Rocket Stoves Revisited.

Cooking for Thanksgiving last week gave me the urge to re-post some old stuff on rocket stoves, as it's been of interest for some time. And it should, as these are an ideal transition technology to utilize local biomass in a simple and practical manner. You'll start to view your strawberry guava as an asset rather than a pest-- grab yourself a good pair of loppers and harvest some fuel.

Enjoy! Questions answered and plans available.

Here's the link to old articles on the same.

The Numbers of Sustainability: 3

So the "numbers" series is continuing to generate both interest and ire. Nice to know people are reading. . .

An email I received-- paraphrased:

"Jay, you've got no idea what you're talking about. My family has four 100 square foot raised beds and they easily grow half our food. That's for a family of four. . .maybe you need more practice gardening."

This fellow makes a partial living promoting and developing small garden beds. And he mows lawns, elsewise.

OK, that's fine, on the surface the claim sounds reasonable. But let's think about it a bit.

We can talk in terms of calories, and it would be very helpful, but no one wants to, because the numbers are irritating. We can talk in terms of pounds, but no one wants to weigh out and really quantify this either. So there's an attempt to keep numbers out of the conversation, but whoops, they're still there. Back of the envelope, and off the cuff, but still there. . .

Hypothetically:

We can assume that it costs perhaps 400 dollars a month at a reasonable minimum to feed an adult. If, as in this household they're 4 adults(two teens) that's netting 200 dollars a month(half their food) x 4, or 800 dollars a month. Times twelve, that's 9600 dollars a year in produce, out of 400 square feet, or a net yield of 24 dollars a square foot.  If we assume my numbers of net value(the produce likely worth 2 dollars a pound, as in greens, brocoli, etc.,) that's cranking out 12 pounds a square foot a year. Sustainably too! Organic!

It's all in the mulch, he says. I think it's in the bullshit.

A one acre property "gardened" at this level of proficiency would net the gardener, what, almost a million bucks a year in gross proceeds, and that's assuming that you lose some square footage to pathways and a tool shed(approx 40000 square feet times 24 dollars a square foot.)

Boy, if I could plant beans like that, I'd quit my day job!

The Numbers of Sustainability: 2

It seems my last post generated a lot of interest, and not a little ire. Some people hate it when you quantify things. Sorry 'bout that. I'm writing this blog for the purpose of helping normal people of average financial means to attempt to live sustainable lifestyles. It isn't as easy as some would make it.

So, constructively, here's another question people must ask if they want to succeed with a sustainable lifestyle. Their personal conclusions can differ, sure, as mine's a bit of a guess, but a good one--and as the economy changes so will the conclusion. My conclusion is based on my experience and what feet on the ground right now will likely experience. Not selling anything, just offering up my best analysis.You're welcome to your own answer: Just have one.

Question: 


At what point does the per square foot cost of a given piece of land make farming/gardening economically nonviable?

Here's how I would think about it. Raw, round numbers again.

I'd assume that reasonably fertile land can return a quarter pound per square foot of produce per season.

I'd assume that a reasonable mix of produce may have a value on the current market of 2 dollars a pound. Bell peppers may be more, potatoes a lot less of course. This is a guess of a mix of things that constitutes a garden that might provide meaningful substance. Other guesses are worth hearing and will provide other results. Obviously if we try to cook the books by suggesting that we're growing saffron we'll get unrealistic numbers.

That means one can expect to gross .50 cents of value per square foot per season. This assumes no labor inputs at all, no water bill, no seed costs, no fertilizer, and no bugs. Honestly, any body I know who could crack out .50 cents a square foot is doing pretty dang good. I don't get even close to such a number, as such intensive ag would make for so much soil erosion I'd be done in 5 years.

To purchase a given piece of land either requires an out of pocket expenditure or finance-- in either case it would generally be considered bad business practice to expect to yield less than a 10 percent value return on such an investment. We can quibble about that number. I'd appreciate hearing other views.

That gives me, of course, a value of  5 dollars a square foot, as I see it, as a reasonable estimate the absolute maximum number at which a given garden can actual return more value than it consumes. 3 dollars a square foot is more realistic, and leaves some room for labor costs. 2 dollars a square foot may even net a very meager return. Again assuming no labor input or costs or losses. Beyond this projected value, the garden consumes more resources than it produces and becomes unsustainable. I'd appreciate hearing other values of what one might think is the breakback number where inputs are a wash and labor a loss. Surely we can all agree that such a number 1) exists and 2) is important. I understand that some are in a position where none of this matters, again, great, smoke 'em if you got'em. It's doesn't make you bad. But at some point, for sure, exercises in gardening become so uneconomic to be nothing else other than conspicuous consumption. That's all, and to obfuscate that fact may mislead people new to the issue and of more modest means to take on projects that won't pan out for them, and that's a shame.

Unfortunately, much real estate in suburban neighborhoods exceeds this number. The closer one gets to the beach, the more one exceeds this number. The Girl's old place in Venice had a cost in excess of 300 dollars a square foot at the bubble valuations, yikes!-- it would cost you 25 bucks, by that math, to rent storage for a dog turd.  By contrast, I paid .14 cents a square foot for my property and one could go cheaper than that now. Obviously, if one wants to have a leg up on achieving sustainability, or even pretend to approximate economic decisions, those kinds of low costs give one a huge leg up.

Do the math, it matters. . .

Biochar in a Food Forest Setting:

Posted a couple of videos that are about my utilization of biochar in my Food Forest project. This technique provides a solution for invasive trees, woody waste, washed out, infertile acid soil all in one process. I'd really recommend considering giving it a try. Here's how you do it. Realize that early Hawaiians--and in fact most pre-industrial agriculture cultures-- used charcoal as a means of improving poor soil extensively. That technique needs to be rediscovered and re-applied. Here's a very very simple way of getting started.

Don't forget the hot dogs!

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/2010/05/25/biochar-in-a-food-forest-setting/#post0