> On Wed, 9 Feb 1994, Phil Soderman wrote:
> > chemical fertilizers. But somehow someone in this country still has to
> > grow enough food to feed all of the people who don't or can't farm.
> > Somehow the food produced still has to get to market.
> So why not take the obvious solution and decentralize farming. That's the
> only way sutainable agriculture is going to work. Agroindustry does not
> have the time nor the desire to put more man hours into production.
> Reducing the amount of chemicals and applying more sustainable principles
> along with organic practices is something that needs to be done on a
> smaller scale.
> The small scale gives rise to more distribution
> oportunities with much less transportation.
Excuse me?! Could you explain your last comment. How does 10,000
farmers producing a ton of potatoes per acre on 10,000 acres result in
any less transportation need than 1 farmer producing a ton per acre
on 10,000 acres? 10,000 tons are produced either way. If these farmers
are setting in central South Dakota they are still going to have to find
some way to ship them to San Fran., Minneapolis, or some other place
where they will be consumed. Please expand on what you have in mind.
Also, decentralization and small are not necessarily the answer. I can
personally conceive of a scenario in which 10,000 farmers on
10,000 acres producer more soil erosion, use more machinery (resulting in
more "net" environmental damage) and use more trucks to get to town
(resulting in more air pollution) than does one famer on 10,000 acres.
What's needed is a balanced approach to farming systems. Sustainability
cannot be wished into existence, especially when we no effective measures
of sustainability (at this time). We need to set aside biases (on the
conventional and organic side) in order to measure the costs and benefits of
what we are proposing to adopt or discard.
IMHO.....Jim Novak....email@example.com....domo arigato
gozaimashita......flames accepted as a learning experience.