From a16msafley@attmail.com Wed Feb 22 20:42:42 1995 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 13:09:18 -0500 From: Marc Safley To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Hot Sandy Soil This is in response to the message from Chuck Benbrook concerning soil quality and its relation to production. He stated that "...the capacity to support high yields with inputs that are accessible, and relatively sustainable is an important soil quality attribute." In common usage, quality is used todenote the degree of excellence of an object, substance, idea, etc. While it is true that sandy soils in tropical climates can support high crop yields given appropriate modifications and inputs (irrigation, drainage, fertilizer, pest management, improved crop varieties, etc) the soil itself has low inherent quality for intensive production. In the past agriculturists have spoken of the soil suitability for certain crop production. This is in recognition that sooils differ in chemical, physical,and biological character and are varied in their "suitedness" for particular crops. Soil quality discussions are not the same as soil suitability discussions. Soil quality has referred to the inherent characteristics that make the medium good-fair-poor in relation to its native state. In some discussions it has been stretched to include some of the characteristics of suitedness. It seems that we should be focusing soil quality deliberations toward those definable characteristics of soil that can be distinctive markers of inherent or altered form, ie quality. The hot sandy irrigated soils may be high quality media for growing crops but they may still be very poor quality soils. Marc Safley a16msafley@attmail.com From a16msafley@attmail.com Thu Feb 23 11:09:39 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 07:58:03 -0500 From: Marc Safley To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Soil Quality Attributes Not to try to beat this issue to death...that is not the point of this message; the distinction between soil quality and soil attributes that make them usable is one that needs to be ironed out in a better way if we are to clearly conceive and test soil quality indicators. The fact that soils of all types can respond to management inputs is one upon which the industrial model of agriculture has depended. In many cases soils that would otherwise be unsuited for crop production have produced bumper yields. The question is not whether or not this should be a consideration for agriculture so much as it is whether or not this should be a criteria for determining soil quality. The discussions of soil quality have focused on improving or regenerating lost capacity of soils that have been damaged by intensive agricultural management. I suggest that this is the proper avenue of thought. If it is necessary to describe the ability of soil to respond to physical and chemical management so that production is made either possible or profitable then perhaps there should be a separate parameter by which we assess soil response...we could call it response to management for lack of a more creative term. Thank you for the quality discussion. Marc Safley Natural Resources Conservation Service a16msafley@attmail.com From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA Thu Feb 23 11:14:46 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:50:37 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Soil Quality Attributes I have been observing the discussion on soil quality and would like to add a query. An issue which has been taken up with fervor by my colleagues in soil science has been the notion that potential for nitrate contamination of groundwater is **reduced** by using chemical rather than organic sources of N. The logic presented is that organic matter mineralizes in ways/rates/timing which a) is not controllable, and b) is not easily predictable, and hence, c) has the potential to continue to pump out labile N long after the crop has been harvested. On this basis, they discount the merit of long-held organic farming wisdom, namely, "feed the soil" as a source of immobilized and slowly released mineralized nutrients to feed the crop. The next dimension to this logic is that perennial forages, which enhance soil OM, are hazardous to the environment because when they are plowed under, they mineralize and release copious amounts of N - with again, the potential to pollute. In response, I can only agree with their logic **if** one continues to crop in conventional ways - with the land bare or under dead stubble for 7- 10 months of the year. However, a great deal of the rationale behind organic field crop agriculture is to keep the land covered with a live - and predominantly, growing - crop year-around. This practice, in addition to supplying a sink for labile nutrients, also keeps the soil colder longer and enhances the synchrony between such T-sensitive processes as microbially-based mineralization and plant-based uptake. I would be interested in the comments of SANETers on these issues, particularly as they pertain to the definition of soil quality, and ultimately, the attributes of the "ideal" soil that we should be shooting for. Ann ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933 From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Thu Feb 23 19:37:19 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:51:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:59:21 -0600 (CST) From: Rex Dufour To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Cc: Preston Sullivan Subject: Re: Soil Quality The concept of soil quality is indeed a difficult one to pin down as evidenced by the interesting discussion about this subject in the last week or so. My initial posting noted that I felt that the discussion (up to that point) had perhaps been biased toward temperate zone soils, which exist in quite a different context than tropical soils. I still feel this bias has not been addressed. Perhaps one way of evaluating both temperate and tropical soils using a level playing field is the amount of external energy inputs required to produce a sustainable yield of a given crop. The advantage to looking at soil quality from this angle is that for temperate soils, there is a lot of energy stored in the organic matter (in the form of chemical bonds) of the soil, but temperate soils do not receive the same flux of solar energy that tropical soils receive. Tropical soils do not store their enery as soil organic matter, but as living plant material and associated soil organisms. Temperate soils, with their generally higher organic matter may or may not need fewer inputs to provide a sustainable yield of a given crop. However, tropical soils have the advantage of a high solar flux which can be converted into plant material (in many cases, legumes, which are much more common in the tropics than in temperate areas). This is a simplistic model, but is perhaps a starting point. Rex Dufour rexd2ncatfyv.uark.edu From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Thu Feb 23 19:39:03 1995 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:52:52 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Cc: aclark@crop.uoguelph.ca Subject: Re: Soil Quality Attributes (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 08:50:37 EDT From: E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Soil Quality Attributes I have been observing the discussion on soil quality and would like to add a query. An issue which has been taken up with fervor by my colleagues in soil science has been the notion that potential for nitrate contamination of groundwater is **reduced** by using chemical rather than organic sources of N. The logic presented is that organic matter mineralizes in ways/rates/timing which a) is not controllable, and b) is not easily predictable, and hence, c) has the potential to continue to pump out labile N long after the crop has been harvested. On this basis, they discount the merit of long-held organic farming wisdom, namely, "feed the soil" as a source of immobilized and slowly released mineralized nutrients to feed the crop. The next dimension to this logic is that perennial forages, which enhance soil OM, are hazardous to the environment because when they are plowed under, they mineralize and release copious amounts of N - with again, the potential to pollute. In response, I can only agree with their logic **if** one continues to crop in conventional ways - with the land bare or under dead stubble for 7- 10 months of the year. However, a great deal of the rationale behind organic field crop agriculture is to keep the land covered with a live - and predominantly, growing - crop year-around. This practice, in addition to supplying a sink for labile nutrients, also keeps the soil colder longer and enhances the synchrony between such T-sensitive processes as microbially-based mineralization and plant-based uptake. I would be interested in the comments of SANETers on these issues, particularly as they pertain to the definition of soil quality, and ultimately, the attributes of the "ideal" soil that we should be shooting for. Ann ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933 From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Fri Feb 24 11:58:17 1995 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 07:22:34 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Stirring the "SQ" Pot (fwd) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 08:31:39 -0500 From: a16msafley@attmail.com (Marc Safley) Subject: Stirring the "SQ" Pot The following message was posted by me to the SANET-MG concerning soil quality and the capacity of a solum to respond to management. Marc Safley a16msafley@attmail.com Date: Thu Feb 23 07:58:03 -0500 1995 From: internet!attmail!a16msafley (Marc Safley) Phone: +1 202 720 3921 Subject: Soil Quality Attributes To: internet!ces.ncsu.edu!sanet-mg Content-Length: 1338 Not to try to beat this issue to death...that is not the point of this message; the distinction between soil quality and soil attributes that make them usable is one that needs to be ironed out in a better way if we are to clearly conceive and test soil quality indicators. The fact that soils of all types can respond to management inputs is one upon which the industrial model of agriculture has depended. In many cases soils that would otherwise be unsuited for crop production have produced bumper yields. The question is not whether or not this should be a consideration for agriculture so much as it is whether or not this should be a criteria for determining soil quality. The discussions of soil quality have focused on improving or regenerating lost capacity of soils that have been damaged by intensive agricultural management. I suggest that this is the proper avenue of thought. If it is necessary to describe the ability of soil to respond to physical and chemical management so that production is made either possible or profitable then perhaps there should be a separate parameter by which we assess soil response...we could call it response to management for lack of a more creative term. Thank you for the quality discussion. Marc Safley Natural Resources Conservation Service a16msafley@attmail.com From benbrook@hillnet.com Mon Feb 27 11:18:24 1995 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:30:07 -0800 (PST) From: Charles Benbrook To: sanet Subject: More Soil Quality and Def. The long post on Ikerd's sus ag discussion paper is interesting and raises all the right questions/admonitions etc. But as I have said before I think the community has reached about as explicit, useful, concrete definition of sus ag as now possible, or possible at any given time, given the differences of opinion, world view etc that exist. At any point in time, in any society, the definition of any concept like sus ag is going to be a compromise among differing world views, sets of values etc, no one of which has any way to prove the other wrong, or illegimate. So the sus ag tent is now relatively stable; its shape and inards perhaps fully pleasing to no one, but I am certain there is no real point in debating the fine points anymore because we will simply document more crisply the differences that are out there, and have been all along. One of the other realities is that the "definition" of something like sus ag is going to remain fluid, driven by changes in politics, idealogy, science, community values, etc. If we re-open definition of sus ag in 1995 farm bill, I guarentee the result will be displeasing to those who advocate a social justice leaning definition. But while the political arena has moved underneath the definition, the scientific community seems to be moving in other, positive directions. Abelson's recent editiorial in Science on sus ag, with at least some mention of soil quality, along with its discussion of trends, etc is better than what I would have expected given his views about pesticides, risk assessment, and the need for environmental protections. So, I hope people will stay focused on things that are amendable to meaningful change, like studying the economic tradeoffs of farm bill proposals that will shift the relative profitability of different systems and technologies. People worried about corporate hog farms should focus on IFPs and manure management because that is where that industry is vulnerable. I also think there is a firm enough concensus now on the essential dimensions of soil quality to craft some useful provisions focusing on identifying soils that are seriously impaiired for reasons other than erosion, and providing farmers technical and financial assistance for starting along the path to enhance their quality. On the issue of N leaching and fertilizers versus organic matter, it all boils down to the ability of a soil to store and cycle nutrients. Recall the excellent work of those who developed and have adapted to various regions the side dress N test kit; there needs to be 21 ppm, if memory serves me correctly, of N in the root zone to support maximum growth of a corn plant. The fertilizer guys are right that they can control/predict levels, but are dangerously misguided in thinking that it is better to meet N needs with fertilizer on dead soil than with largely organic matter sources/cycling in an alive soil. There is lots of research basically proving this, but the fertilizer guys know how to look creatively at numbers, and will put forth studies/data that show that N loss can be great from orgo systems. Of course they can. Do not underestimate mankind's ability to mismanage an agroecosystem, regardless of its genetic heritage. But in general a trashed, low soil organic matter, compacted soil, like so many in America today, will lose more N per average bushel of corn yield than a healthier, well managed soil. Period. If you set two soils up in a fair comparative trial and use the same degree of "best available technology" for meeting N needs and controlling N losses, the higher organic matter soil will support same yields with manybe 20-30% less N, and loose less than 1/2 to the environment, if the research I have been reading over the last few years is to be believed. What is amazing to me is that the scientific community has not been able to convince itself of these conclusions, nor communicate them to policy-makers. Until that happens, why should we expect, or ask for policies to change? From ACLARK@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA Mon Feb 27 11:18:47 1995 Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 23:12:21 EDT From: "E. Ann Clark, Associate Professor" To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: response to On Defining Sustainable Agriculture - Ikerd Attached is a response from one of my colleagues, with whom I and others have collaborated on the issue of defining sustainable agriculture. Remarks Concerning: "On Defining Sustainable Agriculture" by John Ikerd 1. We are not convinced that most disagreements concerning the definition of sustainable agriculture stem from differing opinions concerning the "means" by which a sustainable agriculture can or should be achieved rather than the "goal" toward which those means are directed. To pursue this question further it would be useful to have a sample of definitions, about which people have disagreed, for discussion. We suggest that if you are developing a document for use in discussion of "the definitional issue" that you include some definitions as part of the document. It seems to us that disagreements concerning the way to define sustainable agriculture are indeed disagreements about goals or objectives. Indeed, as you note in your third paragraph, "we must agree on what is to be sustained, for whom, and for how long". At the present time we have not achieved such agreement. Further, it is not informative to say, as you do on your second page, that what everyone is aiming at sustaining is "agriculture". There are various views concerning the nature of agriculture, that is, concerning the forms that agricultural activities ought to take. It is difficult to state these matters clearly and concisely. However, we shall try the following. The primary goal of some people is to reform agriculture as an essential part of the re-creation of conditions within which people engaged in agriculture can live in accordance with a complex ideal. The emphasis here is on creating conditions which sustain good people doing good work. We suspect that the primary goal, according to a second view, is to reform agriculture so that agriculture ecosystems emulate wild ecosystems. While achieving this goal is not necessarily incompatible with achieving the first goal, it is not necessarily compatible either. Finally, we suspect, there is a third view, and this is very likely the dominant view, in which the primary goal is to find a way to preserve agriculture as agribusiness. Advocates of this view recognize that some practices of contemporary conventional agriculture will have to be changed, indeed are being changed through adoption of such concepts as low-till nor no-till farming and integrated pest management. From this perspective, the goal is to do agribusiness in ways that don't undermine our capacity to continue to do agribusiness, rather than to do farming in a way which mimics wild ecosystems or to do farming in a way that enables farmers to live virtuously as independent beings. 2. We agree with much of what you say concerning economic viability. People engaged in any aspect of agriculture, whether it be farming, supplying materials to farmers, manufacturing goods from farm products, or distributing farm products or such manufactured goods, need to be able to earn enough income from these activities to live well. Perhaps that is what economic viability means. However, we believe there is strong disagreement as to what is necessary in order to earn enough income. Some people think that if your farm business is not growing, it is dying. Such people are not likely to agree that a farm business which does not strive to maximize profits can be economically viable. The tone of your remarks suggests you would disagree with such a perspective. Assuming that we have interpreted your opinion on this matter correctly, we hope that you are correct. We doubt that it is possible to farm in a way which maximizes income of farmers from year to year but which also tends to preserve the resource base which is necessary for farming. If you are not correct then developing a mode of agriculture which both preserves the resources necessary for farming and is economically viable would appear to be impossible. We suggest that in training professionals who are to work with farmers, it is important to bring fundamental controversies out into full view. That is the best way to prepare such indi- viduals to face the questions that they will inevitably have to face. Further, only through rigorous scrutiny of such controver- sies can we justify whatever confidence we may achieve as to the correct way to proceed in regard to agriculture in the future. We need to investigate carefully whether we can have agriculture which is both economically viable and ecologically sound. 3. We like much of what you said concerning social responsibility, especially your claim that to assume that agriculture can be economcially viable and ecologically sound in the absence of justice is to beg significant ethical questions. We note that your use of the term social justice may reflect some question-begging assumptions also. There are profound disagreements concerning what justice requires as you can see from reading the works of John Rawls, Robert Nozick, as well as utilitarian thinkers. Perhaps, in training agriculture profes- sionals, you should consider introducing them to some such philo- sophical literature. At the very least, we think, it is necessary to develop some discussion concerning statements of justice. It is not satisfac- tory simply to refer to ideals though use of terms such as "social responsibility" or "social justice". Use of such terms without considerable explanation of specific principles and discussion of controversial matters gives students the false impression that we know what justice requires and that questions of what practices are just are simple matters. Students need to be made aware of conflicting perspectives on these matters and encouraged to think carefully to provide a strong ground for the opinions they judge to be correct. 4. We don't understand what you mean by saying that "the foregoing thesis does not define sustainable agriculture, instead it defines an approach to working for agricultural sustainability" (or the comparable remarks you made near the beginning of your paper). Perhaps the distinction between what you think you are doing and what you think you are not doing needs to be clarified. 5. Your last six paragraphs call attention to many ethical and other assumptions you have made in the course of your paper. We commend you on being open about your assumptions. We suspect you are trying to give some indication of the reasons which you believe justifies your taking the positions you do concerning agricultural sustainability. You hinted at such reasons in your third paragraph. There you suggested that agriculture should be sustainable for the benefit of humanity. We are uncomfortable with this way of speaking as humanity is an abstraction. We prefer to speak of working for the benefit of living and future human beings as well as of any other creatures that may be entitled to consideration. Achieving sustainable agriculture will almost certainly harm some human beings in various ways. Speaking of benefiting humanity obscures the fact that in trying to improve our agriculture in order to fulfill our obligations some human beings may have to sacrifice much that they cherish. However, given that you have neither attempted to support these assumptions by reasoned argument nor tried to refute those who have tried to provide rational support for assumptions with which you disagree, we suggest that your position begs important and controversial questions concerning agricultural sustainability. Given that you recognize that sustainable agriculture must be socially responsible, your dismissal, in the absence of rational discussion, of ethical perspectives with which you disagree, is highly questionable. If you aim at training agriculture professionals to meet their responsibilities, should you not train them to address controversial ethical assumptions in a socially responsible manner? Rather than simply dismissing assumptions with which you disagree, it might be useful to call attention to such assumptions and to provide your students with a bibliography of relevant reading material and encouragement to pursue inquiries concerning controversial matters. Hugh Lehman Dept. of Philosophy ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca Dr. E. Ann Clark Associate Professor Crop Science University of Guelph Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Phone: 519-824-4120 Ext. 2508 FAX: 519 763-8933 From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Tue Feb 28 11:13:48 1995 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 20:58:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Soil Quality Attributes (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 23:42:32 +0000 From: Max Turner To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Soil Quality Attributes Ann Clark wrote: >I have been observing the discussion on soil quality and would like >to add a query. An issue which has been taken up with fervor by my >colleagues in soil science has been the notion that potential for >nitrate contamination of groundwater is **reduced** by using chemical >rather than organic sources of N. I think it is fair to point out that up until rather recently the concerns of proponents of "organic" or "conventional" systems were more about productivity than efficiency. Losses of N from the different systems are either known or suspected but not widely studied because these losses are negligible from a production standpoint. My research has shown me that many of our organic-rich systems are in fact very high fertility systems, having been developed using in-situ organic methods or imported nutrients from off-site sources. With high organic matter comes the opportunity for losses especially as the "equilibrium" is disturbed. >The logic presented is that organic matter mineralizes in >ways/rates/timing which a) is not controllable, and b) is not easily >predictable, and hence, c) has the potential to continue to pump out >labile N long after the crop has been harvested. On this basis, they >discount the merit of long-held organic farming wisdom, namely, "feed >the soil" as a source of immobilized and slowly released mineralized >nutrients to feed the crop. The next dimension to this logic is that >perennial forages, which enhance soil OM, are hazardous to the >environment because when they are plowed under, they mineralize and >release copious amounts of N - with again, the potential to pollute. Whether N will be lost will to some extent be determined by the C:N ratio of the environment in which decomposition takes place. Ploughing will usually engender losses by increasing the potential for increased mineralisation. But the main point is really that no system is "tight" for N cycling, and with high organic matter of low C:N ratio, the potential for leaching loss undoubtedly occurs. Loss of nitrate from both types of systems will be lost by the same processes. We routinely measure significant leaching losses of N from soils with, or without, fertilizer additions. However it is another matter to say that fertilizer is a more controllable source of N, at least in New Zealand where our climate and high organic matter soils make control extremely difficult. At high rates of N addition, losses would be a normal expectation and difficult to avoid. > >However, a great deal of the rationale behind organic field crop agriculture is to keep >the land covered with a live - and predominantly, growing - crop year-around. >This practice, in addition to supplying a sink for labile nutrients, >also keeps the soil colder longer and enhances the synchrony between >such T-sensitive processes as microbially-based mineralization and >plant-based uptake. But I would guess that you could still measure losses of N, even under a cover crop, since the N cycle is fairly leaky (i.e. PROVIDING WATER MOVES THROUGH THE SOIL AS DRAINAGE). >I would be interested in the comments of SANETers on these issues, >particularly as they pertain to the definition of soil quality, and >ultimately, the attributes of the "ideal" soil that we should be >shooting for. When losses from organically-farmed systems are eventually measured I venture to suggest that we will have even more of a dilemma as to what really is an ideal soil and which system best creates it. It seems to me that N losses, which are a bi-product of the system, increase with increasing productivity of a system. It may be a corollary that to minimise losses we need to reduce the overall productivity of particular Loss-prone soils. Would this then be "ideal"? Max Turner Massey University Palmerston North New Zealand (reply to SANET list as well as to Ann by personal email) From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Thu Mar 2 00:25:08 1995 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:49:53 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 13:19:24 -0500 From: a16msafley@attmail.com (Marc Safley) Subject: Soil Quality To: sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu I have read the exchange pertaining to John Ikerd's paper with interest. Aside from the more philosophical points that are being expressed and postulated, there appears to be some need of term clarification arising from the discussion. Granted this is not a formal medium; however, we should have some agreed-upon terms since we cannot see one another and conversation via this medium is very tedious. The term is "productivity". In terms of natural systems it has a specific meaning in the ecological sense and in the economic sense as well. Ecologically, productivity is the rate at which radiant energy is stored by photosynthetic and chemosynthetic of producer organisms. It is the rate of accumulation of biomass (i.e. production). Management applied to natural systems is said to be good or bad based on productivity of management systems or their components. Productivity in this sense has to do with the efficiency of use of inputs to produce outputs. One can increase productivity in this sense by increasing outputs without increasing inputs or by maintaining outputs while decreasing inputs. Because sustainable agriculture relates to both the physical and the economic system we should be clear when we are referring to terms such as productivity. Especially when we may be referring to the harvested production and not necessarily the rate of accumulation of production. Application of nitrogen inputs may increase production and economic productivity; however, by use of alternative sources of nitrogen and other management inputs, productivity may or may not be improved. Marc Safley a16msafley@attmail.com From a16msafley@attmail.com Thu Mar 2 00:28:33 1995 Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 13:19:24 -0500 From: Marc Safley To: sustag-l@listproc.wsu.edu, sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Soil Quality I have read the exchange pertaining to John Ikerd's paper with interest. Aside from the more philosophical points that are being expressed and postulated, there appears to be some need of term clarification arising from the discussion. Granted this is not a formal medium; however, we should have some agreed-upon terms since we cannot see one another and conversation via this medium is very tedious. The term is "productivity". In terms of natural systems it has a specific meaning in the ecological sense and in the economic sense as well. Ecologically, productivity is the rate at which radiant energy is stored by photosynthetic and chemosynthetic of producer organisms. It is the rate of accumulation of biomass (i.e. production). Management applied to natural systems is said to be good or bad based on productivity of management systems or their components. Productivity in this sense has to do with the efficiency of use of inputs to produce outputs. One can increase productivity in this sense by increasing outputs without increasing inputs or by maintaining outputs while decreasing inputs. Because sustainable agriculture relates to both the physical and the economic system we should be clear when we are referring to terms such as productivity. Especially when we may be referring to the harvested production and not necessarily the rate of accumulation of production. Application of nitrogen inputs may increase production and economic productivity; however, by use of alternative sources of nitrogen and other management inputs, productivity may or may not be improved. Marc Safley a16msafley@attmail.com From houghten@chdasic.sps.mot.com Thu Mar 2 00:54:21 1995 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 09:14:07 MST From: Jon Houghten Reply to: agenvir-l@pentagon.io.com To: agenvir-l@pentagon.io.com Subject: Re: How to create a sustainable agriculture? I feel that organic methods are sustainable agriculture. Perhaps we should consult the farms that are already doing this on a large scale. I believe one is arrowhead mills. Other farms, (i.e. Piedmont - CO) are also doing large scale organic farming. I recently visited an organic farm on Kauai (Hawaii). At one time, they received 24 inches of rain in less than 2 days. This farm was able to market their goods the following week while modern farms had lost 2-4" of topsoil. Buy organic, JH From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Fri Mar 3 12:48:14 1995 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 05:59:35 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 1995 10:12:20 WST From: Warwick Rowell To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd) The definition of productivity for a biological system is fine, and one that is generic - it fits business and other systems as well. My original post, and this one, urge people to regard the system as more important than its productivity. Manfred max Neef said it well: sustainable productivity leads us to accept the goal of productivity, and argue about what we mean by sustainability, and the level of it that we will pursue. Reverse the terms, and talk about "productive sustainability" and we are taking a vastly different, and in my view, a more realisitic approach; Many natural systems will close down productivity dramatically if their survival is threatened. One of the most fundamental lessons we have learned from thousands of years of military experience is "conserve your forces". It is time we started applying this dictum to the task of using soil to meeting our needs for food, shelter, fuel, etc etc. Wx -- __________________________________________________________ | warwick.rowell@eepo.com.au | | | | Management Consultant Permaculture Designer | |_"Helping Managers Learn"___"Helping Land Managers Learn"_| From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Mon Mar 6 10:22:13 1995 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 06:00:08 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 06 Mar 1995 20:16:19 WST From: Warwick Rowell To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: Re: Soil Quality (fwd) My paraphrase of Manfred Max Neef: "When we talk about "sustainable productivity" we accept "productivity" and argue about the meaning and amounts of "sustainability". If we turn the words around: "developing sustainability" we are talking about a totally different paradigm." It was from a paper he wrote for the South Commission report about foure years ago. It contained a number of very good articles on the problems of measuring economies, about the problems of GNP as a measure, and about alternative measures. Even in this series, Manfred's clarity and quality of thinking shone through. Now, the exact reference.. It hasn't emerged. But I have just shifted my office. My apologies. Can anyone else help? -- __________________________________________________________ | warwick.rowell@eepo.com.au | | | | Management Consultant Permaculture Designer | |_"Helping Managers Learn"___"Helping Land Managers Learn"_| From vic@daena.eepo.dialix.oz.auThu Mar 9 23:59:32 1995 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 17:39:23 WST From: Victor Guest To: london@calypso-2.oit.unc.edu Subject: Re: Defining soil quality (fwd) In article you write: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:52:42 -0800 (PST) > >From: Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup) > To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture > Subject: Re: Defining soil quality (fwd) > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 11:22:51 -0500 (EST) > >From: llengnic@asrr.arsusda.gov > To: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" > Subject: Re: Defining soil quality (fwd) > > YES, YES, YES!!!! > > A definition of soil quality that is not tied to crop production is > where we should be heading. I've thought about this problem a little, Why Permaculture doesn't need soil to grow things. A definition of "crop" should be the first definition. Then we can see what we can produce if we change the monoculture mentality. Harvesting is the limiting factor. We have a 30% increase growing peas and wheat together, over growing them -- Regards, Vic -- Victor Guest V.G.Guest Perth, Western Australia vic.guest@eepo.com.au 3 McKee Plce Kingsley. 6026 ----: Sustainable Agriculture :---- Tel. (09) 3092108 --: The Land Management Society & The Permaculture Association:---- From sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.eduThu Mar 16 23:08:05 1995 Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 11:07:52 -0800 (PST) From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Principles of Sustainable Agriculture Subject: Re: Soil qualities (fwd) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 14:46:00 +0000 (GMT) From: "Nachtergaele, Freddy" Subject: Soil qualities To: Sustag Cc: Sunet , Sombroek/Florin , "Brinkman, Robert" , AGL-Registry Message-id: <2F6DCEA1@msmail.fao.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT TO : Principles of Sustainable Agriculture I have been observing fragments of the ongoing discussion on soil qualities and could not shake off a feeling of deja vu. Careful consideration of the difference between land characteristics and land qualities as spelled out in the Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO, 1976 (!)) might help to focus the discussion better. If you have no direct access to this publication which is now out of print, I can send you copy of the relevant pages if you e-mail me your address. Best regards, Yours sincerely, F. Nachtergaele Technical Officer Soil Resources, Management and Conservation Service Land and Water Development Division LA 29/13 cc: Nachtergaele, chron. AGLSR Group