Of consumers and permaculturists: or, win some, lose some

More breaking news in this post from the vortex of literary creativity that is the Small Farm Future office these days. Editor-in-chief Chris Smaje’s article about the Vallis Veg box scheme (yes, I do occasionally actually grow some plants) entitled ‘Kings and commoners: agroecology meets consumer culture’ has just been published in the academic journal ‘The Journal of Consumer Culture’. I can make individual copies available to my expectant publics once I’ve worked out how to use my author privileges to breach the publisher’s formidably defended paywall.

I’m sure few would disagree that this major publishing event demands a blog post of its own in order to explain the nature of the article, so I think I will leave that to another time. However, it’s not all been a bed of roses in the Small Farm Future publishing empire this year. Today I also bring you news of an article most cruelly spiked. And in future posts I shall then get on with the business of talking about small-scale farming rather than endlessly attempting to showcase my literary output.

Anyway, earlier in the year I published a blog post Permaculture Design Course Syndrome, which garnered a bit of attention amongst permaculturists. As a result of it, I was asked by Permaculture Activist magazine to write an article about the relationship between permaculture and science. It’s always nice to get a commission even if you’re mega busy on the farm, and even if they’re not paying you for it, so I obliged. The editor told me that the article was great, and even asked me to identify pictures for it and track down the copyrights, which I also did. Then a couple of months later he told me that it turned out they had enough articles for the edition, so they weren’t going to run mine. Now, in my original blog post I professed my enthusiasm for what I called permaculture’s ‘cheerful, can-do amateurism’. But in the case of Permaculture Activist I feel the need to omit the adjectives. I’ve spent a good many years bottom-feeding in the lower trophic levels of the writing game, but I’ve never been so badly messed about by an editor before as that. So when it comes to Permaculture Activist magazine, my advice to any aspiring permaculture writer is – avoid!

Oh well. Permaculture Activist’s loss is Small Farm Future’s gain. So I hereby present my article for your consideration. I already posted it on the Permaculture Association’s website, which led to an interesting email discussion with Ford Denison, so I suppose the effort wasn’t entirely wasted. It’s quite long, and I expect few will read it – though the uncharitable thought forms that much the same would have been true had the article appeared in its intended location. Still, any further thoughts welcome below. I’ll also make the article available on this site’s Publications page.


Of holism and reductionism

Permaculture & the Science of Hunches

Chris Smaje


Permaculture emphasizes holism. It addresses problems through wider relationships and patterns scaled at different system levels, avoiding the reductionism that isolates a problem within a specific sub-system of the wider whole and tries to solve it narrowly at that level only. The science from which it draws most inspiration is ecology, the biological discipline par excellence of relationships, systems, and levels.

Yet what interests me here are some tensions between permaculture as an holistic practice and ecology as a reductionist science. I want to make a reductionist biological critique of some aspects of permaculture’s holism, but also a holistic critique of certain forms of scientific reductionism. The result, I hope, will be some pointers toward improving permaculture’s scientific grounding, without losing the movement’s wider insights. Or to put it another way, sometimes it’s good to be holistic, whereas at other times a bit of reductionism fits the bill, and some subtlety is needed when choosing. My comments below represent my own personal journey in and around the worlds of permaculture and science—apologies in advance for over-generalizations or misrepresentations.


A reductionist ecology


Biology and ecology confront the incredible world of organisms and their interactions, but there’s no point simply marveling at the complexity of it all—understanding proceeds from reducing it to simpler elements and then building up again. For example, 19th century biologists discovered that soluble nitrogen compounds were critical plant nutrients, and this enabled them to characterize the nitrogen cycle which brings plants, grazing mammals, soil detritivores, and microorganisms into relationship with each other.

A key relationship in the nitrogen cycle is the mutualism between certain bacterial biochemists, who can fix nitrogen into plant-available ammonium, and plants able to take advantage of this skill, such as alders, which are often pioneers in nitrogen-poor soils. It’s tempting to take an holistic perspective and consider such plants to be generous trailblazers for the wider biotic community, which can take up residence only after the generously nutrifying efforts of the pioneering alders. But ecological research suggests instead that the excess nutrient is a function of atmospheric nitrogen’s virtually limitless availability, and the priority of pioneer plants comes mainly from their competitive advantage in establishment and not from their communitarian benevolence (1).

To push this insight to a more general conclusion: biodiversity in the wild usually results from niche occupation by organisms with specialist skills in tapping often recalcitrant resources, whereas human cultivation usually relies on getting high returns from a small number of organisms that respond impressively to high resource availability when humans make conditions favorable for them. This explains why, at least at a given level of the system (a vegetable bed, for example), there is little compelling evidence that polycultures or companion planting are, in general, more productive than monocultures. And it’s why ecologist Ford Denison warns against what he calls “misguided mimicry of nature” in designing agricultural systems (2).


From science to scientism


The gold standard in science is the controlled experiment. By carefully defining a problem in terms of associations between variables that are then rigorously manipulated, it becomes possible to develop and test causal hypotheses about how the various parts of the universe relate to each other and to the whole.

As a reality check to prevent us from leaping to conclusions on the basis of what we think is probably going on or what we’d like to think is going on, this experimental method in science is pretty much the only game in town. Sure, we can scoff about the reductionism of lab work and how it over-simplifies the complexities of real-world relationships. But nobody ever figured out how to replace biological nitrogen fixation with a synthetic alternative by musing on the irreducible complexity of nature; that trick was figured out in the lab, and then taken into the field. It’s hard to gainsay its technical success. Something like 40% of our food globally now relies on nitrogen fertilizer synthesized industrially using air and fossil fuels.

There’s an obvious catch here, though. The experimental method enables scientists to understand plant nutrition and develop synthetic alternatives, but it doesn’t tell us whether those alternatives ought to be adopted. The widespread use of synthetic fertilizers in agriculture has led to eutrophication in rivers, lakes, and seas and the emission of greenhouse gases, among other problems, which may or may not prove remediable by further technical interventions. The larger point remains: should we adopt synthetic fertilization, or any particular innovation enabled by the scientific method? Science has nothing to say about this.

So when people say that we need a “scientific agriculture” (for which read “large-scale, capital-intensive, labor-light, and biotech-heavy”), or that we must embrace “technological progress,” the concepts of science and technology lose their only true moorings in the experimental method and start to function as ideologies—symbols for the kind of politics, economies, and societies that its proponents favor. In this way, science becomes “scientism”—a political metaphor that has precious little to do with science as a method of enquiry. We might debate, for example, whether vitamin A deficiency in South Asia is best tackled by developing transgenic golden rice or by community agroecology projects, and we might adduce certain kinds of scientific evidence in favor of one view or another. But that pervasive brand of scientism in contemporary culture, which always favors the higher tech solution: golden rice over agroecology, represents ideology rather than science.

Others go further: a long tradition of science criticism questions the distinction I’ve just drawn between ideology and science. In this view, scientific enquiry isn’t some value-neutral enterprise that reveals objective truth, but is a social practice defined by the same ideological blinders that afflict politics and society. The society of scientists is a maelstrom of personalities and power politics no different from any other walk of life, in which some people and some questions get promoted over others for reasons that have nothing to do with truth. Personally, I’m happy to go a fair way along that road with the critics of scientific practice—of the military-industrial complex, the corporate takeover of science, and so on. However, I’d argue that ultimately there is a difference between science and ideology. I don’t think the kind of ecological findings about nitrogen I mentioned earlier can be described as ideological in any useful way, and scientific enquiry is self-correcting in a way that is scarcely true of religion, politics, or ideologies like scientism. In science, ultimately the truth will out, whereas these other modes of thought are almost endlessly capable of legitimating themselves to avoid facing their limitations.


Permaculture: from self-legitimation to emergence


So much for the critique of science as a self-legitimating political metaphor. The same can be said of permaculture. Many of us in the permaculture movement are attracted politically by the values of a flourishing community, mutual aid, social cooperation, balance, and moderation. I think we’re therefore predisposed to look for these values in the natural world and the wider universe, and to latch on to any supportive evidence that seems to confirm our worldview. I’ve already touched on some ways in which nature doesn’t always play ball with us. I’m not sure it much matters, because we don’t need to model the rules for human interaction after those of the natural world—and in any case, these values have complexities enough in their own terms (anyone who thinks that a commons or a community is a naturally self-organizing entity that maximizes net benefit probably needs to read some more history). But we do need to pay attention to the way the natural world works in our traffic with it as gardeners or farmers because, as with scientific enquiry, we can delude ourselves with wishful thinking about landscape design only for so long.

We can, if we like, describe the relationships between organisms as cooperative in preference to a Darwinian emphasis on competition. But it’s not very illuminating either way to use such singular, determinist labels, and it takes a lot of ideological conjuring to characterize the relationship between, say, lions and zebras as cooperative. Only by appointing ourselves lofty judges of lion and zebra-kind can we afford the luxury of an holistic view that holds the dance of death they enact as the benign unfolding of some larger plan for their self-improvement. If I were an individual zebra, however old or sick, I’d more likely take the reductionist position of not wanting to get eaten.

Nevertheless, the lion-zebra example illustrates the concept of emergent properties, which may help permaculturists escape the dissonance between ecological realities and communitarian ideals. Emergence occurs when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, just as the form of a future cake cannot be deduced from its specific ingredients. The agronomist Andy McGuire, building on the insights of ecologists like Denison, has argued that there are no emergent properties in ecosystems, and therefore human designers can better nature by improving on the genomes of its constituent organisms and combining them in novel ways (3). At one level, as a gardener and farmer, I can scarcely disagree, because my daily practice involves propagating improved varieties in non-natural combinations to give me products that I would never otherwise obtain.

But at another level, I do disagree because there is emergence in nature. Emergence doesn’t require the presence of some mystical unifying force of the kind that accords alders the role of benevolent trailblazers (there are many enthusiasts in the permaculture movement for such mystical forces—I’m not myself persuaded that this is more than self-legitimating ideology). But lions and zebras, while doing no more than following their individual dramas of predation and survival, help create an emergent ecosystem that cannot be derived analytically from its parts. It’s not a community in any meaningful human sense—it’s not cooperative and it’s not necessarily balanced. More important than any such questionably anthropocentric values is its emergent and conditioning form, which I would characterize in the words of ecologists Philip Grime and Simon Pierce, “within all branches of the tree of life, constraints of habitat interacting with the limited potentiality of the organisms themselves have restricted the outcomes of natural selection to a rather narrow range of basic alternatives in life-history, resource allocation, and physiology” (4).

The great inspiration of Denison’s work is his emphasis on the tradeoffs faced by every organism in the context of these limited options that evolution presents, and at a higher emergent level the tradeoffs we also face as human assemblers of agro-ecosystems built around arrays of similarly limited organisms. The essence of a tradeoff is that “having more of one good thing usually means having less of another” (Denison, p. 44), and I’d be inclined to turn this point against Denison’s own argument that “Local sourcing of nutrients in natural ecosystems… is a constraint imposed by the lack of external inputs, not an example of ‘nature’s wisdom.’ ” For while there may be no mystical wisdom of nature, our understanding of tradeoffs suggests that drawing in more external inputs, more good things from somewhere else, usually imposes deficiencies elsewhere in the total system.

Here, permaculture, as an approach in human ecology, can build bridges between the economy of nature and the ecology of humanity. The human doctrine that most strongly motivates the overcoming of local resource constraints is capitalism. Requiring a compound annual growth rate of at least 3% to preserve its impetus, the modus operandi of the capitalist economy is to seek out new global arenas for investing capital and absorbing wage labor, and thus to eliminate any local constraints to its expansion (5). By my calculations, at 3% the global economy will have to grow from its present $85 trillion to $246 trillion by 2050, all else remaining equal. Not all growth necessarily impacts negatively elsewhere, but it’s hard to imagine a tripling of the global economy within a generation that won’t draw down natural capital even faster than at present. And, for many of us, it’s hard to see what benefit this relentless growth ultimately brings to the majority of humanity, let alone the rest of the biosphere.

A basic insight of permaculture is that to get out of this impasse, it’s worth exploring some of nature’s lessons on making do with what we’ve got, avoiding waste, avoiding the total system costs imposed by overcoming local constraints, and finding ways to live more convivially within the parameters of our environs rather than feeling the need to define ourselves over and against them. To be fair, Denison himself writes “we may learn much from studying the adaptations of wild plants that evolved under… constraint” (p.106), and the real force of his complaint about the “misguided mimicry of nature” is not that it’s misguided to mimic nature, but that it’s easy to mimic nature misguidedly. If the permaculture movement keeps refreshing its engagement with a reductionist ecology, it’ll avoid making a lot of unnecessary mistakes of this sort, which mostly stem from too reductionist an approach to various specific practices that have become permaculture’s sacred cows: perennial cropping, zero tillage, swales, mulching, forest gardens, livestock tractoring, and so on. All of these are appropriate in some situations, but not in others (and, I’d submit, often in fewer situations than permaculture education generally conveys).

When reductionist science hitches itself to an expansionist economic doctrine such as capitalism, it easily fosters troublesome hybrid ideologies like scientism. In contrast, complementing science with an holistic doctrine of sufficiency such as permaculture could help us make better design decisions and ultimately enjoy a productive, convivial social ecology.

I accept that in the long run nature overcomes limits, that it’s not in balance, that whole assemblages of organisms rise and fall. But we need to design for the human short-run, not for nature’s deep time, and if permaculture sometimes errs in its vision of nature as a balanced, functional whole, this is a more appropriate fiction for staving off humanity’s fall than scientism’s fiction of humans overcoming all.


The science of incremental hunches


At present, the scientific establishment is not even very aware of permaculture. If we want to bring more of the benefits of reductionist science into our present practice, we’ll have to do it ourselves.

And herein lies a problem. The experimental method is tremendously costly in time and money. Even quite simple agronomic trials can involve much skilled labor by many people working with huge sample sizes in order to produce worthwhile data. Although there are welcome signs that various permaculture institutions are becoming more interested in formal research studies, it seems unlikely that the movement as a whole can command the resources to do much scientific research, particularly with the small-scale and highly diverse cropping it tends to practice. On this score, I have to confess a poor record on my own part in seeing through various mini-experiments I’ve initiated on tillage and fertilization, polycultures, and pest-repelling intercrops, which have all fallen by the wayside in the face of my need as a commercial grower to focus on production. I’m hopeful that my current experiments in small-scale wheat growing and extensive pig husbandry will prove longer-lived than some of those previous efforts.

But maybe it’s possible to develop a permacultural science more in keeping with the movement’s amateur, grassroots character. Gardeners and farmers always have hunches about what works in their particular situations. We can go a long way towards being more scientific permaculturists if we subject these hunches to a little gentle testing through observation. This is a cornerstone of both good science and good permaculture, albeit a difficult one to master, as it’s easy to observe what we want to observe and allow received wisdom to prevent us from observing objectively. Cultivate true observation as a key permaculture skill—so much more important than the clichéd and outcome-focused permaculture standards of zero till, perennial cropping, and so on mentioned above. We can go further still if we keep good notes, ground ourselves in the rudiments of reductionist scientific methodology, and try to keep abreast of ecological thinking, regardless of how well it accords with our fondest notions about how the world should be. In this way, we can develop a skilled and responsive local practice as permaculturists based on a science of incremental hunches which avoids clichéd one-size-fits-all permaculture design, while remaining true to the wider insights in political ecology of the permaculture movement.

I’m neither a great scientific permaculturist nor an expert commercial grower. But my practice over time has inclined toward traditional mixed land uses from my region—clover leys, annual vegetables, orchards, permanent pasture, and wooded pasture—in other words, local sourcing of inputs and dealing with natural constraints by multiplying the cycling of those inputs. We can learn a lot from the reductionist science of contemporary ecology, but there’s much to learn too in the natural wisdom—the “natural science?”—of tried and tested agricultural systems, a fact which ecological research indeed increasingly reveals (6).    ∆


Chris Smaje is a market gardener and small-scale farmer based at Vallis Veg in Somerset, England. Hes also worked in academic research, and writes on agricultural and ecological issuesrecent work has appeared in The Land, Red Pepper, Statistics Views, and the Journal of Consumer Culture. Chris blogs at www.smallfarmfuture.org.ukthe present article develops some themes originally presented in a blog post, Permaculture Design Course Syndrome, at https://smallfarmfuture.org.uk/?p=491.



1. Begon, M., Townsend, C., Harper, J. Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems, Oxford, UK: Blackwell (2006).

2. Denison, F. Darwinian Agriculture: How Understanding Evolution Can Improve Agriculture, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (2012).

3. McGuire, A. http://csanr.wsu.edu/dont-mimic-nature-improve-it/.

4. Grime, P. and Pierce, S. The Evolutionary Strategies That Shape Ecosystems, Oxford, UK: Blackwell (2012).

5. Harvey, D. The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism, London: Oxford University Press (2010).

6. Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. and Wright, A. Natures Matrix: Linking Agriculture, Conservation, and Food Sovereignty, London: Earthscan (2009).




It’s not misguided to mimic nature, but it’s easy to mimic nature misguidedly.


It’s easy to observe what we want to observe and allow received wisdom to prevent us from observing objectively. Cultivate true observation as a key permaculture skill—so much more important than the clichéd and outcome-focused permaculture standards of zero till, perennial cropping, and so on.




17 thoughts on “Of consumers and permaculturists: or, win some, lose some

  1. Longish – yes; but I think it deserves the length. Not sure what I would subtract to make it shorter.

    In my typical nitpicking way I will poke at the lion-zebra metaphor – I imagine the relationship between the two is more sophisticated and valuable to both these species and the wider ecology of the savannah than the credit it gets herein. And to your projecting a human face on a zebra’s choices in the matter – hmmm. I suppose most of us would prefer to not be eaten by a lion. And I would also suppose that the lioness would prefer not to starve. An elderly or sickly zebra has no really appealing options (from a human inspired outlook). Healthcare is not forthcoming – except through the long arm of evolutionary selection of fitter types. And in order for evolution to do some selecting… somebody has to fail. If the zebras get fitter, the lions have to improve in some manner else they starve. The emergent properties of the relationship come at quite a price in lion and zebra blood.

    And you nicely describe the price at which reductionist agricultural research leads to the emergent values of what passes as most of our broad acre agriculture. Much of the costs associated with all this research used to be borne by public research. However today far more of the costs are borne by entrepreneurs. And in some way I think your closing comments about the need for permaculturalists to be more scientific – or at least more objective – are very spot on.

    Nicely done!


    • Hi Clem, thanks for that. I agree with your comments about lions & zebras, but I’m not quite sure how & if they differ from my own analysis. Is there perhaps a danger of tautology here? Sure, the lions exert a selective pressure for greater speed, wariness or whatever, but that only makes the zebras ‘fitter’ in relation to their ability to avoid the predation, not in some generic sense. Presumably dodos were getting along just fine without predation until humans turned up? And at the individual level, species fitness means nothing…Maybe in the long run we all benefit from the honing of natural selection despite, as you nicely put it, the price in blood – but then in the long run perhaps we’re all metaphorical dodos, unaware of what’s just around the corner…

      • A Tautology may be right around the corner – but I image there are ancillary benefits derived by both members of the relationship. Zebras have other predators to be concerned with (think crocodiles, hyenas, cheetahs). I am not a Serengeti ecologist – but I’m guessing some strategies and tactics for dealing with the presence of lions may be transferable to dealing with other predators. And on the other side of the coin – if lions fail to ‘up their game’ in concert with say cheetah evolution their numbers will suffer. This is all through an anthropocentric lens of course – and its not exactly a case of the Biblical prophecy of a time to come where lions will lay down with the lambs… (and ostensibly become herbivores??) but competition exists all around these critters. Even within the zebra nation there is competition. Cooperation does exist in some places – but even where it does exist there is always the struggle to maintain it (dealing with cheaters) and usually an impetus to improve the fitness of members of a cooperative relationship else some other group may eat their lunch.

        I think the dodo example is interesting from a few different perspectives. Again I’m no ecologist – but I’m thinking the dodos had no mammalian predators to concern them. They evolved to a flightless state. Not unwise in the face of limited predation. Then an invasive species with a taste for bird flesh arrives on the scene. Now flightlessness looks pretty dumb. Dumber still perhaps is eating an easily captured resource into oblivion. Not our finest moment. And granted – a list of dumb human feats would fill many large volumes, but I’m not convinced we’re handcuffed to our past misdeeds. We just need to continue arguing (err, discussing), measuring, and thinking about consequences of our actions. There may well be something “just around the corner” – worse even than Ebola or HIV, but with 7 to 8 billion brains on our side, I like our chances.

        • Thanks Clem – yep I’d pretty much go along with that. Anyone who can write a post encompassing both cheetahs and cheaters gets my vote. Though I think who the ‘our’ in your last sentence is is may prove interesting – there may well be some nasty surprises awaiting more than a few people in the years ahead.

  2. Your claim that ‘there is little compelling evidence that polycultures or companion planting are, in general, more productive than monocultures’ is so glaringly untrue that I’m surprised that such a meticulous thinker as yourself could have written it.

    OK, I grant you that companion planting is largely wishful thinking with a dash of mythology. But I think your linking it with ployculture in one sentence is nothing more than an attempt to damn the latter by association.

    There is in fact plenty of reductionist evidence that well-designed polycultures can outyield monocultures. I cite some of these experiments in my Earth Care Manual, p266, with an introduction to the concept of Land Equivalent Ratio on pp19-20. There are many more experiments in which polycultures outyield monocultures described in Altieri’s Agroecology and even Lampkin’s Organic Farming has at least one. Another one which I missed when researching for the book is: Newman, Steven (1986) ‘A Pear and Vegetable Interculture System’, in Experimental Agriculture, 22. I’m not a skilled researcher and since writing that book I haven’t actively looked for more evidence, so I’m sure my modest clutch of references hardly scratches the surface.

    I could add that whenever I grow a mixed crop of sweet corn and squash I regularly get an estimated 150% of what I would get from two monocultures on the same area. Ok, I don’t wiegh the produce or run a control but I know what a full crop of sweet corn and a modest one of squash look like.

    The truth of it is that a well designed – and I emphasise that ‘well designed’ – polyculture can regularly outyield equivalent monocultures. The reason why polycultures aren’t used universally is that it’s much simpler to grow a monoculture and in many situations it’s perfectly rational to go for simplicity rather than maximum yield per area. This is, of course, especially true of large-scale mechanised farming.

    It’s very similar to the till/no-till question. There’s general consensus that not tilling the soil leads to better long-term soil fertility than tilling does but in the immediate term there are many objectives which can best be achieved by tilling. The ideal solution is different in every case and dogmas on either side are not helpful in any way.

    But dogma is one thing and writing something which is blatantly untrue is another.

    • Thanks for commenting Patrick. Well, maybe it was a bit too cavalier – I’ll have to read up on your studies. But I’m not totally convinced. Perhaps it depends on what we mean by ‘polycultures’, if that’s not too Bill Clinton-esque an escape. I think there are systems stacked in time or space which will yield more because there’s resource under-utilisation with the lower diversity system. But I guess I was referring to Ford Denison’s analysis suggesting that there are few convincing long-term studies showing that there are intercrop mutualisms that increase yield, or yield stability, or pest resistance. One of his points is that intercrops often yield more than the lower yielding crop alone or the average of the crops alone, but not usually more than the highest yielding crop: eg. a pea-barley intercrop yields more than the barley alone or the average of the peas and the barley, but not more than the peas alone. I’d be interested in your corn-squash example in the light of that (I grew corn-squash last year and corn-clover this year, but alas in very uncomparable ways). Maybe Ford might comment, if he’s reading this? There are studies of wild intercrops which suggest the effect can partly be due to greater diversity increasing the chances of a high-yielding species being included, but I suppose that’s not so relevant to agriculture.

      • Chris, I’m surprised that someone like yourself who professes to be an agroecologist appears either not to have read Altieri or not done so for so long that you’ve forgotten most of it. There are far more references to polycultures with positive LERs in there than there are in my book. Since mine is specifically about temperate permaculture I left out all the tropical ones which he includes.

        I’ve also read Ford Dennison’s book. Unfortunately I haven’t got a copy to hand, as I gave all my work books away when I got this terminal cancer. But my strongest memory of it is of selective quoting. If my memory serves me right, he dismisses polycultures in a few sentences without addressing any of the experimental work which shows positive LERs. He then goes on to spill a lot of ink on work that supports his own point of view.

        The longer I practice permaculture (I’m retired now, but still thinking) the more I’m convinced that dogma and off-the-peg solutions don’t help at all. Every situation is unique. Every piece of land is unique and so are the poeople who work it. It behoves us to choose the unique solution that will work best in each situation. This may include polycultures and/or monocultures, till and/or no till. Having a favourite theory and pushing that above all others is no help to anyone.

        • Patrick, firstly I’m sorry to hear of your illness – I vaguely knew from somewhere that you were unwell, but I didn’t realise how gravely. If it’s not too false a note to strike in the circumstances, especially in the midst of a blog argument, I just want to say how greatly enriched I and I know many other people have been by your writing and teaching, whatever specific disagreements we might have, and I want to convey my warmest wishes to you.

          So, in relation to the debate, I agree entirely with your conclusion on off the peg solutions, which is kind of the main point of my article. Doubtless there are dogmas either way – I don’t think I argued that nobody should ever adopt a polyculture, it was more along the lines of we shouldn’t assume that polycultures are necessarily the right solution.

          A few comments on evidence. First, I’m glad you’ve pulled me up on all this because for me the main point of blogging is to put out (often half-formed) ideas in the hope of refining them from the feedback one gets, so I’ll certainly now look a bit more deeply into the issue. On Altieri and Denison, well I have read Altieri though indeed some time ago and not as thoroughly as I might have. There’s always more to read than one can possibly manage, but I don’t really like the idea of having to read X in order to call oneself Y – perhaps I need to resign from the label of ‘agroecologist’! On p.113 of his book Denison does talk about a paper by Altieri which looked at 150 studies on plant diversity-insect pest relationships. He makes the point that only 19 of these studies looked at yields, and of those 4 reported a positive relation between diversity and yield, and 9 a negative relation. I think almost everyone is open to the charge of cherry-picking evidence to suit their arguments, including Altieri no doubt, and the truth such as it is only emerges long-term through the endless wranglings amongst the community of scholars and practitioners. But my recollection of Denison is that he’s more scrupulous than many.

          There’s a lot more to unpack in all this about the correlates of diversity and yield in relation to scale, labour, inputs and many variables besides. It certainly wasn’t my intention to advocate large-scale monocultures as the right way to go agriculturally (as per my comments about Vandermeer in an earlier post) – it was more to suggest, along the same lines as yourself, not to get too captivated by the counter-dogma of the polyculture. But, albeit with the various caveats I mentioned above, I’m happy to stand corrected that I probably over-egged the argument too much the other way.

  3. “On this score, I have to confess a poor record on my own part in seeing through various mini-experiments I’ve initiated on tillage and fertilization, polycultures, and pest-repelling intercrops, which have all fallen by the wayside in the face of my need as a commercial grower to focus on production. I’m hopeful that my current experiments in small-scale wheat growing and extensive pig husbandry will prove longer-lived than some of those previous efforts.”

    This is a very important point. I think there needs to be more collaboration between researchers who are scientists and growers on the ground who are practicing permaculture principles, so that robust data might be collected and used to further our knowledge base.

    • Yeah that would be great – certainly there’s more emphasis on collaborative academic-practitioner research these days. Then again, there’s not much time or money, the bane of the commercial grower’s life, or a whole lot of mainstream research interest in what might be termed permaculture methods.

  4. Hey, everyone. Long time lurker, first time poster here.

    With all this talk about the science behind polycultures, I’m curious if any of you have heard of The Land Institute based in Salina, Kansas, USA. They have done a great deal of research on perennial polycultures and currently they are developing perennial wheat and other grain crops.


    • Hi Bill, well thanks for lurking, and thanks even more for posting. Sorry it took me a while to approve your comment – I was away at the Landworkers’ Alliance AGM. Yes, I’m well aware of the Land Institute – I have a paper about their work which I’m hoping will be published soon, so more on that in due course.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *