Three Legs
Charles Benbrook (benbrook@hillnet.com)
Thu, 9 Feb 1995 09:33:56 -0800 (PST)
Ever since I heard John Ikerd speak of sus. ag. as a three legged stool,
maybe 6 or 7 years ago, I have enjoyed his further reflections on the
nature of sustainability. While I am well aware of ongoing disagreement
and tensions surrounding the definition, my sense is that for all intents
and purposes the public debate has been over re definition for at least a
few years. The debate now is about whether and to what extent current ag
systems/policies/consevration practices etc are, or may prove not to be
sustainable, and what, if anything should be done to increase chances
that such systems etc are sustainable. This is a different debate and
one which will never end.
I agree there must be three legs to the sus ag stool, but I do
not share John's belief that social acceptability is of the same order,
or same improtance even, as resource and biological aspects of
sustainability. Here is why. People change laws and markets, social and
cultural institutions evolve, and in many cases, change is dramatic and
rapid. So what might appear today a socially acceptable (unacceptable)
practice or outcome of a farming enterprise might tomorrow not be, and
indeed many such changes have occured over history, especially when
people stare hunger in the face.
Resource degradation, loss of biodiversity, etc is not so easily,
and sometimes can never be reversed by collective
political/social/market-place action. And hence if one lets one of those
two legs get cut off at the knees, best get used to a limp.
My personal belief is that soil quality is quickly emerging as
the single most constructive area for the ag and science communities, and
even policy-makers, to focus on. Soil quality is another term people can
argue about forever, some will, but I think 95% of us understand that
soil quality is the caopacity of soil to accept, hold and cyle nutrients,
to take in and hold moisture, and suppress diseases and insects with the
capacity to retard root development and/or normal plant development. I
have seen some definitions where people have added to the notion of
quality thecapacity to do what some one wants soil to do; so, if your
goal was getting off the surface of the earth liquid toxic wastes, a
sandy soil, and or karst region would do just fine. But I think such
nuances need not detract from the substantive agreement that exists re
what a quality soil is capable of doing.
A good test of a definition of soil quality is to ask yourself,
standing at the edge of a hypothetical field, if improvement s were made
in nutrient cycling/water holding capacity/disease suppressiveness (or
whatever attributes you favor in your defintion) would we expect the soil
to support, on average, higher yields at the same level of input use, or
stable yields with lower inputs. Whatever inherent traits of soil that
contributes to these goals are worth paying attention to.
Of course I am assuming that the quality of a soil is measured
against its capacity to support plant growth, or more basically, the
conversion of solar energy to plant material. If I have offended anyone
in this assumption, I apologize in advance.
By the way, the above definition of soil quality emerged in my
head during a period when I was talking a lot with Fred Blackmere and
reading Aldo Leopold. They both share the same notion, I believe.
Is anyone activiely working on getting soil quality built into
provisions of the 1995 farm bill? I am, as is the American Farmland
Trust, some folks in NRCS, and no doubt many others. I would welcome
exchange of ideas/intelligence re where the Congress is going, although I
now I may be stretching things a bit with the use of the term
intelligence in the same sentence as Congress. Oh well, it is a new day
here in D.C. and perhaps things will work out better than it now seems
possible.
Chuck Benbrook. New e-mail address: benbrook@hillnet.com