permaculture

[Lee Flier <lflier@mindspring.com>]

I think the problem here is that we're assuming that everyone knows that
permaculturists are supposed to interplant different species together as
opposed to monocropping.  When Mollison came up with the "guild" concept,
that was far from obvious, and still is to many people that we would teach.

My understanding of a guild as Mollison defines it is any group of diverse
species that are in beneficial relationship to each other (and that
includes us). I think what Dan is trying to say is that we should never
stop thinking about what might make up a good association and that's why he
doesn't want to follow any prescribed list.  I agree that we should never
stop observing and experimenting, but I also think it's OK to look at what
has worked for other people.  This is the way other cultures used to pass
on knowledge to each other and they DID survive quite well before one
culture (us) decided to flaunt the basic laws of survival.

In the course I took from Bill Mollison he emphasised many times that the
knowledge we pass on to others must be simple and easy to pass on to more
people in turn, including people who are "uneducated", of a different
language or culture, and have little scientific knowledge.  In coming up
with guilds, he told us to keep in mind the basic concepts: you should take
advantage of layers (canopy, understory, herb, root, vining plant, etc.),
and think in terms of what each of the plants need and what could give it
to them.  That is, if a plant is plagued by a particular pest insect, plant
something with it that will attract predators of that insect, such as a
dense ground cover that snakes or lizards might like.  If a plant uses a
lot of nitrogen it can be planted with a nitrogen fixer, etc.

As to how to determine what works and what doesn't in your climate and
microclimate, Mollison suggested two things: 1) observe what works well in
natural systems and try to find out through research what characteristics
make them work well, and 2) the first year, plant out as many diverse types
of species as you can get your hands on.  Be prepared to have to control
some species that try to take over!  But you will observe out of 50 or 100
species that you might plant, that 4 or 5 of them do exceptionally well
together, a larger number will do well but not quite as well, and some will
fail altogether.  The next year, plant more of the successes, less of the
failures, and try the neutrals in different associations along with some
that you didn't plant last year.  But the important thing is that if you
plant out hundreds of species right away, SOMETHING will grow, and you will
both learn something and have something to eat, probably even if there's a
bad drought or other adverse condition.

As for Dan's comments that we think we know too much about nature, I'd like
to restate another Mollisonism that is often understated:  ANYTHING we know
about permaculture is ONLY applicable to that 4% of the earth's land mass
that we should need in order to produce our own food.  If a natural system
exists well on its own we should LEAVE IT ALONE.  However almost anything
will help heal the land by comparison to monoculture farming, strip malls,
and places that have become desert due to deforestation.  These are our
areas of focus and we should not attempt to "fix" the rest of the world,
unless we have ourselves damaged it and it needs to be healed.  Nor should
we step up our present rate of food production simply because we can now
get a higher yield from the same space.  That would only result in a
population increase.  The idea is to decrease the amount of space and
resources we are currently using to produce food, and that doesn't need to
be rocket science.  Other cultures and species have fed themselves just
fine by simply being observant of natural patterns and passing their
observations on.

= Lee =


==================================
Lee A. Flier
lflier@mindspring.com
http://lflier.home.mindspring.com
Atlanta and Ellijay, Georgia, U.S.A.