I am struck but the amount of unavoidable ignorance that comes with making ecological decisions on the farm, exemplified by your doubts "were the experts right?" It's like when Wendell Berry built his ill-fated pond documented in his reflection "Damage" - the farmer does what he thinks best, but unintended outcomes and emergent problems are never far behind. Acting, then, in a way that is ecologically and agronomically sound is an act of faith - the outcomes may not be as intended, but the farmer needs to act regardless. But, this necessitates gaining as much wisdom and counsel as possible, for in the words of Stegner "What I really only want to say that we may love a place and still be a danger to it.” - gaining wisdom makes it more likely that our love for the land will have loving outcomes.
Hello, Hadden. Thanks for chiming in. I really appreciate it. Yes, the number of unknowns is overwhelming sometimes, but I do think the land gives us clues that you don't need a Ph.D. in ecology to interpret (what plants like to grow where; why certain species show up in one field or ditch and not another.) These can be clues to understanding microclimate or soil imbalances that, absent advanced technologies, can help a farmer listen to what the land needs or wants to be. That assumes he is listening, though. Most agronomic mistakes come from not paying adequate attention to the land itself. My 2c, anyway.
Thanks Jack, agreed. The point about is the farmer listening is key - and right listening takes time (time to filter out the noise and also to discern the true voice of creation so to speak). It is this impatience in listening that is at the root of so many problems.
Lovely piece Jack.
I am struck but the amount of unavoidable ignorance that comes with making ecological decisions on the farm, exemplified by your doubts "were the experts right?" It's like when Wendell Berry built his ill-fated pond documented in his reflection "Damage" - the farmer does what he thinks best, but unintended outcomes and emergent problems are never far behind. Acting, then, in a way that is ecologically and agronomically sound is an act of faith - the outcomes may not be as intended, but the farmer needs to act regardless. But, this necessitates gaining as much wisdom and counsel as possible, for in the words of Stegner "What I really only want to say that we may love a place and still be a danger to it.” - gaining wisdom makes it more likely that our love for the land will have loving outcomes.
Hello, Hadden. Thanks for chiming in. I really appreciate it. Yes, the number of unknowns is overwhelming sometimes, but I do think the land gives us clues that you don't need a Ph.D. in ecology to interpret (what plants like to grow where; why certain species show up in one field or ditch and not another.) These can be clues to understanding microclimate or soil imbalances that, absent advanced technologies, can help a farmer listen to what the land needs or wants to be. That assumes he is listening, though. Most agronomic mistakes come from not paying adequate attention to the land itself. My 2c, anyway.
Thanks Jack, agreed. The point about is the farmer listening is key - and right listening takes time (time to filter out the noise and also to discern the true voice of creation so to speak). It is this impatience in listening that is at the root of so many problems.