Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> James: . . . unlike most past gardens where I planted very large beds of 
> one crop, this time I rather planted very small plots of things all over 
> the garden --

On my short list of books to write is one titled The Scattered Garden. I 
was first prompted to the design by squash and pepper experience--plantings 
separated by substantial distance are less likely to be decimated by squash 
bugs. In the case of peppers, which have the unkind habit of cross 
pollinating, the design saves one from biting into a sweet pepper only to 
have one's mouth, throat and eyes explode with pain.

There are other advantages to the scattered garden which I am sure you all 
will quickly see, not least of which is that diversity has the greatest 
chance of something succeeding when much fails.

There are two distinct disadvantages to multiple crops in discrete beds and 
planting areas scattered around the homestead. The first is simply that the 
best gardens are maintained by frequent visits by the gardener, who quickly 
sees something happening and makes an adjustment, whether extra water or 
picking squash bugs before they become a full-blown invasion. The second 
disadvantage is disruption of the rotation schedule. It's lots easier to 
have rotation follow a circular pattern around the garden, each bed having 
one crop, followed by the appropriate succession crop. In my experience, 
really high organic content can ameliorate incorrect pH, so if one has the 
wealth of immense mulch, rotation is less critical.

> I often leave potatoes in the ground all winter under mulch and dig a few 
> pounds at a time.

I do the same with carrots. Just put heavy mulch on the beds and leave the 
roots in place, where they are most happy. Climate dictates where this 
practise works. As does temperament. Some common people object to digging 
spuds in January.

>   Yesterday I noticed that the deer had been into a plot of Irish Cobbler 
> potatoes, a plot 4' x 7'.  They had pawed up a 1' x 4' strip on one side 
> and some sizeable potatoes were lying on the ground.  Curious, I though, 
> why didn't they eat them?

My first thought is that you were lucky. Many predators eat a bite here and 
a bite there, ruining many more than they consume. Raccoons are infamous 
for taking a single bite out of many tomatoes--real gourmands--although 
they will clean a strawberry bed from end to end of anything red.

> The intriguing thing about this is that crunching the numbers on the 
> yields from SMALL intensive plots from the past few years, the *ideal* 
> garden that is extrapolated from those yields to support most of the food 
> needs of a person is quite modest.

I believe a diligent person using intensive gardening can feed a family of 
four on a half acre or less, including vegetables, fruits, chickens and 
rabbits. I've not yet tried it with grain, so don't have a feel for that 
land requirement. There are books on this subject. Some writer-gardeners 
have taken it to an extreme, spacing plants to the tenth of an inch, it 
seems. If maximum yield from minimum land is your desire, books that come 
to mind are Square-Foot Gardening and How To Raise More Vegetables on Less 
Land Than You Ever Imagined, or something like that--I think latest 
additions include Fruits, Nuts, Berries, Grains, and maybe chocolate cake. 
Look up John Jeavons and Mel Bartholomew on Amazon.