3 ms·

Could be possible that some weed adapts to grow through the bush or something, what i like specially about this is using legumes as both cover and fertilizer, w

Could be possible that some weed adapts to grow through the bush or something, what i like specially about this is using legumes as both cover and fertilizer, which is something permaculture uses a lot too. Also it's reminiscent of how corn was traditionally grown, with beans as nitrogen fixing and squash as ground cover. But on the long run, my bet is on diversity instead of monocrops.

bluGill 6y ago
Those old "3-sisters" ways of growing corn were done - but it greatly reduces the yields of all 3 crops because they compete with and harm each other.
- hinkley 6y ago
  The goal is to increase the combined yield without a proportional increase in labor. Mark Shepard likes to brag about how he gets less half a harvest of six+ different species in the same field. He's still getting 2-3x as much food out of the space. Most importantly, I believe (and he agrees), when you monocrop you go for broke. If something goes wrong, you have very little to sell at the end of the year. If it's a bumper crop year, prices will be depressed if it's a good year for everybody. In either scenario, the dealer (bank) always wins. With six crops, the standard deviation between good years and bad years is reduced, which makes farming less of a trip to Vegas. That he gets more out of the same land brings up his average expected income. It's more work, yes, but he points out that many farmers have to take a side job to make ends meet, and he theoretically doesn't (he speaks and consults), so he can invest that time into increasing his farm's productivity.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You don't have to mono crop or go "3-sisters" midevil farmers in Europe generally had many small fields - Barely on the highland, wheat in the best land... (3-sisters is American Crops and so not an option before Columbus). They achieved the same risk reducing diversity without having crops that directly harm each other next to each other.
    - hinkley 6y ago
      There’s a pseudoscience within permaculture called guilds, and a skeptics view of that theory boils it down to “plants beside each other that don’t harm each other”.

bluGill 6y ago

Those old "3-sisters" ways of growing corn were done - but it greatly reduces the yields of all 3 crops because they compete with and harm each other.

hinkley 6y ago
The goal is to increase the combined yield without a proportional increase in labor. Mark Shepard likes to brag about how he gets less half a harvest of six+ different species in the same field. He's still getting 2-3x as much food out of the space. Most importantly, I believe (and he agrees), when you monocrop you go for broke. If something goes wrong, you have very little to sell at the end of the year. If it's a bumper crop year, prices will be depressed if it's a good year for everybody. In either scenario, the dealer (bank) always wins. With six crops, the standard deviation between good years and bad years is reduced, which makes farming less of a trip to Vegas. That he gets more out of the same land brings up his average expected income. It's more work, yes, but he points out that many farmers have to take a side job to make ends meet, and he theoretically doesn't (he speaks and consults), so he can invest that time into increasing his farm's productivity.
- bluGill 6y ago
  You don't have to mono crop or go "3-sisters" midevil farmers in Europe generally had many small fields - Barely on the highland, wheat in the best land... (3-sisters is American Crops and so not an option before Columbus). They achieved the same risk reducing diversity without having crops that directly harm each other next to each other.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    There’s a pseudoscience within permaculture called guilds, and a skeptics view of that theory boils it down to “plants beside each other that don’t harm each other”.