John Doyle wrote:I ordered my wife Zach's new book for Christmas and we've loved it, especially the pictures! As an engineer I want to make sure I understand the construction of them, specific to the outer trench. Zach recommends to dig a 12" wide by 6" trench around the border that doubles as a foot path. This seems like a great idea as it would also double as a water holding feature (kind of like a micro swale/moat) if filled with wood chips, gravel, or other media. Which got me to wondering about the orientation in the landscape; if planning a row of multiple permabeds is there a significant benefit from being installed on contour, or am I over analyzing this?
I also wanted to ask if there are any pros or cons to laying down a layer of small to medium size branches when initially digging the bed and mixing in the compost, kind of like a micro hugelkultur feature. Love to hear thoughts on this idea.
On contour is definitely the way to go for water holding, but consider where the water will go if you get a major rainfall event. This will possibly indicate a need to design an overflow spot so that when your uppermost swale fills up, it has somewhere to overflow into your next swale without blowing out a hole in your hugelbed or flooding some other area in an unplanned and possibly catastrophic way. Ideally, swale 1 fills and overflows through a gap (level with the top of the swale) you've constructed (perhaps armoured with rock to eliminate erosion) into swale 2. When swale 2 fills, it overflows in turn - this overflow is offset from the first one so the water doesn't run fast in a straight line down the hill, but proceeds slowly downhill in a zig zag fashion filling each swale in succession.
On the question about including branches of different sizes, I think there is benefit to doing this so decomposition of the woody material proceeds at different rates.