Sustainability and Profitability

Greg & Lei Gunthorp (hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com)
Sat, 20 Jun 1998 08:54:57 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BD9C29.19DF51E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I've wanted to post something along these lines for some time and =
finally got up the nerve. I know for a fact that I am not alone in my =
thoughts.
Why is it that we see very little posts or threads on the SANET about =
practical and profitable
alternatives for sustainable farms. I seen a post recently about all =
the felid days of the Practical
Farmers of Iowa. It gives a very good insight into what production =
practices are considered sustainable. =20
I'd love to think we are to the point in the US that we able to =
discuss the details of=20
a sustainable agriculture system. But like it or not, we have a serious =
problem in American agriculture.
And that is that farmers aren't making enough money to even consider =
being a sustainable operation.
AND WHAT GOOD IS IT TO TALK ABOUT SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IF THE MINUTE =
THE HEIRS CONTROL THE DEED THE FARM IS SOLD TO THE LARGER OPERATION DOWN =
THE ROAD? Farms have to be profitable enough to encourage future =
generations to continue to farm. Perhaps the problem with the sanet =
is that it has too many acedemics and not enough farmers that support =
their families with sustainable practices. I wish somebody would =
please enlighten me, but I don't see most of the threads on the sanet =
being discussed much at sustainable ag conferences. The talk centers =
around how am I going to support my family with a small farm.
I see posts about farmers using chemicals because of greed and power. =
But, I personally don't see it.
Most don't see an alternative. AND most haven't found any low cost =
sustainable alternatives to continually getting bigger. Chemicals are =
largely an alternative to labor. The larger farms get the more =
chemicals, in general, that they are going to use. So should we be =
arguing about chemical use, or should we be discussing the =
practicalities of getting more small sustainable farms. A big problem I =
see is enterprise selection on small farms and the availability of =
information to make low input systems work. And the working models for =
sustainable farms are few and far between. Its great to talk about =
something but in less most farmers can see it working first hand, they =
aren't even going to consider it.
For example, how many farmers even know of ATTRA or SARE?
Which comes first the chicken or the egg? Do we encourage low input =
sustainable farms and allow a good percentage of these farms to see =
organic transition as an eventual step. (Some will never make the =
transition and can be perfectly sustainable!) Or do we encourage =
people to just give up chemicals without the whole management system =
that goes along with organic systems and watch them fall flat on their =
faces. Perhaps the rest of the country has better market infrastructure =
than Indiana, but there are only a few products which have legitimate =
organic markets in my area. We do have a lot of room for sustainable =
low cost producers to make money in conventional markets.
We need more sustainable family supporting farms. Profitability has =
to be a key issue on a sustainable operation. If an operation is truly =
sustainable, the support for the environment and community is going to =
be an added bonus. We need to put some more emphasis on what it takes =
to make farms profitable or we are going to be discussing the details of =
a sustainable agricutlure with NO farmers left. For example, in just =
the last ten years we have lost 60% of the hog farms in the US. Do we =
need more regulations on large hog farms or do we need more small lower =
cost producers? Are the large operations just filling a void because =
small farms aren't seeing long term profitibility? They shouldn't be =
able to compete with low cost sustainable operations. Beginning farmers =
are willing to listen if the message is just told. And there are =
increasingly more established farmers who are looking for profitable, =
lower risk alternatives to the capital intensive, industrialized =
agriculture. But if they would
happen to come across the SANET, I would think they would unsubscribe =
before they ever found anything useful.
I'd love to hear others thoughts on profitibility of sustainable =
operations.
Best wishes,
Greg
Gunthorp's Pasture-ized Pork
LaGrange, Indiana (a stones throw from Ohio & Michigan)
hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com
visit our farm at www.grassfarmer.com

------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BD9C29.19DF51E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">

   I've wanted to post = something along=20 these lines for some time and finally got up the nerve.  I know for = a fact=20 that I am not alone in my thoughts.
  Why is it that we see very = little posts=20 or threads on the SANET about practical and profitable
alternatives for sustainable = farms.  I seen=20 a post recently about all the felid days of the Practical
Farmers of Iowa.  It gives a = very good=20 insight into what production practices are considered  = sustainable. =20
  I'd love to think we are to = the point in=20 the US that we able to discuss the details of
a sustainable agriculture = system.  But like=20 it or not, we have a serious problem in American = agriculture.
And that is that farmers aren't = making enough=20 money to even consider being a sustainable operation.
AND WHAT GOOD = IS IT TO TALK=20 ABOUT SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES IF THE MINUTE THE HEIRS CONTROL THE DEED THE = FARM IS=20 SOLD TO THE LARGER OPERATION DOWN THE ROAD?  Farms have to be = profitable=20 enough to encourage future generations to continue to = farm.   =20 Perhaps the problem with the sanet is that it has too many acedemics and = not=20 enough farmers that support their families with sustainable = practices.  I=20 wish somebody  would please enlighten me, but I don't see most of = the=20 threads on the sanet being discussed much at sustainable ag = conferences. =20 The talk centers around how am I going to support my family with a small = farm.
  I see posts about farmers = using chemicals=20 because of greed and power.  But, I personally don't see = it.
Most don't see an alternative.  = AND most=20 haven't found any low cost sustainable alternatives to continually = getting=20 bigger.  Chemicals are largely an alternative to labor.  The = larger=20 farms get the more chemicals, in general, that they are going to = use.  So=20 should we be arguing about chemical use, or should we be discussing the=20 practicalities of getting more small sustainable farms.  A big = problem I=20 see is enterprise selection on small farms and the availability of = information=20 to make low input systems work.  And the working models for = sustainable=20 farms are few and far between.  Its great to talk about something = but in=20 less most farmers can see it working first hand,  they aren't even = going to=20 consider it.
For example, = how many=20 farmers even know of ATTRA or SARE?
  Which comes first the chicken = or the=20 egg?  Do we encourage low input sustainable farms and allow a good=20 percentage of these farms to see organic transition as an eventual = step. =20 (Some will never make the transition and can be perfectly=20 sustainable!)    Or do we encourage people to just give = up=20 chemicals without the whole management system that goes along with = organic=20 systems and watch them fall flat on their faces.  Perhaps the rest = of the=20 country has better market infrastructure than Indiana, but there are = only a few=20 products which have legitimate organic markets in my area.  We do = have a=20 lot of room for sustainable low cost producers to make money in = conventional=20 markets.
  We need more sustainable = family=20 supporting farms.  Profitability has to be a key issue on a = sustainable=20 operation.  If an operation is truly sustainable, the support for = the=20 environment and community is going to be an added bonus.  We need = to put=20 some more emphasis on what it takes to make farms profitable or we are = going to=20 be discussing the details of a sustainable agricutlure with NO  = farmers=20 left.  For example, in just the last ten years we have lost 60% of = the hog=20 farms in the US. Do we need more regulations on large hog farms or do we = need=20 more small lower cost producers?   Are the large operations = just=20 filling a void because small farms aren't seeing long term = profitibility? =20 They shouldn't be able to compete with low cost sustainable = operations. =20 Beginning farmers are willing to listen if the message is just = told.  And=20 there are increasingly more established farmers who are looking for = profitable,=20 lower risk alternatives to the capital intensive, industrialized=20 agriculture.  But if they would
happen to come = across the=20 SANET, I would think they would unsubscribe before they ever found = anything=20 useful.
  I'd love to hear others thoughts on = profitibility of=20 sustainable operations.
Best wishes,
Greg
Gunthorp's Pasture-ized = Pork
LaGrange,=20 Indiana  (a stones throw from Ohio & Michigan)
hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com
visi= t our=20 farm at www.grassfarmer.com
<= /BODY> ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01BD9C29.19DF51E0-- To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".