Pam Rudd wrote:

When last we left our heros, on Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:07:00 -0400,
Pat Meadows scribbled:


Anyone here have any experience with the 'Mittleider Method'
of gardening?

See: http://foodforeveryone.org/

I'd never heard of it before happening on the website when
looking for something else.

I've never heard of it, either, but from the information on
the web site it looks like a lot of hype, a lot of chemical
fertilizer, and a lot of expensive irrigation equipment. That's
not the way I want to garden. I want to work with nature
as much as possible.

His feritlizer recommendations are based on having crappy soil. Starting
from zero makes it easy to calculate the numbers. However, I see very
little note of the trace elements a soil needs or the bacteria to make it
all available to the roots. I could find no mention of pH as an agent in
nutrient availability. His mix of hydroponics and soil-based agriculture
consists entirely of bathing poor soil with purchased nutrients already in
solution (viz the weekly feeding / daily watering). He shows no concern for
the effect this has on either the water table or the soil structure and no
awareness that most soils are quite capable of producing well if properly
cared for. It is certainly an environmental mis-step and likely an economic
one as well.

The sites of his test gardens provide abundant quantities of organic
material. Soils such as that respond incredibly well the first couple of
years they recieve supplemental fertilizers ... that's what happened in the
US midweat in the early decades of the past century.

Then come the dustbowls.

sarcasm But who cares ... 'they' live in Ecuador and are 'only peasants
anyways'. /sarcasm

I'd like to see documented yields in that soil over a 5 year period as the
existing organic material is depleted and I'd also like to see documented
costs of production per unit of yield over that same time frame.

I note that Mettleider is recommending bed widths of 18 inches and path
widths of over twice that. Thus, less than 1/3 of his soil is actually
under cultivation ... the rest is wasted on paths. This is an exceptionally
poor use of resources or, as he would say "inefficient'. In my own garden,
slightly less than 1/2 is in paths and I could have improved on that except
that I wanted to leave room for a wheelchair in the future, should need
ever arise. Thus, without a single degree or prestigious financial grant,
my garden starts out 18% more efficient than his. And, with 4' of loose,
biologically active, water and nutrient retentive soil beneath the plants,
I never give that advantage back.

I hereby declare a quack alert.

Bill


--
Zone 8b (Detroit, MI)
I do not post my address to news groups.