Saturday, May 20, 2000 Bart Hall presented a significant conclusion:
BH> I'm convinced (after 30 years of working on the agronomic side
BH> of things) that the real sustainability challenges for the next
BH> generation (or two) are not agronomic --- they're human and
BH> conceptual --- and my reading of history makes it very clear
BH> that if we don't figure it out at least half-way, our polity,
BH> culture, and civilisation are most decidedly threatened.
BH> This is why I keep saying that 'organic' doesn't have the
BH> answers for sustainability. At its best, organic is addressing
BH> agronomy and local ecosystems, which are two minor pieces of the
BH> sustainability equation, but 'organic' is not even nibbling at a
BH> majority of the stuff that really matters over the long term.
BH> We've got a lot of serious work and thinking to do, and it's an
BH> unfortunate waste of energy and intellect to squabble over
BH> low-leverage details.
I suspect (assume) we would agree that "organic" is a minor part of
the "big picture" (the fundamental issues that need to be addressed
in order for sustainability &/or civilization to persevere); and
that "organic" is never-the-less the most visible embodiment of an
existing, alternative agricultural production & value system,
although it falls short.
I would agree that the points both you and RV mention focus on
are critical to those issues and that require concrete solutions are
necessary. I also find it hard to avoid accomplishing the overall
goal without the piecemeal approach supplied by numerous of
interested parties, while those with a more global, policy oriented
vision help direct and coordinate the whole and hopefully, keep the
ball rolling in the right direction and on time (on time is before
it's too late).
As for how can we know what's sustainable in advance (without
letting long periods of time pass first: When ones understanding is
comprehensive and concepts are accurate, one can safely arrive at
conclusions that can be considered legitimate. However, any logical
system (including the scientific method) depends at bottom on a set
of givens (i.e. assumptions) which must be taken on faith. (This is
where science, morality and religion converge).
The important thing is to keep working, as the unknown continues to
become better illuminated (in spite of so much false information
currently being circulated by Paladins whose interest, like that of
those that hired them, is strictly mercenary). Meanwhile , folks
will have to do the best they conscientiously can, with help from
folks with valuable experience and insights such as yourself.
(Examples follow).
Douglas
BH> Two changes in farm accounting procedures would make a big
BH> difference in management, right away.
BH> Firstly, each major aspect of the operation should be accounted
BH> as its own enterprise. As an absolute minimum, land ownership,
BH> machinery ownership, crop production, and livestock should be
BH> run as free-standing businesses....
BH> Secondly, farmers need to be taught to use the EBITDA type
BH> accounting increasingly prevalent in real businesses. That's
BH> Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortisation.
BH> This approach would be tremendously helpful in evaluating the
BH> enterprise-by-enterprise profitability of any farm undertaking a
BH> massive ecological restoration, a significant expansion, etc.
BH> One of the valuable aspects of this accounting approach is that
BH> (as above) it isolates financial components, making it
BH> substantially easier to determine where profit is being
BH> generated, and where it is being destroyed.
BH> I suspect it could also facilitate a clearer elaboration of just
BH> where true costs are being externalised --- and where they are
BH> being *internalised* --- which is the beginning of a much more
BH> realistic system of comparison. Misha's new outfit ought to be
BH> able to do something along these lines, I should think.
BH> Finally, we need to develop some sense of the "capital value"
BH> not only of things like soil organic matter, but system
BH> resiliency as well. Manufacturing and merchandising businesses
BH> usually have an accounting category for "good will" (basically,
BH> the difference between the book value of the company and its
BH> market value). To some degree, and for some time, "good will"
BH> allows a company to get away with a limited number of gaffes in
BH> the market place. In that regard it is somewhat similar to this
BH> factor of "resiliency," which allows a farm to buffer not only
BH> its inevitable gaffes, but climate and market shifts as well....
BH> This thing is a *lot* more complicated than planting cover crops
BH> or avoiding chemicals.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
BH> I suspect the challenge is far deeper than the medium-scale
BH> details discussed below. At the core of the problem, we don't
BH> know/can't agree on any of the following three:
BH> a) *What* we are trying to sustain
BH> b) For *whom* it is to be sustained
BH> c) How *long* must it stably persist to be considered
BH> "sustainable"
BH> That said, it would seem difficult to describe *any* system as
BH> sustainable based on what they are doing *now.* We simply don't
BH> know if it will last, or even work for more than the next ten
BH> years. In 1989, a Chinese historian, asked to comment on the
BH> impact of the French revolution of 1789, said "It is too soon to
BH> tell." As one very simple example, virtually every economic
BH> activity in the developed world today is mentally predicated
BH> upon a substrate of inflation (and inflationary expectations).
BH> Even a half-way attentive reading of economic history, however,
BH> makes it quite clear that there is an ongoing wave of inflation
BH> / deflation --- with an average peak-to-peak period of 235 +/-
BH> 50 years for the last 25 centuries or so. There are excellent
BH> (but temporally limited) data demonstrating the same phenomenon
BH> in the Babylon of nearly 4000 years ago. For an approach to be
BH> sustainable, therefore, it appears it would have to persist
BH> successfully through at least a full inflation / deflation wave,
BH> and could only be described as sustainable ... in restrospect.
BH> We must, therefore, content ourselves with reasonable guesses.
BH> We must assume we're wrong. We need to build in a sensitive
BH> monitor to confirm whether or not we are on the right track (or
BH> the wrong one). And we ought to have a repertoire of alternate
BH> approaches to implement in response to emerging shifts.
BH> For example, such a monitor would need to evaluate *accurately*
BH> (not necessarily precisely) how a farm is responding to a shift
BH> in regional climate (say towards drier and cooler seasons) as
BH> well as how the farm is responding to a shift in economic
BH> climate (say to the high rates of *real* interest that
BH> characterise the early phases of a transition from inflation to
BH> deflation --- 'real' interest being the nominal interest rate
BH> minus the inflation rate).
BH> To have a reasonably good chance of persisting, a farm must be
BH> able to respond *ahead* of the main shift(s), respond to
BH> *multiple* simultaneous* shifts, and respond in a manner that
BH> does not jeopardise the system if the shift doesn't become
BH> entrenched, or even returns (if only temporarily) to previous
BH> conditions. Using the example above, the farm could be prepared
BH> to switch from beef (which prefer warmer, moister climates) to
BH> sheep (prefer cooler, drier climates). Simultaneously, the
BH> operators would need to be *de-financing* (getting out of debt)
BH> as rapidly as possible (selling land, renting it back; unloading
BH> machinery; whatever it takes ...).
BH> Pulling off a shift in emphasis while simultaneously effecting
BH> drastic debt reduction is not something a lot of folks can pull
BH> off. Yet that is precisely the type of approach that will
BH> ultimately determine which operations are actually sustainable.
BH> Only a part of this equation is agronomic.
BH> A big part is understanding that the farm/economic/biological
BH> system is one of DYNAMIC complexity. We have collectively tended
BH> to study these things to death from a perspective of DETAIL
BH> complexity. So a beef farmer might end up focusing on the
BH> details of increasing average daily gain by 0.1 lb/head --- and
BH> go farther into debt to do so (!) --- at the very time that
BH> effort would be vastly better applied in figuring out how to
BH> allow for a shift to sheep while getting *out* of debt. In this
BH> detail-focused approach, unfortunately (s)he is enthusiastically
BH> encouraged by universities, extension, product suppliers, and
BH> bankers.
SD>> Anyone who is sustainable has to be economically viable, Right?
SD>> Do organic farmers not need to make money to survive?
RV>> There are farms which are moving towards ecological
RV>> sustainability (which is what I perceive to be the
RV>> pinnacle/ideal of organic farming)
RV>> but they are not economically viable (and therefore outside
RV>> your sustainability circle) for at least three reasons:
RV>> [paraphrasing] ... ecological damage, institutional bias,
RV>> (usually) only money is used as a measure
BH> Two changes in farm accounting procedures would make a big
BH> difference in management, right away.
BH> Firstly, each major aspect of the operation should be accounted
BH> as its own enterprise. As an absolute minimum, land ownership,
BH> machinery ownership, crop production, and livestock should be
BH> run as free-standing businesses. Most farmers are losing their
BH> backsides on machinery ownership (for example) and don't even
BH> realise it. Most livestock producers would be ahead of the game
BH> to concentrate on producing their own protein *well,* and buying
BH> starch (which is cheap --- read #2 Yellow Corn). Money-losing
BH> parts of the operation need to be tightened up or dropped.
BH> Secondly, farmers need to be taught to use the EBITDA type
BH> accounting increasingly prevalent in real businesses. That's
BH> Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortisation.
BH> This approach would be tremendously helpful in evaluating the
BH> enterprise-by-enterprise profitability of any farm undertaking a
BH> massive ecological restoration, a significant expansion, etc.
BH> One of the valuable aspects of this accounting approach is that
BH> (as above) it isolates financial components, making it
BH> substantially easier to determine where profit is being
BH> generated, and where it is being destroyed.
BH> I suspect it could also facilitate a clearer elaboration of just
BH> where true costs are being externalised --- and where they are
BH> being *internalised* --- which is the beginning of a much more
BH> realistic system of comparison. Misha's new outfit ought to be
BH> able to do something along these lines, I should think.
BH> Finally, we need to develop some sense of the "capital value"
BH> not only of things like soil organic matter, but system
BH> resiliency as well. Manufacturing and merchandising businesses
BH> usually have an accounting category for "good will" (basically,
BH> the difference between the book value of the company and its
BH> market value). To some degree, and for some time, "good will"
BH> allows a company to get away with a limited number of gaffes in
BH> the market place. In that regard it is somewhat similar to this
BH> factor of "resiliency," which allows a farm to buffer not only
BH> its inevitable gaffes, but climate and market shifts as well.
BH> In all this, however, I have to wonder whether or not the
BH> typical farmer can ever really have a chance. I know too many
BH> farmers who figure out whether or not they made a profit in a
BH> particular year ... at the time they do their taxes the
BH> following April. I'm just not convinced (based on sitting around
BH> a lot of kitchen tables) that folks like this can learn what
BH> they need to learn ... fast enough to survive.
BH> And right now, I'm also not particularly optimistic about what
BH> kinds of hands their land will end up in as they fail/quit/die
BH> one by one. This thing is a *lot* more complicated than planting
BH> cover crops or avoiding chemicals.
BH> I'm convinced (after 30 years of working on the agronomic side
BH> of things) that the real sustainability challenges for the next
BH> generation (or two) are not agronomic --- they're human and
BH> conceptual --- and my reading of history makes it very clear
BH> that if we don't figure it out at least half-way, our polity,
BH> culture, and civilisation are most decidedly threatened.
BH> This is why I keep saying that 'organic' doesn't have the
BH> answers for sustainability. At its best, organic is addressing
BH> agronomy and local ecosystems, which are two minor pieces of the
BH> sustainability equation, but 'organic' is not even nibbling at a
BH> majority of the stuff that really matters over the long term.
BH> We've got a lot of serious work and thinking to do, and it's an
BH> unfortunate waste of energy and intellect to squabble over
BH> low-leverage details.
BH> Bart Hall
BH> Lawrence, Kansas
Douglas Hinds, Dir. Gral. - CeDeCoR, A.C.
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
(Center for Rural and Community Development,
a Mexican non-profit organization)
Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco; Loma Bonita, Oaxaca
& Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico
Mail: Apdo. Postal No. 171
Fortin de las Flores, Veracruz
94471 Mexico
Tel: 011 522 713 2888 (Direct at present)
U.S. Fax Mailbox (email linked) 630 300 0555
dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net,
dhinds@prodigy.net.mx
No soy una monedita de oro, para caerle bien a todos
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:36 EDT