4 ms·

I can't even. Of course they are sustainable without artificial fertilizers, if compost and animal manure (nothing big necessary, just chicken and rabbits) is u

by rini17 10y ago

I can't even. Of course they are sustainable without artificial fertilizers, if compost and animal manure (nothing big necessary, just chicken and rabbits) is used. Of course, you can use fertilizers and stuff in unsustainable way, too, but what does that prove or disprove?

roel_v 10y ago
Well it depends on what you call 'sustainable'. I use a pretty common definition, roughly 'can in this way, without using non-renewable, external energy sources, a population be fed'. If I'm reading you correctly, you're using a definition of 'can this particular plot be sustained as a home garden without external inputs'; well yes, it probably (maybe) can. What my definition adds is 'can the whole population be fed this way'; and no, home-scale agriculture can't do that, in the aggregate (maybe in one village, or a rural(ish) part of a developing country somewhere; I don't care for specific case studies, I'm talking about the aggregate). If some people can feed themselves off their own land, while relying on (many) others in the rest of society to produce stuff and infrastructure etc. who need large-scale agriculture to sustain themselves, I argue that those few aren't being 'sustainable' - just ignorant of their reliance on infrastructure provided by others who produce more efficiently.
- rini17 10y ago
  Let me provide example of what I think is sustainable. This system uses electrical energy from grid(still much less energy than fossil eqivalent used by mainstream farming machinery) and occassional local as-needed application of pesticides. I know the man who developed it, he was able to repay all loans without subsidies and he is able to provide food for 50 people iirc. http://www.slideshare.net/inmediaslovakia/farmlandia http://www.slideshare.net/inmediaslovakia/farmlandia

4 ms·

I can't even. Of course they are sustainable without artificial fertilizers, if compost and animal manure (nothing big necessary, just chicken and rabbits) is u

by rini17 10y ago

roel_v 10y ago
Well it depends on what you call 'sustainable'. I use a pretty common definition, roughly 'can in this way, without using non-renewable, external energy sources, a population be fed'. If I'm reading you correctly, you're using a definition of 'can this particular plot be sustained as a home garden without external inputs'; well yes, it probably (maybe) can. What my definition adds is 'can the whole population be fed this way'; and no, home-scale agriculture can't do that, in the aggregate (maybe in one village, or a rural(ish) part of a developing country somewhere; I don't care for specific case studies, I'm talking about the aggregate). If some people can feed themselves off their own land, while relying on (many) others in the rest of society to produce stuff and infrastructure etc. who need large-scale agriculture to sustain themselves, I argue that those few aren't being 'sustainable' - just ignorant of their reliance on infrastructure provided by others who produce more efficiently.
- rini17 10y ago
  Let me provide example of what I think is sustainable. This system uses electrical energy from grid(still much less energy than fossil eqivalent used by mainstream farming machinery) and occassional local as-needed application of pesticides. I know the man who developed it, he was able to repay all loans without subsidies and he is able to provide food for 50 people iirc. http://www.slideshare.net/inmediaslovakia/farmlandia http://www.slideshare.net/inmediaslovakia/farmlandia