Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Dan Conine <dconine@bertramwireless.com>]

On a second thought, I should have added that I don't think making the 
profit should be the prime mover on the land. (Give a man a fish and you 
feed him for a day, teach a man to sell seafood and the ocean will 
boil.) Profit is a measuring stick in the artificial world of civilization.
The prime mover should be to have some net that goes back to improve the 
land.
That 'net usefulness' is what makes up for bad years, mistakes, etc.
'Those 50 people have to be ON that land' should be qualified with , "or 
their representatives". In other words, the point is that 50 people can 
be supported by 50 acres. Whether livestock (representatives) are 
harvesting grass or whether 12 kids are out there pulling weeds, the 
primary focus should be that the useful output of people has to become 
useful input to the land.
The land cannot perpetually be 'harvested' without CAREFUL replacement 
of resources with careful attention to details.
The human being's usefulness is our brain. We can use it to devise ways 
to encourage other creatures to care for the land, etc. We don't have to 
chase the worm, it does it's job independently, but we have to keep 
poisons from killing the worm. We don't have to kill all of the mice 
that bother us: we can encourage nesting places for hawks, but we have 
to monitor how many so they don't eat all of their food and then disappear.

These are the things I mean when I say that an acre takes a person. To 
be a human-friendly acre, it requires human-based inputs just as much as 
it requires nitrogen, sunlight, and soil fauna.

Dan C.
> You're probably right, one acre through the seasons. But I have to agree 
> totally, for 50 acres to support 50 people, they definitely would have to be 
> on those acres. I think labor and transportation factors come in there. I 
> think they'd have to be doing the work and not be someplace else. More 
> thoughts on this?
>
> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>
>
>   
> > > >>
> > > >> Always appropriate, isn't it. As for us here we grow for markets on less
> > > >> than a quarter acre. It's not a living of course, and with a short
> > > >> frost-free season, poor soil to start with and very low rainfall it's too
> > > >> much work for us.
> > >       
> >
> > >I now own 50 acres, and I have learned to think of it as a massive 
> > >place. It is a size which requires machinery, but even with machinery, 
> > >one person cannot be on the whole place in their mind. Regardless of the 
> > >labor, I have found that an acre is as much as one person can properly 
> > >keep in useful focus throughout the seasons. More than that and the 
> > >details suffer.
> > >
> > >I now understand how this farm could be 50 families' source of food and 
> > >income, but they would have to BE here in order for it to happen. We 
> > >have spent the last 100 years destroying that opportunity with petroleum 
> > >and money as motive.
> > >
> > >Dan C.
> > >