pcplantdb

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <lfl@intrex.net>]

Chad Knepp wrote:


> I have a similar lack of enthusiasm for this idea as a tool as I did
> to the Guild Builder concept in that I think it over specializes to an
> extent that makes it a poor impedance match with the tool (computers
> and their programmers).  I am in favor of a more generalist approach
> and personally think the best way to figure out a crop rotation or a
> guild is with an observant human mind that is in touch with the best
> info available (hopefully PIW).  At the moment I just can't imagine a
> computer system I would trust to really generate a guild or crop
> rotation.  
>
> I can embrace the concept of relationships because making connections
> between information is an important concept, even if I don't currently
> have a real clear idea of implement it.  If oberservation has
> determined following one annual with another is a beneficial
> relationship this could be recorded as such and the interconnection
> between the two plants could/should be displayed on both plants.

1- rotation cropping for disease suppression
2- rotation for the sake of trying different combinations of plants growing 
in close proximity
(might give rise to some guild discoveries or field performance improvements)
3- companion cropping
4- intercropping or sometimes called close cropping
5- succession cropping

These, I suppose, could be considered attributes to be included in a 
relationships database

> On interesting thought I had was having search method that selected
> plants/elements that had the most interconnections with itself.  To
> the extent and accuracy of the relationship data this could build a
> [simplistic] guild focused around a single plant.  Regardless of the
> specific usefulness, the number of relationship interconnections
> between elements should be one of the valuable products of the PIW
> dataset as it develops.

That is amazing. This is certainly something the DB should be able to do.

>  > However, we recently got a letter from the Whole Systems
>  > Foundation, replying to our proposal, saying that we need to
>  > demonstrate PIW’s applicability to larger-scale
>  > agriculture.  Assuming that large-scale Permaculture is even
>  > possible and desirable (I know we’ve discussed this, but
>  > let’s assume for now), the tool described above would
>  > certainly be applicable to large-scale farming.  What do you think?
>
> I disagree with their analysis.  I think PIW currently is a VERY
> helpful tool with information that is directly applicable to large
> scale agriculture.  For example, you could use it now to look up new

> plants that might work in your crop rotation...  I also think the
> possibility of having the most and best [relevant to agriculture]
> botanical information on the planet has something to contribute to
> large scale agriculture.

This is a major goal to work towards, achievable and important.
I assume you mean to include some sort of elegant "connection/access" (rather 
than just a link)
to existing, ongoing, botanical databases. Rich talked about this before and 
described
ways to make this happen and the importance of all parties involved using XML 
tools and methods.

LL
--
L.F.London
lfl@intrex.net
http://market-farming.com
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech