits into the natural world.

I have a rule that I write only about those things I know how to do. Consequently, there are a number of topics that this book doesn't cover. When I think there are techniques outside my own experience that readers might find useful, I refer them to someone who practices those techniques.

Throughout this book's creation and revision my principal desire has been that it prove helpful to growers and gardeners. To that end I am pleased to have found nothing to change because it was wrong, but rather just areas that I could make clearer or upon which I needed to expand. When I first finished writing this book I said to myself, "I wish I'd had a copy 25 years ago." I still feel that way. It is rewarding to be able to pass along the dependable information I have learned from other farmers around the world, dug out of obscure sources in many libraries, and devised on my own. There are coherent patterns in natural biological systems that can be adapted to producing the highest quality vegetables. I hope this book helps make those patterns more accessible.

The Biology of Agriculture
Working with living creatures, both plant and animal, is what makes agriculture different from any other production enterprise. Even though a product is produced, in farming the process is anything but industrial. It is biological. We are dealing with a vital, living system rather than an inert manufacturing process. The skills required to manage a biological system are similar to those of the conductor of an orchestra. The musicians are all very good at what they do individually. The role of the conductor is not to play each instrument, but rather to nurture the union of the disparate parts. The conductor coordinates each musician's effort with those of all the others and combines them in a harmonious whole.

Agriculture cannot be an industrial process any more than music can be. It must be understood differently from stamping this metal into that shape or mixing these chemicals and reagents to create that compound. The major workers-the soil microorganisms, the fungi, the mineral particles, the sun, the air, the water-are all parts of a system, and it is not just the employment of any one of them, but the coordination of the whole that achieves success.

I remember a conversation I had a few years ago with a Kansas farmer in his sixties who farmed some 700 acres. His methods were considered unconventional because he had always farmed without purchasing herbicides or pesticides and bought only small quantities of lime and phosphorus. I asked him on what theory he based his farming. He said there really wasn't any theory that he knew of. It was simply the same now as it had ever been. He mentioned a favorite book of his, a 1930s agricultural textbook that stressed the value of biological techniques such as crop rotation, animal manures, green manures, cover crops, mixed cropping, mixed stocking, legumes, crop residues, and more. He said he used those practices on his farm simply because they worked so well. The book never mentioned any "theory" and probably never knew one. The booked referred to these biological techniques as "good farming practices."

My Kansas friend assured me that by basing his crop production on those good farming practices his yields were equal to and often far better than his neighbors'. He saw no yield increase from soluble fertilizer when he had tried it. His crop rotation and mixed-farming system made weeds, pests, and diseases negligible problems. When fertilizer prices rose he felt as secure as ever because his production techniques were so fundamentally independent of purchased materials. And as long as those good farming practices worked and continued to make his farm profitable, he would continue to use them. He concluded by saying that, if there were any theory involved, he would simply call it "successful farming."

I have long followed similar good farming practices-biological techniques-in my own system. The secret to success in agriculture is to remove the limiting factors to plant growth. These practices do that efficiently and economically by generating a balanced soil fertility from within the farm rather than importing it from without. They power the system through nurturing the natural processes of soil fertility, plant growth, and pest management, enabling them to work even better. In the words of the song, they "accentuate the positive." When chosen carefully and managed perceptively so as to take full advantage of specific aspects of the natural world, these good farming practices are all the farmer needs. As a further bonus they eliminate such negatives as soil erosion, fertilizer runoff, and pesticide pollution at the same time.

Plant-Positive: The Other Side of the Tapestry

When faced with an insolvable problem, I stand it on its head. Then I can reconsider it from an inverted view. Very often a valid case can be made for the obverse position. The history of science records numerous examples of once sacred ideas that were shown to be backwards-the Ptolemaic concept of the sun revolving around the earth is a well-known example. Two reversals have been in the news recently. Instead of fearing the big, bad wolf, present-day wildlife managers have come to accept the actions of the predator as intrinsic to the balance of the natural world. The forest fire, once something that "only you" could and should prevent, has reemerged as a necessary component of a healthy forest.

In agriculture, most people would agree that the insolvable problem is the use of pesticides. Even with all the evidence about residue dangers, pest resistance, and environmental degradation, how do you get rid of products that are deemed so indispensable to our food supply? Well, let's turn that one on its head. Instead of the pesticides are indispensable and we can't do without them attitude that dominates the status quo, the reverse would be pesticides are superfluous and intelligent agricultural systems don't need them. That is certainly an appealing concept, but is there any evidence to support it? Hold on to your hat.

Not only is this concept documented in scientific studies, there is ample practical confirmation from farmers' experience. For over a century a small underground of farmers and researchers have rejected the idea that plants are defenseless victims and pests are vicious enemies. In their experience well-grown plants are inherently insusceptible to pests. They contend that plants only become susceptible to pest attack when they are stressed by inadequate growing conditions. Thus, they see pests not as enemies of plants, but as helpful indicators of cultural practices that need to be improved. Simply stated, insects and disease are bringing a message that the plant is under stress. That message is incomprehensible as long as we view pests as enemies. In essence, we have been trying to kill the messenger.

The fact that stress might have a detrimental effect on plants is not surprising in light of the similar effect of stress on humans. When we are under stress we too become more susceptible to the ills that can befall us. And, just as in agriculture, we can either choose chemical aids to mask the symptoms of our stress or we can make changes to correct the cause-changes in our lifestyle or work environment or daily habits. Any reputable stress-reduction program would recommend the latter as the intelligent course of action.

I define this thinking in agriculture as plant-positive in contrast to the present approach which is pest-negative. It makes sense. Since there are two factors involved, pests and plants, there are two courses of action: to focus on killing the pest, or to focus on strengthening the plant; to treat the symptom or to correct the cause. Since the former appears to be a flawed strategy, we might be wise to try the latter.

One way to visualize this duality is to picture the natural world as represented by an embroidered tapestry hanging from the rafter. The pesticide enthusiasts are all looking at the back side of the tapestry. From that perspective they see loose ends, stray threads, and confused patterns. Their science isn't bad, it's just that they can't see the logic of nature's woven fabric. They need to step around to the front side. From there the role of agricultural pests as de-selectors of substandard plants is clear, just as vertebrate predators like the wolf are known to target those animals stressed by illness, injury, or senescence.