"Jonno" wrote in message
...
Found this the other day. Looks good Further info (I will ignore the other
"information" so I will stay reasonable sane)

http://www.nepanewsletter.com/square.html
a..
a.. Using the square-foot system, you give up the long rows of the
traditional garden. You virtually eliminate thinning,
you save tremendous amounts of seed, and you save lots of time, working
about one hour per 4'x4' grid.

a.. Each of your 4'x4' grids produces an average of 126 plants per year.
Each grid is divided into 16 units of 1'x1', in which you can grow a
different crop.

a.. The average square-foot garden for a family of four takes up 160
square feet. A conventional garden for a family of four goes 800.

a.. Overplanting is one of the biggest causes of frustration and failure.
But in a square-foot garden, instead of planting most of your seed packet,
you plant only one or two seeds per alloted plant space. Planting an
entire packet and then thinning takes twice as long as the single-seed
method. In addition, the single-seed method produces a stronger crop that
matures earlier. Have many seeds are contained in a common packet? For
cabbage it's 560; carrots 1,550; lettuce 1,975. With proper handling and
storage, 80% of these will sprout. What a waste.

heard of square foot gardening. i think it's probably important not to be
TOO literal about it - it's more of a way to explain a different sort of
method where the scale is small & it's highly organised. :-)

one problem i am aware of is the difficulty involved in gardening right in
the middle of a large square shape (reaching, where to step). many people
don't approve of walking on the beds ever, so you need to allow access imo &
be aware of how far you can comfortably reach when you are harvesting.

i don't understand the claims above concerning planting fewer seeds...? one
plants to size always & allow for the shape of the area while you're there
whether rows, blocks, or however you personally like to do it - "waste" is
inherent because germination is never 100% so you allow for that - it's not
really "waste". also, some plants (eg lettuce, carrots) prefer to be planted
thickly & thinned later. for whatever reason, planting certain seeds singly
will not give you as much success. again, it's really not "waste", it's just
selection. a lettuce apparently makes up to 22,000 seeds from one plant(!) -
yet of course you would not get 22,000 plants from one lettuce that went to
seed & even if you did, some would be dud plants anyway & you don't want dud
plants. the fact that much seed never germinates at all is just a part of
nature & fits in with the system (indeed, it IS the system - survival of the
fittest, basically). with thinning, you rogue out the less "fit" & grow the
fittest, so it's an investment in your future. i'd also say that veg which
you can eat the young thinnings early are a bonus, rather than a waste!

lastly, i doubt much space is really saved - my veg garden for example is
well-spread & takes up a lot of room (probably too much!!) but my soil's not
that good yet so i would be reluctant to try to get too much by cramming
things together - but the actual productive space used by plants is probably
the same. i'm still experimenting with this, but the fact is there's no need
for me to be stingy with space (big country yard) - space is not an issue
for everyone & hence, again, is not necessarily "wasted" space. there are
other issues instead sometimes - water, aspect, fertility, etc.

square foot gardening would be good for a small yard where space is valuable
& the soil is pretty good & where the gardener likes (or needs) to follow a
nice neat system of small blocks of work & rotation, i would think. have
fun!
kylie