> Where are these magical permaculture farms that solve all problems
Your comment reeks of cynicism. Obviously we can't solve "all" problems.
I think many small or medium-sized agricultural operations would have elements that might be considered "permacultural", some more than others.
> are cheaper to produce
It depends on what you mean by "cheaper." Are you considering cost to produce, cost to the consume, cost to the environment? These are all very different and our current system is optimized for a small subset of cost constraints while almost entirely ignoring others (e.g. long-term ecological impact, health impact).
> no single country in the world has converted to it
We converted away from it, so naturally we were doing something right or we wouldn't have Western Civilization. Medieval farms were incredibly sustainable from an ecological perspective, often integrating with natural processes wherever possible. We once had a much more integrative approach (for lack of technology) and moved away from it (due to labor constraints and improving technology).
Further, I think it's fair to say that if industry applied improved science and technology with an integrative approach, we could have permaculture, limit labor constraints, minimize ecological damage, and have comparable yields.
I would argue that the reason this hasn't happened at scale is due primarily to political reasons and not because permaculture doesn't work.
If you want some examples of farms actually implementing permaculture there is a documentary called Fresh (2009) which documents a couple of farmers in Shenandoah Valley and Milwaukee who worked to create sustainable farms.
> We converted away from it, so naturally we were doing something right or we wouldn't have Western Civilization. Medieval farms were incredibly sustainable from an ecological perspective, often integrating with natural processes wherever possible. We once had a much more integrative approach (for lack of technology) and moved away from it (due to labor constraints and improving technology).
Medieval and earlier farms were horrifically unproductive and unsustainable. Land had to lie fallow for nutrients to be replenished, and even when there were actually plants growing, output was low. In an average year, a medieval european farm could expect to produce between 7 and 15 bushels per acre, and as little as 4 in a bad year. Compare this to a modern farm that can produce 60 bushels per acre. Medieval farms would harvest about 4 seeds per seed planted on average, a bad harvest may not leave enough to plant for the next year, modern farms on the other hand reap 30 to 40 seeds per seed planted.
Europe's population remained stagnant for 1000 years as any increase in food production would lead to a reduction in grazing area, which in turn meant less manure was produced and lands could not be sufficiently fertilized. Famines were frequent and severe. Medieval agriculture wasn't sustainable, it was inescapable. Only the crisis of the late middle ages and the ensuing deaths of millions forced systemic changes which allowed europe to break out of its vicious cycle and lead to real quality of life improvements.
Just because something is better than what came before does not mean it is perfect, and it's worth considering other ideas. But pre-industrial agriculture was terrible, and anyone romanticizing it either has no idea what they are talking about or is actively trying to deceive you.
I don't think you read my comment. I didn't say it was sustainable from an economic perspective, but an ecological perspective. All of the reasons you said are precisely why pre-industrial farmers had to integrate with natural processes as much as possible, eeking out all potential benefits.
Ecological considerations hardly matter if you can't sustain human life as we know it. Going back to something like medieval farming would mean mass starvation, and I'm not sure this is going to get many votes for whoever proposes this kind of idea.
Your comment reeks of cynicism. Obviously we can't solve "all" problems.
I think many small or medium-sized agricultural operations would have elements that might be considered "permacultural", some more than others.
> are cheaper to produce
It depends on what you mean by "cheaper." Are you considering cost to produce, cost to the consume, cost to the environment? These are all very different and our current system is optimized for a small subset of cost constraints while almost entirely ignoring others (e.g. long-term ecological impact, health impact).
> no single country in the world has converted to it
We converted away from it, so naturally we were doing something right or we wouldn't have Western Civilization. Medieval farms were incredibly sustainable from an ecological perspective, often integrating with natural processes wherever possible. We once had a much more integrative approach (for lack of technology) and moved away from it (due to labor constraints and improving technology).
Further, I think it's fair to say that if industry applied improved science and technology with an integrative approach, we could have permaculture, limit labor constraints, minimize ecological damage, and have comparable yields.
I would argue that the reason this hasn't happened at scale is due primarily to political reasons and not because permaculture doesn't work.
If you want some examples of farms actually implementing permaculture there is a documentary called Fresh (2009) which documents a couple of farmers in Shenandoah Valley and Milwaukee who worked to create sustainable farms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwR44T69_Is