Fri 18 Dec 92 15:17 Re: Sustainable Ag Definition Conference: SUST_AG (Sustainable Agriculture, FidoNet) The term sustainable agriculture may have several definitions these days but the one most adhering to the principles I and many others espouse surrounds these concepts: : 1) A natural and wholistic system using low-input, regenerative methods : working toward the creation of biological diversity and a permanent : agriculture. : 2) Ecologically sound, socially just and economically viable. : 3) Encourages sustainability of animals as well as humans. : 4) Encourages awareness of the need for stewardship of the land. : 5) Promotes maximum use of on-farm resources. london@sunsite.unc.edu lawrence.london@f502.n151.z1.fidonet.org - Mon, 30 Nov 92 09:16 CST - Charlie Griffin - Definition of Sustainable Ag I have been asked by a government agency to help them think through their response to "sustainable agriculture", to inventory their existing responses, and to consider other actions they should initiate. The obvious first step is to come up with a working definition of sustainable ag. Could you help with this by offering some brief, concise definitions that might lend themselves to my involvement? I hope this is enough background. This will, I suspect, simply open the door to a much more detailed conversation. I appreciate any responses. cgriffin@ksuvm.ksu.edu - Alt.sustainable.agriculture: - Interdisciplinary help needed ! - 2 Dec 92 13:57:33 GMT - University of Turku, Finland Does anyone know if there has been serious attempts to define the term "Sustainable Agriculture". I know that there is plenty of definitions to that term but they are not what I am looking for. The current definitions are so much dependent of the the point of view. So the definitions vary according the describers+ branch of science (economical, social or ecological). I will try to integrate these different point of views. I think it is very important because now we don+t have a common language when we talk about Sustainable Agriculture. Or how can we talk about profits, soil erosion and cultural values without knowing how do these seemly different subjects are linked to each other. If you know (or have any kind of clue about) someone who is working or might know something about this subject would you kindly pass this message to him/her. I really need help because this work demands knowledge from so many different scienes. I hope I can get in contact with people who are interested in this topic. Sincerely, Esa Heinonen from Finland - Alt.sustainable.agriculture: - Mike E. Romano - Interdisciplinary help needed ! - 3 Dec 1992 11:50:06 GMT Here are the titles of two recent papers on the subject of a comprehensive definition of Sustainable Agriculture: "Expanding the Definition of Sustainable Agriculture" "What Do We Want To Sustain: Developing a Comprehensive Vision of Sustainable Agriculture" ----Both can be obtained free (postage for out of US mailing may be required) from: University of California at Santa Cruz Agroecology Program Santa Cruz, California 95064 - Alt.sustainable.agriculture: - Paul Cass (casspa@jacobs.cs.orst.edu) - Principles for sustaining the Earth - 3 Dec 92 18:39:23 GMT Principles for Understanding and Sustaining the Earth From the inside cover of "Resource Conservation and Management" by G.Tyler Miller Jr. ---Resources, Pollution and Environmental Degradation * Resources are limited and must not be wasted; there is not always more (principle of limits). * Most wastes and pollution are either resources we are too dumb to use or are so dangerous they shouldn't have been produced (no- waste-in-nature principle). * To reduce pollution and resource use and waste, recycle or reuse mineral resources (principle of recycling and reuse). * Recycling mineral resources takes energy, which in being produced and used causes pollution and environmental degradation (recycling-is-not-the-ultimate-answer principle). * To reduce resource waste and resource supply interruptions, get as much as possible of what we need locally, and dispose of or recycle wastes locally (principle of localism). * To reduce pollution and resource use and waste, use resources primarily to meet vital needs and use these resources as efficiently as possible (principle of moderation). * Stress the use of perpetual and renewable resources, and use renewable resources no faster than they're replenished by natural processes (principle of sustainable yield). * Try to get resources from many sources, don't put all your eggs in one basket (principle of resource diversity). * Everyone is downwind or downstream from everybody (principle of global commons). ---Matter and Energy * We cannot create or destroy matter, we can only change it from one form to another. Everything we think we have thrown away is still here with us in one form or another; there is no away (law of conservation of matter). * Organized and concentrated matter is high-quality matter that can usually be extracted, processed, and converted into useful resources at an affordable cost; disorganized and dispersed matter is low-quality matter that often costs too much to convert to a useful resource (principle of matter quality). * Don't dilute, disperse, or mix matter products or wastes that can be recycled (principle of affordable recycling). * We cannot create or destroy energy, we can only change it from one form to another. We can't get energy for nothing; it takes energy to get energy (first law of energy, or law of conservation of energy) * Organized or concentrated energy is high-quality energy that can be used to do things; disorganized or dilute energy is low- quality energy that is not very useful (principle of energy quality). * In any conversion of energy from on form to another, high- quality, useful energy is always degraded to lower-quality, less useful energy that can't be recycled to give high-quality energy; we can't break even in terms of energy quality (second law of energy, or law of energy-quality degradation). * Everything runs on moderate- to high-quality energy that can't be recycled, so choose and use energy resources wisely (principle of energy use and flow). * Don't use high-quality energy to do something that can be done with lower-quality energy; don't use a chain saw to cut butter or electricity to heat a house or household water (principle of matching energy quality to energy tasks). ---Ecology * No effects are side effects; effects are effects (principle of internalization). * Everything is connected to and intermingled with everything else; we are all in it together (second law of ecology, or principle of interrelatedness). * The earth's life-support systems can take a lot of stress and abuse, but there are limits (law of limits). * Each species and each individual organism can tolerate only a certain range of environmental conditions (range-of-tolerance principle). * Everything has an optimum size; bigger isn't always better, and smaller isn't always better (principle of optimum size). * No population can keep growing indefinitely (principle of carrying capacity). * Nature is not only more complex than we think but more complex than we can ever think (principle of complexity). ---Economics * The market price of anything should include all present and future costs of any pollution, environmental degradation, or other harmful effects passed on to society and the environment (principle of internalizing all external costs). * Try to get more output of goods and services from less resource input; do more with less (principle of increasing efficiency and productivity). * Some forms of economic growth are harmful; don't produce harmful goods (principle of economic cancer). * Don't waste resources trying to produce harmful goods more efficiently (principle of wasteful efficiency). * Short-term greed leads to long-term economic and environmental grief; don't deplete capital and mortgage the future (no-free- lunch principle). * The more things you own, the more you are owned by things (principle of overconsumption and thing tyranny). * Don't give people subsidies and tax breaks to produce harmful goods and unnecessarily waste resources; either eliminate all resource subsidies or reward only producers who reduce resource waste, pollution and environmental degradation (principle of economic and ecological wisdom). * We cannot have a healthy economy in a sick environment (economics-as-if-the-earth-mattered principle). ---Politics * Human population growth ultimately makes democracy and individualism impossible (principle of freedom erosion). * Anticipating and preventing problems is cheaper and more effective than reacting to and trying to cure them; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (prevention or input control principle). * Every crisis is an opportunity for change (bad-news-can-be- good-news principle). * Think globally, act locally (principle of change). * Don't ever call yourself a conservative unless what you want to conserve is the earth (principle of true conservatism). ---Worldview and Ethics * We are part of nature (principle of oneness). * We are a valuable species, but we are not superior to other species; all living beings, human and nonhuman, have the same inherent worth (principle of humility). * Every living thing has a right to live, or at least to struggle to live, simply because it exists; this right is not dependent on its actual or potential use to us (respect-for-nature principle). * Our role is to understand and work with the rest of nature, not conquer it (principle of cooperation). * The best things in life aren't things (principle of love, caring and joy). * Something is right when it tends to maintain the earth's life- support systems for us and other species and wrong when it tends otherwise; the bottom line is that the earth is the bottom line (principle of sustainability and ecocentrism). * It is wrong for humans to cause the premature extinction of any wild species and the elimination and degradation of their habitats (preservation of wildlife and biodiversity principle). * It is wrong to treat people and other living things primarily as factors of production, whose value is expressed only in economic terms (economics-is-not-everything principle). * We have a right to protect ourselves against harmful and dangerous organisms but only when we cannot avoid being exposed to such organisms or safely escape from the situation; in protecting ourselves we should do the least possible harm to such organisms (principle of self-defense). * We have a right to kill other organisms to provide enough food for our survival and good health and to meet other basic survival and health needs, but we do not have such rights to meet nonbasic or frivolous wants (principle of survival). * When we alter nature to meet what we consider to be basic or nonbasic needs, we should choose the method that does the least possible harm to other living things; in minimizing harm it is in general worse to harm a species than an individual organism, and still worse to harm a biotic community (principle of minimum wrong). * We must leave the earth in as good a shape as we found it, if not better (rights-of-the-unborn principle). * All people must be held responsible for their own pollution and environmental degradation (responsibility-of-the-born principle). * People are entitled to a fair share of the world's resources as long as they are assuming their responsibility for sustaining the earth (principle of equity). * No individual, corporation, or nation has a right to an ever- increasing share of the earth's finite resources; don't let need slide into greed (principle of enoughness). * In protecting and sustaining nature, go further than the law requires (ethics-often-exceeds-legality principle). * To prevent excessive deaths of people and other species, people must prevent excessive births (birth-control-is-better-than-death- control principle). * Everything we are and have or will have ultimately comes from the sun and the earth, the earth can get along without us, but we can't get along without the earth; an exhausted earth is an exhausted economy (respect-your-roots or earth first principle). * Don't do anything that depletes the earth's physical, chemical and biological capital that supports all life and human economic activities; the earth deficit is the ultimate deficit (balanced- earth budget principle). * Love thy species and other species today and in the future as thyself (principle of species love and protection). * To love, cherish and understand the earth and yourself, take time to experience and sense the air, water, soil, plants, animals, bacteria, and other parts of the earth directly; learning about the earth indirectly from books, TV images, and ideas is not enough (direct-experience-is-the-best-teacher principle). * Learn about and love your local environment and live gently within that place; walk lightly on the earth (love-your-neighborhood principle). - Alt.sustainable.agriculture: - Some scope for sustainability issues - Fri, 18 Dec 92 11:12:01 GMT The following material is an extract from the Introduction to: Lefroy T. and Hobbs R. Ecological Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture Australian Journal of Soil & Water Conservation Vol. 5, No. 4, November 1992 Achieving sustainability in agriculture involves simultaneously satisfying ecological, economic and social requirements. It is possible to define the required economic and social conditions relatively easily in terms of the viability of the individual farm businesses, the viability of the regional economy, and the support of rural populations. The ecological conditions that need to be met are more difficult to define and this remains a major obstacle to the development of sustainable agricultural systems. ................ One of the big stumbling blocks in the definition of sustainability is that of scale. The term sustainability is meaningless unless spatial and temporal scales are defined. This is because different constraints tend to dominate at different scales. * At the scale of the individual field, where most agricultural research and extension has been directed up to now, the dominant constraints are agronomic and the dominant goal is the productivity of crops and pastures over several seasons. * At the farm level, the dominant constraints are economic and the overriding goal is the survival of the farm business over a time scale often expressed in units of several generations of the farm family. * At the landscape level, the dominant constraints are ecological and the goal is maintenance of the life-supporting capacity of the catchment or landscape unit over a time scale considerably longer than units of several human generations. * At the regional or national level, the dominant constraints are macroeconomic, the goals a mix of domestic food supply, generation of export income and support of a rural population, while the time scale is determined by the planning horizons of politics and economics. .............. The various aspects of sustainability (ecological, social and economic) must be determined at their appropriate level. In the cases of the four processes mentioned above, they operate at scales vastly different from the human scale and do not recognise imposed economic, social or political boundaries. Gil Hardwick gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au Fidonet: 3:690/660.6 PERTH, Western Australia Voice: (+61 9) 399 2401 --- * Origin: EARTH*Net - Host:SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE Echo (1:151/502) : Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:49 EET From: ESAHEI@sara.cc.utu.fi Subject: Interdisciplinary help needed To: sanet-mg@oes.orst.edu My name is Esa Heinonen and I am working as an researcher in the University of Helsinki. I am working now in a project where I among other things try, and really want to create a comprehensive definition to the term "Sustainable Agriculture". And at the same time I am creating a method to estimate the sustainability of different agricultural producing systems. My question is that do you know if there has been serious attempts to define the term "Sustainable Agriculture" comprehensively. I know that there is plenty of definitions to that term but they are not what I am looking for because the current definitions are so much dependent of the point of view. So the definitions vary according the describers+ branch of science (economical, social or ecological). I will try to integrate these different point of views. I think it is very important because now we don+t have a common language when we talk about Sustainable Agriculture. Or how can we talk about profits, soil erosion and cultural values without knowing how do these seemly different subjects are linked to each other. If you know (or have any kind of clue about) someone who is working or might know something about this subject would you kindly pass this message to him/her. I really need help because this work demands knowledge from so many different scienes. I hope I can get in contact with people who are interested in this topic. I have been creating an Idex of Agricultural Sustainability and I would like to get criticism about it. If you are interested and want to give comments about it just give me a little note about you and your e-mail address so I can send it to you. Sincerely, Esa Heinonen from Finland : APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR RURAL AREAS, P.O. Box 3657, Fayetteville, AR 72702; 1-800-346-9140 ATTRA Summary: Sustainable Agriculture Concepts and Farm Applications The term "sustainable agriculture" was introduced in the early 1980's and has since gained wide recognition. It is used to convey the concept of a system of agriculture that is ecologically, economically, and socially viable, in the short as well as long term. Rather than standing for a specific set of farming practices, a sustainable agriculture represents the end-goal of developing a food production system that: - yields plentiful, affordable, high-quality food and other agricultural products - does not deplete or damage natural resources (such as soil, water, wildlife, fossil fuels, or the germ-plasm base) - promotes the health of the environment - provides a good livelihood for farmers - supports a broad base and diversity of farms and the health of rural communities - depends on energy from the sun and on natural biological process for fertility and pest management - can last indefinitely Many different views exist about what a sustainable agriculture is as well as about how to achieve it. Of the many definitions proposed for sustainable agriculture, most address the kinds of qualities mentioned above. However, a variety of terms have emerged in addition to "sustainable" to refer to the concept, or to aspects, of sustainability in agriculture. The most popular of these have been: "alternative," "low-input," "regenerative," and "organic." Examples of other terms for approaches toward or concepts of sustainability are: "natural," "biodynamic," "eco- or ecological," "biologically-sound," and "permaculture." These terms, and others in use, represent different specific philosophies and techniques in sustainable agriculture to different audiences. In addition, some may be found used interchangeably to mean the concept of "a sustainable agriculture" as the type of overall end-goal described above. Typical Farm Applications On the farm, concepts of what sustainable agriculture is can serve as guiding principles for making choices about how to design farming systems as well as about what farming practices to use. Because understandings of what is sustainable may vary, or will change, so will the types of farming systems created from an application of sustainable principles. However, there are features which tend to be typical of farming systems designed with sustainability as a goal. For example, crop fertility is generally handled in these systems by developing management alternatives to applications of synthetic petroleum-based fertilizers. Practices which protect and improve soils; conserve, cycle, and improve the availability of crop nutrients; and reduce nutrient leaching are emphasized, instead. Examples are: - crop rotations - cover cropping - inclusion of nitrogen-fixing legumes - green manuring - composting of crop residues - intercropping and agroforestry - forms of conservation tillage Systems involving livestock feature practices which conserve and effectively allocate nutrients from animal manures, such as: intensive rotational grazing, and systems for manure collection and storage, stabilization by composting or anaerobic digestion, and well-planned application. Methods of pest management in more-sustainably managed farming systems generally aim to reduce or eliminate applications of synthetically derived pesticides and to support beneficial organisms and other natural checks on farm pests. In cropping systems, cultural, physical, and biological methods may be emphasized, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques like pest monitoring may play an important role. Practices may include: - timing of field operations - crop rotations - choosing pest-resistant varieties - site sanitation - mulching - mechanical management - physical barriers - biologically derived pesticides Weeds in pastures may be managed with intensive or mixed-species grazing. More-sustainable livestock systems may also feature methods of housing, feeding, and pest management that avoid disease- and pest-promoting conditions. Overall, management methods for these farms promote greater diversity in biological systems on or related to the farm, such as those involving soil microorganisms and earthworms, or wildlife. They also aim to: emphasize reliance on on-farm resources rather than on external inputs -- including energy; conserve and protect soil and water; keep operating costs low; and increase economic diversity to enhance and stabilize farm income. The features touched on here show how working toward sustainability on the farm is more involved than adopting individual production techniques. It entails developing an integrated, holistic system of crops and management practices. To become sustainable, farming systems need to be designed and operated in cooperation with natural systems. They also need to be tailored to the characteristics and resources specific to each farm. Why a Sustainable Agriculture? A sustainable agriculture is the future standard, or convention, our agriculture is moving toward in order to remain productive and meet changing food needs. Within society, support for developing a sustainable agriculture is founded on some common understandings. For one, there is wide recognition now that our need to ensure a secure food system requires us to have an approach to agriculture that emphasizes a protected environment and resource base. In addition, there is a growing consensus that our agriculture also needs to be the product of a stable, diverse, broad-based, and self-supporting farm economy. Our current conventional form of agriculture -- in place since WWII -- is credited with the production of large quantities of low-priced food. But conventional agriculture's heavy use of fossil fuels, synthetic chemicals, capital-intensive technologies, and large-scale monocultures has generated extensive and problematic environmental, economic, and social costs. Society as a whole now has a better understanding of these costs which, among other impacts, are endangering future agricultural productivity. Making a change to more-sustainable systems can be worthwhile for farmers. As concluded in the National Research Council's 1989 study, "Alternative Agriculture": "Farmers successfully adopting these systems generally derive significant sustained economic and environmental benefits." Adopting a more sustainable approach to farming may for some be a practical response to restrictions on resource-depleting and environmentally harmful agricultural practices and technologies. For others, developing a food system that works cooperatively with nature is the primary goal. Making the Farm More Sustainable Farmers often find that making major changes toward sustainability on the farm can require a transition period of up to several years. The nature and length of the transition period for an individual farm depends on the type and size of farm to start with as well as on the kinds of changes implemented. During the transition, farmers may experience fluctuations in crop yields and farm income as new methods get established and farm systems adjust to any changes made. Purchases of special inputs, such as non-conventional fertilizers, may also be required during the transition. To one degree or another, steps farmers take to make a farm more sustainable involve all aspects of the farm system. Farm labor and management needs are affected, as are farm biological systems; uses for equipment, buildings, and tools; and the roles played by water, minerals, and soil. To make the transition, farmers commonly find they need new kinds of management skills along with increased knowledge about the key elements and interactions in their farm system. Taking steps to diversify production or to rely less on synthetic chemicals for fertility and pest management, for example, may require farmers to: 1) become familiar with new crops; 2) understand and monitor pests more thoroughly; 3) use new types of equipment and practices for planting and harvesting and for fertility and pest management; 4) allocate and schedule labor inputs differently; 5) know more about and work more precisely with farm soil, water, plant, insect, and animal systems and system interactions; and 6) develop new marketing strategies. Changing farming methods may also require farmers to plan for financial and time demands of acquiring new skills, equipment, or materials for implementing desired changes in the farm. Extra finances may also be needed to pay for advice, or to weather temporary income changes during a transition. Changes commonly made: While each farm is unique, certain types of changes are often instituted by farmers working to apply sustainable agricultural principles to their farms. A basic step farmers commonly take is to make changes which increase the levels of biological and economic diversity of the farm. These may include adding new crops or crop varieties, integrating livestock with crop enterprises, or developing additional ways to market farm products. Meeting needs for nitrogen and other crop nutrients and for alternative forms of pest management may be a farmer's most immediate challenge when changing from conventional methods. To start developing on-farm fertility, farmers often initiate general soil-maintenance practices such as: crop rotations, cover cropping, and conservation tillage. Specific practices farmers may adopt to improve soils and supply crop nutrients, especially nitrogen, are: 1) including nitrogen-fixing legumes in rotation with non-legume crops; and 2) soil-incorporating legume and other crops as "green manures." Practices often instituted which are well-suited to small or intensively managed enterprises may include the application of composted crop residues or of other organic amendments, and techniques like "foliar feeding." Changes in pest management farmers make generally give a greater role to non-chemical tactics for preventing a start-up of pest problems or for suppressing problem pest populations. Preventive tactics for crops may include choosing pest-free plant starts, or supporting habitat for natural pest enemies. Non-chemical suppression tactics may range from crop rotations or tillage to planned releases of beneficial insects. Alternative chemical tactics may range from reduced- or spot-spray methods to a reliance on botanical and other biologically derived pesticides. Farmers may implement pest monitoring and other IPM techniques for identifying combinations of tactics that carefully target pests and that best meet farmer-goals for an effective, ecologically sound pest management program. Other changes made may include switching to more efficient forms of irrigation or to crop varieties better adapted to local climatic and soil conditions. In livestock systems, farmers may opt to: grow their own feed; institute non-chemical pest management (such as rotating pastures to manage parasites); phase out controversial growth additives; or produce a leaner meat product. Important time factors: Examples of time factors that can be important in making a transition from conventional methods include time needed to: 1) improve compacted soils and raise soil levels of organic matter, earthworms, and microorganisms; 2) improve farm levels of bio-diversity and of natural pest enemies; 3) establish new crops, technologies, and enterprises; 4) learn and become proficient at a new management skills; and 5) stabilize farm income and operating costs. Time factors such as these can be especially critical for farmers choosing to farm organically who are working to meet strict farming and waiting-period requirements involved in being certified to sell products as "organic." Barriers encountered: Lack of adequate knowledge and skills can be a serious barrier to changing from conventional farming practices. New production approaches may also require equipment, materials for fertility or pest management, crop seed or starts, or livestock that are not widely available, or that are expensive. Making investments up front and risking a period of income instability and of managerial trial-and-error can be important barriers for farmers who don't have financial reserves built up. Historically, institutional barriers have presented important limits to farmer-adoption of sustainable methods. These barriers have included: 1) inadequate support for developing and disseminating technical and practical information on alternative farming methods; 2) low investment in supplying alternative technologies, equipment, and materials; 3) farm credit biases; and 4) restrictive product grading and commodity program policies. Support for Sustainable Systems An array of new and long-established farmer and environmental organizations and spokespersons have had a key role in promoting the development of sustainable agricultural systems. Their contributions include significant outreach, research and demonstration, and political efforts. At the federal level, Congress has taken some important steps through '85 and '90 farm bill legislation to support sustainable agriculture, including the creation and funding of the national-scale USDA "LISA" (Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture) Program. The LISA Program, now administered as the "Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education" (SARE) Program, funds innovative research and extension projects aimed at meeting farmers' needs for practical information on sustainable agriculture. With fiscal funding up to $6.72 million in 1991 and also in 1992, the LISA (now SARE) Program has awarded hundreds of state- and regional-level project grants. Funded projects are often designed and management jointly by several kinds of individual or organizational participants, including: farmers; university or private researchers, educators, or extensionists; and public agency staff. To date, thousands of farmers have participated in SARE projects. The non-profit ATTRA ("Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas") national direct-access information service is another product of federal funding initiatives to support sustainable agriculture. ATTRA -- which produced this Summary -- responds to individual questions from farmers and others about sustainable agricultural production and marketing. SARE projects, dozens of farmer organizations such as the Practical Farmers of Iowa, non-profit research organizations such as Rodale Institute, and direct-access information providers like ATTRA or the National Agriculture Library are making available important sustainable agriculture information-transfer and skill-learning opportunities to farmers. These opportunities include: farm tours, farmer field days, and on-farm demonstrations which promote farmer-to-farmer contact; workshops, symposiums, and conferences for information exchange and skills training; projects to conduct on-farm research; and publications and other media. Barriers easing: Coinciding with these efforts, some institutional barriers to farmer adoption of sustainable methods are easing. Representative of this change, for instance, are new commodity program provisions allowing farmers to grow certain cover and alternative crops and use crop rotations on program base acres. Congress is also now requiring a greater focus of USDA research on environmental, rural economic, and resource issues, and of Extension on sustainable agriculture outreach to farmers. Working from a different tack to encourage sustainable farming choices, the beginnings of legislated restrictions targeting certain conventional practices are being enacted at the state level. State-sponsored projects, like California's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP), are also being created to meet in-state needs for sustainable agriculture research and information. At the same time, a number of universities across the country are sponsoring innovative research and degree programs in sustainable agriculture. In the commercial arena, as well, a variety of businesses now distribute products of, supply, and advise farmers who are working to apply sustainable methods. For More Information This publication summarizes information on sustainable agriculture researched and compiled by ATTRA technical staff. Further information on any of the sustainable agriculture concepts, applications, or terms mentioned in this Summary can be obtained by contacting ATTRA. ATTRA also has additional information on organizations working in sustainable agriculture. Call ATTRA toll-free at: 1-800-346-9140. ATTRA Summary: Sustainable Agriculture Concepts and Farm Applications Written by: Holly Winger Editorial and Project Director: Christine Rugen (PageMaker Version Design/Layout: Jim Tracy) December 1991; update: November 1992 A word about ATTRA and NCAT ATTRA is a federally-funded service offering free technical information on sustainable agricultural production and marketing. ATTRA provides tailored responses to individual questions from farmers, agricultural researchers and extensionists, wildlife professionals, and others, and also distributes Information Packages, Summaries, and Resource Lists on a range of general topics in sustainable agriculture. ATTRA is funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior, and managed by the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) -- a non-profit organization incorporated in 1976 to help communities and individuals find sustainable ways to improve their quality of life using skills and resources at hand. The ATTRA staff includes technical specialists in horticulture, agronomy, livestock production, aquaculture, and wildlife management, and information specialists in agricultural information transfer. Their combined training and experience includes advanced degrees in agriculture and years in consulting, research, Cooperative Extension, large-scale farming, organic market gardening, agricultural writing, and orchard and nursery operation. Article 595 of alt.sustainable.agriculture: Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Path: samba!sunSITE!london From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London) Subject: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Message-ID: <1993Feb13.180808.9895@samba.oit.unc.edu> Summary: From a discussion thread in alt.co-evolution. Sender: usenet@samba.oit.unc.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: sunsite.unc.edu Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 18:08:08 GMT Article 172 of alt.co-evolution: From: coverton@sibelius.humgen.upenn.edu (Chris Overton) Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Date: 10 Feb 93 16:56:57 GMT In article jhaskett@well.sf.ca.us (Jonathan David Haskett) writes: I am examining what makes some agricultural systems sustainable and others not so. In this regard I am interested in historical references which deal with certain examples. If this a scientific study, then you had better come up with a precise definition of what it means to be `sustainable' (the cynic in me says there is no such thing as a sustainable agricultural system). If this is merely an historical analysis, then of course feel free to define `sustainable' in whatever way conforms to your current bias. Chris Overton Article 173 of alt.co-evolution: Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett) Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 16:02:15 GMT In a strict thermodynamic sense no agricultural system is sustainable, neither is any energy consuming system. The universe itself tends toward entropy. However, it is possible to assign a scientifically meaningful definition to sustainable agriculture, as simply an agricultural system which under a given set of boundary conditions can produce food indefinitely, relative to a human time scale (thousands rather than millions of years). It is reasonable to assign this scale, since time scales are frequently assigned in many ecosystem studies. Using this criteria it is possible to specific which agricultural systems appear to be sustainable and which do not. For example paddy-rice agriculture in some areas has been practiced for >4000 years and would appear to be sustainable. The irrigation based agriculture of Mesopotamia was apparently not sustainable, since salinization eventually destroyed the productivity of the soil resource base. Systems can also shift from sustainable to unsustainable if certain key features change. For example many slash and burn agricultural systems appear to have persisted for long periods and if correctly practiced appear to have the possibility of persisting indefinitely, however where the periodicity of these systems has accelerated (that is were the interval between burns on a given location has been reduced), these systems have begun to undercut their resource base, and are no longer sustainable. It should be noted that sustainability as an attribute of an agricultural system is not determinant of many other features of the system which may be deemed desirable or detrimental. For example a sustainable agricultural system may be extremely destructive of wildlife habitat and species diversity. Such a system can require large inputs of energy in the form of human labor, and engender a highly inequitable social system. Thus sustainability needs to narrowly defined and evaluated in its own right, leaving the assessment of these other features of an agricultural system to other research efforts. As the application of this definition to these examples indicates, it should be possible to do rigorous research to determine which features of an agricultural system ensure its sustainability and which features undermine that sustainability. Sufficient historical and contemporary data exist for coherent research. Indeed, it is vital for our continued survival, that we be able to assess and ensure the sustainabiltiy of our agricultural system. Thus the scientific and historical studies are linked and probably complementary to each other in an essential way, and there is no particular reason that both facets should not proceed in a rigorous and meaningful way. --------------------------------------------------- * Jonathan Haskett * jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov --------------------------------------------------- Article 174 of alt.co-evolution: Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett) Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1993 16:41:59 GMT This is a follow on post to my previous reply to Chris Overton. >If this a scientific study, then you had better come up with a >precise definition of what it means to be `sustainable' I think that I have addressed the issue of a precise definition of sustainability in the first post. I fail to see what portion of the original post implied that no precise definition was operative. On the face of it, the original request for information seems to be clearly stated and the historical examples further specify what is intended. >If this is merely an historical analysis, then of course feel >free to define `sustainable' in whatever way conforms to >your current bias. I also fail to see why a historical investigation is a priori less important than a scientific one (surely paleontology is simply one long historical investigation), or why a historical investigation is necessarily more biased than a scientific one. I view both as simply lines of inquiry which must meet the same tests for validity. Further the entire tone of the post seems to imply that on the basis of requesting sources on this topic it is possible to conclude that I have not set out a sound definitional basis for the investigation, and that I do not adhere to a rigorous set of standards with regard to research, but simply adjust my parameters to conform to my current whimsical prejudices. I don't see how Chris Overton can deduce all this from my request, but I would suggest that it is a set of conclusions derived from bias rather than evidence, and non-scientific for that reason. I would also strongly suggest that those conlcusions are false. -Jonathan Haskett- Article 175 of alt.co-evolution: From: coverton@sibelius.humgen.upenn.edu (Chris Overton) Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Date: 11 Feb 93 23:51:14 GMT In article <1993Feb11.164159.9175@news.ysu.edu> aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett) writes: >If this a scientific study, then you had better come up with a >precise definition of what it means to be `sustainable' I think that I have addressed the issue of a precise definition of sustainability in the first post. I fail to see what portion of the original post implied that no precise definition was operative. On the face of it, the original request for information seems to be clearly stated and the historical examples further specify what is intended. Sorry -- I was not especially diplomatic in my post and I apologize. I happen to think that the future of civilization depends greatly on understanding what a sustainable agricultural systems is and the impact of artificial systems (agricultural systems) on natural ecosystems. However, unless I am seriously mistaken, I don't think a study done with the tools historians would bring to bear would shed much light on what constitutes a sustainable agriculture. On the other hand, a scientist (like an ecologist) might be able to make some sense of the historical record, especially if teamed with an archeologist. A couple of points: Arguments about entropy are not especially germain since the earth is an open system at more or less dynamic equilibrium over geological time. Climate fluctuations would be more entertaining to consider. Systems that failed will probably be the most informative, since it is much harder to give an objective measure of systems that succeed (the paddy-rice agriculture notwithstanding). Furthermore, systems that apparently succeed could easily be on the cusp of failure and a slight tweak in some parameter could knock them off. An obvious prediction: Population density of humans and domestic animals is almost certainly the single most important factor in determining sustainability. A couple of questions: Do you consider American intensive agriculture as practiced in the mid-west sustainable? Could you remind me what the average rate of topsoil loss is and the topsoil depth in the American mid-west? Should I be concerned about this? Can you comment on salinization (or maybe its alkyloids, I forget) in the San Fernando valley? Is agriculture there sustainable? Is there anything in the historical record that can contribute to our understanding of the impact of the massive loss of ground water? How would you characterize Somalia and Haiti, to name just two, in terms of the collapse of their agricultural systems? Here are situations where the interplay among overpopulation, social conflict, agricultural depredation and maybe climatic changes have contributed to ecosystem collapse. Again, I think an historian would be hard pressed to sort this out without considerable help from a scientist. ---- I'm not trying to be discouraging --- as I said above, I think this is important work. I'm really just trying to understand the methodology and what could be learned from the proposed approach. (Sorry, too many grant reviews, and too many paper reviews have colored outlook on life.) Chris Overton Article 177 of alt.co-evolution: From: Thomas Bjorkman Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Date: 12 Feb 1993 17:42:18 GMT Organization: Cornell University In article Chris Overton, coverton@sibelius.humgen.upenn.edu writes: >Can you comment on salinization (or maybe its alkyloids, I forget) in the San >Fernando valley? Is agriculture there sustainable? nit.pick on In the San Fernando Valley, it is pavement. The orange groves have given way to suburbs. In the San Joaquin, it is salinization and _alkalinization_ (hi pH). nit.pick off I'd like to hear more from Jonathan Haskett. My perspective on this much like Chris Overton's ( I am a crop physiologist), so I also have trouble understanding the angle that Jonathan is taking. I'd like to understand the historical-social science perspective to dealing with the issue of sustainable agriculture better. Article 178 of alt.co-evolution: Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett) Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1993 01:44:57 GMT This was originally written as a reply to a posting by Chris Overton (), but in response to Thomas Bjorkman () I think it will partly explain the approach I am taking. --- >However, unless I am seriously mistaken, I don't think a >study done with the tools historians would bring to bear >would shed much light on what constitutes a sustainable >agriculture. On the other hand, a scientist (like an ecologist) >might be able to make some sense of the historical record, >especially if teamed with an archeologist. I tend to think that you are placing historians and their tools in an excessively narrow box, and I would refer you to the work of William H. McNeil on disease, or Cleometricians such as Peter Laslett or Le Roy Ladurie of the Annal School. However, perhaps we can advance this part of the discussion by leaving aside debate about which department such a researcher should have their office in, and instead begin to specify which skills and approaches would be useful in such an investigation (a topic which I think is of greater mutual interest anyway). I agree that systems which failed will probably be most informative, and I tend to think first about what sources of information would be available, and the skills to use them follow. So for example a hypothetical study of failure of Mesopotamian agriculture might include: *Soil cores to determine the stratigraphy of salinization. *Pollen studies to follow the changes in vegetation. *Archeological data on farming techniques and diet. *Energy and nutrient budgets. *Historical records of granaries, transportation, transactions) to estimate yields-productivity and follow their decline. *Examination of literature or chronicles to try to determine cultural attitudes to land, nature and agriculture. *Integration of these data sources into a coherent chronological picture reflecting the interplay of crop biology, salinization, population, social structure, wars, and cultural attitudes toward nature to analyze the causes of systematic agricultural failure. This is presented as a rudimentary example of how such a study might be implemented. >A couple of points: >Arguments about entropy are not especially germane since >the earth is an open system at more or less dynamic >equilibrium over geological time. Climate fluctuations would >be more entertaining to consider. Point well taken. >An obvious prediction: Population density of humans >and domestic animals is almost certainly the single most >important factor in determining sustainability. I'm not sure if I agree with this. An agricultural system could be sustainable, while certain population levels overshoot its productive capacity and cannot be maintained. Bluntly, famine occurs but the system continues. Certainly population is often a determinant factor, but not always. Answers to Questions: >Do you consider American intensive agriculture as practiced >in the mid-west sustainable? Whether a current system is considered sustainable depends on which assumptions are operative (i.e. is petroleum a finite resource), that is why these assumptions need to be made explicit and the sequence of reasoning needs to be visible: i.e. I believe that petroleum is a finite resource. I believe that our American intensive agriculture is greatly dependent on petroleum. Therefore to the extent that the agricultural system is dependent on petroleum it is not sustainable. So 1st step is to make assumptions explicit then proceed with analysis. >Is there anything in the historical record that can contribute >to our understanding of the impact of the massive loss of >ground water? Areas in which desertification has progressed might have some relevant historical information. However I do not know if irrigation by ground water has ever been practiced on the current scale before. It may be unprecedented. However, possibly examining records of well levels in Oklahoma during the dustbowl might provide a clue as to what happens when they are depleted. In addition the historical record could provide a general picture of the variety of ways in which societies have responded (successfully and unsuccessfully) to the depletion of a resource on which they depend. This would tend to throw light on the reasons why the massive loss of ground water might continue or be halted, which is surely relevant to its impact. >Could you remind me what the average rate of topsoil loss is >and the topsoil depth in the American mid-west? Should I be >concerned about this? The Soil Conservation Service publishes state maps showing the areas in which soil loss is considered to be excessive, and estimates of soil loss have been made for particular locations. However, I am not aware of regional or even state-wide estimates of average topsoil loss rates. The rate of topsoil lost is highly variable from site to site depending on the variables included in the USLE (Universal soil loss equation). Depth of topsoil is also highly variable ( I am confused by the term topsoil, do you mean the plow-layer or the A horizon? for purposes of this answer I will assume A horizon). Thus an average value is difficult obtain and of questionable utility. Since soils are not static entities but exist in a dynamic balance between formation and loss, the real questions have to do with relative rates: i.e. in how much of the land area of the midwest is the rate of loss of A horizon material due to erosion greater than the rate of A horizon formation. Where this loss exceeds formation, this represents a net loss of the soil resource, this troubles me and should probably trouble you. >Can you comment on salinization (or maybe its alkyloids, I >forget) in the San Fernando valley? Is agriculture there >sustainable? I am not sufficiently familiar with salinzation in the San Fernando valley to comment on it. However, the Coachela valley has also been experiencing salinzation. Essentially at this location the irrigation has accelerated a the salinzation process which was occurring naturally. Excessive salt accumulations are now occurring in a matter of decades rather than a matter of centuries. Remediation up until now has consisted of flushing the soil by moving large quantities of water through the profile to leach the salts below the root zone. However, this cannot be continued indefinitely. Removing the salts by washing them into the ocean is not feasible since significant concentrations of thallium and vanadium have been found, and it would be unacceptable to move them offsite. Thus, it is certainly not assured that agriculture can be continued in the Coachela valley indefinitely. >How would you characterize Somalia and Haiti, to name just >two, in terms of the collapse of their agricultural systems? I don't know enough about either Somalia or Haiti to comment on them, but a large part of my interest in this project was precisely to try to develop a method of inquiry which would yield meaningful information about the collapse of such agricultural systems. >Here are situations where the interplay among overpopulation, >social conflict, agricultural depredation and maybe climatic >changes have contributed to ecosystem collapse. Again, I >think a historian would be hard pressed to sort this out >without considerable help from a scientist. It seems to me that the interplay of overpopulation, social conflict, and agricultural depredation are areas which have traditionally been treated in great detail by historians. See works on the late Roman empire as an example. Indeed one may just as easily posit that a scientist might be very limited in their understanding of these agricultural systems if their knowledge is limited to a mechanistic understanding of the the chemistry, physics and biology involved exclusive of the history, attitudes and social forces at work. I fail to see the utility of this heavy disciplinary emphasis. So what if a person trained in one discipline necessarily has a superficial understanding of another discipline. This is true for everyone, since nobody can know everything. Surely a problem such as agricultural sustainability needs to be approached from several different disciplines, the trick being to usefully integrate information and theory from all these disparate sources. (BTW I'm not a historian and I don't play one on TV. ;-) ) ----- I hope this clarifies some of my thinking about methodology and the place of the proposed study. I might add that my ideas on both these topics are still evolving. Jonathan Haskett ---------------------------------------------------------------- Article 179 of alt.co-evolution: From: coverton@sibelius.humgen.upenn.edu (Chris Overton) Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Date: 13 Feb 93 14:33:22 GMT In-reply-to: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu's message of 13 Feb 93 01:44:57 GMT Jonathan, Thanks for a very interesting discussion on an important topic. One final point --- in my own field, computational biology, interdisciplinary research involving biologists, computer scientists and mathematicians is essential for success. My very strong impression is that your research effort would also greatly benefit from an interdisciplinary approach, as does virtually any study of complex systems (complex in both the common and technical sense of the word). I would very much enjoy seeing summaries of your work posted as you progress. If you are willing (and I know this is asking a lot), I for one would like to see short preliminary reports on whatever interesting observations you make. (I won't be offended if you say no to that one.) Chris Article 601 of alt.sustainable.agriculture: Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture Path: samba!sunSITE!london From: london@sunSITE.unc.edu (Larry London) Subject: Hist. Sources on Sustainability of Agric. (fwd.:alt.co-evolution) Message-ID: <1993Feb15.182848.25760@samba.oit.unc.edu> Sender: usenet@samba.oit.unc.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: sunsite.unc.edu Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1993 18:28:48 GMT Article 181 of alt.co-evolution: From: Thomas Bjorkman Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture Date: 15 Feb 1993 14:31:17 GMT Organization: Cornell University This does look like a very interesting approach. I know that the Mesopotamian situation is used as an example of the failure of irrigated agriculture. However, I certainly don't know if the social processes that led to that failure are known. Are they being repeated in California, or have we wised up. Another situation where the social processes are very imporant was recounted by Garrison Keillor this week. He was right on the money. A farmer in Lake W. had learned about a particular practice that was more sustainable, planting no-till corn into a killed oat cover crop. The ideas behind it all made sense and he was convinced that it would work. But he did not want to be the first in Lake Wobegon to do it. His neighbors would make fun of him because it was out of the ordinary. I think this situation arises a lot. Even though the particular practice has been proven many places, and is not particularly mysterious, it is not adopted. Agricultrual extension agents do a lot of what are called demonstration and implementation trials for just this reason. Sorry to go off track from history to sociology, but I wanted to raise another example where increasing the sustainablility of agriculture does not depend on us biologists.