barefooter McCoy

Permaculture aims to model agricultural systems on natural ecosystems. However, one thing I haven't heard talked about is mimicking the evolutionary processes in natural ecosystems. I'm sure many permaculturalists are avid seed savers and even plant breeders, but is anyone attempting to model this after a real ecosystem? For instance, co-evolution is common in natural ecosystems and provides the basis for symbiotic relationships, which greatly increase the resiliance of the system. Has anyone ever attempted co-breading to develop new crop varieties that have symbiotic relationships with each other? I'm not even sure if this is possible or what it would look like. Possibly plant breeding work could be done from a set of plants growing together in a polyculture and through this breeding work new and beneficial symbiotic relationships may develop in the polyculture over the generations.

Also, fruit, nut and other tree crops are very popular among permaculturalists. However, many of these are grown from grafting/cuttings, which greatly reduces the genetic diversity and also eliminates the ability for the plants to evolve new defenses to pests. Is there anyone that is working toward completely seed grown food forests or orchards? I could imagine these being seeded densely, and then thinned to the best trees. As these trees are coming to the end of their lives, new seeds would be started under the existing canopy and be timed to grow into a productive state as the old trees were cut down. The new trees would again be planted densely and thinned to the best ones. I can imagine there would be problems with many species not breeding true, but I would think one could find a set of fruits and nuts to develop an all seed grown food forest from.

What doesn't need to be proved about permaculture is that it is a more ecologically sound form of agriculture which preserves biodiversity and improves soils. This is intuitive and based on sound ecological principles. What does need to be proved about permaculture is that it can produce enough food with a minimum of labor. A chief claim of permaculture is that it reduces the amount of labor required by taking advantage of the work of natural ecosystem processes. This certainly sounds good in theory, but without some numbers to back it up we can't be sure that it plays out that way in reality. To produce this proof, some permaculturists could keep track of their total input energy (human, machine) in calories and also their output of human edible calories. This would give an estimate of net calorie production and a number to quantity the efficiency of food production. This number could be compared to other agriculture and permaculture systems to give an idea of the relative efficiency and the data could be used to help determine which areas could be optimized.

Of course, there are going to be many who want to grow food and simply stay more in tune with the natural world and spend less time in front of a computer spread sheet. There is absolutely no problem with that. However, I commend those who are willing to keep detailed records and anylize the data to help further the future of food production.

I agree that a lot of PDCs seem over priced. However, I don't know the operating costs, so I'll try not to place judgement on that. My real problem with PDCs is the same problem I have with many other certificate programs, the emphasis on the certificate. It's just a piece of paper. All it shows is that you had the money to attend a class for two weeks, or however long it was. I'm not saying there is nothing to be gained from going to one, but our culture places way too much emphasis on degrees, certificates, etc. True mastery of anything takes dedicated study, practice, experimentation, etc., not a two week long crash course. If you think a PDC is beneficial for you, by all means take it, but these certificates just seem so silly to me. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that something magical happens during the two weak PDC that can't be gotten for nearly free by reading, experimenting, and volunteering some time with other locals. Learning is a life long process and there are no shortcuts, no matter how much money you have.

Red Cloud 31 wrote:
Exercise is actually more important than the food we eat, but nutrient dense foods are a big part of this.

I don't think you can be so sure about exercise being more important than nutrition. I think how lifestyle effects health is a very complicated matter and statements like that really aren't productive. I don't claim to know the answer, so I try to give attention to all the areas where I think we've moved away from how are bodies have evolved to stay healthy -- food, exercise, sleep, relationships and social interactions, stress, water, environmental toxins, sun exposure, etc.

Cancer and heart disease research are both huge frauds, because there will probably never be a cure, but this doesn't prevent them from wasting billions on developing new pills. Money token from unknowing people who donate thinking they're helping. Sure, some may be able to heal from these diseases, but for some a lifetime of exposure to toxic environments, toxic food, stress, lack of sleep, etc. can not be undone.

Paul, I think you may be over estimating the effects of poly cultures on food nutrition. I think you may be onto something, but it seems like it would probably only account for a small percentage of the nutritional value of the food, with the majority coming from the soil quality. Humans got shorter at the dawn of agriculture not because they were growing food in mono cultures, but because they were eating a mostly grain based diet instead of the much more nutritious wild meat, fish, nuts, greens, berries, etc.

I'm all for biodiversity, but in this case where your onions need to dry down in the field for 2 weeks, I don't see what else you could plant. What is the goal you're trying to achieve by doing this interplanting? To me, it seems okay to have localized areas of monoculture within a large diverse area. This even occurs in nature. I've seen some of the polycultures with stylized pictures of roots fitting together perfectly underground, when in reality the roots expand much more than people seem to think. There is an older book written with accurate root drawings, and if you used that your carrots and onions wouldn't match up so well, like the ones depicted in "Gaias Garden." I think there could be value in interplanting annual veggies, but from most of what I've read, I'm unconvinced. It mostly seems like things that seem good together to the author, rather than something that has been properly studied with attention to yields, disease, etc.

I'd also like to address something from on of the other replies, as I find it to be a very common misonception in the PC community.

Joop Corbin - swomp wrote:
Now, i dont know how far the dripwater will go, probably not far. So i dont know how wide your beds (rows) can be. But i bet that your rows can be wider than you thought, specially using several plant species in a row, because your soil has less evaporation due to the covering of earth... specially using hugelbeds.

Increased plant density increases water use, because the water lost through transpiration exceeds the water lost through evaporation from the soils surface. The plants are actively drawing water out of the soil and then loosing some of it from transpiration as compared to just evaporation from the bare earth. You've effectively increased your surface area for evaporation (transpiration just being plant based evaporation) so water use will rise.

I've been looking at some beneficial insect attracting seed mixes online and I'm thinking I'll sow it around and through my annual veggie patch as an easy way to increase diversity. The one I'm thinking of ordering is here http://www.uprisingorganics.com/flowers/wild-garden-insectary-mix/prod_69.html

I'm wondering when and how I would sow a mix like this. I'm in zone 8 in Bellingham. I would also like to grow wildflowers, including natives. Does anyone have any recommendations for a wildflower mix for this area, and again, planting time and technique. Thanks

I'm interested in growing sagitaria latifolia, but haven't been able to locate any tuber sources. Where did you order yours from? Also, is anyone familiar with domesticated varieties. I remember reading somewhere that a domesticated variety is grown in China.

I've read many times that making a hot compost pill or tilling will increase the rate that you burn through  the organic matter in the compost pile or soil. As I understand it, this is because the heat in a compost pile or the air added when tilling encourages rapid growth in soil organism populations which break down the organic matter faster. However, I don't understand where the losses come from. The organic matter is being converted to micro and macro soil organisms, which is just a different kind of organic matter. Is it correct that one loss comes from the respiration of the soil organisms, which will result in loosing a certain percentage of the carbon in the original organic matter? What other losses (inefficiencies) result from this process?

I'll probably only be at the place for two years, so that makes it kinda tough in terms of deciding what to do. I'll be looking for land to buy and two years is just a rough guess of when I might finally buy a place where I can start working on longer term projects with a high percentage of perennials. Until then, I'm trying to find things that will produce quickly for me, but at the same time I'd like to experiment with longer term things just for the practice.