RE: Wow

Harris, Craig (Craig.Harris@ssc.msu.edu)
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 09:00:44 -0500

note that the previous post said "more like businesses and ceo's", not
"exactly like businesses and ceo's" . . . as many previous threads on this
list have emphasized, a type of farming ultimately is not environmentally
and socially sustainable if it is not also economically sustainable . . .
those previous threads have illustrated the ways in which current economic
non-sustainability leads to social disorganization and environmental
degradation . . . in that sense, sustainable agriculture needs to pay
attention to the economic bottom line of the farm/household enterprise at
the same time that it attends to the environmental balances and the social
accounting . . . what makes this three-dimensional balancing different for
farmers, in contrast to other businesses and ceo's, is the ability to start
with multiple values (environmental wellbeing, family integration, net
income, occupational amenities), and then develop a farm/household
enterprise that is optimal for that set of values
cheers,
craig

craig k harris
department of sociology
michigan state university
429b berkey hall
east lansing michigan 48824-1111
tel: 517-355-5048
fax: 517-432-2856

> ----------
> From: Roberto Verzola[SMTP:rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org]
> Sent: Saturday 27 March 1999 2:10 AM
> To: logcabinorchard@cyberus.ca
> Subject: Re: Wow
>
> >sustainable agriculture do so among themselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm
> >not trying to stifle your freedom of speech and yes, I too have a delete
> >key which allows me to be selective. But, can we steer discussion back
> to
> >the issues of good old sustainable agriculture? I'm ready for the
>
> An occasional discussion of the social context of agricultural
> practices can sometimes help some appreciate the deep roots of the
> threats to the viability of ecological agriculture.
>
> But I will also withdraw from pursuing this thread further.
>
> On the idea that farmers should think more like businesses and CEOs:
> It seems that this is precisely the cause of the major shift towards
> ecologically-unsustainable practices.
>
> I act as informal adviser to an organized farmers' group in the
> Philippines. Some plant rice, others vegetables; some maintain fruit
> orchards. I'd like to share some of their comments about maintaining
> ecologically-sustainable practices:
>
> - They have very little bargaining power because they are poor. Their
> family will go hungry if they don't sell their crop soon after
> harvest.
> - Their product is perishable (rice will last for many months, but
> fruits and vegetables are), which worsens their bargaining power.
>
> They are currently discussing whether it is better to plant most of
> the food crops they consume themselves (rice + vegetables) or heed the
> government call to plant cash/export crops. The emerging consensus
> seems to be to plant enough food crops (and enough variety) for their
> own consumption, so their families won't go hungry if they are unable
> to sell their surplus. This improves their bargaining power. At the
> core of this idea is subsistence agriculture (producing for one's own
> consumption). This leads to the idea of diversifying crops (also to
> fishponds, raising chicken, ducks and pigs, etc.) When they have
> secured their family's food -- even if accountant's calculations show
> they will earn more from cash crops -- only then will they focus on
> cash crops. Some of the farmers moved in this direction in the last
> planting season. More will probably do it in the next planting season.
>
> Another idea that emerged is the local processing of perishable goods
> into less perishable ones. Again, this is meant to improve their
> bargaining position, but is so far only a future prospect.
>
> They want to avoid chemical agriculture (big debate: some don't use
> any pesticide or chemical fertilizers at all, but their neighbors do).
> But since all of them have little cash, there is recurring interest in
> avoiding chemicals as much as possible.
>
> The government's position is *very* different. It essentially pushes
> -- even forces -- the farmer to plant export crops. Most govt support
> programs are for export-oriented crops. These programs come in
> technology-packages that include seeds and of course chemicals.
>
> From my own vantage point, the mindset that leads to
> ecologically-sustainable ag practices seems to be risk-minimization.
> This is quite different from the business/CEO/corporate mindset, which
> is growth/gain-maximization. Risk-minimization leads to
> subsistence-oriented ag as the stable base for more diversified ag
> operations. Food that a farmer raised for his/her family's consumption
> will probably contain less poisons and be healthier than food raised
> for the anonymous market.
>
> Regards to all,
>
> Roberto Verzola
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
> To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
> "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
>
> All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
> http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
>

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail