Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] jeavons articles

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Saor Stetler <saor@ycbtal.net>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] jeavons articles
  • Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:20:02 -0800

Issue # 61 - January/February 1980

Whether the problem is feeding a hungry world or simply increasing the productivity of a small backyard garden, the solution might well be ...


BIODYNAMIC/FRENCH INTENSIVE GARDENING

STAFF PHOTOS

Back in 1966 Alan Chadwick--an English actor, painter, pianist, and master horticulturist-- was offered a chance to demonstrate the techniques of biodynamic/French intensive gardening on a barren four-acre clay hillside at the University of California's Santa Cruz campus. Chadwick tackled the little "desert" (land that was so inhospitable that few weeds even grew there) with hand tools, a love for the garden that he knew the plot could become, and incredible energy. Before long the once dead-looking slope was a veritable paradise of vegetables and flowers ... and a beacon that attracted students and followers.

Since then, biodynamic/French intensive gardening (often referred to as "the method") has slowly gained a reputation among organic gardeners in North America ... largely through the efforts of Chadwick and John Jeavons (of Ecology Action of the Mid-Peninsula in Stanford, California). It was Jeavons who eventually took the technique--which Chadwick had synthesized from the intensive gardening practiced in turn-of-the-century France and the biodynamic theories developed by Rudolf Steiner in early twentieth-century Austria--and subjected it to careful modification and testing ... always striving to produce the optimum yield from the smallest possible space.

And John's harvests have been little short of amazing! His per-acre "method" crop production has, for example, climbed to between four and six times that of the average U.S. yield (while, in rare cases, the biodynamic/French intensive gardens have produced as much as 31 times the national crop average for a given amount of space!). In fact, Jeavons has gone so far as to estimate that it would be possible for an urban, suburban, or rural gardener to net as much as $10,000 a year from the produce that he or she could grow on a scant 1/10 acre!

Furthermore, as if such incredible results weren't enough to recommend this revolutionary gardening technique, the biodynamic/French intensive system uses no polluting, fuel--demanding tools ... no toxic pesticides ... and no highly processed chemical fertilizers. In fact, the technique actually improves the quality of the soil with each crop that's grown! And it does so while using only 1/100 as much energy and 1/8 as much water as does commercial agriculture.

HOW IS IT DONE?

All the different facets of "the method" serve to allow the gardener to produce as many healthy plants as possible on a given piece of land. The raised beds that are characteristic of such gardens, for instance, serve several purposes.

First, since the growing areas are wider than are "normal" garden rows (approximately five feet ... in order to allow the gardener to each plants in the middle without stepping on, and compacting, the soil in the bed), less space must be wasted on walkways. The rectangular beds are raised from four to 10-inches above the original ground level, too, and their edges are angled down at a 45* slope ... effectively providing more (curved) surface area than if the same piece of ground were left flat.

Most important of all, though, the beds are "double dug" to a depth of two feet (see the accompanying photos for step-by-step digging instructions). Because of the resulting deep "cushion" of well-worked soil, plants can more easily send their tiny root hairs down to gather in the water and nutrition (supplied by compost, ashes, bone meal, and other such organic plant foods) that are necessary to healthy, insect-resistant, nutritious, delicious vegetables.

The arrangement of the plants on the bed is a bit unusual, too ... at least to anyone accustomed to more common gardening techniques. The seeds (or flat-started plants) are placed in such a way that the foliage of each mature vegetable will just barely touch that of all its neighbors ... creating a leafy cover (known as "living mulch") which keeps weeds down, helps to moderate the swings of soil temperature, and improves the bed's ability to retain water. And, of course, such "close quarters" planting is another reason for the gardening technique's incredible yields.

It's difficult to give a rule of thumb for plant placement in a biodynamic/ French intensive bed. Actually, the spacings recommended on seed packets will often work out fine, since the heartier "method" --grown adult plants tend to spread farther than do their conventionally raised cousins. It's best to simply estimate the diameter of the adult vegetable's "leaf ball" and use that figure to mark the distance between your plants.

Of course, a technique that can enable an average homeowner to raise a cash crop in a small back yard involves more than merely digging deep beds and planting vegetables close together. Further preparation of the soil includes [1] the use of a specially prepared (for at least three months) compost consisting of --by weight-1/3 dry vegetation, 1/3 wet vegetation or kitchen scraps (you can include bones but not meat), and 1/3 earth ... [2] an organic fertilization program that's specifically designed to meet the needs of each crop ... and [3] daily light waterings with special hose nozzles and cans that simulate the gentle fall of rain. (For more information on the specifics of these and other aspects of biodynamic/French intensive gardening, consult one of the volumes listed in the accompanying sidebar.)

COMPANION PLANTING IN TIME AND SPACE

The way in which the growing space is used is at least as important to success. ful "method" gardening as is the preparation of the soil. Vegetable types are grouped together--in single beds or, if the garden is a large one, in groups of adjoining beds-- according to compatibility.

Intensive gardeners believe that different plants -- especially when grown in close proximity--affect each other in a number of ways. The vegetables must, for example, be placed with a regard for simple physical compatibility ... that is, a slow-growing variety shouldn't be planted where it will soon be overshadowed by a rapidly maturing plant.

But companion planting goes far beyond such commonsense dictums. Certain vegetables, flowers, and herbs--as many of you already know--are actually mutually beneficial when grown together ... helping eliminate each other's insect pests, and ever, influencing the quality of each other's products! (Potatoes, as an example, can--when planted near beans--be very helpful in controlling the .Mexican bean beetle ... while bibb lettuce will taste better if it's grown in companionship with spinach!) Most of the volumes listed in the sidebar contain detailed companion planting advice ... as does the article, "Companion Planting", on page 34 of MOTHER NO. 33.

In order to make the most efficient use of both garden space and growing season, "method" gardeners also practice succession planting ... which is a kind of companion planting in time, or a smallscale, intensive form of crop rotation. This practice, of course, allows the grower's plot to yield the greatest possible amount of produce.

More important, however, is the fact that succession planting--as practiced by biodynamic/French intensive gardeners--alternates plants that are "heavy feeders" (those that take large amounts of nutrient from the soil) with varieties that are "heavy givers" . . . and thus the productive technique also helps the gardener return more nutrition to the soil than he or she has taken out!

NOWS THE TIME TO BEGIN

Right now--while the snow is level with the windowsill and the chilled trees squeal in the slightest breeze--is the best time to begin planning a spring "method" garden. Your first plot needn't be a big project, either. In his book on the subject, John Jeavons presents a complete plan for a sample 100-square-foot bed--a plot only 5 feet wide by 20 feet long--which, he claims, will be enough space for an accomplished gardener to produce a full year's supply of vegetables for one person.

And, come springtime, you car simply smile knowingly when your gardening friends question your sanity for working the earth two feet deep with hand tools. Because--once the crops start coming, and coming, and coming in ... you can explain that there's a "method" to your madness!

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW

You'd be hard pressed to find any better sources of information about intensive gardening than the following books.

1. How to Grow More Vegetables by John Jeavons (Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, California, 1979), $5.95. This is the book on the practical application of the biodynamic/French intensive method.

2. Success With Small Food Gardens Using Special intensive Methods by Louise Riotte (Garden Way, Charlotte, Vermont, 1977), $5.95. A very good source of information. Ms. Riotte also stresses the idea of landscaping your yard with shaped intensive beds.

3. The Postage Stamp Garden Book by Duane Newcomb (J.P. Tarcher, Inc., Los Angeles, California, 1975), $4.95. Mr. Newcomb presents a number of techniques borrowed from biodynamic/French intensive gardening and other organic growing methods. The book includes a detailed, alphabetical, plant-by-plant information guide.

4. Intensive Culture of Vegetables by P. Aquatias (Solar Survival Press, Harrisville, New Hampshire), $5.95. This reprint of a classic 1913 volume on the original French intensive system has been reissued by Leandre and Gretchen Poisson--of Solar Survival, Inc.--who are this country's foremost proponents of the traditional French method.

All of the above volumes are available in many bookstores and libraries ... or for the list prices--plus 95c (three or more books: $2,00) shipping and handling--from Mother's Bookshelf, P.O. Box 70, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28739. Copies of MOTHER NO. 33, which contains the companion planting article, can be ordered for $3.00 each--plus $1.00 shipping and handling--from THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS, P.O. Box 70, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28739.


the plowboy interview

Issue # 62 - March/April 1980

Those of you who read our overview article on biodynamic/French intensive gardening (MOTHER NO. 61, page 92) will already be familiar with the nature of John Jeavons' work. To summarize some of the information from that earlier article, Jeavons has made it his responsibility--over the past nine years--to subject the biodynamic/French intensive method developed by Englishman Alan Chadwick to careful yield and technique analysis.

In the process, John has taken the original system--which combines deep (24") digging, organic fertilizers, companion planting, interplanting, and so forth--and made it accessible to the backyard or subsistence farmer (who can, Jeavons says, "put in 10% of the effort and get 90% of the yield ").

MOTHER wanted to learn more about this remarkable fellow. Why, for one thing, did he abandon a career in systems analysis to take on the next-to-impossible mini-farm project at less than minimum wage? Furthermore, how does Jeavons plan to reduce the space necessary to grow a $20,000 cash crop to a mere 1/8 acre . . . and cut the land needed to produce a balanced one-person vegetarian diet to as little as 700 square feet?

Staffer Bruce Woods sought the answers to these and other questions during a recent daylong interview with John Jeavons. This edited transcript of their talks may well increase your understanding of the food production problems that will soon face our world, and it will also let you see a few of the ways that the looming dangers can be overcome . . . by methods that will enrich the world's soil--and perhaps the lives of many men and women--in the process!

PLOWBOY: John, you have, as our tour of the Common Ground experimental gardens clearly demonstrated, taken a piece of worse than marginal land--in the middle of an industrial park, no less--and transformed it into an incredibly productive mini-farm . . . all the while pioneering intensive gardening techniques that 'just may help feed the world some o day. How is it that you came to be the foremost proponent of the practical use of biodynamic/French intensive methods? Did your background influence you toward a career in horticulture?

JEAVONS: No, not really. I was born in Texas--into an army family--and moved around a lot during my early years. After finishing high school in 1960, I enrolled at Yale University, majoring in political science. During my college years I worked--over summer vacations--as a systems analyst for Motorola Aerospace and Electronics. The job involved such tasks as reducing the amount of paper work people in the firm had to handle . . . sort of helping the engineers do more with less.

Immediately after my graduation in 1966, I took a position with the United States Agency for International Development. However, I decided--after my first nine months with USAID--that I wasn't being allowed to perform as effectively as I could. So, since my wife Betsy wanted to finish her degree work at Stanford University, we moved to Stanford, California . . . where I took a position with Kaiser Aerospace and Electronics, doing about the same kind of work as I'd done for Motorola.

PLOWBOY: I can understand how your systems analysis experience helped prepare you for evaluating the yield potential of the biodynamic/French intensive method, but how did you become interested in gardening itself?

JEAVONS: Well, I raised my first garden--growing vegetables, mostly--back in 1963. The "training" for the work I do now, however, came from a number of sources and trickled in over the years. I remember, for example, visiting an aunt and uncle who had a farm in Pennsylvania--this was when I was very young--and being absolutely fascinated by their garden.

Also, since my father was killed in the Second World War, I began taking on house and yard work at an earlier age than many other children might have done. I had any number of outside jobs, too . . . usually involving the maintenance of lawns and flowerbeds in whatever neighborhood we lived in.

But, as you can see, none of my early experiences with horticulture was overwhelming enough to lead me toward a career in gardening. However, I was able to notice, for instance, that our grapefruit tree next to the chicken coop thrived while its neighbors didn't do so well. I wouldn't have had access to such lessons had I been raised exclusively in the inner city.

In fact, I'm still amazed at the preconceptions held by some of our apprentices who hail from urban environments.

Many of the young men and women almost do believe the old cliché about vegetables coming from cans.

At any rate, I had behind me years of interest in gardening--as well as a fantasy about eventually leaving the treadmill to try my hand at farming--by the time Betsy and I moved to Stanford. So, when a good friend of mine at Kaiser actually bought himself a raisin vineyard--really went ahead and made the "big move"--my enthusiasm snowballed.

PLOWBOY: What direction did your interest take?

JEAVONS: Perhaps partly because I've always been concerned with making the most efficient possible use of resources, I became curious about just how small an area could provide a complete livingincluding food and income-for one individual. The more times I put the question to people, though, the more different acreage figures-or plain "don't know's" -I received. So one day I decided that, if I wanted to find the answer, I'd have to do the legwork myself.

I was lucky, in the fall of 1969, to be offered a job as Chief of Business Services for the Stanford University Library system. The position involved systems analysis again, but it was a little more "human" in orientation than the other jobs I'd held . . . and it put me in a position where I could, during "off" time, do indepth research on small-scale farming and related subjects.

In the course of such studies, I came upon the assertion that the problem of world hunger couldn't be solved, because--given the capability of available agricultural techniques--there wouldn't be enough arable land in the world to grow food for everyone!

The thought haunted me until I looked up the current United Nations estimates on just how much arable land did exist in different parts of the world, and divided the figures by the amount of space needed to grow one individual's yearly supply of food in the various lands.

I discovered that the United States had about 4.2 times the amount of cropland deeded to feed our populace, given our usual diets and agricultural practices, while-worldwide-there was only 1.9 times the required acreage available. The study served to focus my attention more precisely upon the possibility of producing significant amounts of food in very small amounts of gardening space. Then, in 1971, a sequence of events began that eventually led me to the work I'm doing today.

PLOWBOY: Can you summarize those happenings for us?

JEAVONS: First, in September of that year, I attended a four-hour class in the biodynamic/French intensive method--I often just refer to it as biointensive-instructed by Stephen Kaffka . . . who was Alan Chadwick's senior apprentice. Alan is, as I'm sure you know, responsible for developing the method.

I had, of course, read a bit about biointensive horticulture in the course of my studies, but Steve's class really made the abstract concepts seem workable to me. I followed up on that lecture by visiting the garden that Chadwick and his helpers had established in Santa Cruz. It had been reported--in various journals--that Alan was producing four times the average commercial crop yield in his specially prepared beds. However, nobody had bothered to do the work necessary to document the size of the yields or even how--in terms of specific techniques--the results were achieved.

It was obvious to me, from the gardening I'd done, that the beds were producing at least four times what a conventional garden could from the same amount of space . . . so I decided to experiment with the method on my own.

To that end, I took part in a series of classes that Chadwick offered, read everything about intensive gardening techniques that I could get my hands on, began practicing in a backyard garden of my own, and so on.

I found, however, that there seemed to be a number of "holes" in the available information . . . details that appeared contradictory because some information had been left out during the classes and presentations. In order to fill in such gaps, I visited Alan and spent three two-hour sessions clearing up the specific "missing" points I'd noticed.

Then, in January of 1972, I became involved with an environmentally oriented citizens' group--Ecology Action of the Mid-Peninsula--that my wife had worked with on a recycling program in 1971. The project had been a successful one . . . so much so, in fact, that Ecology Action had eventually turned its ongoing recycling center over to the city and had a little cash left to invest in another program.

Among the ideas considered were an organic gardening supply store and a community gardening area. As you can imagine, the plans appealed to me. I approached the group's board of directors about the possibility of my handling the project and undertaking a biointensive research program on part of the proposed community garden's site.

It was agreed that I could do so, but the board members pointed out that the available start-up capital--a total of $4,000--would have to be used to establish the store . . . and that Craig Cook, who signed on as codirector, and I would have to raise any additional funds ourselves.

Of course, we also had to find a piece of land on which to locate the gardens.

After three months of searching, we were able to work out a no-cost lease, with free water, at the Syntex Corporationa pharmaceutical firm that had helped Ecology Action with the recycling program--giving us access to the four acres we're using today.

Alan Chadwick came out to inspect the land before we went ahead with the deal. He felt the site was atrocious, which I have to admit it was. We've been able to improve the soil over the years, of course, but--when we began--it contained about 30% rock and 30% clay . . . had no nitrogen, no organic matter, and only a trace of phosphorus and potash . . . and registered a pH of 8. Worse yet, I couldn't force a spade more than 1/16 of an inch into the ground.

As you can imagine, the decision as to whether or not to go ahead was a difficult one to make . . . considering the long odds that we would have to face. We decided to take a stab at the project--of course--and as it turned out, all the cash that Craig and I had managed to raise was gone before we had dug the first bed. In fact, Betsy and I went $8,400 in debt just trying to keep the garden alive for the first two years. We never would have made it without faith and the help of a very dedicated staff.

I was determined, though, to find out just how effective the method could be. And when you're trying to learn something that nobody else knows, you just have to settle down and do it . . . regardless of how difficult the educational process might be.

PLOWBOY: It must have been frightening to leave a relatively big-dollar professional job to take on such a long-shot project at less than minimum wage.

JEAVONS: It was, but we had a few hidden advantages from the start. Betsy and I had this goal--that dated back to the beginning of our marriage--of learning how to live comfortably on $1,000 a year. We wanted to accomplish the aim through careful planning, however, rather than by just heading back into the woods to half-starve. So, with that ultimate goal in mind, we'd been stacking the economic cards in our favor for some time. We'd established ourselves in a house with a low monthly payment, for instance, and generally tried to stockpile resources.

Of course, the survival of the garden has been a result of plain old luck on occasion, too. Back in 1973--when Betsy and I were in debt, the Common Ground coffers were flat empty, and a bulldozer was literally standing by the gate to scatter our compost piles--a psychic walked up to me. The woman claimed she'd read about our project nine months before and had recently had the feeling that we needed help. She gave us $1,100, which--along with matching funds from a number of other sources--enabled us to hang on until we got the first edition of our book, How to Grow More Vegetables, in print. Now we're able to bring in from 50 to 80% of our "keepin' on" income from our publications.

PLOWBOY: Although curiosity about how small a piece of land could support one personas well as your fascination with the biointensive method--must have had a lot to do with your tackling this job . . . simple curiosity doesn't seem to be reason enough to devote nearly a decade to such hard and often unrewarding labor. Were there any more urgent concerns that drove you to keep on trying when it looked as if there was no hope of success?

JEAVONS: Yes, I guess you could say that the drive came--partly at least--from intuition. By reading between the lines of the research that I was doing back in the early 1970's, I sensed a pressing need for small-scale growing methods that were very productive and ecologically sound. And, of course, the nature of that need is now becoming more and more apparent every day.

PLOWBOY: Could you be more specific?

JEAVONS: Certainly . . . we're facing a number of really frightening problems today, and many of them relate to world food production.

The first--and perhaps the most serious--danger is that of "desertification". The United Nations published a study in 1977, showing that approximately 45% of the earth's land surface could be classed as desert. Worse yet, the report stated that an additional 19% of our planet's land area could be desertified by the year 2000 . . . totaling--in my own very approximate figures--up to 60% of Mexico, most of Egypt, as much as 30% of India, a large portion of mainland China, and even much of the U.S.!

To bring the danger a little closer to home, though, California's San Joaquin Valley--where 25% of all the table food and 40% of all the vegetables consumed in the U.S. are grown--is, according to a recent state study, in the early stages of desertification. In fact, California in general is losing as much as an inch of topsoil every 25 years . . . and it takes nature 2,000 years to build even such a thin layer of fertile earth!

The San Joaquin Valley is also suffering from salt buildup, or salinization. Huge amounts of water are brought into the area--by way of miles of canals--to irrigate the crops. As the liquid flows slowly along, some of it evaporates. The process concentrates whatever salts are in the water, and they're eventually deposited in the soil.

In addition, the cropland in that area is cultivated in such a way that there's often hardpan created at a depth of about 12 inches. So the water can't percolate through the soil as it should, and even greater concentrations of the salts are retained at a level where they can prove toxic to plants.

Further aggravating the situation is the salinization caused by overuse of chemical fertilizers. In almost all of America's croplands, steadily increasing amounts of such materials are necessary to maintain yield levels. For example, the amount of chemical fertilizer used to grow Illinois corn increased tenfold between 1948 and 1969 . . . but, during that period, the crop yield only doubled.

The same practice is increasing the salt levels in soil in the San Joaquin Valley, while there are other problems associated with the use of such fertilizers--particularly chemical nitrogen preparations--too. According to a recently completed study sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, 70% of the chemical nitrogen applied to croplands ends up toxifying the water table, salinizing the soil, and escaping into the atmosphere where it depletes the ozone layer!

PLOWBOY: Don't the "powers that be" in commercial agriculture recognize such problems?

JEAVONS: There are signs that they're beginning to come around. Articles on companion planting--described in professional terms--have begun to appear in the scientific journals, and I've learned about tests performed at the University of Michigan and Michigan State to study the advantages of using more organic material in agriculture . . . along with chemical fertilizers and pesticides, of course. Unfortunately, such tentative investigations will have to be radically accelerated if they're to do much good.

Because, again according to U.N. statistics, as much as 90% of all the agricultural land in developing nations may no longer be farmable by the year 2000, yet 80% of the world's population will then be living in those areas.

PLOWBOY: And the areas in question are marked by widespread malnutrition and starvation today.

JEAVONS: Definitely. In fact, there are already 21 children and 7 adults dying of malnutrition--caused diseases, worldwide, every minute . . . and a large percentage of the deaths occur in developing nations.

And the situation can't help getting worse . . . because coupled with the problems of desertification and salinization is the ongoing destruction of forests. In the last 25 years, a full half of the forested area in the world has been laid bare.

Since there aren't trees to use as fuel in such cutover areas, the people may spend as much as six hours a day merely collecting brush to burn. And the deforestation syndrome follows a steadily worsening pattern. When no wood of any kind is available--as is the situation in parts of India today--the people use manure for fuel. The organic material, then, isn't allowed to nourish plants or to help build the soil, and--as a result--less food can be grown per unit of area. Also, because there's no healthy, spongy organic layer to allow rain to percolate to the water table, the topsoil washes away in the yearly monsoon rains.

Finally, to compound the array of agricultural problems, the developing nations will also suffer from increased urbanization by the turn of the century. Since the population in those lands will be growing rapidly, there will be more and more homes, roads, and so forth built. Naturally, the construction activity will further deplete the forests and accelerate the whole disastrous treadmill.

So, to summarize a bleak scenario, there are a number of factors causing the drastic reduction of the world's farmable acreage . . . including desertification, salinization, deforestation, and urbanization. Now if the U.N.'s projections are close to being correct, each man, woman, and child in the developing nations of the world will have as little as 2,200 square feet of arable land--by 2000 A.D.--on which to grow all the raw materials to provide him-or herself with food, fuel, clothing, and shelter. Of course, the acreage won't likely be evenly divided, but the scale of the coming crisis is easier to understand if we deal with the land shortage on a per-person basis.

Now, to my knowledge, the smallest amount of space on which any of the world's accepted agricultural systems can grow one complete balanced diet--let alone fuel, clothing, and shelter requirements--is about 4,800 square feet. That much can be accomplished by Japanese farmers . . . who typically use the great amounts of water and heavy applications of chemical fertilizers and pesticides required by modern "green revolution" seeds.

Even if the U.N. predictions are off by a factor of two--so that there'll be 4,400 square feet to supply each person's needs--the presently accepted agricultural technology won't be able to do the job . . . and starvation, as well as world unrest, will increase.

PLOWBOY: Why do you specify a balanced vegetarian diet?

JEAVONS: The reason all of my minimum growing-area figures presuppose a nonmeat diet is simply that it's possible to raise such a food supply in about half the area that would be required to produce a subsistence diet including a significant amount of meat. We're talking about methods that could help starving people survive, so we have to pursue the threshold or "entry point" . . . which, of course, is the smallest plot of land that can provide a healthful diet. And, as I said, even that minimum appears to be beyond the reach of any commercial agricultural system in the world.

We've been playing a very dangerous game of ecological Russian roulette for some time now . . . and most of the rest of the chambers appear loaded.

PLOWBOY: As you've outlined it, the future looks pretty grim. Has your decade of research at the Ecology Action minifarm yielded any information that might help us deal with the coming problems?

JEAVONS: Well, we've at least achieved some results that offer promise, although more research has yet to be done.

Before I go into detail about our projections, however, let me point out that they are all based upon yields that we've already obtained at our mini-farm research area or that have actually been achieved--by some form of agriculture--on a large scale elsewhere.

We're at the point now that--in a short four-month growing season--we should soon be able to raise a complete, balanced vegetarian diet on 2,800 square feet . . . and with as little as 28 minutes of garden labor a day! I want to stress that we're not doing so yet, but we hope to reach that particular plateau in three years. Our wheat yields are already close to being in line with the projection. We've had small plots produce at a rate of 20 to 30 pounds of grain per 100 square feet . . . which works out to from five to seven times the average U.S. commercial farm's yield. And, at the same time, the protein content of our grain actually increased.

Now once we apply several additional factors to the predicted 2,800-foot food garden, the figures can become even more impressive. We're currently experimenting with miniature greenhouses, for instance. Such structures can extend the growing season in a temperate climate from four months to as long as eight months . . . effectively doubling the maximum possible yields. The little hothouses could, then, cut the minimum amount of space needed to grow a vegetarian diet from 2,800 square feet to as little as 1,400 square feet!

In addition, there are other possibilities--still a good way down the roadthat may let us reduce the required square footage even further. At present, more than half of the area in our experimental mini-farms is used to produce the recommended daily allowance of calcium. But we've discovered that there are tribes in Africa whose members consume--on the average--just 200 milligrams of calcium per day . . . about one quarter of the recommended allowance. And the adults in such societies show no signs of calcium deficiency in their teeth and bones.

So, if it is proved that most humans can get by on such minute amounts of calcium, we'll be able to eliminate the approximately one-half of our mini-farm acreage that produces the thenunnecessary three-fourths of the calcium requirement . . . reducing our minimum area--given an eight-month growing season--to as little as 700 square feet.

PLOWBOY: It seems clear that biointensive farming has the potential to provide a lot of nutrition from a very small space, but how will it help us meet the environmental crises that the future has in store?

JEAVONS: The method is an inherently thrifty--in terms of all the resources brought into playway of growing crops. We use, on the average, only about one-eighth the amount of water per pound of vegetables harvested--and somewhere near one-third per pound of grain--that would be consumed using conventional methods.

In the case of added purchased nitrogen fertilizer . . . as opposed to the nitrogen from green manure crops, compost, and so on: We use from as little as none at all up to twice as much fertilizer per unit of area--in the form of blood meal, fish meal, and so forth--as does commercial agriculture in the U.S.

The latter figure, however, is a bit misleading. In a test conducted this year, for instance, we used twice the weight of purchased organic nitrogen fertilizer on our cucumber beds as agribusiness methods would have specified for the crop. However, we produced 14 tunes the yield usually achieved by commercial growers. So you see, our added nitrogen requirement per pound of cucumber was about 1/7 of the amount normally used by a conventional farmer.

PLOWBOY: It should be relatively easy to keep track of fertilizer use, but how are all your water consumption figures computed?

JEAVONS: Like many of our "usage" figures, the quoted water consumption is estimated on the conservative side. We measure-using a gauge that records in tenths of gallons-the liquid used during two weeks in midsummer . . . taking readings from a sampling of 20 beds that incorporate a variety of crops at all stages of growth. Of course, we use significantly less water during the cooler and damper spring and fall months, but we quote the hot-season figures in order to keep any error well on the side of conservatism.

PLOWBOY: Energy consumption is, of course, going to continue to be of major concern in the years to come. Just how does biointensive farming compare to traditional agricultural methods in terms of its energy requirements?

JEAVONS: We usually state that we use 1/100th as much energy-per pound of cropsas does U.S. commercial agriculture. We're probably using much less than that-even taking into account everything from the number of calories burned by the gardener to the fuel needed to truck the produce to market-but again, we've tried to be conservative in what we claim.

PLOWBOY: So the widespread use of intensive methods could possibly help us keep ahead of-for a time at least-some of the future's environmental problems?

JEAVONS: Yes, I think it could, andperhaps most important in that regardmethod gardening nurtures the soil as it produces large yields! In fact, the continual improvement of the earth's ability to support plant growth is absolutely key to biointensive farming.

And a lot of organic gardeners today arewithout knowing it--employing ecologically unsound practices. Consider, for example, the grower in California who treats his or her plot with manure from horses that ate grain grown in North Dakota. The organic matter isn't being allowed to help rebuild the soil that produced it . . . so the North Dakota earth is depleted just a little bit more, and--at the same time--great amounts of scarce and polluting fuels are consumed to transport the manure from one place to another.

The fact is that the original Biodynamic gardeners of Europe wouldn't classify a growing operation as Biodynamic unless it brought in less than 10% of its resources from beyond the grounds. I think that's a good, though admittedly difficult, goal for all organic gardeners to try to achieve.

PLOWBOY: How close are you to meeting that requirement at Common Ground?

JEAVONS: Well, while we were getting started, we produced at best only about 1/3 of our organic matter on site. By 1978, though, we were able to supply about half of our needs with our fava bean cover crops, and about another 1/6 from vegetable wastes and so forth . . . making a total of 2/3 of our organic material requirements.

The ultimate aim, of course, is to develop the potential for a mini-farm that can provide food and income for one person working 40 hours a week for eight months of the year . . . and yield enough organic matter to be completely self-sustaining. That's the point we hope to reach and--considering the results we've achieved so far--I think we'll be able to make it.

PLOWBOY: But can biointensive techniques work on a large scale?

JEAVONS: Of course. The mainland Chinese have been using similar methods for centuries, although-from what we've been able to determine--they're not as productive as we are. On the other hand, a group of people could simply work together in aggregated mini-farms--and sell through a jointly owned co-op -to maintain, effectively, a single large area under cultivation.

Our specific goal, however, is--as I've said--to find out how small a self-contained food- and income-producing minifarm can be. Whether we eventually determine that such an operation can be run on 700 square feet or on 7,000 square feet, we need to work out the details and make such information available . . . because large numbers of the world's people may soon have to turn to mini-farming to survive.

I don't want to overstress the gloomand-doom factor, though. You can't motivate with fear for too long without losing your motivation. Besides, I personally think it would be wonderful and satisfying, once we've put the pieces together and made it possible, to be able to grow enough produce to supply enough food and cash for one person on as little as 1,100 - square feet-that's figuring on a 700-square-foot food farm, with the rest of the area devoted to a cash crop-and still be left with leisure time!

PLOWBOY: Are you actually bringing in income from your experimental beds?

JEAVONS: Yes, we're marketing produce regularly . . . though the process did begin slowly. In 1980, we hope to bring in as much as $8,000--by selling crops at wholesale prices--from our 1/8 acre mini-farm. So far, our buyers consist of restaurants, health food stores, and an organic produce distributor in Palo Alto. We've occasionally been able to sell to supermarkets, too . . . but such outlets are still resistant to wholistically grown produce.

PLOWBOY: Then you are quite close to having an operating $10,000-a-year minifarm. Will you stop trying to improve the profit potential at that point?

JEAVONS: No, because I think it's going to be easier to move from a $10,000-a-year test plot to a $20,000-a-year minifarm than it's been to approach the first plateau. Part of the increase will, of course, come from improved yields, but much of it will be a result of careful marketing.

For instance, it's sometimes possible to get as much as three times the usual price for celery--in our San Francisco Bay area--if you have a fresh crop to sell during the first two weeks of December. And, as you noticed when we visited the gardens, our miniature greenhouse-protected celery beds are mature and ready to take advantage of that bonus market.

In fact, celery provides a good example of just how productive a mini-farm may eventually be. Projections indicate that, optimally, 1,000 pounds of celery may be produced from one 100-square-foot bed . . . in a four-month growing season. That crop would wholesale--at today's "normal" prices--for 20¢ to 35¢ a pound.

So a single bed could produce between $200 and $350 worth of celery during each half of the greenhouse-augmented growing season . . . for a total income ranging from $400 to $700 from one bed. If you multiply those figures by the 40 such beds that--with their necessary path space-could be placed in a 1/8-acre minifarm, you can see that the potential to earn $20,000 a year from 1/8 acre is very real . . . although our present celery yields are still far from optimal. (Of course, there are other crops which can do just as well--such as lettuce, cucumbers, and zucchini--and we do recommend a mixture of mini-farm crops rather than monocropping.)

However, at this point we still have our work cut out for us in getting the rest of the way to a smoothly functioning $10,000-per-year minifarm.

PLOWBOY: Needless to say, your project hasn't been one long string of successes . . . what sort of pitfalls have slowed your progress?

JEAVONS: We've had failures all right . . . some of 'em were pretty hard to deal with, too. For example, we went through a period when nothing would grow in this soil. We were using an experimental digging technique at the time--called "super digging"--in which we put organic matter throughout the whole cultivated 24-inch depth . . . and mixed sand into the upper 12 inches.

And not a single thing would grow. We couldn't imagine what was wrong.

We were, as always, placing compost on the bed before we dug it. Eventually, we were able to determine--through close observation and by taking soil tests at a number of different depths--that the sand was allowing the water-soluble nitrogen in the compost to leach down to the 12-inch level very rapidly. The plants' roots couldn't grow fast enough to reach it!

So we made one simple change . . . and this is a good example of how delicate the balance between success and failure can be: We put the organic matter on the beds after we double-dug--concentrating it in the upper two to three inches of the soil to slow the leaching--nd the crops grew beautifully.

We're also having slug and snail problems now--particularly in our lettuce beds--that are going to require a good bit of work to solve. The best I can figure is that we brought the pests into the garden on "imported" organic matter . . . a fact which presents another good argument for becoming self-sustaining and producing your own compost material. I think we'll be able to eradicate most of 'em by handpicking, but we're also looking into reports concerning a carnivorous snail that preys upon its crop-eating cousins.

PLOWBOY: The biointensive farmer will have to face the same kinds of problems that most gardeners tackle, then.

JEAVONS: Exactly, and the last thing I'd want anyone to do is read this interview . . . say, "Wow, that sounds fantastic!" . . . and invest his or her life savings in trying to set up a commercial mini-farming operation.

Such a person would be far better off to start with a single bed the first year and--if that project is a success--expand to between five and ten plots the following year . . . continually learning and expanding, as long as the venture proves successful, until he or she is able to work part time as a mini-farmer and part time at a "normal" job.

Naturally, the ultimate goal would be to quit all outside work and step into an established, minimal risk, "pocket farming" operation. The approach is cautious, but we're talking about dealing with living biological systems. Growing cropsby any method-can't be approached like a paint-by-number picture.

Of course, a lot of folks have no interest in commercial farming at all. But I really encourage everyone who has the slightest curiosity about the method to try one small raised bed--it doesn't have to be more than three by three feet--in his or her back yard. Because--after a little practice--he or she should be able to grow enough carrots, for instance, for one person for a full year . . . right in that tiny nine-square-foot plot in the course of a three-month growing season. And even such a small step toward self-sufficiency can be an incredibly exciting and inspiring experience.

PLOWBOY: Can you tell me what courses of action are available to folks who might want to come to Common Ground as apprentices . . . or to support your work in some way?

JEAVONS: We do offer apprenticeship programs of one, two, and three years. But I want to emphasize that we can afford the time to instruct only people who are interested in becoming teachers of the biointensive method themselves . . . and would want to go out to train other instructors or to become permanent Common Ground staffers. Anyone who's willing to make such a commitment can simply write Ecology Action of the MidPeninsula for application forms.

However, people who just want to learn how to use the method in their own gardens would be better off buying our book, How to Grow More Vegetables, and learning on their own. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Folks who'd like to learn biointensive techniques for their own use might also look into MOTHER's two-week apprentice programs. See "The Seasons of the Garden" on page 162 of this issue for details.]

Actually, the very fact that we're offering longterm apprenticeships could probably be construed as wishful thinking, because we have a bit of a problem facing us right now. Syntex Corporation is planning to double the number of its employees--at the plant where Common Ground is located--by 1983, so they're proposing to build a parking lot in the area where our experimental minifarms are now.

As you can imagine, the news came as quite a blow to us. We're in our ninth year of working with and improving the earth in our 120 test beds . . . and we have complete records of soil analysis, yields, digging methods used, and so forth for each of them. There's just no way to replace the established plots, and we've found that it would take as much as $150,000 to properly move the beds as they are. Such an expense is, of course, out of the question.

So we're looking for a new home. We'd like to find a 30-acre site where we could set up sophisticated low-technology housing to match our approach to food raising . . . and eventually establish a complete demonstration low-energy, high-productivity living system.

Regardless of where we go from here, though, we're bound to encounter a period of increased financial need. In order to try to raise cash, we're offering taxdeductible Common Ground memberships--for $30 apiece--that will entitle the donors to receive our bi-monthly newsletter . .. which has some local Ecology Action news as well as updates on our latest mini-farm research. I know the price seems steep, but it's the equivalent of only three or four long-playing records--or a small order of groceries--and the money will really go a long way here.

I guess--to put it simply--the fact of the matter is that we need help if we're to get our job done in time.

PLOWBOY: Could you be more specific about the nature of that task?

JEAVONS: We're here to make mistakes so that--when the times get worse for us all--those specific errors won't have to be made. I think that if Common Ground is able to survive today, we'll all know a little more about survival in the future . . . when such knowledge may well be invaluable.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Anyone interested in applying for an apprenticeship at the Common Ground experimental minifarm--or in sending a donation--should write to Ecology Action of the Mid-Peninsula, 2225 El Camino, Palo Alto, Cali fornia 94306.

John Jeavons' book, How to Grow More Vegetables, is available from the some address for $6.50, postpaid worldwide, with an additional $2.00 charge if you want it delivered by airmail . . . while copies of MOTHER NO. 61--which contains the article on biodynamic/ French intensive gardening--can be ordered, for $3.00 apiece plus $1.00 shipping and handling per order, from. THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS®, P.O. Box 70, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28739.

Prepare the soil in your raised bed in 1/6 the time!

BUILD R U-BAR

Because the good folks at Common Ground feel that even intermediate technology is often beyond the financial reach of the people who need it the most, they're constantly looking for sophisticated low technology solutions to the problems presented by small-scale agriculture.

One such innovation--the "U-bar", shown in the accompanying photos and drawings--was designed at John Jeavons' request by two Stanford University engineering students ... who worked from traditional French and Canadian designs for similar tools. The digging implement is used after a bed has been initially well prepared with a spade and fork, and can--for all subsequent preparations--reduce the required digging time from approximately two hours per 100-square-foot bed to 20 minutes or less!



John has graciously allowed us to publish these drawings of a U-bar . . . so anyone who wants to try biointensive gardening can cut his or her labor time while keeping yields up.


Issue # 121-January/February 1990

KEEPING THE FAITH

JOHN JEAVONS: DIGGING UP THE FUTURE

By Pat Stone

For 17 years, this California grower-researcher has been extending the frontiers of sustainable agriculture.

PHOTOGRAPHS©PAUL FUSCO/MAGNUM PHOTOS

"Think big, grow small." By learning how to get fantastic yields In minimal space, Jeavons tackles both world hunger and environmental disaster.

WITH HIS HUSKY BUILD AND SOFT 1, deep voice, John Jeavons seems at once strong and analytical. Crops and calculations are the mainsprings of this man's work-and on both counts he's been astoundingly successful. Jeavons has repeatedly demonstrated that deep, hand-dug, biointensive garden beds can produce yields two to six times higher than standard American agriculture, while using only a fraction of the water, fertilizer, and energy.

John has blue eyes, a trademark straw hat, and a gentle manner, but these fail to mute his overriding personal intensity. Not much for small talk, he jumps right into the latest gloomy estimates of our worldwide environmental crisis and points out ways his own work might help address the problem. Indeed, one of the most striking things about Jeavons is how he connects talk of global disaster with that of maximizing yields of a five-foot by 20-foot garden bed. "Think globally, act locally," advised former British environmentalist E.F. Schumacher. "Think big, grow small" must be Jeavons's personal version of that maxim.

For the better part of two decades, John's been blazing the trail of biointensive agriculture. Step by step, with little more than garden fork, spade, and compost, he's dug out an alternative that may, indeed, help answer the planetary problems our soilmining agricultural systems have created. As former secretary of agriculture Bob Bergland once said, "John Jeavons is out of the mainstream of American agriculture-he's 10 to 15 years ahead."

Nowadays, though, the world is beginning to catch up-at least with where Jeavons was. His early books have been translated into five languages and used in over 100 countries. Biointensive projects have been started in Mexico, Kenya, Russia, India, China-the system is even taught in the Philippine public school system! But Jeavons isn't standing still. He's forging ahead, learning how to raise a complete diet in a minimal space, grow compost and "income" as well as food, live out a low-impact lifestyle, and more. (He refused to talk on record about some of his new directions, arguing that they would sound too radical for today-but would be more acceptable in as few as two years.)

At his research minifarm in Willits, California, Jeavons teaches an apprentice special ergonomic tricks that can make digging a garden bed a lot easier.

In 1990, MOTHER intends to honor a number of people who've stuck to their environmental guns, who've kept their sights on helping us all mend our wounded planet, whether that ideal was in vogue or out. We're proud to introduce this series by presenting the following discussion with John Jeavons (whom we first interviewed 10 years ago in MOTHER No. 62), a dedicated researcher who for 17 years has been steadfastly "keeping the faith."

MOTHER: John, I've really been looking forward to the chance to meet and talk with you.

Jeavons: Me, too-there's a lot to talk about. As you know, environmental problems have been hitting the front pages a lot lately. But the situation's even worse than you might think. The earth's lost three-quarters of its trees. As a result of this and other factors, by the year 2000, according to conservative estimates, 62% of the earth's land surface will be desert-up from 43% in 1977. One-third of that is supposed to happen in the United States. California's San Joaquin Valley, which produces approximately 30% of all the food in the U.S., is already in the early stages of salinization and desertification.

Mexico may become 60 to 80% desert. Indeed, during the last 12 months, Mexican crop production has dropped 20%. The country is in a stress situation (it already imports $5 billion worth of food annually). Russia's crop yields are down even more: 40%. One of Gorbachev's top economic advisers has said there's a good likelihood of famine in the Soviet Union within two years. There're indications that China, Bulgaria, and Poland are not much better off.

To top all this, according to Robert Muller, former under secretary for the United Nations, some Russian scientists recently estimated the earth may become uninhabitable in as little as 16 years. An English scientist who was doing a similar evaluation disagreed: He thought it might be 20 years. Then the UN Environmental Program officers were presented this information, and they said, "Oh, no, no, this is way too pessimistic. It's 50 years."

MOTHER: The earth may become uninhabitable in 16, 20, or 50 years? That's a pretty solemn way to start a onversation, John.

Jeavons: We don't have much time. As Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute has said, "We have years, not decades, to turn the situation around." We have to find ways to make positive changes, and soon.

And we can do it. The Chinese had too many houseflies in the 1950s. Their solution? They asked everybody to kill a few flies each day, and they asked some people to spend all day killing flies. In two to three years, they virtually eradicated the problem.

Keenly aware that the earth needs help soon, John tirelessly promotes his ideas for growing food efficiently and sustainably.

Some households even reported having no flies at all.

The solution is really that simple and that difficult.

MOTHER: Let's back away from global problems for a moment and talk about your system of biointensive agriculture. Almost everybody who's heard of it knows that it involves double-digging: removing the top foot of soil in a growing bed-one trench at a time-loosening the second foot of depth, then replacing the original soil. That way the ground is loose and friable two feet down. What else is special about this method?

Jeavons: Biointensive minifarming uses water, soil, fertilizer, seeds, and sunlightlike any other method-but it puts them together in a different way. It preps the soil differently. It uses close, precise plant spacing. The microclimate created by that helps the soil hold water and produces an envelope of CO, under the leaves that stimulates growth. The system also uses lots of compost to build up a living soil. The compost also holds six times its weight in water and will keep soil nutrients from leaching away. It uses light daily watering to keep an even supply of moisture in the soil.

As a result, this method consumes from one-third to one-eighth, to even as little as one thirty-second, the water per pound of food produced as commercial agriculture does. It consumes a maximum of one-half the purchased nitrogen fertilizer, and often needs none at all. And it requires only one onehundredth the energy. All this, while producing two to six times the yields.

This method can be one way to help turn global scarcity into abundance. In California, agriculture uses 86% of the state's water, and in the mid-'70s, there was a three-year drought. If everyone had been using biointensive agriculture, there wouldn't have been a drought: One year's worth of water would have lasted three to eight years.

MOTHER: But don't we often hear that U.S. farming practices are the most efficient and effective in the world, that they're counted on to feed a hungry world?

Jeavons: If you check the statistics, you'll find that, most years, we import more calories, calcium, and protein from the Third World than we export to it.

And this "very efficient and productive" agriculture has many hidden costs. U.S. commercial farming practices deplete the soil eight times faster than it builds up naturally; in California, 80 times faster. In the last 200 years, we've lost half of our soil base, and that half took 1,500 years to build.

Look at energy. To put one calorie of food energy on our table, modern farmers require six to 20 calories of energy, both in human and mechanical, petroleum-based forms. How long would you stay with a bank if you gave them $20 and then at the end of the year they gave you one dollar back and said the rest of the money was gone? Compare that with Chinese wet rice agriculture, which requires only one-fiftieth of a calorie per calorie of food energy produced. That's 300 to 1,000 times more energy effective.

And money? It generally takes about $500,000 to capitalize the average 500-acre farm in the U.S. The return on investment is about $8,600 a year, or 1.7°10. Any normal business run that "efficiently" would go bankrupt. And many farmers are having just that problem.

How to Grow More Vegetables ($15 postpaid). The classic explanation of the biointensive gardening method. A detailed primer that covers compost, fruit, and tree crops as well as vegetables.
The Backyard Homestead, MiniFarm & Garden Log Book ($12 postpaid). This sequel to the above book covers small livestock, grains, minifarming for income, crop testing, herbal lawns, basic biointensive tools, garden record keeping, and more.
One Circle ($13 postpaid). Subtitled How to Grow a Complete Diet in Less Than 1,000 Square Feet, this unique guide enables you to analyze both the nutritional and space effectiveness of crops.

THE 21-BED MINIFRAME

MOTHER: What about the current trend toward organic farming? Isn't that an improvement?

Jeavons: Generally, to grow food organically, you have to do just two things: Don't use chemical fertilizers, and don't use pesticides. You may be depleting the soil just as fast as a chemical farmer would. Consequently, the food may not always be very nutritious. After all, if you're not building nutrients in the soil, they won't be in your crops.

Organic food, in some instances, may even be toxic. An organic farmer may add a beneficial amendment like manure. But if that manure isn't fully composted, it can contain excessive nitrates-in a form that's easily picked up by a leaf crop like lettuce. So some organic lettuce could possibly give you nitrate poisoning.

Lastly, let's say you're an organic farmer who uses properly cured compost and manure, but imports those materials from offsite. Maybe the manure's the residue of grain grown in North Dakota. Then using that manure actually helps deplete the soil in North Dakota.

We need to find out how to grow our food sustainably--without draining any area's resources-over the long haul. It's possible to do that on a closed-system basis; that's what's so exciting. It requires diligence and dedication, but in the long run there's not really any other choice.

To accomplish this, the first thing we have to do is stop growing crops.

MOTHER: I beg your pardon?

Jeavons: We have to start growing soil. To do that, we will have to grow crops, but we have to get our priorities the right way around, because the goal is a living soil. Likewise, when we water, we shouldn't water the crops-but water the soil. One dime-sized amount of living soil contains billions of microbes and other miniature life-forms. It can store nutrients and water better than almost anything else. That's what we need to invest in.

To do so, we're going to have to grow compost crops; not just nitrogenous ones, like vetch and fava beans, but others as well, such as wheat and rye, which produce a lot of carbon. If you want to have sustainable soil fertility, approximately three-quarters of your farm needs to be in compost crops all the time. Better yet, rotate crops and have all your farm in compost three-quarters of the time. You also have to recycle all wastes. And you can probably export for income only about 10°70 of the crops you grow.

MOTHER: In other words, you grow your food and income crops on one-quarter of the land and your soil crops on the other threequarters. That would have the advantage of being sustainable, but wouldn't it end up taking as much space as conventional agriculture?

Jeavons: We think it eventually will be possible to grow all of a single individual's food, money, and compost crops in as little as 21 beds: 2,100 square feet plus path space. That's based on test yields. It may be a little optimistic; perhaps it will take 4,200 square feet. Since, however, commercial farms currently produce the average American's dietwithout growing compost or incomeon from 45,000 to 85,000 square feet, we're definitely talking about the miniaturization of agriculture. We've been miniaturizing electronics in the San Francisco Bay area nearby, so it's not unreasonable to expect that as we all become more sophisticated in our understanding of biological principles, we,can do the same to agriculture. Of course, we didn't invent these techniques. They were used by the ancient Chinese, Mayans, Greeks, and some North Africans thousands of years ago.

Many people say there will not be enough land in the world to grow food for everyone. But if biointensive yields work out over time (that's an important qualifier; it's not going to happen right away) you could grow all the food for the United States on just its 19 million acres of lawns, golf courses, and cemeteries!

MOTHER: What biointensive projects are under way now?

Jeavons: Individuals are using our more than two dozen publications to teach themselves how to biointensively microfarm in over 100 countries. There are also several formalized teaching projects. In Mexico, the Family Planning Department is teaching biointensive techniques in 19 states under the auspices of its Menos y Mejores [Less and More] program. In Kitale, Kenya, the Manor House Agricultural Centre has a twoyear apprentice-training program. In the Philippines, the Department of Education has committed to spread the method throug the public school system-as a result of the work of Julian Gonsalves and the International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. There are also teaching and research programs in India, China, Togo, and Benin.

top: When Jeavons arrive at Willits, he could hardly dent the soil with a spade. Now you can sink your arm into a freshly dug bed.Below: Spaceefficient hexagonal planting helps maximize yields. Below right: Research extends into exotic crops, such as these high-yielding tree collards.

"We've been miniaturizing electronics in the Bay area; now we're talking about the miniaturization of gardening."

In the USSR, the 2,000 members of the s Soviet Experimental Youth Gardening Complex [EMSK] voted to include biointensive practices as a major part of their program throughout their 116 acres of gardens around Moscow. At Ohio University, Steve Rioch, our East Coast Mini-Farm director, has helped obtain approval of the first four-year university-degree program, under the auspices of the botany department, with a major emphasis on biointensive minifarming.

And, of course, there are our own research gardens in Willits, California. When we first arrived, our steep-hillside soil was rated, at best, intermediate for grazing-you could hardly dent it with a spade. After our eight years here, you can sink your arm almost up to the elbow in a freshly dug bed.

MOTHER: You mentioned growing one's own crops, compost, and income. Is anyone doing that?

Jeavons: Not yet. There are a few people living out the economic part. For instance, Kona Kai Farms in Berkeley, California, used biointensive practices to set up a minifarm that grossed $276,000 from a half acre in 1988 selling high-priced crops to restaurants. They're not yet farming in a sustainable manner, however.

Generally, our research is five to 10 years ahead of public acceptance. For example, during our first project in 1973, we realized we were using half the normal amount of water per pound of food produced. At the time, no one believed us. About five years later, though, the result was widely accepted. In 1985, we published David Duhon and Cindy Gebhart's One Circle, the book with the concepts for growing all your nutrition in the smallest area, and I think it'll be as late as 1995 before a number of people are implementing it on a routine basis.

It was just two years ago that, based on field tests and bookwork, we developed a detailed understanding of the sustainable soil-fertility concept-how you could grow all your compost on a closed-system basis. It'll probably be 1997 before that will begin to be used regularly in a significant way.

We've spent 17 years trying to develop agricultural models for obtaining the highest yields using the least resources in a manner that sustains soil fertility on a closed-system basis. Now, I think, we have most of the initial biointensive road maps needed.

MOTHER: So what's the next step?

Jeavons: One of our main emphases in the next five years will be to begin to live what we've been researching-to grow more of our food, compost, and money. Right now, we spend 75 to 80% of our people-hours on siteresearching, teaching, writing, fund-raising, and corresponding with people around the world. I'm hoping that by using some new 100square-foot growing-bed training models we're developing and by having other staff handle some of the mail and outreach, we can free up enough time to completely practice what we preach.

MOTHER: That sounds great. But do you think many other people will do something similar?

Jeavons: For that to happen, we have to change the image of farmers. Right now, farmers farm so they can afford to send their children away to college or technical school so they won't have to farm. This is true in the Third World as well as here. In the U.S., twotenths of 1% of the population will soon be raising 70% of the food-that's one person in 500. The average U.S. farmer is 57 years old and generally knows how to grow only one or two crops while using resourceineflicient techniques.

We need to increase this skill base. We need to realize that farming is one of the most nourishing, important, sacred occupations anyone could have. Cities are wonderful places, full of ideas, music, culture, and education. But you can't be safe in cities if your farmland's being depleted.

MOTHER: Even if most people would be willing to say they thought farming was wonderful, I don't know that they'd want to tackle the physical work involved-especially using your hand-tool techniques.

Jeavons: Well, starving isn't easy, either. That answer may sound harsh to you, but millions of people are starving right now. And it's likely to get worse. I mentioned the drops in Mexican and Russian food production; U.S. food production is dropping too: We had an 89-day grain reserve in 1987, a 68-day grain reserve in '88, and a 63-day

Man of the Trees ($14 postpaid). Selected writings of the renowned British ecologistforester Richard St. Barbe Baker.

Booklet 14: The Complete 21-Bed Biointensive Mini-Farm ($3 postpaid). A preliminary model for exploring how to produce all your compost, a complete diet, and a small income in as little as 2,100 square feet.
All these books and booklets are available for their postpaid prices from Bountiful Gardens, 19550 Ridgewood Rd., Willits, CA 95490. In addition; Bountiful Gardens offers a fine, free catalog of garden seeds and supplies and gratefully accepts supporting memberships for the Ecology Action research minifarm. A membership, for a tax-deductible contribution of $30, includes a quarterly newsletter.

reserve in '89. Some analysts expect crop losses for 1990 and'91 as well. Other scientific estimates indicate that due to the globalwarming greenhouse effect, the average U.S. temperature may be 9°F higher in 2030 than it is now-and that such a rise could cut our crop production in half.

Still, I know that the most controversial issue of my work is labor. Most of us aren't used to physical labor. We don't want to farm, much less farm manually. And when we have those kinds of feelings, we set up mental blocks and decide, emotionally and understandably, that it can't be done, at least not without overworking or stressing out. The question we need to ask is how can we easily raise our food with manual techniques. This question will bring the insights necessary to simplify the process to where it is humanly effective as well as resource effective.

Double-digging a bed-especially the first time-is work. But consider the fact that the Irish call double-dug beds "lazy beds." After all, if you get four times the yields, you have to double-dig only one-quarter the area you'd otherwise single-dig. You have to water, fertilize, and weed only one-quarter the area. And the soil's so loose the roots come out with the weeds, so you usually don't have to reweed.

However, I think the best motivation for biointensive farming is that working with these life forces, even though it is physical work, is really rewarding and exciting. Even if there weren't world environmental, food, and soil problems, I would want to live this way. At our Willits site, we may eventually have 400 terraced beds, with cascading strawberries, wheat, pumpkins, flowers, and herbs-a beautiful living tapestry full of fragrance and good food.

MOTHER: How much time does biointensive minifarming require?

Jeavons: From everything I've seen over 17 years, and I don't expect anyone to believe this-I wouldn't if I were hearing it for the first time-as refinements occur, it's going to be possible to grow as much food, income, and nutrition per hour by hand as it is with machines, and without detrimental environmental effects.

It's already possible for a person to grow all of his or her vegetables, and I think, eventually, you'll be able to raise all your food and compost with less than two hours of labor a day. Initially, that goal would probably require eight to 16 hours a day. But you shouldn't try to do it all at once; you'd stretch your resources and yourself too thin. Instead, set yourself goals, like getting 10% of the way there the first year, 25% the next, and so on. Don't try to raise a complete 21-bed unit the first year. Do a scaled-down three-bed version. Or, maybe better, do just one bed and go from there.

"Biointensive's no panacea.

And tree culture's no panacea.

We're the panacea.

MOTHER: In other words, be patient.

Jeavons: Yes. It takes five to 10 years to build up the soil and about that long to build one's skill. Also, since we've depleted our country's soils about 1,500 years' worth in 200 years, it's not unreasonable to expect it to take 200 to 1,500 years to fully rebuild them. For example, at our Willits site we have a poor, sandy, porous soil with excesses of magnesium and sodium. Initially, it had very low levels of most beneficial nutrients. In addition, our nighttime temperatures are generally too low, and our daytime temperatures often too high, for the microbial life in the soil and crops to thrive. Consequently, our first alfalfa plantings grew only an inch or so high and gave only two cuttings a year. Eventually, as we built up and balanced out our soil nutrients, the alfalfa cuttings produced yields as high as two to six times the U.S. average.

We still have a lot of crop failures as we try to improve our soil and our skills and as we learn to work with the climate, but each problem usually shows us the way to the next improvement. Because we've grown up in a world of instant results, the patience required to build up soils and to learn to work in harmony with living biological systems continually stretches our limits! We need a long-haul perspective. And making the changes within ourselves to get that kind of perspective is perhaps going to be even more difficult.

MOTHER: You seem to be in for the long haul yourself.

Jeavons: Years ago when I began this work, one of my intentions was to set up constructive agricultural alternatives so that when the environmental pressures built up and people awoke to the crisis, we'd have a sustainable agricultural model ready to implement. There'd be positive models for people to put their energy into rather than simply feeling overwhelmed.

I think that time has come.

MOTHER: John, you're keenly aware of a host of ever-worsening environmental problems, but you keep plugging away at solutions. How do you find the strength to keep going?

Jeavons:Well, the first step is to face the problem. We have to realize just how vulnerable and threatened we are-that humanity's existence depends on preserving a six-inch layer of healthy topsoil. Then if we will actually look the problem full in the face, we'll work right through it and come up with a solution, because problems always contain the seeds for their solutions.

MOTHER: Still, if you personally work hard on the solution and live an efficient lifestyle, but everybody else keeps wasting resources like they'll last forever, then your individual acts will have very little larger effect. What good is that?


Jeavons:It's not easy. I sometimes get discouraged because people don't seem to care about themselves and the planet, especially if they know what the problems are but don't act on solutions. But because the problems seem insurmountable, I don't act on many of the solutions I know aboutand I'm certainly not perfect, either.

I may not change the world, but I want to vote for life with my life. If I wasn't acting positively about these problems-Good grief!then I'd really be depressed.

MOTHER: Do you get personal strength from any spiritual beliefs?

Jeavons: his eyes start to tear] Yes, I'm a Christian. And I feel this is what I'm supposed to do.


MOTHER: I'm sorry. I didn't mean t upset you.

Jeavons: That's all right. My faith is a ve personal thing; I never mention it unles someone asks me. I'm not embarrassed about being a Christian, but people use the ter in such funny ways, so I'm very careful abou talking about it. Still, I'm sure it's the only thing that's continue goin through all the hard work and hard times: almost went bankrupt twice about thre years ago.

We have also worked with Buddhists and people of many other spiritual paths. I feel having a spiritual dimension to one's work is important, but I don't preach religion.

don't even preach biointensive minifarming I'm just trying to describe one solution. I think one of the best solutions to raising enough food is for more individuals to raise their food locally and on a small-scale basis. But I'm sure there are lots of other good potential solutions, and people should take the ones that make most sense to them. Some that hold a lot of promise if practiced sustainably are wet rice-paddy agriculture, Asian aquaculture, biodynamic farming, agroforestry, Fukuoka culture, and biointensive minifarming. If someone came up with another good method for growing food that fulfilled the functional, environmental, human, and soil needs we're talking about, I'd farm that way tomorrow.

People often cast me into the mold of believing I've got the single-recipe answer. Biointensive's no panacea. Since it gets four times the yields, it can also deplete the soil four times faster-if you don't recycle wastes and grow compost crops. Tree culture's not a panacea. Instead of strip-mining the soil one, two, or three feet deep, trees can stripmine the soil 50 to 150 feet deep and moreunless they're grown the right way.

We're the panacea.

MOTHER: What do you mean?

Jeavons: Walt Kelly's cartoon character Pogo was talking about the environment once and said, "We have found the enemy, and the enemy is us." Well, now we have to discover our allies. That is us, too.

We don't have to continue what we've been doing. We can be pioneers in an opening field of miniaturization of agriculture, of a sophisticatedly effective use of resources, of building up a fantastically abundant ecosystem on this planet.

It's difficult to see how one person can be part of a solution to the environmental resource depletion and human hunger problems so rampant in the world today. And, true, these problems taken as a whole are insurmountable to one person, but broken up into individual-sized portions, we can each easily become part of the solution.

The portions all added together can be a whole solution. The earth is a large garden, and each of us needs only to begin to care for our own part of it for life to be breathed 1 back into the planet, into the soil, and into ourselves.

I The choice is ours. The individual becomes important again. And the work begins now.






  • [permaculture] jeavons articles, Saor Stetler, 11/07/2006

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page