Talk:Permaculture

Links

The link section has been shortened with reference to MoS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style The current link list still contains the UK Permaculture Association, which kind of makes no sens on a list of international projects. The Permaculture Education Institute is a for profit institute and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisevans57 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Permaculture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Full review soon. Some first thoughts for now:

• There are some paragraphs without any references.
  • If you mean the bulleted lists, these are each cited at their top; I've repeated the citation N times if you like for each bullet point, but it really shouldn't be necessary.

Common practices

I mostly worry about the organisation of the "Common practices" section:

• The "Common practices" section feels a bit like a random assablage of topics that do not really fit together. I think it mixes areas of applications (agroforestry, suburban and urban permaculture) with permaculture "modules" or "designs" (Hügelkultur), practises (rainwater harvesting, sheet mulching etc), and objectives (domesticated animals, fruit trees). For example, most urban gardens I have seen have a Hügelkultur bed, so it does not make sense to me to have both "urban gardening" and "Hügelkultur" as subtopics under the same heading.
  • Moved the agroforestry and the sub/urban into an Applications section.
  • Moved the animals and fruit trees into an Objectives section.
  • Hügelkultur is not tied to being urban, as it can be practised anywhere.

• Following from that, the choice of topics also feels a bit random; for example, "Hügelkultur" is discussed but not herb spirals, although these are very common as well.
  • Added.

• Composting toilets are discussed in the context of biogas harvesting, but I always heard about them in the context of compost production (which is not mentioned). Also, both do not really fit under "rainwater harvesting".
  • Moved to separate Compost section.

• "Keyline design" should be discussed together with "rainwater harvesting".
  • Done.

• However, I think it is difficult to propose a much better structure. Maybe you could split it into two separate sections, one about fields of application (contexts/situations in which permaculture can be applied; including urban permaculture, marine systems, agroforest), and actual practises for the rest?
  • Has been split as described above.

• Also, I propose to keep the sections more general and broader. For example, instead of a section just on Hügelkultur, you could have a section that discusses all common practices of growing plants, also including herb spirals, sheet mulching, no-till gardening, etc. Therefore, you could group food plants, domestic animals, and resource management (rainwater, composting toilets, vermicomposting etc) separately.
  • Has been reorganised as described above.

• No-till is not discussed? I think it is of central importance to permaculture.
  • Added.

• "Methodology" is a bit short, and not particularly informative. Is there a research community that investigates permaculture? Are there concepts to apply permaculture to large-scale commercial farming? What are the problems?
  • Length is not the issue. I disagree with its being uninformative: it concisely states the issue with permaculture's methodology, that it's not mainstream and that "permaculturalists rarely engage with mainstream research in agroecology, agroforestry, or ecological engineering". I've added Krebs & Bach's claim of evidence for the 12 principles: I'll note here, which I can't do in the article, that evidence-in-theory-supporting-principles is very different from actual experimental evidence supporting practice, let alone randomised controlled trials, or (imagine!) meta-level studies systematically evaluating permaculture experiments. Such a study would basically draw a blank today, for the reasons given. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Very interesting would be some statistics/estimates. How productive is permaculture compared to commercial agriculture? How much land would be needed to feed the world just using permaculture? How many hours per day would a person need to work to live on the food they produce? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • As above, not sure if any such exist: all attempts to find any have returned fluff on education, principles, and suchlike but no experimental evidence. I've added some sociological research on permaculture farming businesses; the study called itself "the first systematic research into permaculture farming". It wouldn't answer any of your questions without a chunk of ORish calculation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Looks very good! Will have a detailed read later. Regarding the missing references, only one un-referenced paragraph is left now: Forest gardening/food forests involve systems designed to mimic natural forests. … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed.

Comments

I just noted a few more things that are apparently missing from the article:

• Crop rotation. A practice found in every permaculture garden but only mentioned as an aside under "history".
  • Crop rotation has been practised since 6000 BC in the Middle East; in Europe it was standard in the Middle Ages with the three-field system; it was a major feature of the British Agricultural Revolution with the Norfolk four-course system. Almost every modern farm rotates crops, however much pesticide they use.
    • Hmm ok. It is still considered a key principle of permaculture though. The article itself states: George Washington Carver advocated what can now be called traditional permaculture practices, such as the rotation of particular crops to restore nitrogen to the soil and repair damaged Southern farm land, in his work at Tuskegee Institute, beginning 1896 until his death in 1947.[11][12][13] I believe that permaculture takes the idea of crop rotation a bit further, but I don't know the details.
      • Yes, I think we have that quite well covered.

• Companion planting. Typical permaculture practice, found in every permaculture garden. I think this is a key feature that sets permaculture apart from conventional farming: No monocultures. The most famous example are the Three Sisters (agriculture), which could be provided as example.
  • Companion planting and the Three Sisters have been in use for over 5000 years, from the dawn of agriculture in Mesoamerica.

• • The most we can say is that permaculture adopted practices like rotation and companion planting from traditional farming.
    • Yes, but the same applies to sheet mulching and no-till gardening (see terra preta), rainwater harvesting, and possibly Hügelkultur. These things are very old, too. Few techniques were invented by the permaculture movement itself, but that does not make them irrelevant in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
      • I've added a section on annual crops (yes, not no-till) to cover crop rotation, intercropping, and companion planting, all three being traditional techniques.

• Nature modules. These "nature modules" may include piles of leaves, rotten logs for insects, ponds, piles of stones for reptiles, bee shelters, etc. The goal is to attract biodiversity (following the idea that biodiversity means resilience). To include these things in a permaculture garden seems to be common practice. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  • A search for "nature modules" with "permaculture" returned exactly 3 results. I don't want to say these don't exist but they do seem to be a minor feature, and I'm not sure any of the 3 sources are really suitable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Term seems to be common in German but not in English. Never mind.

• Permaculture has many branches including ecological design, ecological engineering, regenerative design, environmental design, and construction. It also includes integrated water resources management, sustainable architecture, and regenerative and self-maintained habitat and agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems.[4][5] – I cannot find this in the cited sources. Also, it is not repeated later in the article (the lead should only be a summary of what is discussed in the main text).
  • Moved into main text, edited.

• Considering the Harper critique: The text gives the impression that Harper is criticising permaculture as such, but he seems to be permaculturist himself who advocates a different approach to it?
  • He writes as an informed environmentalist interested in sustainability, certainly, but it does not seem that he'd accept the label of "permaculturist". From the article he is clearly happy with the practical farming end of the spectrum, while rejecting the impractical ideas at the other end. I think I've pretty much managed to capture that in the text, but happy to tweak it if need be.

• I think the "Layers" section has issues. First, it comes across as a fundamental of permaculture, but I think it only applies to edible forests?
  • Forest-style: a garden can be designed to be like a forest with a tree or two, a bush or two, ground cover plants, and so on. Reworded.

• its constituent parts such as trees, understory, ground cover, soil, fungi, insects, and animals – Why can taxa such as insects be called "parts", together with categories such as "ground cover"? That does not make sense to me. Also, "incects" are "animals" as well.
  • Edited both.

• Forests offer seven basic layers, although there can be many more, such as fungi. – This means that forests can have fungi, but not necessarily? I would argue that every forest has fungi.
  • Removed as repetitive: fungi and the rest are named immediately above.

• nematodes, worms – if a nematode is not a "worm", what is a "worm" then precisely?
  • Earthworms.

• In the "Guilds" section, it states: Guilds include compatible animals, insects, and plants that form symbiotic relationships – but the following examples are, from my understanding, not symbioses. For example: [plants xyz] can together form a guild for a fruit tree. As the tree matures, the support plants will likely eventually be shaded out and can be used as compost. The plants benefit the tree, but if the tree makes "compost" out of the plants, there is no "mutual" relationship, hence no symbiosis.
  • Edited.

• An example of a mutual support guild is mycorrhizal fungi's symbiotic relationship with plants by providing minerals and nitrogen to plant roots and receiving sugars in return has been cited as an example of the mutualistic guild. Permaculturalists take advantage of this beneficial relationship when designing their garden – The mycorrhiza is a strange example; I doubt that permaculturalists actively plant mycorrhiza? I mean: conventional forestry also takes advantage of mycorrhiza in some way, but why is this relevant here?
  • Agree, the other examples given are clearer, removed.

• A potential example of this type – why "potential"? Where does the uncertainty come from? I don't understand.
  • Removed the word.

• Permaculturists argue that where differing systems meet can become highly productive and offer useful connections. – Some grammar issue here? What can become highly productive?
  • Removed per item below.

• and offer useful connections – What is meant with "useful connections"?
  • Removed, we've got synergy in same sentence.

• What benefits does the edge effect has to permaculture? Is it increased yields? I do not fully understand this section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Removed as weakly sourced.
    • However, this is discussed in detail in the permaculture books I looked at that are cited in the article, e.g. in Hemenway, and in Mars, "Maximising the edge" is even a major chapter (chapter 2). Seems relevant enough to me to mention and explain? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Added definition and discussion from Hemenway.

• Students of Mollison's Permaculture Design Course (PDC) included Max Lindegger, Lea Harrison, Robyn Francis, and Geoff Lawton in Australia, Tom Ward, Dave Jacke, Michael Pilarski, and Dan Hemenway in the USA, Andrew Langford in Britain, and Declan Kennedy and Margrit Kennedy in Europe. – It is not clear to me why these people are relevant, and most are not even linked.
  • Removed.

• The Mesoamerican Permaculture Institute (IMAP)[20] flourished in Guatemala – "Flourished" is not neutral encyclopedic language. And apparently without a source, too?
  • Removed.

• In the 1990s, the permaculture movement spread throughout Asia, Africa, and the Americas. In Hong Kong, the Asian Institute of Sustainable Architecture (AISA) was established.[19] The Mesoamerican Permaculture Institute (IMAP)[20] flourished in Guatemala. The Permaculture Institute of El Salvador is another example.[21] – This paragraph is pretty weak (a list of apparently random examples rather than general information).
  • Removed.

• The history section has almost nothing about the developments after Mollison. This seems to be quite a gap?
  • Wider after the above; but perhaps (given comments such as Harper's) this is exactly right, the field has floundered.

• Properly done, the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. – This is stated as fact; is there solid evidence behind it? Otherwise, maybe formulate more carefully.
  • Edited.

• Permaculture draws from disciplines including organic farming, agroforestry, integrated farming, sustainable development, physics, meteorology, sociology, anthropology, biochemistry, engineering, and applied ecology.[28] – I can't find this in the provided sources.
  • Removed.

• Section "Edge effect": "spirals in herb gardens" maximise the edge, while "herb spirals" minimise it? I can't follow here.
  • Good catch, fixed.

• Section "People care": I wonder if this should be incorporated in "Foundational ethics", since "People care" is one of the three ethics that is discussed there.
  • Merged.

More

• Animals are a critical component of any sustainable ecosystem. Research indicates that without animals' contribution, ecological integrity is diminished or lost. – Why is this relevant for an section about "domesticated animals"? Of course animals are crucial to any ecosystem, but that does not necessarily apply to domesticated animals.
  • Removed.

• Research indicates that without animals' contribution, ecological integrity is diminished or lost. – Awkward sentence. Was there really "research" that was performed in order to come to this trivial conclusion? The source is a bit weak too.
  • Removed.

• I now wonder if "Domesticated animals" and "Fruit tree management" are better placed as sections in "common practises", since the section "Additional objectives" feels a bit constructed. Your call.
  • Moved.

• The Fruit tree management section: I worry about balance here, since it is quite specific and lengthy, about experiments of Masanobu Fukuoka. Moreover, it is only supported by sources written by Fukuoka himself. For example: He ultimately achieved yields comparable to or exceeding standard/intensive practices – Without an independent source, we only can say that he "claims" these results, not that he did achieve them.
  • Trimmed and edited.

• "Other branches" section: I still cannot find this information in the sources provided. I wonder if these "branches" of permaculture even exist; permaculture isn't a sizable scientific discipline after all that could have such branches?
  • Cut.

• Regarding the Harper critique: I still feel that this is not really reflecting what he says; his focus is on amending permaculture, while the paragraph here just pics his most extreme claims, which seems to suggest that he rejects permaculture as a whole, which he does not. But one thing is clearly wrong I think: found "many permacultures", ranging from practical farming to "bullshit – The "bullshit" is not refering to "permacultures", but to certain ideas that permaculturists held.
  • Edited.

• The Hemenway book: I am confused about the citation. Is it from 2001 or 2009?
  • 2nd edition 2009.

• Forest gardens or food forests are permaculture systems designed to mimic natural forests. – This section is about forest gardens, but the whole section about "Layers" is only about forest gardens as well (since these layers are only applicalbe once there are trees). I don't think it is ideal to discuss this in two distinct places; the sections could be combined.
  • Merged.

• The quote in "Suburban and urban permaculture" should have author and page. I recommend using the template.
  • Added.

• An example is Marine Permaculture – Does that mean there are other examples of permaculture that fell not under "marine permaculture"?
  • Edited. The statement is just looking at the marine side.

• The Permian Mass Extinction was thought to have been brought on by such ocean warming, stratification, deoxygenation, anoxia, and subsequent extinction of 96% of all marine species. – This feels a bit off-topic (permaculture has little relevance to such a mass extinction event).
  • Cut.

• I think this was my last bunch of comments. It took me a while, but it was a difficult article with many issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for persevering. This was an old article edited by many enthusiastic hands and I had a hard job pruning away all the dead wood. It's certainly in much better shape now, so I'll thank you again warmly for your careful reading. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

    Happy to hear that, and thank you, too, for your work on this. Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.