There are some very technical aspects to intensive vegetable production, and there are folks who are good technicians.  There are also quite a few folks out there that avoid anything smacking of technical and who try to take a completely aesthetic approach, i.e. if it looks good, it must be working.  Thinking out loud here for a second, it seems to me that people are often confused about what the point is.  If your intention is to make money farming then decisions should be based solely on calculations of maximum return within the limitations of your farm.  I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who is farming solely to make money.  There’s almost always some aspect of aesthetic that is important; maybe flavor, or visual beauty, or just the opportunity to work in a beautiful place.  

    In Bhutan the idea of Gross National Happiness is favored over Gross National Product.  The kind of farming that appeals to me is farming that increases happiness and well being, isn’t that what GNP is trying to measure indirectly, the happiness of the population?  The problem with GNP is that people forget that it’s looking at money, not at happiness.  There may be some corollary between money and happiness, but it’s certainly not a 1:1 relationship.

    This doesn’t mean that the business end of the farm gets ignored though, just put into perspective, balanced.  Sometimes decisions are going to be made favoring aesthetics, but always with a minimum nod to the economic realities, or the farm will not be “sustainable.”  

    It is not enough to be able to coax the most delicious tomato ever out of the ground, or to be able to keep a field completely clean of weeds.  Those things are important, but they have to be accomplished without breaking the bank, or the backs of the field workers.  The real artistry in farming is maintaining the quality of the end product, which may be the vegetable itself or even the work environment, and at the same time creating happiness for all involved; the eater, the picker, the manager.