Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] the ways that best sustain the farmer/ Efficiency

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: ryalbinger@earthlink.net, livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] the ways that best sustain the farmer/ Efficiency
  • Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:19:54 -0700


As you say,
** Profitable operations need not be limited to small acreages. If it is
profitable, high costs are not the primary limitation.

But for millions to start growing for home or market in cheaper rural
areas, they need to avoid those high costs and large acreages that demand
high investment or debt for machinery.

Let's keep the discussion onlist. It relates to sustainable growing, right?
I have no doubt there can be certain sustainable operations of your size,
esp when they extend to animals and/or animal feed, or even orcharding or
fish farming or worms. In fact I grew up with a 110 acre cattle ranch and
my dad gave up tractor work in favor of permanent pasture, coastal bermuda
grass. At 14 I planted the sprigs by hand from a platform pulled behind the
tractor. After an initial tractor mowing it was well established with vetch
and far as I know it still is. We had sustainable beef in the 1950s, no
feedlot, no grain, no annual hay planting.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 12/27/2007 at 9:01 AM Ryan Albinger wrote:

>** comments within.
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net>
>
>>
>> Barb tossed out a couple thoughts on it I have to pass on. They weren't
>> usually high paying jobs, true. But - and it's a big but - their cost of
>> living in those communities was much lower. Few families needed more
than
>> one wagearner. They didn't have long commutes, and didn't have to shop
>all
>> over a city for necessities. And most of what they earned was spent
>locally
>> and recycled through the town's businesses - a big plus to support local
>> businesses.
>>
>
>*** They were "locally effcient" They were achieving the same or more
with
>less.
>
>> As for HOW sustainable food production can create lots of good income in
>> local communities, the answer lies in methods that first sustain the
>> grower. Not being locked into taking the middleman's price is numero
uno.
>
>** You're either a price taker or a price maker. If you can get more for
>your product marketing and selling yourself, that is the way to go for
you.
>If the wholesale margin is less than what it would cost you to market the
>product resulting in the a higher net value on your production with less
>risk, that is the way to sell.
>
>> Next is cutting costs. Gross minus expenses equals profit. Retailing to
>> the locals gets the whole dollar for the grower.
>
>** If the cost of retailing is less than the wholesaler's margin. It is
>very possible to get more money for your product and make far less money.
>
>Holding costs down comes
>> from recycling free organic wastes to build healthy, pest resistant
soil,
>> and avoiding the rising cost of fossil fuel-derived fertilizers and
>> pesticides.
>
>** Couldn't agree more. Utilize what resources you have available and
>create a growing system supporting a high nutrient, fertile soil.
>
>For vegetables it may mean avoiding high land costs by growing
>> intensively on small acreages or plots and double cropping where climate
>> permits.
>
>** Profitable operations need not be limited to small acreages. If it is
>profitable, high costs are not the primary limitation.
>
>Permanent, no-till mulched beds can cut the cost of amendments,
>> water, and labor, and easily double production over larger fields.
Season
>> extension techniques can double your gross sales for the same land area,
>> without increasing costs proportionately.
>
>** Anything to increase gross sales with a profitable margin makes sense.
>It's more effcient.
>
>Don't go into debt for machinery
>> - payments can eat up profits.
>
>** If Principle + Interest + a suitable return on assets is less than the
>value that can be derived, it is profitable to own machinery. Personal
>example, I operate a little over 270 acres all organic, and I do not own a
>tractor. I own other equipment, but not a single tractor. The tractor
>doesn't generate a good enough return. It is not capital effcient in my
>operation.
>
> For cane and tree crops it may mean
>> perpetual cover crops like clover to feed nitrogen to berries or peaches
>> and conserve soil moisture. With small livestock for example, it may
mean
>> space for free range and growing grains for poultry to cheat the
>> feedstores out of outrageous chicken feed prices. The list goes on.
>
>** Yes, it comes down to the correct diversity of enterprises and crops
for
>the correct situation. It comes down to managing resources to achieve the
>objective and maximize resource utilization.
>
>>
>> PLUS these approaches also protect the land, air, and water and rural
>> prosperity. That's the beauty of it. Contrary to all the gobbledygook
>from
>> armchair experts, the ways that best sustain the farmer also sustain the
>> earth.
>>
>> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>>
>
>** Conservation of resources is a dependent of not depleting resources of
>fertility and function and the continual renewal of resources. So much
>time and energy is expended on talking about saving this or that, or doing
>this or that to get this. There is a distinct lack of doing from the
>armchair experts. I am proud that I can farm 270 without pesticides,
>herbicides, fuel effciently, and earth consciously. I would like to talk
>with some others on this list to compare notes on what they are doing to
>save the soil, become energy self suffcient (no fossil fuels), and promote
>the betterment of the world. Email me off list to discuss. And on a last
>note I have my year end numbers close to finished and here are some real
>numbers I achieved this year: just over 500,000 pounds dry matter (no
water
>included to even the playing field and not including animal feed/forage)
of
>human grade food produced on just under 1000 gallons of fuel (yes, that is
>under 4 gallons per acre), and using about 100 pounds of renewable
>fertility materials per acre, and some other practices that are moving to
>greater effectiveness for the next year. Those who say it can't be done,
>shouldn't get in the way of those doing it.
>Rya
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page