In article
,
Billy wrote:
I thank you for introducing me to Permies; http://www.permies.com/.
What groups does Jay Green post in, or is it just Permies?

Several farming and poultry sites; when I was researching the use of
fermented feeds, his stuff came up in several places since he's someone
who does it and posts about it.

Be aware that permies is somewhat prone to being what its owner wants to
hear - minor discussion is allowed, major disagreements vanish into thin
air, leaving only what he agrees with (not even a "post deleted by
moderator" message.) I thought more highly of it before I saw that
happen a few times. I haven't been back much since then. I prefer to
talk with grown ups, or wise children.

I like tree and bush crops and "permanent agriculture." When lazy and
efficient are the same thing, I'm all for that kind of lazy.

permaculture-with-a-capital-P seems to be more about paying money to
take courses to get certified to teach courses that you charge people
money for so they can get certified, in my somewhat jaundiced view. I
don't find it all that compelling, though it has produced some materials
I think worthy of a read, so long as I'm not paying an arm and a leg for
them, or required to believe (or pretend to believe) everything in
them...but there are also good books on the subject that predate the
certification-mad folks.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Please don't feed the trolls. Killfile and ignore them so they will go away.

In article
,
Ecnerwal wrote:

In article
,
Billy wrote:
I thank you for introducing me to Permies; http://www.permies.com/.
What groups does Jay Green post in, or is it just Permies?

Several farming and poultry sites; when I was researching the use of
fermented feeds, his stuff came up in several places since he's someone
who does it and posts about it.

Be aware that permies is somewhat prone to being what its owner wants to
hear - minor discussion is allowed, major disagreements vanish into thin
air, leaving only what he agrees with (not even a "post deleted by
moderator" message.) I thought more highly of it before I saw that
happen a few times. I haven't been back much since then. I prefer to
talk with grown ups, or wise children.

I like tree and bush crops and "permanent agriculture." When lazy and
efficient are the same thing, I'm all for that kind of lazy.

permaculture-with-a-capital-P seems to be more about paying money to
take courses to get certified to teach courses that you charge people
money for so they can get certified, in my somewhat jaundiced view. I
don't find it all that compelling, though it has produced some materials
I think worthy of a read, so long as I'm not paying an arm and a leg for
them, or required to believe (or pretend to believe) everything in
them...but there are also good books on the subject that predate the
certification-mad folks.

You did see a Farm for a Future?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
The first 2 parts presents the problems, and the last 3 parts try to
answer them.

It's always good to question authority.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Ecnerwal wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:
I thank you for introducing me to Permies;
http://www.permies.com/. What groups does Jay Green post in, or is
it just Permies?

Several farming and poultry sites; when I was researching the use of
fermented feeds, his stuff came up in several places since he's
someone who does it and posts about it.

Be aware that permies is somewhat prone to being what its owner wants
to hear - minor discussion is allowed, major disagreements vanish
into thin air, leaving only what he agrees with (not even a "post
deleted by moderator" message.) I thought more highly of it before I
saw that happen a few times. I haven't been back much since then. I
prefer to talk with grown ups, or wise children.

I like tree and bush crops and "permanent agriculture." When lazy and
efficient are the same thing, I'm all for that kind of lazy.

permaculture-with-a-capital-P seems to be more about paying money to
take courses to get certified to teach courses that you charge people
money for so they can get certified, in my somewhat jaundiced view. I
don't find it all that compelling, though it has produced some
materials I think worthy of a read, so long as I'm not paying an arm
and a leg for them, or required to believe (or pretend to believe)
everything in them...but there are also good books on the subject
that predate the certification-mad folks.

I would really like to see a credible estimate of two things:

- The cost efficiency of wide scale permaculture, that is what would food
cost compared to conventional agriculture a) on the market today b) taking
into account long term costs of pollution etc, which almost never figure in
our 'costs'.

- Whether it can really be sustainable in a closed system. The best
examples that I have seen still use considerable external inputs. The answer
is to this is in part tied up with how you define the system's boundaries
but the dedicated are claiming that boundary is and ought to be at the
property boundary - in which case I wonder if it is possible.

David

In article ,
Rick wrote:

is that organic and permaculture methods fall behind on grain
production, but do better with other crops. It seems likely that for
the forseeable future many farming methods will be required to sustain
a growing population at affordable prices while minimizing damage to
the eco system.

Square one is to deal seriously with the "growing population" issue, but
mother nature will do that eventually if we don't - it's just going to
be much messier her way.

Grain is not really all that "permaculture" in nature, being (with few
exceptions) the seed of an annual grass. Perennial wheat seems to be a
subject of current research; It likely gives "less per-acre per-year"
than annual wheat, as is typical of crops which have means other than
seeds to carry on their genetics, but it also would not require annual
tillage fuel, and soil loss from tillage and resulting wind and rain
erosion. It may also need less fertilizer, and it offers the ability to
use it for forage or hay as well as for grain, evidently.

Real permanent agriculture is not based on producing the same crops as
annual agriculture, but (in large part) on producing end products using
many tree or shrub based crops which you won't really find in a
grain/annual based system. ie, it's not about growing corn.

As one fairly well researched and formerly common example, raising pigs
on fruit, locust beans and acorns (which they gathered themselves)
rather than on corn (maize, for the wider world) trucked to them in the
delightful (I jest) facilities that are common now. For a decade or so
there was even research into breeding better honeylocust for forage and
even human consumption, but that was cut off (and cut down) something
like 60+ years ago. The land with the trees growing on it also produced
a sizable hay crop. Cows fed the beans as forage had increased
butterfat, etc...

(_Tree Crops, a permanent agriculture_, J. Russell Smith, 1950)

There is ongoing but slow work in increasing domestic (USA) hazelnut
(filbert) production east of the rockies. Problems include breeding past
eastern filbert blight. Also, getting farmers to think about growing a
crop that stays put and does not yield a great deal for several years,
which is a hard sell for anyone carrying debt.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by
Please don't feed the trolls. Killfile and ignore them so they will go away.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:17:30 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:
I would really like to see a credible estimate of two things:

- The cost efficiency of wide scale permaculture, that is what would
food cost compared to conventional agriculture a) on the market
today b) taking into account long term costs of pollution etc, which
almost never figure in our 'costs'.

- Whether it can really be sustainable in a closed system. The best
examples that I have seen still use considerable external inputs.
The answer is to this is in part tied up with how you define the
system's boundaries but the dedicated are claiming that boundary is
and ought to be at the property boundary - in which case I wonder if
it is possible.

David

Rick wrote:
here is a synopsis of a recent study.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0425140114.htm

There are, of course, others out there. Bottom line from my reading
is that organic and permaculture methods fall behind on grain
production, but do better with other crops. It seems likely that for
the forseeable future many farming methods will be required to sustain
a growing population at affordable prices while minimizing damage to
the eco system.



It's a shame that the paper is paywalled. To me the core question is not
the relative yields but the productivity in relation to inputs and wider
costs, the review doesn't mention whether this is covered in the paper.

The measurement of yield by itself is not that useful, one can have very
high yields that are quite unsustainable.

One critic wailed that for the underfed of the world a drop in yield as
described would be catastrophic. This is such a simplified and narrow view
that conveniently dismisses the issue in one sweep. If the chance of
catastrophe is to be a major evaluation criterion then there are many other
possible catastrophes, such as soil destruction or conventional fertiliser
becoming prohibitively expensive, that need to be considered when choosing a
long term system of food production. And of course there are many
non-catastrophe consequences and issues to consider. To collapse the
evaluation down to only yield is inadequate to say the least.

The desire to simplify the world and the future into neat sound bites (that
miss the point or tell half-truths) is very powerful in some quarters.


David

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:17:30 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:
I would really like to see a credible estimate of two things:

- The cost efficiency of wide scale permaculture, that is what would
food cost compared to conventional agriculture a) on the market
today b) taking into account long term costs of pollution etc, which
almost never figure in our 'costs'.

- Whether it can really be sustainable in a closed system. The best
examples that I have seen still use considerable external inputs.
The answer is to this is in part tied up with how you define the
system's boundaries but the dedicated are claiming that boundary is
and ought to be at the property boundary - in which case I wonder if
it is possible.

David

Rick wrote:
here is a synopsis of a recent study.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0425140114.htm

There are, of course, others out there. Bottom line from my reading
is that organic and permaculture methods fall behind on grain
production, but do better with other crops. It seems likely that for
the forseeable future many farming methods will be required to sustain
a growing population at affordable prices while minimizing damage to
the eco system.



It's a shame that the paper is paywalled. To me the core question is not
the relative yields but the productivity in relation to inputs and wider
costs, the review doesn't mention whether this is covered in the paper.

The measurement of yield by itself is not that useful, one can have very
high yields that are quite unsustainable.

One critic wailed that for the underfed of the world a drop in yield as
described would be catastrophic. This is such a simplified and narrow view
that conveniently dismisses the issue in one sweep. If the chance of
catastrophe is to be a major evaluation criterion then there are many other
possible catastrophes, such as soil destruction or conventional fertiliser
becoming prohibitively expensive, that need to be considered when choosing a
long term system of food production. And of course there are many
non-catastrophe consequences and issues to consider. To collapse the
evaluation down to only yield is inadequate to say the least.

The desire to simplify the world and the future into neat sound bites (that
miss the point or tell half-truths) is very powerful in some quarters.


David

Last night, I was listening to William Moseley, a development and
human-environment geographer with particular expertise in political
ecology, tropical agriculture, environment and development policy,
livelihood security, and West Africa and Southern Africa.
http://archives.kpfa.org/data/20130408-Mon1900.mp3
http://www.macalester.edu/academics/.../billmoseley/a
rticles/
One of his observations was that the food riots in Africa in 2008
weren't caused by lack of food, but by the price of the food. Local
farmers get pushed off the land, and then the land is leased to
countries like China who come in farm the land, and then send the crop
back to China to feed Chinese. The other whammy that farmers around the
world have to live with is government subsidized crops. Many of our
crops in the U.S. are tax-payer subsidized (so much for "free markets")
and sold on the world market at below the cost of production. This in
turn ruins corn farmers in Mexico, rice growers in Haiti, and wheat
farmers in Africa, and the result is a dependency on the food producing
countries. In any event, IMHO, this is the path that Monsanto and others
are taking us down, i.e. they will control the seed.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

In article ,
Rick wrote:

here is a synopsis of a recent study.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0425140114.htm

There are, of course, others out there. Bottom line from my reading
is that organic and permaculture methods fall behind on grain
production, but do better with other crops. It seems likely that for
the forseeable future many farming methods will be required to sustain
a growing population at affordable prices while minimizing damage to
the eco system.

The problem with grain production is that you are talking about
monocultures, chemicals, and possibly a second crop in a season.

Numero-uno: Monocultures produce less food per acre than inter-planted
crops.

Numero-two-o: Planting the same crop on the same land year in, and year
out will encourage crop pests to flourish.

Number-three-o: The cost of chemical fertilizers, and pesticides is
linked to to the price of fossil fuels. As the price of fossil
fuels go up, so must the cost of the yield.

Numero-four-o: The use of chemical fertilizers kills topsoil buy killing
microorganisms (like salt on a snail), and the lack or organic inputs
(manure, stubble). Dying and dead soil requires ever more chemical
fertilizers to maintain crop yields. The nitrates poison the ground
water, and the water table. Phosphates cause algal blooms, which
when they die suck the oxygen out of the water, and give you
"dead zones" at the mouths of rivers, further reducing available
food. The nitrogen from chemical fertilizers is stored in the leaves
of the plant. These are fast growing leaves because of the nitrogen.
Insects are attracted to the leaves because of the nitrogen, which is
easily accessed because the fast growing leaves are tender.

Numero-five-o: Lest we forget, GMOs don't produce more yield,
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8405
and some GMOs do have nasty side effects on lab animals. GMOs do
allow more biocides to be pour onto our food (Roundup), and introduce
bacillus Thuringiensis toxins into our food.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...toxins-blood-9
3-unborn-babies.html
Roundup has been shown to reduce crops, and bacillus Thuringiensis
toxins and meant to kill insects, both beneficial, and pests. We are
still trying to figure out what is killing off the bees that
pollinate 70% of what we eat.

It's not just bees. We are losing our agricultural biodiversity with
industrial agriculture.

Numero-six-o: You have none of the above problems with organic farming.
Productivity in industrial agriculture is measured in terms of
"yield" per acre, not overall output per acre. And the only input
taken into account is labour, which is abundant, not natural
resources which are scarce.

A resource hungry and resource destructive system of agriculture is
not land saving, it is land demanding. That is why industrial
agriculture is driving a massive planetary land grab. It is leading to
the deforestation of the rainforests in the Amazon for soya and in
Indonesia for palm oil. And it is fuelling a land grab in Africa,
displacing pastoralists and peasants.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-food-idUKTRE7272FN20110308

Numero-seven-o: Commercially grown fruits and vegetables are less
expensive, are prettier to look at, contain approximately 10-50% of
the nutrients found in organic produce, are often depleted in
enzymes, and are contaminated with a variety of herbicides,
pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.
In comparing organically and commercially grown wheat, researchers
found the organic wheat contained 20-80% less metal residues
(aluminum, cadmium, cobalt, lead, mercury), and contained 25-1300%
more of specific nutrients (calcium, chromium, copper, iodine,
magnesium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, potassium,
selenium, sulfur, and zinc).
Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1, 1993.



On Tue, 9 Apr 2013 08:17:30 +1000, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:
I thank you for introducing me to Permies;
http://www.permies.com/. What groups does Jay Green post in, or is
it just Permies?

Several farming and poultry sites; when I was researching the use of
fermented feeds, his stuff came up in several places since he's
someone who does it and posts about it.

Be aware that permies is somewhat prone to being what its owner wants
to hear - minor discussion is allowed, major disagreements vanish
into thin air, leaving only what he agrees with (not even a "post
deleted by moderator" message.) I thought more highly of it before I
saw that happen a few times. I haven't been back much since then. I
prefer to talk with grown ups, or wise children.

I like tree and bush crops and "permanent agriculture." When lazy and
efficient are the same thing, I'm all for that kind of lazy.

permaculture-with-a-capital-P seems to be more about paying money to
take courses to get certified to teach courses that you charge people
money for so they can get certified, in my somewhat jaundiced view. I
don't find it all that compelling, though it has produced some
materials I think worthy of a read, so long as I'm not paying an arm
and a leg for them, or required to believe (or pretend to believe)
everything in them...but there are also good books on the subject
that predate the certification-mad folks.

I would really like to see a credible estimate of two things:

- The cost efficiency of wide scale permaculture, that is what would food
cost compared to conventional agriculture a) on the market today b) taking
into account long term costs of pollution etc, which almost never figure in
our 'costs'.

- Whether it can really be sustainable in a closed system. The best
examples that I have seen still use considerable external inputs. The answer
is to this is in part tied up with how you define the system's boundaries
but the dedicated are claiming that boundary is and ought to be at the
property boundary - in which case I wonder if it is possible.

David

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Ecnerwal wrote:
Billy wrote:

I thank you for introducing me to Permies; http://www.permies.com/.
What groups does Jay Green post in, or is it just Permies?

Several farming and poultry sites; when I was researching the use of
fermented feeds, his stuff came up in several places since he's someone
who does it and posts about it.

Be aware that permies is somewhat prone to being what its owner wants to
hear - minor discussion is allowed, major disagreements vanish into thin
air, leaving only what he agrees with (not even a "post deleted by
moderator" message.) I thought more highly of it before I saw that
happen a few times.

yuck, yeah that's a turn off.


I haven't been back much since then. I prefer to
talk with grown ups, or wise children.

i'll talk to anyone (and apparently i have no
sense of knowing when someone i'm talking to is
drunk because i've had several happenings that
would have been better avoided had i noticed
the person was smashed).


I like tree and bush crops and "permanent agriculture." When lazy and
efficient are the same thing, I'm all for that kind of lazy.

i'm ok with some dirt moving for annual
crops, cover crops, green manures and for digging
up and dividing perennials. that's not the
majority of what is going on here.

by far the most heavy work i do each season is
to try to mitigate mistakes that others are
making. right now i'm looking at minimally three
weeks of this season that are or will be wasted
due to the negative actions of others. that's
from this point. in a few weeks there might be
other things added to this list. the good news
is that at least by spending the extra day this
week i'll head off two-thirds of a future major
pile of BS. i'll take my victories where i can
find them...


permaculture-with-a-capital-P seems to be more about paying money to
take courses to get certified to teach courses that you charge people
money for so they can get certified, in my somewhat jaundiced view. I
don't find it all that compelling, though it has produced some materials
I think worthy of a read, so long as I'm not paying an arm and a leg for
them, or required to believe (or pretend to believe) everything in
them...but there are also good books on the subject that predate the
certification-mad folks.

yep, i was noticing this trend and then the
usual call for organizing a regulating organization
to make sure things were ok. all a bunch of yuck
pretty similar to how "Organic" was corrupted by
organizations and governmental fiddling.

anyone with a little time can find quite a few
good references from "the old days.". i've been
working on a list the past few weeks. when i get it
done and posted i'll post a link to it.

i like to go around and look at projects and
see if they've lasted and what the results have
been. some are quite impressive. others folded
due to lack of funding (it wasn't really
permaculture then was it?) yet, if they've
improved an area even a little and made it better
then at least they've not done as much harm as
could be done by more destructive methods.

the bones of projects are well worth examining.
you can learn a lot. what works years later even
when the maintenance folks are gone are the kinds
of things you want to do yourself. learning by
observing.


songbird

In article ,
songbird wrote:

Ecnerwal wrote:
Billy wrote:

I thank you for introducing me to Permies; http://www.permies.com/.
What groups does Jay Green post in, or is it just Permies?

Several farming and poultry sites; when I was researching the use of
fermented feeds, his stuff came up in several places since he's someone
who does it and posts about it.

Be aware that permies is somewhat prone to being what its owner wants to
hear - minor discussion is allowed, major disagreements vanish into thin
air, leaving only what he agrees with (not even a "post deleted by
moderator" message.) I thought more highly of it before I saw that
happen a few times.

yuck, yeah that's a turn off.


I haven't been back much since then. I prefer to
talk with grown ups, or wise children.

i'll talk to anyone (and apparently i have no
sense of knowing when someone i'm talking to is
drunk because i've had several happenings that
would have been better avoided had i noticed
the person was smashed).


I like tree and bush crops and "permanent agriculture." When lazy and
efficient are the same thing, I'm all for that kind of lazy.

i'm ok with some dirt moving for annual
crops, cover crops, green manures and for digging
up and dividing perennials. that's not the
majority of what is going on here.

by far the most heavy work i do each season is
to try to mitigate mistakes that others are
making. right now i'm looking at minimally three
weeks of this season that are or will be wasted
due to the negative actions of others. that's
from this point. in a few weeks there might be
other things added to this list. the good news
is that at least by spending the extra day this
week i'll head off two-thirds of a future major
pile of BS. i'll take my victories where i can
find them...


permaculture-with-a-capital-P seems to be more about paying money to
take courses to get certified to teach courses that you charge people
money for so they can get certified, in my somewhat jaundiced view. I
don't find it all that compelling, though it has produced some materials
I think worthy of a read, so long as I'm not paying an arm and a leg for
them, or required to believe (or pretend to believe) everything in
them...but there are also good books on the subject that predate the
certification-mad folks.

yep, i was noticing this trend and then the
usual call for organizing a regulating organization
to make sure things were ok. all a bunch of yuck
pretty similar to how "Organic" was corrupted by
organizations and governmental fiddling.

anyone with a little time can find quite a few
good references from "the old days.". i've been
working on a list the past few weeks. when i get it
done and posted i'll post a link to it.

i like to go around and look at projects and
see if they've lasted and what the results have
been. some are quite impressive. others folded
due to lack of funding (it wasn't really
permaculture then was it?) yet, if they've
improved an area even a little and made it better
then at least they've not done as much harm as
could be done by more destructive methods.

the bones of projects are well worth examining.
you can learn a lot. what works years later even
when the maintenance folks are gone are the kinds
of things you want to do yourself. learning by
observing.


songbird

Besides the BBCs A Farm for a Future, the book ,
Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
(Paperback)
by Toby Hemenway
http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...culture/dp/160
3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1
(It's at the library)

is a good introduction to permaculture.

Looking at some of what's available for permaculture on the internet
suddenly reminds me of the dictum of one of our local madams, Sally
Stanford, "Never give away anything that you can sell."

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
http://www.rachelcorrie.org/

Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

Billy wrote:
....
Besides the BBCs A Farm for a Future, the book ,
Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture
(Paperback)
by Toby Hemenway
http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...culture/dp/160
3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1
(It's at the library)

is a good introduction to permaculture.

i'll add it to the list, thanks.


songbird

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:01:24 PM UTC-6, songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:

...

Besides the BBCs A Farm for a Future, the book ,

Gaia's Garden, Second Edition: A Guide To Home-Scale Permaculture

(Paperback)

by Toby Hemenway

http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...culture/dp/160

3580298/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271266976&sr=1-1

(It's at the library)



is a good introduction to permaculture.



i'll add it to the list, thanks.


songbird

That link didn't wrap correctly. here it is as I see it:

http://www.amazon.com/Gaias-Garden-S...6976&sr=1-1%3E

====