permaculture

["Forest Garden" <forestgarden@gvtc.com>]

A small group here in Central Texas did some analysis on what would it take
to grow enough food locally for the existing 1 million population that is in
Travis County.  You know the 'lets all start a victory garden' scenario?
The Jeavons bio-intneisve method of food production was assumed along with a
vegetarian diet.  From the bio-intensive method, 40 beds per person are
needed which amount to 4,000 sq.ft.  We assumed each household could garden
800 sq.ft. at home (actually a bit optimistic and would require cutting down
a lot of trees, but close to real), and all available park land, other
public lands, greenbelts, vacant land, and exisitng ag land was converted to
bio-intensive gardens (not potlitically possible but the resources are
there).  Well, there wasn't enough land, so then it was scaled it down to
each person only having the 12 bio-intensive growing beds (in bio-intensive
12 beds are for actively growing and the remining 28 are for compost and
fertility crops).  The assumption being that the compost crops could come
from somewhere else - that is not really very realixstic, but worth looking
at.  We still had only about half of the acreage we would need.

Then we looked at the other big requirements - compost, experience, water,
and seeds.  In Austin, we actually compost the biosolids from public waste
and make what is known as dillo-dirt.  We have several other large
composting companies in the area which produce large quantities of compost.
The 'soils' in this area are typically rock, caliche, and clay - so compost
is essential.  Adding together all of the commercial compost production, and
some assumptions about exisitng home composters, we have less than 1% of the
minimum required for the most resource consrving method of food production
known.

Central Texas is the meeting place of 5 very different bio-regions and our
weather patterns reflect that diversity and are extremely challenging.  I've
spoken with many of the local farmers who produce for market and the
consensus is that it takes at least 10 years to be able to consistantly
bring to market - or to consistantly be able to provide for yourself.  (From
my limitied 3 years of working with to grow my own food I will testify to
every minute of the ten years being necessary.)  So there is the problem of
a long apprenticship and a question of having enough experienced people to
teach.

Although we get approximately 34" of annual rainfall, it comes at irregular
times.  The experience of those who are working towards complete off-grid
living have found that at least 35,000 gallons of storage are needed for a
family of four (for thier drinking, hygene, and food production needs).  A
six month drought is common here.  Although people in the city may be able
to rely on the public system for thier needs, this does demonstrate the high
dependancy on that public system functioning properly for food production.

And finally seeds.  The conclusion we reached was that if the descent was
slow enough, then seed production could keep up with demand.  But a sudden
increase in demand could wipe out available seeds in a very short time.

We don't have any hard statistics on the locally grown food in our area, but
from surveys of farmers markets, the consensus of what we know is it is much
less than 0.1% of what is needed.  Overall, it will not be possible to
sustain the 1+ million people here.  It would take massive amount of
cooperative work and education to  provide a spartan, survival diet for a
redcuced population.  And, these efforts need to have been started years
ago.

I believe this situation is very similar to most of the US and many of the
'developed' countires of the world.  An unpleasant combination of too many
people and too few resources, which even the immense creativity of
permaculture and other methods will not be able to offset.

Marjory






.











----- Original Message -----
From: "E. E. Mitchamore Jr" <emitch@att.net>
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: [permaculture] Global Food Supply Near the Breaking Point


> I hope that many have noticed the impressive "web" woven into this
discussion.  Nowhere else (not even in the many Permaculture books), have I
seen so many of the problematic threads and connections discussed so
concisely.  Thanks, guys, for an excellent discussion.
>
> E. E. "Mitch" Mitchamore
> www.hillcountrynatives.biz
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Toby Hemenway
>   To: permaculture list
>   Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:36 AM
>   Subject: Re: [permaculture] Global Food Supply Near the Breaking Point
>
>
>   On 5/18/06 10:54 AM, "Bart Anderson" <bart@cwo.com> wrote:
>
>   > Who is the "we" that will be making these life-and-death decisions?
When
>   > do "we" get to vote on these decisions?
>
>   Bart: it's nice to disagree with you, finally!
>
>   There is no "we" making decisions at that level. This is a system-level
>   problem. Nobody "decides" collectively to use oil to grow food, to
>   overpopulate the planet, or to create an unsustainable practice like
>   agriculture. Turning away from the course we are on, as a civilization,
is
>   not something that is going to occur by a vote or changing our shopping
>   habits.
>
>   Take population. Twenty years ago the UN and others were predicting
world
>   population would peak in 2050 or so at 12 billion. Now they predict a
peak
>   of 9 billion. Nobody voted to lower fecundity; no politicians or evil
cabal
>   conspired to reduce Europe's birth rate to below replacement and to drop
>   rates in most of the developing world. Not many Italians or Germans
said,
>   gee, it would be moral to have fewer children.  Low birth rates are a
>   product of the huge cost of having children in a complex industrial
society
>   (poor ERoEI), as opposed to an agrarian culture where more kids means
more
>   farm labor and elder care. (Effective birth control has been around for
>   millennia, but there has been no advantage to using it on a societal
level
>   until now.)  That's a structural change, with no decision necessary, or
>   desired (quite the contrary!), or voted on.
>
>   These cultural shifts occur on a system level as individuals respond to
>   changed conditions and act in their own perceived best interest. And
people,
>   or at least those in our culture, are poor at seeing the big picture and
>   responding to it proactively. When the oil shocks of the 1970s hit, we
>   legislated and built high mileage cars while we felt the pinch. Any
>   half-perceptive person could see that oil would get more expensive in
the
>   not-too-long run. But when the production system rebalanced at a new
price
>   level in the 1980s, as complex systems will (they are homeostatic,
seeking
>   stable states), the whole US and some of the rest of the world went back
to
>   sleep and started buying bigger and bigger cars. That's because
short-term
>   interest dictated that people wanted roomy, powerful, "safer" cars, even
>   while oil supplies visibly dwindled. Even in Europe, gas mileage
stalled,
>   just at a higher level than in the US due to huge gas taxes.
>
>   So I cannot be optimistic that we will collectively decide that we
should
>   use less oil to grow food or, on the other hand, volunteer to ride the
bus
>   so we'll have more oil to grow food. We still feel have enough oil to
grow
>   food with it, so why stop? (Witness the foolish ethanol programs.)
>   Similarly, we won't reduce birthrates further until having children gets
yet
>   more expensive, because a lot of the world still gets more ERoEI with
large
>   families, and those are the signals all life responds to.  Even though
we
>   can be rational at times, the large decisions like these are not made
>   rationally, politically, or even morally. They are made as individuals,
by
>   assessing the resources available (in Quinn and Sean's parlance, seeing
how
>   many grocery bags are in the parking lot) and making the strategic
choice
>   that will maximize your share of the resources. That's how life has done
it
>   since the beginning. That's why I keep arguing, elsewhere, that oil
demand
>   will plummet as prices get higher, instead of there being a huge gap
between
>   demand and supply as doomers believe. Life is very good at assessing
>   resource levels and adjusting use accordingly. But it's not good at
saying
>   "in 3 generations these resources will be exhausted, so I should leave
some
>   for the future." That's because some other currently living creature
will
>   use what that "moral" one won't. Conservation only works, long term,
when
>   there are structural constraints on consumption. In general, resource
use
>   will closely match resource availability. I don't like it; I wish we
were
>   smarter, but 3 billion years of programming is hard to shake.
>
>
>   > Most  oil is currently used for transportation, not food.
>
>   12% is used for food. That's a lot, although, yes, more (50%-ish) is
used
>   for transportation.
>
>   > The US and other
>   > industrialized countries use many times the amount of oil as Third
World
>   > countries.  In the US, our political choice is -- do we continue being
>   > oil-hogs, or do we start to become more sustainable?
>
>   First we have to abolish or reform the corporations that are benefiting
not
>   just from our way of consumption, but from selling that way of
consumption
>   to the rest of the world. And utterly revamp the political system that
>   supports and is owned by them. Tall order; not much sign of it happening
>   (you think McCain or Hilary will do it?). I think we are just going to
wait
>   until the price of oil forces them (us) out of the game. I too, would
love
>   to believe we can choose to do otherwise, but the evidence for such
altruism
>   is lacking.
>
>   And I don't see the end of the world in this turn of events. I think
we'll
>   readjust at a vastly lower level of consumption due to systemic changes
like
>   resource availability, and if it happens slowly enough, population will
>   slide to a sustainable, post-oil level. Even figuring a 9-billion
population
>   peak, we could come down to 2.5 billion in 80 years from today with a
>   decline of 1.6% per year, less than Europe's decline rate today. No
die-off
>   necessary.
>
>   Excuse the somewhat chaotic thought order; it's late and it's been a
rough
>   day.
>
>   Toby
>   www.patternliteracy.com
>
>
>   _______________________________________________
>   permaculture mailing list
>   permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
>   http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
>