-----Original Message-----
From: tom abeles <tabeles@tmn.com>
To: Greg & Lei Gunthorp <hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com>
Cc: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu <sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu>
Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: excess supply hogs
>Greg & Lei Gunthorp wrote:
>>
>> Greg's reply:
>> I think I still need some clarifications. I put some questions and
comments
>> to your statement below. Am I misguided in my pursuit of a "sustainable"
>> agriculture that is profitable, environmentally, and socially just?
>---------------------------
>I agree that your goals are the right ones. If we start with a tabla
>rasa or a flat, untouched field in a particular geographical location,
>then we have flexibility in designing the solution. In the case of
>existing farms, we are given a set of limits which present unique
>challenges. the chances of finding a viable alternative in the later
>case may be much lower than a clean sheet start with the design and
>execution. As in medical practice, not all patients can be saved without
>extraordinary intervention.
>
>There are external conditions which can be changed but until these
>changes occur, not all situations can be salvaged. So work must be done
>at two levels- the larger or global changes and specific interventions.
>
>One simple issue is debt loading. Land trust and other models which take
>the ownership of the land from an economic and not environmental
>perspective, can do a lot to change the sustainability picture. Iwould
>look at the theories of Henry George and others wrestling with this
>issue. It is firghtening how fragile small farms are when confronted
>with debt and yet how passionately ownership is maintained making
>farmers both small businesses and giant speculators.
>---------------
>
>>Does the profitability deal with long term economics and quality of life
on
>> individual farms? Does the environmental aspect have to do with turning
>> over farms and resources to future generations in better shape than we
found
>> them? And does the social aspects have to do in part with the vitality
of
>> communities because of a prosperous sustainable agriculture?
>-------------------------------------------------
>These are rhetorical? First, sustainability is dynamic. There is no
>magic equilbrium on earth, anywhere except is the equations of some
>model builder. the earth is changing and thus what we beleive to be
>ecologically and economically viable will change over time. Even the
>idea of "quality of life" changes from person to person. What was the
>idyllic farm family during the 60's has changed in the 90's. The devil
>is in the details. I don't think you can put 5 persons who farm in a
>room and get the same answers to the questions today and have these same
>answers remain constant over time.
>
>> Isn't sustainable agriculture all about providing
>> long term solutions for small farms?
>-----------------------------
>Family farms, small farms, sustainable farms are not all equivalent and
>not all desirable by different folks. Even communities bound closely by
>family and/or religious ties can't all agree. Do we now create "black
>bumper" sustainers?
>-------------------------------------------
>
> Shouldn't we be arguing about the
>> obstacles to moving the US livestock to a more sustainable system?
>----------------------------------
>We have low grain prices so we create livestock to eath the grain and
>then we create consjumers to eat the meat and doctors to treat the heart
>disease from the overeating of the meat which was raised to eat the
>grain to keep the farmer on the farm. What's worng with this picture.
>
>A person who lives by selling raw materials has to sell more to buy the
>manufactured goods to meet a lfe style. As the demand goes up either
>more must be sold or the prices go up driving the upstream prices higher
>and not curing the problem. the raw material, commidity producer will
>have to either get bigger or find a way to add value- beans to tofu, two
>jobs or get bigger. raise the price of grain raises the cost of hogs
>raises the cost of workers raise the cost of tractors
>-----------------------------
>
> I'm very
>> proud of the fact that I support my family off from 100 acres with
pasture
>> hogs.
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>If I were you, I would be very proud too.
>
>If you now expand your model, you now have to ask how many persons want
>to have the lifestyle you have chosen and how many merchants in a town
>can farmers such as yourself support? And all the other questions
>surrounding the next generations.
>----------------------------------------------
>> >We see this at the country level where incomes are dependent on
>> >extraction of minerals or agricultural commodities. Why should a farm be
>> >different.
>>
>> Sustainable farms don't have to be mineral extractors.
>-----------------------------------------------
>Every unit of production carries minerals off the land, atom by atom.
>the roots of the plants draw up micr nturients which are exported either
>in the grain or the animals. Some is recyled, but if minerals were not
>extracted, the food shipped off would be mineral deficient. More goes
>off than just carbon hydrongen and oxygen. And erosion does occur. Care
>can reduce but not eliminate.
>------------------------------------------------
>Even if I had
>> 100% return from a soybean crop I still wouldn't come close to the income
>> producing potential of pastured hogs. Pastured hogs over the average
cycle
>> hog cylce will NET more per acre than crop farms GROSS per acre.
>---------------------------------------------------
>Some farmers must be seeing a positive cashflow. Why?
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>>
>> The only solution the conventional farmers have found is expansion.
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>this is not exactly a truism. I know several very large farm management
>companies who have folowed organic farming developments and look
>seriously at all the emerging practices. And today some of the largest
>farms in the country are certified organic. if grass fed hogs prove to
>be a viable option, you can bet the bottom line pencil pushers will be
>looking at how to adapt these to managed operations. And from an
>ecological perspective it is probably very good. What it means for the
>small farmer is yet unknown. we are seeing many decentralized
>manufacturing operations today. Even giant production lines can now
>produce individual bicycles, suits of clothing etc.
>
>I am not certain that the needs of ecologically sound agriculture and
>the desires of a particular socio/economic life style have to be
>incompatible. But I think creating limits as to the size of the
>operation or other social constraints is an intellectual exercise that
>may be raising false hopes for many, particjularly those with city mouse
>tastes but wishing to have them supported on country mouse incomes.
>That's the real challenge- particularly when the same infrastructure
>demands are to be made for schools, hsopitals, roads etc. I don't see
>such a model working when carried out in a systems view
>
>thoughts?
>
>tom
>
>
>
>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".