permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

Tripp Tibbetts wrote:
> Soybeans no
> more want to be eaten than chickens.  In practical terms, I'm
> beginning to see plants as the "permanent" parts of the
> consciously-developed human ecosystem, and animals as mere
> passers-through.  Animals seem more transient to me.  They stop
> through, eat something, and leave behind a little fertility in
> exchange for dinner.  They almost strike me as the real food part of
> the system, with herbs and fruit as accompaniment.

Also, many plants depend on other creatures eating or carrying parts of 
them uneaten for seed dispersal and thus propagation and continued 
existence in ecosystems. Maybe some plants employ biomimicry to effect 
this in some cases.

> Maybe this is what Bill Mollison was driving at when he said not to
> sell anything that couldn't walk off the farm.  Retain sessile

He is certainly against monocropping with that statement.
All types of market agriculture could become elements in large scale 
permaculture systems designed for sites (farms).

> fertility onsite, eat the ambulatory passers-by.  Maybe not, but
> that's my take anyway.
>
> Toby's article "Is Sustainable Agriculture an Oxymoron?" might even

I always thought of that term (SA) as primarily referring to the ability 
of a tract of land to support robust plant growth with sustainability of 
other lifeforms existing on that land following.

> suggest that this meat-heavy arrangement is actually more sustainable
> in the long run since it tends to produce fewer children than
> pro-grain and hoarding agriculture.

The meat production is purely a human construct as is monocropping - 
therefore a polyculture permaculture system is a better model to follow 
for sustainable food production and unaltered (except for removing 
poison ivy and certain troublesome aggressive and dangerous critters) 
continued nourishment, sustenance of existing, onsite, ecosystems.