Steve Groff wrote:
> Bluestem Associates wrote:
>
> > Please don't make the assumption that an "organic" farm is by nature
> > diverse. It is a common error to believe that organic farming is the
> > pinnacle of sustainability. "It ain't necessarily so..." A
> > *well-designed* organic farm is diverse, but most organic farms are not
> > well designed, and unfortunately too many organic certification
> > programs look the other way. There are certified organic farms (note
> > the plural) that produce absolutely nothing but wheat.
>
> Bart Hall,
> Thanks for your insightful comments regarding organic farming as, "not the
> pinnacle of sustainablilty". The myth that organic agriculture is
> synonymous with sustainablity needs to be addressed.
> I wholeheartedly agree with your closing statement, "Sustainability is
> built one farm at a time".
>
> Steve Groff
>
> >
> >
> > I inspect organic farms for a living, and have inspected something in
> > excess of 600,000 acres in the last seven years. The majority of the
> > farms I have inspected are probably not sustainable (almost certianly
> > not agronomically sustainable, and probably not financially
> > sustainable). I have worked with some absolutely inspiring organic
> > farms, but a lot of them--especially cash croppers--are quite
> > disappointing.
> >
> > This isn't going to sit well with the advocates of the 'poor, noble,
> > oppressed farmer' school of thought, but far too many farmers coming
> > over to organics are just plain lousy farmers in the first place, and
> > think that the premiums will save their farm. They have cut back
> > chemicals in an effort to save money, and they compare $16 organic
> > specialty beans with $5 conventional dark-hilum beans and get on the
> > phone to the certification program. If they have land coming out of
> > CRP, so much the better. Then they ship a weedy crop with dirty seed
> > coats and 15% splits, yet blame the buyer when they get docked for
> > their own mis-handling of the crop.
> >
> > >Furthermore, under conditions of competition (instead of cooperation),
> > >a farm ran "more like a business" would be tend to externalize more
> > >and more of its costs to remain competitive.
> >
> > A good business doesn't *externalize* its costs to become competitive,
> > it finds creative ways to ELIMINATE them. For example, when I was
> > producing organic vegetables on a commercial scale (organically), the
> > costs for keeping things weeded were substantial, and the revenue from
> > those vegetables was several months down the road.
> >
> > First task, reduce the expense --- we cut it by over 70% by including
> > forages in the rotation, abandoning early crops (more time for
> > mechanical control in the spring), by bringing cattle into the system,
> > and by standardizing our row system so that an $800 tool could take
> > care of most early-season weeding.
> >
> > Second task, make sure we didn't have to pay interest on the money for
> > the expenses we still did have --- so the end of July every year I
> > would sell some of the cows. Cow prices are always good (relatively) in
> > late July because people eat a lot of hamburgers, and most hamburgers
> > are out on pasture until fall. I knew in advance how many I had to
> > sell, and found reasons to cull that many.
> >
> > Come fall, when the vegetable money was in and cattle are cheap, I
> > bought at least the same number of cows, and always of better quality
> > than those I had sold. We weren't afraid to grade the vegetables
> > tightly (good for marketing) because they were excellent feed for
> > cattle. Vegetables improved the cattle (culling and better nutrition)
> > and the cattle improved the vegetables (better weeding, good compost,
> > and well-timed cash flow).
> >
> > And if you aren't asking it, you should be, so I'll tell you .... this
> > guy isn't in the vegetable business right now because the only land he
> > could afford in the 1970s was too stoney for really good vegetable
> > production, and after three bad weather years in the late 80s I got out
> > whille I still had some equity. I'm still looking for the right land --
> > at a price that will cash flow even when organic premiums are slim.
> >
> > >Because they are so economically and politically powerful, the big
> > >corporations can externalize their costs more easily and thus appear
> > >"more economically viable."
> >
> > I guess that's why Premium Standard is in and out of bankruptcy, in
> > spite of abundant government assistance ??
> >
> > >Under a context of a competitive market system therefore, the stacks
> > >are heavily loaded against the organic/ecological farmer, who will
> > >tend to appear more economically inefficient and unsustainable than
> > >the chemical/industrial farmer.
> >
> > You folks that are discussing entire economic systems ... just don't
> > get it. Sustainability happens *one farm at a time.* Research in Iowa
> > has shown that continuous alfalfa has a higher *net* return per acre
> > than any other rotation. Number 2 isn't even close. Alfalfa is
> > agronomically and economically more sustainable than #2 yellow corn.
> > There are Iowa farms (both conventional and organic) that have included
> > a lot of alfalfa -- they're doing well. There are plenty of others
> > (both conventional and organic) that have not, and many of those are
> > struggling because their land system is hurting. Same climate. Same
> > economic system. You can't blame either the climate or the economic
> > system for those that are having trouble.
> >
> > I wish I had $100 for every organic farm that has bought equipment
> > and/or land assuming that $16 beans are going to last forever. For
> > every dairy farmer (organic or otherwise) that bought a new pick-up
> > based on $16 milk. For every cash cropper that bought more land based
> > on $4 corn and $8 beans. These are all *individual* decisions, and are
> > generally quite poor allocations of scarce capital.
> >
> > As long as we persist in confusing association and *causality* in
> > regard to free markets---assuming that because failing farms are
> > associated with free markets they are *caused* by them---we will not be
> > particularly useful to anyone. What we need to do is make sound (read
> > sustainably oriented) agronomic and economic advice available to those
> > *individual* farmers who want it. I'll repeat what I said in an
> > earlier post --- the *well-managed* medium sized family farm (organic
> > or conventional) can be an extremely successful competitor in the free
> > market --- we need to develop and share tools for improving those
> > management skills. Sustainability is built one farm at a time.
> >
> > Bart Hall
> > Lawrence, Kansas
> >
> > 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
>
> --
> "New Generation Cropping Systems": the cutting edge of sustainable
> agriculture
> http://www.cedarmeadowfarm.com
> Steve Groff
> Cedar Meadow Farm
> 679 Hilldale Rd
> Holtwood PA 17532 USA
> Ph. 717-284-5152
>
> 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