permaculture farming economically viable?

I'm new here and very new to permaculture. But I do have the perspective of having farmed for 13 years, an organic grain farm in NE Montana. If the definition of farming is selling the product you grow or raise on your land, then I would say that for most farmers, permaculture will not be viable. The reason is not because the land cannot be productive, but it is a matter of location. Our farm was very isolated. The nearest town with a Walmart was 75 miles away, and that town had a population of 12,000. So who is going to buy all our hand harvested produce and eggs etc? We could sell some, here and there to neighbors, but the nearby towns didn't even have a farmer's market, and if it did, it would be a novelty, because the old folks eat the way they eat (everything white flour and sugar) and the young folks move away. But grain....well you can load that up on a truck and ship it anywhere you want. Also, very few farmers own their own land free and clear. We own farmland, but we own it with my husband's brother and sister. We could not develop a permaculture and continue to pay them rent. We own a farm house free and clear, but we don't own the land it sits on; it belongs to his dad, who was hard enough to convince to go organic, much less permaculture. Most farmers own some land of  their own, own some land with siblings, and rent the rest. We tried to get some land to rent to expand our organic farm, but were told flat out that the only way this guy would rent to us was if we gave up organic.  We moved away and bought some land near one of the bigger cities in Montana, but my dream of having a market garden has vanished. Now we live on a large city lot. But I can still permaculture that!

katchmoleen, you bring up an important point: proximity to market.

years ago, I was offered a job running a 35-acre farm just about any way I wanted.  the only requirement was that it be profitable within a reasonable time frame.  I was fresh out of a permaculture design course and really excited to start practicing this stuff.  being offered 35 acres and a patron to fund the whole thing seemed like a pretty excellent opportunity.

I ended up turning the offer down in favor of my own family's four acres.  the 35 acres was just too far from any population: I couldn't stomach trucking any food I produced eighty miles to the nearest market.

fortunately, it's possible to do a lot more with a lot less land than most folks realize, so we can overcome the added expense of land that's closer to people but growing on smaller parcels.

and for the farmers who already have a lot of land far from population: intensive grazing, as cory8570 mentioned, has been shown to be very profitable and downright benign compared to growing commodity grain.

Some great articles about how to make money with permaculture. It really is endless. Just tapping into the waste stream in your neighborhood/city/rural zone alone offers so much potential.

The two CSAs in Tampa Bay I know of are definitely profitable and they don't even use that much permaculture; they could grow a lot more with less expense if they did.  There are a variety of local food movements putting farmers to work via sales to restaurants, farmer's markets, straight to consumer, etc, that are keeping small family farms in business. A successful action with urban ag is to sell to high end restaurants who love the local organic angle and like heirloom and exotic veggies and herbs and pay top dollar.  Perhaps not a long term sustainable solution, but who knows? There may always be people willing to exchange more energy for really nicely prepared food and atmosphere.

Here's a web site to list your products: http://www.localharvest.org/

Below is an article about a UN study:

Cory Brennan
permacultureguild.us


Right to Food: “Agroecology outperforms large-scale industrial farming
for global food security,” says UN expert

http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10178

BRUSSELS (22 June 2010) – “Governments and international agencies
urgently need to boost ecological farming techniques to increase food
production and save the climate,” said UN Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, while presenting the findings at
an international meeting on agroecology held in Brussels on 21 and 22
June.

Along with 25 of the world’s most renowned experts on agroecology, the
UN expert urged the international community to re-think current
agricultural policies and build on the potential of agroecology.

“One year ago, Heads of States at the G20 gathering in Italy committed
to mobilizing $22 billion over a period of three years to improve
global food security. This was welcome news, but the most pressing
issue regarding reinvestment in agriculture is not how much, but how,”
Olivier De Schutter said .

“Today, most efforts are made towards large-scale investments in land
– including many instances of land grabbing – and towards a ‘Green
Revolution’ model to boost food production: improved seeds, chemical
fertilisers and machines,” the Special Rapporteur remarked. “But scant
attention has been paid to agroecological methods that have been shown
to improve food production and farmers’ incomes, while at the same
time protecting the soil, water, and climate.”

The widest study ever conducted on agroecological approaches (Jules
Pretty, Essex University, UK) covered 286 projects in 57 developing
countries, representing a total surface of 37 million hectares: the
average crop yield gain was 79%. Concrete examples of ‘agroecological
success stories’ abound in Africa.

In Tanzania, the Western provinces of Shinyanga and Tabora used to be
known as the ‘Desert of Tanzania’. However, the use of agroforestry
techniques and participatory processes allowed some 350,000 hectares
of land to be rehabilitated in two decades. Profits per household rose
by as much as USD 500 a year. Similar techniques are used in Malawi,
where some 100,000 smallholders in 2005 benefited to some degree from
the use of fertilizer trees.
“With more than a billion hungry people on the planet, and the climate
disruptions ahead of us, we must rapidly scale up these sustainable
techniques,” De Schutter said. “Even if it makes the task more
complex, we have to find a way of addressing global hunger, climate
change, and the depletion of natural resources, all at the same time.
Anything short of this would be an exercise in futility.”
The experts gathering in Brussels identified the policies that could
develop agroecological approaches to the scale needed to feed the
world in 2050. They based their work on the experiences of countries
that have pro-agroecology policies – such as Cuba or Brazil – as well
as on the successful experiences from international research centres
such as the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, and on the
programmes of La Via Campesina, the transnational peasant movement,
which runs agroecology training programmes.
“We can scale up these sustainable models of agriculture, and ensure
that they work for the benefit of the poorest farmers. What is needed
now is political will to move from successful pilot projects to
nation-wide policies,” the UN Special Rapporteur said. In conclusion,
he announced that he would ask the Committee on World Food Security –
what should become in time the ‘Security Council’ for food security –
to work during its October session on the policy levers to scale up
agroecology. “This is the best option we have today. We can’t afford
not to use it.”

(*) The international seminar “The contribution of agroecological
approaches to meet 2050 global food needs” was held in Brussels on 21
and 22 June. Convened under the auspices of the mandate of the UN
Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Prof. Olivier De Schutter, it
brought together agroecology experts, decision makers at national and
international levels, and representatives of farmer organizations.

I'm new here and have only been lurking for a day, but the thing I wanted to discuss fits into this thread on the economics of large-scale permaculture, so I thought I'd just plunge right in...

The general question is whether or not permaculture on land of (say) 200 acres can, once established, create near self-sufficiency for 200 adults living there, and do it with labor on the order of 10-20 hours/week average per adult?  By near self-sufficiency I mean they get almost all their daily material needs except a small number of things, for example electricity and staples crops like wheat and soy that are very cheap in the culture at large.

The reason I ask is this: If the answer is "yes" then I think large-scale permaculture could occur as an alternative mode of land development.  Forget getting bank loans, venture capital would be interested.  The reasoning is like this: If I could buy 200 acres of agricultural lands at, say $2000/acre, and spend 5 years paying workers to create this type of permaculture oasis, then what I've done is add considerable value to that land as a place for people to live.  Namely, if we build into the permaculture plan 100 homesites, who wouldn't want to buy in at (say) $12,000 and build themselves a dwelling?    What they get in exchange is a lifetime of material needs met for an average of 10-20 hours a week of work (assuming 2 adults per home) in a beautiful ready-made oasis. 

The footprint for the homes does not have to be very large since it is already a garden everywhere else.  Suddenly building a home is not so daunting- so what if you live in a yurt for a couple of years, doing your weekly labor while you build your home?  You've got everything you need to live while doing it.  Also, the things that are not provided, like electricity and grains, are cheap and could be earned with relatively little extra work- for example, a retired couple with a modest fixed income may simply pay others to build their home or do their share of the work.

Of course this all depends on the answer to the original question- namely, can large-scale permaculture create a nearly self-sufficient lifestyle for the people living there, with relatively little labor to maintain it?  I think having to work only 10-20 hours a week would be a major attraction for people.  Also, I think cooperation would be a lot easier in this scenario than if everyone is overextended and stressed out working their tails off trying to make something happen from scratch.

If the answer is "yes", then when I do the math, it seems to work out as a viable way to invest money in land development.

There have been several attempts at similar things.  Mollison talks about the Mondragon (sp?) coops in the Basque region in one of the audios floating around the net.  There are the earthship guys out in Taos, and various other intentional communities around the world.

The issue is always the same.  It's very difficult to get 2 people to agree on how to do anything, much less 200 - no matter how enticing a deal you think you are offering. 

Not impossible though.

sounds like an argument in favor of many small independent outfits cooperating when they see fit to.

one substantial advantage to supporting one person on one acre instead of 200 people on 200 acres is that it's so much simpler to buy one acre than buying 200 and dividing it.  there are certainly projects that would work much better if there were larger parcels of common land to work with, but the complications might be too much to overcome.

big projects get unwieldy.  what initially seems more efficient ends up requiring a lot more management.

I've heard some criticism of the Mondragón Corporation along those very lines.  it's just too big.  I've also heard that Mondragón is pretty much the only game in town: if you're not with them, there's really no room for you.  as much as I like the idea of worker cooperatives, I really don't like that aspect of this one.  the libertarian tradition that was once so vibrant all over Spain was lost somewhere along the way.

tel jetson wrote:
one substantial advantage to supporting one person on one acre instead of 200 people on 200 acres is that it's so much simpler to buy one acre than buying 200 and dividing it.  there are certainly projects that would work much better if there were larger parcels of common land to work with, but the complications might be too much to overcome.

Actually, the same question applies at any scale- 1 acre or 200 acres.  Can permaculture create an end result where the people living on the land can make a living with 10-20 hours a week of maintainance work?  In terms of a viable market for land developers to become permaculturists, it doesn't matter if that's 1 person on 1 acre or 200 people on 200 acres.

But if the problem at one acre is that there's still a lot of work to maintain it due to the small size, and the problem at 200 is that it's too big to manage for mutual benefit, then, to play the devil's advocate, isn't permaculture being a bit over-blown?  Isn't a major selling point of permaculture the idea that if you work with nature's diversity in an intelligent way, nature will do most of the work of maintaining itself for you?  To my ears that sure sounds like, "So you have less work to do yourself."  If the end result is about the same amount of work, just a different kind, then I'm disillusioned with it. If nature can't create less work for us, then why not keep plugging away at technology?

Shay,

my own experience leads me to believe that either scale could very effectively reduce labor, but I've only seen it work toward the smaller side: ten acres and less.  for what it's worth, I think your 10-20 hours of work could be even lower, supposing there's no overwhelming mortgage to pay.

I believe that the main obstacle to success at your 200-acre scale is a cultural one.  there are plenty of examples in human history of folks cooperating successfully at that level and larger, but the emphasis on individuality and independence in the United States and elsewhere has done a lot to undermine our ability to work together free of authority.

as far as I can tell, the inefficiencies I mentioned previously are a consequence of authoritarian models, not of larger scale.  maybe the ticket is for folks to trust each other to make wise decisions instead of demanding consensus before any action is taken.  again, some cultural change is probably necessary.  or really excellent recruitment and screening.

tel jetson wrote:
my own experience leads me to believe that either scale could very effectively reduce labor, but I've only seen it work toward the smaller side: ten acres and less.  for what it's worth, I think your 10-20 hours of work could be even lower, supposing there's no overwhelming mortgage to pay.

This is key!  It is extremely difficult to be financially viable when you're debt.  Without going to far into the math and statistics, most people (including fictional people - businesses) are broke.  As a result, they are not financially viable in any way. 

However, in economics terms if you actually own capital goods (things that make other things) like land and trees, then the cash flow from the sale of those consumer goods doesn't have this enormous obstacle of debt to overcome.

Permaculture is even more advantaged because as we steward living systems, they get better and better over time and produce more and more for us with a fixed capital investment and a little labor over time.

examples similar to what you're proposing exist.  there's one development in particular in California that I can't recall the name of just now, but I believe it's been around for 25 years or so.  it was a spectacular success, but was never replicated for one reason: once folks moved in, they never left.

the real estate industry wasn't thrilled because there was no opportunity to resell the homes.  the mortgage industry wasn't thrilled for the same reason.  a 400% return on investment sounds great, but if you're undercutting the long-term viability of those fairly powerful industries, chances are good that you'll encounter significant resistance.

I don't mention this to discourage, just to better prepare you, because I believe your idea is a good one and is likely to succeed if you get the right folks involved.

Personally I think 1 acre homesites on 100 acres total is probably too dense a population to be sustainable.  You need to make sure you have enough watershed to provide water for those 100 families.  And the density would vary depending on what region you're building in - you would want to have much more land per person in a dry climate, for instance.  This doesn't mean the homes should be more spread out, but there should probably be a lot more buffering land around the settlement.  In any ecosystem you need to make sure you can absorb all waste.  Putting too many people on too small a parcel could cause problems.

I think the community tel jetson mentions is Village Homes in Davis, CA. http://www.villagehomesdavis.org/

Ludi wrote:
I think the community tel jetson mentions is Village Homes in Davis, CA. http://www.villagehomesdavis.org/

that's the one.  looks like 225 homes on 70 acres.  not an exemplar of every aspect of permaculture design, but not too shabby, either.

I raise one thing and I raise it well .. grass alfalfa hay. Grass is fiber and keeps animals warm at night. I use gated pipe and corrugates .. burn and clean out waste water ditches .. my water into the waste water ditch runs clear and I don't have any settlement ponds .. I use no fertilizer but do apply potassium .. my crop feeds all my horses and goats .. my leased twenty pays for my water and taxes .. my hay pays for my tractor, baler, corrugater, fuel, repairs and rake.

In turn I get to live on forty acres in a house that I designed and was the general contractor .. I wake up each morning in my "own floor plan." If you don't .. you don't know what I'm talking about. I have solar tubes and on a moonlit night I never turn on a light. My walls are ten inches thick and the R value is so high it can't be measured. I can see the seven highest mountain peaks in Idaho every morning. Coffee on the porch in the pinks. I threw the TV out and have never had a TV in this house. We read books and I learned to talk to my wife .. scared her to death .. we talk a lot more and have a closer relationship since we started "this way of life."

Something I have seen allusions to in this thread, but would like to see addressed directly, is how to start out.  I mean, where I live, land is not overly expensive, but you would still probably need a mortgage.  Then there is the cost of trees.  And seeds, and tillers, if you were going to pay for the first few years on peas and carrots, but these are relatively low-value crops, per pound, compared to, say, hazelnuts.  You would need pretty deep pockets to finance such a project for the first 5 or so years before the trees started to produce.  Sure, outside work is always an option, but what can you do to maximize the percentage of income that comes from the farm?

Economics is not economically viable. 

badkitty wrote:
Something I have seen allusions to in this thread, but would like to see addressed directly, is how to start out.  I mean, where I live, land is not overly expensive, but you would still probably need a mortgage.  Then there is the cost of trees.  And seeds, and tillers, if you were going to pay for the first few years on peas and carrots, but these are relatively low-value crops, per pound, compared to, say, hazelnuts.  You would need pretty deep pockets to finance such a project for the first 5 or so years before the trees started to produce.  Sure, outside work is always an option, but what can you do to maximize the percentage of income that comes from the farm?

That would be your situation with any kind of farming, it is expensive to start.  Personally I would not buy land on a mortgage if I could avoid it, in fact, my husband and I bought our place for cash though we built our cheap house on a mortgage.  We had a couple good years in a well-paying industry though we lived in an expensive place (Los Angeles) by being extremely frugal we were able to save the money for the land in about 4 years ($65000).  It took virtually all our savings to move and we have operated on a cash basis except for the mortgage (we do use credit cards but we pay them off each month).  We have a home business, we're not farmers for a living.  Some things you might not need for a permaculture farm, such as tractors, tillers, etc, fertilizer and other chemicals.  You might be able to sell a higher value product such as grass-fed meats in addition to vegetables.  See "Pastured Poultry Profits" and other books by Joel Salatin. His website:  http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ ; "The New Organic Grower" by Eliot Coleman is an excellent comprehensive book about how to start and operate a small vegetable farm.  Coleman's website:  http://www.fourseasonfarm.com/index.html

badkitty wrote:
Something I have seen allusions to in this thread, but would like to see addressed directly, is how to start out.  I mean, where I live, land is not overly expensive, but you would still probably need a mortgage.  Then there is the cost of trees.  And seeds, and tillers, if you were going to pay for the first few years on peas and carrots, but these are relatively low-value crops, per pound, compared to, say, hazelnuts.  You would need pretty deep pockets to finance such a project for the first 5 or so years before the trees started to produce.  Sure, outside work is always an option, but what can you do to maximize the percentage of income that comes from the farm?

lots of folks are advocating leasing land while you get things going, which can be a lot more affordable than a mortgage.  working out a lease-to-own, or lease with option to buy arrangement might be in order.

yukkuri_kame wrote:
Economics is not economically viable. 

right there with you.  just don't tell paul.

  i havent read the entire thread yet, but im more in a mood to jump around. i will get back to it, seems like a good one....


  Somethings that i would like to ad though if they werent brought up before.....

  i worked on a farm from the ages of 14-21. this was in ohio. this was a 250 acre farm that used to be strawberries but has since diversified into sweet corn dominantly and most other common garden veggies. In this part of ohio it USED to be all farming and wasnt to far from amish country where it was still common, but most of the family farms in the area are long gone a generation ago. so clearly the farmer i worked for did something right. Anyway.... he farmed it for the most part in what youd currently call the "conventional" way. Looking back and applying what i know of permie methods and breeding, and the like, i see that his profit margins could of been multiplied greatly.

  he spent thousands a year on seeds. So simply saving seeds for most if not all of the crops we grew, wouldnt of added to much work, and could of had better adapted plants actually. (besides arguably sweet corn, where hybrid vigor can be great) He also spent hordes of money on irrigation. He paid us to move the pipes around all the time, and he also paid to run the lines all the time. Even only doing a fraction of permie methods, and still irrigating he could of saved 10s of thousands a year.

  his profits amounted to 25-35k a year, after paying his workers all his bills, and his mortgage. this included subsidies he got which were considerable but MUCH smaller then what he could of saved on seed and better water management alone. If you get into fertilizers and the 50 unfarmed wooded acres he had, i couldnt lay out exact numbers but it would easily be 60k possibly 100k based on my estimates. these numbers were all back in 1999 and earlier so these same expenses would be MUCH MUCH higher now, and the farm has indeed since failed. allow it was his daughter running it, but still she followed his methods, and did just fine for a few years after he was gone.

so my point being that I can safely say this particular farm would of went from slightly profitable to very profitable back when i worked there, and went from bankrupt to nearly as profitable now. (wages increased other expenses would be similar, depending on whether or not he went the extra steps to eliminate herbicides and pesticides as well, which in pesticides case can be growing them on site)

 

  as far as getting land itself. there are other possibilities as well. you could get a smaller amount of land, and depending on the limits of the area, either make some money to pay the land off, or mortgage more. Or if its a harsher area set up your longer term conditions to produce later, and then use the money in a few years to expand. It could be a slow way to build up to having a large amount of land to farm, but it is a workable option. Possibly as time goes on, and you prove your skill on the small piece of land loans could be more feasible???

  another option could be moving to a place where land is cheaper. many of these places of course are harsher, and it may take longer to work it into production, but this is the path Ive gone, and its actually very rewarding. unless i got a large spot and had cattle, theres not much you could do immediately in my particular area, without irrigating, or trucking in materials. But Im collecting fruit trees, and Ive got dozens of varieties for many fruit types, and feel confident i will find more then a few that will grow here that do not need sprayed, and other similar things picking the right varieties can thwart. this has been rather expensive honestly, but I will be propagating varieties as they prove themselves, for my orchards and giving or selling to others. along with breeding certain ones. if you live or move to a place where things are all ready proven, and they are not patented varieties, you could buy a single trees, and single rootstock, and start your orchard like that if money is a major issue. also there are places to get trees much cheaper if your buying in bulk, even custom grafts.

    the third option I see is a new legitimate homesteaders movement!!! Im serious to. Look at the economy... look at our shabby jobs outlook. the calls for more local ag, and more organic foods. Theres also the desertification fight which with the right methods, these concepts can help thwart, better filling the water tables while growing useful things.... this could be the exact shot in the arm this country needs!!!

Interesting, Permaculture Homesteading wouldn't have to be large parcels either, could take place in urban areas.

Badkitty, why don't you look at things from another direction? Why don't you look at your market FIRST?

Where will you be selling? What do you think will sell? How much can you charge for it?

HEN ask can i be raised and harvested in a permaculture way?

I did this, before I go ill. I figured that wih thornless blackberries and honey that I could possibly break even, and then I would add another crop (Which would be picked at a different  time)n to give me a profit. Unfortunately I go sick right after I got my land, but that is a defferent story.

My market would have been those people who sold fruits and vegetables from stands: I had already moved some that way and I could not raise more in my back yard. I had no problem leaving them berries on consignment. I could pick $20 of berries an hour, and with transportation costs that would have given me....... well, a start anyways!

I had a market, a product, and I figured the costs. I knew that blackberries could be raised with permaculture. Land costs were $200 a month for 5 acres. At the time I could net $1.50 a pound for honey, and each hive should give me 30 pounds.

MARKETING-MARKETING-MARKETING!

The issue with looking at the market first is that the market can change a lot in the amount of time it takes for trees to come into production.  Blackberries would be quicker, for sure, and honey, but if you are talking about apples or hazelnuts or whatever, you're looking at 5+ years for commercial production, which means a lot of twiddling your thumbs, waiting to be able to produce anything much, and then hoping the market still exists, and that there aren't a ton of other people who are also now trying to sell what YOU planted.

This is not so much about me - I bought land years ago, and have been steadily planting trees as I can afford to, with a good outside job and no expectations of income from the land.  But for folks who don't have the good outside job, or who can't afford to wait for trees to bear, it would be nice to see some nuts-and-bolts of how to get started.

badkitty wrote:
for folks who don't have the good outside job, or who can't afford to wait for trees to bear, it would be nice to see some nuts-and-bolts of how to get started.

Eliot Coleman's book "The New Organic Grower" gives complete instructions on how to start and manage a small vegetable farm of about 2 acres.

Five Acres and Independence by Maurice Kains. Lots of detailed info pertaining to establishment of perennial crops like asparagus, strawberries, and grapes. Coleman focuses more on rapid succession harvests of annuals (which there's nothing wrong with). Just good to have both short and long-term plans.

The first step with any farm/homestead should be to feed yourself.  After you have determined where your farm house will be sited, start prepping your kitchen garden, then start building your home.  Your (annual) kitchen garden with canning/dehydrating/freezing/storing will keep your family in food all year long while you begin establishing your long term perennial forest.

Fruit/nut trees & brambles will take 3-5 years to produce.  Strawberry plants are productive about 3 years.  Plant them around your trees.  When the trees have matured, the strawberries will be ready to dig up, having had fed you and a cash crop while the trees were getting established.

It all takes time.  Having annuals planted will help carry you over while everything else is being established.  Many annuals will also bring in a cash crop each summer/autumn.  It never hurts to have a little extra cash going into the lean months of winter.

The issue of viability of permaculture is still down to defining what you expect out of it and then planning in the process.
I looked around and found a house on ½ acre that a ten year mortgage will be 310 a month.  I am basically paying only 50% of what rent would be for an apartment. This is a Fanny Mae repo but I can work out enough sweat equity to make it work.
The USDA says that a family of four needs $600 a month to live conservatively out of a grocery store.
Basically from day one of my living in the house I am netting $300 a month over what I would be paying for rent.  So over the next few years, if I can get a viable food forest going along with some poultry I can reduce the cost of groceries. As someone told me in another post each dollar not spent is a dollar profit.
To me part of permaculture is to scale your project to the needs. That means to limit your outlay to reduce overhead.
As was stated above the Permaculture is a design process. I planned many years ago to have a pension prior to age 40. I retired from the military when I was 39 and now I am 45. I have a small pension that will allow me to quite working and concentrate on my place if I chose to do so in the future. So with prior planning I have created a means to allow me to live the way I want.

Anonymous wrote:Re: Sepp Holzer's farm in Austria there's an excellent paper based on his model at www.ecovoice.com called

Modelling of a Permaculture Farm in a Cold Region of Austria with Consideration of Nutrient Flows, Labor Balances and Economy. by Trondl and Freyer

Very readable.

i am very interested in reading this paper, but folowing the link and googling the title showed nothing that i could find (which could very well be my error)
anyone have a link that works or a pdf file or something??

Paul and Jocelyn review the movie, Ingredients in this podcast podcast 119

They talk about farm income.