permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>]

First, I'd avoid arguing that people who disagree with you don't "get it." 
It's tempting to retort that someone who dogmatically says that aquaponics 
isn't permaculture needs a remedial PDC, too, but that's too rude for me to 
ever say!  The points Steve is making are elementary permaculture: mimic 
nature and don't work against it, avoid "artificial" systems, grow healthy 
food. I think we here are all smart enough to get them. And I agree with all 
of them. We just see their application differently. 

This is why I am continuing with this thread. Steve seems to be saying that 
it's only permaculture if it's made in the same form nature uses, and I think 
we are better guided by the processes, principles, and systems of nature 
rather than by whether a plant grows in dirt or not,  and that's a critical 
distinction (how amended can soil be before it's not "natural," anyway? 2% 
peat moss? 50%?). I don't think of permaculture as a thing, as something you 
can point to and say "This is (or is not) permaculture." If a permaculture 
design process was used to arrive at a decision, then that is a permacultural 
application. And I have seen excellent design processes that arrive at 
aquaponics as part of a permaculture system.

I need to see data showing that aquaponics food is less nutritious than 
soil-grown. I see no basis. Nature grows many plants in water. In fact, the 
controlled conditions of aquaponics should give superb nutrient uptake. 
Plants stressed by the vagaries of soil and weather usually have fewer 
nutrients than crops that grow evenly and quickly via ample access to food, 
water, and warmth.

If permaculture is about mimicking nature in the way Steve suggests, we are 
doing it all wrong. Nature does not do keyline plowing, or planting on 
contour, or zoning by frequency of use, or grafting, or hot composting, or 
worm bins, nor does it build earthworks in rational ways. Few of our methods 
mimic the form of nature. 

That's because we're designing, which is something nature does not do. 
Permaculture mimics nature's processes and systems, not the form or objects, 
so we will often arrive at forms (like aquaponics or a swale) that don't look 
like nature's form, but the processes are. Aquaponics is a superb mimic of an 
estuarine ecosystem, using the same natural processes and nutrients. 

A basic tenet is that permaculturists design for specific sites and 
conditions. Do I want to see aquaponics supplant soil-based systems? Of 
course not; I'm not an idiot. In most cases, soil-based growing is more 
appropriate than aquaponics. Do I see specific conditions when aquaponics 
fits all the criteria of permaculture design as the best method to fill 
important needs? Absolutely.

A perfect role for aquaponics in permaculture design is an urban setting 
where soil is toxic or absent, land is too dear for food growing, where 
animals can't be raised for food, in "food deserts" where all food sold in a 
region is junk (it is a privilege to be able to choose, or afford, or grow 
healthy food, one denied to many urbanites).

I've seen several great examples of this. One is the aquaponics systems in 
Will Allen's Growing Power site in Milwaukee, another the GrowHaus in Denver. 
Both of these are in impoverished areas; the GrowHaus is in a food desert, a 
polluted industrial area of low-income people of color. Their large 
aquaponics systems provide not just fresh organic food in place of the 
poisonous crap in local stores, but income opportunities for the locals, a 
social nexus, business experience, farm training, and education around food, 
agricultural traditions, social justice, whole systems, and community 
activism. 

If that's a "weakening" of permaculture rather than one of the best examples 
in the world of deep permaculture, I'm a monkey's uncle. And that is why I 
would never be dogmatic about whether an object is or is not permaculture. It 
is about where it fits in the system, and very little about what it is made 
of.

And I love what Steve Waldron wrote: 

> The great strength of the aquaponics system is that it really grabs
> people's attention and gets them interested in feedback loops and
> plant/animal synergies.  It's subversive eco-pedagogy at its best.

That is great permaculture design.

Happy New Year to all,

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com


On Dec 31, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Steve Hart wrote:

> This debate began by me using the Aquaponics Hydroponics issues as classic
> examples of one example of the whole weakening of Permaculture. Quite
> obviously, to me anyway, many just don't get it. At least my argument
> anyway.
> 
> Our challenge in Permaculture is to mimic nature and work with her not
> against it. It is not an arbitrary debate. It actually calls for greater
> respect and dilgence and perhaps more intelligence. Not all existing
> farming is artificial. But we are certainly breeding ageneration of very
> lazy caretakers who are rapidly farming off the directions on the back of a
> plastic bottle and under the doctrines of accountants and the banksters.
> 
> A and H are synthetic imitation attempts at production to the detriment of
> the consumer. Have we forgotten the experiment that lead to the movie on
> eating only Macdonalds ? "Super Size Me " ?. Then of course there is the
> Mollisonism "The Bruce Effect"
> 
> For optimal health we need connection to the real qualities of soil and
> water. Artificial systems do not offer this. We do not need artificial
> inputs either to develop  best water and soil. But, a far greater
> understanding of what exists in nature and all its realms in order to
> develop patterns and processes and procedures to get there.  If one can not
> or will not respect this reality then its time for another Permaculture
> Design Course by a tutor that will explore and instill  these realities in
> all the teachings. ...Steve Hart
> 
> Seems to me there is a hell of a lot more learning and realisation needed
> for this debate to progress anywhere...Steve Hart
> 
> 
> On 31 December 2013 13:00, <permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
>