mos6507 McCoy

There is already a small but growing industry for renting goats to clear brush.  Why this sort of thing is catching on, and so many other things we could do to be more sustainable hasn't, I don't know.  Maybe the novelty-factor.  Plus goats are cute.

In our area we have a big problem with Winter Moth.  It completely defoliated a weeping cherry in our property.  If there is something good at eating these things, I'd like to know.

joshthewhistler wrote:
Far from consensus! I had decided, after reading a variety of sources that the consensus was now that honey locust does fix nitrogen, just doesn't have root nodules.

Not to beat a dead horse, but is there any biological precedence for that?  Aren't nodules the prerequisite evidence?

This is one thing that I actually support when it comes to GMO.  If honey locust is not an n-fixer, it's probably some accidental genetic mutation that turned it off, which could be turned back on again.  There have been some key developments lately in isolating the genes that control n-fixation.

Ludi wrote:
Do you know what's the maximum latitude they will grow at?

Considering what's going on with global warming, I'd say that's a moving target.

I just did a google search and it says they will grow all the way up to zone 6 which I find hard to believe.  I'm in zone 6.  There has to be some other environmental factors that constrain it to the south.

There is this tension between the utopian ideals of permaculture and the reality of life in a world of money.  This tension plays itself out in the business plan of the permaculture designer who agrees to monetize his knowledge in order to keep his standard of living above that of a 3rd world subsistence farmer.

The only way permaculture can tell its adherents that they can have their cake and eat it too is if permaculture forever exists as a small subculture within the larger tableau of the industrial growth economy, since if (as the thread suggests) everyone followed suit (assuming there is enough land, which there isn't) then it would destroy the economy as we know it and render us all 3rd world subsistence farmers.  We may be well fed, sustainable subsistence farmers, but we'd probably also not have the internet any longer or much of anything else above the level of Amish technology.

Considering that I think we're headed for A World Made By Hand anyway because of limits to growth, I would see such a world has half full rather than half empty, but from the vantage point of permaculture as an ideology, it opens itself up to accusations of hypocrisy by selling itself on the basis of permaculture designer being a profitable career move.

I mean, I'm all for pragmatism, and I was close to taking the PDC over the summer.  I actually built a victory garden for one of my neighbors and have thought seriously about the idea of making a career out of edible landscaping.  But I am also painfully aware of the difference between pursuing profit in a capitalistic system and modeling a truly sustainable and equitable society, which would probably be more of a "gift" economy.

machinemaker wrote:
If you were not on said piece of land wouldn't there be "wild" animals there? To me to say that I am going to live on a segment of land and not have animals is just as ridiculous as saying that I am going to raise just corn on a piece of land and think that this style of monoculture is in balance with nature.

Depends on what you're objective is.  If you want to look at it from the vantage point of ecological purity, domesticated livestock are no substitute for the native animals that predated human interference in the ecosystem.

What do you see today in, let's say, a suburban habitat?  Small animals in the form of birds and rodents.  If you're lucky, maybe a raccoon, possum, or skunk.  These are animals that have adapted themselves to tolerate or even thrive proximity with human development.  Go out into the "boonies" and suddenly you see deer, moose, bear, and mountain lions.

So you have to ask yourself whether you're talking about animals on the homestead that have a close symbiotic relationship with humans, either by design or not, or you're talking about "zone 5" (i.e. wilderness).  Two different things.

I'm also trying to stack plants of the same type in different growing forms.  There are actually three types of blueberries.  Lowbush, half-high, and fullsize.  In the front of the house I have lowbush and a single half-high (which was chosen so that it doesn't obscure the front window).  On the other side I have dwarf lingonberries backed by regular sized lingonberries and further still I have currants/gooseberries which get a couple feet tall.  This forms a wedge-shape where each layer will get its share of afternoon sunlight without shading out what's behind it.  I am also edging both of these with heather plants.  It makes sense to kind of recreate a heath polyculture.

I gave a mesquite tree to my mom in Florida, but it won't grow in northern latitudes.

While there is still some dispute, the consensus is that honey locust is not a nitrogen fixer.  Why any member of the fabales family wouldn't be a nitrogen-fixer is beyond me, but if it's true, the tree can't be used in the same context as n-fixer nurse trees as they will suck more nutrients out of the soil.

Permaculture makes money already--by offering Permaculture courses.

"Property taxes aren't waived because someone is doing good things on their land."

I really think if there's something Permaculture should do at the level of government, it's update land trusts so that you get a tax break for food forests on the basis that it has (or ultimately will have) equal ecosystemic value to conservation land.

I have a squash (more of a pumpkin) that grew up a 20' or so hemlock tree and deposited a squash right at the top.  For some reason the vine is dying back now, but the squash is a very good size.  Even though the vines themselves are easily crushed or folded, the tendrils that hold it are as strong as plastic and the connection-point (stem) to each squash is strong.  So I don't see any limits to growing squash vertically as long as what it's growing on can take the weight.

tel jetson wrote:
keep in mind that except in a few truly arid climates, there is a roughly inexhaustible supply of water in the atmosphere.  takes a little bit more ingenuity to capture it for use than rainwater or surface water, but there are many methods of doing so.

You're talking about this?