12 karma · joined October 6, 2020
On the original issue, “invasive” plants are not panacea. Invasive plants are only invasive in specific contexts; they’re native somewhere, they’re naturalized somewhere, they’re a nuisance somewhere, and a non-threatening ornamental somewhere else. It’s not as easy as uploading a list. There unfortunately aren’t many international, or even ecosystem specific resources out there. We’re trying to fill that niche by compiling any useful plant data we can find.
The community is international, so we can’t just be blacklisting plants that are invasive according to the USDA. That said, plants known to have this tendency are clearly marked on their profiles.
In addition, we only facilitate the communication of swaps. The communication that happens is obscured from even our eyes. There’s no way for us to control what is traded in the swaps while maintaining secure messaging and privacy.
The international seed swapping is a valid concern for sure, but the majority of folks swapping seed are experienced gardeners, and know what they're looking for. We've built a trusted community of passionate growers. It's a a lot safer than ordering random seeds off Etsy or Amazon, which happens en masse every spring.
The apple varieties we're all familiar with are selected for transport and keeping. A commercial selection. Not flavour or sugar.
I live in an old farming community and there are hundreds of feral apples around here. I've tasted dozens of them and have yet to find one that was not edible or even delicious.
Modern apples (most fruit really) are selected for transport and keeping. Not flavour or edibility.
I beg to differ. There are hundreds of feral apple trees around here — old farming community — and I have yet to find one that is inedible. Most are delicious.
We've taken all these points into account with our database, with a free-form style key:value input. Please feel free to contribute! We could use your help!
You're very on-point when it comes to the variance in growing conditions - this is something we definitely wanted to address. I live in a zone 7b (in Northern Canada) - but it's coastal and mild: good luck growing what they do in North Carolina -- another 7b!
Definitely second your recommendation to start with potatoes. They are one of my personal favourites. I grow them pretty much all year long here. As soon as I get a few sprouting in the cupboard, I'll prepare a fresh pot of (home-mixed) soil and plant them in a bucket. This way, I get a bucket of potatoes every month. They store well if you cure them, and require almost no care.
Another one of my low-maintenance favourites are strawberries and chives. I grow them together, and they keep producing babies, so they make for an easy filler for empty space to keep the soil alive for the next planting.
> How many cubic feet of soil, at what depth, do I need in order to stop purchasing food plants from the store, year-round.
While this is a pipe-dream of many gardeners, it's not necessarily realistic. You would need at least a hyper-efficient acre of land (which would take a few years to design) to provide for a family and neighbours. I think it's a lot easier than we've been lead to believe. You can do it for free (or very cheap) and with very little "quality" inputs.
I appreciate your input with this list! We will definitely take it into account.
The beauty of plants is their ability to adapt. Obviously you need depth of soil for root crops, but herbs will grow in a yogurt container, and strawberries will grow in 4 inches of sand.
Regarding your list, there's an important distinction to make here. While you don't want to argue about "fruit or vegetable" - one of the limiting factors in your list is actually growth habits of said plant. For instance strawberries will grow perennially, and thus will grow in sand with a handful of woodchips, or forest soil or compost -- whereas lettuce, will require a nutrient-rich soil with relative shelter from rain and sun.
One of the principles we chase in permaculture is efficiency, via "stacking of functions": For example, I would grow many of things in your list together, in a way that would require only a large pot of soil, top-dressed throughout the year with whatever biomass waste you have on hand (grass clippings, leaves, etc).
I'd plant a dwarf fruit tree in a large pot, surround with a rosemary shrub, plant the outer layer with strawberry and thyme to act as a ground-cover. This would require very little in regards to skill or input. The plants themselves carry the difficult tasks, such as pest control and mulch (keeping the moisture in the soil), by mimicking natural niches.
Now, depending how much soil/space you have at your disposal will directly affect your output. That would be a concern for aspiring farmers -- not necessarily your backyard gardener!
I would not consider something that requires so much input to be "more efficient at feeding a person". It is however a system that is efficient at feeding mass amounts of people -- if you ignore the inputs.
We created Permapeople alongside the principles of permaculture. The efficiency you can create by designing systems that require few outside inputs is unmatched! While the output is not as far-reaching as industrial production, in the hands of enough local folks, growing in their yards, this maximized efficiency of land could technically provide a LOT of food.
PS: growing potatoes is probably easier than you think. One could grow potatoes with very little time and no monetary input.
The principles we employ at Permapeople take into account all of these things, and promote the growing of ones own food without excessive inputs, and positive outputs (food, compost, more living soil for the next generation).
Bringing food production into the hands of people who WANT to participate is what this is about.