FRED
*******************************************************************************
Fred Magdoff
Northeast Region SARE Program
Hills Building
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405
tel:802-656-0472
fax:802-656-4656
******************************************************************************
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 ssikerd@muccmail.missouri.edu wrote:
> Sanet group;
>
> I can understand that Greg finds it "both very frustrating and
> disappointing that he has to argue the merits of family farms and pastured
> livestock's role in sustainable agriculture on a sustainable ag list" but I
> hope he will keep on doing it. Some folks just have a hard time believing
> that the future can be much different, and possibly much better, than the
> past and present. We have been "brainwashed" into believing that there
> simply are no logical alternatives to our continued mindless desire to
> acquire "more stuff" as the only means to a higher quality of life and
> never-ending "economic growth" as the only true measure of human progress.
> In reality, the future is almost never like the past or present. Thus, the
> challenge is to help shape a future that we want, with our uniquely human
> foresight and sense of purpose, rather than simply accept whatever evolves
> from following our animalistic instincts. I think we do this best by
> modeling this future, as nearly as possible, in the way we live our own
> lives in our little part of the world -- day by day.
>
> In early 1991 Science Magazine published a couple of articles related to a
> proposal by two scientists that "everyone" should be taught "The 20 Great
> Ideas of Science." Among their top 20 list were "one set of laws describes
> all motion, energy is conserved, energy always goes from more useful to
> less useful forms, everything is made up of quarks and leptons, every
> observer sees the same laws of nature, and all life is connected" -- some
> pretty heavy stuff. But also on the top 20 list was "everything on earth
> operates in cycles." The global scientific community was asked to respond
> to the proposed list. There were some slight differences of opinion
> regarding how the ideas should be stated, but no serious challenges to any
> of the ideas on the list.
>
> Everything on the earth operates in cycles -- seasonal cycles, business
> cycles, cattle cycles, life cycles, electronic cycles, and so on. Nothing
> goes in one direction forever. At some point everything changes direction
> and comes back toward where it has already been. Of course, the rest of
> the world may have cycled a few times in the time it takes for something to
> pass through, turn around, and come back. So each cycle may be quite
> different in detail, but its fundamental nature is essentially the same.
>
> Historically, humanity has seen people within societies congregate in large
> cities only to disperse themselves once again across the country side. In
> fact, Allan Savory claims the only city-based society that has been able to
> survive historically has been that of the Nile Valley -- only because they
> were subsidized by a new annual deposit of top soil from up stream. We
> have seen societies build upon "large farms" before -- serfdoms and
> plantations, for example -- only to see them later dissolve into
> individually owned "family farms." The emergence of the large,
> corporate-owned, centrally-controlled agribusinesses of today may have been
> inevitable. If so, they inevitably will be replaced by small independently
> owned farm and food enterprises. The problems are not inherent in the
> trends, but instead in fact that trends often go too far before they are
> reversed. The question is not whether changes in trends will occur, but
> instead is when and how they will occur.
>
> Must we have an "untouched field" on which to start over in order to change
> directions? Must we wait for external conditions to change? Of course
> not. We never have, and we never will. A new trend emerges while much of
> the visible evidence indicates that the old trend is firmly in place. The
> change comes first in the minds of a few, then in the minds of more than a
> few, and as these changes become visible in their activities and outcomes,
> change becomes an observable characteristic of the whole. But even then,
> much of the whole may "appear" unchanged.
>
> Is sustainability a dynamic concept? If everything on earth operates in
> cycles, sustainability must be dynamic as well. Does this imply that
> family farms are obsolete because there were a part of our "idealic" past?
> The world would have to be "linearly" dynamic to support this proposition
> -- for which there seems to be no evidence. Society may soon discover that
> quality of life in not something we buy with what we earn from working for
> someone else 40 or 60 or 80 hours a week. We may conclude that quality of
> life has not really been increased much by just having "more an more
> stuff." We may well decide that we don't want to continue to go in the
> same old fruitless direction, but instead are ready to turn around and come
> back to something better.
>
> Sure we need to be able to fulfill our basic needs for food, clothing,
> shelter, and health care. And, in a market society, that requires us to
> earn some amount of money. But quality of life is also about how we spend
> every day of life, in our work as well as at leisure. Quality of life in
> about our relationships with others -- within families, communities, and
> society as a whole. Quality of life is about fulfilling our need to be in
> harmony with some higher order of things -- our relationship with the
> environment and with those of future generations. Sustainability is a
> dynamic concept. It's about finding and maintaining harmony among the
> economic, ecological, and social dimensions of our lives. Sustainability
> is not about getting more stuff or "getting" anything -- it is about
> "living" -- living in harmony with ourselves and with others of this
> generation and of generations to come.
>
> Does animal agriculture have a place within sustainable agriculture? No
> one knows for sure, but I would be willing to bet that animals are
> "essential" to a sustainable agriculture. Ultimately, human life on earth
> must be sustained by the inflow of solar energy. Some parts of the "animal
> industry," such as large-scale confinement feeding operations, don't make
> sense from an energy efficiency standpoint. But, animals on pastures and
> forages are a key links in the conversion of solar energy into human useful
> forms. Many environments will not support plants that can be consumed
> directly by humans but will support plants that can be converted into meat
> or milk by animals. Animals are key links in recycling energy that might
> otherwise be wasted or lost from human use -- by converting it to meat and
> milk and discharging the residual as manure. Animals are an important part
> of a great and wonderful "web of life" of which we humans are but a part.
> Animals and humans have played complementary roles, not separate roles, in
> this web since the beginning of time -- and I would bet that animals are
> critical to the sustainability of humanity into the future.
>
> Some in the sustainable agriculture movement quite likely believe that the
> natural environment would be better off without humans. Maybe so, but how
> can we know what species "would be king" if humans were not? And, how do
> we know that our successor species would be more responsible with the
> resources of the earth than can we humans? Humans are uniquely capable
> among species of anticipating future outcomes that are fundamentally
> different from anything we have ever experienced in the past. That gives
> us a unique ability and responsibility to make the world better than it has
> ever been before.
>
> Are the big corporations getting on sustainability band wagon? Sure, even
> Monsanto has a "sustainable agriculture" program. We will see lots more
> big corporate operations getting into organic production as soon as they
> have a national organic standard to set their minimum requirements. We are
> also seeing a lot of big corporate operations tailoring production to fit
> niche markets -- Toffler calls it "mass customization." But, the natural
> resource base is inherently diverse and dynamic and does not lend itself to
> "ecologically sustainable, industrial production" methods. And niche
> markets are inherently small, because we consumers have diverse tastes and
> preferences, and do not lend themselves to "socially sustainable, mass
> marketing" methods. The issue of sustainability, if we take it seriously,
> ultimate will lead the economy toward smaller production units that market
> their products directly to equally small groups customers who want and need
> what they produce -- back to a "family-farm-like" agriculture.
>
> The trend toward sustainability would reverse the current cycles of
> economic, social, and ecological decay and destruction. People would seek
> harmony among the economic, ecological, and social dimensions of their
> lives -- not just maximize short run profits and income -- because doing so
> would result in a higher quality of life -- not as an act of sacrifice.
> Producers would produce in harmony with nature and with humanity because
> they know they are better off than if they attempt to maximized profits and
> growth. Consumers would live and consume in harmony with nature and
> humanity because they know they are better off than if they spent more time
> and effort trying to acquire "more stuff."
>
> Is all this idealistic? Perhaps, but a positive future is always made of
> ideals, hopes, and dreams for that future -- not of the harsh realities of
> the past and present. Being realistic often is just an excuse for us to
> settle for the status quo or for whatever future those with more motivation
> and energy create for us. A sustainable society means that people will be
> healthier, better educated, and freer to pursue their dreams wherever they
> may be -- not just better health care, schools, and roads. A sustainable
> farming community will be a place where people will "choose" to live and
> where their children and their children's children will also choose to live
> and grow. We know the future will be different. It is not necessarily
> idealistic to truly believe that it can be better. I truly believe that
> will be enough.
>
> John Ikerd
>
> How do we make it happen? By each of us doing whatever we can do, in our
> little part of the world, day by day. The only life we have for sure in
> "right now." The only thing we can do to make the world a better place is
> what we can do right now. I once read a book with the title "All we can do
> is all we can do, but all we can do is enough." Whatever we can do in our
> little part of the world is all we can do.
>
> John Ikerd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: excess supply hogs
> Author: tabeles@tmn.com at MU-Internet
> Date: 10/13/98 2:31 PM
>
>
> 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".
>
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".