Re: Sustainability and Profitability

Rich Molini (richmo@indy.net)
Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:55:25 +0000

Greg,
Thanks alot for your post and concern. I have felt for quite a while
that this list has recently primarily just engaged in a form of
intellectual masturbation rather than the subjects that could really
provide something tangible in aiding those of us out here trying to
produce healthy nutritious food in conjunction and with respect for
natural systems and everbody downstream and downwind. I have not even
felt the slightest need to participate in this list endeavour for the
last couple of months because of the inane discussions which have arisen
from bananas to suicides.
Those of us out here busting our buns and seeing our enterprises slowly
sink into agricultural oblivion know the real discussions should be
centered on the price of food. Cheap food leaves alot of disposable
income for conspicuous consumption. Coincidence?, I don't think so. When
the means of food production are primarily controlled by a chosen few,
those few will make sure that they receive a larger portion of that pie
even for lesser and lesser
quality products.
We can add value until it comes out our ears, but if the meal preparers
( which ostensibly is increasingly fast food chains) only make
decisions based on price, real food producers are modern day dodo birds
and dinosaurs. It appears that as long as average unenlightened
American consumers are willing to eat conventional agribusiness garbage,
there is little hope that we livestock producers can hold on. We must
rely on a few voices like that of Jerry Burnetti who is doing the work
to educate us all on the ever increasing poverty of nutritional content
in conventional feed, fodder, and food and the corresponding elevated
concentrations of synthetic chemicals ( most specifically pesticides,
hormones, antibiotics) in those commodities.
I agree with you about the hassles with marketing, but if we don't do
it, nobody is going to make that effort without taking some money from
our pockets. So until the price of food is a true reflection of the cost
of production ( for example, accounting for the destruction of many
natural systems or the added costs of health related issues like
increased incidence of chronic disease or the continuous dessimation of
rural communities ) we cannot afford to give those dollars to someone
else , so I think we are basically on our own in spreading the word. We
realize your pork and chicken and my beef are much different than what
someone can get at the supermarket, we simply must persuade others of
this difference.
Thanks for reinitiating this level of discourse for the infantry.
Later, Rich Molini

Greg & Lei Gunthorp wrote:
>
> ----Original Message-----
> From: Cecile Mills <seaseal@got.net>
> To: Greg & Lei Gunthorp <hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com>
> Date: Saturday, June 20, 1998 2:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Sustainability and Profitability
>
> >>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.
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >Farmers around where I live have stopped farming and now lease their
> >acreage out to corporations. This has meant increased overdraft of the
> >water supply, increased chemical applications (to get four crops a year),
> >decreased care for the land.
>
> Reply:
> Still plenty of small farms left in my area. Most are down to the last
> generation
> unless something changes. And most don't support families without off farm
> income.
>
> >I believe we need to ask larger organizations (perhaps non-profits whose
> >goal is to preserve farm land) to step in and support farmers who wish to
> >continue farming but will promise to try sustainable techniques. That way
> >others in the community can see examples of how sustainable ag will work,
> >and at a profit, after the initial transition. Here in California, we had
> >over $1 million in state funds for farmers wishing to transistion to
> >organic practices left last year because no farmers had applied for it.
> >Perhaps your state also has funding for transistion farming--check it out.
>
> Reply:
> No state funds in Indiana for organic transtition. Perhaps Rich Molini or
> Steve Bonney
> will correct me on this one. I wish they would correct me, but I think they
> would have told me of the funds already. I'm involved with an organization
> dedicated to preserving farmland. They have a web page that deals entirely
> with profitibility of farms and those farms then remaining in agriculture.
> Farm profitibility is a huge issue in farmland preservation! I still
> beleive of the three issues of sustainability--environment, social, and
> economics, long term profitibility has to be at the top of the list. How
> many of these
> farms you talked about earlier would be renting to the corporations if they
> could make more farming it themselves? We don't have to get rich, but we
> have to make enough
> to support our families!!!
>
> >>Most don't see an alternative. AND most haven't found any low cost
> >>sustainable alternatives to continually getting bigger.
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >The alternatives to farming with chemicals exist and some are less
> >expensive that fertilizer and pesticide costs. Again, I would suggest
> >researching in your state. Also check the WEb for organic farms near where
> >you are to go and visit. Perhaps others here on this list know of resources
> >for you. They exist--just not many yet--but alternatives are growing.
>
> reply:
> I strongly agree that alternatives to chemicals exist. Thats my point
> exactly. These
> are talked about at sustainable ag conferences I attend, but I don't see
> them discussed
> much on the sanet. I also know of probably half of the organic growers in
> my state.
> And by the way, I spend a huge amount of time answering emails and phone
> calls from
> people wanting information on sustainable pasture hog production. I'm one
> of those people who have a web site with at least 10 pages of material on
> the the American Farmland Trust's www.grassfarmer.com web page.
> The point I was trying to bring up is do we spend our time talking about
> the problems or do we spend our time helping beginning sustainable farmers
> join agriculture. Perhaps I am naive, but I think some of the problems can
> be cured by more low
> cost sustainable producers.
>
> >>So should we be arguing about chemical use, or should we be discussing the
> >>practicalities of >getting more small sustainable farms.
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >Hopefully we won't argue but rather discuss the pros and cons. I believe
> >both these issues are related, so when you talk about, say decreasing and
> >finally stopping chemical use, you are also talking about increasing
> >sustainability. A farmer willing to begin increasing sustainability will
> >have a better chance to survive as a farmer IMHO.
> >
> >The market for foods without chemicals is growing daily as people either
> >get ill or know someone who is ill, and find those illnesses have a strong
> >relationship to pesticides.
>
> Reply:
> Yes, I agree the market is growing, but a large part of this market is
> very un accessable to Indiana farmers. How many options do I have to sell
> sustainably
> raised pork? Actually, I am going to sell a load that will go to California
> this
> week because of a Practical Farmers newsletter post on the Sanet. But its
> not
> a big enough market for all my pigs, how local is California to Indiana, and
> how about a rating on infastructure when I have one marketing alternative.
> And that before I even
> start to touch on the issues of non seasonal production requirement that I
> brought up in a post last week. I have 5 conventional hog markets within 25
> miles of my farm and I am a firm believer there isn't much competition in
> the conventional livestock industry. How do you think I would rate the
> sustainable livestock market?
>
> >>And the working models for sustainable farms are few and far between.
> Cecile wrote:
> >This is true, but with the Internet, you can *visit* these farms and talk
> >with the farmer, hearing first hand of the problems and the wonders of
> >changing the way we farm.
>
> Reply:
> Yes I agree. But are any more farmers aware of these web sites than are
> aware
> of programs such as ATTRA and SARE?
>
> >> 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!)
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >That depends on how you define sustainable. The definitions I've seen
> >include the air, water, and soil, and those cannot be sustainable when
> >contaminated with chemicals, so organic seems inherent in the definition to
> >me.
>
> Reply:
> We differ on this one. Sustainability doesn't have to be organic. Its
> the reliance on chemicals that seperates sustainability and conventional.
> Organic is a good marketing alternative for sustainable farms.
> Cover crops, management intensive grazing, buffer strips, reduced tillage,
> etc are
> all prime examples of sustainable practices that don't have to be organic.
> Take a
> look at the list of the Practical Farmers feild day topics. It gives a very
> good idea of
> what topics I would see as sustainable practices. Where is the discussion
> of the practical management tecniques for these innovative practices?
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >As far as the term *low input* goes, do you mean *low chemical input* or
> >something else? Because organic farmers certainly have input into their
> >soils--to condition them to reduce pest damage. I am currently exploring
> >the use of cardboard as mulch and compost--hope it works (I'm seeking
> >information on if the ink on cardboard boxes is toxic, if anyone knows?)
>
> Reply:
> I meant a lot more than chemicals. I meant all production expenses
> including labor and land.
> I feel low input farming refers to farming practices that substitute
> management for
> off farm purchases.
>
> >>there are only a few products which have legitimate organic markets in my
> >>area.
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >This too will change, but foods and farm products often are shipped to
> >where the markets already exist. Do you have a local farmer's market where
> >you live? Why not talk to a few more farmers about starting one? This
> >information too is on the Web. Also a CSA--where you sell your crops
> >directly to consumers---that information is there too--do a search for CSA.
>
> I'm looking into all these alternative markets. But lets not forget that
> marketing is a
> lot of work. I've been raised to be a farmer and thats what I do best.
> Marketing takes
> a whole different set of skills and a lot of effort for me. We really start
> to get few and far between when we look for farmers that have combined
> production and marketing skills
> at a superb level.(I'm not one!) And how about the long term outlook for
> the organic market? Whats to keep it from going the consolidation route
> conventional agriculture has taken?
>
> >>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?
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >Or do we need some other options? Regulations will occur as the pollution
> >from large operations impacts local water supplies. Smaller operations will
> >start up when there is support for that at the state level (which begins at
> >the local level). But perhaps some other options will help envision the
> >future: hogs as a part of an operation that also grows food products and
> >grain and corn--as part of a system. Like the old days! What a concept.
>
> Reply:
> I'm sorry I didn't clarify my post. When I talk about small, low cost
> sustainable hog
> operations, I am talking about a symbiotic enterprise that lowers the
> fertilization
> requirements of a grass, grain, or vegetable enterprise and in turn the
> grass, grain,
> or vegetable enterprise lowers the cost of the hog production. Only, we
> need to
> make a few modifications from the old days. It costs more to raise a family
> now days.
> And the "technology" is here to raise enough animals and still have a low
> enough labor
> requirement for a good quality of life. Black plastic pipe, energy free
> waterers, electric fence, 4 wheelers, round bales of straw, etc. Do we see
> any talk about sustainable hog production on the sanet? I'm a firm beleiver
> that livestock production is an essential
> element of sustainability on midwest farms.
>
> Cecile wrote:
> >Young people around here are itching to get into organic farm
> >production--maybe some of you in Indianna would want to advertise here for
> >apprentices as one way to pay for the transition.
> >
> >Solutions exist for every problem--and always more than one. Keep
> searching.
> >
> reply:
> That is exactly what I would like to see discussed more often on the
> sanet. I envisioned a sustainable agriculture list would be a discussion
> group to diseminate sustainable farming practices. I still stand by my
> earlier comment that a farmer that
> happened onto the sanet wanting information on sustainable agriculture
> practices would not stay long.
> I look forward to your comments on my thoughts.
> Best wishes,
> Greg
> BTW, 15 people at our field day this afternoon. I'll give you one guess
> what the majority of their questions centered around.
>
> 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".

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".