permaculture

[Dieter Brand <diebrand@yahoo.com>]

Ingham clearly shows the limitations, or even absurdity, of the nutritionist 
approach.  Soil is more than an agglomeration of nutrients.  Life is more 
than a chemical reaction.

Any attempt to approach organic farming by using the analytical tools of 
chemical farming cannot but be self-defeating.  How do you measure the 
fertility of a biologically active soil that is a dynamic and living organism 
by the static snap shot of a chemical analysis that tells us nothing about 
the innumerable creatures soil is made of?  

Any real test must be holistic and ought to include environmental impact and 
health costs.

Dieter


--- On Thu, 11/11/10, Lawrence F. London, Jr. <lflj@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> From: Lawrence F. London, Jr. <lflj@bellsouth.net>
> Subject: [permaculture] FYI: Fwd: Re: [SANET-MG] Soil phosphate (was 
> organic vrs conventional) - chemistry and extraction methods
> To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 11:42 PM
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [SANET-MG] Soil phosphate (was organic vrs
> conventional) - chemistry and extraction methods
> Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:24:57 -0500
> From: Elaine Ingham <soilfoodweb@AOL.COM>
> To: SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU
> 
> In response to Michael Astera's comments -
> 
> I have spent quite a bit of time talking to lab people all
> over the world about their methods.  For example, talk
> to the Director of the Environmental Analysis Lab at
> Southern Cross University if you think your experience is
> the only one that counts in the world.  Examine the
> scientific literature, and discover there are probably more
> than 500 different extracting methods and agents for
> extracting phosphate, or phosphorus, or other nutrients,
> from soil.
> 
> 
> 
>  Look at the values obtained using currently used
> extracting agents, for example, Bray 1, Mehlick 1, Reams,
> Universal, simple water extraction methods (I could go on,
> and list, oh, maybe ten more methods by if I refreshed my
> memory by looking at different soil chemistry lab
> reports.  Give me a day in the scientific literature,
> and I could name a couple hundred more methods).
> 
> The values using just those few "common" methods range from
> 0.5 to 150 ppm, using the SAME SOIL, taken at the same time,
> and handled exactly the same, up until the different
> extracting agents were used.  The actual value obtained
> depended on which extraction method was used, but ALL those
> methods are used to measure "soluble PO4", or soluble
> nutrients.
> 
> And quite often, different values will be obtained with
> each method, depending on whether you dilute the sample
> first, or if you dilute following extraction.
> 
> So, which is truth?
> 
> Which is the correct value?
> 
> If I was a chemical salesperson, which method of extraction
> would I recommend, if I'm making money by convincing people
> by looking at a soil chemistry report that they need more
> PO4?
> 
> --------------
> 
> And those are just soluble methods.  Methods to assess
> "exchangeable" nutrients are just as ...... well,
> variable.  But that's why people always say "pick a lab
> and use that one lab".  Except if you really understand
> the problem, you can use different labs.  Just make
> sure you understand what they really do at that lab, and
> what part of the soluble set of nutrients that particular
> extraction method actually tells you about.
> 
> Oh wait, no one can actually tell you what part of the
> actual soluble pool is being extracted, by any method you
> choose to use.  Change temperature, change moisture,
> change soil type, and .......... hum, what part of the
> soluble pool are you actually extracting with any of these
> methods?  It changes.  So, what does it really
> mean?
> 
> There may be five or six standards methods some individuals
> ARE AWARE OF, but that does not change the fact that many,
> many more methods are "on the books", and used to some
> extent some place on the planet.  Please recall that
> not everywhere on this planet do people have high tech labs
> to send samples for analysis.  In fact, it is probably
> more the exception that soils samples are assessed with
> advanced technological equipment than are assessed using low
> tech methods.
> 
> In the comments from M Astera, he pointed out the
> difference between soluble and total, and then said to me
> that perhaps that is the reason for the confusion about what
> soluble really is.  Confusion on my part?  I think
> Michael is confused.
> 
> Soluble means dissolved in water.  Total levels
> usually include soluble PLUS what is not in solution. 
> So Michael's comments in fact point out exactly what I was
> saying.  There's huge difference between soluble and
> and not-soluble, or not-plant available
> pools.   Clearly defining these different
> pools is necessary, and then doing the necessary things to
> make sure nutrients are cycling from one to the other
> normally is absolutely necessary.
> 
> Note that most of the data on a soil chemistry report is
> just soluble information.  Almost never is the total
> concentration of any nutrient reported on a soil chemistry
> report.  If a grower asks, they can get exchangeable
> nutrient information.... i.e., base saturation of Ca, Mg, K,
> and Na, but given all the nutrients in the soil, why pick
> those four?  What is with chemistry labs starting to
> include Al, or H in that limited list?
> 
> Ok, I'm being rhetorical here, because I know why. 
> But I bet 80% of the growers using soil chemistry labs have
> no clue what that is all about.  Growers trust their
> agronomist, who is at least helping them grow reasonable
> amounts of plant material, so the operation stays
> alive.  But do the soil agronomists know why Albrecht
> values can no longer be obtained from many soil chemistry
> reports?
> 
> ------
> 
> Soluble values tell you about what the plant MIGHT be able
> to take up at the instant of time the assessment was made.
> Will the plant actually take up those nutrients that are in
> solution?  Maybe, maybe not.  No way to tell.
> 
> I have seen soil chemistry data where there was massive
> amounts of soluble iron (or PO4, or SO4, or NO3) in the
> soil. But the PLANT TISSUE was lacking iron (or PO4, or S,
> or N, etc).  The plant was dying from a lack of
> nutrition.  So, what use is doing soluble soil
> chemistry?  It was actually misleading to the grower.
> 
> I have seen soil chemistry reports where soluble phosphate
> levels (Reams) were 0.01 ppm.  Exchangeable phosphate
> levels (Mehlick 3) were 0.1 ppm. and yet the plant had
> normal or in a couple cases, excess phosphorus in its
> tissue.  But the grower was told to pour on the PO4
> fertilizer, regardless of the fact that the plants did not
> need any additional PO4. Ah, organic matter levels were 20%,
> and there was good biology present, so the soil pool of PO4
> was constantly maintained.  At low values, but
> constantly maintained.  Since replenishment was
> constant, although at low levels on a second by second
> basis, the plant was perfectly happy.   We
> don't need outrageous amounts of leachable (=soluble)
> nutrients in our soils, we just need to constantly replenish
> those soluble, or leachable, nutrients.  But we don't
> want high concentrations of those soluble nutrients at ANY
> time.
> 
> What really determines what plants take up?  What is
> the minimum threshold value of soluble nutrients in soil
> that plants require?
> 
> There's plenty of data to show that the conventional
> chemical attitude about soil chemistry tests is completely
> wrong.
> 
> Please note I did NOT say that soil chemistry tests were
> useless.  Don't extrapolate incorrectly and go off into
> some wild, outrageous insane response.
> 
> Those of you reading this can see I do quite a bit of work
> with soil chemistry tests.  I just object when they are
> used to justify pouring on very expensive soil amendments
> that in most cases, you don't need.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Most commonly, in commercial soil chemistry labs, the
> samples, when they arrive, are dried and then sieved. 
> The rocks, the large chunky material, including larger
> organic materials remaining on the sieve are thrown
> away.  Once sieved, then ok, the organic matter
> remaining is not thrown out, but that initial soil sieving
> step is standard practice.  People might want to go to
> their chemistry lab, and actually see what is happening, so
> they can have a better idea how to interpret the results
> they get from the chem lab.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> In my previous e-mail, I did NOT discuss in any way
> transmutation of chemicals.  There was not even the
> slightest suggestion that N can be converted to S, or P into
> Ca, or any such silliness.
> 
> Making some kind of crazy leap that I was talking about
> transmutation of chemicals in soil, when I was talking about
> what biology does in converting forms of, for example, N
> into other forms of N, or is beyond belief.
> 
> It is organisms that convert nitrogen from N2 gas, into
> amino acids and proteins, from proteins into ammonium, and
> then to nitrite, and then to nitrate, or if things go
> anaerobic, into ammonia, or nitrous oxide, and subsequently
> into N2 gas again.  In the conversion from
> plant-not-available forms of Ca, or P, or S, or B, or
> whatever, it is the biology in the soil that does the
> transformation from the rock forms of these elements into
> the biologically useful forms of these elements.
> 
> All these changes in forms of the nutrient are done BY
> ORGANISMS.  Chemical cycling is insignificant in the
> face of biologically performed nutrient cycling.
> 
> But exit from your INTERPRETATION that I'm talking about
> changing one element into another element.
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> Let's go back to what I was actually talking about.
> 
> Consider the real world.  If soils from the most
> productive ecosystems on this planet are assessed, the
> levels of soluble nutrients in those soils are typically
> extremely low.
> 
> Get a conventional soil chemistry test done on old growth
> forest soil.  Tell your agronomist the sample is from
> your lettuce field, and watch your agronomist go
> ballistic.  The fertilizer recommendation will likely
> break your bank.
> 
> But.......
> 
> How can those towering trees, the secondary understory, the
> shrub layer, and the herbaceous layer in that forest be
> alive?  According to fertilizer salesmen, there aren't
> enough nutrients in the soluble pool to provide lettuce with
> enough nutrients to grow, so how can trees, shrubs and herbs
> get enough nutrients to stay alive?  But they are
> alive, and growing, and produce more biomass on an annual
> basis than any agricultural field.
> 
> Where do those nutrients come from?  Where do those
> plants, in systems that NEVER, EVER get inorganic fertilizer
> amendments, but are the most productive of anything on the
> planet on an annual basis, get their nutrients from? 
> Don't be silly and say that none of the plant material is
> removed each year from an old growth forest.  Export
> from these systems is documentable, and significant.
> 
> So, how can natural systems remain productive for
> centuries, without addition of nutrients from outside the
> system?  In the real world, it is nutrient cycling by
> microorganisms that do the conversion from not-plant
> available forms of nutrients, into plant available forms.
> 
> I am NOT invoking transmutation.  Please, don't be
> ridiculous.
> 
> How does "Mother Nature" supply nutrients to plants? 
> No one is out there, applying inorganic fertilizer. 
> For the history of the PLANET, no one was applying inorganic
> fertilizers until about 60, maybe 65 years ago.  How
> did plants manage to get nutrients before
> that?   Plants have been around, what, a
> BILLION years?
> 
> How do systems manage to maintain constant levels of
> nutrients for plants to take up?
> 
> It ISN'T the size of the pool that is important, it is the
> RATE OF REPLENISHMENT.  If a small, or large,
> concentration is constantly replenished, then there is no
> need to be adding more.
> 
> What does the replenishment in soil?
> 
> Soil life.  The FULL food web, not just
> bacteria.  Bacteria by themselves will ultimately tie
> up all the nutrients and result in harm to the plants. 
> So, it has to be more than just bacteria....... the FULL
> foodweb.
> 
> ------------------------
> 
> The soluble pool of nutrients IN A FERTILIZER may only be 2
> percent of the total amount of that nutrient present. 
> But based on measuring P in solution (i.e., soluble), an
> assumption was made that there is 16% more fertilizer P that
> can become soluble (i.e., available) sometime in the
> future.
> 
> So these are two different pools.  The form of P that
> is in the exchangeable, not in solution, pool, is quite
> different from the form of P that is in solution.  It
> is important when PO4 is complexed with carbon, or calcium,
> or some other cation which is not in solution, versus when
> PO4 is complexed in water.
> 
> HOW do nutrients get converted from one form into the
> other?   From soluble into exchangeable, or
> total pools?  Or from total into plant available?
> 
> Yep, there are three different pools that are discussed
> quite often in the soil chemistry world, depending on which
> sort-of "school" of soil chemistry you follow.
> 
> I think of the soluble pool (dissolved in water), the
> exchangeable pool (tied up on surfaces but excluding
> organism surfaces, because extracting agents can't access
> those surfaces), and the total pool, which is EVERYTHING of
> that type of nutrient that is in the soil.
> 
> To convert from one form to another (not changing the
> element, but rather changing what the element is complexed
> with) in the chemical world, you have to have a fertilizer
> production plant (most of us don't have one of those in our
> soils, and in fact they didn't exist before, oh, 1940? 
> So, how did these changes in form happen before that?) 
> or you have to add concentrated acids to convert the
> not-soluble forms into soluble forms.
> 
> But no one is out in nature adding acid on the soil to make
> those not-available nutrients become available.  What
> is the process that nature uses to move elements from the
> complexed-in-rock-form to the
> complexed-with-organic-matter-form, to free in solution?
> How does it happen in the real world?
> 
> Microorganisms. Acids?  Bases?  Or enzymes? Which
> is more efficient and less destructive?  Thank you, but
> I'll take enzymes every time.   Stop
> destroying soil by pouring acid, or base on it.  Get
> some enzymes going.... um, which requires biology. 
> Remember, if you just put out enzymes, you can't afford an
> on-going conversion.  Instead, get organisms going,
> which GROW, as long as you feed them by having plants in the
> system and increasing OM.  Any of you growers don't
> grow plants?  Ok, so get those organisms back into the
> soil and get them working for you.
> 
> Look up the work by D.C. Coleman, P. Hendrixs, or really,
> anyone in the Soil Ecology Society.  It is the full
> food web that is required.  there's a meeting of the
> society coming up this next spring.  Find out how
> nature does it.  If we ever want to be sustainable, we
> have to pay attention to the sustainable way of doing this.
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> Now, on to the depleted soil concept.
> 
> Where is most of the P, S, Ca, or any other nutrient in a
> soil?
> 
> In the sand, silt, clay and rocks, right?  Or if you
> have a good organic soil, most of the N, P, K, Ca, S, etc
> will be in the organic matter.  Please note, before
> someone goes ballistic on me again, that I did not say that
> N was highest in the sand, silt, clay and rocks.  In
> organic matter, yes.  But you have to have that
> BIOLOGICAL process to convert atmospheric N into plant
> available forms.  No one could possibly imagine that
> the chemical fixation methods of making nitrate are
> sustainable.  But, back to the point.
> 
> Has any farmer, any grower, ever run out of sand, silt and
> / or clay in their soils?
> 
> It is a silly question, isn't it?
> 
> Of course, soil is MADE OF the basic mineral part of soil,
> i.e., sand, silt or clay.  Every year, the bedrock
> below your soil breaks down a little more, and provides new
> sand, silt and / or clay, based on what the bed rock
> is.  So, constant replenishment of the mineral forms of
> nutrients.
> 
> So, when will your soil "run out of" any nutrient you want
> to talk about?  When you run out of sand, silt or
> clay.  When bedrock is no longer there.  What is
> the probability that you will run out of the mineral forms
> of nutrient in your soil?  Will any of these things get
> used up in your life time?  Your great-great grand
> child's life?  Hasn't happened yet, so I think we are
> safe on this.  Stop worrying about do you have enough P
> in your soil.  It is there already.
> 
> How could you ever run out?
> 
> But then why do our plants show nutrient limitations?
> 
> What have we destroyed, or at least, severely harmed, in
> most soils managed by people?
> 
> Um, the things that perform the Processes of changing the
> rock P into plant available P.   The
> organisms that FIX nitrogen.  The organisms that
> convert CaPO4 into plant available Ca, or plant available
> PO4.  Or lime into plant available Ca.  Or.....
> well the list goes on forever.
> 
> Humans destroy soil life without ever realizing it is there
> working for us.  Too much tillage (hear those voices
> screaming as the organisms are crushed?), use of toxic
> levels of sulfur, or vinegar, or copper, or any pesticide
> (as beneficial organisms die from contact with these things,
> imagine their agony), compaction (most pathogens require
> reduced oxygen to to be able to out-compete the
> beneficials), and so the life we need to do nutrient cycling
> is slowly, or in some cases, not so slowly, destroyed.
> 
> Disturbances kill the organisms that perform the PROCESSES
> of making plant not-available forms into plant available
> forms.  And then our plant production systems become
> dependent on toxic chemicals to continue to grow plants.
> 
> I'm not arguing that the toxic chemical approach can't
> result in stuff we can eat.  Sure it can.  But
> look at the toll it takes on human health.  On the
> planet's health.  Where is the clean water we need to
> have?
> 
> ANY inorganic fertilizer will kill some part of the
> beneficial sets of soil life, given a concentration more
> than 100 pounds per acre.  And people are putting out
> TONS of lime (yes, it is salt), tons of gypsum (that's a
> salt too), 400 pounds or more of urea, and so on and so
> forth.  ALL pesticides kill organisms far beyond the
> range of the target organisms.  What is the effect on
> soil life of adding these toxic materials?
> 
> Please, don't throw studies at me that use human-health
> measurement methods to say toxic chemicals don't harm soil
> organisms.  Plate count methods, or growth on limited
> nutrient media in limited conditions in the lab, might be ok
> for assessing certain human pathogens, but are absolutely
> ridiculous for assessing life in the soil.  There's a
> few million species of bacteria and fungi (well, actually
> probably more like billions) that are NOT human pathogens,
> and actually suppress pathogens, but which DO NOT grow on
> microbiological media (i.e., plate counts).  So, don't
> make me laugh by quoting studies that use plate count
> methods to try to claim "these toxic chemicals don't kill
> beneficial life in soil".  Talk about chemical sales
> people trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes!
> 
> So, why not test your soil before you add anything to the
> soil, and then again, say 1 to 2 weeks after that
> application.  The soil actually has to be moist enough
> that the organisms are active and growing, so the toxic
> chemical will have an effect.
> 
> I had a chemical rep send in totally dry soil (less than 1%
> moisture, early August from the Great Basin of the US)
> before lime, or a pesticide, was applied, and then two weeks
> later, without rainfall, without water of any kind being
> applied, send in another sample.  There was no change
> in close-to-zero levels of life present before and after
> amendments were added.   He then proclaimed
> far and wide, see, these pesticides don't harm soil
> life.  Well, if you never apply water to your soil,
> then, salts or pesticides won't kill anything, including the
> target pest.  Good luck growing your plant, however.
> 
> So what did the pesticide salesman actually prove? 
> His pesticide didn't kill the disease fungi in that soil,
> but to conclude that a toxic chemical doesn't harm
> beneficial organisms?  Completely inappropriate. 
> Do testing in real conditions, not in a way that skews the
> results, as in the cases of salesmen wanting to claim that
> their toxic chemicals don' t harm soil life.
> 
> Buyer beware.
> 
> Or, get a microscope, and start looking at what is
> happening to the organisms in your own soil, to the nutrient
> cycling soil life when any material you want to add is
> actually added.
> 
> --------------
> 
> So, what has been done in BOTH conventional ag, and in
> organic ag in many (but not all) cases.  Human
> management so very often destroys the life we are dependent
> on to do things in a sustainable manner.
> 
> How can these organisms be put back?
> 
> Make good aerobic compost.  Aerobic, because when the
> normal diversity of beneficial, AEROBIC life is present,
> pathogens will be out-competed.
> 
> But people who have taken compost, with E. coli present in
> high numbers....
> 
> Wait.  It isn't compost if there's a boatload of E.
> coli present.  Something was VERY WRONG in the
> composting process if E. coli is detectable in high numbers
> after the thermal phase, or after worms have done their
> job.
> 
> That material cannot have the diversity of organisms needed
> to prevent pathogen growth.  Don't use that stuff,
> because it is not possible to get the benefits that a
> healthy food web should give you, if the composting process
> grew pathogens, instead of good guys.
> 
> Tricky?  No, not at all.  Easy to assess.
> 
> Nutrient cycling requires bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and
> benefcial nematodes to be present in minimum amounts and in
> proper balances in order to maintain constantly replenished
> soluble nutrient pools.
> 
> If one of more of those organism groups are lacking in your
> soil, then get the sulfur, copper and toxic chemicals out,
> because you are going to have disease, pest and nutrient
> limitations to plant growth that will require the
> toxics.  Not sustainable, but at least you will get a
> crop.
> 
> But, can't we change our ways, so we are sustainable?
> 
> Nature manages to grow massive amounts of plant material
> without using any toxic chemcial additions.  Just
> because humans don't yet understand how nature does
> everything, just means we haven't paid attention.
> 
> Do I know everything?  I am humbled all the time, by
> nature, by what I don't know.  There are parts of this
> nutrient cycling system I still don't understand.  But
> the answers are out there.
> 
> We just have to stop killing life in soil, especially the
> beneficial organisms in soil.  We need to pay attention
> to what those organisms are doing.
> 
> Instead of trying to dismiss them as being un-important.
> 
> 
> 
> Elaine R. Ingham
> President, Soil Foodweb Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: m_astera <michael.astera@GMAIL.COM>
> To: SANET-MG <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>;
> Elaine Ingham <soilfoodweb@AOL.COM>
> Sent: Wed, Nov 10, 2010 9:17 pm
> Subject: Re: Soil phosphate (was organic vrs conventional)
> - chemistry and extraction methods
> 
> I don't claim to be an expert on soil microorganisms but I
> do know a
> bit about soils and chemistry.
> There are five or six recognized extractants and methods
> used to
> measure phosphate in soil, not five hundred. I know of no
> labs that
> remove organic matter before grinding the sample to be
> tested.  As a
> matter of fact I frequently see test reports done on highly
> organic soil
> including compost and soilless potting mixes.  A test
> can also be
> done by dissolving a sample of organic matter in nitric
> acid.  In all
> cases, modern labs use ICP/MS (inductively coupled
> plasma/mass
> spectrometer) technology to read the total amount of
> mineral, P or
> other, in the extracted solution or the dissolved
> material.
> The choice of extractant method is often a matter of
> philosophy, some
> agronomists believing that plant roots can only produce a
> mild
> carbonic acid, others wishing to know the maximum amount of
> P that
> might be potentially available.
> 
> Fertilizer labels in the US are only allowed to list
> water-soluble
> amounts of nutrients.  A bag of soft rock phosphate
> reads 0-2-0,
> meaning it has 2% water soluble P2O5, but the actual total
> P2O5
> equivalent is usually 18-20%.  Perhaps that is the
> source of the
> confusion about what "soluble" means?  A strongly acid
> extractant
> like the Mehlich 3 at pH 2.5 will solubilize most of the P
> that would be
> potentially available under any conceivable agricultural
> conditions. If a
> strongly acid extraction shows very low levels of P, then
> there are low
> levels of P in that soil, regardless of what soil fungi may
> be present.
> Biology does not make minerals that are not present, unless
> we
> hypothesize transmutation of elements.
> Various methods can be used to make available even the last
> tiny
> dregs of P from a worn-out or depleted soil: inoculation
> with bacteria
> and fungi, Biodynamic preps, paramagnetic rock, or various
> biostimulants.  All of these can pull a decent crop
> out of a P depleted
> soil, but doing so will only deplete the soil
> further.  None of them will
> make P.
> 
> I have documented this phenomenon in Venezuela where
> biostimulants have pulled some impressive crops out of
> abused and
> depleted soils.  But the next soil test tells the
> story:  now there really
> IS nothing left. To denigrate the value of a soil's
> exchange capacity indicates
> that one does not understand its function.  Exchange
> capacity is a
> measure of the soil's ability to hold charged particles,
> e.g. the mineral
> ions that feed both the soil life and the plants. Without
> exchange
> capacity, any soluble fertility elements in the soil would
> be washed
> away with the first good rainfall or irrigation. 
> Ancient aged clays like
> those in Amazon valley soils have almost no exchange
> capacity,
> hence no ability to hold nutrients.  Adding biochar to
> such soils
> restores exchange capacity and allows these ancient soils
> to hold
> onto nutrients once again, making agriculture possible
> beyond the
> slash and burn stage or the need to reapply soluble
> chemical
> fertilizers constantly.  Without exchange capacity, a
> soil is little more
> than a medium to hold the plant upright.
> 
> Michael Astera
> http://soilminerals.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration
> here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Read the public message archives here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> Command to put in your browser's Google search box to
> search these archives:
> site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search
> string (omit the brackets)]
> List Usage & Guidelines:
> http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
>