Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

What I wrote was, feeding your self and marketing sustainably grown 
production and doing it profitably is one of the most urgent priorities in 
today's economy. That is not an endorsement of corporate capitalism by any 
stretch, but the opposite. Doing it sustainably must include growing local, 
selling local, invariably small scale.

You wrote
>Permaculture, while it doesn't speak loudly to those wanting to start a
>food production business, it certainly does to those who are in business
>but looking to increase total yields while looking after their land
>better than they are able to do with a monoculture.

You may not know but biointensive has nothing to do with monoculture. 
Permaculture is not the only advocate against monoculture. Permaculture can't 
come close to increasing sustainable yields without the principles of 
biointensive. Biointensive is often coupled with proven, local adaptations 
such as no-till, marketing niches, season extension, and so forth. In fact, I 
do this, and I didn't invent anything. In my climate and environs I can't 
possibly practice permaculture, and wouldn't if I could because I'm 
sixty-four and I don't have fifty years to reach a climax ecosystem - the end 
goal of permaculture. And it wouldn't add anything to my production or 
sustainability over and above what I'm already doing. I supply two busy 
markets a week all season from just one-sixth of an acre, while improving the 
soil with organic matter going to waste otherwise. Of course no chemicals. 
And this is only my second year in this location. If I got sidetracked by 
permaculture I'd still be trying to get started when I'm seventy.  I don't 
have time for all their nonsense. Nor does a hungry world.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 5/21/2008 at 3:52 PM Mike wrote:

>Hi Paul
>
>I have heard that complaint many times from your neck of the woods. Here
>on the other side of the world it is a similar price but usually you get
>two weeks of course, accommodation and food. Really quite good value.
>
>But the crux of the matter is that you really don't need the course.
>There are plenty of free (and low cost) ways of getting the same (and
>better) information.
>
>1. The syllabus of the Permaculture Design Course is supposed to be
>Permaculture - A Designers' Manual. As books go, it is costly, but it is
>huge and it'll keep you going for years.
>2. Many permaculture courses do not follow the manual but instead
>concentrate on permaculture tactics. Pity, really. A waste, in fact. The
>permaculture tactics (or directives I have heard Mollison day) are
>pretty well documented and can be found on hundreds of web sites.
>3. Permaculture, of course, is just a design science. It was not the
>first place that these ideas arose (although some of them definitely did
>start there). It merely proposed the idea that we should be doing those
>things that worked to achieve the permaculture goals. (It is interesting
>to see the evolution of the ideas and scope through the early
>permaculture books. ) Thus, there are thousands of other books that
>describe how to get higher yields through natural systems.
>
> >> tho as a design system it's truly remarkable.
>
>And it is such a pity that the high price tag there has had that effect.
>
> >>What the high dollar seminars don't teach is how to grow food
>
>Yet that is one of the things at the heart of permaculture. Crazy.
>
> >>and marketing sustainably grown production and doing it profitably.
>That is one of the most urgent priorities in today's economy.
>
>And yet I would partially disagree with that. Surely the priority is
>simply to get people fed with healthy food. In your country, but
>especially in countries where the population just doesn't get fed. A lot
>of the design strategies are for small areas. Home production of food.
>For every person interested in growing food for a business, surely there
>are a thousand that would like to start a home (or village) garden.
>Permaculture, while it doesn't speak loudly to those wanting to start a
>food production business, it certainly does to those who are in business
>but looking to increase total yields while looking after their land
>better than they are able to do with a monoculture.
>
>And the idea that permaculture should contribute to the 'today's
>economy' might be a contradiction. "Today's economy" is all about big
>business gaining as much control as possible, being as big as possible,
>and therefore as a result being as inefficient as possible (in a natural
>sense). It is about machines, debt and control. It is about the short
>term. It is not about the care of the earth and of the people. It is not
>about the permanence of culture, of agriculture. It is not about
>sustainability.
>
>Maybe the day will come when judgment of permaculture on its merits,
>rather than the price of the seminars, will be more common. Personally,
>I just wouldn't go to the seminars if they didn't provide value - rather
>than write off the whole thing.
>
>
>Mike
>
>
>Tradingpost wrote:
>> I have disagreements about the way permaculture is hyped for high dollar
>seminars, tho as a design system it's truly remarkable. What the high
>dollar seminars don't teach is how to grow food - the nuts and bolts of
>feeding your self and marketing sustainably grown production and doing it
>profitably. That is one of the most urgent priorities in today's economy.
>We touch on aspects of growing sustainably here but we're all learning.
>And we don't have $900 seminars that leave you wondering where to begin.
>>
>> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>>
>> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
>>
>> On 5/21/2008 at 12:26 PM Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I am surprised at the source of this article. From my understanding of
>>> permaculture it is INCLUSIVE of those things that the author of this
>>> article states are necessary. Permaculture is not only those natural
>>> systems that we call green (In fact to call 'green' things permaculture
>>> is not strictly correct - permaculture is a design system that goes
>>> beyond green and may, in fact, incorporate decidedly (some greenies
>>> would say) ungreen things. Take some large and not so large earthmoving
>>> projects, for example. ) Bill Mollison emphatically includes
>sustainable
>>> legal, financial, political and other invisible systems in his
>>> definition of permaculture.
>>>
>>> After all, what use is a sustainable agriculture system without a
>>> sustainable culture to work it and benefit from it.
>>>
>>> Permaculture is not only a contraction of the term 'permanent
>>> agriculture', but also 'permanent culture'.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tradingpost wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why Bother With Permaculture?
>>>> http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D16WhyBotherWPermcul.html?
>>>>                         (From the International Permaculture Journal.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Livingontheland mailing list
>> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland