Possible hugelkultur improvements?

I’ve been thinking about this on and off for a while, and I’m wondering if I may have come up with some improvements to what I see as issues with hugelkultur.  Granted, everyone’s situation is different, and hugelkultur as it is commonly practiced may be perfect for you, in your situation.  For me, these are the issues.

1) The sides are usually made steeper than I would like.  The normal angle of repose for “earth” is usually considered to be between about 30 and 45 degrees.  I see hugelkultur structures being made much steeper with branches and whatnot inserted to hold the steeper angle.  My feeling is that sooner or later, natural forces will come into play and change those steep sides into a more natural slope.  In keeping with working with nature, rather than against, I think less slope will work better long term.  This of course has it’s own issues.  If you are in a tight space, you may not have room to make the hugel wider.  It’s also going to increase the amount of material needed by a considerable amount to reach a 7 foot height.
2) 7 feet is taller than I would like.  I think it’s very possible that the 7 foot height makes it hold water very well and creates nice microclimates, but with that come certain issues.  I would think it would be very hard to harvest something that starts growing at 7 feet, and could very well be 9, 10, 12, whatever feet to the top, unless you walk up onto the structure.  I don’t know if walking up a hugel is possible with the steeps sides mentioned in 1).  Same thing with planting.  I would be difficult to plant the top of the mound I would think.  Keep in mind, I’ve never planted or harvested from anything this tall.
3) In very windy, dry areas, I would think the hugel would dry out much more quickly than it would if it were not surrounded by open air on all sides.

I’ve come up with what I think may be ways to deal with these issues.  I may be wrong and they won’t work well at all 😊  Paul shows the way to make the hugel 7 feet tall by digging down three feet around and piling up 4 feet, rather than making it 7 feet above the natural ground level.  I think that makes perfect sense.  You can use the earth in the immediate area rather than finding material elsewhere and moving it to the hugel area.  It still leaves you reaching up 7 feet to try to plant or harvest though, because now you are standing in the trench.  Suppose you created your hugel a wider mound than is normally done and allowed the soil to find it’s natural angle of repose.  That solves the issue of the steep sides collapsing and the measures that need to be taken to keep that from happening.  The hugel should be more robust and stay put naturally.  Additionally, when building the mound, what if you dig down the three feet, mound the material up 4 feet for your 7 feet, and then went back in and filled your three foot trench with wood chips?  Now you can walk up to your hugel mound at natural ground level and the planting area is 4 feet above the surface.  With a more natural slope to the hugel, you can walk up onto it if need be without causing the sides to collapse.  The wood chips should create a huge natural moisture reservoir.  Over years they will break down, creating beautiful soil three feet deep that will have wonderful moisture retaining capacity.  Also, by filling in the trench with wood chips, you block the dry air and wind from affecting the bottom three feet of the mound.

I do see issues with my “solution”.  By filling the trench, you effectively remove 3 feet of height as far as creating microclimates is concerned.  As mentioned earlier, you need more material to make the mound because it will be wider to allow the angle of the sides to be more gradual.  You need more room to make it than some people may have available.  You would have to bring in a lot of woodchips to fill the trench and as they breakdown, you would need to add more.  This may or may not be an issue depending on your situation and the ability to get woodchips easily.  Depending on your situation, the advantages may or may not be outweighed by the disadvantages.

Any thoughts on this, I would love to hear them.

I feel like some of the steepness in the initial construction, with intact wood lending structure/support, is there to account for the eventual decay and slump of the hugel over time. Hopefully mitigated by plant roots holding things in place.

I've got a hugel that I began a few years ago, which is on a steep slope, so the uphill toe of the hugel is almost three feet above the downhill toe. It's about 3 feet above grade at the top, 5 from the bottom, and excavated about 2 feet further below grade. I need to revisit this project, since I didn't lay it out well and it needs to shift a bit... but I have the same concern about access to the taller downhill slope of the hugel, and am thinking that a step in the slope is the way to go. Similar to Paul's "scaffold" idea, but built-in to the earth. I wouldn't need any stairs, since it might be level with path at the upper side, and walkable from around the ends.

Kenneth Elwell wrote:I feel like some of the steepness in the initial construction, with intact wood lending structure/support, is there to account for the eventual decay and slump of the hugel over time. Hopefully mitigated by plant roots holding things in place.

That may be the case, but in my mind, that just flows right back into the idea of just making the slope less to begin with.  I agree with you that the plant roots may be able to maintain the steeper grade as long as it holds up until they get established.

Kenneth Elwell wrote:
I've got a hugel that I began a few years ago, which is on a steep slope, so the uphill toe of the hugel is almost three feet above the downhill toe. It's about 3 feet above grade at the top, 5 from the bottom, and excavated about 2 feet further below grade. I need to revisit this project, since I didn't lay it out well and it needs to shift a bit... but I have the same concern about access to the taller downhill slope of the hugel, and am thinking that a step in the slope is the way to go. Similar to Paul's "scaffold" idea, but built-in to the earth. I wouldn't need any stairs, since it might be level with path at the upper side, and walkable from around the ends.

I think the step idea may work as long as you can pack the earth enough that it can hold your weight.  Making a terraced hugel may be a good solution to the height issue.  Good idea.

I like the trench filled with wood chips idea. I made a small trench pond by my tall hugel & it captured much water for the hugel to use. It was water that would have otherwise flowed away downhill. Grew some wild rice in it too. Ultimately filled the trench when I moved away.

Humphrey was it's name. Pix & descriptions here. Initially built it for the PEP BB using the exact footprint required. It was an engineering challenge to build because it was so steep. As Trace mentioned, it eventually widened at the base but I kept adding soil to the top to keep it tall & help round out the sides. I think hugels that tall are better suited for larger footprints. Don't get me wrong though ... it was great fun & grew a lot of food.

I wouldn't want any bed that was wider than 4' , matter the height, 2' if I could only reach it from one side.
I wouldn't want to step on the bed either.
I have had better luck with sunken hugels and raised beds with wood in the bottom than I have hugel mounds.

As to filling the ditches with woodchips, I've recently participated in building a new garden bed that was wide ditch, filled with aged woodchips and crowned with topsoil.
The design seemed to ignore the warnings against burying woodchips, but the fellow in charge is a  professional nursery man.

Here is a great video of one of the boots installing a path on the hugle bed there: https://youtu.be/HwktPhJ43kU