Article 183 of alt.co-evolution:
Path: samba!concert!rock!stanford.edu!ames!biosci!uwm.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!yfn.ysu.edu!aj498
From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett)
Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution
Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture
Message-ID: <1993Feb16.214731.28888@news.ysu.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 93 21:47:31 GMT
Sender: news@news.ysu.edu (Usenet News Admin)
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Lines: 39
Nntp-Posting-Host: yfn.ysu.edu


I would like to post some corrections and clarifications to 
my previous post. I stated that I wasn't aware of an SCS
effort to quantify soil loss nationally. I have since found
out that there is such an effort which is called the
National Resource Inventory and includes quantitative 
estimates of soil loss nationally as well as areal assessments
of  how much soil is experienceing excessive rates of soil
loss. I would also like to say that bad Cliometrics is
sometimes practiced by historians who try to use biological
or statistical tools which they do not fully understand. I
did not mean to imply that all social scientists are perfect,
(or imperfect).

RE:Thomas Bjorkman's post of Feb 15 on adoption of new 
agricultural methods.

A professor of mine in graduate school recounted his work 
in South America trying to get local farmers to adopt a
new grain variety. At first the extension workers made
the rounds of the villages with a flip-chart, touting
the benefis of the new variety. The farmers all listened
attentively, nodded politely and went planting the old
variety. So another approach was tried. Demonstration
plots were planted around the experiment station, with
the old and new varieties planted in adjacent rows. 
Then a "Field day - open house" was announced. The visiting
farmers were taken on tours around the station. The
grain plants were mature and the new variety was
visibly better (more and larger grain or whatever).
By prearrangement, when the tour stopped in front
of the old and new variety rows, the guide would
be suddenly "called to the phone" and disappear
into the building. There to watch through the
blinds as the farmers ripped the heads of grain off
the new variety, and stuffed it in their pocketts.
I understand that the introduction of
the potato in Germany followed a similar 
methodology. 


Article 606 of alt.sustainable.agriculture:
Newsgroups: alt.sustainable.agriculture
Path: samba!concert!rock!stanford.edu!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!caen!malgudi.oar.net!news.ysu.edu!yfn.ysu.edu!aj498
From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett)
Subject: Sources & Methods of Sust Ag Research a Discussion
Message-ID: <1993Feb17.005131.8026@news.ysu.edu>
Sender: news@news.ysu.edu (Usenet News Admin)
Nntp-Posting-Host: yfn.ysu.edu
Organization: Youngstown State/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1993 00:51:31 GMT
Lines: 440


This is a thread which arose from the following request which
I posted not to long ago in alt.coevolution (as well as alt.sustainable
agriculture) I thought it might be of interest to those reading
 alt.sustainable_agriculture, so I am posting it here in its entirity
 (so far) and will crosspost as needed in the future. 


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. Specifically in the failure catagory:
 1) The collapse of Mesopitamian agriculture due to erosion and
      salinization.
 2) The deforestation of he middle east and degradation of agricultural
      land.
 3) The failure of early southwest Native American agricultural systems.
 And in the success catagory:
 1) I have "Farmers of 40 Centuries", but any additional references on
     historical Chinese agricultre would be welcome.
 2) Discussions of the success of slash and burn agriculture, and its
      its evolution as the period between burns becomes shorter.
 3) References to other notably successful agricutlural systems, which
     have persisted for long periods.
 I was hoping that a compreshensive general historical work of the
 nature of McNeil's "Plagues and Peoples" had been written on this
 subject but I have not come across it. Of course a reference to such a
 work would be greatly appreciated.
 
 Responses can be sent directly to me are greatly apprecieated.
 Thank you , J.H.

--------------------------------------------
*  Jonthan Haskett
*  jhaskett@asrr.arsusda.gov
---------------------------------------------

Article #8 (13 is last):
From: coverton@sibelius.humgen.upenn.edu (Chris Overton)
>Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution
Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture
Date: Wed Feb 10 11:56:57 1993


In article <jhaskett.728403512@well.sf.ca.us> jhaskett@well.sf.ca.us (Jonathan :

   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 #9 (13 is last):
>Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution
From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett)
Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture
Date: Thu Feb 11 11:02:15 1993


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 #10 (13 is last):
>Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution
From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett)
Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture
Date: Thu Feb 11 11:41:59 1993


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 #11 (13 is last):
From: coverton@sibelius.humgen.upenn.edu (Chris Overton)
>Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution
Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture
Date: Thu Feb 11 18:51:14 1993


In article <1993Feb11.164159.9175@news.ysu.edu> aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. :

   >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 almt
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 #14 (19 is last):
>Newsgroups: alt.co-evolution
From: aj498@yfn.ysu.edu (Jonathon D. Haskett)
Subject: Re: Historical Sources on Sustainability of Agriculture
Date: Fri Feb 12 20:44:57 1993


This was originally written as a reply to a posting by Chris
Overton (<COVERTON.93Feb11185114@sibelius.humgen.upenn.edu>),
but in response to <another questionster> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------



