FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

at Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:30:54 GMT in
>,
(Lena B Katz) wrote :

>
>
>On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
>> (Lena B Katz) wrote :
>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
>>>> (Lena B Katz) wrote :
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Alex Rast wrote:
>>>>>> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, (Neil) wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chemistry aside, it tends to keep farmland as farmland, giving
>>>>>>>> farmers an economically-viable option to selling out to
>>>>>>>> developers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... Farmers
>>>>>>> are successful if they produce crops cheaply that the public
>>>>>>> desires. Organic production doesn't contribute much to that end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It must be said that in fact organic production contributes a
>>>>>> great deal to that end....
>>>>>
>>>>> there are other alternatives. like farming _intelligently_. ...
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "farming intelligently"? That's a pretty broad
>>>> term and you haven't taken any time to describe what you mean.
>>>
>>> Using all the tools at your disposal....
>>>
>>> in other words, the kind of farming that journal authors do. (at
>>> least the ones that don't make homemade pesticides...)
>>
>> The methodologies you propose are certainly commendable, but while
>> they can help the environment, they generally don't provide a viable
>> alternative for the small farmer...
>
>you mean we're supposed to cry about it?

Not necessarily, but if the goal is to preserve farmland as farmland,
helping small farmers to stay alive is valuable. As I described earlier,
the farmland large farms own isn't typically under threat from developers
so that if any significant land-conservation impact is to be made the first
step must be to keep small farmers in business.

>I've known good farmers, and they used homemade pesticides, and had
>visitors from Washington D.C. That's what you get for increasing
>biodiversity (they sold antique apples).

Are you then of the opinion that the system is so rigged and the power
players are so entrenched and have vested interests so incompatible with
preserving farmland as farmland that it's a hopeless cause?

>>> quality is better when you use all the tools at your disposal. You
>>> wouldn't say that someone has a quality kitchen without having any
>>> silverware, would you?
>>
>> I believe there is a balance in terms of tool use. Quality only
>> improves with increased use of more and more specialised tools up to a
>> point...
>
>> but a kitchen without a microwave I think is a mark of *increased*
>> quality over one with a microwave.
>
>that's just dunderheaded. a microwave is good at one thing: heating
>water. Ever had one of those days when you had too few burners? Using
>the microwave is a good idea, then.

Not really, because in that case the problem is either the result of
unrealistic planning (i.e. at the point when you bought your stove, not
thinking through how many burners you would need on a daily basis), or
unusual contingency. If "those days" are rare, you're spending a fair
amount on an appliance that otherwise sits in the corner gathering dust and
is only being used as a stopgap substitute. Meanwhile, you can get a
single-burner hotplate for considerably less money than a microwave and
accomplish the same goal at less money and using less counter space. And
think about it from a POV of common sense. Does it really sound rational to
you to go out and buy a microwave with the sole purpose of using it to heat
water?

>> There are also gadgets of questionable
>> value and which call into doubt the intelligence of the cook. I'd
>> wonder about a kitchen equipped with a special-purpose herb chopper,
>> especially if it had a wide assortment of quality knives as well.
>
>it depends on how much you use it.

If you use a special gadget often for a job that another, more general-
purpose tool can do equally well, that *really* calls into question your
wisdom. I'd imagine that using a special gadget frequently is usually an
indication that you're inventing reasons to use it so that you can try to
justify in your own head why you got it in the first place.

>> Same thing applies to agriculture. Some modern practices are
>> undoubtedly beneficial. Others are of dubious use and/or designed for
>> a very narrow use. These may actually diminish quality rather than
>> improving it.
>
>when used narrowly, they will increase quality.

Only if the narrow use for which they were designed is one that doesn't
defeat the purpose of quality from the outset. For instance, if a
particular treatment were being used on a specific crop variety for which
there were other varieties of the same crop of better quality from the
outset, not benefitting from the treatment, in order to increase some part
of the potential of the crop, then it could diminish quality because the
treatment might make it more profitable for the farmer to use the lower-
quality crop with the treatment method rather than the higher-quality crop
without. A similar situation arises if a tool lowers production costs
dramatically and quality somewhat. You might get *more* output, but not
*higher quality* output.

>>>> regardless, "environmental sensitivity" says that going organic is a
>>> stupid idea, because you end up using more of the earth's soil for
>>> making the same amount of product.
>>
>> Not necessarily. Very high-intensity agriculture depletes local soil
>> quickly, so in the long run it ends up being more environmentally
>> damaging...
>
>depleting local soil means more room for appletrees! yay! go apples!

It might be nice to think of tactics that can mitigate the damage of soil
depletion, by moving to a different crop, but if that continues, a greater
and greater proportion of the entire harvest will be in that substitute
crop. So sure, you might get more apples, but if that comes at the price of
not being able to have corn now or for the foreseeable future, you've
diminished both the land's potential and variety to the consumer. A world
in which the only foods available are ones that grow in increasingly
marginal conditions isn't a particularly desirable one.

>>> When it comes to land conservation, however, if organic agriculture
>> can forestall suburbanisation, I believe that represents a more
>> intelligent use of the land....
>
>i agree on this in principle. i just think that organic farming isn't
>the answer.... more intelligent farming is.

I wouldn't say organic farming is the *only* answer. In fact in general I
believe that looking for panacaea solutions to complex, historical problems
is very shortsighted. However, I think that organic farming can be said to
have a valuable part to play in agricultural practice. It's not a one-size-
fits-all answer but simply another tool the farmer would have at his
disposal - to choose to adopt organic standards which give certain farmers
a chance to make a living where otherwise they wouldn't survive.

The way you're using the term "more intelligent farming" suggests that in
it for you there is an implied rejection of organic farming practice even
though many of the same techniques are being used. You're taking a very
broad term and using it to apply to a very narrow set of specific
practices.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)