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/

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)

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/

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/

"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.

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/

"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.

"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

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/

"Billy" wrote in message
news:wildbilly-0C1D70.23375308042008@c-61-68-245- 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.

Please spare me the attitude. I will take it that you feel strongly about
this and so get a bit carried away sometimes but I would rather hear from you
in a civil way about your passion.

Are you seriously suggesting that the roofs and balconies of large urban
buildings are a suitable place to grow food? Have you ever tried to grow
anything in that situation? The wind and heat (and added heat island effects)
make your water consumption huge and anything tender gets burned.

I see in your quote that the author claims this happened in the Cuban
situation. I don't have the book. I don't know what the city buildings of
Cuba are like or how they managed this, I will take your word that it happened
at least on some scale.

I doubt that roof/balcony gardens in the big cities of my acquaintance
(Sydney, Melbourne) are ever going to produce more than a supplement to the
diets of the inhabitants and that would be at a great cost of materials.
These cities are looking at permanent water restrictions and great increases
in the cost of water. Squandering tap water in this way is pointless. Roof
water is insignificant in high rise due to the high ratio of people to roof
area.



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.

You seem to be assuming there will be a great catastrophe and that drastic
measures will be required to survive. My original question was about whether
permaculture was a suitable replacement for broadacre farming, I am more
interested trying to find ways of not having a catastrophe.



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.

I did read it. Convince me that it translates to other situations.

How would it be applicable to a medium sized low density city like Melbourne?

How would it be applicable to a huge high density city like Tokyo?

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.

You make it sound so easy. I would like to see numbers.

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?

I am no sort of American. The references to Melbourne and the Aussie 1/4 acre
block and the poverty of Australian soils was not there to confuse. But let's
leave nationality out of it.


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's in that ring area about 1 1/2 hours from the city centre that so much
good land is getting turned into housing estates. I agree with you and Len
that there is a problem there. I don't see how to fix it though, do you?


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.


This is the third shot you have taken, what's it for?

How did we go from agrarian economies to the present? By huge increases in
specialisation and efficiency. Sadly broadacre farming has serious unwanted
side effects and demands inputs that are going to be much more expensive or
not available in future. I mention efficiency because it must be a factor in
any system of sustainable growing that replaces the broadacre farming. In a
future of very limited resources where the per capita consumption of resources
will have to be reduced in countries like yours and mine how can we
countenance inefficiency?

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

I doubt that roof/balcony gardens in the big cities of my acquaintance
(Sydney, Melbourne) are ever going to produce more than a supplement to
the
diets of the inhabitants and that would be at a great cost of materials.
These cities are looking at permanent water restrictions and great
increases
in the cost of water. Squandering tap water in this way is pointless.
Roof
water is insignificant in high rise due to the high ratio of people to
roof
area.

you might be over-focussing on roof growing, here, david :-)

sydney & melbourne have a lot of land space in people's yards. while back
yard (and balcony!!) fruit & veg growing seems insignificant, it's not
really (particularly when you consider how common it was once and (i dearly
hope) will be again. have you seen any of the designs (e.g. clive blazey's)
for food gardens in the ordinary smallish yard? it's actually fairly
impressive. considering that farming itself (on farms) isn't going away any
time soon, i can't see that there'd be too many problems anyway, but
certainly cities like sydney & melbourne would be fully capable of most
(although not all) householders growing a surprising quantity of fruit & veg
_if they wanted to_.

added to that, another of c. blazey's "things" is substituting food plants
for ornamentals (food plants being handily ornamental as well, nice that). a
tiny yard (such as i had myself in sydney, various locations) with some
ornamentals can be refigured to a tiny yard full of food plants. i doubt
that such a yard could meet all the householders' needs, but you need to
consider how much they _could_ produce. as more people make such changes, we
will know more. it's endless really - small town near here has a strip where
the street trees are fruit trees (possibly planted by householders, i don't
know). people are thinking of new ways to make gardening more vertical, to
handle small spaces. etc. i have lived nearby to food-oriented gardens in
the burbs of canberra! hence that is why i believe they're more common than
we think, and are entirely practical too. anyone could do it.

You seem to be assuming there will be a great catastrophe and that drastic
measures will be required to survive. My original question was about
whether
permaculture was a suitable replacement for broadacre farming, I am more
interested trying to find ways of not having a catastrophe.

i think the poster's point is that cuba actually had that catastrophe, but
they turned it around. in a crisis, people are galvanised. until such a
crisis, well, they're not, & until then tend not to think about the problem,
even. this is actually a problem, because things like "loss of agricultural
land" or even "climate change" don't really affect anyone in (say) sydney at
this time. they cannot conceive what the problem might be. yet, we all know
that in an unforseen severe crisis, you could starve the population out
within a week (although it actually takes longer than a week to starve to
death, of course - say 3 or 4). there's no food storage there beyond 3 or 4
_days_, it would be (relatively) easy (for an Organisation of Baddies) to
block the roads so nobody could go in or out. really!

now, i doubt that will ever happen of course, but equally i doubt the
populace even realises how vulnerable they potentially are. the cuban
situation was apparently national, so therefore a bit more easily solved by
the populace as a whole. gardening is entirely empowering, for quite obvious
reasons. what a high-density mega-city could or would do i don't know, & i
must admit it's really not my problem, so i don't have any intention of
devoting more thought to that.

It's in that ring area about 1 1/2 hours from the city centre that so much
good land is getting turned into housing estates. I agree with you and
Len
that there is a problem there. I don't see how to fix it though, do you?

get the developers on the run! g seriously, in nsw it is looking like
developers' days of doing whatever the hell they like are going to be, of
necessity, numbered. not a bad thing, that.

How did we go from agrarian economies to the present? By huge increases
in
specialisation and efficiency.

no, because the industrial revolution happened!

"huge increases in specialisation and efficiency" really only occurred in
the way that (i assume) you are thinking of, post ww2. hello, herbicides!

Sadly broadacre farming has serious unwanted
side effects and demands inputs that are going to be much more expensive
or
not available in future.

it's also not AT ALL efficient in the way (i assume) you are thinking of.
for example, backyard veggie gardens are massively more water-efficient than
a broadacre veggie farm & more able to supply their own inputs. small farms
are more efficient than big ones. sheer magnitude does not equal something
being genuinely efficient - it brings a certain economy of scale, but in
every other way is less efficient - even growth and plant health is not so
good, because it's monocultural, so you don't get the returns per square
metre that you would on a small, mixed farm. so yes, the cost of inputs is
inefficient as well, and the undesirable outputs impinge seriously on any
genuine "efficiency". someone told me recently (no idea how true it is, but
it doesn't sound "wrong" to me based on my observations) that with broadacre
farming, you only expect to make 6% over your inputs (ie. make $106 dollars
for every $100 spent) which doesn't count the eventual cost of damaging
outputs. by any measure, that is wildly inefficient & is going to have to
change rapidly.

I mention efficiency because it must be a factor in
any system of sustainable growing that replaces the broadacre farming. In
a
future of very limited resources where the per capita consumption of
resources
will have to be reduced in countries like yours and mine how can we
countenance inefficiency?

we can't countenance it now, yet we do :-)

solutions would include: smaller, more mixed farms. farms focussing on
growing crops or livestock which work in the conditions that exist, not to
continue trying to alter conditions when it can't be done. the populace
growing more of its own food (whether that means in one's own yard, or
buying locally, as directly as possible). further reducing the import sector
(which actually is quite small at the moment in terms of food, thankfully -
to not allow this to increase whatsoever, and actively work on reducing it
to near-zero). active governmental preservation of agricultural land
(including putting their foot down re expanding cities even more). proper
support for farmers - rather than bailing them out of disaster after
disaster, to aid in remaking the farming sector a bit & utilising knowledge
which is there, so that people are getting good outcomes for all, rather
than struggling on as is, inefficiently & in some cases disastrously. to
educate the public (this isn't going to happen this week - as i said the
govt wants you to buy a cabbage, not to grow one. most governments need
their heads read on this matter - they are simply _wrong_.) there are lots
of things to be done, it's a question of will, not of possibility.

two other things i was told recently by different people, neither of which i
have checked, but include as discussion points perhaps - firstly, that john
macarthur's obsession with sheep put the mockers on other peoples' ideas for
farming more suitable livestock. secondly, that a chicken farmer needs
(iirc) 20,000 birds to be considered a primary producer. (20,000!!! i
consider 20 birds to be primary production! ;-) clearly, there's a bit of
re-thinking that needs to be done. re-thinking is good.
kylie

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)

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/

"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

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)