Hydroponics and permaculture?

[cualcrees]

I was talking to my cousin about the whole "agriculture is the process by which we turn oil into fuel", and he asked me if hydroponics and/or permaculture would be able to provide enough food to feed us after PO. My first instinct was to just answer no, but i really don´t know nearly enough about this practices to say so.

So, I'd love to hear you thoughts and opinions on this types of activities. I just read the wikipedia entry on hydroponics and they make it seem nothing short of miraculous... how good is it really? do they also require fossil fuels to work? What am i missing?

Thanks in advance!

[Ludi]

For permaculture to feed the current population would require huge numbers of people to move out of the cities and onto existing farm land. So, without a revolution, no, permaculture can't feed the current population.

If you'd like to discuss permaculture in general, I'm happy to discuss it.

[turner]

I recently visited a permaculture farm and also some gardens where they produce a lot of organic food and also sell heirloom seeds. The quality of the produce in both places was fantastic and I came away very impressed. At the gardens I bought a number of books which suggest that if you follow all the correct principles you can grow a lot of food in a fairly small space, without using fertilizers and pesticides. However, last night I started on the last book and it suggested that organic growing, whilst noble, was a pipe dream and that really you do need the additives to be successful.

Ludi, I wonder what your thoughts are on 1) fruit and veg in a small area and 2) the success of organic growing with/without a permaculture framework.
Thanks

[Ludi]

Organic agriculture is just growing without chemical fertilizers and pesticides - in other words, the way people farmed for most of 10,000+ years - so for someone to say it's a "pipe dream" is just silly. If you've been growing with chemicals it can be quite difficult to transition to organic because there won't be a living ecosystem in place. Chemical fertilizers can kill beneficial soil fauna, and pesticides often kill both harmful and beneficial insects. So it can take at least a year of organic before a balance of living organisms develops in the garden. During this period yields may be extremely low, and results generally disappointing. But once the organisms recover, results should improve annually.

I think permaculture is quite possible in a small space - you just have to be more careful in what you choose to plant. You certainly don't need acres. My permaculture gardens are quite small.

Simply gardening organically, without permanent crops, is very successful for many people - this is the way most folks here on the board grow their vegs, most only have permanent fruit crops, and maybe some asparagus. Many of the plants we grow as annuals can be perennials in the right climate. For instance, I grow sweet potatoes as perennials, but in areas where the ground freezes they can only be grown as annuals. It's often easier to organise an annual garden, because you can just clear everything away between crops - this helps avoid persistent weed problems especially. Though it can help avoid persistent pest problems, clearing everything away also clears away beneficial insects, as well as pests. With permaculture, it's harder to change your mind about plant placement. So for most people, it might be easer to start gardening using basic organic techniques, and then gradually transition to permaculture. This is what I've been doing.

Folks who say you have to use every "correct principle" in their favored method are being too dogmatic, in my opinion. It's possible to get just fine results using a variety of techniques. The main thing about "permaculture" as opposed to other methods is permaculture is a set of ethical principles as well as techniques. The techniques themselves are nothing new, what's new is the organization of them with the ethical principles into a holistic design system.

[cualcrees]

Thanks for the replies, Ludi

[mos6507]

From what I've read so far, permaculture is more than just edible forest gardens. That is what makes it different, but the prototype for a permaculture homestead incorporates both a vegetable garden close to the home (which could even be raised beds) and with larger lots even a zone for grain. This is kind of a compromise, I think, that reflects the difficulty in meeting a complete diet and sufficient calories with nothing but perennials. It doesn't look to me as though permaculture scales down that much. As you get to smaller sizes you have to start sacrificing zones. If you have to decide between a single fruit or nut tree guild or some raised beds it seems like you'd be better off with raised beds as far as being able to reach some sort of minimal subsistence level. As far as the total biomass of edibles generated I'm sure the tree wins out, but then you'd have to trade/barter for the rest of your food. So the perennial aspect of permaculture seems to cry out for larger spaces and entire communities transitioning over.

For instance, where I am living now the backyard is one quarter of a hill where the centerpoint is at the top. I used to think that inclines would be bad for trying to grow food but this is actually beneficial for the permaculture method of passive irrigation using swales. But if you only have control over 1/4 of the hill, you can't really design a system that fully utilizes all of the natural contours of the land. The boundaries between properties are totally artificial and too often don't follow topographical transitions such as in this case. When you look at a typical subdivision you will have two sets of backyards back-to-back running in a strip. This is the area best suited for a forest garden. And sure enough, in many place in new england you will have a fair amount of tree cover running in these strips, typically evergreens (not the pine nut variety) with a few maples here and there. So you can do whatever you like with your little postage stamp but the neigbors won't benefit and you won't get more of that microclimate oasis thing going unless they follow suit. There is that multi-year lag in establishing a food forest that makes you wax philosophical about the neighbors.

[turner]

Thanks for your responses.

I want to buy some land and orginally started with the idea that I needed a big place. But given cost and manageability I've decided on only 3 acres. Whilst I know I couldn't be self sufficient with that amount of land, it seems I can make some serious inroads into supplying food for the family. I did want to be sure though before taking the decision.

[Ludi]

Thanks for your responses.

I want to buy some land and orginally started with the idea that I needed a big place. But given cost and manageability I've decided on only 3 acres. Whilst I know I couldn't be self sufficient with that amount of land, it seems I can make some serious inroads into supplying food for the family. I did want to be sure though before taking the decision.

You certainly could be very nearly self-sufficient with three acres, depending on the climate. If a very cold climate you might want more for a woodlot. Otherwise, three acres is enough for a family. The main inhibiting factor is water supply - do you have a good well or reliable rainfall?

[turner]

It's a temperate climate with reasonable rainfall despite the ongoing drought.

The land is fairly flat and on the low side of an adjoining slope . The present owners have dug trenches that feed water to the creek (on the property) to cater for any excess runoff from the surrounding hill. I guess that water could be diverted as needed.

There are 2 water tanks with a total capacity of 10,000 gallons.

[Ludi]

The present owners have dug trenches that feed water to the creek (on the property) to cater for any excess runoff from the surrounding hill.

That's actually one of the worst things you can do, as it tends to drain the land too quickly and leads to drought. It's better to slow the water with various earthworks before allowing the very lowest earthwork to overflow into the creek.

I recommend these books, especially Volume 2: http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/

[turner]

ok thanks Ludi I'll bear that in mind

[brandylorton]

Well hydroponics is not about the fuel and oil but it is about the technology and innovativeness of your mind. As it is a new technology and not so much research has been done but one thing is there profit and benefits.