Hugh Martin
MR. MARK Brooks seems to be a man who bears a long grudge. He obviously has not forgiven me for dismissing his long and lonely crusade to prove there was a new disease of sugar cane. In my column of Friday, October 3, 2003, entitled "Sick Soil Syndrome" in which I traced Mr. Brook's highly publicised disagreement with local scientists over some five years during which his claims shifted from one specific disease to another, I concluded that he might be guilty of tilting at windmills. This apparently infuriated him as he called me several times after to argue about the merits of his assertions.
My column on Wednesday, October 5, the first after a longish break, referred briefly to the sugar industry and "the unbelievably low production for the last crop". This seemed to have triggered a nerve, for two days later he writes to the Editor:
"Mr. Martin is in the camp that continues to behave like the ostrich, head buried deep in the sand. He, with others, refuse to accept the fact that sugar cane in Jamaica (as well as most other crops) is suffering from serious disease problems. Perhaps he should take a trip to, say, India or Thailand, where root rot and wilt of sugar cane, caused by soil-based pathogens, are endemic in many areas.
CONTINUE FOOL HIMSELF
He can continue to fool himself that the problem will be cured by "more timely inputs" or "more replanting" and other such bandied-about prescriptions, or he can wake up to the reality of the situation and realise that what is needed are techniques such as soil sterilisation, green manures and rotation (with other crops, not varieties) together with serious research into diseases."
The punctuated phrases are references to the 'Sick Soil Syndrome' column of two years ago in which I pointed out that most scientists, including those he imported, were agreed that there was a build up of pathogens in the soil on some cane lands where the crop had been grown without a break for decades. What is interesting is the fact that although Mr. Brooks appears to be ridiculing the methods suggested to deal with the problem his solutions are similar except in one instance, that of soil sterilisation. In other words he has come around to accept that there is no new disease of sugar cane but a situation that can be managed by the application of time-honoured techniques. Even his soil sterilisation method is as old as the hills and has been tested and rejected in the distant past.
MR. BROOK'S ANNOYANCE
Mr. Brook's annoyance with me and the alleged camp lies in the two paragraphs of the offending column and I reproduce it here for clarity:
"Crop rotation has been an age-old response to [the build up of pathogens in the soil] where the land is rested regularly by a change of the kind of crop grown on it year after year. In a plantation crop such as sugarcane however, where land is limited it is allowed to ratoon on the same location for up to six years before being taken out or replanted. The soil pathogens tend to multiply over time and affect the plant adversely resulting in a decline in yields as the roots become progressively affected. It is a condition known worldwide as sugarcane yield decline. But while Brooks has finally conceded this he remains convinced that it is the main cause of the low yields over the past several years and that the principal method of dealing with the problem is to fumigate the soil.
On the other hand SIRI's Agricultural Services Manager, Mr. Trevor Falloon who has had experience with fumigation at Worthy Park, is totally against it on the grounds that the environmental hazards alone make it a bad idea. Soil fumigants are among the more toxic pesticides and their use could have implications for the integrity of our streams and ground water supplies. In any case he believes that sugarcane yield decline as a result of soil-borne disease pathogens are best dealt with by proper agronomic practices such as regular replanting with newer improved varieties, rotation of crops and timely application of inputs. He points to the fact that much of that has not been taking place on many farmers' holdings due to the lack of funds [and] the high price of inputs"
Mr. Brooks believes that his chemicals are safe and present no threats to the environment or to underground water resources. There is room for disagreement and I think things would be better served if Mr. Brooks stops the fuming and buries the hatchet instead.
Hugh Martin is a communication consultant and farm broadcaster at humar@cwjamaica.com.
