Well stated.
I used to look with some puzzlement on farmers that would spend more
incrementally on fertilizers and herbicides than increased crop yields would
return. The above example hits on the fact that farmers are every bit as
human as the rest of us, and that in their local community, being able to
"brag" about "the best" yield per acre was a source of pride; cost (bottom
line, whatever) never really entered into it. Although this may have been
more prevalent in the past, farmers are getting smarter about "economic"
analyses of their practices.
Just as it's the problem, it's also insight into the solution. If one
farmer notices that his neighbor maintains soil and production and profit by
incorporating some organic means, the word will get out. Farmers do notice
things, especially what the neighbor's up to, whether they admit it or not.
Cynically, it might be in a time frame that produces turmoil in society, but
not necessarily.
Farmers will evolve under market forces, as they have done for hundreds, if
not thousands of years. Some will fail, as has happened for hundreds, if
not thousands of years. I don't mean to imply that farmers should be
abandoned to fend for themselves; they are every bit as important as
"organic" resources. Providing information to farmers is optimal use of
existing resources. Farmers may be slow to change, but I have confidence in
their ability to eventually get things right. Maybe, eventually, "real
farmers" will grow hay as part of their rotation. As the referenced entry
notes, there are some practices that combine organic goals with economic
goals, rather than an inevitable spiral toward eventual failure. We should
recognize that it's going to be a step-wise process at best.
I recognize inherent value in nature, but in business, selection is geared
toward profit (survival), not "inherence." Those things that nature does
"for free" or at lower cost (toward increasing assets, cash or land) will be
incorporated into practices, where artificial means do not provide a
comparitive profit IN THE LONG TERM. Successful farmers--that means over
the long haul--will be those that guard important assets like soil,
moisture, and disease/pest/weed resistance. If organic means are best, they
will be incorporated. If "artificial" means are best, they will be
incorporated. Selective "artificial" means can be worked into a rotation or
practice along with organic methods, based on sound management practices
(e.g., *what works best* by time tested methods.)
Although nature's margin may be thinner than a casino's, it *will* dominate
in the long run. Any method that is too contrary to nature will eventually
lose through exhaustion of material, funding, or manpower. The target of
current efforts should be to experiment within economically allowable limits
to try and figure out just what it is that fits nature best. Organic,
artificial, or both? Could be any of the three--bet it's not number two. ;-)
Regards,
Greg Miller