paul wheaton wrote:my obnoxious opinions are abundant this morning, once a person has passed an official PDC, they get to use the word "permaculture" on their stuff...I'm kinda bummed because it makes my use of the word seem a little watered down. Oh well.
I agree, the ethics and principles of permaculture can not be discarded and the process still called "permaculture." To do so is a perversion of the concept of permaculture.
Permaculture makes money already--by offering Permaculture courses.
Paul Cereghino wrote:
Gordon, A.M. and S.M. Newman Eds. 1997. Temperate Agroforestry Systems. CAB International.
It looks at a range of mixed production systems from the perspective of different cultures and economies, down to economic analysis of different production systems. There are certainly people out there designing and evaluating polycultures and silvopastoral systems that satisfy industrial economics. (Right down the the Chinese 'Great Green Wall' project). There are many examples therein of fruit tree or saw log production systems that include row crops or pasture during establishment. Mollison talks about transitional systems right on page 5-6 of the big book.
permieobserver wrote:...a failure to sufficiently adopt the ideas of Holzer et al. will not only result in a worse result for mother nature, but more importantly in a worse result for the company. I know that last sentence is going to raise the ire of other member here
Emile Spore wrote:
Sorry, I'm slightly ticked off, so I am going to go ahead and break the rules of this website and say that a massive pulp farm isn't and never can be permaculture.
A better technique I believe would be to make pulp production illegal.
To me this is a gigantic joke, probably the biggest problem in the world is desire. Humans have a huge desire to get pulp. Do you really need pulp? No, of course not.
It being a permaculture operation, you'd probably want the framework planting to be permanent - trees, shrubs, and other perennials. The first few years while these permanent plants are getting old enough to produce, you could grow a wide selection of annuals. You'd keep growing annuals later, of course, but they might not form the core of the business anymore after a few years.
rose macaskie wrote:
A big problem with maple sugar is the expense reducing it entails. As it starts off with only two percent or a little over sugar in the sap. The expense is in boiling it down to get a concentrated syrup. Maybe you could have solar oven boilers down. It has to be boiled down quickly it goes off easily unless you have a big fridge, i suppose.
If the live stock eat the acorns as they fall, through the winter mounths it means they can eat grass too and this gives them a balanced diet and reduces the need to provide water for the live stock and it means that you dont have the labour costs involved in picking the acorns and storing them.
I'm wondering if you could have narrow strips of each crop, perhaps very long strips (many meters) with some space between them of mulch or groundcover, and then the next crop. This would seem to emulate mixed plantings to some degree, but allow easier harvesting and care of each type of crop.
Before the oil age, the largest cities were around a million people and were surrounded by farmland, not suburbia.
Think of how dumb the average person is. Mathematically, half of them are EVEN DUMBER. Smart tiny ad:
Free, earth friendly heat - Kickstarter going on now!https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/free-heat