One word that is used quite a bit in farming is "sustainable", and it's used in farming so much that it's almost become just a noise.
Many people claim that their farming practices, or timber harvest, or fishing method, is "sustainable". In fact, "sustainable" is a goal that many producers strive for; it sounds good, and it seems to mean something to consumers.
When you look up the definition of Sustainable agriculture there's actually a pretty clear definition, and what it has that I think bears reflection is the words "...that will last over the long term"
When someone says that they have a "sustainable" farm I think that the first thing that should come to mind is how long they've been doing it. I've too many "sustainable" farms come and go.
When I think about what I'm doing, or what I will do, I do so with the idea of doing the same sort of thing 3 years,5 years, or 10 years from now. I'm 48 years old; I will probably live into my 70s; that means that everything I want to do will have to be in the next 22 years. That's the limit of "sustainable" for me, and during the last decade or so - or sooner - I'll have a decreasing physical ability, so my term is shorter than I'd like. For me, a sustainable farm is one where it makes a profit and looks like an attractive job for someone else -- because I like the idea of setting something in motion, and having it continue after I'm gone. That's the sort of sustainability that appeals to me.
Doing something for 6 months and then finding out that you have to do something else isn't sustainable -- by definition.
When I look at farms that completely change their whole operation every year or two I don't consider them "sustainable" -- because they didn't sustain. They didn't endure.
And I wish they'd stop using the word.
19 hours ago