Guest guest Posted October 8, 2001 Report Share Posted October 8, 2001 Mark wrote: <The first step though, as I see it, is to get the framework agreed upon, which means finding specific qualities within the above env, soc, econ criteria, quantifying them and observing their interactions thus giving each criteria a different waiting.> Let's start with the Environmental. You have suggested some qualities for this category. Please write how you think it should be and the rest of the conference can give feedback. > > Environmental: Land use principles and practices of > lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture - initial > work outlined in Standards. Major work to look at - > increasing production and productivity in terms of > land and cow/ox. Land - to use land in a sustainable > form that will in the long term increase fertility and > bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing for > the short and longterm needs of the participants. Key > issues beyond the Standards - agroforestry, > agro-ecology, permaculture (all basically the same > thing), organic or biological farming, biodynamics, > food quality, water resource management. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 Then do you think Mark's idea of enviromental Principles being categorized by Earth/Smell, Water/Taste, Fire, Air, Either the way to go? See my latest e-mail. - "Rohita dasa" <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com> "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:40 PM Re: RDP > > > Mark wrote: > > <The first step though, as I see > > it, is to get the framework agreed upon, which means > > finding specific qualities within the above env, soc, > > econ criteria, quantifying them and observing their > > interactions thus giving each criteria a different > > waiting.> > > > > Let's start with the Environmental. You have suggested some qualities for > > this category. Please write how you think it should be and the rest of the > > conference can give feedback. > > > > > > Environmental: Land use principles and practices of > > > lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture - initial > > > work outlined in Standards. > > Major work to look at - > > > increasing production and productivity in terms of > > > land and cow/ox. Land - to use land in a sustainable > > > form that will in the long term increase fertility and > > > bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing for > > > the short and longterm needs of the participants. > > Key > > > issues beyond the Standards - agroforestry, > > > agro-ecology, permaculture (all basically the same > > > thing), organic or biological farming, biodynamics, > > > food quality, water resource management. > > In much of the world agricultural goals are only production goals, with > little thought for landscape or quality of life. Both have suffered > drastically as a result and often that has wrecked production in the long > run. The form of production must sustain that quality of life and be > sustained by the landscape or it will fail. > ys, Rohita dasa > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 <organic or biological farming, > While I do personally grow organically, I think that some thought has to be given to making allowance for low impact farming, which is to say, farming that uses minimal petroleum based imputs, like supplemental nitrogen, or integrated pest management . To allow existing operations , for example, that want to come over intact, to have a transitory period to adjust to a higher standard. If a temple is now existing on purchased bhoga, which we all know is completely chemical in origin, to start up a low impact operation would be advancement, even if not the ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 > Mark wrote: > <The first step though, as I see > it, is to get the framework agreed upon, which means > finding specific qualities within the above env, soc, > econ criteria, quantifying them and observing their > interactions thus giving each criteria a different > waiting.> > > Let's start with the Environmental. You have suggested some qualities for > this category. Please write how you think it should be and the rest of the > conference can give feedback. > > > > Environmental: Land use principles and practices of > > lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture - initial > > work outlined in Standards. Major work to look at - > > increasing production and productivity in terms of > > land and cow/ox. Land - to use land in a sustainable > > form that will in the long term increase fertility and > > bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing for > > the short and longterm needs of the participants. Key > > issues beyond the Standards - agroforestry, > > agro-ecology, permaculture (all basically the same > > thing), organic or biological farming, biodynamics, > > food quality, water resource management. In much of the world agricultural goals are only production goals, with little thought for landscape or quality of life. Both have suffered drastically as a result and often that has wrecked production in the long run. The form of production must sustain that quality of life and be sustained by the landscape or it will fail. ys, Rohita dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 > <organic or biological farming, > > > While I do personally grow organically, I think that some thought has to > be given to making allowance for low impact farming, which is to say, > farming that uses minimal petroleum based imputs, like supplemental > nitrogen, or integrated pest management . To allow existing operations > , for example, that want to come over intact, to have a transitory > period to adjust to a higher standard. THere's a nice term for this: LEISA - Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture check out: http://www.ileia.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 Dear Rohita and prabhus, PAMHO. AGTSP. I am assuming this is the attachment sent to the conference that Idid not receive. I think the concept is important but I do feel the approach is also too complex to be received and approved by the GBC. I personally like the Enviromental, Social, Economic Priniciples as in the outline similar to the Standards i recently submitted. They are easy to understand by the GBC and devotee farmers. However the Holistic Resource Management should be a subheading in the Environmental section with some points to give clear understanding, and reference to the book for those who are serious to delve further. Perhaps you would like to do that? Your servant, Chayadevi - "Rohita dasa" <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com> "iscowp" <iscowp (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> Thursday, October 11, 2001 5:39 PM Re: RDP > I would like to propose a three part goal; made up of quality of life, > production and landscape; the term for this is Holistic Resource Management > (HRM). this is taken from two books written by Allan Savory with this title. > > In summation it can be stated as; beginning with a Quality of Life Statement > then work through the production to reach that quality of life and the > landscape or ecology of the land required to attain that level of > production. > > A. Goal - Three part > > 1. QUALITY OF LIFE: > A well-thought-out statement of the quality of life that the people involved > want from the ecosystem, for example, a farm family might set out to "create > a warm and stable environment for our family, that will encourage each of us > to reach his or her potential; to ensure that our children will be > adequately educated and that they will have the opportunity to return to the > farm when their schooling is over if they wish; to see our community > revitalized; to enjoy life in the process of achieving our goals." > > 2. PRODUCTION: > A description of the form or forms of production required from the ecosystem > in order to deliver the quality of life sought. This may be profit, > recreation, culture, aesthetics, or some other product. If profit is part of > the production goal, the description will say whether from crops, water, > livestock, game, timber, or other forms, but not the specific crop, species > of livestock, game, or tree, as these could change to ensure the desired > profit. > > If some cultural aspect were contained in the production goal it would be > spelled out in broad terms, such as "preserving a nomadic society or > preserving rural American communities." Likewise an aesthetic production > goal would be spelled out broadly--for instance, preserving a wild area for > recreational purposes." > > Alongside "profitability from livestock," a ranch might simultaneously have > cultural and aesthetic goals. Suppose the property contained some ancient > Indian ruins or historic buildings from an original homestead, we would > include "historic preservation" as a goal. If the river bottoms had a > significant population of deer and waterfowl, we might want to keep the area > as natural as possible and not have a lot of fencing, roads, or other > hindrances that detract from the area's natural beauty. This would be an > aesthetic goal. Profit will not in fact always be a part of the production > goal as many communities and societies seek cultural goals that do not > depend on profit. > > 3. LANDSCAPE: > a. Succession > b. Water Cycle > c. Mineral Cycle > d. Energy Flow > > A broad description of the landscape and how the four ecosystem processes > must function to sustain indefinitely the production, which will, in turn, > sustain the quality of life. Once we know what is to be produced and in what > form, we can describe a landscape and how the four ecosystem processes must > function within it to produce and sustain those products. In doing so, we > dwell not on what we have today but on what we must have in the future. > > In our farm example we would describe the future landscape something like > this: "Open grassland community at a high successional level with scattered > trees and shrubs and a mosaic of brush thickets and grassland along the > river bottoms giving us high successional complexity (including birds, > insects, and other animals) and stability, a good mineral cycle, sound water > cycle, and high energy flow." This would be adequate for a temporary goal. > > The quality of life goal, too often merely assumed or taken for granted, has > particular importance. Without it we risk pursuing production in ways that > may destroy the quality of life we mean to sustain. Bear in mind also that > in talking of quality of life we must go beyond ourselves as humans and > consider all forms of life. Without them we would enjoy a very poor quality > of life. > > Resolving conflicts among people using the same resources also demands > agreement on goals starting with the quality of life each desires. The > frequent bad feelings between ranchers and environmentalists make this > point. In most cases the conflict is actually over the means of production > and the tools applied. When these people discuss their goals and start with > the quality of life they all seek, they usually find a great deal of common > ground and agreement. From there they can work toward producing and > sustaining specific products and the necessary landscape goal that meets all > their different needs as far as possible. > > In much of the world agricultural goals are only production goals, with > little thought for landscape or quality of life. Both have suffered > drastically as a result and often that has wrecked production in the long > run. The form of production must sustain that quality of life and be > sustained by the landscape or it will fail. > > The single most common mistake made in attempting to apply HRM is failure to > put any effort into goal formation at all. Too often ranchers and government > agencies start applying the grazing aspects of the model just to get on with > things. Skipping this first and most vital step usually indicates poor > understanding of the whole model and, inevitably, the cost is great down the > line. On ranches we often encounter massive unnecessary financial outlays on > things like fencing and other developments when a little patience and > understanding could have produced greater profitability at the outset and > generated the funds for development from the land base. > > Another typical mistake is an owner's assumption that his family and staff > share his goals. Time and again when a ranch or farm suffers financial loss > we find it flows from lack of sharing or clarity on goals. This usually > surprises the owner who didn't notice that the other people involved only > agreed with him to escape the stress of argument on personal relationships, > to avoid causing offense, or out of fear. > > Government and international agencies responsible for resource management > are particularly apt to set "non-goals," which I cover in Chapter 46 in more > detail. Examples would be "eradication of brush,eradication of > grasshoppers,preservation of a rare plant species,flood control," and > so on. These seem to be legitimate goals in a very narrow context, but > appear quite different in the broad context of a three-part goal. > > In the western states brush eradication has been a goal for fifty years, > during which time enough new brush has grown to ensure a full century of > similar effort. If your goal is to eradicate brush you will be eradicating > brush the rest of your life. The cost in human and financial resources is > staggering and will continue as long as brush eradication remains the goal. > > In such cases one has to forget the problem itself for a while, as it is > usually a symptom of something deeper, and determine the real goal in its > three-part form. Brush may not present a problem at all after defining the > production goal. If it is, then the landscape description will call for a > level of succession where brush does not dominate. The tools and guidelines > will determine the most economical and permanent way to produce that > landscape, and a fortune is not squandered on attacking a problem that will > remain as long as the underlying cause of it is not dealt with. > > Remember, without the goal, the model cannot be applied at all. > > As goal setting involves human values and collaboration, it demands great > patience, sensitivity, and time. A year or two might do it. In the meantime > you can set a temporary goal, a general heading toward the action, and start > using the model. But don't let a temporary goal become like so many > temporary things we build--a scruffy eyesore put up in haste that somehow > becomes permanent! > > Goals are never set in concrete. They are continually under review and > subject to alteration. As a comprehensive knowledge of holism and the use of > the HRM model are so vital to goal formation and achievement, I address the > subject more fully in Chapter 46 after I've gone through the model in its > entirety. > > Whatever our goals, no matter where we are, they always rest upon the > foundation of our ecosystem. Next we look at how our ecosystem has to > function in order to achieve the goals we set. > > - > "iscowp" <iscowp (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> > "Rohita dasa" <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com>; <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> > Tuesday, October 09, 2001 11:30 PM > Re: RDP > > > > Then do you think Mark's idea of environmental Principles being > categorized > > by Earth/Smell, Water/Taste, Fire, Air, Either the way to go? See my > latest > > e-mail. > > - > > "Rohita dasa" <talavan (AT) fnbop (DOT) com> > > "Cow (Protection and related issues)" <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> > > Wednesday, October 10, 2001 2:40 PM > > Re: RDP > > > > > > > > > > > Mark wrote: > > > > <The first step though, as I see > > > > it, is to get the framework agreed upon, which means > > > > finding specific qualities within the above env, soc, > > > > econ criteria, quantifying them and observing their > > > > interactions thus giving each criteria a different > > > > waiting.> > > > > > > > > Let's start with the Environmental. You have suggested some qualities > > for > > > > this category. Please write how you think it should be and the rest of > > the > > > > conference can give feedback. > > > > > > > > > > Environmental: Land use principles and practices of > > > > > lifetime-protected cow-based agriculture - initial > > > > > work outlined in Standards. > > > > > > Major work to look at - > > > > > increasing production and productivity in terms of > > > > > land and cow/ox. Land - to use land in a sustainable > > > > > form that will in the long term increase fertility and > > > > > bio-diversity, whilst at the same time producing for > > > > > the short and longterm needs of the participants. > > > > > > Key > > > > > issues beyond the Standards - agroforestry, > > > > > agro-ecology, permaculture (all basically the same > > > > > thing), organic or biological farming, biodynamics, > > > > > food quality, water resource management. > > > > > > > > In much of the world agricultural goals are only production goals, with > > > little thought for landscape or quality of life. Both have suffered > > > drastically as a result and often that has wrecked production in the > long > > > run. The form of production must sustain that quality of life and be > > > sustained by the landscape or it will fail. > > > ys, Rohita dasa > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 Rohita prabhu, Thanks for the field of knowledge purport as well. With what you say below I am in complete agreement, that is why I am looking at fundamental underlying principles first. > In much of the world agricultural goals are only > production goals, with > little thought for landscape or quality of life. > Both have suffered > drastically as a result and often that has wrecked > production in the long > run. The form of production must sustain that > quality of life and be > sustained by the landscape or it will fail. > ys, Rohita dasa > Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 Chayadevi wrote: I like the concept of principles as the main basis also. So here are a suggested principles for the Environment. I am thinking that maybe Fire in this case is too esoteric. Either maybe also, that would be a result of the others being in place. Comments please. My comment: In some ways what I wrote was a red herring desgined to bring back participation and shake of myself leading a development plan. I'm sure most of you would expect me to go more down the route Syam suggests, and of course I am. But I see rural management as a system, as I was trained to, and in that I have a framework, so one can flit from principles to practices to management objectives within the system. But so as not to live in a Black Box Mentality, and to really get to the basis of the Gita, I felt what I presented was also highly pertinent. The point I was trying to make in a rather convoluted way was that LAND in its Z form will be radically different than in its A form. Land use refers to management, but to know how to manage land to get it from A to Z it would be good to have an idea of the qualities of land at Z. These I believe can be shown by the senses and elements. It is easy to analyse soil structure (earth), water density and distribution per land area, and calorific energy (fire) in land area (in a bomb(?) calorometer). The latter are all done is universities and are the basis of scientific disciplines. It is even easier to do the same thing by the five senses, as one progresses from A to Z the land must smell, taste, look, feel and sound better. Either that of my unsderstanding of Prabhupada and the Vedas is completely wrong. Remember the above is all about land principles, not land use principles, which are social and economic interactions with land. Do they have absolute principles in conjugtion with land? Mark Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 Dear all, >From Rohita: quality of life, > > production and landscape; the term for this is > Holistic Resource > Management >From chayadevi: > I personally like the > Enviromental, Social, Economic Priniciples >From me: They are one and the same thing; environment = lanscape, Social = quality of life, economy = production. The work that Rohita presented for me is excellent. I think we should read it and take heed of much of the advice given. >From observation brings analysis brings synthesis. Most of the plan we are putting forth to the GBC so forth is management principles and practices (synthesis). Our plan, as I see it, should incorporate audit and accounting framework (observation), analysis (desicion process), synthesis (management desicion implimentation). Otherwise we are just giving present management views, and I fear the whole holistic resource management basis will be lost to expedience. There is very little the GBC can do by dictat, it needs a grass-roots based systemised basis to allow for it to grow organically. Mark Make a great connection at Personals. http://personals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2001 Report Share Posted October 12, 2001 haribol prabhus pamho agtsp I agree that we may get bogged down with targets and production models to rival government policy. A great deal of this does depend on 'lifestyle' as production should be linked to a sustainable lifestyle. The two are very much linked. Our emphasis should be on the quality management and sustainability of land, that in essence means intertwined with those that work it. Proper management means competent utilization but not necessarily intensive agriproduction. We seem to be getting extremely technical at this point. It's quite obvious we have differences on the 'lifestyle' part of the plan. ys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.