"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"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.
Hangon a bit, theres not reason to take it so litterally.
The squares can be two rows wide with another two rows
at the other side of a path, or whatever fits in.
Seed saving isnt the aim,but an ongoing crop is. It seem to me you adapt the
sytem
to your own methods and come up with one that works for you.


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