Son of Levin

OK, it's not a book, but if you own a computer, I highly recommend the Plants For a Future database available here:
http://www.pfaf.org/index.php

There's extensive cultural and propagation info, along with edibility and medicinal use ratings, and notes on whether a given plant has any of 100+ functions.  Here's a list of functions beginning with S -  just to give you some idea of how comprehensive it is:

Sandpaper (3)
plants used to smooth rough wooden surfaces by means of abrasion.
Scourer (3)
used for cleaning pots, pans, plates etc.
Shelterbelt (101)
wind resistant plants than can be grown to provide shelter in the garden etc.
Size (14)
used on materials, paper etc to give a surface that will take ink, dyes etc.
Soap (97)
plants used directly as a soap substitute.
Soap making (10)
plants used as an ingredient in making soaps. Does not include the essential oils, dyes and oils that are also used in making soap.
Soil conditioner (6)
plants grown to improve the structure of the soil. See also Green manures.
Soil reclamation (26)
plants that can be grown in such circumstances as the spoil tips of mines in order to restore fertility.
Soil stabilization (197)
plants that can be grown in places such as sand dunes in order to prevent erosion by wind, water or other agents.
Starch (30)
used as a fabric stiffener.
Straw (4)
for drinking from.
Strewing (49)
plants, usually aromatic, that are strewn on the floor to give a nice smell, repel insects etc.
String (30)
plants that can be used as they are as a temporary string. See also Fibre.
Stuffing (43)
used in soft toys, mattresses, pillows etc.

All in a searchable database.  It's really fantastic.

E-mail it to me.  I'll read it.  I'd like to see all those dots connected.

    Guarantee is a strong word.  No, I don't think there would be any guarantee.  The company could go belly-up, or it could prosper. 

    I don't know what Fred's operating procedures are.  And I have no way to know.  I'm in no position to call them fair or unfair.  I only want to understand his logic, and his view of his relationship to his workers and to do that, I have to ask questions.  I admit I'm being challenging, but I hope not condemnatory.

If you have a common resource, without controls - and very strong ones, someone will start exploiting it, and after that, you have a run on the resource.

I agree completely.  And I believe these controls can be co-operatively established and enforced, especially at the local level.

Capitalism would imply we would take all profit to ourselves - what we do is reinvest in new jobs, new opportunities.

 

I didn't mean to imply that you take all the profit.  But those new jobs and opportunities, in the end, mean more land for Fred and Fred alone.  In other words, that profit, re-invested in cows, or health insurance, or new hired hands, returns to you, just in a different form. 

The advantage is that we ensure everyone is contributing, and anyone who doesn't, is removed.

The expediency of being able to oust a lazy worker without having to call together a committee is appealing.  I've seen a crew's morale destroyed because the lazy ones weren't dealt with promptly. 

A co-op, Costa Rican style, does not imply equal power.  It means merely that resources are combined in order that smaller units can benefit as though they are larger.

What does this mean, in practice?  That the caretakers have access to company vehicles/equipment for their own use during off-hours?  What are the resources, smaller and larger units we're talking about here?

Not to call people cattle, but... I would never starve a cow or horse and expect it to produce, I would never expect a worker to do well if I didn't make sure they were cared for.

OK, but do you not believe that workers could care for themselves if given the means to do so?  Of course it's not reasonable to expect a (fenced-in) cow or horse to manage its pasture optimally.  But give the workers a little more credit.

Granted, our asset base grows, but as long as we don't touch that asset base, it really doesn't matter who owns it[...]what will turn this into a true co-op is that someday is that we have made plans to turn everything over to the workers in our will, with board of trustees to make sure it doesn't get looted.

Which brings us to an important question:  If you really wouldn't mind not owning the land, and your plans are to turn it over to your workers eventually anyway, why wait?  Why not cede ownership to the workers tomorrow, on some conditions that you felt comfortable with?  I know what I think, but I'd like to hear your answer.

What we are doing is treating our workers like they are part of a co-op. We limit the amount of money we withdraw from our company and all the rest of the profit goes back to expansion, buying more land, more equipment, more lifestock, planting more trees, etc.

What makes this a co-op?  What you are describing is sound capitalism, but not a co-op.  A co-op is:

      a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.[1] Cooperatives are defined by the International Co-operative Alliance's Statement on the Co-operative Identity as autonomous associations of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprises.[2] A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or by the people who work there.  (Wikipedia search: "co-op", emphasis mine)

    The issue is control of the means of production.  In your case the land, equipment, livestock, and nursery stock.  You use the profits generated by the business to acquire additional land, which you control.  In this way, you increase your assets and net worth, regardless of how modestly you live.  Your workers are subject to your decisions about what they can and cannot raise on their own plots, in exchange for which you provide or do not provide certain benefits.   

    Providing milk cows, salaries, and health insurance is great.  To the extent you do go above and beyond providing the barest necessities for your workers, I commend you - you sound like a good, compassionate landowner. 

Thankfully, Costa Ricans have a sense of community and they know if we expand, it means their relative or friend might be able to get a job.

This seems to indicate that Costa Ricans can see beyond the ends of their noses, and are able to put the greater (material) good ahead of their own personal interests.

I can't imagine doing something likes this as a committee because it requires people only taking what they need (like ourselves).  Most people want more than that.

And this seems to indicate maybe you don't trust human nature too much - and there is a lot of evidence to support that belief, I grant you.  But there appears to be an inherent conflict between these two statements.  Or is your belief something like "Costa Ricans can be unselfish, but in practice they are not often so." 

Do you believe that, if put to a vote (i.e., "doing something like this as a committee"), your workers would allow a system where some got more than what they needed?  Or do you suspect that their definition of how much they need would differ too greatly from your definition of what they need?

Sure.  Here's the situation, a little more fleshed-out:

      Landowner C bought an old 60-acre farm back in 1979, homesteaded for awhile, fished around for ways to make money, and ended up buying the "means of production" - vats, koji trays, etc. - from a failing miso company in Ohio.  He built a masonry stove and started making miso.  At one point, he had dreams of growing the ingredients for the various varieties of miso (eg; leeks, soy, garlic) on his own land.  And he wanted to do it with horse-power, so he bought up a bunch of harness and built stalls in his barn.

      But the miso got really popular, really fast, and he had no time to farm.  C never got horses.  The business expanded, he built himself a house, and his cabin and barn were now vacant and a local farmer grew corn on the parts of the farm down by the river.  No one managed the forest.  C had mixed feelings about it.  He was happy the land was being used, but not thrilled with seeing continuous corn. 

      1995: Enter D.  Very eager to be a farmer, though with only limited experience; he'd been a former apprentice on a farm in Maine and some homesteads in the PNW, and had worked with horses.  He'd done a bit of reading, too. 

      C and D hit it off, and agreed to a one-year lease to get to know one another and feel out the terms that might work for both.  They agreed that D would grow something other than corn and try to sell it, and C would let him use the tractor to do it.  Other than that, C stayed out of it.  Didn't tell D what to do or how to do it.  Let him make his mistakes, charged next to nothing for renting the cabin, and let him use the tractor for free.

      D grew a 1/12th acre garden, sold what he could, wrapped it up early and finished the season doing piece-work in a local apple orchard.  He kept all his money, and spent it on seeds, a pickup truck, and some beat-up horsedrawn equipment.  Year 2, same thing, but on a little larger scale.  Year 3, he finally bought horses, worked up the courage to start a CSA, and got about 30 members. 

      At no point was there any revenue- or labor-sharing.  Whether D's business succeeds or fails is entirely up to him.  He simply receives a "micro-subsidy" from C in the form of a very cheap lease on some good land.

    C runs the miso company, hires and fires employees, oversees day-to-day operations there, and writes the checks.  D runs the farm - with apprentice labor - and all proceeds from the CSA and farm store are his.  The farm does not provide ingredients for the miso company.

    I think this "separate-but-helpful" arrangement is an important point: the two workforces and managers do not interfere with one another, but each is available as a resource for the other if they need help.  I was an apprentice at the farm and we were on hand when C wanted to put up a greenhouse near his house.  And when we needed the miso company's tractor or forklift to lift a pallet onto the wagon, all we had to do was ask.

      As the farm operation grew, and D became more invested in it, the question of longer-term security came up.  He wanted to start a family, teach apprentices how to farm with horsepower...do his life's work, basically.  They came up with the arrangement detailed in my first post in this thread...

      The key to the whole thing is finding a landowner enlightened enough to relinquish some control over "his" land. 

seems to me that more folks ought to seek long-term leases and other alternative modes of land tenure rather than buying a chunk of land.  mortgages are trouble.  leasing would allow folks to invest more resources into the land instead of into the bank.  it would mean being very careful about finding the right landlord and crafting a lease or other agreement, but there are a lot of very substantial advantages.

Allow me to wander a tiny bit.  There's no permaculture/land ownership link, just an example of a so-far successful long-term lease situation from the farm I worked on last year, short-handed:

      Rent is set at a pittance: $100/year for all-you-can-farm access to 5 acres of prime bottomland, plus 10-15 acres of pasture/hayfield, with the object of freeing up farmer cash for farming.

      Farmers (married couple) rent land from owner, currently a ten-year lease.  Improvements to the land (i.e.: structures) are divided into Classes A and B.  Other improvements from soil amendments, informed and careful stewardship, etc. are not considered by the lease agreement, although there was some discussion of how to quantify and reward that kind of thing.  So, the buildings:

      Class A are those improvements which the landlord agrees will be of some benefit to him, should the current farmers leave.  The construction cost is borne by the farmers (unless otherwise agreed upon) and refunded to them when they leave.  Example:  The cabin in which they live was built by the landlord.  They had kids and needed more room.  The landlord agreed that an addition would increase the value of the cabin - allowing him to raise the rental price in case the farmers were to leave - the farmers paid the carpenter for another two rooms and saved the bills.

    Class B are the buildings that the landlord does not foresee a use for if the parties go their separate ways.  Example:  The greenhouse.  He won't use it, and would like it to be removed.  Again, construction cost is borne by the farmers, but they retain the right to dismantle and take it with them - so in that sense they "own" it in a way they don't "own" the cabin - but will not be retroactively compensated for its construction. 

    All this is intended to give the farmers some sense of security.  They are not completely subject to the whim of the landlord and are thereby encouraged to invest in the place.  The system has the merits of being simple, and has worked so far (since 1997).

And might I add:

http://www.restorationfarm.org/Restoration_Farm/Home/Entries/2010/4/26_Peters_Lawtons_Rocket_Pot_and_Rocket_Rack_System.html

The professional version of the system described previously, with Powerpoint slideshow to boot.

    "Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating. The third by Agriculture the only honest Way; wherein Man receives a real Increase of the Seed thrown into the Ground, in a kind of continual Miracle wrought by the Hand of God in his favour, as a Reward for his innocent Life, and virtuous Industry."

Benjamin Franklin, Positions to be Examined, April 4, 1769

    I don't know that this fits here, as it seems most responses have been regarding outdoor, in-ground applications, but I'll post it nevertheless.  As with many things I do, it is a miniaturization of large-scale commercial methods; in this case, the system used by a local greenhouse.  And as with some of the things I do, there have been happy accidents.  I welcome suggestions for improvements, and I apologize for the lack of pictures in advance.

    First, a bit of context:  I'm currently growing vegetables way back in the woods with no power and no well.  There is a seasonal stream, however.  We have a greenhouse, which is wood-heated. 

    I bought food grade blue 55-gallon drums, arranged them in a line down the center of the greenhouse about 4' apart and made sure the tops were all level.  Then I wrapped a 3/4" sheet of plywood in 6 mil poly and screwed on 2x4 sides.  That is placed atop/spans three barrels, leaving the openings (there is a 3" threaded plastic cap in my barrels) of barrels 1 and 3 open.  Into that opening I drop a plastic hand-pump that is ordinarily used for moving fuel from drums to vehicles and which I use to flood the tables with the water in the barrels.

      In the winter, when we're lighting fires to keep the seedlings from freezing, I keep water in the barrels to store heat.  The mass of the water has the additional benefit of making the barrels extremely good support pillars for the watering table.  Now that it's warming up and the weather is becoming more microbially friendly, I don't store as much, and make sure to thoroughly empty a barrel before I recharge it.  Water is gravity fed - through a sand filter - from the stream via 2" lay-flat.  This time of year, I just tuck the lay-flat into the corner of a table and let 'er rip.

      I start seeds in soil blocks in trays with fairly open bottoms.  The benefits of bottom-watering and soil blocks have been enumerated elsewhere, so I won't go into them here.  One caution, from the greenhouse owner, regards fertigation: you should use an EC meter (I know, it's fancy-schmancy) to check the build-up of fertilizer salts (I know, you all don't use such and neither do I, but still...) in your plugs/blocks, as this system lacks the  flushing action of overhead watering. 

      So you flood the table, wait fifteen minutes at most, or until it seems that your plants have what they need.
The depth to which you flood depends on the size of your blocks/plugs - the larger they are, the deeper the water needs to be to wick up through the block in the time limit.  Then you pull the drain-plug and the water exits the system.  Where it goes is up to you, and fertile ground for creativity.

      I mentioned before that the tops of the barrels were leveled.  I shim to create just enough slope to drain the table when I pull the plug.  In the commercial greenhouse these tables are 20' long with one end 1/4" higher than the other.

      There are problems with this system on a philosophical level for me.  I hate using so much plastic, and having it all bake in the sun day after day.  I am aware of the extremely inefficient use of wood when used to heat the air in a stand-alone greenhouse without so much as an inflater fan.  Practical hurdles are getting three barrels to stand in the same plane so that the watering table is supported on each end and in the middle.  If it isn't, there is a surprising amount of deflection under the weight of the flats, and that results in uneven water distribution and hence, rate of uptake.

      But: if the tables could be stiffened enough, and if they could be properly (read:evenly) supported, and if the various plastic components could be replaced with wooden/bamboo/glass counterparts, and if this all took place in a structure attached to it that could share some of that heat we're throwing off from the stove, and if the water exited to somewhere that could use it well, I'd feel pretty good about the whole thing.

      Some other ideas include the creative reuse of pick-up bedliners, but I don't know that it would be worth it.