Talk:Permaculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This Sustainability-related article is part of WikiProject Energy development, an attempt to build a comprehensive presentation of the issues related to energy development on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and help it bring clarity to the important and wide ranging issues of Sustainable development and Energy development.


Quercus

Someone made a French page on permaculture, essentially saying it was based on four principles, no ploughing, no weeding, no pesticides, no fertilizers. Is that so ?


Not really. Before everything Permaculture has an ethical basis with three main points: care of the planet, care of people, and distribution of extra-time and resources to help people reach the same goal. So, it is more than a specific way to agricultural systems. It is too a way of life and a social movement. Sure, those four things can be related to this, but not as "principles", but as result of the ethic principles.

The four principles listed here are Fukuoka's principles of 'no work' farming quercus robur 14:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

'French permaculture' suggests the work of the late Emilia Hazelip, who believed her 'synergistic agriculture' - similar to the work of Masanobu Fukuoka in Japan - marked the first agricultural revolution since the Neolithic 10,000 years ago, organic (pre-industrial) farming methods in their view are hardly any better than industrial agriculture, having caused soil erosion and salinisation for thousands of years. Hazelip demonstrated in her commercially successful market garden her methods, which were based on keeping the soil wild (hence not digging or ploughing etc.) in order not to disturb the subtle life processes that keep the soil healthy and productive. If you regard the degradation and depletion of cultivated land as the most serious problem facing human life on earth, you would put the principles of Hazelip's approach up there with 'earth care' and 'people care'.

It would be good if this could be integrated into the article- also the Emilia Hazelip article which needs expanding- I don't know enough about her work to do this but did paste her obituary into the 'talk' page some time back for possible use as a basis for an article on her and her work quercus robur 15:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Zimbabwe

Haha, Zimbabwe is using permaculture. Hell of an endorsement; could y'all find an example that doesn't involve the populace starting to starve? Please tell me permaculture is either an older or a very recent thing there, because I'd hate to have to connect the dots. --Golbez 09:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

your criticism might be unjustified- the permaculture was established by the united nations. Also, there is alot of talk in african publication about sustainability...check out allarfica.com. Nonetheless, its annoying that this iste does not have a link to the actual document it claims the UN produced- everything should be cited. Please fix this

In terms of the contemporary usage of the term, permaculture is new there. In terms of pre-colonial cultures existing long before the term was coined, such practices are very old there. Research the relevant history and context leading to past and current starvation in Africa. You can then make your own informed judgements as to how contemporary permaculture design may be useful (or not) in addressing the situation. Note also that most permaculture projects are by design small-scale and localized, thus seldom widely known outside the local area in which they are implemented (and thus unlikely to be noticed by national or global 'news' media).

JSchinnerer 07:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

different guy from above

Also the vague part about the tribe in Peru and the base in the US needs to be verified:

"A tribe in Peru has moved from a growing dependency on state support to self-reliance and support for other tribes. A military base in the USA is being transformed into an eco-business park and wildlife haven."

Which tribe? Which base? How was permaculture integrated in, was it the main theme, or just a small consideration?

But, hey, the overall page is WAY ahead of where it was yesterday, three cheers for that :)

[edit] findhorn

Why is there a "see also" for Findhorn here? (I hate "see alsos", for just this reason: no context). Rather than a rather unexceptional Scottish village, you probably want Findhorn Foundation? -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 01:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

This article looks like it's been written by an advocate of permaculture, explaining why they believe in it. That's fine, but if the article goes down that path I think it needs to have a 'Disadvantages' or 'Criticisms' section. After all, permaculture is not the universal principle behind modern agriculture, so there must be some reasons why it's not more widely used.

By all means, research this and write a "Criticisms" section. Sunray 09:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


What I think would serve better than theoretical 'pro' and 'con' rhetoric would be to replace rhetoric with a broad variety of specific, existing and on-the-ground examples with links, references, outcomes etc.

A bit of research into history and context of agriculture in human cultures will enable you to make your own judgements as to why permaculture is not a basis for 'modern' agriculture.

what do you mean?

JSchinnerer 07:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think putting some definitions and limits on what "Permaculture" is is very important. Then practical comparisons (between conventional agriculture and Permaculture) are possible. The broad "principles" - "care of the planet, care of people, and distribution of extra-time and resources to help people reach the same goal" - are way too broad to form, in themselves, any definition of what Permaculture is. Indeed, these principles arguably could apply to the Boy Scouts, certain conceptions of "socialism," the "public radio" movement, a creative plan for retired life, and many other "good things". Unless the actual common practices of Permaculture are pinned down, nothing can be evaluated, and no sense of success or failure of Permaculture, as a system or as a movement, can even be attempted.

but these ARE the principles of permaculture and they act as a way of guiding the decision making process when designing. i think it is important to point out that what differentiates permaculture from the things above is that it is an ecological design system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.40.144 (talk • contribs) 12 Dec 06.

Whether or not a person advocates Permaculture is even beside the point here. Because if it's left as nebulous as a shifting, cottony cloud, then what is there to either advocate, oppose (or criticize)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.162.19 (talk • contribs) 25 May 2006.
Well it would be nice to put a limit on what permaculture is. However it does not reflect the diversity of things which are characterised as permaculture. Read Permaculture Magazine (the major UK magazine on the topic) and you will see that is a very diverse and poorly defined topic. Quite often things which come under permaculture have nothing to do with agriculture, or even plants. The UK permaculture association also has a similar broad scope. Its been like this since the begining with its dual definition as permanent-agriculture/permanent culture. Some would vigriously defend its broad scope as a holistic set of patterns, and to be holistic it has to cover everything. There was an instance a few years back when Mollision tried to trade mark the term and limit it to what was covered in is books. This was conclusively rejected by the majority of practioners. --Salix alba (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Without definition, it's pretty much the same concept as how people often apply the word sustainability. Yes, I, like many others, am attracted to such things. But the following fantasy presents itself as an analogy: a person walks through the door of a large, multi-aisle food market and walks straight up to a cashier's counter and says to the the cashier "I'm here to get some good food. Some good food, please." And the cashier looks the person in the face, not just puzzled but shocked.
I'd ask 'why call all good things "permaculture"'? — why not just call them "good things" or whatever you like, some less selective label than "permaculture"?

what differentiates permaculture from sustainability is precisely that it is a much less nebulous and clearer concept, providing thinking tools of how to change land use and lifestyle to a be more enviromentally sound. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.40.144 (talk • contribs) 12 Dec 06.

Is it the case that Mollison and Holmgren put forward their ideas about an environmentally sound, diverse, tree/shrub-inclusive aqgriculture... and, beyond some fringe interest, got little response from the public or farmers? Hence, someone in this small movement decided that the public needed to 'give a damn' — therefore, promote permanent culture as an argument for why people should give a damn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.162.100 (talk • contribs) 27 May 2006.

i think that is a bit ungenerous. i think that it comes from an understanding that change towards a more ecologically sound way of life has to be cultural as well as agricultural. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.148.40.144 (talk • contribs) 12 Dec 06.

I've been thinking abit about this and have put a message on the main permaculture mailing list to ask for some more views. One way of thinking about permaculture is not as an agricultural systems, but more as a method of designing a system, any system. The one response I've got so far was the 12 points of Holmgren.

The story I've heard is that M&H started thinking about what sustainable or permenent agriculture really ment. They then very soon realised that for a truely sustainable system you could not seperate the agriculture from the rest of society: there is very little point in a small fragment (agriculture) of the system being sustainable, when the rest (distribution, trade systems etc.) is not. Probably more idealist than populist. --Salix alba (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"M&H started thinking about what sustainable or permenent agriculture really ment. They then very soon realised that for a truely sustainable system you could not seperate the agriculture from the rest of society." Yes, I can understand that point. But it makes "permaculture" synonymous with "sustainability" or "the sustainability movement" or "the green movement" (small-g green, not any particular Green Party).
Also, consider that agriculture is not really a "small" fragment of society, but is one of its lagrest footings (along with shelter, clothing, transportation, education). And think of what portion of the average person;s income goes to food.
One of the problems that all sustainability reformers face is that today too few people make a solid and deep commitment to any specific aspect of sustainability... so it becomes a hopping around of attention and focus, with little that is concrete being accomplished. So (dread visious circle!) the agricultural community then takes even less notice of permaculture, because too few real-world case examples are developed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.194.162.6 (talk • contribs) 29 May 2006.
In some way "permaculture" is synonymous with "sustainability" or "the green movement", there is a large cross over in the people who practice it with those interested in alternative technology, green building, etc. There even a large number of vetrans of Anti-road protest who have moved to permaculture. Indeed the sub-title of permaculture magazine is Solutions for sustainable living. The difference is perhaphs one of focus, rather than engaging in politics its typically been more a grassroots type of thing: lets get my own house in order, develop solutions as an example to others.
The case of agriculture is a valid cricicism. In the UK there are very few permaculture projects which have attempted broad-scale agriculture. Much of this has to do with the high cost of land in the UK and lack of funds in the movement. A deeper reason for lack of results is that the distribution system is very keyed to monoculture, its easier to sell the crops of a field of potatoes than it is to find buyers of smaller quantities of a diverse range of plants. This reflects back on my earlier point in that you can't just seperate agriculture from the rest of the system, before permaculture can really work in the UK it requires the development of a different distribution model, here is where farmers markets fit in. So apart from a few notably examples permaculture has focused on what people in the UK can do - the back garden. Ben Law is possibly the best UK example of a working permaculture project, he spent 10 years working a small woodland gaining a reasonable income and eventually managed to build a house largely sourced from the woodlands.
To my mind some of the most sucessful PC projects have been in the developing world where land is readily available (ish) and the focus on the projects as been to provide food to feed a comunity.
p.s. Could you sign you posts using ~~~~ so we know who has written what and when, or better get an account, so you become a name not just a number. --Salix alba (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Self support by way of a small farm has become an uncommon way of life in much of the developed world. The very great proportion of people buy their food from an established farmer's market, a corner grocery, or a supermarket. It has been that way for a long time, and M&H must have noticed that pretty much from the start. Their recommended practices were supposed to be for the smallholding farmer, because they were criticizing what agriculture had become. It's not that I don't see what these other implications are, for getting the farm products to consumers and for people making alterations of the lifestyles in the cities and suburbs, but still I think Permaculture should be examined in its original terms to see if it really has had much to offer in the revision of agriculture. Is it practicable (e.g., can you harvest the edible products readily and without undue costs)? Is it easier on the environment? Does it yield realistically? I'm not assuming the answers to such questions would be "no". Otherwise, too much "special pleading". - Marcia Coral

[edit] Merge of Zones (Permaculture) article

Someone has placed a tag on the article suggesting merging the permaculture zones article with this. While permaculture zones are an important aspect of permaculture theory and methodology, I would rather add an overview paragraph on permaculture zones with a link to the permaculture zones article. My reason for suggesting this is that articles are most accessible and understandable, IMO, if they are not overly long. Links allow readers to chose additional material that interests them.

Are there other thoughts or concerns? If not, I will proceed with that approach. Sunray 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with sunray, also, would be nice to have some pictoral representation on the zones article - FrancisTyers 19:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I will add a pic shortly, thanks for reminding me! quercus robur 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages

• There are two or more articles on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there doesn't need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
• If an article is very short and cannot or should not be expanded terribly much, it often makes sense to merge it with an article on a broader topic.
• If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it.

As stated above: permaculture zones are an important aspect of permaculture theory and methodology . permaculture zones is a short article, its not going to expand any, and it’s a critical part of Permaculture. Yes an illustration would be good, but it needs to be included in the whole. There’s room here for both the text and the illustration.

Permaculture as it now stands is an article with a lot of ideology and very little substance. It talks about tools and Ecological principles, but never names them. A little less about how permaculture is bound to save mankind and a little more about how it can achieve that goal would be a good thing.

Give the reader something to work with, without forcing him/her to go hunting over multiple pages. If this stands as a separate page, then does each area of practical application also get its own page? I think people deserve to come here and see the whole, rather then go from page to page to see the parts. Brimba 20:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm guilty of starting the permaculture zones article, I'm the first to admit it could be alot better- at present its really just a cut and paste job from my own book... its my long term intention to develop permaculture subpages on things like ethics, design principles (from Mollison & Holmgren, etc), permaculture design methods, etc, etc, but just havn't seemed to have the time... It would be god to get some other folks who ae au fait with permaculture to giuve the subject some further attention as well quercus robur 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who purposed the merge, but I am happy enough to let things sit for a while, so I withdrew the merge template. Maybe there is a better way to go, it would be worth trying.

A lot of stuff on this page is talking way over the heads of anyone not deeply committed to the ideology. That should be cut back, and a good replacement would be something applicable to the real world. If you permaculture is about changing the world, then give people tools to do so. I fear the entire meaning of what permaculture is about, is currently lost in Gobbledygook. That is a great disservice to everyone. Brimba 21:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

You could be right- for me the beauty of permaculture is its simplicity: anyone can do it where-ever they are, and its always a shame to me to see such a straightforward concept over-complicated... Heres a website I put together intended to make permaculture simple (obviously its not NPOV!!!) http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/permaculture/ I'm happy for this to be used as source material for improving (and simplifying!) the wiki entry on permaculture quercus robur 22:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't seem all that bad to me. Perhaps it could be simplified, though as you say. That Spiralseed link is great. I agree it could be a good guideline for rewriting/editing the article. Sunray 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] overscientification

This seems to be getting worse rather than better. I don't think that knowledge of jargon or concepts should be assumed. For example "nested", "indicies" ... ? I also don't think that scientific proof IS needed in a short introduction to permaculture beyond suggesting reasons why practitioners may think this way. There also seems to be too many confusing references to different people's contribution to the framework of permaculture rather than focusing on where it is now. You can do the two week Permaculture design course without ever hearing of "Yeomans" or "Odum" so perhaps these references should be provided for those people that are interested.

[edit] Neutrality

  • I applaud everyone's contribution to put permaculture into Wiki. However important permaculture, and associated discussion are, it is also important to be as neutral and rigorous as possible in one's contributions. No claims should be made about energy efficiency, or about what is better or worse (like a chicken house) that cannot be backed up with either references, or empirical evidence. If statements are made about what is better or worse without evidence that this is the case in the literature, then the article will not be neutral. Sholto Maud 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Sorry if I sound like an anti-social grump, but this weekend has been an almost sleep-free weekend, which can make even saintly individuals cranky, and I am not that saintly to begin with. –oh, and sorry for the length. If something looks too cock-eyed, I’ll try to explain it better once I have had some sleep, which won’t be for another day still.

NPOV complaint one: The chicken house.

The empirical evidence for the chicken house is the Chicken Tractor, a well established and researched permaculture practice in fairly common use. The chicken house concept is simply a variation on the chicken tractor theme. Its already in general use, for the stated reasons. The phrase “Chicken Tractor” gives 17,600 hits on Google.

  • I've been falling foul of NPOV on others pagess. I think it is a good rule and has been clearing up my contributions. I'm not sure that the above comment is evidence for why the chicken house is an example of "better design". Better than what? Better than a chicken tractor? Why? 58.105.34.9 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


  • "A classic example of better design is the chicken greenhouse." Is referring too this line here --"In a conventional factory situation all these chicken outputs ….", so its saying that a chicken greenhouse combination is better than a conventional chicken factory, and then goes on to say why. I guess I misunderstood your question before. Brimba 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please continue... What makes them say that a chicken greenhouse combination is better than a conventional chicken factory? I think that the text needs to have this level of detail in it. Sholto Maud 00:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

i think this is in the text.

NPOV complaint two: claim that growing trees is more energy efficient

"For example permaculture focuses on maximizing the use of trees (agroforestry) and perennial food crops because they are more energy efficient then traditional seasonal crops. A farmer does not have to exert energy every year replanting them, and this frees up that energy to be used somewhere else."

David Holmgren’s original comment is:

"Similarly, permaculture focuses on a lot more use of trees and perennial crops because of their energetic efficiency, and the fact that you don't need to re-sow them every year, which again requires an investment of resources to make them bearing and productive." [1]

Perhaps it should be reworded to show that it simply reflects Holmgren's personal view.

  • Yes. Holmgren's ideas should be acknowledged as his ideas. As it stands the article makes a claim about energetic efficiency without providing a definition. 58.105.34.9 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "because they are more energy efficient then traditional seasonal crops." This one is right there in the text. "-A farmer does not have to exert energy every year replanting them." Brimba 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The question for me is how energy efficiency is being defined. Is it defined as = \frac{energy \; output}{energy \; input} if so, then we need some numbers (with references) on how many joules or calories of energy a farmer exerts each year in terms of input and output. Otherwise one cannot independently verify the claim. If energy efficiency is not defined by the above ratio then it should be specified as to what it is referring to. Sholto Maud 00:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Other things that stand out as I look over the article:

In the section: The permaculture design innovation:

My first question concerning this section is: Is this mainstream, or a side tangent? Reading it I feel as though I am being pulled away from the central part of permaculture; i.e., shown something that may not be a “First principal”. IMO someone new to the concept should probably be shown the core, and can explore outlying tangents on their own. Also it talks over the head of the majority of people. I would think that people reading will have their eyes glaze over rather quickly.

"One of the major innovations introduced by Holmgren's permaculture design and planning work was the synthesis of the experimental field physiology of P.A.Yeomans with the Systems Ecology of Howard T. Odum." Who are they and why should a reader care?

  • Perhaps there needs to be a section on major influences on permaculture. An important part of understandng the origins of permaculture is a matter of understanding Odum and Yeoman's influence on Holmgren. 58.105.34.9 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Trying to explain every detail, well it’s not possible with the amount of space given. And if you do explain it, then something else has to be jettisoned to make room. I think we only want to hit the main over-riding themes that permaculture is built upon, and leave the intricacies to the reader to follow up on. Brimba 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Yeoman's Keyline principle" needs a simple explanation without forcing the reader to jump pages. "Odum's maximum power principle" same for this.

  • These and other aspects highlighted below need to be put in a To Do list. 58.105.34.9 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"Key to the design process are the ideas of useful connections and multiple outputs. In terms of Holmgren's application of H.T.Odum's work, a useful connection is viewed as one that maximises power." Humm need to be in plain English. As is it makes my head hurt just trying to understanmd what is being said. Sorry if I am a simpleton.

"Its output in a year in terms of biomass exceeds the most productive wheat field." Why is this important? I care about biomass, but then I have some background to fall back on, while the average guy off the street will likely just shrug – as stated for the average reader this statement is unlikely to care weight.

  • Yes evidence is needed to back up the claim. 58.105.34.9 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • My point here is not that there is a need for evidence; it’s that it fails to carry an important idea. What I am trying to say is that the average person will not comprehend its importance. It needs to be expanded upon, and maybe clarified a little. Brimba 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

"The many connections together contribute to the proliferation of opportunities for amplifier feedbacks to evolve that in turn maximise power flow through the system." Wow, now my head REALLY HURTS.

"During growth and especially after harvesting the system is prone to soil erosion from rain." How does permaculture address this? This could be better handled to show one of permacultures strengths, especially as this is a practical principal that someone can tailor to their own environment, not just on a farm. "Odum's maximum power principle" Again, lacks clarity.


In the section: Permaculture design for ecological-economic ethics:

"the LETS scheme." Needs a simple clarification


"A basic principle is, therefore to "add value" to existing crops. A permaculture design therefore seeks to provide a wide range of solutions by including its main ethics (see above) as an integral part of the final value-added design. Crucially, it seeks to address problems that include the economic question of how to either make money from growing crops or exchanging crops for labour such as the LETS scheme. Each final design therefore should include economic considerations as well as giving equal weight to maintaining ecological balance, making sure that people working on the project's needs are met and that no one is exploited." Not bad, still a little high-brow, but not bad.


In the section; Contemporary controversy: "It is noteworthy that Holmgren's application of H.T.Odum's maximum power principle in permaculture gives priority to low level and smaller scale processes. This is because H.T.Odum's later work emphasised that the higher level transformation processes are just as important as the low level processes in sustainability design (H.T.Odum 2004). The maximum power principle was therefore restated as the maximum empower principle. This considersation is noteworthy because it has resulted in both the recognition that the larger scales of energy quality in organisations - like the nation-state and transnational corporations - play an important regulatory and autocatalytic role in smaller scale organisations. Moreover it appears to demonstrate the need for energy systems language and empower simulation literacy within permaculture and policy design." Four Advil please!!

  • Holmgren defers to emergy theory in a number of locations. See 'Energy and Emergy: Revaluing our world', available from Holmgren's home site. Perhaps this section needs to be rewritten. something like "Recent developments in emergy theory challenge the small scale focus of permaculture." 58.105.34.9 20:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Humm, I guess my point here is two fold. First: And this means what????? To use a common US expression: What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? It seems too far peripheral to by applicable to a one page definition of permaculture.
  • This may be the case. But how are we going to determine what is peripheral to permaculture, and who has the authority to say what goes? Isn't permaculture about leveling authority and treating people and concpets with equal value? Sholto Maud 00:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
And secondly, it is: If it should be here, it should be in common terms, where as right now it is speaking over most people’s heads. It really needs to be both direct and simple to understand. Brimba 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


"risk from exploitation by free market economics." Needs to be NPOV

[edit] Examples

In the section; Contemporary examples:

Stuff that should be kept, but needs further referencing, could also be expanded with more examples:

Africa "Zimbabwe has sixty schools designed using permaculture, with a national team working within the schools' curriculum development unit. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has produced a report on using permaculture in refugee situations after successful use in camps in Southern Africa and Macedonia."

Peru "A tribe in Peru has moved from a growing dependency on state support to self-reliance and support for other tribes."

USA "A military base in the USA is being transformed into an eco-business park and wildlife haven."Brimba 19:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sholto Maud put the NPOV tag on this article on December 18. He has identified a couple of concerns, above. However, I don't think that a couple of arguable bits in the article make it NPOV overall. I'm removing the tag. If someone wishes to make concise arguments for its retention, please do so. Sunray 02:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The examples apart from the UK are still vague and unreferenced and could do with improvement- I'm not qualified to do this as I only really know about UK permaculture stuff - at the moment I feel that they weaken the article rather than strengthen it- it would be good if somebody knowledgable could flesh these examples out some more and include others as well (esp Australia!!!) quercus robur 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H. T. Odum and his place within permaculture.

Carried over from the discussion just above this in: Neutrality

"This may be the case. But how are we going to determine what is peripheral to permaculture, and who has the authority to say what goes? Isn't permaculture about leveling authority and treating people and concpets with equal value? Sholto Maud 00:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"

-How is permaculture about treating people and concepts with equal value? Do all concepts have equal value? I don't see how they do. I think permaculture is more about designing effective land use systems in line with its ethics. - tjc

It may well be that “Isn't permaculture about leveling authority and treating people and concpets with equal value?” is correct concerning permaculture; however, it is not correct concerning an encyclopedia.

Here we have a limited amount of space in which to cover any subject. This means taking detailed subjects and presenting the major components/ideas/themes on a single page. I know of no way to create more space, or squeeze more space out of the ether. We have x amount of space, and no more, which in turn means we have to edit.

Now concerning Odum, I think a simple solution can be found. Dr. Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, are regarded as the founding fathers if you will, of permaculture. So we can turn to their writings, web postings, etc, to see what they have to say about Odum and/or his maximum power principle. Holmgren himself, as you have noted is a strong proponent of Odum’s work; however, he also states:

"Energy and Permaculture by David Holmgren Reprinted from The Permaculture Activist #31

Within the permaculture movement, Odum's work has not been widely recognized (and confused with the work of another American ecologist, Eugene Odum) even though it confirms permaculture's concern with sustainable use of natural systems as the foundation of any permanent culture.

Mollison makes only passing reference to Odum in Permaculture: A Designers Manual and goes on to suggest "the concept of entropy does not necessarily apply to living, open earth systems with which we are involved and in which we are immersed" This could be wrongly interpreted as meaning we can design our way out of any problem and that natural systems can sustain the continuous free lunch the affluent world is used to."[2]

Mollison seems silent one way or the other, except for this (not even sure if it’s the same Odum):

TREES: Guardians of the Earth
by Bill Mollison

"Thus, it almost seems as though the purpose of the forest is to give soil time and means to hold fresh water on land. this is, of course, good for the forests themselves, and enables them to draw on water reserves between periods of rain. (Odum, 1974)"

This article was first published in the Permaculture Journal, Issue No. 28, FebApril 1988. It is itself an extract from Chapter Six of Permaculture: A Designer's Handbook, where the complete chapter is titled 'Trees and their Energy Transactions'). [3]

Now there may be more out there that I did not find, and I would be happy to see you post it here. But as far as I can tell, Mollison has shown no interest in the subject at all –and that is extremely significant.. Holmgen is a staunch supporter of Odum’s ideas, and in his writings he has clearly suggested that Odum’s theories are the direction that permaculture should develop in. But as stated above, even he says that it is not part of mainstream permaculture movement at this time.

I did find a good section in the Overstory outlines various permaculture principals that likely should be added to the section; including one of the few references to Keyline/permaculture that I could find.

The Overstory : Farming systems and techniques commonly associated with permaculture include agroforestry, swales, contour plantings, Keyline agriculture (soil and water management), hedgerows and windbreaks, and integrated farming systems such as pond-dike aquaculture, aquaponics, intercropping, and polyculture. [4]


This is good research. Well done. There is a section on Holmgren in Mulligan and Hall's, Ecological Pioneers : A Social History of Australian Ecological Thought and Action in which Holmgren lists his main influences. There are about 4 more other than Odum and Yeomans. If you have a look at Holmgren's design of Fryers Forest ecovilliage you will see that he has made extensive use of Yeoman's Keyline principle. Furthermore, it should be noted that H.T.Odum is considered the "father" of systems ecology which deals with the quantitative treatment of the principles of ecosystem metabolism - therefore any discussion of ecosystem principles and their importance to permaculture design implies that systems ecology and the work of H.T.Odum (and colleagues) is important to permaculture design. You might also like to refer to this [interview] where Holmgren says,

" What we find generally is that using eMergy accounting, permaculture strategies come up trumps as the most environmentally progressive strategy."

and

"One of the influences on permaculture in the beginning was the work of Howard Odum. I dedicated my new book - Permaculture: Principles and Pathways beyond Sustainability to his memory."

and

"So I think eMergy accounting is very technically complex, not many people understand it, but it is something that needs to be understood more, if any of this energy-descent stuff is actually going to get to a level of adaptive public discussion and public policy"

and

"systems ecology especially Odum's development of it, provides a big picture, top down view of systems. Whether we're looking at a national economy, an environment or a region, it provides a more holistic framework for understanding what's happening in any scale of human society or nature, rather than a reductionist view which tries to pull things apart into their components, to study the bits, and then reassemble the functioning system."

58.105.34.9 09:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Sholto Maud 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

From what you have stated above, it is clear that Odum’s current connection to permaculture is limited to ORIGINAL RESEARCH on the part of Holmgren, and inspiring Holmgen in the first place. I am not questioning Odom’s work or his significant to the world at large. The sole question for this page of Wikipedia is his DIRECT connection to permaculture TODAY, which as you have shown above is limited to writings of Holmgren, and hence by your own statements can only be regarded as Original Research on the part of Holmgren. Whether it was key in the evolution of permaculture is not a question, its role TODAY is; not the past, and not its potential role in the future, only what is CURRENT TODAY. That is what an encyclopedia is for; speculation needs to go somewhere else.
  • I beg to differ. I believe that an encyclopedia entry documents the historical development of ideas and application in practice. It is not original reserach to quote from the literature as I have done. Whether it was key in the evolution of permaculture is a fundamental question for tracing the development of permaculture ideas - nor is it original reserach to give an accurate record of how an idea came about. Hall and Mulligan's book cited above tell how Odum has a DIRECT connection to permaculture. If you read Odum's Environment, power and society, you can see exactly how Mollison applied the system concepts in his Designer's Manual. Sholto Maud 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

- it seems like you have been really inspired by Holemgren/Odum's work whcih is great. However, an article like this is an introduction to permaculture and as such needs to open the subject broadly to the uninformed reader. This that details that may be important to you could easily go over someone else's head. Permaculture is a slippery subject beacuse it is both simple AND complex. There is a place for depth , but it might not be in a free encyclopaedia- tjc

Odum lived until 2002, giving him plenty of time to comment on, or do work directly concerned with permaculture –he did not. There is no DIRECT connection, as his area of work was not permaculture and therefore his material does not belong in this article.
  • As given previously, Holmgren said that Odum and systems ecology were both fundamental for his work in co-establishing the permaculture movement. I don't think you can say there is no "DIRECT" connection. Holmgren's recent book on permaculture principles places emphasis on emergy etc. Holmgren said to me that Odum's energy systems language was the most emancipatory thing that he had ever seen, and he used a simple application in his design of Melliodora. Odum did what he called "ecological engineering", which is "permaculture" by another name. I think if you get caught up in labels, and protecting the territory of "permaculture" you will not see the fundamental patterns that are at play in the work of Holmgren, Odum, MOllison and others. Value the edge, catch and store the information that affords you to see common patterns Sholto Maud 23:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Until you can show something more concrete from Mollison or some other generally recongnized authority on Permaculture, in ADDITION to Holmgren, the whole Odum/eMergy accounting connection can only be classified as ORIGINAL RESEARCH from Holmgen. It is not AT THIS TIME something that should occupy a substantial section of this page. Brimba 20:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a reference to Odum in the 'The permaculture design innovation' section as a historical precursor is fine. I'd question his mention in the 'Contemporary controversy' section.

In fact at first glance this whole 'Contemporary controversy' section seems a bit out of place. Certaily there is very little talk in the UK permaculutre comunity on The maximum Power Principle and no one mentions Odum.

i agree. it's quite hard to understand. it's all very well having good ideas, but what's the point if no one undertands what you're talking about? Surely there needs to be more reference to grass roots activities and empowerment rather than pure intellectual ideas.

Talk today is more about Peak Oil, challanges are often economic - going mainstream. In some sense this the clash, which Odum indetifies, between the small scale permaculture and the greater world. It is notable the the permaculture zone system stops at Zone 5: the wilderness. Where is Zone 6: the wider world?

  • Well put. As with below a re-named section would capture things better. Sholto Maud 01:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say this section should be re-named 'current challanges'. Cheif amonge these I would say is the difference between permaculture design as a pure design system, and permaculture as an ecoligical agricurtural system. That whole permenant culture/permanent agriculture debate. --Pfafrich 00:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I agree the Energy stuff is over emphesised in the article. We need to be clear on original research. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. However we can and should report notable original research. So discussing the original research Holmgren did is something which should go in (preferably cited). Later metions of Odum are more questionable and would need citing.

  • Re: energy emphasis, I'm not sure that one can over emphasise how important energy is to permaculture philosphy and ethics. Recent discussions about peak oil are all to do with the computer modelling and simulation of energy production. It is the computer models (based on hisotrical production but with various inbuilt assumptions) that predict peak oil. It is in light of these predictions, that the permaculture ethics of small and slow, and the emphasis on low energy quality agricultural systems (etc.) come about. Appropriate energy use is central to permaculture. Ecological engineering designs of permaculture are all about obtaining the maximum energetic benefit from our food landscapes for the minimum input. The design principles are based on the laws of ecological energetics - again Odum (et al.) are important here. If you take the energy emphasis out of permaculture what is left is environmental anthropology, and a broad collection of ideas about organic gardening. But there is no moral imperative - the imperative comes out of the peak oil predictions, and thus energy modeling and simulation. Sholto Maud 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It gives me not the slightest bit of pleasure to say that I agree with Sholto Maud. All of this time I just figured that he was smoking crack cocaine. Then I read his last piece talking about just energy/permaculture and I found that in that one area I largely agreed with him. I can accept for example “Appropriate energy use is central to permaculture. Ecological engineering designs of permaculture are all about obtaining the maximum energetic benefit from our food landscapes for the minimum input.” and “If you take the energy emphasis out of permaculture what is left is environmental anthropology, and a broad collection of ideas about organic gardening.” But the “laws of ecological energetics” belong in some section other than this one.
I think that most people who take peak oil really seriously are utopians in denial; hoping and waiting for the machine (society) to breakdown and force us all back to Tolkien's Shire.
My parents are strong believers in peak oil, my dad in particular. The biggest problem with his arguments are that its always “six months from now civilization will cease because we will have run out of energy” and then six months passes and ..well we are all still here. I don’t get a lot of contact with other people who worry endlessly about peak oil, so I don’t know if he is typical or not. My personal disagreement with the argument is two fold; First, I figure that when oil gets expensive enough, some company in Japan, or Korea, or India, wherever, will start marketing a functional H2O fuel cell – problem solved. Two, if I understand Einstein’s em2 equation, it means we are surrounded by all the energy we could ever use, we just have to be smart enough to get to it, and if things get bad enough so that everyone is sitting around thinking about it, someone will figure out a practical way to do it. –but I digress.
Barring a worldwide pandemic; in a fairly short period of time there will be 9 billion humans running around on this planet, whether anyone likes it or not. How we deal with that, how 9 billion can live without acting as devouring locus…that is the biggest challenge we face today. I don’t believe that permaculture is the answer, but I do believe that it is part of the answer.
Some guy living in Bangalore, when he comes to Wikipedia and pulls up permaculture, what is he looking for? Likely not some high-brow argument. He’s most likely looking for a tool, even a philosophical one, which he can use to improve his world. He hears about permaculture and comes here to get an overview and see if it has application to his world -to see if it is worth his time and effort to examine further. We need to give him enough information to answer the question.
I would still throw out Odum et, all, except for historical context. But the thrust of Sholto Maud’s last argument is probably valid IMO, and should probably be expanded upon. Balanced into practical applications of permaculture, and not entirely based upon peak-oil either. One place where I would disagree with Sholto Maud is his last statement. If a cheep functional fuel cell springs forth tomorrow does that mean permaculture fails to matter any more? No. Just because we have the energy to overrun the planet does not mean we should (and no I am not implying that what Sholto said can be construed that way). If someone comes up with a way to solve the energy problem, there will still be enough other problems out there –but regardless we should not have to come back and rewrite the whole thing either. Does permaculture have meaning in the Big Picture even without an energy crisis? I think it does. But the here and now is that energy is an important part of permaculture. Ok, I am off to bed so that I stop writing 650 word rambling essays every time I post here. Brimba 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
FYI, cheap (or not) functional fuel cells are irrelevant in terms of overall energy availability. A fuel cell is only a means of storing energy, not a means of creating energy. Some source of energy is required to generate the energy that the fuel cell stores. To some of us it's obvious that most of our biggest problems as a species are a consequence of lots and lots of "cheap" energy and not nearly enough wisdom in its application. And that's the context in which the eventual end of that lots and lots of "cheap" energy is a "problem." So IMO the awareness, observation and understanding of what we humans call "energy efficiency" in natural systems, and applications of those kinds of efficiencies in human-designed systems, is a vital part of permaculture (regardless of beefs over how/to whom to attribute that vital part). While I'm at it - Holmgren does say a few words in "Permaculture: principles and pathways..." about the potential relevance of permaculture in futures other than energy descent, his take IMI being that it would still have various sorts of relevance for people whose lifestyle preferences it suits regardless of larger context. -- JSchinnerer 07:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hart's forest garden

Hi Rich, I see you've amended my mention of Robert Hart's forest garden to read that its 'no longer operational'- do you have any information on the status of this project- the last I heard was that the trustees of the forest garden were in dispute with the neighbouring farm who wanted to destroy it- whats the lastest as far as you know? I'm often asked about this on permaculture courses, etc, but don't have any clear answers to give people... quercus robur 18:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Not heard anything about it for many years. --Pfafrich 15:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I've amended the text to refelect the general uncertainty around the site rather than saying its not functioning anymore, hope this is OK? quercus robur 08:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion over origin of the word 'Permaculture'

Permaculture is a design system which aims to create sustainable human habitats by following nature's patterns. The word 'permaculture' originally referred to permanent agriculture, a term coined by Franklin Hiram King in his classic book from 1911, Farmers of Forty Centuries: Or Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea and Japan. He meant permanent agriculture to be understood as agriculture that can be sustained indefinitely. This definition was supported by Australian P.A. Yeomans (1973, p. 45) who introduced an observation based approach to land use in Australia in the 1940's, based partially on his understanding of geology. In the 1970's David Holmgren and Bill Mollison redefined permaculture to mean "permanent culture", thus including the social aspects of sustainability. They are widely considered to be the co-originators of the modern permaculture concept.

My understanding has always been that Mollison and Holmgren coined the word Permaculture, however the intro passage as it stands gives the impression that the word appears in the Farmers of 40 Centuries book, as well as Yeomans. Did Yeomans and King actually use the word permaculture or did they refer to permanent agriculture? I think this needs to be clarified. Also my inderstanding was that Mollison & Holmgren originally intended that 'permaculture' should refer to 'permanent agriculture' and that permanent culture came along as a meaning slightly later (albeit still a meaning applied by H & M).

In addition I personally think that this section of the article is too confusing and complicated for an introduction section, such quite complex information should be elaborated further into the article. The first para should be a short, sharp, to the point definition only. quercus robur 15:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

I've begun restructuring the article hopefully to get things a bit more ballanced and closer to a historically acurate account. Whilst Odum work is important, there a good article by Holmgren at the Permaculture Activist, we do need to ensure that this material does have an appropriate level of significance in the article. --Pfafrich 18:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I ran Permaculture + Military through Google, but could not find anything about a US base. I also ran Permaculture + Peru through Google and again I found nothing. I suspect that the tribe in Peru is legit, but that I failed to find the info. The US base sounds more questionable, I figure a slight exaggeration, rather then simply bad info; anyway, I could not find anything about it. For now I am going to pull both references; HOWEVER, I will try to find some other better documented examples. I just won’t be online much for the next couple of weeks, so it may be a little while before I can do the research.

I have two books The Power of Duck (Tagari Publications ISBN: 0908228120) in which Mollison gives a really good explanation of real world permaculture from his point of view, (has a lot in common with Masanobu Fukuoka’s statements in The One-Straw Revolution.) Once the page gets settled again, I will grab the book and see if Mollison’s take on things belongs here or not. If it looks like it does I will try and work it in somehow.

I also have a copy of Introduction to Permaculture (Tagari Publications ISBN: 0908228082) but its sitting a few thousand miles away at the moment. I may try and have it shipped to me (its in Honduras right now). It’s the book I really wish I had handy…but….

I while ago looked up some of Odum’s stuff, and he REALLY looked like a crackpot, but then I found something a different writer had written paraphrasing Odum, and the light bulb went on. Maybe the problem here is Odum just was not that good at communicating his own ideas. As his ideas are described even now…..

"The work of H.T._Odum was also an early influence especially for Holmgren [1]. Odum's work focus on system ecology, in particular the Maximum power principle which examined the energy of a system and how natural systems tend to maximise the energy embodied in a system. This was adapted in permaculture techniques such as the multiple layers in a forest garden with multiple interacting elements."

You have to reread it a couple of times and even then (at least I) only get about half of what the author is trying to convey. I just think there is a better description out there someplace. I found it once; hopefully I can find it again, when I can I will go in search of it. Ok, enough blabbering for now. Brimba 03:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC) PS: Keep up the good work.

[edit] Contemporary opportunities

It is noteworthy that both permaculture and the maximum power principle of sytems ecology give priority to low level and smaller scale processes. This is noteworthy because later work has emphasised that the higher level transformation processes are just as important as the low level processes in sustainability design (H.T.Odum 2004). The maximum power principle was therefore restated as the maximum empower principle to emphasise role the larger zone of 'empower' has to play in regulating smaller 'power' zones. This considersation has resulted in the recognition that the larger scales of energy quality in organisations - like the nation-state and transnational corporations - play an important regulatory and autocatalytic role in smaller scale organisations. Moreover it appears to demonstrate an opportunity for permaculturalists to embrace the energy systems language and empower simulation literacy within permaculture design, and to develop quantitative computer models of permacultural design innovations.

Snipped from main article and placed here. Really this comes close to original research. --Pfafrich 23:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Does it??? Well done for even being able to understand it Rich- I couldn't make head or tail and I've got a Diploma in Permaculture Design! ;-) quercus robur 23:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In the Holmgren article he says that his primary sustainability test applies perspectives derived from Odum. Why is it that people do not teach Odum's emergy simulation and systems ecology in permaculture diploma's? Is there not a contemporary opportunity for permaculturalist's to embrace the perspectives derived from Odum's work? Best of luck with reworking this entry. :) Sholto Maud 03:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Odum's Emergy concept through Holmgren's 'Principles' book- however I'm not very good with technical language and found the paragraph in question very difficult to understand. it would be good if it could be rephrased in a a way which is accessable to any lay-person quercus robur 15:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3.9 Annual Monoculture (anti-pattern)

I'm not sure what 'anti-pattern' means- surely monocultural annual farming is itself a 'pattern'- certainly its a system which is replicated accross the world- just not, from the permacultural point of view- a very good one. Maybe it would be good to have a small section explaining pattern language before terms such as pattern and anti-pattern are introduced into the article? Antri-pattern isn't a term I've come accross before, although I have heard permaculture teachers and designers refer to 'bad patterns' quercus robur 15:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of useful plants

Hi all, I've just started List of useful plants to collect information of plants suitable for permaculture and other useful plants. Very stubby at the moment. Feel free to expand. --Salix alba (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sustainable habitat

I've changed the link at top from Sustainable habitat back to Sustainable habitat. The combined page does not at present add much to the discussion and seems to link to only one institute the New SHIRE Institute, the other link on the page is just another wiki like page, with much the same information. The New Shire institute has no other webpages linking to it, and only one page of content created by submitted of article. Much as I'm like to include as much permaculture related material, this seems like a subtile form of link span. --Salix alba (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] way too long

hi somebody already mentioned this, this article comes across as a permaculture fan site. i would not wanna push this but i think this article could be shortened by at least 50% if not more. i propose getting some feedback from people who know nothing about permaculture, ask them which part is helpful, which is not. criticism: one put i could think of is that permaculture does not seem to inspire a lot of people who want to make a living working the land. they don't seem to be it a lot of commercial farms that work with permaculture principles, some of the places from the uk list even fail to produce enough food to say feed a family. trueblood 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritcare???

I've never heard of a '4th ethic' of 'spiritcare', certainly this isn't widely recognised in permaculture circles as far as I am aware. Certainly its not in Holmgren or Mollisons books, or indeed the books of Whitefield, Bell, Hemeningway, or anybody else as far as I'm aware. Whilst it sounds like a nice enough idea, I don't see that doesn't come under part of the already existant 'peoplecare' ethic. I'm dubious that this addition belongs in this article, especially as its not 'mainstream' permaculture thinking at this time. It looks more like something for debate and discussion within permaculture circles and journals rather than an accepted part of the permaculture concept in an encyclopedia article quercus robur 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search for permaculture spiritcare and got 0 relavant results. So at present this is not verifiable. It may well have been mentioned in APC8 a fairly important conference, but unless there is some documentation we can not verify it, so sticking to the wikipedia rules and regs it should go. --Salix alba (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Debate as to whether there should be a '4th ethic' of spiritcare might be better placed at the permaculture wiki rather than wikipedia. I'm happy to delete the content from wikipedia and move it over if there is a consensus that this is acceptable. In fcat I see this as a very imporatnt potential function otf the Permawiki, to move forward permaculture theory, thinking, debate and philosophy. quercus robur 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to get this '4th ethic' stuff shunted out of this article ASAP as I really do feel it doesn't belong here and would give a misinterpretative image of current permaculture thinking to any casual browser who might happen upon this article, can we get comment from other people interested in permaculture to also comment as I'm also reluctant to be seen to be acting in a high-handed fashion over this... quercus robur 23:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd be much happier if it wasn't included as wp canon, too. -- jedd, 01:09 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment on this, I was at the APC8 Convergence last year and one of the discussion groups proposed/claimed a 4th ethic, the Care of the Spirit ethic, and this was included in the final convergence results.-Sinergyinaction 15:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Cheers

[edit] advertizing permaculture

from the article


Visit the Northeastern Permaculture Wikispace for a comprehensive listing of Events, Permaculture Groups, and Demonstration Sites in the Northeastern US and Canada. [18] Amazing example of urban permaculture in Los Angeles Path to Freedom Ideally, the Dervaes would reside on a couple of country acres in order to live the organic, self-sufficient eco-friendly and health conscious lifestyle they live. Instead, finding themselves in the middle of an urban landscape, on a simple city block in Pasadena, California, the five member family has transformed the 1/5 acre and city home into a sustainable urban homestead that provides them with enough organic and cancer prevention food that they have turned the excess crops into a lucrative home business. The family is vegetarian, and the yard blooms with over 350 varieties of edible and useful plants. The 1/10 acre organic garden now grows over 6,000 pounds of organic produce each year. The money from the cottage-industry produce business helps fund purchases of solar panels, energy efficient appliances, and a biodiesel processor. The family makes their own vegetable oil-based bio-diesel fuel to run the family car. They have chickens and ducks, and compost with worms. The Dervaes family is generous in the time they spend showing others what they are doing, from allowing local school children come take a tour to giving how-to workshops to keeping a blog Path to Freedom Journal. They protect their health, they protect the health of others, and they protect the health of the planet -- in the way they choose to live. All while living in the middle of a city on a small city lot. [edit] Cuba Cuba has in the past 18 years transformed their food production using bio-dynamic farming and permaculture. Havana produces up to 50% of its food requirements from within the city limits, all of it organic and produced by people in their homes, gardens and in municipal spaces. Read more about how and why the Cubans made this happen at The Power of Community [edit]


most of this sounds like it is straight from some leaflet advertizing permaculture. amazing.

also do the cuban really use mostly biodynamics and permaculture. i just thought they converted their agriculture to organics. --trueblood 10:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conversation with the landscape"?

I've removed the passage that User:24.5.92.11 added to the "Observation" paragraph, because:

  • If it's intended metaphorically, it doesn't fit the rest of the section it's part of
  • If it's not intended metaphorically, it's pretty dramatically POV

Here's the passage I removed:

Observation allows one to sense and tune into the conversation allready present within the landscape. WIth adequate observation one can enter the conversation knowing the diversity of languages, the individual voices, and the context of the communion.

(typos in the original) Waitak 01:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

An anon editor has removed loads of the links from this article. Whilst there is probably a need for some link editing many of these were valid and informational (including links to David Holmgren's own website!). The list requires judicious pruning, not wholesale slash and burn, hence reverted theses edits. quercus robur 22:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1st Revision

Good. I've started pruning the list and improving it with little comments

Update: I have already gone through the whole list. -Cacuija (my talk) 07:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Links removed:

Not relevant or specific:
Commercial:
Relevant to a certaint region:
Am replacing link to UK PCA, there is loads of information on this site, including articles, permaculture eduation, explanations of permaculture, projects, news, internation sections and more. quercus robur 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just Permaculture Projects (Farms, Eco Villages, Institutes and the like:

Links to be considered removed:

  • Permaculture Magazine - solutions for sustainable living. Also publish ans sell books, tools & products related to permaculture and sustainable living. (Comment: This is only a magazine -which can be an important magazine-, i couldn't find useful information in their site)
Look again there are lots of links to relevant articles from the magazine plus lots of practical stuff quercus robur 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Permaculture in Indonesia + IDEP (Comment: there is a page in Wikipedia about this project, maybe we could link to it from somewhere and remove it from external links) (already linked in the article, so i've removed it)

Modified:

  • Permaculture.net (Comment: Doesn't have much information. I have decided to replace it with:

Permaculture.net - A collection of definitions related to Permaculture)

You can view the changes by clicking here -Cacuija (my talk) 12:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] for example: jam

i removed a passage from the section examples:This does not mean that there is no possibility of making a living from permaculture systems. For example: jam. Jam is more valuable than strawberries. By doing this and making useful connections, permaculture designs can find niches for themselves in our existing socio-ecomomic structure, but it is unlikely that permaculture designs could produce the flood of fresh produce needed to keep 24 hour hypermarkets stocked with goods. Why is this? Perhaps because as systems become more complex the communities of animals and plants are more likely to balance out and massive surpluses of just one crop are harder to arrive at. There is more likely to be a more constant and varied flow of crops over the course of a year. As food has become cheaper it becomes harder to make a living from growing it on a small scale.

what is this trying to say, and is there anything besides opinion Madbishop 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the deletion of this passage. I think it does raise some important points about economics. The mainstream agricultural system is very much geared to monoculture so does not fit well with the permaculture ethos. Following on from the PC idea that the problem is the solution it means that permaculturalist have to find an alternative means of suporting themselves. Often this is by running courses, value added products like jam, or making wooden benches are another way. In the UK we've seen quite a few permaculturealists getting involved in the farmers market movement, as this essentially is a way round the supermartket dominance. What the paragraph is trying to say is relevant, just not stated very well. --Salix alba (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doubts about the value of "edge"

Sure, coastal areas are more full of life, there's rainfall, temperatures are moderate, but to jump to the concusion that "edges" are valuable from that seems a stretch. Please provide more evidence, at least in the form of links or delete! Even if there is an advantage to the seashore, the coastal edge is tens of miles wide, while I've seen permaculture designs where there were edges every hundred feet or so, it might not scale down. Permaculture is an essential idea, so it becomes even more important that it doesn't get watered down by New Age superstitions.

Coexist 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC) coexist

Theres quite a lot of discussion on edges in permaculture litrature. I've added one like to and articl on the woodland edge Plants for a Future (disclaimer i'm their webmaster). Edge are also mentioned in
I've asked on the PC mailing list about if there is any evidence to back up the claims of edges productivity. --Salix alba (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Hart

I don't know how much some editor know about Robert Hart. But his garden and writings were tremendiously influential in the UK. Its been the case over the last five years that whenever two permaculturalists meet the question whats happened to Robert's garden? comes up. He had an obit in permaculture magazine [5], has had articles written about him by plants for a future [6], is referenced by the RISC roof gardening project [7], he is referenced numberious times by Pactric Whitefield (probably the most prolific permaculture author in the UK), and here and here and here here. I could go on but Robert Hart and Forest Gardening definintly deseve a place in the history of the UK movement.--Salix alba (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

some author has been to robert harts garden, if you want to call it a garden, and to forest gardening research thing in totnes and to the devon plants for a future site. non of these places produced nearly as much food as a little conventionally kept garden slot. maybe it is easier to write fancy books about gardening than actually have a functional garden. thus some author is relativly frustrated with fancy descriptions of disfuntional sites. some author as been growing things to make a living and looking at many permaculture sites in uk for inspiration but realized that there is noone that follows permaculture principles to make a living (except when they teach permaculture to other people).trueblood 07:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is a valid critique, if you find anything published to this effect your are free to include information to this effect, however you own impression of these gardens is WP:OR. There are many many people who have visited these sites and left with different oppinions and in the history of permaculture in the UK Hart has undoutably been influential. This is an inspirational garden created by an inspirational man - Visitors came from all over the world, inspired by his books, to meet the man and see his garden, which really amounted to the same thing. (from The Guardian). It may not have been a success in your criteria, but Harts criteria were different. Indeed this is the point of permaculture as a design system, there is not the single goal of more food per square yard but a multitude of goals to suit the user, esthetics, ease of maintanance and creating natural habitats are other goals embodied by these gardens. One thing about the gardens you mention is they are all very low maintanance, ART I think spends 1 day a month on the garden, something you would not get away with in a conventianal plot. --Salix alba (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
well you permaculture and particulary forest gardening makes certain claims about amounts of food that could be grown , i would quote from hart's book but i have gotten rid of it since i've seen the place. as far as natural habitats goes, planting all kinds of exotice stuff does not really convince. and esthetics, well if a overgrown, neglected garden is prettier than a well kept up traditional veggie plot with fruit trees and flowers etc might depend on the person.. but yeah, it's all OR, so i leave you to your little permaculture shrine

trueblood 11:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/r/Talk%7EPermaculture_aa38.html"