Yield is important

[bob jacobs <soilfirst@tao.ca>]

In reference to the recent smattering of scientific yield data and PC
systems, especially in International Development issues, I had to throw in
my 2 bits.

I tend to side with the folks who realize the yield and quantifiable
scientific data is important for PC if it is to be promoted in the global
south.  I just came from working on a PC type project in Ethiopia.  While
it was successful, development "experts" are by far more interested in
Agroecology systems or Biointensive systems.  Why?  Because the researchers
working with these systems have taken the time to put their data to paper
and publish it.  Mollison makes a lot of statements in "PC a designers
manual," but unfortunately many of them are not sited.  While I am apt to
agreeing with the man as I trust his ideas, this will simply not fly with
the International Aid community.  Why?  Because an aid project usually
involved spending thousands of dollars and/or radically altering
the(attempted)  subsistence pattern of a culture.    For me, these are
serious things to consider, and should not be overlooked.  Aid  is messing
with people's lively hoods and this can be successful, or it can be a total
failure (and in fact cost lives).

Consequently, to adopt a project, data, and proof that it works is needed.
To simply slag off yield as something not important is to overlook the
realities of the world we live in.   If we really want PC to be something
that will have large scale  impacts beyond the "environmentalist" community
who is hip to it because it, then we need data.

Furthermore, in response to Claud Genest's statement that "...instead of
proving that PC works, why don't the disbelievers prove that their system
works?"   That would be nice, but it's not an even playing field we're
working with.  The disbelievers, or green revolution types  (the CGIAR, US
AID, etc.) have POWER and Money.  They don't care to prove if their system
works (and we know it doesn't)because it is already used everywhere.  The
burden of proof is on the criticizes, with PC and with most anything.
Innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is on the accuser .
	It's kind of like saying "the government doesn't work."  The
government doesn't care if it doesn't work, because it is is biiger and
more powerful than you.  It will keep on running  and it doesn't need to
justify itself (with the exception of spontaneous mass uprising) because it
is THE GOVERNMENT.  To simply criticise it without hard proof of what is
wrong with it is uncreditable.   Does anyone see where I am going with
this?
	The fact remains that they  (CGIAR, ect.) control the playing field
in Internaional Aid and Agriculture.  It took years for such people to
credit Agroecology and Biointensive systems as dependable and extend them
to farmers.  But it is happening, and the same could happen with PC if we
got on the ball and realized that to" play base ball," we need first to
have a ball and a bat (or to play the game if INT. Ag. Development we need
the data and we need the primary examples).  Otherwise, we will not be let
onto the playing field.

Sad  but true.  I don't like the reality of it, but it is the truth.

Furthermore, in reference to PC systems and yield in Int. Development, it
is important to realize that PC and Agroforestry systems are typically
low-yield in their first 3-4  years until the system is established and
gets running for itself.  It will yield lower than a typical garden until
then.  Conversely, a monocrop will yield substantially in its first few
years, and then drop off.  Each system has its faults, and the PC variety
is at least sustainable in the long term.  But to a poor third world
farmer, yield matters NOW.  They do not have the food or money stores to
wait for  4 years until trees begin to fruit.  So we need to look at slow
transitions to PC systems otherwise people will turn away from PC as an
unsuccessful dogma.  (see Global Gardner "the tropics").'

Finally, the benefit of PC over these other types of agricultural aid or
extension services is that it integrates diverse things.  Biointensive
agriculture doesn't, for example,  deal with waste water as a resource, nor
does Agroforestry deal with zoning or human settlements.  The beauty of PC
is that it is a full system, and to simply extend a  Biointensive system
may produce a whole lot of food and it may be ecologically sustainable, but
it misses many other important issues.  Until we have hard PC data, it is
good to reiterate this point-- the power of PC is in more than its simple
biomass yield-- it is in the benefit of the whole system-- human and
ecological.

Thanks, Tim (My name really isn't bob jacobs)
-------------
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Teach a man to fish and he will eat forever."

				-----Old Saying.