| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Large scale permaculture
I am interested in any work that has been done on how practical and cost
effective a large scale commercial growing operation using permaculture principles is or might be. Does anybody know of: 1) Any publicly available study of the potential of large scale permaculture 2) Any case of a large scale permaculture operation now working or under construction David |
Large scale permaculture
David Hare-Scott wrote:
1) Any publicly available study of the potential of large scale permaculture Lettuce, tomatos, cucumbers, You can find the latter two in the ABC landline archives. 2) Any case of a large scale permaculture operation now working or under construction As mentioned above. BTW. "large scale" means having significant impact on the Australian marke, rather than large scale as in broad acre, |
Large scale permaculture
look he
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=e...adelaide&meta= not sure where you are but it's as close as google..... Jock "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... I am interested in any work that has been done on how practical and cost effective a large scale commercial growing operation using permaculture principles is or might be. Does anybody know of: 1) Any publicly available study of the potential of large scale permaculture 2) Any case of a large scale permaculture operation now working or under construction David |
Large scale permaculture
Terryc wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote: 1) Any publicly available study of the potential of large scale permaculture Lettuce, tomatos, cucumbers, Woops, those are hydroponics. Real brain fart there. Tried the Permaculture sites? Its whole focus is really small scale, although I believe they have organised a few village size sites in various places OS, such as Africa, Cuba, etc. |
Large scale permaculture
g'day david,
there is this place here in south aus' http://foodforest.com.au/ don't know that it fits your scale or not they are growing edible stuff using p/c principals, but it is still marginal land that is being used for less the habitat which it would serve the community better as. permaculture is more a mind set of ideas to look after the planet better, once commercialism comes into it then profit will over ride. anyhow the place above was featured on ABC landline last sunday. permaculture would be all about farming sustainably, that is supporting a well developed habitat as well as being close to those who need what you are growing (food miles), it's not that you can produce something out of very marginal land. On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:56:18 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
Large scale permaculture
again david,
here is the transcript link to that food forest story i don't think it is the same as the food forest link: http://www.abc.net.au/landline/conte...6/s2208413.htm On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:56:18 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
Large scale permaculture
"len gardener" wrote in message ... g'day david, there is this place here in south aus' http://foodforest.com.au/ don't know that it fits your scale or not they are growing edible stuff using p/c principals, but it is still marginal land that is being used for less the habitat which it would serve the community better as. permaculture is more a mind set of ideas to look after the planet better, once commercialism comes into it then profit will over ride. I agree about the mindset. But we are embedded in a largely free enterprise society in which you have to be commercially viable to keep going. Mollison's philosophy is such that he would remake much of society, its values and motives not merely how we get our food. Although he does give a nod to "legality, people, culture, trade and commerce" as a component in creating a design. So perhaps he does accept that commerce and making a dollar is not altogether evil. The question is how do you do it in a society whose agriculture is based on permaculture? I know of small scale operations where on a few acres a family is growing enough to mainly feed themselves and sell some to make a dollar to buy what they cannot grow. This makes that family very happy, they have the ability to live in the way that they see it is proper to live. However Mollison puts forward the idea that permaculture could/should replace broadacre farming altogether. This leads me to a problem. I cannot see how every family can have a few acres nor the will/ability to farm it. I cannot see how we can get away from at least some specialists who use their skill to get food from the land efficiently on a scale that permits the feeding of the non-farmers who produce other things. In the long run the choice is to do it sustainably or to starve when we have mined out the soil. So what replaces broadacre? David |
Large scale permaculture
Charlie wrote in message ... On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:56:18 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: I am interested in any work that has been done on how practical and cost effective a large scale commercial growing operation using permaculture principles is or might be. Does anybody know of: 1) Any publicly available study of the potential of large scale permaculture 2) Any case of a large scale permaculture operation now working or under construction David Maybe you will find these helpful. http://www.polyfacefarms.com/default.aspx http://kjpermaculture.blogspot.com/2...arm-model.html Charlie Thanks. From the look of their customer list they seem to be in the size category I am interested in. I wonder if they have published anything on their overall economics, the inputs they use and the productivity of their land. I would love to see such an operation but sadly that's out of the question. David |
Large scale permaculture
David Hare-Scott wrote:
So what replaces broadacre? They need to become organic. |
Large scale permaculture
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: "len gardener" wrote in message ... g'day david, there is this place here in south aus' http://foodforest.com.au/ don't know that it fits your scale or not they are growing edible stuff using p/c principals, but it is still marginal land that is being used for less the habitat which it would serve the community better as. permaculture is more a mind set of ideas to look after the planet better, once commercialism comes into it then profit will over ride. I agree about the mindset. But we are embedded in a largely free enterprise society in which you have to be commercially viable to keep going. Mollison's philosophy is such that he would remake much of society, its values and motives not merely how we get our food. Although he does give a nod to "legality, people, culture, trade and commerce" as a component in creating a design. So perhaps he does accept that commerce and making a dollar is not altogether evil. The question is how do you do it in a society whose agriculture is based on permaculture? Energy is costing more. Local food tastes better than trucked in food. Diversified farmers cut out the middle man and get top dollar (for what it is worth these days) for their crops. It looks like the market could work to the consumers benefit. Unfortunately not all crop land is near its' consumers, so something needs to be done about the expensive bottlenecks i.e. Cargill, Archer Daniel Midlands, et al. and some kind of social support and remediation for growers of mono-cultures. I know of small scale operations where on a few acres a family is growing enough to mainly feed themselves and sell some to make a dollar to buy what they cannot grow. This makes that family very happy, they have the ability to live in the way that they see it is proper to live. However Mollison puts forward the idea that permaculture could/should replace broadacre farming altogether. This leads me to a problem. I cannot see how every family can have a few acres nor the will/ability to farm it. I cannot see how we can get away from at least some specialists who use their skill to get food from the land efficiently on a scale that permits the feeding of the non-farmers who produce other things. In the long run the choice is to do it sustainably or to starve when we have mined out the soil. So what replaces broadacre? The Cuban Model The Revolution Will Not Be Microwaved by Sandor Katz p. 28 - 30 Local and seasonal eating usually requires that we adjust our expectations. Some foods we are used to eating on a daily basis may simply not be possible in this scheme. For instance, unless you live in Florida, you might have to let go of that morning glass of orange juice. But other foods, no less delicious or nutritious (in fact generally far more so), will replace them. We can learn to love what grows abundantly and easily around us and reorient our tastes and our habits. Another completely different take on the idea of a local food challenge a "land fast," a period of eating only what can be harvested in the immediate vicinity, in the gardens and the woods. In certain seasons, one could be very satisfied. Relatively few people have voluntarily chosen to make the switch to exclusively local foods. But in some cases circumstances have resulted in the abrupt disappearance of global trade, and it has been demonstrated that people can survive and restore food sovereignty. Take, for example, Cuba. Until 1989 Cuba's major trading partners were the Soviet nations of Eastern Europe. Cuba exported sugar and imported most other foods, as well as fuel, machinery, and chemicals. In 1989 about three times as much Cuban land was planted in sugar cane than was planted in all other food crops combined. Fifty-seven percent of the calories in the Cuban diet were imported. But the abrupt disintegration of the Soviet-allied governments and the Soviet Union itself resulted in the sudden loss of these trading partners. The loss of its trade partners meant a loss of two-thirds of Cuba's food supply, as well as the fuel, machinery, and chemicals upon which its agricultural system depended. Compounding the shortages was a tightening of the U.S. economic blockade of Cuba in the early 1990s. The food shortage was so acute that diseases of malnutrition became widespread. Lacking the "inputs" (such as chemicals, fuel, and hybrid seeds) required for industrial-style monoculture, Cuba was forced to transform its farming system. Food production was decentralized, and farmers in each region were encouraged to diversify rather than specialize. Urban, family, and community gardening, which had always been features of Cuban life, were officially encouraged, and a program ot public education and model farms was undertaken to spread knowledge about biological farming methods. The Ministry of Agriculture even replaced its front lawn with vegetable gardens. By 1999, Cuba had become a nation of food producers. Urban gardens alone produced more than eight hundred thousand tons of food, mostly vegetables. There is no way to compare this sector to pre-1989 levels, because until then this sector was considered insignificant[ and not counted. However, this remarkable statistic shows that cities can produce food, though not in the style of acres upon acres of grain fields; instead, intensive cultivation of yards and parks and rooftops can ensure a steady supply of fresh produce to urbanites (for more on urban gardening, see chapter 3). The prospect of a crisis is obviously not the only compelling reason to revive local food production. There are many benefits of local food, starting with flavor, continuing through nutrition, and definitely including community economic stability. But it's good for us who live in a culture of constant convenience consumerism to be reminded that the time-honored methods of producing food can still feed people perfectly adequately. For most people in most places throughout time, the food available has been organic and local. Organic was all there was until the mid-twentieth century, and anything beyond local, to the extent that it was available at all, was an expensive luxury, out of daily reach for average people. Abundant globalized food may not always be available to us either. It is easy for me to imagine the United States, or the whole world, in suddenly different economic circumstances, with an abrupt halt to all international trade, as Cuba faced in 1989, that forces a transition to greater dependence on community-based food production. The skills and practice of food production are important to revive and to prevent from disappearing. The following is a little messy because I haven't finished cleaning it up but perennial crops that can replace annual crop are being developed. Scientific American, August, 2007 For many of us in affluent regions, our hath-room scales indicate that get more than enough to eat, which may lead some to believe that it is easy, perhaps too easy, for farmers to grow our food. On the contrary, modern agriculture requires vast areas of land, along with regular infusions of water, energy and chemicals. Noting these resource demands, the 2005 United Nations-sponsored Millennium Ecosystem Assessment suggested that agriculture may be the ³largest threat to biodiversity and ecosystem function of any single human activity." Today most of humanity's food comes directly or indirectly (as animal feed) from cereal grains, legumes and oilseed crops. These staples are appealing to producers and consumers because they are easy to transport and store, relatively imperishable, and fairly high in protein and calories. As a result such crops occupy about 80 percent of global agricultural land. But they are all annual plants, must be grown anew from seeds every year, typically using resource-intensive cultivation methods. More troubling, the environmental degradation caused by agriculture will likely worsen as the hungry human population grows to eight billion or 10 billion in the coming decades. That is why a number of plant breeders, agronomists and ecologists are working to develop grain-cropping systems that will function much more like the natural ecosystems displaced by agriculture. The key to our collective success is transforming the major grain crops into perennials, which can live for many years. The idea, actually decades old, may take decades more to realize, but significant advances in plant-breeding science are bringing this goal within sight at last. Roots of the Problem Most of the farmers, inventors and scientists who have walked farm fields imagining how to overcome difficulties in cultivation probably saw agriculture through the lens or' its contemporary successes and failures. But in the 1970s Kansas plant geneticist Wes Jackson took a 10,00 year step into the past to agriculture with the natural systems that preceded it. Before humans boosted the abundance of annuals through domestication and Farming, mixtures of perennial plains dominated nearly all the planet's landscapes-as they still do in uncultivated areas today. More than 85 percent of North America's native plant species, for example, are perennials. Jackson observed that the perennial grasses and flowers of Kansas'S tall-grass prairirs were highly productive year after year, even as they built and maintained rich soils.They needed no fertilizers, pesticides or herbicides to thrive while fending off pests and disease. Water running off or through the prairie soils was clear, and wildlife was abundant. In contrast, Jackson saw that nearby fields of annual crops, such as maize, sorgum, wheat, sunflowers and soybeans, requent and expensive care to remain productive. Because annuals have relatively shallow roots-most of which occur in the top 0.3 meter of soil-and live only until harvest, many farmed areas had problems with soil erosion, depletion of soil fertility or water contamination. Moreover, the eerily quiet farm fields were mostly barren of wildlife. In short, sustaining annual monocultures in so many places was the problem, and the solution lay beneath Jackson's boots: hardy and diverse perennial root systems. ---------- Key Facts o Modern intensive land use quashes natural biodiversity and ecosystems. Meanwhile the population will balloon to between eight billion and 10 billion in the coming decades, requiring that more acres be cultivated. o Replacing single-season crops with perennials would create large root systems capable of preserving the soil and would aillow cultivation in areas currently considered marginal. o The challenge is monumental, but if plant scientists succeed, the achievement would rival humanity's original domestication of food crops over the past 10 millennia-and be just as revolutionary. -The Editors --------- If annual crops are problematic and natural ecosystems offer advantages, why do none ofour important grain crops have perennial roots? The answer lies in the origins of farming. When our Neolithic ancestors started harvesting seed-bearing plants near their settlements, several factors probably determined why they favored annuals. The earliest annuals to be domesticated, emmer wheat and wild barley, did have appealingly large seeds. And to ensure a reliable harvest every year, the first farmers would have replanted some of the seeds they collected. The characteristics of wild plants can vary greatly, however, so the seeds of plants with the most desirable traits, such as high yield, easy threshing and resistance to shattering, would have been favored. Thus, active cultivation and the unwitting application of evolutionary selection pressure quickly rcsuhed in domesticated annual plants with more appealing qualities than their wild annual relatives. Although some perennial plants might also have had good-size seeds, they did not need to be replanted and so would not have been subjected to-or benefited from-the same selection process. Roots as Solution Today the traits of perennials are also becoming better appreciated. With their roots commonly exceeding depths of two meters, perennial plant communities are critical regulators of ecosystem functions, such as water management and carbon and nitrogen cycling. Although they do have to invest energy in maintaining enough underground tissue to survive the winter, perennial roots spring info action deep within the soil whenever temperatures are warm enough and nutrients and water are available. Their constant state of preparedness allows them to be highly productive yet resiliant in the face of environmental stresss. environ i nental stresses. In a century-long study of factors affecting soil erosion, timothy grass, a perennial hay crop, proved roughly 54 times more effective in maintaining topsoil than annual crops did. Scientists have also documented a five fold reduction in water loss and a 35-fold reduction in nitrate loss from soil planted with alfalfa and mixed perennial grasses as compared with soil under corn and soybeans. Greater root depths and longer growing seasons also let perennials boost their sequestration of carbon, the main ingredient of soil organic matter, by 50 percent or more as compared with annually cropped fields. Because they do no! need to be replanted every year, perennials require fewer passes of farm machinery and fewer inputs of pesticides and fertilizers as well, which reduces fossil-fuel use. The plants thus lower the amount ol' carbon dioxide in the air while improving the soil's fertility. Herbicide costs for annual crop production may be four to 8.5 times the herbicide costs for perennial crop prodiiclion, so fewer inputs in perennial systems mean lower cash expenditures for the farmer. Wildlife also benefits: bird populations, for instance, have been shown to be seven times more dense in perennial crop fields than in annual crop fields. Perhaps most important for a hungry world, perennials are far more capable of sustainable cultivation on marginal lands, which already have poor soil quality or which would be quickly depleted by a few years of intensive annual cropping. For all these reasons, plant breeders in the U.S. and elsewhere have initiated research and breeding programs over the past five years to develop wheat, sorghum, sunflower, intermediate wheatgrass and other species as perennial grain crops. When compared with research devoted to annual crops, perennial grain development is still in the toddler stage . Taking advantage ofthe significant advances in plant breeding over the past two or three decades, however, will make the large-scale development of high-yield perennial grain crops feasible within the next 25 to 50 years. Perennial crop developers are employing essentially the same two methods as those used by many other agricultural scientists: direct domestication of wild plants and hybridization of existing annual crop plants with their wild relatives. These techniques are potentially complementary, but each presents a distinct set of challenges and nclvnnrngcs as well. Assisted Evolution Direct domestication of wild perennials is the more straighcforward approach to creating perennial crops. Relying on time-tested methods of observation and selection of superior individual plants, breeders seek to increase the frequency of genes for desirable traits, such as easy separation of seed from husk, a nonshattering seed, large seed size, synchronous maturity, palatability, strong stems and high seed yield. Many existing crops, such as corn and sunflowers, lent themselves readily to domestication in this manner. Native Americans, for example, turned wild sunflowers with small heads and seeds into the familiar large-headed and largeseeded sun flower [see box on page 88]. Active perennial grain domestication programs are currently focused on intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium), Maximilian sunflower (Helianthus maximiliani), Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis) and flax (a perennial species of the Linum genus). Of these, the domestication of intermediate wheatgrass, a perennial relative of wheat, is perhaps in the most advanced stages. To use an existing annual crop plant in creating a perennial, wide hybridization-a forced mating of two different plant species-can bring together the best qualities of the domesticated annual and its wild perennial relative. Domesticated crops already possess desirable Attributes, such as high yield, whereas their wild relatives can contribute genetic variations for traits such as the perennial habit itself as well as resistance to pests and disease. Of the 13 most widely grown grain and oil-seed crops, 10 are capable of hybridization with perennial relatives, according to plant breeder T. Stan Cox of the Land Institute, a Kansas non-profit that Jackson co- founded to pursue sustainable agriculture. A handful of breeding programs across the U.S. are currently pursuing such interspecific (between species) and intergeneric (between genera) hybrids to develop perennial wheat, sorghum, corn, flax and oilseed sunflower. For more than a decade, UniversityofManitoba researchers have studied resource use in perennial systems, and now a number of Canadian institutions have started on the long road to developing perennial grain programs as well. The University of Western Australia has already established a perennial wheat program as part of that country's Cooperative Research Center for Future Farm Industries. In addition, scientists at the Food Crops Research Institute in Kunming, China, are continuing, work initiated by the International Rice Research Institute in the 199Os to develop perennial upland ncr rice hybrides. At the Land Institute, breeders are working both on domesticating perennial wheatgrass and on crossing assorted perennial wheatgrass species (in particular, Th. intermedium, Th. ponticum and Th. elongatum) with .annual wheats. At present, 1,500 such hybrids and thousands of their progeny are being screened for perennial traits. The process of creating these hybrids is ilself labor-intensive and time- consummg. Once breeders identify candidates for hyhridization, they must manage gene exchanges between disparate species by manipulating pollen to make a large number of crosses between plants, selecting the progeny with desirable traits, and repeating this cycle of crossing and selection again and again. Hybridization nonetheless is a potentially faster means to create a perennial crop plant than domestication, although more technologyis often required to overcome genetic incompatiibilitiess between the parent plants. A seed produced by crossing two distantly related species, for example, will often abort before it is fully developed. Such a specimen can be "rescued" as an embryo by growing it on artificial medium until it produces a few roots and leaves, then transferirng the seedling to soil, where it can grow like any other plant. When it reaches the reproductive stage, however, the hybrid's genetic anomalies frequently manifest as an inability to reproduce seed. ------------- 10 CROPS Annual cereal grains, food legumes and oilseed plants claimed 80 percent of global harvested cropland in 2004. The top three grains covered more than half that area. CROP LAND % 1. Wheat 17.8 2. Rice 12.5 3. Maize 12.2 4. Soybeans 7.6 5. Barley 4.7 6. Sorghum 3.5 7. Cottonseed 2.9 8. Dry beans 2.9 9. Millet 2.8 10. Rapeseed/mustaic! 2.2 ------------- A partially or fullv sterile hybrid generally results from incompatible parental chromosomes within its cells. To produce eggs or pollen, the hybrid's chromosomes must line up during meiosis (the process by which sex cells halve their chromosomes in preparation for joining with another gamete) and exchange genetic information with one another. If the chromosomes cannot find counterparts because each parent's version is too different, or if they differ in number, the meiosis line dance is disrupted. This problem can be over come in a few ways. Because sterile hybrids are usually unable to produce male gametes but are partially fertile with feni a 1c gametes, pollinating them with one of. the original parents, known as backcrossi ing, can restore fertility. Doubling the num1 ber of chromosomes, either spontaneously or by adding chemicals such as colchicine, is another strategy. Although each method al- lows for chromosome' pairing, subsequent chromosome eliminations in each successive generation often happen in perennial wheat hybrids, particularly to chromosomes in her if cd from the perennial parent. Because of the challenging gene pools created by wide hybridization, when fertile perennial 'hybrids are identified, biotechnology techniques that can reveal which parent contributed parts of the progeny's genome arc useful. One of these, genomic in situ hybridization, for example, distinguishes the perennial parent's chromosomes from those of the annual parent by color fluorescence and also detects chromosome anomalies, such as structural rearrangement between unrelated chromosomes (see bottom illustration on next page). Such analytical tools can help speed up a breeding program once breeders discover desirable and undesirable chromosome combinations, without compromising the potential for using perennial grains in organic agriculture, where genetically engineered crops are not allowed. Another valuable method for speeding and improving traditional plant breeding is known as marker-assisted selection. DNA sequences associated with specific traits serve as markers that allow breeders to screen crosses as seedlings for desired attributes without having to wait until the plants grow to maturity [see "Back to the Future of Cereals," by Stephen A. Goff and John M. Salmeron; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, August 2004]. At present, no markers specific to perennial plant breeding have been established, although it is only a matter of time. Scientists at Washington State University, for example, have already determined that chromosome 4E in Thelongatum wheatgrass is necessary for the important perennial trait of regrowth following asexual reproduction cycle. Narrowing down the region on 4E to the gene or gene's that produce the trait would reveal relevant DNA markers. that will save breeders a year of growing time in assessing hybrids. Perennialism is nonetheless an intricate life path that goes well beyond a single trait, let alone a single gene. Because of this complexity, trans- genic modification (insertion of foreign DNA) is unlikely to be useful in developing perennial grains, at least initially. Down the road, trans- genic technology may have a role in refining sim- ple inherited traits. For example, if a domesticat- ed perennial wheatgrass is successfully devel- oped but still lacks the right combination of gluten-protein genes necessary for making good- quality bread, gluten genes from annual wheat could be inserted into the perennial plant. Trade-offs and Payoffs Although perennial crops, such as alfalfa and sugarcane, already exist around the world, none has seed yields comparable to those of annual grain crops. At first glance, the idea that plants can simultaneously direct resources to building and maintaining perennial root systems and also produce ample yields of edible grains may seem counterintuitive. Carbon, which is cap- tured through photosynthesis, is the plant's main building block and must be allocated among its various parts. Critics of the idea that perennials could have high seed yield often focus on such physiologi- cal trade-offs, assuming that the amount of car- bon available to a plant is fixed and therefore that carbon allocated to seeds always comes at the expense of perennating structures, such as roofs and rhizomes. Doubters also often over- look the fact that the life. spans of perennial plants exist along a spectrum. Some perennial prairie plants may persist for 50 to 100 years, whereas others live for only a few years. Fortu- nately for breeders, plants are relatively flexible organisms: responsive to selection pressures, they are able to change the size of their total car- bon "pies" depending on environmental condi- tions and to change the allocation of pie slices. A hypothetical wild perennial species might live 20 years in its highly competitive natural' environment and produce only small amounts of seed in any year. Its carbon pie is small, with much of it going toward fending off pests and disease, competing for a few resources and per- sisting in variable conditions. When breeders take the wild specimen out of its resource- strapped natural setting and place it into a man- aged environment, its total carbon pie suddenly grows, resulting in a bigger plant. Over time, breeders can also change the size of the carbon slices within that larger pie. Mod- ern Green Revolution grain breeding, when combined with increased use of fertilizers, more than doubled the yield of many annual grain crops, and those increases were achieved in plants that did not have perennating structures to sacrifice. Breeders attained a portion of those impressive yield expansions in annual crops by selecting for plants that produced less stem and leaf mass, thereby reallocating that carbon to seed production. Yields can be similarly increased without eliminating the organs and structures required for overwintering in perennial grain crops. In fact, many perennials, which are larger overall than annuals, offer more potential for breeders to reallocate vegetative growth to seed produc- tion. Furthermore, for a perennial grain crop to be successful in meeting human needs, it might need to live for only five or 10 years. In other words, the wild perennial is unnec- essarily "overbuilt" for a managed agricultural setting. Much of the carbon allocated to the plant's survival mechanisms, such as those al- lowing it to survive infrequent droughts, could be reallocated to seed production. Greener Farms Thus, we can begin to imagine a day 50 years from now when farmers around the world are ..walking through their fields of perennial grain crops. These plots would function much like the Kansas prairies walked by Wes Jackson, while also producing food. Belowground, different types of perennial roots-some resembling the long taproots of alfalfa and others more like the thick, fibrous tangle of wheatgrass roots- would coexist, making use of different soil lay- ers. Crops with alternative seasonal growth habits could be cultivated together to extend the overall growing season. Fewer inputs and great- er biodiversity would in turn benefit the envi- ronment and the farmer's bottom line. Global conditions-agricultural, ecological, economic and political-are changing rapidly in ways that could promote efforts to create pe- rennial crops. For instance, as pressure mounts on the U.S. and Europe to cut or eliminate farm subsidies, which primarily support annual crop- ping systems, more funds could be made avail- able for perennials research. And as pnergy pric- es soar and the costs of environmental degrada- tion are increasingly appreciated, budgeting public money for long-term projects that will re- duce resource consumption and land depletion will become more politically popular. Because the long timeline for release of pe- rennial grain crops discourages private-sector investment at this point, large-scale government or philanthropic funding is needed to build up a critical mass of scientists and research pro- grams. Although commercial companies may not profit as much by selling fertilizers and pes- ticides to farmers producing perennial grains, they, too, will most likely adapt to these new crops with new products and services. Annual grain production will undoubtedly still be important 50 years from now-some crops, such as soybeans, will probably be diffi- cult to perennialize, and perennials will not completely eliminate problems such as disease, weeds and soil fertility losses. Deep roots, how- ever, mean resilience. Establishing the roots of agriculture based on perennial crops now will give future farmers more choices in what they can grow and where, while sustainably produc- ing food for the burgeoning world population that is depending on.them. * BREEDING HYBRID plants can require rescuing an embryo from the ovary (/eft). A researcher bags annual sor- ghum heads to collect pollen, with tall perennial sorghum in the background {right}. Perennial Grain Crops: An Agri- cultural Revolution. Edited by Jerry D. Glover and William Wilhelm. Special issue of Renewable Agricul- ture and Food Systems, Vol. 20, No. 1 March 2005. Wes Jackson (35 Who Made a Difference). Craig Canine in special anniversary issue oiSmithson ian, Vol. 36, No. 8, pages 81-82; November 2005. Prospects for Developing Peren nial Grain Crops. Thomas S. Cox, Jerry D. Glover, David L. Van Tassel, Cindy M. Cox and Lee D. DeHaan in BioScience, Vol. 56, No. 8, pages 64? 659;August 2006. Sustainable Development of the Agricultural Bio-Economy. Nich las Jordan et al. in Science, Vol. 316, pages 1570-1571;June 15,2007. The Land Institute: (THE AUTHORS] ibii; :.; ^ r i; r. an agroecolo- gist and director of graduate research at the Land Institute in Salina, Kan., a nonprofit organiza- tion devoted to education and research in sustainable agriculture. Cindy M. Cox is a plant patholo- gist and geneticist in the insti- tute's plant-breeding program. John P. Reganold, who is Regent;, Professor of Soil Science at Wash- ington State University at Pullman, specializes in sustainable agricul- ture and last wrote for Scientific American on that subject in the June 1990 issue. --------- I hope you find something useful in the above. David -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ... I am interested in any work that has been done on how practical and cost effective a large scale commercial growing operation using permaculture principles is or might be. Does anybody know of: 1) Any publicly available study of the potential of large scale permaculture 2) Any case of a large scale permaculture operation now working or under construction David AGRICULTURE IN THE CITY A Key to Sustainability in Havana, Cuba read it online or download it http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-31574-201-1....html#begining have a squiz at http://www.cosg.org.uk/rosset.htm http://www.cosg.org.uk/mario.htm http://www.organicconsumers.org/orga...ganic_food.cfm http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...3_korea_2.html http://members.optusnet.com.au/~coho...a/an95rpp1.htm rob |
Large scale permaculture
g'day david,
as humasn we need to get aways from the broadacre export farmer mentality, the cost to habitat destruction is huge, and it also impacts on our weather ie.,. reducing our chances of rain in the droughts that are part of earths cycle. the b/a farmers here decimate vast aeas of habitat on somewaht merginal ground, and after around 7 +- years they simply move on and leave the newly created desert behind there is no requirement as there is with mining to rehabilitate the area as they further encroach. our farmers need to be in our communities where on small holdings maybe up to 40 acres +- they produce in season staples for those communities and supplied from farmer to consumer no middle man, the farmer then gets to share the common wealth of his community, instead of the way they now do it through a series of middle men who onsell not so fresh food at prices people can barely afford and not representative of what the farmers meager offering was. like that adelaide hills thing that land should basically be returned to habitat is has always been very marginal land (why do people think the farmers walked away from it after they ahd milked it for waht they could?), anyone living there should alocate enough land use for their own personnal food needs, as any commercial venture sooner or later is driven by the need for more and more turn over. people can grow enough of the non staples their family needs in a very small space, we had this type of system back in the late 40's and into the 50's+, fresh in season food was affordable for all families, and the food miles was very low so another positive factor, the farmer casme around a couple or so times a week selling fresh produce, or we went to the farm. eggs were right there as fresh as the day from the farm, and fresh unadulterated milk was delivered intoi 1 gallon stainless billy at our front door not sure may have been each second day?? homes should be modest enough and land sufficient enough for families to grow some of their own. so to me the permaculture sustainable farmer is the one who is moving closer to his consumers, not lauding themselves growing stuff on denuded dry habitat land. mollison uses those asian communities in asia where the farmer is a neighbour and produces all the staples for that neighbourhood, makes a lot of sense and no good putting it in the too hard basket because if the oil crisis is as bad as what is indicated then our broadacre farmers are going to have huge problems getting their produce to market at an affordable profit making price. need to think outside the square, the answers will come and the sooner the better. On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 11:15:17 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
Large scale permaculture
len gardener wrote:
g'day david, as humasn we need to get aways from the broadacre export farmer mentality, the cost to habitat destruction is huge, and it also impacts on our weather ie.,. reducing our chances of rain in the droughts that are part of earths cycle. the b/a farmers here decimate vast aeas of habitat on somewaht merginal ground, and after around 7 +- years they simply move on and leave the newly created desert behind there is no requirement as there is with mining to rehabilitate the area as they further encroach. our farmers need to be in our communities where on small holdings maybe up to 40 acres +- they produce in season staples for those communities and supplied from farmer to consumer no middle man, the farmer then gets to share the common wealth of his community, instead of the way they now do it through a series of middle men who onsell not so fresh food at prices people can barely afford and not representative of what the farmers meager offering was. like that adelaide hills thing that land should basically be returned to habitat is has always been very marginal land (why do people think the farmers walked away from it after they ahd milked it for waht they could?), anyone living there should alocate enough land use for their own personnal food needs, as any commercial venture sooner or later is driven by the need for more and more turn over. people can grow enough of the non staples their family needs in a very small space, we had this type of system back in the late 40's and into the 50's+, fresh in season food was affordable for all families, and the food miles was very low so another positive factor, the farmer casme around a couple or so times a week selling fresh produce, or we went to the farm. eggs were right there as fresh as the day from the farm, and fresh unadulterated milk was delivered intoi 1 gallon stainless billy at our front door not sure may have been each second day?? homes should be modest enough and land sufficient enough for families to grow some of their own. so to me the permaculture sustainable farmer is the one who is moving closer to his consumers, not lauding themselves growing stuff on denuded dry habitat land. mollison uses those asian communities in asia where the farmer is a neighbour and produces all the staples for that neighbourhood, makes a lot of sense and no good putting it in the too hard basket because if the oil crisis is as bad as what is indicated then our broadacre farmers are going to have huge problems getting their produce to market at an affordable profit making price. need to think outside the square, the answers will come and the sooner the better. How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Large scale permaculture
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: len gardener wrote: g'day david, as humasn we need to get aways from the broadacre export farmer mentality, the cost to habitat destruction is huge, and it also impacts on our weather ie.,. reducing our chances of rain in the droughts that are part of earths cycle. the b/a farmers here decimate vast aeas of habitat on somewaht merginal ground, and after around 7 +- years they simply move on and leave the newly created desert behind there is no requirement as there is with mining to rehabilitate the area as they further encroach. our farmers need to be in our communities where on small holdings maybe up to 40 acres +- they produce in season staples for those communities and supplied from farmer to consumer no middle man, the farmer then gets to share the common wealth of his community, instead of the way they now do it through a series of middle men who onsell not so fresh food at prices people can barely afford and not representative of what the farmers meager offering was. like that adelaide hills thing that land should basically be returned to habitat is has always been very marginal land (why do people think the farmers walked away from it after they ahd milked it for waht they could?), anyone living there should alocate enough land use for their own personnal food needs, as any commercial venture sooner or later is driven by the need for more and more turn over. people can grow enough of the non staples their family needs in a very small space, we had this type of system back in the late 40's and into the 50's+, fresh in season food was affordable for all families, and the food miles was very low so another positive factor, the farmer casme around a couple or so times a week selling fresh produce, or we went to the farm. eggs were right there as fresh as the day from the farm, and fresh unadulterated milk was delivered intoi 1 gallon stainless billy at our front door not sure may have been each second day?? homes should be modest enough and land sufficient enough for families to grow some of their own. so to me the permaculture sustainable farmer is the one who is moving closer to his consumers, not lauding themselves growing stuff on denuded dry habitat land. mollison uses those asian communities in asia where the farmer is a neighbour and produces all the staples for that neighbourhood, makes a lot of sense and no good putting it in the too hard basket because if the oil crisis is as bad as what is indicated then our broadacre farmers are going to have huge problems getting their produce to market at an affordable profit making price. need to think outside the square, the answers will come and the sooner the better. How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- Look a the Cuban system. Their system is working but they only started it because they had no choice. -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? outside the square and the comfort zone. With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
Large scale permaculture
"len gardener" wrote in message
as humasn we need to get aways from the broadacre export farmer mentality, the cost to habitat destruction is huge, and it also impacts on our weather ie.,. reducing our chances of rain in the droughts that are part of earths cycle. the b/a farmers here decimate vast aeas of habitat on somewaht merginal ground, and after around 7 +- years they simply move on and leave the newly created desert behind there is no requirement as there is with mining to rehabilitate the area as they further encroach. Any cites to support that claim of moving on after 7 years? I've not seen any such suggestion anywhere even though I do know that Queensland has a reputation for being full of knuckledraggers. our farmers need to be in our communities where on small holdings maybe up to 40 acres +- they produce in season staples for those communities and supplied from farmer to consumer no middle man, the farmer then gets to share the common wealth of his community, instead of the way they now do it through a series of middle men who onsell not so fresh food at prices people can barely afford and not representative of what the farmers meager offering was. Unfortunately that thought now lives with the Ark. The best land near the cities has all gone under revolting McMansions and people actually choose those things over living in high rises or older smaller houses. My Grandfather used to run a market garden in Botany in NSW. Every time I drive anywhere near Sydney Airport, I think of those market gardens and how fertile that land would have been given what is growing in the area round there now. Mind you if it had come down the line of inheritance, my bloody cousin would also have sold it off to developers as he has done with the farm that he inherited as the eldest male. So poof, there goes a farm of 5 generations on land that was first selected and cleared by the first ancestor who came to this country. No sentiment for the fact that it was the only farm left in the district which was still entire and as selected and which was the only one still in original hands after 150 years. And because he likes money. And he really IS a good farmer. like that adelaide hills thing that land should basically be returned to habitat is has always been very marginal land (why do people think the farmers walked away from it after they ahd milked it for waht they could?), anyone living there should alocate enough land use for their own personnal food needs, as any commercial venture sooner or later is driven by the need for more and more turn over. people can grow enough of the non staples their family needs in a very small space, we had this type of system back in the late 40's and into the 50's+, fresh in season food was affordable for all families, and the food miles was very low so another positive factor, the farmer casme around a couple or so times a week selling fresh produce, or we went to the farm. eggs were right there as fresh as the day from the farm, and fresh unadulterated milk was delivered intoi 1 gallon stainless billy at our front door not sure may have been each second day?? homes should be modest enough and land sufficient enough for families to grow some of their own. Have you looked over the back fences in your area? What you say is all fine in theory, but I know from living in the country where there is lots of land, and even in the drought we still had enough water to grow veggies round here, how few people actually grow anything edible. Not even a herb patch! They'll go and spend 2 bucks buying a plastic packed bunch of miserable coriander rather than spending a few minutes putting in a few seeds and doing a bit of watering now and then. A whole seasons worht of coriander could be had for the 2 bucks they spend, but they'd rather buy it than put in a small effort. And if you've taken notice of some of the questions that appear here time and time again, it is obvious how out of touch with the soil most people are, and this is supposed to be a gardening group! No-one with even a modicum of observational skills and who has grubbed about in soil for more than a few years would use a raft of chemicals on plants or would fail to understand the importance of insects in having a balance in the garden. But the basic questions keep coming... "how do I kill....", "how do I improve...." I often wonder whether people have heard of the library/google or know the role of the earthworm, or understand the most simple things about the soil, like microflora etc. Most people seem to see their garden environment as a place that they treat like they are doing some form of extension of their home decorating. " A row of Mop Top Robonia and on the other side some standard roses" type thinking. That is all quite nice to achieve, but first principles of soil and it's management and how everything else relies on it seems to be almost an afterthought. You and I both know that plants and gardens aren't home decorating, but we actually grub in the soil. Too many people seem to get wacky ideas from those ghastly TV/magazines on gardens rather than getting out there and learning by doing. And there really is no better teacher than time and experience. so to me the permaculture sustainable farmer is the one who is moving closer to his consumers, not lauding themselves growing stuff on denuded dry habitat land. Given that people now have to live in that denuded dry habitat land (and increasinlgy will have to do so in the future) I see no problem with trying to learn to use it and rehabilitate it. mollison uses those asian communities in asia where the farmer is a neighbour and produces all the staples for that neighbourhood, makes a lot of sense and no good putting it in the too hard basket because if the oil crisis is as bad as what is indicated then our broadacre farmers are going to have huge problems getting their produce to market at an affordable profit making price. They already DO have that problem. But given that consumers don't bloody care how many food miles their food has done, just so long as they can eat what they want, when they want, it is consumers who will get hit time and time again till they get a bit smarter and start to shop smarter. I cannot believe that any Australian would buy oranges produced in California, but the shops are full of them and they sell. I won't buy them but I certainklys ee many shoppers who will buy them without even checking the little sticky label on them. need to think outside the square, the answers will come and the sooner the better. No it won't. It will just continue with consumers telling the government to DO something. They are too lazy to do anything themselves like dig a veggie patch or even grow a few herbs. I despair of humanity. A good dose of plague might not be such a bad thing. |
Large scale permaculture
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
... I agree about the mindset. But we are embedded in a largely free enterprise society in which you have to be commercially viable to keep going. Mollison's philosophy is such that he would remake much of society, its values and motives not merely how we get our food. but wouldn't most of us, if we could? :-) in reality of course, societies remake themselves as they go (seeing as how benign dictators are so very thin on the ground ;-) Although he does give a nod to "legality, people, culture, trade and commerce" as a component in creating a design. So perhaps he does accept that commerce and making a dollar is not altogether evil. The question is how do you do it in a society whose agriculture is based on permaculture? well, i'm fabulously iffy about permaculture - not because of the permaculture itself, which is fine, but because of all the dippy twits who do everything badly & then walk away because it hasn't worked. also, it's quite a quiet movement (like organics in general, biodynamics, etc) so i believe you would find there's a great deal more going on than you immediately realise. and yes, making a dollar isn't inherently evil whatsoever. most of us cannot (for example) make shoes - we need money for that. true self-sufficiency by one person or family is impossible. it becomes possible within communities, though. permaculture farms most likely just carry on in obscurity, we don't know that they are there, really, even if we buy their products we can't see the farm & probably don't think about it much. I know of small scale operations where on a few acres a family is growing enough to mainly feed themselves and sell some to make a dollar to buy what they cannot grow. This makes that family very happy, they have the ability to live in the way that they see it is proper to live. see, i believe that sort of thing is really much more common than we think. much of it can't be measured via "market forces" & other foolishness, so it's not. things that can't be measured via capitalist economics tends not to be counted statistically, so we cannot officially "know" about them. (sigh). However Mollison puts forward the idea that permaculture could/should replace broadacre farming altogether. This leads me to a problem. I cannot see how every family can have a few acres nor the will/ability to farm it. I cannot see how we can get away from at least some specialists who use their skill to get food from the land efficiently on a scale that permits the feeding of the non-farmers who produce other things. In the long run the choice is to do it sustainably or to starve when we have mined out the soil. So what replaces broadacre? \ truthfully, i'm not sure anything does "replace" it. you'll have noticed that broadacre farming is changing itself, though. like you said, the choices are rapidly becoming to either do it sustainably, or starve. perhaps movements such as the permaculture movement have an obligation to cease being slightly obscure & to get out there more, i'm not sure; but when you consider things such as how mainstream organics has become (despite how quiet it is), how the most ossified farming brains are coming to use nature belts & windbreaks & things like that as part of their practice, i suppose that broadacre (for grains, etc) will carry on, just a bit differently than in the past. you are dead right in that not everyone can have a bit of land, & truthfully i doubt that everyone should (imagine if everyone had to travel the distances many countryfolk do! it would be unsustainable). yet things such as the current tendency for completely mainstream gardening magazines & newspaper columns to encourage people to grow what they can in their yards or balconies, etc, is a taste of where this is all going (in my hopelessly optimistic view). sadly, the pace of progressive change can be positively glacial, it seems to me. one last tiny rant: one thing i would love to see, which i can't see happening yet (but is probably going to have to happen very soon) is that governments need to put their foot down re overconsumption. according to statistics (tee hee) something like a third of westerners have an anti-consumerist mentality & tend not to participate in rabid consumption. governments think this is Bad & want people to consume until they drop (then consume something else to get them back up again). the day that govts get the brainwave that overconsumption itself is what is bad, things are going to change very much for the better, for everyone, because they have the power to legislate and we do not. in the meantime it is up to individuals to buy local, to limit consumption of stuff they don't need, etc; but people who do so find a lot of support with like minds (of which there are actually many). all these things are interrelated. thank you for reading my rant! :-) kylie |
Large scale permaculture
"len gardener" wrote in message
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Well "the when it's too late" scenario seemed to be what got the Cubans working on the problem so I wouldn't be surprised if it takes the same thing to get the first world doing the same thing. In Australia, given our problems, I don't think it will be too long before we are faced with the need to "do something" but for the US, I think it will take longer. There are many Americans who still don't believe in climate cahnage but I don't think there would be many Australians who don't believe in it. Till there is a shift in attitude in the majority of the popultion, no change happens as there is no pressure to do so. |
Large scale permaculture
J. Clarke wrote:
How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. Who cares. Megatropoliss are not that great for the planet anyway and there is really no modern reason for them. |
Large scale permaculture
In article
, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "len gardener" wrote in message On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Well "the when it's too late" scenario seemed to be what got the Cubans working on the problem so I wouldn't be surprised if it takes the same thing to get the first world doing the same thing. In Australia, given our problems, I don't think it will be too long before we are faced with the need to "do something" but for the US, I think it will take longer. There are many Americans who still don't believe in climate cahnage but I don't think there would be many Australians who don't believe in it. Till there is a shift in attitude in the majority of the popultion, no change happens as there is no pressure to do so. Take a look at http://www.adn.com/matsu/story/365375.html/ . Politics stymied the truth about global warming in America because the corporations will have to spend money to ameliorate their carbon emissions. The result was that the corporate line was paid for in Congress and sponsored by that right-wing nut case, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch's Fox News is the only news cast in America where faithfully watching it, will leave you more ignorant than if you had done nothing.The corporations are on board now, more or less, like New Orleans, I think now they see it as an opportunity. If you read the "uh-oh thread", it might occur to you that a perfect storm is brewing. Some countries are starting to withhold export crops, in order to feed their own citizens. That will never happen in America. Others, like Australia, have had crop problems (drought) and have no export crop. Other countries are having food riots. In any event, whether it was the bio-fuel scam, a conspiracy by the oil companies, or the government encouragement you own your own home at any cost, the American economy is set to tank. Asian banks don't want our money anymore. Our top 1% will get more stinking rich while the rest of us get acquainted with the way the rest of the world lives. Problem is that crazed American consumers was the market of choice for most of the world. No society will escape the personal need to grow more food. Not just for sensory satisfaction, but for survival. -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
"len gardener" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? Len I agree with your sentiments that we need to change our way of thinking but it will take more than that. once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? Very harsh environments for growing, with much effort you could get some boutique crops but not enough to really matter. It would be very inefficient. most cities have large parklands? Yes but the people need them. Sure strolling through a nice vege garden is relaxing but what of those who want to play sport etc? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. Melbourne is quite low density compared to the mega cities. The Aussie 1/4 acre block is very uncommon in many places. We have no experience of what really high density housing is like. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. And those market gardens have been swallowed up by housing developments that can hardly be torn down now. The population is 3 times what it was then. The institutions and organisation of 60 years ago will not serve for the next 60. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? outside the square and the comfort zone. With peace and brightest of blessings, I support your philosophy that major change in how we deal with the world is essential. And backyard and inner city growing plots would certainly be a step in the right direction. But this will never be more than a minor part of the calories required to feed a big city. Look at the people who are doing this on a small scale (ie one or a few families). They need acres to do it. Evan if yields could be increased many times (doubtful, especially in Oz) those acres just aren't available in or near big cities, nor are the numbers of skilled people prepared to lovingly tend them. It is this very problem of the efficiency of scale that made me ask the question in the first place. David |
Large scale permaculture
"Terryc" wrote in message ... J. Clarke wrote: How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. Who cares. Megatropoliss are not that great for the planet anyway and there is really no modern reason for them. How do we prevent them forming? How do take down the ones that are there? David |
Large scale permaculture
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message ... need to think outside the square, the answers will come and the sooner the better. No it won't. It will just continue with consumers telling the government to DO something. They are too lazy to do anything themselves like dig a veggie patch or even grow a few herbs. I despair of humanity. A good dose of plague might not be such a bad thing. Well it would rip right through those mega cities. A nice virulent avian flu that is human transmitted would do the trick, coming soon to your neighbourhood? I hope not. There is absolutely no doubt that in the end climate change, overpopulation, land degradation, water pollution, peak oil and daytime soap operas WILL be dealt with. The challenge is to do it without allowing the four horsemen to cause untold misery to billions along the way. David |
Large scale permaculture
len gardener wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Demonstrate that you can feed half the population of Australia on 150 square miles of land. There is no "my scenario". We feed the populations of those cities now. The methods used may offend your sensibilities but they work. You are the one proposing pie in the sky without running the numbers and showing that they can work. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Large scale permaculture
Terryc wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. Who cares. Megatropoliss are not that great for the planet anyway and there is really no modern reason for them. Whether they are "great for the planet" or not is irrelevant. It can be argued that 6 billion humans are not good for the planet. So what would you do about either? -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Large scale permaculture
"0tterbot" wrote in message ... one last tiny rant: one thing i would love to see, which i can't see happening yet (but is probably going to have to happen very soon) is that governments need to put their foot down re overconsumption. according to statistics (tee hee) something like a third of westerners have an anti-consumerist mentality & tend not to participate in rabid consumption. governments think this is Bad & want people to consume until they drop (then consume something else to get them back up again). the day that govts get the brainwave that overconsumption itself is what is bad, things are going to change very much for the better, for everyone, because they have the power to legislate and we do not. in the meantime it is up to individuals to buy local, to limit consumption of stuff they don't need, etc; but people who do so find a lot of support with like minds (of which there are actually many). all these things are interrelated. thank you for reading my rant! :-) kylie Current economic dogma says you must have growth around 3% per year for a healthy economy. Nobody knows how to do it with much less without having unacceptable unemployment. Thus the current model condemns us to be constantly expanding: population, energy use, mineral use, land use, must all grow indefinitely. Except that obviously in the real world they cannot. Political systems around the world that reward short term popularity and punish long term planning don't help. David |
Large scale permaculture
"Billy" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "len gardener" wrote in message (snip) i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Well "the when it's too late" scenario seemed to be what got the Cubans working on the problem so I wouldn't be surprised if it takes the same thing to get the first world doing the same thing. In Australia, given our problems, I don't think it will be too long before we are faced with the need to "do something" but for the US, I think it will take longer. There are many Americans who still don't believe in climate cahnage but I don't think there would be many Australians who don't believe in it. Till there is a shift in attitude in the majority of the popultion, no change happens as there is no pressure to do so. Take a look at http://www.adn.com/matsu/story/365375.html/ . Did that. He sums up some of the problems quite well. Thanks. Politics stymied the truth about global warming in America because the corporations will have to spend money to ameliorate their carbon emissions. The result was that the corporate line was paid for in Congress and sponsored by that right-wing nut case, Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch's Fox News is the only news cast in America where faithfully watching it, will leave you more ignorant than if you had done nothing.The corporations are on board now, more or less, like New Orleans, I think now they see it as an opportunity. If you read the "uh-oh thread", it might occur to you that a perfect storm is brewing. Some countries are starting to withhold export crops, in order to feed their own citizens. That will never happen in America. Others, like Australia, have had crop problems (drought) and have no export crop. Other countries are having food riots. In any event, whether it was the bio-fuel scam, a conspiracy by the oil companies, or the government encouragement you own your own home at any cost, the American economy is set to tank. Asian banks don't want our money anymore. Our top 1% will get more stinking rich while the rest of us get acquainted with the way the rest of the world lives. Problem is that crazed American consumers was the market of choice for most of the world. No society will escape the personal need to grow more food. Not just for sensory satisfaction, but for survival. That time will come although I'm not convinced that we are there just yet. |
Large scale permaculture
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message No it won't. It will just continue with consumers telling the government to DO something. They are too lazy to do anything themselves like dig a veggie patch or even grow a few herbs. I despair of humanity. A good dose of plague might not be such a bad thing. Well it would rip right through those mega cities. A nice virulent avian flu that is human transmitted would do the trick, coming soon to your neighbourhood? I hope not. So do I (when I'm not feeling particularly negative), but I would be surprised if we don't get another major pestilence of some sort. There is absolutely no doubt that in the end climate change, overpopulation, land degradation, water pollution, peak oil and daytime soap operas WILL be dealt with. The challenge is to do it without allowing the four horsemen to cause untold misery to billions along the way. At least 3 of those horsemen are already raging through the world in Iraq, Africa and each winter as Flu carts off a huge number of people. I can't quite see why the fourth wouldn't raise it's ugly head in due time too, but I do agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't wish for it. |
Large scale permaculture
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: len gardener wrote: On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Demonstrate that you can feed half the population of Australia on 150 square miles of land. There is no "my scenario". We feed the populations of those cities now. The methods used may offend your sensibilities but they work. You are the one proposing pie in the sky without running the numbers and showing that they can work. -- No one ever said that you would make money with the "Cuban Solution". you'd just get fed. If you want capitalism, you'll need to go elsewhere. -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message ... need to think outside the square, the answers will come and the sooner the better. No it won't. It will just continue with consumers telling the government to DO something. They are too lazy to do anything themselves like dig a veggie patch or even grow a few herbs. I despair of humanity. A good dose of plague might not be such a bad thing. Well it would rip right through those mega cities. A nice virulent avian flu that is human transmitted would do the trick, coming soon to your neighbourhood? I hope not. There is absolutely no doubt that in the end climate change, overpopulation, land degradation, water pollution, peak oil and daytime soap operas WILL be dealt with. The challenge is to do it without allowing the four horsemen to cause untold misery to billions along the way. David If it is you and yours' then maybe Farml is right. If it is me and mine, I'd like a second opinion. -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
In article
, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "David Hare-Scott" wrote in message "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message No it won't. It will just continue with consumers telling the government to DO something. They are too lazy to do anything themselves like dig a veggie patch or even grow a few herbs. I despair of humanity. A good dose of plague might not be such a bad thing. Well it would rip right through those mega cities. A nice virulent avian flu that is human transmitted would do the trick, coming soon to your neighbourhood? I hope not. So do I (when I'm not feeling particularly negative), but I would be surprised if we don't get another major pestilence of some sort. There is absolutely no doubt that in the end climate change, overpopulation, land degradation, water pollution, peak oil and daytime soap operas WILL be dealt with. The challenge is to do it without allowing the four horsemen to cause untold misery to billions along the way. At least 3 of those horsemen are already raging through the world in Iraq, Africa and each winter as Flu carts off a huge number of people. I can't quite see why the fourth wouldn't raise it's ugly head in due time too, but I do agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't wish for it. Atta girl. -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
In article , Charlie wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 12:00:51 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message ... need to think outside the square, the answers will come and the sooner the better. No it won't. It will just continue with consumers telling the government to DO something. They are too lazy to do anything themselves like dig a veggie patch or even grow a few herbs. I despair of humanity. A good dose of plague might not be such a bad thing. Well it would rip right through those mega cities. A nice virulent avian flu that is human transmitted would do the trick, coming soon to your neighbourhood? I hope not. There is absolutely no doubt that in the end climate change, overpopulation, land degradation, water pollution, peak oil and daytime soap operas WILL be dealt with. The challenge is to do it without allowing the four horsemen to cause untold misery to billions along the way. David I fear that is not possible, David. Speaking truth to power has, in my experience, little effect, and history bears this out, as witnessed by various prophets, seers, visionaries, and other illuminated and schmart folks who were ignored by the rich and famous and powerful. Doesn't have much to do wit schmart people. Sensible people in industrial societies have fewer children. In the United States of you know who, each kid costs about a half million $. That is incentive to anyone who can use their brain. It is alos interesting that John prophesied so long ago about a world situation that is taking on an amazing resemblance to what he said. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSw...eature=related The challenge and the attempt are noble, and required, but I also fear we are simply ****in' in the wind. Yet try we must, while maintaining a watchful posture to sidestep what we are able. I hope I am wrong, but like farml, I too despair of humanity most times. Your a Lutheran aren't you Charlie? I listen to Prairie Home Companion and I'd recognize you anywhere. Just waiting for God's coup de gras? Well I think we would do just fine if we could get these freakin' parasites off'en us.(Like Gov. Shrub, he wasn't really elected to anything else). Charlie -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: "Terryc" wrote in message ... J. Clarke wrote: How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. Who cares. Megatropoliss are not that great for the planet anyway and there is really no modern reason for them. How do we prevent them forming? How do take down the ones that are there? David Some are dense like NY. Others are burbs like LA. -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
In article , Charlie wrote:
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:46:18 +1000, "David Hare-Scott" wrote: "Terryc" wrote in message ... J. Clarke wrote: How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. Who cares. Megatropoliss are not that great for the planet anyway and there is really no modern reason for them. How do we prevent them forming? How do take down the ones that are there? David The irony of the situation is that so many of these cities are being swelled by displaced farmers and those once dependant upon the land. Charlie Especially Mexico City. -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote: "len gardener" wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? Len I agree with your sentiments that we need to change our way of thinking but it will take more than that. once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? Very harsh environments for growing, with much effort you could get some boutique crops but not enough to really matter. It would be very inefficient. Are you not listening? This is how Cubans get fed. If you don't want to eat, continue on with your ignorance. most cities have large parklands? Yes but the people need them. Sure strolling through a nice vege garden is relaxing but what of those who want to play sport etc? They won't feel like playing sports if they are hungry. Let's think priorities. No one said no sports fields. We're just saying first things first. Unlike: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006..._shut_down.php After weeks of tension, waiting, and nightly vigils, supporters of downtown South Central Farm in Los Angeles were awakened before dawn yesterday by sheriff¹s deputies forcing entry into the property. (See our prevous coverage here and here). Advocates of the farm, working with The Annenberg Foundation and the Trust for Public Land, were able to meet the $16 million asking price, albeit after the set deadline. Although the asking price was eventually met, landowner Ralph Horowitz rejected the offer and initiated the eviction. Supporters, both those camping inside and those in the surrounding streets, staged civil disobedience protests resulting in almost 50 arrests. Deputies in a 100 ft. fire department ladder truck cut away branches to remove and arrest Daryl Hannah and veteran tree-sitter John Quigley from the walnut tree they had been sitting in. More than 250 LAPD and Sheriff¹s Dept. officers flooded the surrounding area outfitted in riot gear and crowd-control weapons. Most arrestees spent less than six hours in jail and received minimal punishment. After supporters were removed from the farm by the sheriff¹s dept., Bobcat bulldozers, hired by Horowitz, proceeded to thrash and uproot plants and trees while flattening fences and the minimal infrastructure of the farm, a symbolic gesture of victory by the vilified Brentwood developer. LA Mayor Antonia Villaraigosa said he regretted the outcome and that he had made multiple appeals to the developer to accept the farmers¹ offer to buy. Advocates of the farm criticize the mayor and local Councilwoman Jan Perry for not doing more to sway the outcome. Daryl Hannah has become a recognized figurehead for the struggle to save the farm from development, and helped propel this most recent showdown into international view. By the time she was arrested yesterday she had spent more than three uninterrupted weeks encamped at the farm without returning to her Malibu home‹taking cold showers in the cornfields, and being the subject of daily media attention, as well as posting on her own vlog. ³I'm very confident this is the morally right thing to do, to take a principled stand in solidarity with the farmers,² she told the AP by cell phone before being removed from the tree yesterday. Hannah regrouped with supporters in the evening after her release for a press conference and an evening vigil near the now locked gates of the farm. Hannah will appear on Larry King Live tonight to discuss the issue. and New York Community Gardens http://www.earthcelebrations.com/gardens/10bc_1.html It almost makes you think that some people are born with "stupid genes". melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. Melbourne is quite low density compared to the mega cities. The Aussie 1/4 acre block is very uncommon in many places. We have no experience of what really high density housing is like. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. And those market gardens have been swallowed up by housing developments that can hardly be torn down now. The population is 3 times what it was then. The institutions and organisation of 60 years ago will not serve for the next 60. Same in California, good agricultural land used for housing tracts. Just totally mindless. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? outside the square and the comfort zone. With peace and brightest of blessings, I support your philosophy that major change in how we deal with the world is essential. And backyard and inner city growing plots would certainly be a step in the right direction. But this will never be more than a minor part of the calories required to feed a big city. You are just blowing this out you burro. Read about the Cuban solution before you make such stupid comments. Look at the people who are doing this on a small scale (ie one or a few families). They need acres to do it. Evan if yields could be increased many times (doubtful, especially in Oz) Oz has the oldest and most depleted soils on the planet but it still seems with crop rotation and green manure, the situation could be turned around. those acres just aren't available in or near big cities, nor are the numbers of skilled people prepared to lovingly tend them. Some American you are. The American answer is supposed to be, why not? Local can be 100 miles, an hour and a half to two hour drive. If you can eat a plant within hours of its' harvest, you're not doing too bad. It is this very problem of the efficiency of scale that made me ask the question in the first place. I guess the question is what do you consider EFFICIENT? You won't mind if the rest of us eat while you explain. David -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
"Billy" wrote in message ... In article , "J. Clarke" wrote: len gardener wrote: On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Demonstrate that you can feed half the population of Australia on 150 square miles of land. There is no "my scenario". We feed the populations of those cities now. The methods used may offend your sensibilities but they work. You are the one proposing pie in the sky without running the numbers and showing that they can work. -- No one ever said that you would make money with the "Cuban Solution". you'd just get fed. If you want capitalism, you'll need to go elsewhere. Roberto Perez, Cuban permaculturalist, recently visited NZ and Aus. He recounted an event from the Cuban 'special period' of a neighbourhood going to work with picks and axes on a car park in order to create a rudimentary garden. The concrete was split and pulled up and rough gardens created. The neighbourhood had precious few skills of farming, that came later. They found a piece of idle land and set about growing on it. That was extreme however, those people faced hunger or grow their own food. I guess hunger gives you some motivation eh. If the ground is used for something now, not to mean in a period of food shortage it won't quickly be converted. I have 5 raised beds in my 1/4 acre back yard, a small polytunnel & a good area of grass. My front lawn is in lawn as well. The neighbours on one side have a landscaped garden with rockeries. neighbours on the optherside have a cobbled back yard. If we had a food shortage I guess the rockeries & cobbled back yard would be secondary to growing some veges or having chickens. rob |
Large scale permaculture
George.com wrote:
"Billy" wrote in message ... In article , "J. Clarke" wrote: len gardener wrote: On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Demonstrate that you can feed half the population of Australia on 150 square miles of land. There is no "my scenario". We feed the populations of those cities now. The methods used may offend your sensibilities but they work. You are the one proposing pie in the sky without running the numbers and showing that they can work. -- No one ever said that you would make money with the "Cuban Solution". you'd just get fed. If you want capitalism, you'll need to go elsewhere. Billy's post seems to have gotten lost in the ether, or maybe it's just taking forever to propagate, so I'm responding here. Who said anything about "make money"? You can get x amount of food off of y amount of land. You can feed z number of people with x amount of food. If y amount of land doesn't produce enough food for z number of people then any solution proposing to feed them off of that amount of land will not work. In most large cities (New York, Los Angeles, Bombay, etc) there is less than 500 square feet of land for each resident. After deducting for things like streets and sidewalks and considering that much of that space gets limited sunlight, can you grow enough safe, edible, uncontaminated food on what's left to feed the populace? Note that something that works in Cuba, where the population density in Havana is such that there is almost 5000 square feet of land for every resident, is not necessarily going to work where the population density is more than ten times as high. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Large scale permaculture
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote: George.com wrote: "Billy" wrote in message ... In article , "J. Clarke" wrote: len gardener wrote: On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:41:57 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: snipped How do you make this system work for Los Angeles or Mexico City or Bombay? If the largest city you've seen is Sydney you don't really understand the problem. -- maybe john just maybe it is you who have no understanding of "the problem"?? once you take the liberty to pidgeon hole what is current then you take away any thinking outside the square. all tall buildings have rooves? there are balconies? most cities have large parklands? melbourne is noted for it's culturaly diversified gardens shared by occupants who live in medium to high rise tennaments. and back in the 40's and 50's over here what produce the market farmers had left they took into the general market situated in the city proper where all could access it by various public transport, now the markets are so situated it is a hectic drive to even attempt to get there. and people lived in suburbs and business was in the city. and in your scenerio or the current scenerio food is going to become very very expensive to buy i the cities, and much can happen to stop the harvest or the harvest being distributed, you may be affluent enough right now? but very many aren't and everyone could be in their shoes at any time. in the US of A some of the so called fresh food can be in transit for up to 2 weeks from what i have read at various times? i never said it was going to be easy, but when do we start? when it is way too late maybe? Demonstrate that you can feed half the population of Australia on 150 square miles of land. There is no "my scenario". We feed the populations of those cities now. The methods used may offend your sensibilities but they work. You are the one proposing pie in the sky without running the numbers and showing that they can work. -- No one ever said that you would make money with the "Cuban Solution". you'd just get fed. If you want capitalism, you'll need to go elsewhere. Billy's post seems to have gotten lost in the ether, or maybe it's just taking forever to propagate, so I'm responding here. Do you ever get into a conversation where you feel like there a two conversations going on? I'm having that feeling right now. Who said anything about "make money"? You did in your exchange with Len in which you accepted his evaluation of p/c and then, seemingly, blew it off. Len - " permaculture is more a mind set of ideas to look after the planet better, once commercialism comes into it then profit will over ride. David - "I agree about the mindset. But we are embedded in a largely free enterprise society in which you have to be commercially viable to keep going. If we get food riots, there may be some social readjustments. You can get x amount of food off of y amount of land. You can feed z number of people with x amount of food. If y amount of land doesn't produce enough food for z number of people then any solution proposing to feed them off of that amount of land will not work. In most large cities (New York, Los Angeles, Bombay, etc) there is less than 500 square feet of land for each resident. After deducting for things like streets and sidewalks and considering that much of that space gets limited sunlight, can you grow enough safe, edible, uncontaminated food on what's left to feed the populace? My guess is that form would follow function. No I don't think that New York City can grow, on its' own, sufficient produce for it's population (Although, cockroaches have more protein, pound for pound than beef, maybe urban ranching?). It is the sum of the efforts. Kansas grows more corn than it can use. Montana grows more wheat than it can use. Ideally, permaculture would address these conflicts. Monocultures are bad for flora, fauna, and the soil but economy of scale argues for extensive agricultural areas. Joel Salatin has done this for meat production. Now it needs to be extended into produce and grain production. The model would be urban produce grown wherever it can find a niche (house plants, balconies, patios, rooftops, community gardens [http://www.earthcelebrations.com/gardens/9bc.html]). Surrounding the cities would be a belt of truck farms and beyond the truck farms the large agricultural tracts of land*. The ideal is permaculture but as I said, form will follow function. The function is to get everyone fed, fed well, and renewing the land. The social frame work of the feeding is less important. *Work is being done on converting annual crops to perennial crops. Multiple crops could be grown in the same area e.g. grasses, ground cover, and root crops could coexist. The agricultural lands may even take on the aspect of parks. Note that something that works in Cuba, where the population density in Havana is such that there is almost 5000 square feet of land for every resident, is not necessarily going to work where the population density is more than ten times as high. -- -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
In article , Charlie wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:10:24 -0700, Billy wrote: Your a Lutheran aren't you Charlie? I listen to Prairie Home Companion and I'd recognize you anywhere. Just waiting for God's coup de gras? Nice try. Please insert another quarter to play again. What? Not even a smiley face? You are in a mood;-) However, you are right, as usual. Millions of people around the world demonstrated against Gov. Shrub's (only office he was ever elected to) vanity war and they were ignored. Demonstrations never brought the boys back from Vietnam either. And we have seen that revolutions seem to get hijacked by hinderbinders that have their own agenda. Oh, remember that ****ing in the wind, especially on lemon trees, is OK. It's ****ing into the wind that creates problems;-) (learned this from Omelet, the smiley faces, not the ****ing, and I can't seem to stop:-) Well I think we would do just fine if we could get these freakin' parasites off'en us.(Like Gov. Shrub, he wasn't really elected to anything else). You really think so? There are will always be psycopaths and narcissists in the wings waiting to exert control over the masses. Twas ever thus. Charlie Fortunately, those who follow us will have their own hopes and dreams. Five thousand years ago, the Egyptians said that the world was going to ruin in a hand basket and here we are, still going. The rich keep trying to get richer. If we had a revolution, the new leaders would socialize the wealth and make themselves chairmen of the board. But seriously, something has to be done about feeding and housing the people living one $ 1- $2 a day (1/3 of the planet's pop.) before they come to our doors and take it. Hoping the daylight puts you into a better mood;-) dang! -- Billy Impeach Pelosi, Bush & Cheney to the Hague http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/ |
Large scale permaculture
whatever john?
for the records i haven't proposed anything i have merely help to raise the wareness that as supposedly (some of us maybe?) intelligent human beings we need to grasp the matter now as the changes needed in our cities and suburban planning are going to take some time to implement. but i guess for now your square and comfort zone are well in place. On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 22:03:35 -0400, "J. Clarke" snipped With peace and brightest of blessings, len & bev -- "Be Content With What You Have And May You Find Serenity and Tranquillity In A World That You May Not Understand." http://www.lensgarden.com.au/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter