Water restrictions and gardens
 

0tterbot wrote:

never mind the goss
I just suspect that it is normal post-grad student did all the work and
Prof getting all the glory scene.

- i've read 3 permaculture books so far & i'm just not
GETTING IT. what's the goss on that? :-)

which ones?

All it really is is bringing together some ideas in sustainable
agriculture so you basically have a self sustaining block of land for a
family. And perhaps sell/trade your surplus at the local market.

Buy a block of land, establish vege garden, orchard, grazing, etc, etc
so you are not forever mowing, ploughing, suffering major pest attack,
dispensing chemicals, etc, etc

afaict, it's all about slopes and windbreaks & planting stuff irrelevent to
soil type etc, & the remainder is what i'd call "the bleeding obvious".

What do you base the statement about soil type on?

It isn't obvious to people who don't have a clue and haven't talked or
looked at stuff before.


who the hell needs a fire mandala? what am i missing??

I have absolutely no idea if your rubbish burns off better in a fire
mandala or not.

Just have a chuckle at the touchy-feely stuff earth spirit stuff and
ignore it.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

Chookie wrote:

I don't see why Sydney people wouldn't be able to put up with that,

Umm, where are you gong to shit?

And of course
our decision-makers are often dills (don't get me started on Sartor or
desalination!) so they're the ones who start talking about pinching the water
from Tallowa etc.

I think you will find that Sydney has been taking water from Tallowa for
a long, long time.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

0tterbot wrote:

personally, i don't think there's such a thing as "unviable" land in & of
itself -

The general adjective is farming and basically land meets this criteria
when it can not be farmed in a sustainable way, i.e. you are generally
degrading the land over time. Another definition of unviable is that the
"farm" can not return a profit, which is also a reasonable definition.

Although most unviable land is thought to be (for NSW) in the western
division, there is some lands on the west of the dividing range that is
also unviable. There are a number of farms that basically survive from
collecting wild goats.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
0tterbot wrote:

never mind the goss
I just suspect that it is normal post-grad student did all the work and
Prof getting all the glory scene.

- i've read 3 permaculture books so far & i'm just not
GETTING IT. what's the goss on that? :-)

which ones?

most recently "permaculture two" (mollison) and prior to that two others
which were so underwhelming i can't even think what they are called. and i'm
not about to re-borrow them from the library in order to remind myself ;-)

All it really is is bringing together some ideas in sustainable
agriculture so you basically have a self sustaining block of land for a
family. And perhaps sell/trade your surplus at the local market.

Buy a block of land, establish vege garden, orchard, grazing, etc, etc so
you are not forever mowing, ploughing, suffering major pest attack,
dispensing chemicals, etc, etc

ya, that all makes sense (the entire motivation goes into the "bleeding
obvious" basket ;-).

afaict, it's all about slopes and windbreaks & planting stuff irrelevent
to soil type etc, & the remainder is what i'd call "the bleeding
obvious".

What do you base the statement about soil type on?

the fact it was 100% never mentioned whatsoever in any of the books (and i
do understand that "gardening" or "farming", as information-based concepts,
aren't what the books are really about) - at all. in fact, the only physical
aspect of the land they seemed interested in at all was SLOPE! i couldn't
even find any references in any of them pertaining to flattish land!

perhaps it's just mollison et al's appalling writing style. it was like the
books had no beginning or end, it was all just bla.

It isn't obvious to people who don't have a clue and haven't talked or
looked at stuff before.

i'm assuming that people would get a basic grasp of the process before they
progress to permaculture (permaculture being so design-based) but again,
such basic things are worth incorporating into a book on a concept which is
supposed to be wholistic(???)

similarly it occurred to me that what we call obvious in 2006 might have, in
the 1970s, been temporarily forgotten or pushed to one side & had to be
reintroduced by garden writers generally. certainly modern books & info are
pretty different to 40 year old stuff in general.

who the hell needs a fire mandala? what am i missing??

I have absolutely no idea if your rubbish burns off better in a fire
mandala or not.

the mandala's in perm two. i would not be able to tell you what it's for. in
the cartoon there was a little bloke sitting with his campfire in the middle
of his mandala. perhaps it is a way to have an illegal outdoor fire during
summer, without anyone knowing? (and presumably with no risk of it getting
out of control..?).

Just have a chuckle at the touchy-feely stuff earth spirit stuff and
ignore it.

i just sort of feel robbed - as though i was supposed to have "aha!" moments
reading about this marvellous movement but it was all babble, politics (and
slopes and windbreaks ;-) and the intense and repetitive way mr mollison
wants us all to CONTROL our land rather freaks me out. most of my property
is regenerating bushland. big bill is evidently of the opinion i should sell
most of it, as it is too big for me to CONTROL.

i must have just wanted to have a whinge!! g
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...
"Chookie" wrote in message
My letter on a related subject was published today. I am now
awaiting the
backlash from the anti-germ brigade. (Near the bottom of the
page...)

http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index....e#contentSwap2

I went to this site and couldn't find any letter relating to water or
drought. Was I a day too late?

ya, it was yesterday. chookie wrote that although running through the
sprinkler is a thing of the past, that her wee boys can still dance in the
greywater pumped onto the lawn. sweet :-)
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...

again, just because most of them
don't rely
on rainfall to make a living does not make the awareness any less
acute.
(snip)

Well they know is a very, very limited sense.

well, "know" is a word with various meanings. (and then there's the biblical
sense! but let's not go there.) it really only sounds like you are cross
with them because they experience the effects of drought too but don't
suffer. should they somehow be _made_ to suffer like we suffer?!

And that sense is that
they are now talking of the need to get MORE water for Sydney. And
taking it from further and further way, like the Shoalhaven River.
The bloody Shoalhaven for God's sake!

are you mistaking the iemma govt's machinations for what literally everyone
in sydney wants? i'd hope not as i suspect they're even less popular in
sydney than elsewhere. in fact, now i'm back in nsw they represent me as
well, and i _still_ don't approve of them any more than anyone else does
(i'm just glad to be out of the sodding a.c.t.). many people come up with
many ideas concerning "what to do about" sydney. many of them are rubbish.
rarely are they backed by a critical mass of sydneysiders. like chookie
said, the presence of the dills does not mean everyone's a dill - otherwise
all the countryfolk are clearfellers, fertiliser polluters, and dickheads,
aren't they? the fact remains though that a city of 4 million people, and
the biggest in the country, is an important place which one would rather not
see turn completely to shit (and not least because the rest of us rely on
them in many, many ways for the time being).

And frankly I'm equally amazed at your inability to take on board refe
rences given to enable you to do some research and that may challenge
your generalisations (you can even access then online so don't even
have to inconvenience yourself by going outside) .

let's not be snarky. which references was i unable to take on board? the
fact you referred me to two things, and i didn't reply specifically to
those, doesn't mean much. i have an extremely long reading list & i'll get
to it. much as i would love to magick books out of thin air, i can't do
that.

why am i not allowed to speak generally, but you're allowed not only to
generalise wildly but also think your generalisations count for more?

Really? I particulalry enjoyed the one about:
"city peeps are generally better-educated and have a much broader view
of the
world, their world is just bigger than ours is"

Such a generalisation really surprised me.

clearly. you're having a great deal of trouble getting over it, i see. city
people are, proportionately, better educated (this partly includes people
who left rural areas _in order to receive_ more education not available in
their area). not least because educational facilities tend to be
concentrated in cities, where many small country towns don't even have a
high school, never mind a tafe or a uni or any private adult ed. for
example, amongst others:
http://ofw.facs.gov.au/publications/wia/chapter6.html
While retention rates for secondary school students, particularly girls, are
increasing, these numbers differ when examined geographically. That is,
students in remote and regional areas are more likely than those in cities
to face problems of access and limited choice as they aim to complete their
education. Residents of regional and remote Australia have consistently had
lower rates of attendance in the non-compulsory years 11 and 12 of school
and at non-school education institutions than city residents.5
Evidence from Haberkorn et. al. indicated that in 1996, average school
attendance rates of 16 year olds in non-capital city Australia were below
those for capital city Australia (76 per cent and 83 per cent respectively).
Attendance rates had remained stable over time, increasing only 0.6 per cent
across Australia between 1991 and 1996. However, in non-capital city areas,
there was a decline of 0.6 per cent in this period.6

According to Collins et al., in 1996 rural girls were only five per cent
less likely to complete school than urban girls, but the chances of rural
boys completing school were 11 per cent less than for urban boys. Girls and
boys in remote areas were both noticeably more unlikely to complete school
than their urban counterparts: 19 per cent and 16 per cent respectively'.7

Haberkorn et. al. found a negative relationship between the proportion of 16
year olds in school and the degree of remoteness. However, some care needs
to be taken in interpreting this as people aged 16 who grew up in remote
areas may have left home to continue their education.8

I know I get to the Opera
House more often than my city rels do now that the ballet dancer has
ended her career (and they only went to see her anyway, not a range of
things) and I am always amazed at how busy my city friend and rels are
but how little they actually use the benefits of the city. The
routine of daily living for them is much more restrictive on their
lifestyle than it is for the country people I know. They go to more
restaurants and movies but not to do anything useful in a cultural or
educative sense - just much more social. Lots of talk but no meat.

And when it comes to education, my (country born and bred and working)
Mechanic has 2 degrees and he's not the only country person I know who
has such surprising qualifications behind his rough exterior. I also
get a particular kick out of the very traditonal sheep farmer I know
who looks like a total hay seed and lives in the deep deep country but
who has a PhD (thesis was on sheep).


what has this to do with anything? how often your rellies go to the opera,
or how many hicks you know with phds, is really not relevent to anything i
said. if you cannot see the obviousness of a statement entailing 1: a
literal truth (that city peeps are more likely to be better educated -
they're also healthier & slimmer - do you want to argue about that too?) and
2: that the outside world is a great deal closer to, and interacted with, a
person who lives in a very big, international city which contains every
imaginable type of person from literally everywhere on earth, living cheek
by jowl in every imaginable economic and family situation, then i really
can't help you. if i want to fly to beirut or london or marrakesch tomorrow,
i think i have to go to SYDNEY first, don't you? that's the literality of
it. the figurative element is what is gained by meeting & working with &
living amongst more people, with different experiences, and having further
access to more of those people and experiences should one wish. i moved to
the city from the country at 17 & believe you me, it was a real eye-opener.
i make my claims from experience & in good faith, but even so, it's hardly
worth arguing about.

i'm NOT saying "the city is better" or "country people are all dumb" or
anything LIKE that. i'm making some observations which you've decided to get
completely off-side about, for absolutely NO reason i can fathom. what's the
problem??!
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
0tterbot wrote:

personally, i don't think there's such a thing as "unviable" land in & of
itself -

The general adjective is farming and basically land meets this criteria
when it can not be farmed in a sustainable way, i.e. you are generally
degrading the land over time. Another definition of unviable is that the
"farm" can not return a profit, which is also a reasonable definition.

Although most unviable land is thought to be (for NSW) in the western
division, there is some lands on the west of the dividing range that is
also unviable. There are a number of farms that basically survive from
collecting wild goats.

what i'm trying to say is that definitions of "unviable" might be a bit
limited - in settling on the definition, i'd hope that not only
"traditional" farming is considered. anything can be farmed, it's just a
question of where, when, and how!
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

In article
,
Terryc wrote:

Chookie wrote:

I don't see why Sydney people wouldn't be able to put up with that,

Umm, where are you gong to shit?

They'll bring back the night-men. I suppose it will be employment for all
those idiots who have had to declare bankruptcy after buying unsustainable
McMansions on unsustainable mortgages...

And of course
our decision-makers are often dills (don't get me started on Sartor or
desalination!) so they're the ones who start talking about pinching the
water
from Tallowa etc.

I think you will find that Sydney has been taking water from Tallowa for
a long, long time.

Sorry -- MORE water from Tallowa (after raising the dam wall).

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Water restrictions and gardens
 

In article ,
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote:

Truth be told, there are probably too many people in Sydney who
don't 'think about things' because they are trying to keep their heads
above (metaphorical) water of some kind. I work in TAFE and I see these
people.

You mean you have such things as TAFEs within easy access?

THere is actually a TAFE in my suburb, but I don't work there. I have a
45-min drive through Sydney traffic to get to mine... is that 'easy access'?
:-)

Of course all of Sydney is not posh but at least it has such things as
hospitals and schools and police stations and all sorts of other
services. On a platter.

Most large (and even small) country towns will have those things. You must be
pretty remote if you don't have a TAFE within reach. Bourke and Coomealla
have TAFEs! And TAFE is in reach of everyone via OTEN.

Maps he http://www.tafensw.edu.au/campuses/index.htm

The city people are very busy and talk lots (and
that is even the ones I know and love) but they really don't observe
too well. Too many fleeting glimpses or thoughts and not enough
cogitation before saying or half thinking about soemthing before
heading off to the next social engagement or need for busyness.

shrug
You can find that anywhere. One of my online friends from rural SA -- a
district with maybe 1000 people in it -- mentioned a relative who seems to be
all style and no substance.

With two small boys, I'm perhaps a bit lacking in the social engagements dept.
It's funny getting the Herald 'subscriber benefits' e-mail. Gosh, I'm missing
out on dinner with Lord Wedgwood this time. Or should I say *he* is missing
out on dinner with *me*?!

The question is: what did they DO about it? For example, farmers
were still *clearing* the WA wheat area in the 1920s. The plantings/
earthworks I saw were, I would estimate, ten years old. Bit of a gap there.

Yes, I agree. But to solve dryland salinity and all sorts of other
land related problems is not one where a quick solution or rushing in
and doing anything and/or everything will always work. It was many
years before it was found that the way to treat erosion was to treat
the head of the erosion and not the body of the erosion.

Not only that -- you have to find the limits of your solution, eg you might
find a solution that is fine in terms of your own climate/soil etc, but it
might not be appropriate elsewhere. And the information has to be passed
around and retested, too.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Water restrictions and gardens
 

In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

I'm asking because I've had a couple of
country people tell me I'm more like a country person than a city person,
and it seems to be a compliment ;-)

perhaps they mean you talk really fast but with your mouth almost entirely
closed? g

Definitely not!

i don't know what people might mean by that. ime city peeps are just as
friendly as country peeps & i'm unsure where the idea comes from that cities
are "unfriendly" (if it's about "friendliness" & that sort of thing). most
country peeps seem much less inclined toward one-upmanship &
jones-keeping-upping & mad consumerism & all that stuff.

Probably that...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Water restrictions and gardens
 

In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

- i've read 3 permaculture books so far & i'm just not
GETTING IT. what's the goss on that? :-)
snip
perhaps it's just mollison et al's appalling writing style. it was like the
books had no beginning or end, it was all just bla.

i just sort of feel robbed - as though i was supposed to have "aha!" moments
reading about this marvellous movement but it was all babble, politics (and
slopes and windbreaks ;-) and the intense and repetitive way mr mollison
wants us all to CONTROL our land rather freaks me out. most of my property
is regenerating bushland. big bill is evidently of the opinion i should sell
most of it, as it is too big for me to CONTROL.

Sounds like you missed out on the Permaculture Design Manual and (IIRC)
Permaculture One. The Earth User's Guide to Permaculture (by Rosemary Morrow)
is quite accessible and better written than the others.

Permaculture is agriculture for engineers. It looks at ways of saving energy
rather than money. For example, my chooks are at present living under my
lemon tree. They have removed the grass that was competing with the tree
roots, spread mulch, and added fertiliser to the area. There are other ways
to achieve the same results, but this is an energy-efficient one.

The idea is to consider inputs and outputs and see how you can make things
work for you with a minimum amount of effort. Soil characteristics are
definitely an input. I think they are covered in PDM.

In my example, my chooks need as inputs: a run to scratch in, green stuff to
eat, and shade. They produce scratched-up ground, eggs, and poo. The lemon
tree needs: the grass removed from its roots, nitrogenous fertiliser, and
water. It provides: lemons and shade. (This list is not exhaustive, of
course.) Therefore I arrange matters so that the chooks and lemon tree
provide some of each other's needs *without my further intervention*. THAT is
"control".

The rest is broad conclusions and sample technique.

HTH,

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"0tterbot" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
"Chookie" wrote in message
My letter on a related subject was published today. I am now
awaiting the
backlash from the anti-germ brigade. (Near the bottom of the
page...)


http://www.smh.com.au/letters/index....e#contentSwap2

I went to this site and couldn't find any letter relating to water
or
drought. Was I a day too late?

ya, it was yesterday. chookie wrote that although running through
the
sprinkler is a thing of the past, that her wee boys can still dance
in the
greywater pumped onto the lawn. sweet :-)

I see what she means now about the anti-germ brigade :-))

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
Chookie wrote:

I don't see why Sydney people wouldn't be able to put up with
that,

Umm, where are you gong to shit?

Shades of the Florida Superdome all over again. With any luck they'll
have a lidded bucket.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"0tterbot" wrote in message
"Terryc" wrote in message
0tterbot wrote:

personally, i don't think there's such a thing as "unviable" land
in & of
itself -

The general adjective is farming and basically land meets this
criteria
when it can not be farmed in a sustainable way, i.e. you are
generally
degrading the land over time. Another definition of unviable is
that the
"farm" can not return a profit, which is also a reasonable
definition.

Although most unviable land is thought to be (for NSW) in the
western
division, there is some lands on the west of the dividing range
that is
also unviable. There are a number of farms that basically survive
from
collecting wild goats.

what i'm trying to say is that definitions of "unviable" might be a
bit
limited - in settling on the definition, i'd hope that not only
"traditional" farming is considered. anything can be farmed, it's
just a
question of where, when, and how!

But not sustainably. Any land can be farmed if there is enough money,
equipment and the person owning the land is prepared to mine other
land or lands to bring in the materials to bring their land up to a
level where any form of farming (whether traditional or not) can take
place.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

0tterbot wrote:


It isn't obvious to people who don't have a clue and haven't talked or
looked at stuff before.


i'm assuming that people would get a basic grasp of the process

Nope, wrong assumption. Seriously, you have got to meet some of these
people to believe how little they know/knew. It was good for a laugh,
except when some poor animal was suffering.

Obviously you are the wrong market.



i must have just wanted to have a whinge!! g

Naah, one of the benefits of being able to speed read is to decide if
the book is really worth the $$$ asked. Do not ever trust anyones
recommendation.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Chookie" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote:

Truth be told, there are probably too many people in Sydney who
don't 'think about things' because they are trying to keep their
heads
above (metaphorical) water of some kind. I work in TAFE and I
see these
people.

You mean you have such things as TAFEs within easy access?

THere is actually a TAFE in my suburb, but I don't work there. I
have a
45-min drive through Sydney traffic to get to mine... is that 'easy
access'?
:-)

Well perhaps you should have tried to get a job in the TAFE closer to
home :-))

Of course all of Sydney is not posh but at least it has such
things as
hospitals and schools and police stations and all sorts of other
services. On a platter.

Most large (and even small) country towns will have those things.
You must be
pretty remote if you don't have a TAFE within reach.

Within reach of course but not as close as within anything equating to
your suburb. And the nearest one shut down its rural studies and that
is now a good hour and a half away at 100 kms/hr.

The city people are very busy and talk lots (and
that is even the ones I know and love) but they really don't
observe
too well. Too many fleeting glimpses or thoughts and not enough
cogitation before saying or half thinking about soemthing before
heading off to the next social engagement or need for busyness.

shrug
You can find that anywhere. One of my online friends from rural
SA -- a
district with maybe 1000 people in it -- mentioned a relative who
seems to be
all style and no substance.

That comment instantly brought to mind a woman who moved here from
Mosman. :-)) We all reckon that she'll be off like a shot to the city
again when her husband drops dead. She has brought style to her house
though.

With two small boys, I'm perhaps a bit lacking in the social
engagements dept.
It's funny getting the Herald 'subscriber benefits' e-mail. Gosh,
I'm missing
out on dinner with Lord Wedgwood this time. Or should I say *he* is
missing
out on dinner with *me*?!

Defintitely the latter. Much more interesting than the normal toadies
I'd expect.

The question is: what did they DO about it? For example,
farmers
were still *clearing* the WA wheat area in the 1920s. The
plantings/
earthworks I saw were, I would estimate, ten years old. Bit of
a gap there.

Yes, I agree. But to solve dryland salinity and all sorts of
other
land related problems is not one where a quick solution or rushing
in
and doing anything and/or everything will always work. It was
many
years before it was found that the way to treat erosion was to
treat
the head of the erosion and not the body of the erosion.

Not only that -- you have to find the limits of your solution, eg
you might
find a solution that is fine in terms of your own climate/soil etc,
but it
might not be appropriate elsewhere. And the information has to be
passed
around and retested, too.

Yeah. Pity one size doesn't fit all every time. It'd make life
easier.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

Chookie wrote:

THere is actually a TAFE in my suburb, but I don't work there. I have a
45-min drive through Sydney traffic to get to mine... is that 'easy access'?
:-)

Is there a TAFE teacher who doesn't have that?
I think someone in management decided it is essential if you want to
keep your jobs (from what I've seen in the last few years).


Most large (and even small) country towns will have those things. You must be
pretty remote if you don't have a TAFE within reach. Bourke and Coomealla
have TAFEs! And TAFE is in reach of everyone via OTEN.

Have you ever examined an OTEN course? If you can not drive/travel to a
TAFE, there are exceedingly few courses that you can finish. I will be
only able to do 3/8 of my current course through OTEN.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Chookie" wrote in message
"0tterbot" wrote:

i don't know what people might mean by that. ime city peeps are
just as
friendly as country peeps & i'm unsure where the idea comes from
that cities
are "unfriendly" (if it's about "friendliness" & that sort of
thing). most
country peeps seem much less inclined toward one-upmanship &
jones-keeping-upping & mad consumerism & all that stuff.

Probably that...

I read a comment today from someone who returned from living in the
city to live in the country. That person said: "City people stand too
close, if I can smell you, you're too close". Perhaps you don't stand
in people's space.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Chookie" wrote in message
"0tterbot" wrote:

- i've read 3 permaculture books so far & i'm just not
GETTING IT. what's the goss on that? :-)
snip
perhaps it's just mollison et al's appalling writing style. it was
like the
books had no beginning or end, it was all just bla.

i just sort of feel robbed - as though i was supposed to have
"aha!" moments
reading about this marvellous movement but it was all babble,
politics (and
slopes and windbreaks ;-) and the intense and repetitive way mr
mollison
wants us all to CONTROL our land rather freaks me out. most of my
property
is regenerating bushland. big bill is evidently of the opinion i
should sell
most of it, as it is too big for me to CONTROL.

Sounds like you missed out on the Permaculture Design Manual and
(IIRC)
Permaculture One. The Earth User's Guide to Permaculture (by
Rosemary Morrow)
is quite accessible and better written than the others.

I don't like the books of Rosemary Morrow that I've seen. I've got
one and never go near it.

Permaculture is agriculture for engineers. It looks at ways of
saving energy
rather than money. For example, my chooks are at present living
under my
lemon tree. They have removed the grass that was competing with the
tree
roots, spread mulch, and added fertiliser to the area. There are
other ways
to achieve the same results, but this is an energy-efficient one.

The idea is to consider inputs and outputs and see how you can make
things
work for you with a minimum amount of effort. Soil characteristics
are
definitely an input. I think they are covered in PDM.

In my example, my chooks need as inputs: a run to scratch in, green
stuff to
eat, and shade. They produce scratched-up ground, eggs, and poo.
The lemon
tree needs: the grass removed from its roots, nitrogenous
fertiliser, and
water. It provides: lemons and shade. (This list is not
exhaustive, of
course.) Therefore I arrange matters so that the chooks and lemon
tree
provide some of each other's needs *without my further
intervention*. THAT is
"control".

The rest is broad conclusions and sample technique.

Not a bad summation.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

0tterbot wrote:

what i'm trying to say is that definitions of "unviable" might be a bit
limited - in settling on the definition, i'd hope that not only
"traditional" farming is considered. anything can be farmed, it's just a
question of where, when, and how!

Well, theoretically, all land is viable, but practically it is often
easier and a far side cheaper to just movwe elsewhere {:-).


My formal first farming lesson was about another sort of viability. At
one stage in NSW, rockmelons were a luxury and fetched high prices. So
someone worked out that he could very easily grow, well a plane load at
Broken Hill and fly them to the Sydney Markets and sell them at massive
profits. Great Idea, What eventually transpired was that when the plane
load hit the markets, there was a major glut and he lost very badly.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
0tterbot wrote:

personally, i don't think there's such a thing as "unviable" land
in & of
itself -

The general adjective is farming and basically land meets this
criteria
when it can not be farmed in a sustainable way, i.e. you are
generally
degrading the land over time.

Or using inputs that degrades other land.

The old expression of "keep 10 sheep to the acre, until you can keep
10 sheep to the acre" sums that philosophy up very well.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"0tterbot" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message

again, just because most of them
don't rely
on rainfall to make a living does not make the awareness any less
acute.
(snip)

Well they know is a very, very limited sense.

well, "know" is a word with various meanings. (and then there's the
biblical
sense! but let's not go there.) it really only sounds like you are
cross
with them because they experience the effects of drought too but
don't
suffer.

How do they experience the effects of drought? You continue to claim
that city dwellers "experience the effects of drought" and have an
"acute" awareness of the drought. How?

And that sense is that
they are now talking of the need to get MORE water for Sydney.
And
taking it from further and further way, like the Shoalhaven River.
The bloody Shoalhaven for God's sake!

are you mistaking the iemma govt's machinations for what literally
everyone
in sydney wants?

So can you produce any cites that indicate that Sydny siders don't
want to take water from the Shoalhaven?

And frankly I'm equally amazed at your inability to take on board
refe
rences given to enable you to do some research and that may
challenge
your generalisations (you can even access then online so don't
even
have to inconvenience yourself by going outside) .

let's not be snarky.

Now you add "snarky" to "combative". Pot, kettle, black comes to mind
for some strange reason.

why am i not allowed to speak generally, but you're allowed not only
to
generalise wildly but also think your generalisations count for
more?

I've posted generalisations and you've posted generalisations. I
haven't said you can't post them but I have to admit that the stream
of consciousness posts don't work for me. I'd like you to stick to
some facts or at least post in some structured way so I don't have to
hunt so hard to figure out where you're headed in all that verbage.

Really? I particulalry enjoyed the one about:
"city peeps are generally better-educated and have a much broader
view
of the
world, their world is just bigger than ours is"

Such a generalisation really surprised me.

clearly. you're having a great deal of trouble getting over it, i
see.

No, just irritated at your general tone. And the fact that you don't
even recognise when your own words are used right back at you.

city
people are, proportionately, better educated (this partly includes
people
who left rural areas _in order to receive_ more education not
available in
their area). not least because educational facilities tend to be
concentrated in cities, where many small country towns don't even
have a
high school, never mind a tafe or a uni or any private adult ed. for
example, amongst others:
http://ofw.facs.gov.au/publications/wia/chapter6.html
While retention rates for secondary school students, particularly
girls, are
increasing, these numbers differ when examined geographically. That
is,
students in remote and regional areas are more likely than those in
cities
to face problems of access and limited choice as they aim to
complete their
education. Residents of regional and remote Australia have
consistently had
lower rates of attendance in the non-compulsory years 11 and 12 of
school
and at non-school education institutions than city residents.
5
Evidence from Haberkorn et. al. indicated that in 1996, average
school
attendance rates of 16 year olds in non-capital city Australia were
below
those for capital city Australia (76 per cent and 83 per cent
respectively).
Attendance rates had remained stable over time, increasing only 0.6
per cent
across Australia between 1991 and 1996. However, in non-capital city
areas,
there was a decline of 0.6 per cent in this period.6

According to Collins et al., in 1996 rural girls were only five per
cent
less likely to complete school than urban girls, but the chances of
rural
boys completing school were 11 per cent less than for urban boys.
Girls and
boys in remote areas were both noticeably more unlikely to complete
school
than their urban counterparts: 19 per cent and 16 per cent
respectively'.7

Haberkorn et. al. found a negative relationship between the
proportion of 16
year olds in school and the degree of remoteness. However, some care
needs
to be taken in interpreting this as people aged 16 who grew up in
remote
areas may have left home to continue their education.8

Ah some fact at last! Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

I know I get to the Opera
House more often than my city rels do now that the ballet dancer
has
ended her career (and they only went to see her anyway, not a
range of
things) and I am always amazed at how busy my city friend and rels
are
but how little they actually use the benefits of the city. The
routine of daily living for them is much more restrictive on their
lifestyle than it is for the country people I know. They go to
more
restaurants and movies but not to do anything useful in a cultural
or
educative sense - just much more social. Lots of talk but no
meat.

And when it comes to education, my (country born and bred and
working)
Mechanic has 2 degrees and he's not the only country person I know
who
has such surprising qualifications behind his rough exterior. I
also
get a particular kick out of the very traditonal sheep farmer I
know
who looks like a total hay seed and lives in the deep deep country
but
who has a PhD (thesis was on sheep).


what has this to do with anything?

Nothing, but then that is the whole point. Your posts contain exactly
the same irrelevances.

how often your rellies go to the opera,
or how many hicks you know with phds, is really not relevent to
anything i
said. if you cannot see the obviousness of a statement entailing 1:
a
literal truth (that city peeps are more likely to be better
educated -
they're also healthier & slimmer - do you want to argue about that
too?) and
2: that the outside world is a great deal closer to, and interacted
with, a
person who lives in a very big, international city which contains
every
imaginable type of person from literally everywhere on earth, living
cheek
by jowl in every imaginable economic and family situation, then i
really
can't help you. if i want to fly to beirut or london or marrakesch
tomorrow,
i think i have to go to SYDNEY first, don't you? that's the
literality of
it. the figurative element is what is gained by meeting & working
with &
living amongst more people, with different experiences, and having
further
access to more of those people and experiences should one wish. i
moved to
the city from the country at 17 & believe you me, it was a real
eye-opener.
i make my claims from experience & in good faith, but even so, it's
hardly
worth arguing about.

And I make my claims based on my experience and in good faith too.

i'm NOT saying "the city is better" or "country people are all dumb"
or
anything LIKE that. i'm making some observations which you've
decided to get
completely off-side about, for absolutely NO reason i can fathom.
what's the
problem??!

I'm off side but you aren't. I have a problem but you don't. I see a
problem with that even if you don't.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

Farm1 wrote:
"Terryc" wrote in message

Chookie wrote:


I don't see why Sydney people wouldn't be able to put up with

that,

Umm, where are you gong to shit?


Shades of the Florida Superdome all over again. With any luck they'll
have a lidded bucket.

They sell those in camping shops now. I'll just seelte for another 20L
drum and a plastic toilet seat over a hole you know where.

I'm touch and go as to whether I night soil is that great a benefit to
the garden. Lol, our ruburb might start to smell like it did when the
effluent ponds at the pig farm 25kms away played up.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

Farm1 wrote:


How do they experience the effects of drought? You continue to claim
that city dwellers "experience the effects of drought" and have an
"acute" awareness of the drought. How?

Until we have to collect our water from the water truck, there is no way
city siders have any idea.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

In article
,
Terryc wrote:

Most large (and even small) country towns will have those things. You must
be
pretty remote if you don't have a TAFE within reach. Bourke and Coomealla
have TAFEs! And TAFE is in reach of everyone via OTEN.

Have you ever examined an OTEN course? If you can not drive/travel to a
TAFE, there are exceedingly few courses that you can finish. I will be
only able to do 3/8 of my current course through OTEN.

Hmm, that's no good. Did you whinge?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Chookie" wrote in message
...

Sounds like you missed out on the Permaculture Design Manual and (IIRC)
Permaculture One. The Earth User's Guide to Permaculture (by Rosemary
Morrow)
is quite accessible and better written than the others.

since that is one i did read (only the third title is now a mystery to me)
clearly i'm not missing much if i never worry about the others ;-)

Permaculture is agriculture for engineers.

AHH. i think in one sentence, you have got to the bottom of the problem!

It looks at ways of saving energy
rather than money. For example, my chooks are at present living under my
lemon tree. They have removed the grass that was competing with the tree
roots, spread mulch, and added fertiliser to the area. There are other
ways
to achieve the same results, but this is an energy-efficient one.

The idea is to consider inputs and outputs and see how you can make things
work for you with a minimum amount of effort.

it's interesting to me that you got this from the books. perhaps you read
better books by people who came later. perhaps you read better than i do.
"minimum amount of effort" did not appear to be anyone's aim in anything i
read. something like "fiddle with absolutely everything according to our
model and leave nothing that was there prior, standing, plant loads of beech
trees, and i certainly hope your block is sloped, young lady!!" is all i got
from them. :-)

Soil characteristics are
definitely an input. I think they are covered in PDM.

In my example, my chooks need as inputs: a run to scratch in, green stuff
to
eat, and shade. They produce scratched-up ground, eggs, and poo. The
lemon
tree needs: the grass removed from its roots, nitrogenous fertiliser, and
water. It provides: lemons and shade. (This list is not exhaustive, of
course.) Therefore I arrange matters so that the chooks and lemon tree
provide some of each other's needs *without my further intervention*.
THAT is
"control".

no it's not, it's perfectly sensible :-)

what would you make of a statement declaring one should not have a property
bigger than a couple of acres, because you would not be able to CONTROL it?
(i freely admit the ordinary person _can't_ really "control" more than a few
hectares - i just can't see what the problem is with that.)

The rest is broad conclusions and sample technique.

what, stuff he thought up that nobody's ever tried?

it's probably just not, in & of itself, my thing, & that's probably why i've
got such an attitude about it. i suspect that the perfectly sensible
elements have become mainstream(ish) and my own attitude, of working with
what is already here, rather than tearing it all down & re-inventing the
wheel, just won't go with 70s style permiculture.

HTH,

it does, but notwithstanding that, my land is sloped all over. big bill
would wet himself with joy!! my windbreaks would bring tears to his eyes!!!
ok i'll stop now, sorry....
:-)
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
...
0tterbot wrote:


It isn't obvious to people who don't have a clue and haven't talked or
looked at stuff before.


i'm assuming that people would get a basic grasp of the process

Nope, wrong assumption. Seriously, you have got to meet some of these
people to believe how little they know/knew. It was good for a laugh,
except when some poor animal was suffering.

i did a short course on organic gardening one time - it was based on an
"absolute beginner" level of student, with the (obvious) result that
everyone in the class was amazingly bored for the duration of the entire
course, although our handouts (NOT designed for raw beginners) were very
interesting. logically it seems to me, that one couldn't (or most likely
wouldn't, anyway) be interested in _organic_ gardening if one didn't have
the first idea how to garden by any method in the first place. kwim?

Obviously you are the wrong market.

i think so, but it bothers me when i find something incomprehensible.

Naah, one of the benefits of being able to speed read is to decide if the
book is really worth the $$$ asked. Do not ever trust anyones
recommendation.

i might not trust it exactly, but i'm always interested in it! and then
there's the library, bless.
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Terryc" wrote in message
...

I'm touch and go as to whether I night soil is that great a benefit to the
garden.

what if it was done during the day... ;-)

anyway, of course it is. it's just more like chook poo - it wants composting
first!
kylie, whose father in law apparently believes that dog poo literally NEVER
breaks down. ummm.....

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...

with them because they experience the effects of drought too but
don't
suffer.

How do they experience the effects of drought? You continue to claim
that city dwellers "experience the effects of drought" and have an
"acute" awareness of the drought. How?

obviously, it doesn't rain enough.

So can you produce any cites that indicate that Sydny siders don't
want to take water from the Shoalhaven?

no, and i'm not looking, either. i'm making the (extremely obvious) point
that the carr/iemma govt is on the nose with everyone by this stage, and
therefore generally speak for nobody in particular - therefore any grand
plan they have for sydney (numerous), should not be assumed to be backed by
the constituents, a majority of the constituents, a minority of the
constituents, nor even necessarily any of the constituents. they're like the
federal liberal (sic) party - they're still there, and yet, seemingly, not a
living soul actually voted for them. how can it be? that's politics for you,
though - and always remember, just because a pollie thought something up
doesn't mean people "want" it or _don't "want" it. it only means a pollie
said it, nothing more.

Now you add "snarky" to "combative". Pot, kettle, black comes to mind
for some strange reason.

did you leave something on the stove?

I've posted generalisations and you've posted generalisations. I
haven't said you can't post them but I have to admit that the stream
of consciousness posts don't work for me. I'd like you to stick to
some facts or at least post in some structured way so I don't have to
hunt so hard to figure out where you're headed in all that verbage.

my babble's "verbiage", actually. g

Ah some fact at last!

and i look forward to some from you, too!! it'll be like a byo barbeque,
only we didn't wait until we got drunk before there was a fistfight in the
car port.

Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

well gee - tell that to the authors.

I'm off side but you aren't. I have a problem but you don't. I see a
problem with that even if you don't.

the problem with written communication that really peaks on usenet is that
it's too easy for people to misunderstand oneself or what one said (or one's
"tone"), and then there's the part where people will persistently read
things that aren't even there.

for example, until the other day i thought you were a cheerful young woman.
now i think that's most likely _completely_ wrong, but i can't very well
decide you're a persnickety old grumblebum, because that's most likely just
as wrong. live & let live.
kylie
p.s. you still haven't criticised my lack of capital letters, but it's been
fun anyway. are we finished yet?

Water restrictions and gardens
 

0tterbot wrote:

what would you make of a statement declaring one should not have a property
bigger than a couple of acres, because you would not be able to CONTROL it?

True statement, BUT, I really want the extra land to give me noise
reduction so I do not have to hear the neighbours dog, kids cars, lawn
mower, etc, etc, etc

with the exta land you can run cattle of something to improve your tax
lurk. i.e farmer discounts on rates.

Also allows you to but stock cheap and hold until they fit in the
freezer {:-).

Water restrictions and gardens
 

In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

Permaculture is agriculture for engineers.

AHH. i think in one sentence, you have got to the bottom of the problem!

The idea is to consider inputs and outputs and see how you can make things
work for you with a minimum amount of effort.

it's interesting to me that you got this from the books. perhaps you read
better books by people who came later. perhaps you read better than i do.

I got that from PDM, on my first reading of it and with no understanding of
permaculture prior to that. Of course it doesn't actually SAY that, but if
you know any engineers, you recognise the mind-set instantly! The premise of
all engineering, AFAICS, is to create a system to deliver the required results
as efficiently as possible, and to prevent catastrophic failures.

The idea of broadacre wheat farming, where you drill your seed in, then wait a
few months before experiencing crop failure/success, is completely alien to
the engineering mind (it's efficient, but it does not prevent catastrophic
failure). The idea of continuous polyculture to spread risk would make much
more sense to them.

"minimum amount of effort" did not appear to be anyone's aim in anything i
read. something like "fiddle with absolutely everything according to our
model and leave nothing that was there prior, standing, plant loads of beech
trees, and i certainly hope your block is sloped, young lady!!" is all i got
from them. :-)

Sounds like the principles got a bit mixed up with technique there. Elevation
is handy simply because it enables you to use gravity, ie, free energy. THe
"fiddling" is where you get existing processes to work for you -- ie, they
would all have been examples.

This is starting to remind me of debates about Attachment Parenting in
misc.kids, where people say AP is a hard-line approach to parenting, instead
of seeing that it's a few principles (the first one being "understand your
child's needs") and a lot of suggested techniques.

Did you interpret "slashing" leguminous plants as "chopping them down",
perhaps?

http://www.tortuga.com/permacultura/...Principles.htm
gives a very succinct summary of the design principles of permaculture, in
which you will see the words "energy" and "system" appear frequently.

Soil characteristics are
definitely an input. I think they are covered in PDM.

In my example, my chooks need as inputs: a run to scratch in, green stuff
to
eat, and shade. They produce scratched-up ground, eggs, and poo. The
lemon
tree needs: the grass removed from its roots, nitrogenous fertiliser, and
water. It provides: lemons and shade. (This list is not exhaustive, of
course.) Therefore I arrange matters so that the chooks and lemon tree
provide some of each other's needs *without my further intervention*.
THAT is "control".

no it's not, it's perfectly sensible :-)

I think Linda Woodrow explains it best: in The Permaculture Home Garden, she
explains that we are best at working with our brains, so we should consider
design of the garden (following study of local conditions, principles of
gardening etc) as our primary work. We should leave the job of destroying
snails and spreading fertiliser to the poultry :-)

what would you make of a statement declaring one should not have a property
bigger than a couple of acres, because you would not be able to CONTROL it?
(i freely admit the ordinary person _can't_ really "control" more than a few
hectares - i just can't see what the problem is with that.)

Where was that? What was the context? I do think it would be hard to get a
continuous polyculture going on a bigger scale than that, so it would depend
on what was to be attempted.

The rest is broad conclusions and sample technique.

what, stuff he thought up that nobody's ever tried?

Well, planting beech trees for a timber crop that in the meantime feeds and
shades your pigs, who fertilise the trees and supply you with meat/income
until the trees can be harvested. That's an example of a guild.

it's probably just not, in & of itself, my thing, & that's probably why i've
got such an attitude about it.

If my comments have been helpful in changing your mind, Rosemary Morrow's book
has just come out in a second edition!

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Water restrictions and gardens
 

Just got about 10k litres into the tanks over the last 2 days. Things are
looking up in sthn inland Qld. We have a choice of the western swimming hole
or the eastern one on our 1 acre.
Jim
PS our best day of rain since Jan 14 this year.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

CONGRATULATIONS...wonderful news!! Here's hoping for lots more for you.

"SG1" wrote in message
...
Just got about 10k litres into the tanks over the last 2 days. Things are
looking up in sthn inland Qld. We have a choice of the western swimming
hole or the eastern one on our 1 acre.
Jim
PS our best day of rain since Jan 14 this year.

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Chookie" wrote in message
...
it's interesting to me that you got this from the books. perhaps you read
better books by people who came later. perhaps you read better than i do.

I got that from PDM, on my first reading of it and with no understanding
of
permaculture prior to that. Of course it doesn't actually SAY that, but
if
you know any engineers, you recognise the mind-set instantly!

i used to know some engineers. "used to" probably being the operative idea
g

The premise of
all engineering, AFAICS, is to create a system to deliver the required
results
as efficiently as possible, and to prevent catastrophic failures.

The idea of broadacre wheat farming, where you drill your seed in, then
wait a
few months before experiencing crop failure/success, is completely alien
to
the engineering mind (it's efficient, but it does not prevent catastrophic
failure). The idea of continuous polyculture to spread risk would make
much
more sense to them.

it makes more sense to me too, which is a little alarming under the
circumstances. ;-)

"minimum amount of effort" did not appear to be anyone's aim in anything
i
read. something like "fiddle with absolutely everything according to our
model and leave nothing that was there prior, standing, plant loads of
beech
trees, and i certainly hope your block is sloped, young lady!!" is all i
got
from them. :-)

Sounds like the principles got a bit mixed up with technique there.

in my head, quite possibly.

Elevation
is handy simply because it enables you to use gravity, ie, free energy.

this part, like various others, is in my "bleeding obvious" category.
however, i could not help but notice provision didn't seem to be made for
flat or flattish land. the assumption seemed to be either that it doesn't
exist, or that it's not worth mentioning (!). i have no idea. perhaps a
combination of idealism (the author's), bad writing, and insufficient
thought applied to general problems (again, the author's, not mine) led to
me reading it that way. similarly, the ideas relentlessly rolling out, but
with no backing of gardening techniques, or explanations of alternatives, or
(to me) explanations of WHY (nor indeed HOW) this is all meant to work, even
though, as in your chook/lemon example, the WHY of it really _should_ either
be obvious (i'm not that dumb), or be explained.

THe
"fiddling" is where you get existing processes to work for you -- ie, they
would all have been examples.

This is starting to remind me of debates about Attachment Parenting in
misc.kids, where people say AP is a hard-line approach to parenting,
instead
of seeing that it's a few principles (the first one being "understand your
child's needs") and a lot of suggested techniques.

heh. i think the thing is that babies grow up, & by the time (many) people
(mk types, for example) have got some perspective on things like those types
of "debates", it's all over for them personally. i would hope permaculture
doesn't display that lack of perspective on other people's (or one's own)
techniques, yet to me, it clearly does seem that way.

another thing (to continue the mk analogy) is that i'm very centrist &
simply cannot seem to take an extreme line on anything much. there is NO
"right" way with baby-raising, gardening, or anything else, there's only
"general rightness" and what's right for the circumstance & the people
involved. to me, the books i read shouted "change your circumstance!"
whereas what i like is to read things i can incorporate into what my
circumstances actually are in order to make improvements which are possible
for me physically or financially. i have a very neglected property that has
been "improved" in the past by someone whose logic i cannot fathom (i
suspect there wasn't any), then let go all to shit. i have barely any money,
and only two hands, and a great deal to do. i can SEE how writing a book all
about what's ideal (according to one mindset) might appeal to some people,
but i have to content myself with practicalities, and even some of our small
problems concerning layout, or what needs to be done, are often just so
mind-boggling one must content oneself with really small improvements on
tiny areas for that particular day. CONTROL (mollison-style) is for people
with more time and money and rigidity than i have.

Did you interpret "slashing" leguminous plants as "chopping them down",
perhaps?

hehe, no, not at all. i felt NO allowance is made for working around the way
things really are (i.e. the block you really DO have, not your fantasy
block). the writings were from the pov that one would be able to design from
scratch, or perhaps how one would design in an ideal world. or both. i
realise some people have the luxury of designing from scratch, but often
not. i appreciate your pointing out the "broad examples/suggested
techniques" idea (which is probably the case). it is difficult for me to put
into words what my problem is. which is why i defaulted to the idea that
perhaps it's just not my thing - which i baulk at, because i think it
_should_ be my thing & can't understand why it isn't!!!

http://www.tortuga.com/permacultura/...Principles.htm
gives a very succinct summary of the design principles of permaculture, in
which you will see the words "energy" and "system" appear frequently.

thanks. that's a nice page. i am still experiencing mind-resistance, but i'm
trying hard ;-) i don't, for example, understand how a permaculturalist
would fervently espouse gaia - it seems to me the opposite. on the one hand,
i don't understand how a permaculturalist would regard themselves as a
caretaker or such, because of the control elements which are, to my mind, a
little extreme & artificial to an almost rigid degree. otoh, i entirely
understand how, done well, it could make perfect sense.

I think Linda Woodrow explains it best: in The Permaculture Home Garden,
she
explains that we are best at working with our brains, so we should
consider
design of the garden (following study of local conditions, principles of
gardening etc) as our primary work. We should leave the job of destroying
snails and spreading fertiliser to the poultry :-)

again, this makes sense. perhaps i just need a better class of author.

(i freely admit the ordinary person _can't_ really "control" more than a
few
hectares - i just can't see what the problem is with that.)

Where was that?

good old permy two!! (i hated that book. can you tell?)

What was the context?

iirc, in summation.

I do think it would be hard to get a
continuous polyculture going on a bigger scale than that, so it would
depend
on what was to be attempted.

i disagree somewhat (not with you, with the idea), on two levels. firstly,
the person may wish to own the land for a host of other reasons, none of
which have to do with farming or gardening it (noise, privacy, wildlife
refuge, because they just can, to show off, recreation, to ultimately set up
a caravan park on it, i could go on.) secondly, if the person wished to do
some _particular_ sort of growing, i could well imagine you could
plant/whatever hectares upon hectares, & then essentially leave it to it
most of the time, _while accepting_ that the bigger the area, the less
personal control the human has, & therefore being prepared to accept what
losses might follow despite your best management, like farmers etc always
are obliged to accept. iow, you'd probably not have a "continuous"
polyculture that needs replanting every year unless you have staff, but
there's a great deal other polyculture (which grows continuously) you could
do. again, i just can't see why bill mollison would have a problem with
that, & there's the essence of my problem with him. frankly, he probably
lacks imagination.

it's probably just not, in & of itself, my thing, & that's probably why
i've
got such an attitude about it.

If my comments have been helpful in changing your mind, Rosemary Morrow's
book
has just come out in a second edition!

possibly i should look at that one again, as i don't recall it being nearly
as offensive as the other two i read g. i just think, if i don't like it,
i want to know why - there has to be a reason. i read all sorts of weird and
(idealogically) unsuitable (to me) books, but usually they've all got a few
things in them that were worth reading, at worst if only to put on my
"not-to-do" list. those, i got nothing, i just couldn't get it at all.
thanks for your insights.
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

Chookie writes:
country people tell me I'm more like a country person than a city person, and
it seems to be a compliment ;-)

Wouldn't be those free-range chooks on the lounge, I s'pose? :-)
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"0tterbot" writes:
Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking
recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in
it.

yeah? what happens to us from drinking man-wee? do we grow beards and chest
hair?

Nah, the effect is more subtle. Haven't you noticed that increasing numbers
of females are driving red sports cars ...... drinking beer ...... mowing
their lawns on Sunday ...... taking over the cooking at BBQs ...... given
to road rage ......
--
John Savage (my news address is not valid for email)

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"John Savage" wrote in message
om...
"0tterbot" writes:
Poor fellow was apparently concerned about growing breasts from drinking
recycled water that might have had female urine, and thus oestrogen, in
it.

yeah? what happens to us from drinking man-wee? do we grow beards and
chest
hair?

Nah, the effect is more subtle. Haven't you noticed that increasing
numbers
of females are driving red sports cars ...... drinking beer

oops!

....... mowing
their lawns on Sunday ...... taking over the cooking at BBQs ...... given
to road rage ......

on the bright side, when we take over the cooking at bbqs, we don't have to
wear an apron with rubber breasts on it - we can just wear our own!
kylie

Water restrictions and gardens
 

In article ,
John Savage wrote:

Chookie writes:
country people tell me I'm more like a country person than a city person, and
it seems to be a compliment ;-)

Wouldn't be those free-range chooks on the lounge, I s'pose? :-)

The girls have attempted to invade, but have been sternly asked to leave.
Might be the guinea pigs in the dining room though...

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"0tterbot" wrote in message
"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message

with them because they experience the effects of drought too but
don't
suffer.

How do they experience the effects of drought? You continue to
claim
that city dwellers "experience the effects of drought" and have an
"acute" awareness of the drought. How?

obviously, it doesn't rain enough.

:-)) I had to smile at that one. Sydney has been getting lovely lots
of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the burbs.


Now you add "snarky" to "combative". Pot, kettle, black comes to
mind
for some strange reason.

did you leave something on the stove?

Snort!

I've posted generalisations and you've posted generalisations. I
haven't said you can't post them but I have to admit that the
stream
of consciousness posts don't work for me. I'd like you to stick
to
some facts or at least post in some structured way so I don't have
to
hunt so hard to figure out where you're headed in all that
verbage.

my babble's "verbiage", actually. g

Glad you recognise it as such.

Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

well gee - tell that to the authors.

It was in the selection of cites - they weren't consistent.

I'm off side but you aren't. I have a problem but you don't. I
see a
problem with that even if you don't.

the problem with written communication that really peaks on usenet
is that
it's too easy for people to misunderstand oneself or what one said
(or one's
"tone"), and then there's the part where people will persistently
read
things that aren't even there.

Yes it is easy to do so. I guess that's why you think I'm combative
or snarky.

for example, until the other day i thought you were a cheerful young
woman.
now i think that's most likely _completely_ wrong, but i can't very
well
decide you're a persnickety old grumblebum, because that's most
likely just
as wrong.

Both views can be right but it depends ont he ocassion. Like most
people.

p.s. you still haven't criticised my lack of capital letters, but
it's been
fun anyway.

Well it does make for difficult reading. It's called an "eye jag".
That means that writing in such an unaccepted style is hard for the
reader to read fluently.

I can understand why you do it but I can't type and I still make the
effort because I know how hard it is to read uncapitalised and
unpunctuated writing.

are we finished yet?

Don't tell me you are going to turn chicken on me!

Water restrictions and gardens
 

"Farm1" please@askifyouwannaknow wrote in message
...

obviously, it doesn't rain enough.

:-)) I had to smile at that one.

i did too, but i was worried you wouldn't :-)

Sydney has been getting lovely lots
of rain. Not in the catchment of course but over many of the burbs.

my neighbour 2 doors down (i.e. about 1.5km away ;-) rents a catchment
property. sydney catchment is actually huge. IT IS EATING AUSTRALIA!!! while
it's true that most of the rain happens on that side of the mountains, i can
tell you for a fact it's raining in the catchment RIGHT NOW.
/looks again
yes.

hunt so hard to figure out where you're headed in all that
verbage.

my babble's "verbiage", actually. g

Glad you recognise it as such.

that i do (i hope you don't think i didn't know that i babble). but mainly,
i'm just an excellent speller g

Not consistently logical throughout but better
than the usual stream of consciousness stuff.

well gee - tell that to the authors.

It was in the selection of cites - they weren't consistent.

so tell them that, then! tell them anything you want!

Yes it is easy to do so. I guess that's why you think I'm combative
or snarky.

ah. i don't think you are combative or snarky as a personality. i think you
are BEING (or have been) combative & snarky. different!!

decide you're a persnickety old grumblebum, because that's most
likely just
as wrong.

Both views can be right but it depends ont he ocassion. Like most
people.

what - sometimes you really are a cheerful young woman & other times you
really are a grumpy old man?!!
boggle
there's got to be more than _oestrogen_ in the water!!!!

Well it does make for difficult reading. It's called an "eye jag".
That means that writing in such an unaccepted style is hard for the
reader to read fluently.

mm, people say that. then later on they say they got used to it. i can't say
i'm bothered how they feel, really. it's their choice to read or not. :-)

I can understand why you do it

why do i do it?

but I can't type and I still make the
effort because I know how hard it is to read uncapitalised and
unpunctuated writing.

tch! i punctuate. you don't have to exaggerate.


are we finished yet?

Don't tell me you are going to turn chicken on me!

no. i'm bored! i'm not taking you seriously! it's ridiculous! it's over!

However, you'll be pleased to know that I can actually type just as fast
with capitals. There you are. Don't expect to see it again any time soon
though - it's just a pre-Christmas special.

salut!
kylie