John Wolfram wrote:
R Hasting wrote:True, but Curtis Stone has set it up so that his labor costs are less than half of his revenue. But this that wage is a profit to the worker, so in a sense, there is profit in it, but not all to the proprietor. What is important here is that 1/3 of an acre supports more than two people.
We might be muddling definitions here. I would define "net profit" as gross sales minus employee labor costs minus other expenses (taxes, farm equipment, rent, etc.) minus a "reasonable wage" for the owner of the business.
Steve Rivas wrote:It is quite possible to net more than $100K per acre by raising "difficult" high value plant and animal species for niche markets. There are people doing this. In most cases they keep a low profile and don't offer seminars, workshops, how-to manuals, or books. They make their money by actually raising and selling a product. They don't have local customers. The last thing they want is for someone to go into business against them (competition). It isn't permaculture because feed and other materials must be sourced from off the farm. There are a lot of "wild" animal and plant species just waiting for somebody to figure out their life cycle and turn them into a profitable farmed product.
John Wolfram wrote:Listening through the Urban Farmer series by Diego Footer of Permaculture Voices, it seems that they are grossing well above $100k an acre. Of course, they have two people working on roughly 1/3 of an acre, so the net profit after labor costs would a lot less.
Nicholas Covey wrote:According to my old-fashioned math... In order to glean $100,000.00 from 1 acre, you would have to make $2.30 per square foot, multiplied 43,560 times. That is mighty dense profitability for anything short of a mine.
Margaret Taylor wrote:This all sounds very encouraging. Bryant RedHawk, what your friend does sounds like what my partner and I had in mind. So we're not delusional.
I finally figured out the right place to look for legality. It's legal, but you need a permit. The application process looks pretty doable.
Dan Boone wrote:
R Hasting wrote:
In other words, I don't need alternatives to digging a hole. A 32" hole is what is called for.
In The Fellowship Of The Ring Frodo famously says "Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes." Our local version of this ought to be "go not to permies.com for advice on how to do a thing, for they will tell you at length how to do something else entirely."
I'm afraid it's the permies.com superpower. That hard thing you want to do? People imbued with permaculture thinking are much more likely to have some clever scheme for doing an easier thing instead, or possibly even for doing nothing and calling it "more sustainable". I've been on the receiving end of this enough times to know how infuriating it can be, and yet it really is the permaculture way.
Are posts driven into three feet of sand truly not stable without concrete? Because that sounds like a much easier approach if it would serve.
Jd Gonzalez wrote:Maybe try a piece of pipe just larger than the auger as a sleeve for the hole? T posts might work, just drive them into the sand with a t post driver.
elle sagenev wrote:Nothing has worked for me. Not a damn thing. Cats, dogs, poison, guns, nothing. I even tried those spear trap thingies. /sigh I've planted potatoes for them. I hope they leave my trees alone.