permaculture

[Ute Bohnsack <sustag@eircom.net>]

Dear all,
for anyone interested in this topic, the Swiss Institute of Organic Farming
www.fibl.ch has done some very interesting work  on this front. They have
assessed the long-term agronomic and ecological performance of bio-dynamic and
bio-organic systems in comparison with conventional arable farming systems in 
a
replicated 21-year field trial study (the famous DOC-trial in Therwil).
Some of their results are given in http://www.fao.org/organicag/doc/RTS58.pdf
and at http://www.sac.ac.uk/envsci/external/bsss/poster2.htm
I translated some more recent results for FiBL in 2000 but can not share them
for copyright reasons. However, the author of that particular paper, Paul 
Mäder
paul.maeder@fibl.ch, can probably be approached for the info.
The general 'gist' of the results is:
"The variety of substrates utilized by soil microorganisms serves as an
indicator of
              microbial functional diversity, which was higher in bio-dynamic
than in
              conventional soils. Concomitantly, microbes in the bio-dynamic
soil decomposed
              added plant material to a higher extent than in conventional 
soil
with a higher
              proportion of the plant material being used for microbial 
biomass
build-up. In
              conclusion soil quality as indicated by the abundance and
diversity of soil organisms
              as well as by their activity tends to be improved under organic
agriculture. "
(from http://www.sac.ac.uk/envsci/external/bsss/poster2.htm)

The article HOLISTIC APPROACHES IN ORGANIC FARMING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: A
GENERAL OVERVIEW
bu Urs NIGGLI (in http://www.fao.org/organicag/doc/RTS58.pdf) also addresses
some of the aspects debated here in relation to the possibilities of comparing
Pc with other systems/paradigms/models, whatever you want to call them.

The whole debate about the MEN article made me think about the topic of
comparative research. I agree with many of the contributions of the last 
couple
days. Permaculture is such a comprehensive paradigm and it means so many
different things to different people that it is very difficult to isolate some
component and compare it with a similar component in a 'non-pc system'. 
Williams
specifically asks about "...convincing evidence that temperate zone forest
gardens can do better than meadow gardens at providing useful products." How
could one compare the output of a perennial system with that of an annual
system? What about the required inputs, labour, biodiversity (at all levels,
i.e. genetic, species, ecosystem)? The issue of sustainability has already 
been
raised and I agree that it is the key question, particularly where it comes to
larger-scale commercial systems. How are externalities accounted for (water
pollution, air pollution, climate-relevant emmissions, biodiversity, erosion 
of
the aethetic fabric of the landscape etc. etc.)?
Another problem would be: who would be willing to finance the required
scientific research? On the other hand: would it be possible to deduct the
usefulness of PC concepts from e.g. organic/conventional comparative research 
or
from agroforestry research? I think so.
If I plant an orchard and think carefully about the site, soil, aspect, 
variety
selection, pollination etc., if I keep bees for pollination and encourage them
by planting other useful plants that provide pollen and nectar for them, if I
sow herbal mixtures to encourage predators and look after the soil, plant
nitrogen fixers and comfrey for potash, I can call this PC, but I can also 
call
it organic fruit production. The benefits of the latter have been proven (less
pesticides in the environment, soil improvements, enhanced biodiveristy, 
better
fruit quality... (see the research by FIBL)).  Similarly I can keep sheep on
pasture and plant nitrogen fixing trees, say False Locust, on that same 
pasture.
The trees provide shade, nitrogen and in time useful wood e.g. for durable 
fence
posts or posts for staking my fruit trees, which means I don't have to buy
softwood stakes treated with toxins etc. pp ad nauseum... Again, I can call it
PC or I can call it agroforestry, and again the benefits of the latter are 
well
known. What I'm trying to say is that asking for 'Permaculture research' may
just be a problem of semantics.


My 2 Euros worth.

Ute

Allan Balliett wrote:
> 
> >  Mind you, they have all kinds of numbers/stas on the
> >success of their homopathic field sprays....
> 
> Just to miss the whole point of your post for a moment, Claude, do
> you have references for the above comment ? (re: Biodynamic / Steiner
> Field Sprays)
> 
> If you do, I'd like to see them.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -Allan Balliett
> moderator
> BIODYNAMICS Now!
 
*********************************************************************************
Dipl.-Ing. TU Landschafts- und Freiraumplanung
Ute Bohnsack
Sailchearnach, Clogher, Kilfenora, Co. Clare, Ireland
mailto:sustag@eircom.net
Agri-Environmental Consultancy and Translation Services 
(English-German-English)
http://homepage.eircom.net/~merlyn/index.html
                ~~~~~~~~~
Seedsavers Resources http://homepage.eircom.net/~merlyn/seedsaving.html
*********************************************************************************