|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
|
Author
|
Is permaculture economically viable? | (Read 805 times) |
|
MJ Solaro
Administrator
Posts: 131
|
 |
March 07, 2008, 12:29:56 PM |
|
A lot of the permaculture systems that I've looked at seem to be smaller scale: a garden, a home, a plot of land that somebody runs to feed their family or as a hobby. Many of them have successfully created healthy, sustainable ecosystems, but I haven't seen one yet that is economically successful as well.
What examples have you found of larger farms that can pay their mortgage based on the yield from their permaculture establishment? Are there well-known examples?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alexisavoire
Posts: 120
|
|
March 08, 2008, 01:57:28 PM |
|
Permaculture is economically viable if we change our concept and perceptions of what constitutes "economically viable." Does it mean making enough or making more than enough? That's the fundamental juxtaposition between permaculture and market-driven economy.
Mortgage as a concept works against permaculture as a concept. Taking a loan from a bank to start a permaculture operation requires a lending institution willing to take a substantial loss on a "unproven, non-regulated and unpopular" form of production. Most lenders will decline. That means private donations that compromise the permaculture operation with irrelevant thinking from investors that live on the conservative side of investment (like most lending institutions) choosing investments they can control even if they have no insight (conventional insights into) into the nuts-and-bolts of the operation.
Going into a shared housing situation to share expenses and work into and across a permaculture system produces a different model. One that is more a political model of Intentional Community than one of permaculture. Doing permaculture as a lone individual or family means cross-correlating non-permaculture requirements (land, mortgage, loans, modern conveniences, the regulations and licensing requirements, etc) with basic permaculture needs that make it hard to get a pure permaculture operation going. To keep a feasible model going at present requires compromises that undermine the strength and inter-cooperative-balances of a permaculture model. Also, the models available for use at present are relatively untested and largely incomplete or entirely theoretical. The bugs and problems that should have been worked out twenty years ago are still rampant in the few models that have been devised and the outside culture that permaculture is attempting to interact with - must interact with to keep itself going financially and operationally - has become even more glutted with requirements and regulations that make permaculture models the exception to the rule and therefore weighted with regulation the model inherently cannot shoulder if it is to work properly.
The result is tiny operations that barely keep themselves going to avoid the huge farming regulations or "commune community" models that tend to degenerate over time into models of social experiment instead of models of permaculture.
If permaculture becomes a government project it goes the way of farm subsidies and over-regulation of production so it needs to stay small and local. But small and local today finds it nearly impossible to operate without massive monies and special dispensations for operation because permaculture models are not standard farming/production models and as such have difficulty organizing and operating in the present western climate of regulation toward globalization.
Globalization is something to think about in terms of the inability of small local farming models to get off the ground. There is a lot of dissension over this in light of globalization. The EU has excellent agriculture records, supporting its small farms and farming communities, and EU farming cooperatives (of various types) have been expressing concern over formation of the EU and globalization for some time. If we have no sustainanble permaculture models in place and we expand consumer-driven farming and production models into a global economy model how long will it be before we have depleted global natural resources? In terms of the production of pollution in direct proportion to expansion of models we are already concerned about at the local and regional levels how will we not lose at least half of our natural resources to pollution?
Sustainable resources is a common marketing term for Free Trade meant to try to handle these question but a resource is only sustainable if it is not marketed into overproduction that results in its complete depletion. Marketing models are the dominant agricultural and production models right now. Permaculture models are not market-driven (marketed through Advertising) but exist in a market-driven economy. As such, they are crippled for themost part.
There is a post in here somewhere from someone who found a sitcom (Brit) called Good Neighbors they were recommending. That sitcom is from the late 60's and early 70's. Their permaculture model is still the most prevalent today, a sort of cottage-industry model, and it is still treated with same contempt and derision as it was then by the sitcom couple's conservative neighbors. Almost 50 years of attempting to introduce permaculture and we haven't got far yet. There is another post in here somewhere from someone who wanted to start an intentional community/permaculture on her inherited property. There was almost no advice for her (for lack of knowledge, not for lack of neighborliness). She had nowhere to go and no one to ask for direction into getting something started. She never checked back in. That's why this post is so long, we still have a long way to go...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
MJ Solaro
Administrator
Posts: 131
|
|
March 09, 2008, 12:21:29 PM |
|
That was a rich answer to a complex question. Let me see if I understand what you're saying by summarizing it back to you, and you can tell me if I've got the general gist:
The general answer is "no." Under today's conditions, permaculture is not economically viable on any meaningful level of scale. The reasons for this are:
1. The chicken and egg problem:
*Lenders won't lend to permaculture farms because it's an unproven financial model.
*Permaculture farms can't prove themselves as a viable model because lenders won't lend to them.
2. As a result, permaculture adherents tend to enter into international community arrangements, which ends up compromising the philosophy, which ends up hurting large scale practices financially.
3. Current governmental farming regulations also make it prohibitive for large scale permaculture operations to move forward easily.
Globalization may be a way out, but the model is unclear.
Based on what you say, it sounds like we may be forced into to figure it out sooner rather than later because current practices (and programs like Free Trade) are unsustainable, and it's only a matter of time...
Is that about right? Thanks for taking so much time to answer this...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alexisavoire
Posts: 120
|
|
March 10, 2008, 06:05:44 PM |
|
The statement reader "Dirtworks" posted under "environmental certifications and labelling on food" is directly relevant to why it is not now economically viable to make permaculture economically viable. These two things support each other in the problem-solution category (GM in response to limited dispersal of agricultural overproduction). Permaculture is the odd effort out. Doesn't make sense to finance a non-solution to standard models.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul wheaton
Administrator
Posts: 1343
|
|
March 10, 2008, 06:33:56 PM |
|
Sepp Holzer's farm is an example of permaculture being economically viable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kelda
Posts: 265
|
|
March 10, 2008, 09:34:34 PM |
|
Of interest in this topic:
Washington Tilth is looking for a speaker for their annual conference to speak on 'permaculture in agriculture' (the assumption being that since these are working farmers, pc techniques that can be used on working farms).
But last I heard they haven't found anyone to speak on the topic!!
And, in the other camp the Washington Permaculture folks are looking at the topic for Their convergence, although I think 'is permaculture economically viable' is more of how they'll be putting it.
Once again, looking for anyone knowledgable on the topic. Laura Sweeney knew of someone that IS doing it, not from this area, and to be even more helpful, I can't remember his name!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
paul wheaton
Administrator
Posts: 1343
|
|
March 11, 2008, 08:13:29 AM |
|
My first thought is Skeeter.
Next up: what about that guy in the "broken limbs" movie?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
alexisavoire
Posts: 120
|
|
March 12, 2008, 08:12:36 PM |
|
Re: Sepp Holzer's farm in Austria there's an excellent paper based on his model at www.ecovoice.com called
Modelling of a Permaculture Farm in a Cold Region of Austria with Consideration of Nutrient Flows, Labor Balances and Economy. by Trondl and Freyer
Very readable.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kelda
Posts: 265
|
|
March 12, 2008, 09:52:20 PM |
|
and Re: Skeeter as speaker
(kind of leap-frogging the posts, but...)
Well, Skeeter was the one to bring it up, which means he could probably talk on the topic but is hoping to learn from others.
!
In Pierce County, Carrie Little has a great 'not the word permaculture' set-up at Mother Earth Farm. She does beds of polycultures, saves seed, horse plows, has orchard, bees, etc. And it all goes to the food bank. So that's the criticism 'well, the farm doesn't make money and has tons of free labor.' True.
BUT if the farm was for-profit I have a feeling it would definitely turn a profit.
http://www.efoodnet.org/mother_earth.htm
I've heard of the 'broken limbs' thing, which I'll have to see, and of course Sepp Holzer. It's awesome though to find the local examples as plants and techniques can translate faster to other farms.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NWorNowhere
Posts: 5
|
|
March 31, 2008, 08:43:20 AM |
|
I think you really have to define the terms permaculture and economically viable first. Pure permaculture as using only local resources and producing zero waste/pollution is probably only profitable on a large scale in a few select niche markets, if that (grass-fed beef comes to mind). From what I can see, there are two big obstacles, the suburbs and the farm bill. First, it's very difficult to eliminate waste and use only local resources when the farms are nowhere near the cities and the cities are nowhere near the farms. This is a recipe for waste and pollution and imported resources. Second, as a society we've gotten very used to VERY cheap food, and very centralized systems of delivery. The farm bill is an extension of that culture, and is anti-small farm as a result.
That said, if a person isn't looking to get rich and already owns or can lease a chunk of land, permaculture should be the most efficient (and therefore least expensive) form of agriculture available. In addition to Sepp Holzer's work, you may want to read up on Masanobu Fukuoka. Though he is not permaculture in name, his most fundamental principles are very in line with permaculture concepts.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pixelphoto
Posts: 44
|
|
May 05, 2008, 10:35:28 AM |
|
Mortgage as a concept works against permaculture as a concept. Taking a loan from a bank to start a permaculture operation requires a lending institution willing to take a substantial loss on a "unproven, non-regulated and unpopular" form of production. Most lenders will decline. That means private donations that compromise the permaculture operation with irrelevant thinking from investors that live on the conservative side of investment (like most lending institutions) choosing investments they can control even if they have no insight (conventional insights into) into the nuts-and-bolts of the operation.
Why do we need a mortgage. What if someone already owns a piece of property as I do and many other people here in America do?
Unproven, non regulated, unpopular Not hardly. Its been proven over 30 years or more. Just ask Bill Mollison.
Non regulated ok its not regulated whats wrong with that to me thats a good thing. Selling of food is regulated however by your states Department of Agriculture and the FDA and the USDA as to what and how you can sell things and how you advertise it.
Unpopular not hardly its gaining momentum every year. This is the year of permaculture in my opinion. I have seen ad heard more about this movement in the past two years than ever before. Being green, permaculture, biodynamic, and organic are the IN THING.
Going into a shared housing situation to share expenses and work into and across a permaculture system produces a different model. One that is more a political model of Intentional Community than one of permaculture. Doing permaculture as a lone individual or family means cross-correlating non-permaculture requirements (land, mortgage, loans, modern conveniences, the regulations and licensing requirements, etc) with basic permaculture needs that make it hard to get a pure permaculture operation going. To keep a feasible model going at present requires compromises that undermine the strength and inter-cooperative-balances of a permaculture model. Also, the models available for use at present are relatively untested and largely incomplete or entirely theoretical. The bugs and problems that should have been worked out twenty years ago are still rampant in the few models that have been devised and the outside culture that permaculture is attempting to interact with - must interact with to keep itself going financially and operationally - has become even more glutted with requirements and regulations that make permaculture models the exception to the rule and therefore weighted with regulation the model inherently cannot shoulder if it is to work properly.
There you go with loans and mortgages again. What if people own the land. No reason for loans or mortgages then.
No where did Bill Mollison or anyone else say that permaculture was only for lone people or small families. It can easily be applied to major cities like NEw York. Many villages in Australia, Africa, and other places across the world are using permaculture practices and have been for some number of years now. theres nothing new about it and its all self sustainable eco system with very little if any outside inputs needed.
you say the permaculture models are untested thats simply not true it models natural life. And Some of the practices have been practiced well over 30 years and are very self sustainable.
The result is tiny operations that barely keep themselves going to avoid the huge farming regulations or "commune community" models that tend to degenerate over time into models of social experiment instead of models of permaculture.
This I may agree with you partially.
There are many farming regulations that are not geared for the small farmer. But things are getting better.
Im not a big fan of the old style communes but I do know some have been around since the 60s that are still going strong to this day. I for one wouldnt join a commune or intentional community but I respect the people who do.
If permaculture becomes a government project it goes the way of farm subsidies and over-regulation of production so it needs to stay small and local. But small and local today finds it nearly impossible to operate without massive monies and special dispensations for operation because permaculture models are not standard farming/production models and as such have difficulty organizing and operating in the present western climate of regulation toward globalization.
Well first I would say I never compete against large companies with lots of cash.
Keeping your inputs low and not requiring inputs to be brought into the farm by creating your own cuts down on cost of operation. I know farms whos only cost of operation is driving to the farmers market to sell their wares. Saving seed, building compost, growing animal feed, etcetc all done on farm so no inputs are brought in all cut down on operational cost of a traditional farm.
Globalization is something to think about in terms of the inability of small local farming models to get off the ground. There is a lot of dissension over this in light of globalization. The EU has excellent agriculture records, supporting its small farms and farming communities, and EU farming cooperatives (of various types) have been expressing concern over formation of the EU and globalization for some time. If we have no sustainanble permaculture models in place and we expand consumer-driven farming and production models into a global economy model how long will it be before we have depleted global natural resources? In terms of the production of pollution in direct proportion to expansion of models we are already concerned about at the local and regional levels how will we not lose at least half of our natural resources to pollution?
Globalization is the reason small local farming cant get off the ground. Absolutely not. I wouldnt want to sell my pears or (fill in the blank) to China or Africa anyway. The allure of small farms is making a comeback. Buying local where the farmer and customer actually know one another on first name basis is the IN THING. Being able to go out to the local farm and pick your own and talk to the farmer and see how things are grown is growing by leaps and bounds. Knowing it was picked fresh that day, that the farmer drove less than 30 miles instead of the average 1200 miles most food or produce travels means its fresher, riper, has more vitamins and nutrients, Less pollution was created to get it from point a to point b.
Sustainable resources is a common marketing term for Free Trade meant to try to handle these question but a resource is only sustainable if it is not marketed into overproduction that results in its complete depletion. Marketing models are the dominant agricultural and production models right now. Permaculture models are not market-driven (marketed through Advertising) but exist in a market-driven economy. As such, they are crippled for themost part.
no real comment here I could but my fingers are getting tired LOL
There is a post in here somewhere from someone who found a sitcom (Brit) called Good Neighbors they were recommending. That sitcom is from the late 60's and early 70's. Their permaculture model is still the most prevalent today, a sort of cottage-industry model, and it is still treated with same contempt and derision as it was then by the sitcom couple's conservative neighbors. Almost 50 years of attempting to introduce permaculture and we haven't got far yet. There is another post in here somewhere from someone who wanted to start an intentional community/permaculture on her inherited property. There was almost no advice for her (for lack of knowledge, not for lack of neighborliness). She had nowhere to go and no one to ask for direction into getting something started. She never checked back in. That's why this post is so long, we still have a long way to go...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toby Hemenway
author
Posts: 18
|
|
May 08, 2008, 03:31:01 PM |
|
When people ask me whether Pc is economically viable, I give a two-part answer. The first is that practicing permaculture can significantly reduce your need to earn money (I live on roughly 20% of what I used to), which is at least as useful as earning more money, and almost certainly is better for the planet. Some have the erroneous idea that Pc is a set of techniques, and that these techniques can be substituted for current practices, much the way a conventional farmer can substitute organic practices. But Pc is primarily a decision-making tool that can be applied at many levels, from "how can I stop spending so much money on pesticides and fertilizers?" on up to "how can I change my current practices that turn ecosystems into money and instead live on land that supports me as well as nature?" So it's asking us to look at the question "how can I make money" differently.
The 2nd part is yes, there are plenty of farms that use permaculture successfully to generate an income. Don Tipping of Seven Seeds Farm in Williams, OR is one nice example; I know a lot of farmers and ranchers who use the Keyline system devised by PA Yeomans, which is a very permacultural approach to water and soil management; there are examples of these, created by permaculture designers, in OR, CA, MT, and AZ. What Joel Salatin is doing at Polyface Farm is utterly permacultural. You use a different set of techniques at farm scale than you would at home scale, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SueinWA
Posts: 313
|
|
October 16, 2008, 08:19:53 PM |
|
Here I am again, jumping into a thread that's over six months old...
I just read through the above responses to the question, and I didn't notice that anyone mentioned one of the most obvious answers.....
Permaculture is probably the MOST economically viable method on the planet. Joel Salatin has been proving it for years.
I think where the complication comes in is the source of money to start it. Many people who get into, and want to get into, permaculture are not money-obsessed people. Do you ever hear of someone like Bill Gates deciding to dump $30 million into setting up a permaculture farm? That's how much he donated to the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. 
If someone wants to start a farm using permaculture methods, they are expected to do it on a shoestring, on their own, and work at outside jobs while they're doing it. Most bankers probably have never even heard the word 'permaculture', and what they don't know or understand, they're not going to loan on.
Ten thousand- acre corporate farms already have backers. They can dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into machinery, chemicals and hired help. Then the taxpayers are going to pay up the wazoo in subsidies to support them year after year after year. And the taxpayers also get the joy of paying for cleaning up after them. The costs of a conventional farm are not limited to what shows on their tax forms. The costs of lost soil (blown away or washed away), contaminated water, contaminated food, products lacking in good nutrition leading to health problems, and all the other hidden costs of conventional farming, if added up and posted, should make every American citizen so mad they should be spitting nails.
Corporate mega-farms are not economically viable and never have been. So why have we been supporting them for the last sixty years or so?
If the money that has been dumped into financially and ecologically unsustainable farms had been funneled into organic and permaculture farms (yes, I know the years don't match), visualize what this country would be like today!
The question asked at the heading of this thread was actually the wrong question to ask.
How about "Are conventional farms economically viable? And if they're not, why are we continuing to subsidize them?"
Sue
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
SueinWA
Posts: 313
|
|
October 17, 2008, 04:39:39 PM |
|
Well, now... Isn't THAT interesting!
Hmmmm........... maybe I will. October 20th..... I'd better get my rear in gear.
Sue
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
