Subject: Re: indicators of sustainability?

From: [email-masked] (Bob Breivogel)
Date: 30 Jan 1995 15:19:39 -0800

[email-masked] (James Glass) writes:
>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Zbynek Ulcak)
>writes:

>>Keywords: sustainability, sustainable agriculture

>>Can anyone help help with the indicators of sustainability of agricultural
>>systems - indicators of environmental quality, productivity, and
>>socioeconomic viability?
>>Any ideas, suggestions, refferences would be greatly appreciated.

>>Zbynek Ulcak                 [email-masked]
>>Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry Brno
>>Department of Landscape Ecology
>>Zemedelska 1
>>613 oo Brno, Czech Republic

>Sure: The more expensive, impractical, and unpopular a "system" is, the
>more "sustainable".  The goal here is not really to "sustain" anything;
>in fact, quite the opposite.  If the eco-nuts could persuade farmers to
>begin tilling the soil by hand, using spoons instead of farm machinery,
>then THAT would become the "sustainable agriculture" of choice.

>Always glad to help out.

>Jim Glass

You're no help at all! I guess this is happens when everything is viewed
>from  an ideological perspective.

In the case of farming, I think that sustainable *means * that the land will
maintain its output, given *present* level of inputs, indefinitely. This means
that Having to add ever increasing level of fertizers amd pesticides to stay
where we are is nonsustainable. Organic farmers have shown that soil quality
improves when chemical agriculture is replaced with "organic" methods. One
does trade off greater labor costs (organic) for chemical/fuel costs (non
organic), but labor is inherently "sustainable" (available indefinitely,
as long as people exist), while chemicals are not.

Bob Breivogel
Aloha, OR