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. . .

The Numbers of Sustainability: 1

I think it's time and worthwhile to start having this discussion. We may well be getting to the point where sustainability is no longer an option, and it's worth getting past the dress rehersal stage and face squarely the task in front of us. I'd appreciate discussion, feedback, and having folks check my math. There's going to be some major assumptions made here, and values attached to them. I think if they're kept transparent they work, though we can quibble about the details.

So, the question that prompts all this is this one, and I get it asked all the time: "How much land do I need to live "sustainably?" First off, I'm not sure I understand the question, as in most all cases the question comes from someone seeking the lowest possible value. In the years of teaching sailing I never met anyone, contemplating an ocean voyage, who asked "How little water can I get away with on a 2500 mile ocean passage?" Nobody asks questions like that, as it's a serious matter, and the consequences for failure are deadly--and obvious. Because people take ocean passages seriously a different kind of question is asked, much more resembling "How can I stuff as much water as possible aboard my boat?" Unfortunately, no body really takes sustainability really that seriously yet. I suggest we should, and part of the reason it's become even more pressing is precisely that fact: that no one really takes sustainability very seriously.

But let's try to put some real numbers to the "how much land do I need" question, even if without the numbers we've more or less answered it already-- you need as much land as you can personally physically manage by sustainable means. Still, it's worthwhile to put a bottom threshold to the issue. There's a lot of people making wild-ass claims about what "one can get away with." This sells seminars, and books, and offers false hope and security in the name of profit. Let's do a little better.

This is how I think about the issue.

While one can grow a lot of pounds of greens and whathaveyou in a small space, to focus on pounds of product can be very misleading. If we're interested in real sustainability, it's much more important to focus on how many "calories" of food can be produced in a given space, as that's really what we care about. One finds, once one starts to do the research, that numbers like "calories per square meter" are hard to come by from the gardening or permaculture crowd-- but you certainly can find such numbers from the biofuels industry, as, well, calories per square meter is all they're interested in. So that's where I start, and figure we'll factor in reality as we go along.

Plants aren't magical. They're organic solar panels. The energy in food comes from sunlight, and nowhere else, and the function of how many calories produced per square meter is a function of 1) how much sunlight one gets 2) how efficient the plant is at converting it to usable(edible) form.

Let's assume first, that we're growing sugar cane, which is just about the highest yield caloric plant on earth, at least not assuming algae and stuff like that. Suffice to say that most garden crops won't be anywhere as efficient in creating calories as sugar cane, nor are most gardens planted nearly as intensively as a commercial cane field but it's a great starting point to find the upper theoretical limits of reality. In doing the research, I find for industrial, completely unsustainable, NPK, mechanized cane a square meter of sugar can can produce a kilo of sugar per year. If we assume 4 calories per gram of sugar that produces 4000 calories of food a year per meter. If we take that 4000 calories and divide that by 365 days that produces 11 calories of food per day per square meter. If we assume that a large guy capable of handling cane consumes 2500 calories a day(although you'd die pretty quick living on sugar only, but it's efficient)-- you'd need 228 square meters of cane just to meet your basic calorie needs in this wholly unrealistic situation. Let's switch to square feet/acres to make it a bit easier for most of us now. 228 square meters is 2445 square feet, let's round to 2500. Now let's add some reality. Nobody is going to get close to the kinds of yields offered by cane-- if we figure we'll plant a mix of stuff one can actually eat-- so it's easy and conservative to turn that 2500 square feet into 5000. As well, it's wholly unrealistic to expect that sustainable permaculture yields will remotely approximate intensive, mechanized, NPK production--it's very easy to add yet another factor of 2. Remember, we don't want to cheat the numbers, as we plan to actually eat this stuff and survive. There's 10000 square feet of garden, realistically, and conservatively as I see it, assuming no bugs, slugs, pests, drought, pigs, screwups or neglect. An acre is 43560 square feet, so a quarter acre per person is about the absolute minimum I really see as viable, and that isn't living large, nor especially securely, and you'll not be growing fuel to cook any of this--whoops, fuel? We'll leave that out of the question for now, but it's worth noting you'll eat every stitch of what you produce, be a bit glum about that, and won't generate any income for property taxes, trips to Bali, or dental care. Or clothes for that matter.

Thoughts? All in all a half an acre for a strong couple isn't wholly unmanageable, although it's a pretty big project.

Further discussion here:

Progress:

It's been a pretty busy month on the homestead, with spring now in full swing and growth rates back up--I'm having to run to catch up. The scale of everything planted over the last few years is really coming apparent and it's great to see the "fruits of one's labors." I'm going to try to start keeping a monthly log over at the Silviculture blog, just so those interested can see the progress and how it all comes along step by step. It seems that a viable system has been put together here and I'd like to share it.

Kilauea Silviculture

Well, very little posting around here, mostly because the little farm has become a profitable venture and as is typical, those who are spending a lot of time doing something often have little time to talk about it! I hope to over the next couple of weeks create a dedicated blog to the farm itself and some of the very interesting programs and products we're offering. It's proven to be a very exiting and hopeful project, and as a model offers a unique opportunity for many. Here's the link to the new blog: http://kilaueasilviculture.blogspot.com/ Stay tuned! We hope it's helpful.

A surefire way to stimulate the local economy.

So, as I was mulling the situation with the local economy the other day on the way to work--it's hard not to reflect a bit when passing the hundreds upon hundreds of "FOR SALE" signs on the side of the road that all of us encounter every day-- well sure, I'm sure some of those are pertaining to the recent election but same difference, right?. . . and suddenly it struck me-- a sure fire way to stimulate the local economy and set us back on the right track to prosperity.

Let's build a lot of damn big stone heads on the beach! Kinda like these but out of "green" materials. Is rock "green"? Bigger would be good too. After all, the ones in the picture were built a thousand years ago and surely we've learned something since then. . . By the way, I don't much care for the one with a lump of shit on his head, perhaps we could do away with that and keep the whole thing a little more subdued and austere. It seems that the lumps fall off and create a maintenance problem anyhow. I've never been a big fan of gratuitous architectural details--of the do it just because you can kind--and while I'm sure that lump of shit is heavy and there's some value in that, I'd still vote against it on aesthetic grounds.



Building stone heads accomplishes many things.

1) Building stone heads stimulates the economy, first by pissing away money, and secondly by stimulating tourism, as big stone heads around the world are a first class tourist draw.

2) Stone heads will solve all traffic problems on Hwy 130.

3) Building stone heads will address our problems with invasive species, feral cats, and climate change all in one fell swoop, and make us energy independent to boot.

4) Stone heads will repel potential invasive armies, as they are obviously scary.

5) Stone heads will create permanent jobs, as some must maintain and monitor the stone heads. Stone heads are ideal for creating permanent jobs as they last centuries with no maintenance or monitoring.

In fact, modestly I'd suggest it may even be possible to improve on my stone head concept by not actually building them, but just considering how and when and where to build them endlessly until all the money to actually achieve something useful is pissed away(pocketed), but none of it is actually lost to something as wasteful as real infrastructure that addresses the needs of future generations.

But I'll leave that issue open to study and review by the experts. Surely there's grant money in this!

Time to pick up your toys!

Haven't posted here in quite a while, but of course I'm pretty busy with the forum and a zillion other issues--which is great, as after all, I ought to be spending my time working out the bugs of my "sustainable lifestyle" rather than blathering on about it. Still, I've heard from a number of people who were a bit surprised at a lack of a diatribe around here about the oil spill--especially considering my background. Hell, really, what is there to say? It's a terrible mess, and an obvious and unavoidable result of the demands of our lifestyles. Don't be blaming BP, blame us, all of us, and do a good job of it. Wallow in it, in fact. That would be my advice.

But let's not add insult to injury by not only refusing to relinquish our consumptive ways but in fact adding to them by indulging in extravagant group catharsis and weeping and wailing together in a sugar coated but oh so satisfying fashion-- getting that hypoglycemic hit so we can go on without upset tummies. We all have low blood sugar, you know, we need that kind of attention to our delicate appetites. We can't really be bothered by reality as we'll be squabbly at nap-time. Look, reality is that while the spill is a hell of a disaster, all in all it's anybodies guess whether or not the ecological impact of the spill is worse dumped in the gulf or rather all that oil, even though burnt in trendy Prius hybrids--, remember, it still ends up in the atmosphere, right?--hell, what's worse? I really don't have any idea at this point. I know CO2 is transparent to most people and oil is nasty looking and sticky, and I suspect that's why oily birds get more attention than the melting of the permafrost although it's the latter that's going to cook our goose. Mother goose, in fact. Back to comforting nursery rhymes, of course.

Look: sustainability. As complicated as people want to try to make it living the sustainable lifestyle isn't really all that complicated. It's really about one thing at the end of the day-- whether or not the total sum cumulative effect of one's lifestyle has a net constructive or net negative affect on the larger planetary ecosystem. Whether or not the earth is a better or worse place for yours or my having been born. This isn't a rhetorical question, either, it's capable in large part of being empirically derived. I've been at the "sustainable" lifestyle thing for a long time now, and I'd say while I'm very sad about the spill in the gulf, I don't feel any "guilt" in it as I've bent over backwards, made huge sacrifices in lifestyle for years, educated, advocated, and worked tirelessly for a better world to offset the very modest levels of consumption that I enjoy. That's an option open to anyone. But that's not how most of us want to go about it. We're like whinny spoilt children who want to scatter our expensive toys and treats about, never satisfied with what we have and wanting more all the while, and refuse in any way to be responsible for the mess we make. If someone were to ask us to "pick up our mess before bedtime" we'll squeal and raise all hell and expect to be coddled and rewarded even for our tantrums. Everyone has seen children like that, but we're in reality a nation of children like that. . .

Anyway, practically and today why this comes to mind--Jay's Chicky-Poo has a lot of hair and hairdryers are part of the forest project. I need to get back to work as we run a generator out here, and in order to responsibly clean up our mess I'm planting another half dozen Koa our here to eat our share of CO2 that this little indulgence creates. Hardly a big deal. It will take me a couple hours and we can run hairdryers out here for life. . .

Enjoy whatever you want, just be sure to pick up after yourself. . .

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

What Sustainable Living Looks Like:

Look, you can do this too: Get a hold of us--we'll help you.

Seriously, isn't this a more beautiful and hopeful vision for this island than tourism or more shoddy spec houses? Come on! Time's a wasting, let's set an example for a better world. There are better ways of living.

The Sen/Sem State of the Union Report

Haven't posted too much around here lately, been very busy. . .but thought I'd offer up a few thoughts as our project comes along.

Topic 1:

I'm a big believer in the inevitability of stuff happening if it's going to happen, and understand pointlessness of hoping for events that aren't. I think really, all in all in human existence there are damned few things we really have very much control, and our ability to alter our personal trajectories through life is largely illusory. That's good and bad, good because we shouldn't feel so bad about the stuff we screw up, bad, kinda, because there's very few things we should feel entitled to take credit for. Not that it stops anyone, LOL, but there you go. Still, there are times and moments in which small nudges can have large effects and it's good to have a nose for those-- and having what we term success(or failure) in life is largely about saying either "yes" or "no" in those critical moments.

We all sense that, I'm sure. We as a group on the forum here have largely made a commitment of "yes" to personally making an attempt to moving towards a sustainable future. This is why we are here. This is why we're trying to work together. Recently, I've been hearing a bit of stink floating about about how perhaps, well, things might not be working out as expected. That well, things aren't going this way, or that way-- or that so and so is a jerk, or that some people are fake, or what have you. No doubt. We have all of that, I'm sure. I've been also hearing from the "get go" a year ago from people who would love to form community but feel jaded or cautious, feeling that they are cautious about taking the risk of "community" because they fear it won't be reciprocated. No doubt it won't.

Look, perhaps it's time to figure out that "community spirit" mostly is about giving to people who are jerks, or more typically merely useless, and getting nothing in return. That's the core of it. Being a good member of a community mostly is being the kind of person who has the sufficient richness of spirit that you're capable of doing that, repeatedly, and mostly cheerfully. A "Sustainable Community" as far as I can see it is a group of people who understand this, possess this non-trivial level of both competence and generosity, and have found each other. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a huge thing, and a heroic thing. Expect it will be mostly hard work in the short term, with little to no reward.

Got that? New paradigm, people.

Actually, not really all that new. While people are selfish by nature, of course, there are indeed matters of degree. Today, well, the selfishness is so entrenched it must be historically exceptional. By and large, we're just a bunch of spoiled, overfed brats, who have very little to offer, and demand an awful lot in return for what we don't give. This wasn't always the case-- when I think of my grandparents generation there still seemed to me to be a lot of giving simply for the joy of giving. But I must tell you, it's been probably 20 years since I've seen anyone bake the kinds of pies that I used to see as a kid--you know the kind, with the perfect crust, perfect filling, intricate lattice, all that stuff--photogenic. If you've ever tried yourself, you know why; because it takes about 4 hours to put a pie like that together and it's gone in 2 minutes. It's a weak effort/return on investment project. But I do remember the look on the faces of my Grandmother and other matrons I knew as a kid of the joy they felt watching their work evaporate. They were simply satisfied by making others happy, and that was good enough.

So again, got that? Expect to give, and not get shit in return. Expect that. It's the only way we're going to pull for a better future. At least in the short term.

Aloha!

No, I mean it.

Topic 2:

In one of my books somewhere I wrote that "there will come a day in which that we call a "fisherman" will not catch fish but rather will build fish habitat." We're getting close. I think we can expand that observation to the term "businessman" as well. There will come a time, damn soon, where to be a successful businessman won't be a matter of indulging in the mere exploitation of an economy, but rather a businessman will be one vigorously involved in the creation of one. We are going to need to get started on building our "sustainable economy" and pronto, as there's a possibility there will not be much else left here too soon for comfort. Fortunately, or unfortunately, there really isn't going to be much sensible debate about what that economy is going to be based on. Tourism? What, to come see slums, rain, marginal beaches--coupled with expensive hotels and costly airfare? Forget that! What, development? So we can have more empty house that no one can afford to buy because there are no jobs, who get purchased by aging boomers, mostly of a lower economic bracket, who end up on public assistance further crushing the local economy? Jeez, it would be easier to come up with a viable plan selling rock, if it wasn't taboo. I'm not really joking. There is indeed a rock and gravel shortage all up and down the west coast.

No, of course, the only viable game in town is agriculture. If there is going to be either tourism, or development, is will be accessory to the success of agriculture--meaning people will come to see the farms or build houses because they are successful farmers. This is where we need to go, and we need to get ripping.

The issue, of course, as a business model is that the tropics in general and Hawaii in particular offers unique obstacles to agriculture, and especially sustainable agriculture. These issues aren't insurmountable, but at this point require some tenacity and creativity to overcome. Mostly the issue comes down to the fact that to grow here, one is forced to purchase very marginal agricultural land at rates that assume residential construction, and to take on a project that requires a lot of latitude in application in a business environment that is increasingly litigious, complicated and restrictive for anything other than building--and when you realize that agriculture is a high risk, low return business at its core, well, one can see why no one is doing it, except for a few of us crazy folks. That doesn't mean it isn't viable. It is. But at this point the viability will only be visible to a very small number of visionary folks with unusual skill sets.

So, what can WE do.

Well, the first thing we should do is put together one of the first things suggested here-- the MOBILE farmers market. The "Produce Truck." Not only is it vastly more efficient to roll one machine to 1000 people than have 1000 people drive to one place--it is by nature forced and uniquely able to become a cooperative project. Since (as above) small farms are key to our future and (as above) giving and getting nothing in return is key to our future if we can come up with a cooperative plan to ease both "transitional" strategies that's all good. Perhaps a great place to give a "nudge" toward a better future. Why so effective? Primarily because the truck can do both pickup and delivery, and in that case operate vastly more efficient. Secondly, because of its efficiency, it allows for small producers a viable market immediately. What I mean is this--suppose you've got 4 extra eggs? Well, put them on the truck. To offer aid to transition, we must ease the effort and add encouragement--and hopefully some income-- to those who will for the first year or so measure returns in pounds not tons. Even if it is small potatoes for small potatoes that's no doubt helpful. We can work out the details, but I promise you all if you can find a market for micro-amounts of produce you will all grow more. Right?

We can work out the details. Surely you all can see the promise. Let's set a goal of getting the truck running by November 1.

My pledge: I have a nice 1 ton GMC truck coming my way, with a fresh engine and drivetrain. Under 30000 miles. This can be the powerplant, and it would be hard to beat for cost or reliability. This boat has as cherry 350 and even with the low axle ratio will get 10 mpg, burning 8 gallons a day on a circuit from Volcano to Hilo with a Honda EU 2000 in the bed running a refrigerator. I expect what we really need is a trailer, but trailers are relatively cheap. If we were very very intelligent people, we'd put a commercial kitchen in the trailer. Taco truck style. This way you can not only sell produce, but you can sell concept--there are a lot of viable foodstuffs we have here that people don't eat because they don't know what they taste like. If you can purchase/sell/distribute a whole communities output with one source, provide employment to a couple of drivers, a couple of cooks-- work for a better future, create viability for a local economy in one shot, well, we'd be stupid not to take a stab at it. Give and expect nothing in return.

Actually this is better than that. This will pay. It will pay at 10 dollars a gallon for fuel. It will pay carrying a driver at a living wage, a cook, and someone to work a counter. Who is in?

Yes, this will be a completely legal, everything above board, certified project. No prob. It will still work.

I'm giving use of the truck. Surely we can equally contribute to the trailer, both time and capital. I also pledge to the cost of the trailer, let's get a notion as to what it would cost. I expect 12k or so.

Look, at the end of the day whether it's biochar, or engineless sailing, or growing taro, or being a decent human being, just do the damn thing-- and help other people do the same, OK? Surely we're capable of doing something without whoring it out. Christ, really, surely we can figure this out.

Got Food?