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.
"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.