S6. Summary

Abstract

The previously stated axiom, there being no one-best cropping solution , no one-best way to do things, carries the presumption that a number of alternatives or options can be equally profitable. There is no reason that cost orientation should be any less profitable as compared with revenue orientation. Studies on agroecological changeover do support this presumption. When switching to a more agroecologically based commercial farm practice, some have reported 10-15% less productivity but, when costs are included, overall profits declined only about 4%. Others found production 4% less, with no change in the financial margin. The most striking changeover caused yield reductions of approximately 40%, but with an increase of 40% in the revenue-minus-costs returns. Another account put the profit margins from agroecology-raised maize at $511 per hectare against $72 for conventional agrochemical-based methods. Similarly, the margins for agroecologically grown soybeans were set at $240 vs. $132 for conventionally propagated soybeans. The comparative figures for alfalfa are $495 vs. $51 in favor of agroecology. 1 With only a few reporting, a good economic aftermath is far from assured. The problem still remains, finding the combinations of species, spatial patterns, and other design variables to achieve the best results. It is the process of getting to and beyond this point, all while maintaining a positive economic picture, that is of interest to economists. When studying or applying agroecology, one can start at the beginning , with vectors, or, depending on the known parameters, enter the process at some intermediate step. The intermediate steps are agro-biodynamic principles, implementation concepts, or a process somewhat shortcutted through well-founded agrotechnologies. This chapter explains, in summation, what underwrites the path toward achieving specified economic and non-economic objectives. 249