Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Parkrose Permaculture" channel.

For developing countries - on a small area it is possbile to manage water and fertility even w/o capital, chemicals, machines etc. That makes it IDEAL for developing countries. Geoff Lawton brought the example of a Melbourne urban gardener he had 60 square meters that is 645 square feet. Highly productive (admitted lots of sun, long growing season). He uses a special pruning technique to cut the fruit trees, to keep them small enough (4 times per year pruning). He was so successful that he was hired by the city as consultant. after the system was set up he needed 2 hours per week (most I guess for harvesting). But that is a rather high input, considering he had many fruit trees and berries (that make little work overall) and it amounts to 2 minutes per week per square meter (10,8 square feet). Geoff Lawton put it that way: 1 square meteris the most productive unit. in that backyard every small spot got a lot of attention, it cannot be the same for a homestead, let alone a farm. So the extra attention and input can produce higher yields per area (if there is good design). W/o machines or fossil fuels.
11
They also have scholarships and he is generous with his time. Only with watching the Q & A (most short) and the Jordan Project. The Greening the desert project is not directly applicable for most people, but it gives you an idea about the mindset. A low income person would have to wisely look for a few channels (I just detected Parkrose) and rather start slowly and humbly. Even "normal" gardening experience and being able to work with mulch (Charles Dowding style) would teach a person a lot. And one could create little niches for wetland, dry walls, dead wood to see how the the mirco niches and the predators in them work for the system.
3
@dogslobbergardens6606 Prairie soil is / was highly fertile. It took the farmers in the U.S. only a few decades to degrade the land. They cycles switch between wet and dry and they were lucky that after the 1860s there was a wet cycle so the European grain growing methods (with ploughing and naked soil) did not do so much damage, resp. the soil had reserves. Then the soil was degraded slowly - and once the dry 1930s hit it ended with dust storms and a catastrophe for the farmers. The first nations had other forms of agriculture they did not plough and leave the soil exposed.
3
Oregon state has a well respected online PDC prgramm. around 800 USD. And it is one of the most cost effictive one. Up to 2,500 USD.
3
The single plant may have less yield BUT the whole place uses the HEIGHT as space to grow. And plant that has let's say have the apples or half the pumpkings STILL harvests and stores rain, carbon, part of them can harvest nitrogen and the trees may even mine for minerals. They have the biomass even if they do not have the fruit and that creates soil. Never mind the contribution to carbon sequestration. And funneling water into the soil when it rains. The top canopy also gets the brunt of heavy rain and hail so it protects the layers under it. A hail might pummel the trees but the rest of the plants stand a chance. The plants were better protected from the extreme heat and most likely created a cooler microclimate around the house. They also mitigate extreme dryness or wetness. Plus the "non-productive" biomass (leaves, stems, roots) fees soil life and insects and repitle above ground. That is not only an ecological value, they also act as pest control.
2
You could spread word that you would be interested to get a garden bed. (in exchange for some produce as "lease" - or maybe a little help with garden chorse). You would be surprised - if people know you and have confidence you observe boundaries and will not abandon the project mid summer - many people would let you garden if you come a predictable times and do that with politeness and discretion (not being intrusive). Easier most likely if they are relatives or friends. * Some people would be glad to have some helpers (occasionally often for lifting stuff) and would not mind letting a person they trust on the property (and let them have one bed). If that goes well you can expand, and you likely would get more offers. Many home owners, older homesteaders LIKE the idea that land is put to good use and appreciate diligent efforts. But they would never think of advertising an offer, this happens on personal aquaintance. the couple behind the youtube channel Nature's always right did it that way: convincing the landlord to allow them to transform a part of the backyard (and when the owners saw they developed that and it wasn't a mess he allowed them to do more. Like putting in a chicken coop, they could transform all of the property into beds or related structures more). He later got beds in the gardens of friends nearby - and the lease was produce. That allowed him to produce more for the farmer's market, and I think he and his wife worked a job, too. they have bought a farm recently and moved from California to Tennessee. I saw a video of a farmer (I think Dutch farmer Moreno) that now runs and develops a farm / homestead in the South of France. NOW that locals know him and see it is not just a pie-in-the-sky project he gets offers for land, for lease and for purchease. these villages are losing people, they are suspicious of newcomers, but they like the idea that someone continues with farming and that they gained a community members. In the beginning it was not that easy to get any offers (I think he leased the farm), now he has more offers than he can accept (and people come to him). If he ever wants and can afford to buy land he would be in a much better position because he developed creditbility with the locals. for a farmer it is almost dishonorable to sell land, but helping out a farmer that starts out is another thing. That is not a sign of desperately needing money because you are not a good farmer that has high enough yields. On the contrary it becomes a noble thing to help out a neighbour. so that removes ONE major obstacle of getting good offers. Or they would be willing to give long term lease contracts. Knowing he will not have ruined the land if it is ever want to use the land themselves. Once you get a property for lease and treat it well, your chances are better to be considered as buyer (w/o having to pay and arm and a leg).
2
@uarestrong76 you need much more than 1 acre to feed a person if the food is bought in retail even if we assume a vegan diet (in such a small space one could have fish or maybe chicken, but not enough to feed a family with the current typical meat consumption, and it would be too small to keep a goat). I think eggs could be squeezed in as protein source. That is even true if the plant food is produced in an organic manner (but still as monoculture), although many organic farmers have mixed systems, think alley cropping. But that need for MUCH MORE SPACE needed to produce meat is also true for the conventionally produced food (meat, dairy). Actually they also need more space compared to a small operation that uses natural synergies to increase output. (a duckweed pond like Takota Coen has works to provide highyl nutritious protein / fat rich fodder in a smaller setting, it would not work with 1000 hogs or 10,000 chickens). But in the small settings natural synergies can play out. With conventional farming it is just that the acres are worked in remote areas of the U.S. (which also means longer transport routes and the need to harvest early. it also very much limits WHAT kinds of foods are even available, for instance berries need a lot of packaging because they are delicate. And Paw Paws were almost lost - they are delicious but not a good food for standardized (rough) handling. OR the fodder is imported from developing countries. A lot of that is going on with Europe. They could not produce all the meat w/o the imported fodder (for which rainforests are taken down). People ate much less meat in the past, factory farmign was not possible before penillin was available. And with the wars meat was rationied (even in the U.S. to a degree). conventional agriculture needs more space AND one needs to finance the machines fossil fuels the herbicides and the artificial nitrogen fertilizer are not cheap either. Canadian farmers doubled yield since the 1970s and halved the profits per area.. They do not get higher prices and inorder to get those record yield they have to invest a LOT. But the small, diversified systems do not lend themselves well to standardized products like they are sold in retail. Or to large farms that are posessed by one family that tries to produce with help of machines, and chemicals and very streamlined, linear systems. Monocultures that are unnatural.
2
@dogslobbergardens6606 it would create a LOT more jobs on small homesteads and people would eat different. What is seasonally and regionally available and that in high quality. And likely would get the starches not from grains, but from other plants (trees, bulbs). There is also alley cropping, where you have a field (or meadow) with rows of trees (or better 2 rows froming the tree stripe. That is how Mark Shephard handled the transtion. The field stripe was wide enough for the machines, so that could be automted, and he had cash crops. Later he turned those areas also into food forests. He also harvests the hazelnuts with machines. One major advantage is the resiliency against pests. Pesticides are bad for soil life. She mentioned that the soil fertility is slowly degraded.
2
It is not that easy to make a living when you set up a permaculture farm (or an organic farm), especially if the person has to develop land, and has to buy it.The perrnials do not bring immediate yields, and you have to market your produce. So many (who also invested in their courses) try to make an income from the courses - and not all might be good or already that experienced, or have a farm that is large enough to be relevant for a teacher and as demonstration site. If they sell the food they produce in form of meals for students, they do not have to market it otherweise.Not only do they not have to bring it to the market, they also add value and get more revenue from it. Putting the food to good use, w/o the trouble to sell it at a farmers's market. Plus the course attendees can do time consuming work related to developing the land for free (work that is not necessary on a well developed lot). Farmers have an advantage. They inherit tools, buildings that usually do not need immediate attention, time or investment, and they have some knowledge (think how to care for animals, recognize diseases). Usually also good in the DIY field. It can be all learned but the first 2 years are going to be very intense.
1
the online courses of Geoff Lawton get good reviews. I think the skill of observation cannot be directly taught (not even in the best of courses), you need a garden or homestead for that. and trying out things.
1
@ParkrosePermaculture btw the largest irrigated crop in the U.S. is lawn. (it beats irrigated corn. All of corn is more than lawn but it is pretty significant. Well kept lawn is also fairly poor regarding infiltrating and storing water. Matted but shallow roots).
1
@ParkrosePermaculture somehow the efficiency folks do not mind the waste of money, time and resources (chemicals, machines, WATER) that go into a manicured lawn. - a small yard cannot produce dairy or grain, but it can grow the high value produce that are expensive to buy (even if not in organic quality) and produce them in much better quality and fully ripe. Think berries, lettuce, micro greens, these are expensive fruit. Potatoes and onions may be cheaper in retail fresh fruit and vegetables are a good portion of the grocery bill if you eat a lot (enough) of them. And even if you would have to import compost you still beat the transport costs and fuel for fruit and vegetables. They are heavier (they contain water) whereas compost weighs less - even if it comes from more rural areas. compost usually does not come from afar the transport costs seem to be prohibitive. There is a reason the retail sold soil cotains peat - that is a non renewable source that is plundered. With compost (which is a renewable resource) retail soil would have to cost more. Transport costs seem to be a limiting factor and the organic growers are all eager to get good compost at reasonable prices (Richard Perkins mentioned that, he would see that as business opportunity). Of course that could be a source of income for many homesteaders (or cooperatives). Where a few homesteaders in rural areas could share equipment to produce compost in a more professional setting (enriched with manure) to provide it to growers that have less space. Charles Dowding for instance buys compost for his high yield market garden. real estate / land is too expensive to devote it to compost creation, in more rural settings the acres cost much less, and compost, or green manure plus the help of chickens or other animals can be used to manage fertility. All of that needs a little bit more space. But those "imports" of compost mean he can grow regional and seasonal produce in a densely populated area. so little transport costs for the much heavier produce and they can be harvested RIPE. Also need little input for cooling. And he also does not need the excessive packaging to compensate for mechanized handling (see berries). Paw Paws almost were lost, no one grew them anymore, retail is not interested, they are delicious but sensitive. Thankfully some people went hunting after the trees and secured the seeds before all the all varieties died off.
1
@annburge291 Humans (homo xx) have evolved to eat sweet (tropical) fruit and insects resp. later game. We have the ability to see red, yellow and orange fruits (ripe sweet fruit) among green foliage for that reason. So normally (!) homo sapiens is very well adjusted to eating fruits and all kinds of sugars, also nuts and some protein if they can get it. Sugars are excellent fuel. I know persons that get digestive problems if they eat fructose (fruits OR in industrially processed food and mixes). I wonder if the sensitivity to fructose is a fallout of industrially processed food and over abundance of corn syrup etc. The sugar in an orange eaten when you eat the fuit (with all the minerals and enyzmes) is not the same as gulping down the equivalent of several oranges when drinking a glass of juice. Or drinking soft drinks. Fructose is added to many things. My friend always knew she could not eat pears, but she did not realizethat some mixes (for baked goods) also contained fructose (not because it contained fuit, but it was added to get some specific traits. Or that it was even fructose that created the problems for her. (she had a constantly crying baby later, the problem spilled over into the milk, until she avoided fructose). We know that environmental damages can compound. See epigenitics. Example: in the Netherlands they were at the brink of a famine at the end of WW2, the babies born many years after the end of the war had reduced birth weigth. But the woman had gotten their ovaries when they were in the womb, that was set up already when they were newborns, and their reproductive system often developed before the war. And after the war the situation improved fast, so there was no reason for that adaptation. It did not change the DNA in the common sense, but the bodies of Dutch women had learned that reduced size was the way to ensure the suvival of the species. (the weight of the babies later picked up, so the adjustment goes in both ways). We have a lot of allergies so I suspect something like that goes on. Our parents and grandparents had new stressors, they seemed to cope - but it compounds from one generation to the next. So people cannot tolerate gluten or pollen or they show a bad reaction to fructose. (If a human had that reaction in the past in an environment where sugary fruits were available, that was a severe disadvantage for survival. Humans can survive on eating mostly meat and fat but that is very inefficient - that is why low carb diets work. But even eating only some starches or sugars shifted that metabolic balance. sugars are good fuel and the glucose based metablolism is much more efficient that using ketones (from burining fat and protein) to fuel brain and muscles. We have extra sense for "sweet" and our brain sends us hunting for sweet things, even better is the combo sweet and fatty. And of course proteins. starches are good, too. So if the hunters of the ice age could have berries or maybe wild apples, that could make the protein and fat calories go farther (or if they found and stored starchy roots and bulbs. All of that was valuable beyond the mere calorie / Joule count.
1
You could change your HOA - it is elected.
1
@gardenersgraziers7261 Google Geoff Lawton Desert food forest, it is an old video. This was an old oasis in ? Egypt I think, but they also exist in in Marocco; alier, Tunesia, ..... Not on swales, not sure what kind of water management they had, water has always been a valuable resource and you bet they managed it well. Fertility is good, they have more than enough sunshine, so the only limiting factor is water. The Arabs that had occupied Spain for a while implemented irrigations systems and canals - superior to what Europeans had figured out at that time. They also have canals on some Mediterranean islands. And then of course the Greening the Desert project that Geoff Lawton initiated. They need to import water (gray water that is quite common in Jordan, they have terrible problems with water). Irrigation from groundwater is not sustainable AND
1
@gardenersgraziers7261 I tfind it interesting that you make irrigation and growing in (semi) deserts your argument. irrigiation is not sustainable, that can be done for a few decades, maybe 100 years -and then what ? Another problem - long before water runs out - is that it often adds salts to the soil that degrade the soil quickly. That is a problem in Jordan for instance.
1
@gardenersgraziers7261 almonds in California are NOT sustainable. But pistachios would be, especially if they manage that with ground cover to reduce evaporation. Almond growers have uprooted trees that could still produce. I think they get a subsidy or are ordered to save water. They replant them and young trees need less water (so they shorten the life cycle). That is the latest water scarcity stratey but that is not good enough. They could grow other fruit that need less water. But right now they squander water.
1
@gardenersgraziers7261 If you collect water from a site that is double than you get double the water per area. That is one way to manage arid areas. The Jordan area where the Greening The Desert project is gets 10- 12 inches and I think Tuscon Arizona - where Brand Lancester "plants the rain" gets as much (maybe a little more. And AZ has - at the moment - a better groundwater situation. Agriculture and intense use (for herds) is going on much longer in the Jordan valley. Let's not forget that this was the fertile crescent, the land of milk and honey in the past. 10 - 12 inches is under 300 mm. With 600 mm and good management a LOT could be done. (but not almond monocultures with bare soil). In Jordan (the Greening the desert project) they have to import water (that is quite common and usually they use somewhat processed gray water) BUT they also have a LOT of people there (visitors, they eat, shower there). They have compost toilets and the gray water is recycled and used for irrigation. and they harvest all the rain they get. Not a drop of water is wasted. Of course if the whole region would be planted like that, the benefits would compound. Then the groundwater could be recharged enough to allow for a lot of hardy trees (that provide shade for other vegetation). If they can connect to the groundwater they can stay alive without irrigation, some trees can hibernate during 2 years of draught, as soon as there is rain they bounce back. So the micro climate would change, the forest creating its rain (or codensation which benefits ground cover which prevents erosoin and helps with soil building and rain infiltration). We know that Lebanon, Greece, Italy, Turkey had forests in the past and they became drier after those resources had been cut down.
1