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.

"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

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

"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.

"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

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 {:-).

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.

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.

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

"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

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.

"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