Freddy Happy

William Bronson wrote:Woodchips?
They are generally free and good for the soil.
Free range chickens to patrol for weeds.

So would you eliminate all grass and replace it with woodchips, and let chickens pick all the weeds.
Couldn't this result in a muddy situation, stuck cars, chicken poop,... some things people with a less permaculture mindset would mind... ?

Hi all!

Does anyone have ideas of a high density campground for tents, caravans and motorhomes?
Currently it's on grass, but we're looking for something more sustainable. Climate: cold and wet winters, mild summers.
Thanks!

Just wondering, people are making a fuss about a lot of insects or MO who eat from your fruit / vegetables.
When they only eat a little, or only leave whites spots, such as in thrips with leaks, does it makes the plant inedible?
So, are there certain rules wether to eat the fruit / vegetable or not (beside the obvious ones ;-) )
Thanks, this information could give a whole new direction to so called 'pests', and hopefully we'll be more inclined to share our food a little bit.

Tim Bermaw wrote:Some things just don't scale — permaculture is one of them.

I have the sad feeling that Tim Bermaw might be totally right in everything he said in this topic.

Maureen Atsali wrote:I have found it REALLY hard to employee living, breathing people.

We've met people in Nicaragua and other places that complain about the same thing, almost the exact same story. It almost seems that the only way to do it right, is by doing it 100% yourself... a big matter of education and vision.
Do you think that that might be the answer? That we'd have to throw overboard the economic efficiency and let personal motivation be the driven factor? It's a fact that no other human being will perform unheard feats of endurance unless it is for (his own) goal he/she wishes to accomplish...
Or would it be possible to have a collective goal? It never has been that effective...
Good luck Maureen! (Maybe you have to train monkeys? ;-) )

Is there anyone on Permies that makes a decent living solely on the sale of permaculture produce without working themselves to death? If yes, we, and maybe the future of agriculture, can learn a lot from you.

The big majority of people I ever heard of making really good money with permaculture is by: writing books, making DVD's, pyramid schemes, permaculture design courses, $100 visited farm tours, $2.500 weekly stays, B&B,... but never actually by selling their vegetables.
Those who do manage to live by selling permaculture vegetables are only able to do so by asking 'too much money' that the average Joe/Jane can pay for.

We've met permaculturists that made a good living, but they didn't had to pay for the land, otherwise it would've been impossible.

Masanobu Fukuoka managed to have worked out a great system, but not a lot people have successfully copied his methods.
What he'd probably tell us: We have to work together with nature, observe and not 'use' nature.
If every farmer in the world would found a similar system like Fukuoka's, permaculture food would be cheaper then 'standard' food, better and would support a double population of the earth.
Isn't it happening because nobody wants to work on the fields anymore? The only way to have people on the fields again would be by 'asking money from overstressed people to get back in touch with nature and let them do the job'? This is how things seem to be nowadays...
Or isn't it happening because for every piece of land other rules apply and one has to spend 25 years 'learning' nature? Like he did/says?

I think that one of the only way to convince the masses would be: sell permaculture products cheaper then market prices, Fukuoko did that.
But, a lot of permaculturists (or better: permavulture-ists) could go bankrupt when all the above permaculture by-products would be demystified and they have to rely on their vegetable sale -at normal rates.

The checkerboard approach of one strip of grain, corn,... might be a certain improvement nature-wise but it isn't a "real" polyculture, it isn't a 'natural system'.

End of petroleum, the big players do'n care because they'll cut more rainforests to grow fuel or they'll build more nuclear reactors.

Some people talk about GMO's, it's a common statement in permaculture circles that non-open source GMO's are evil, but is all this based on true evidence? Are GMO's that evil?
What if we'd develop plants that are nutritious, good, enriches the soil, attracts wildlife and that are harvestable by machines. Or wait, does it already exist? Maybe Corylus avellana could replace wheat...

Maybe we'll have to wait a couple of more years to have robots almost as smart as humans that do the polyculture harvest? But what will humanity do when every single job will be performed by a robot? Grow food to find peace? (This question ofcourse is a whole different, but very interesting topic)
Or we'll have to convince people, better: market, that it's better for our mental and fysical health to be in a lush polyculture surrounding, in nature, rather than watching facebook in their office jobs.

There are a lot of answers that use presumptions that aren't really proven...
So, I'm not sure wether I missed it or not, but there probably isn't a real unambiguous answer?  what's the perfect balance between being economically viable and good for nature?

I wonder what the permaculture guru's would have to say to this question...
If governments would let a group of agri-visionairs come together and decide about the future about big-scale agriculture, with making the least compromises to endanger our 'luxurious' lifestyle, what would be decided...

Hi!
Thanks so much for all the interesting insights!

So the big conclusion is: polyculture, trees producing the most of our bulk calories as wall as fruit, perennials and at last some annuals.
Closed loop system, <almost> no input needed.

The thing is, that 99% of the permaculture practitioners do it on small scale, and I somewhat have the feeling that there isn't really a guideline, manual for "professional big-time farmers".
If I'd tell an 'on average' (Belgian) farmer: check out permaculture, they say: oh, I have to build a herb spiral, a raised bed, blablabla,... they somewhat have the feeling that permaculture is only applicable for the enthusiasts, the hobbyists,... They don't find the hard data, the hard evidence why they should switch.

I'd love to, and it's my personal goal, to promote a more sustainable agriculture, permaculture to the BIG commercial players: Closed loops systems, no chemicals,... but at the moment the most materials, books about permaculture talk too much about concepts, wonderful ideas, giving a part away to people and wildlife, be community-ish, all wonderful things, but it won't convince them.

The small people can of course change the world, but the BIG players can maybe change it even more.
What the core of the survivalist farmers, and yes, they have hard times to survive, want to hear is the following:

LIST OF NEEDED PROOF:
- Permaculture can make more money and these documents / scientific papers / masters in the CONVENTIONAL field PROVE it!
- In zone X, this altitude, attitude, this kind of soil, this orientation,...: this is the 'master plan' I have to follow in order to simply install a commercially viable sustainable system.
- It is a proof system, year after year they can save money, are safe against disasters, resilient, and again MAKE MONEY!!!

Anyone has these? Thanks ;-) We need hard scientific data on green as in greens and green as in dollars.
Greets,
Luigi

Thanks for all the responses!

So, the future should be to get small again, have lots of polycultures, etc?
The thing is... farmers in Belgium for example have an average of about 60 acres per farm, small comparing to the US with about 338 acres per farm.
How would these farmers legally and practically go from an average of 1,5 people working per farm, monoculture, huge investments in let's say grain equipment, change to a 60-acres polyculture, which will probably need more manpower.
How would the output of irregular crops and yields be integrated in the industrial food factory, or should we abandon that and only have farmers markets left, eat what's ripe.
A possible problem could be that people won't like to eat only preserved food, almost no fresh food during winter. Should we abandon having bananas in cold climates or should we embrace globalization? Or should we shift to the indoor growing of, let's say bananas? Where then should the energy come from? Nuclear, "renewable",...?

Here, there's a saying that nobody wants to work on the fields, first they "imported" people from neighboring countries, now they don't want to work on the fields anymore and we "have to import" people from even further.
There is of course a certain stupidity in gouvernements paying loads of money to bureaucracy, people "are supposed to" prefer sitting at a desk whole day. They could change policies to be more food-oriented then numbers oriented.
But we can't deny there is a certain need for numbers, especially in cities. Also, how should gouvernements then interact with agriculture, being supportive but not turning in communism?

An interesting saying I once heard, something about: "A civilisation will fail as long as our foods are from annuals"
Should we shift to getting the most of our necessary callories and essential food elements from trees and other perennials? A no till future, at worst the Yeoman plow kind of thing?
But are we going to change centuries of food culture? Grain, corn, rice, to nuts. Sugar from cane to sugar from fruit?

I'd like to have a discussion about the future of worldwide commercial mass farming.
Right now we have mass production, machines harvesting, mass input of fertilizers and pesticides.
Is there a way to do a transition from earth-, nature- and people-destroying agriculture to a closed loop system.

This is the future according to 'normal' standards, what do you think?


How should the worldwide food supply look like in 50 years? Realistically (kind of )