|
|
Honey bee publish details |
| More
Information |
|
|
|
|
| Category |
Culture & Nature |
|
|
| Title |
Cultural Beliefs of Iranian Farmers on Plant Protection |
|
|
| Details |
Under some cultural beliefs, praying and blessing may be considered useful to repel pests1, but only practices having material basis have been examined here.
To control weeds such as broomrape (Orobanche), some farmers use a blessing, charm or spell. Garusi2 quotes Plato, “To repel a plant called in Roman Rivanius, mostly found in melon beds and observed among other crops as well, the property of which is to make crops dry and decayed once it appears, and it is called broomrape by farmers: if five oleander branches (rose-bay) are obtained and one of them is driven into the melon bed or the plantation and the other four into the four corners of the plantation, the weed will be removed from that plant; and if four pieces of pottery are obtained and a drawing is made on each of them of a man grabbing a lion by the throat, and they are then buried in the four corners of the field, the losses incurred by that plant will be restrained; and if a rather old rooster is driven around the field, once it crows plant loss will be eliminated.
Such methods were perceived as superstition for many years; however, recently evidence has been found indicating the impact of music, readings from the Korãn, and prayers, on plant quality and growth. According to Bãghdãr 3and Bãghdãri magazines4 plant cells are able to communicate with one another and are sensitive to their surroundings—not only at the cellular level, but also at the level of molecules, components of atoms and even smaller levels. Bahadari opines that human beings can readily communicate with trees. In his opinion, this communication and the resulting phenomena are subject to the reaction of a person’s energy field with the energy field of a tree. (We may add that we consider this and other claims only as matter of faith rather than based on rational, scientific evidence: Ed.)
Research conducted by a number of American researchers indicates that there is some emotional relationship between human beings and plants5. Tompkins and Bird, authors of the controversial book, The Secret Life of Plants, have stated that it is the electromagnetic nature of plants which gives plants the characteristics of a semi-conducting waveguide. A plant is thus influenced by the electromagnetic waves in its surroundings, including those from humans, and in turn affects its surroundings.6
The use of predator insects for biological control is supported by traditional beliefs that are sometimes dismissed as superstition. For example, some rural folks believe that spider webs found in fields or orchards are the home of the devil and should therefore not be destroyed. Lately, the role of spiders in pest control has been proven7, suggesting that toxins from spiders are lethal to the insects. Spiders kill insects by injecting them with a nerve antigen. Experiments are underway to exploit the toxin-producing genes of spiders to control pests.
In some regions, rural people have adopted holy names for beneficial insects to discourage their destruction e.g. green lacewings (chrysopa rufilabris) insects which feed on certain pests are called sabz qabã or sabz-‘abã (i.e. green cloak), green being a holy colour in Iran. ‘Abã’ is a long garment or cloak generally worn by noblemen and community elders, and symbolises their social status.
Although indigenous cultural beliefs are rich sources of knowledge about controlling pests, diseases, and weeds, this implies neither a full rejection of new technologies nor a return to blind faith. Studies indicate that indigenous knowledge would appear superstitious when perceived and assessed inadequately. However, scientific assessment, discovering the roots of the belief and the positive effects any practice has on crops, animal or even human health, revalidates that practice. Greater interaction between plant protection scientists and farmers practising indigenous methods would contribute towards developing sustainable natural pesticides and also diffusion of such knowledge effectively.
M A Ardakani is a field researcher in Kohgiluyeh-va-Boyrahmad province, Iran, amiriardakani@yahoo.com
Dr M H Emadi is in the Ministry of Agricultural Jihad, Tehran, Iran, mhemady@yahoo.com
References
1Harawi, Qãsem Ibne Yusof-e Abunasri. (1977). Ershãdoz Zerã’ah (A Guide to Farming). Edited by Mohammad Moshiri. Tehran: Amir Kabir Publishers.
Petroshevski. (1965). Keshãwarzi wa monãsebãt-e arzi dar iran dar ‘ahde moghol (Agriculture and Agrarian Relations in Iran in the Mongol Era). Translated by Karim Keshawarz. 2 vols. Tehran: Tehran University.
Yãvari, A R (1980). Shenãkhti az keshãwarzi-ye sonnati iran. (Introduction to Traditional Agriculture of Iran). Tehran: Bongãh-e Tarjomeh wa Nashr-e Ketãb
2Garusi, ‘A ‘A (1996). Pishiniãn cheh mikardand? (What Did Our Ancestors Do?). Proceedings of Educational-Extensional Discussion Published
on the Need to Reduce the Consumption of Chemical Fertilizers and Pesticides, (Vol. 3). Tehran: The Ministry of Jihad for Agriculture , pp. 63-65.
3 Majalleh-ye Bãghdãr. (1994). Giãhãn mitavãnand be tamãmi-ye ashkãl-e hayãt pãsokh dahand (Plants can respond to all forms of life). Bãghdãr, No 1, pp 33-34.
4 Bahãdari, Z (2000). Ãsãre e’jãz-e Qorãn bar roshd wa nemow-e giãhãn (The Miraculous Effects of the Korãn on Plant Growth). Keshãwarz, No 247, pp 60.
5 Jahãd-e Rustã. (1995). Vojud-e rãbete-ye ‘ãtefi bein-e ensãn wa giãhãn (Existence of an Emotional Relationship between Humans
and Plants). Jahãd-e Rustã, No. 324, pp 40.
6 Abbãsi, E (1996). Biãbãnzã’i wa biãbãnzodã’i, bãztãbi az ahwãl-e del (Desertification and Combating Desertification, A Reflection of the Heart). Sonboleh, Vol. 9, No. 80, pp. 20-27.
7 Dezfuliãn, M (1994). Ankabuthã; dustãn-e ãrãm, doshmanãn-e khatarnãk (Spiders: Quiet Friends, Dangerous Enemies). Jahãd-e Rustã, vo
|
|
|
| Volume No. |
Honey Bee, 17(1) & (2): 15-16, 2006 |
|
 
|
|
