"Of course you couldn't feed the world with such a hippy-dippy, hunter-gatherer, landscape system like permaculture."

13 February 2007. David Blume had cause to write in defence of permaculture and he seemed well qualified from a theoretical and practical perspective; having certified more than 400 people in permaculture design since 1997 and he was a permaculture production food farmer for 9 years.

I found his arguments fascinating and I hope you can find the time to visit his site http://www.permaculture.com/ to read the full text. All comments are welcomed of course. NB Subheadings are mine.

PERMACULTURE IMPROVES SOIL
"On approximately two acres - half of which was on a terraced 35 degree slope - I produced enough food to feed more than 300 people (with a peak of 450 people at one point), 49 weeks a year in my fully organic CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) on the edge of Silicon Valley."
David goes on to say that he built his soil from cement-hard adobe clay to an impressive state at over 22% organic matter with a cation exchange capacity (CEC) of over 25.

CEC is an indirect measure of soil humus or the ability of the soil to hold nutrients available to crops. The higher the number, the more nutrients are stored and available. For reference (in America), Class 1 commercial agricultural soil is "lucky to hit" 2% organic matter - the dividing line between a living and dead soil - with a CEC around 5.

PERMACULTURE EFFICIENTLY USES SUNLIGHT UPON POLYCULTURAL PLANTINGS
Another issue that David addressed was the superiority of organic polyculture practices as opposed to the established commercial chemical monoculture practice of crop growing. He cites two reasons: the benefit of mycorhyzzal symbiosis (mycorrhizas are highly evolved, mutualistic associations between soil fungi and plant roots.)http://www.ffp.csiro.au/research/mycorrhiza/intro.html#whatand solar saturation.

Solar saturation is defined as the point at which a plant's photosynthetic machinery is overwhelmed by excess sunlight and shuts down. In practice, this means that most monoculture crop plants stop growing at about 10am and don't start again until about 4pm. Various members of a polyculture shade each other, preventing solar saturation, so plants metabolise all day.

POLYCULTURE vs MONOCULTURE, AN EXAMPLE
David gives the example that when you look at a simple Mexican permaculture field growing the typical "three sisters" of corn, beans and squash, you get close to 90% solar efficiency as opposed to approximately 30% from a chemical monoculture field.

Whilst finding a suitable illustration of the 3 sisters I thought I should also include a description of this method of companion planting. Follow the link for further information.


"Three sisters grow together in a farmer’s field. The sisters are close and protect one another. The first sister, standing straight and tall, provides support for the second sister.The second sister is a climber. She adds nitrogen to the soil, feeding and nourishing the other two. The third sister covers the soil with broad leaves, preventing weeds from growing. In these ways, each sister helps the others. The sisters grow faster and stronger with each other’s help. Here is how you can plant the three sisters — maize, beans and squash — on your land. Make a small hill of soil. The hill should be one foot tall, and twice as wide. Plant five maize seeds in a circle in the hill. Plant the seeds an equal distance apart. When the maize is a little taller than your ankle, plant four climbing bean seeds in the hill around the maize stalks. Finally, the last thing to do is to plant four squash seeds in the hill around the maize stalks. As the three sisters grow, observe how they help one another. You only have to prepare the soil once. But you harvest THREE crops! I think you will notice that your maize will not be damaged by pests. And you will harvest more food from less land." http://www.farmradio.org/

MANUAL & MECHANICAL LABOUR
It is now estimated that 80% of the world's arable (read European-style ploughed) agricultural land is now in the hands of multi-nationals, who then choose to adopt monocultural farming practices because it utilises the least amount of labourers. Harvesting "the three sisters of corn, beans and squash" could not be accomplished with a combine harvester, instead it would require many labourers and that could mean a reduction in profits.

MULTINATIONAL OWNERSHIP OF GRAINS OR THE EVIL SOYBEAN
Lastly, David's article discusses the "neo-liberal formula" of the IMF and the World Bank and the detrimental effect they are having on the developing nations; and restorative agricultural practices that would replace the inefficient corn-soybean agribusiness. (Bill Mollison has much to say against the soybean not least that 100% of the patents on soy beans are owned by three companies". Sixth International Permaculture Conference and Convergence, Perth and Bridgetown, WA 27 September to 7 October 1996. http://www.rosneath.com.au/ipc6/ch01/mollison/index.html)

This article by David Blume contained many ideas and I suggest following the links for more details. Maryanne Bell 14 July 2007