Underst a nding S ust a in a ble Agric u lture:


A Special I n tervi e w w ith Dr. A rden Anders e n


By Dr. Joseph Mercola




AA: Dr. Arden A nde r s e n


DM: Dr. J o s e ph Me r co l a




Introduction:


DM: Welcome, everyone. This is Dr. Mercola, and today Im joined by Dr. Arden Andersen, who is a world leader in the field of sustainable agriculture, one of my new passions. But in addition to being a leading soil scientist and agricultural consultant, he is also a physician. He happens to be a DO just like I am, and he specializes in nutritional management. He also advises farmers in building biology and optimizes the energy environment of buildings, homes, and livestock facilities. So, hes quite a well- rounded, Ben Franklin-type physician and does lots of great things. We’re really excited to have him on with us today. So, thank you for joining us and welcome to our interview.


AA: Well, thank you very much, Dr. Mercola. It’s a pleasure to be here.


DM: Im wondering if you could explain to our listeners your interest in sustainable agriculture and soil health, what inspired you to also become a physician, and how that all merged together.


AA: Yes. I was originally raised on a dairy farm in Michigan. My father understood the direct correlation between nutrition and animal health. [He] understood at that time that the conventional approach of just more drugs, more vaccines, and more pesticides was just not really working that well in the field. That was kind of my background initially: nutrition is correlated to animal health. Well, originally I didnt really want to go to Ag school; I wanted to be a pilot. I went to the Air Force Academy initially but then kind of got back into agriculture. I ended up actually going to Arizona and got a degree in agriculture.


DM: Im just curious. That was first college choice, too, the Air Force Academy. I was never accepted.

But you got in, and Im wondering why you decided to leave.


AA: Well, the bottomline was one, I had a back injury. The other thing was that I kind of realized that it probably wasnt exactly what I wanted to do. I wasnt quite sure. You know how you are when youre 18 or 19 sometimes. I ended up going to the University of Arizona, got a degree in Ag education, and at that time decided to do a work exchange program abroad. I went to the Netherlands. All the time, I was kind of interacting with myself as far as why I was being taught one thing and yet my observation at home on the farm was completely different, particularly relative to animal health, nutrition, and so on.


I got involved more in the biological approach. I took a class from Dan Skow and Carey Reams the Reams’ Biological Theory of Ionization (RBTI) and that whole approach to soil health. I started consulting with them and for them. I worked for Dan Skow for a while. I saw that whole connection really, from Reams thankfully, with human health and animal health.


My parents at the time had some health problems and ended up going to Mexico to a clinic.

A couple of friends of mine, one was Phil Callahan, whom I did my PhD with, as well as a chiropractor friend of mine, and a couple of other docs told me, “Look, if you really want to make an imprint here, you really need to go to medical school. I contemplated naturopathic school. That really was the curriculum I like the best. But my one friend told me, “Look, that’s a nice curriculum, but the bottomline is that it doesnt give you the license to do everything that you really want to be able to do. If you really want to connect things together, you got to go to medical school.”


I ended up going to medical school. As a result, I can talk to a hundred percent of the population. Everybodys a consumer. As a physician, as you know, you can talk to all the consumers. As a consultant in agriculture, I can essentially only talk to two percent of the population, which is the farming population. Being a physician, even when I talk to farmers about soil, they also have a personal life. They have personal health issues. They have family issues with their health and so on. I can bring that whole thing together for them.


As a physician, as you know, we have a little bit more clout about talking about nutrition than if I were just an agriculturalist. I stand up in front of a group of people and we talk about nutrition. [Theyll say] “Yeah, Im going to talk to my doctor.” I was able to bring the whole package together. As a physician, I can talk to both doctors as well as farmers. I can bring that whole gamut together.


DM: What made you aware that the education youre receiving at the University of Arizona was… I mean, that your personal experience didnt align with what they were teaching? What, I guess, catalyzed your interest in this, that you were aware that there was an alternate path and that there was something deeper and more profoundly foundational that was necessary?


AA: Right. I did a minor in soil and water engineering. Being in Arizona, of course, water is a big problem. Conservation of water is a big problem. That kind of gave me a little different perspective as well. I guess there are probably two things that really triggered that:


(1) In 1981 or 1982, I took a short course from Michigan State University on potatoes. It was very interesting to me that professors stepped in front of the class and said, “You cannot grow potatoes in alkaline soils. Having gone to the University of Arizona, they raise a lot of potatoes in Arizona in all alkaline soils. I recognized as well that Idaho, which is the number one potato-producing state in the country, is alkaline soil. That didnt jive. I was like, Wait a minute, these guys here at this university tell me you cant grow potatoes in alkaline soil when the majority of potatoes in the country are grown in alkaline soils.


(2) The next thing was that I took a short dairy course as part of my animal science coursework at Arizona. The professor was talking about all of these foot problems, breeding problems, and various other animal health issues in the dairy farms. They were completely foreign to me because we didnt experience those things in my dads dairy. We just did not have those problems. We used less antibiotics in an entire year than the average dairy farm of the same size was using in a week. We just did not have those problems.


Those two major events really got me thinking. I was like, “Wow, there’s really a problem here.” Theres such a disconnect between what really should be going on in the real world relative to animal health and soil health versus what the universities are trying to perpetuate as the status quo.


Then when I went to Holland and worked in a potato, sugar beet, and dairy farm there, I saw some of the richest soils in the world, drained seabed, being destroyed faster than any other place in the world. It was because of their high nitrate use and their high muriate of potash (MOP) use. They had some of the highest nitrate levels in the ground water than anywhere in the world over 200 parts per million. Their

soils were so compact. About every seven years, they had to go in with bulldozers with a knifing tool just to open up the soils because of the practices that they were using.


[----- 10:00 -----]


I was taught as a child: you have to observe. Going and taking Carey Reams’ course, one of the things that he said is see what you look at. His little book called The Farmer Wants to Know was my introduction to why weeds are there, why we have insects, and those kinds of things. I knew in my mind that theres a disconnect here, but I didnt really have the answer. Carey Reams gave me that answer.


Insects are there because they are natures natural garbage collectors. They’re there to take out that which is not fit for us to eat. Weeds are there because thats nature’s way of evolving the soil from bare rock to mature forest. It’s an intermediate plant that nature utilizes in order to mobilize nutrients and in order to change the soil for the next evolutionary level of plant to come in. That can happen maybe in over a thousand years, or we can actually manage that to happen in over three to five years.


That was really the light switch (we might say) in my mind reading that little book, The Farmer Wants to Know. Aha! Finally, here’s an answer that Ive been looking for for so long, which actually explained why we have these things, and gives us the ability to address weeds, diseases, and insects at the fundamental cause as opposed to just perpetuating the status quo of more pesticides killing the disease and every year having a problem they have to deal with.


DM: Thanks. Your dads farm, was he providing raw dairy? Was he also applying these principles which you now are advocating?


AA: Actually, he was applying some of those principles at that time. My grandfather understood that when the cattle were sick, hed turned them out into the meadow and let them eat wild plants and so on. That would get them back on milk and get them straightened out. My father understood that if we were going to have healthy animals, we had to have appropriate forage. We had to have good feed for these cattle. He applied those principles. We didnt have the foot problems in the animals. We didnt have the breeding problems in the animals. We didnt have the mastitis issues in the animals.


We kind of had a big wakeup call in about 1983. We decided to change a little bit of our program. But he was on the Albrecht program, a Brookside and Albrecht program, originally back in the ‘60s, which was a huge step from the standard Michigan State approach to soil fertility. Theyre looking at getting your lime doses up or calcium doses up. That was a huge change from Michigan State University.


My father understood that if you want to raise good alfalfa, youve got to have calcium in the system. Michigan State until this day says, “Oh, no, we got to get the potash up.” Of course, it guarantees more disease and more problems that youre going to have in the alfalfa and through to the animal, which is really what my father recognized. It’s that if we get too much potash in that alfalfa, were going to have foot problems. We’re going to have breeding problems.


Yes, he was already doing some of those things. But at the same time, he was always looking for a way on how we improve this even further as well.


We did use herbicides and we were noticing on our own farm that we were getting herbicide resistance back in the early 70s, particularly relative to atrazine. I will never forget that in 1984, there was an article in the Farm Journal by the editor out of Michigan that said there is no such thing as herbicide-resistant weeds. We saw them in the early 70s beginning to evolve. Ten years later in the 1990s, the same Farm Journal came out with an article on, voila, a brand-new discovery: we have herbicide-resistant weeds. We were recognizing those things long before the conventional system even acknowledge that they existed.

That was my background as well. I was taught to look for those kinds of things to begin with.


DM: All right. Well, thanks. You are recognized as one of the leaders in high-performance agriculture.

It’s interesting that one of your introductions into this area was Carey Reams.


AA: Yes.


DM: Who I believe is no longer with us.


AA: Correct.


DM: Im wondering if you can maybe explain your journey on how it has evolved from that and if youre still using any of Careys principles.


AA: Well, I am definitely using his fundamental principles as far as what the soil does in growing crops, weeds, its compaction issues, and so on and so forth correlated to the nutrition that he talked about. His fundamentals that he taught are absolutely correct today as much as they will be in the future and as much as they were in the past. I think the logistics are different today. The products that we have are different today. For example, we have humic acids and things that we didnt really acknowledged back in the 60s and 70s because they werent a lot of them available.


At the same time, we also have micronization today. We have some integration of some of the biodynamic principles vortexing and those kinds of things today that we didnt really understand or even know about per se at that time. But those things have allowed us to be more efficient at applying those principles. He was really the first one that I recognized. But as I did the research, he wasnt the first one to say these things; Steiner actually was one of the first people.


The insects are there for a purpose. Insects have different digestive systems. They digest different things that we can’t. The reason they’re there is they’re there to take out those things that are not fit for us to eat. In order to solve that problem, the fundamental thing that Reams talked about was plant Brix readings or refractometer reading of the plants sap. The higher the plant sap’s Brix readings, the higher the nutrient density. That fundamental principle that he taught is as applicable today, as it ever was, and as it ever will be.


How do we get there? He acknowledged that the fundamental thing we have to approach is calcium. That is still just the same today as it ever was. As I said, the logistics are a little bit different from what he talked about. Because of the process at the time, we have to put on high doses of calcium. We put on high doses of superphosphate. He would use chicken manure as an inoculant. He would use steer manure as a carbon source. Today a lot of those things are contaminated, as well as we cant continue to use those quantities of natural resources and expect to be able to do this forever.


What weve been able to figure out technology-wise, like I said, the micronization. Chicken manure today is not safe. Most of it has been tested its got glyphosate in it. It has genetically engineered proteins in it. Because of the poor health of the chickens, it doesn’t have a microbial inoculation in there. We actually have companies producing probiotics, if you will, for the soil. We use those.


Getting the carbon in there. Reams recognized that we had to get carbon into the soil. Instead of using steer manure today, we’re going to use things like humic acid or humates, as well as get the biology going in the soil, and those microorganisms will sequester the carbon in the soil for us. The principles that I teach in the three-day soils class are still fundamentally Reams principles, because thats basic science. However, we then integrate todays current technologies as far as how we execute those principles.

DM: Well, obviously, this is going to be a short version of your three-day soil class. Im just wondering now if we could put a plug in for that class, and if someone is interested in this area how they would sign up and participate in your class.


AA: Sure. It’s going to be in Bangor, Maine. The 14th, 15th, and 16th of November is this falls class. Paula Day is the organizer of that. They can just go on the Internet and look up “Heart of Maine.” Do a search for the “Heart of Maine and “Arden Andersen soils course in Bangor. They’ll be able to find that.


DM: Most likely this interview will air after that time. Just to keep this evergreen, if you could provide a process that they could find out where all the future courses will be.


AA: Right. Thats a good question. Sometimes they’re advertising at Acres USA Magazine. Thats a common place where usually most of my classes will be advertised in. Find those. I do courses sometimes for various different small companies, and usually theyll advertise in Acres as well. For example, Advancing Eco Agriculture sometimes I’ll do something for them FHR Farms, [inaudible 19:43]. Those different companies, frequently I’ll do courses for them or I’ll be speaking at a seminar. But usually Acres USA is where the classes will be advertised. They can go to AcresUSA.com, and either subscribe to the magazine, or they’ll be able to find it from there.


[----- 20:00 -----]


DM: Yeah, I actually subscribe to that magazine. Its a great resource for this type of information. If anyone has a passion about that, they’d probably already know about it already. But if you don’t, thats certainly a good resource.


AA: Right.


DM: Lets talk about GMOs for a moment. As you know, Im one of the leaders in catalyzing the movement to help label them, so that we can eventually remove them or eliminate them from the United States because of all the problems they have, specifically the glyphosate, which seems to be the most pernicious. But the aspect of high-performance agriculture that intrigued me is that it really is a positive approach.


Many of the claims that GMO proponents are advocating, which if you investigate really carefully, aren’t true. But what theyre promoting and proposing is that it can actually be performed far better, far less toxically, and far less expensively with the principles that are advocated by high-performance agriculture. This is actually far beyond organic. It really is the next level after organic, from my perspective. Im wondering if you could comment on your perspective and help differentiate between the two.


AA: Certainly. Fundamentally, really, conventional agriculture and conventional medicine are all about the fighting of disease and the perpetuation of that fight of disease, because thats the profit. As long as you continue to target disease, you will never solve disease, because youre never looking at the underlying cause why that disease exists. That really is their fundamental business plan.


The difference in the approach that we take is the understanding. Agriculture really is about producing food for people. That food has to provide nutrition in order to sustain us. In order for us to be healthy, we have to have that full nutrition. We really do have a dichotomy as far as the approach: targeting disease versus targeting health.


The whole GMO approach is only a continuation of that “lets target disease mindset, because the majority of GMOs are simply for them to be able to use herbicide on the crop itself, like the Roundup Ready corn, soybeans, and whatever the other crops might be. It has nothing to do with improving the

actual nutrient value of the corn, the soybean, the canola, or whatever crop it is that you’re doing. It’s completely geared toward: how do we use more herbicide? Unfortunately, at the same time, that whole process of putting in a foreign gene, we are creating a foreign protein, which is highly inflammatory to any mammalian consumer.


Unfortunately, when people think of high technology, what they first think of is, “Oh, my goodness, cellphones.” They think of air transportation jets and those kinds of things. They think of the latest computers. They think of smart cars, if you will, you know. Today the cars will even park themselves. They think of GPS systems on the tractors and the combines and so on. When they think of technology, they think really about mechanical and electronic technology.


That play on words is used by the chemical industry to come in and say, We are high-tech farmers. Were really perpetuating high-tech farming.” No, they’re not; they’re only perpetuating more attack on disease and more perpetuation of the disease, so that they can sell their wares. I mean, thats a business plan. Thats fine. Thats a business plan. But understand that it has nothing to do with producing food with sustainability or food with nutrition in it. That really is the big dichotomy, the difference.


What its done is it really has made a lot of mediocre farmers look good, because they can just perpetuate the status quo and they dont really have to think beyond just following the protocol that the chemical company lays out for them. “Here, buy our seed, pay us the royalty, you’re going to apply our herbicide product with that, you go out and harvest, and hope for rain.” Most of them have insurance programs, so that if it doesn’t rain, they still make money anyway.


Theyve completely, entirely, lost the whole concept that food is supposed to be produced for human consumption ultimately with nutrition in it. Theyve completely missed that.


The approach that we look at really is first, fundamentally understanding that food is about human health. It’s about the nutrition necessary for human health. Disease, weed, and insect problems are all about a lack or imbalance of that nutrition in the soil and in the crop. If we’re really going to address those, we have to address those fundamental things the nutrition and the soil health issues and then we actually do solve the weed, disease, and insect problems at their fundamental level, so we can continue to build nutrition in the soil. Thats completely missed in this whole concept.


You’re absolutely right about this whole concept of getting that information out there to the consumer, because its the consumer who really holds the power. Every day, you and I, as consumers, vote at our grocery stores with our dollars. Thats where the power is. What the industry doesnt want people to understand is that genetically engineered crops are toxic. We’re not just talking about a belief system difference. We’re not just talking about a greenie’s opinion versus a conservatives opinion or a business persons opinion. Were talking about fundamental toxicology.


GMO products are toxic. They are foreign proteins that are proven to cause inflammation. We know, as physicians, all the research shows that disease processes whether youre dealing with diabetes, heart disease, or cancer are fundamentally inflammatory processes that are perpetuated by our environment, which includes our diet. In order to really solve these disease problems, we have to address the cause of inflammation. GMO crops cause inflammation.


The next thing riding on top of that then is the herbicide or the chemical itself glyphosate. It’s been touted as being perfectly safe. In fact, even Poison Control still says it’s perfectly safe. But when you ask them where they get their information, oh, 1983 documents from Monsanto themselves. In reality, everything since the early 2000s, we have hundreds of articles showing glyphosate to be highly toxic. It’s a chelator. It pulls trace minerals out of the system.

It’s an antibiotic. There’s a 2010 patent received by Monsanto as an antibiotic. They can contend all they want that it doesn’t kill biology; it does. Thats what it was patented to do. Glyphosate wipes out our gut bacteria. We need gut bacteria in order to digest our foods. It disrupts that. It chelates the trace minerals, which we need vitally for our health. We end up with a leaky gut. Then we put the genetic engineered crop in there, which is highly inflammatory, and we just have a perpetuation of that decline in the system.


Without question, we have to have labeling, because thats the only way that we’re going to stop this big lie. The big lie about how safe it is and we cant feed the world without it, its quite the opposite. We will destroy the world as long as we continue GMOs. We can only feed the world without GMOs and with good nutritional management of the soils, as we talked about earlier.


DM: Yeah, along those lines, there are a number of people who are really concerned about global warming, largely related to the fact that the carbon dioxide concentrations have been increasing. I believe they’re up over 350 or maybe 400. Ideally, it should be about 250. They seem to be increasing. The concern is that, at some point, itll reach a critical threshold where it becomes irreversible, and you can’t really turn it around.


The reason Im mentioning this is that maybe, perhaps one of the most pernicious effects or contributing factors to this would be not the burning of fossil fuels, although it certainly doesnt help the current traditional agricultural practices. Those are contributing to that.


Im really excited about the alternatives, especially the application of biochar or essentially turning biomass and burning it at specific temperatures to form a type of charcoal that you can bury in the soil and keep that carbon there for hundreds of years or thousands of years. Not only that, but increase the vitality of the soil like they did in South America for thousands of years ago. Im wondering if you can comment on the use of industrial agriculture, you know, the current traditional system and how high- performance agriculture can have an impact.


[----- 30:00 -----]


AA: Certainly. The interesting thing about it really, this is the exciting side and this is where we can all agree regardless of party line or whatever is that in order to address the environmental issue, the interesting thing is if we follow appropriate farm management practices: Steiner, Reams, and Albrecht. You might say they laid the foundation for us. If we follow those, by default, we solve the carbon sequestration issues. We solve the environmental issues. Because what happens is that we increase the carbon in the soil, and thats sequestration of air carbon.


In addition to that, by increasing that carbon level into the soil, we decrease weed pressure. That’s been done by the USDA Soil Tilth Laboratory as much as 75 percent just by increasing the carbon level in the soil. We increase water-holding capacity. In fact, Organic Horticulture Benefits Alliance (OHBA), which is the organization of business owners in Houston that do organic turf management, what they have proven very, very succinctly is that they can decrease water use in Houston in the lawns by 50 percent just by appropriate biological means. We increase the carbon, so we automatically sequester.


Actually a couple of different studies that I am familiar with showed that just by taking between 15 and

20 percent of the arable land in the world, if we sequester the carbon in those areas, we would more than