permaculture

["Jara" <jara@otenet.gr>]

While reading this beautifully expressed article and well thought out design 
experiment I could not help but think why these people don't enlist the help 
of nature. The energy, thought and effort that has obviously gone into this 
is immense and in my humble view completely needless. Why not simply 
broadcast super biodiverse (100 + indiginous species of trees, shrubs, 
canes, berries, herbs, annuals, perennials etc etc etc) Fukuokian seedballs 
the size of golf balls made with rockdust, inoculant and kaolin. Then chuck 
a thin layer(1-2cm) of straw mulch, rockdust and compost on top of that and 
let nature get on with it. Having done this I can vouch for the efficacy of 
the whole thing and the minimal labour, effort input.

Of course it is a bit difficult to flog seminars and patent a process where 
nature is doing all the design and work but are we interested in making a 
killing or in permanent culture.

Andrew.

> WOOSTER, Ohio ? Carefully designed polyculture systems, grown on small
> farms or even in suburban yards, could self-limit pest problems and
> gross up to $90,000 per acre, says Joe Kovach, head of Ohio State
> University?s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program.
>
> Together with Loren Harper and Rosa Raudales, both also of the program,
> Kovach has planned and planted four different polyculture systems, or
> ?modular ecological designs,? each combining the same wide mix of
> high-value fruits and vegetables, annuals and perennials, tall crops and
> short ones, into 45-by-60-foot plots.
>
> The goal: To see which system works best based on yield, economics and
> pest reduction ? and to make, by selling retail, $10 per linear foot, or
> $90,000 to $100,000 per acre.
>
> ?We?ve known in pest management that polyculture systems seem to have
> fewer pest problems than monocultures, and when there are problems,
> they?re usually less severe,? Kovach said. ?We wanted to see if we could
> come up with a primarily fruit-based system that, if we arranged it in
> the correct way, would see fewer pest problems.?
>
> At the same time, though, ?With a goal of $10 per linear foot, we?ve got
> to be productive,? he said. ?We can?t mess around.?
>
> Polycultures, as opposed to monocultures, grow two or more crops
> together, not just one.
>
> Kovach?s four designs, even more diverse than typical polycultures,
> combine apples, peaches, green beans, tomatoes, strawberries,
> blueberries, raspberries and edamame soybeans. But each design tests a
> different arrangement. The first has solid rows, with each row having a
> single crop, and the crop height switching from row to row: for example,
> a row of high apple trees, a row of low strawberries, a row of high
> peach trees, a row of low tomatoes.
>
> ?There?s some hint that architecture might have an impact on insect
> pests that occur,? Kovach explained, ?so we decided we?d use tree and
> shrub crops alternated with lower-growing crops.?
>
> The second design mixes more than one crop within a row but keeps the
> high crops and low crops together in their own rows. Apples, peaches and
> raspberries, for example, would line up in a row, then green beans,
> strawberries and tomatoes in the next, as a way to roadblock infestations.
>
> ?The concept,? Kovach said, ?is that insect pests seem to move down
> rows. So if you?re an apple pest, you might stop at the peaches. A peach
> pest might stop at the raspberries. A raspberry pest at the blueberries.
> And so forth.?
>
> The third design goes a step further. It mixes the crops within a row
> and also alternates heights in the row. A single row might grow apples
> then strawberries, peaches then green beans, raspberries then tomatoes.
> Kovach calls it the ?checkerboard? system.
>
> The fourth design adds raised beds to the equation ? ?kind of our
> souped-up future strategy,? Kovach said ? with mixed rows planted within.
>
> All four designs employ drip irrigation, disease-tolerant and -resistant
> varieties, fencing against rabbits and woodchucks, staggered planting
> dates for the annuals and maturity dates for the perennials (allowing
> for early, mid- and late-season harvest and season-long production), and
> newer, less-toxic pesticides if and as needed, with sustainability, not
> 100-percent organic production, the goal.
>
> ?Once we find this optimum design ? and this is where the ?modular?
> aspect comes in ? we?ll know how much food you?ll get from one plot,?
> Kovach said. ?Maybe one is all you need for personal use. Or maybe you
> run a roadside stand; you could have maybe three in a series. Or maybe
> you sell at a farmers? market; you could have, say, six or eight.?
>
> Small farms near cities could gain from such setups, Kovach said. Fewer
> inputs, a steady lineup of high-value crops, and proximity to thousands
> of hungry consumers would make the farms even more successful.
>
> Homeowners, whether for food, hobby or both, could use the modules too.
>
> ?We have a lot of these suburban houses that have five-acre lots,?
> Kovach noted. ?People spend a lot of time mowing their lawn. This could
> be an opportunity to do something else.?
>
> Finally, he said, the modules would ramp up local production, a plus in
> terms of tastier food and lower transportation costs.
>
> The project, funded by the Ohio IPM program, a joint effort of OSU
> Extension and the university?s Ohio Agricultural Research and
> Development Center (OARDC), will continue for the next five or six years.
>
> The test plots ? 16 in all, four replications of all four designs,
> covering a total of 1.5 acres ? lie on OARDC?s Wooster campus.