While I do believe that French Intensive gardening (aka Jeavons, square-foot, etc.) does indeed have utility, I would have to disagree with alot of your conclusions. First of all, vegetable cultivation for human consumption is quite removed from some sort of pristine "natural" condition. It requires forced suppression of competing plants, manual cultivation of the soil, introduction of processed inputs (yes, even compost has been processed), irrigation, fertilization, genetic selection, pest suppression, etc. etc. My point being that if you were to buy a package of 100 vegetable seeds and plant them into just any old soil, I would hazard to say that less than 10 of them would survive to a viable harvest. And of those few, I would hazard to say that their nutritional and culinary value would be very low. There is a movement under foot lately that tries to equate vegetable gardening with some sort of Rousseau-esque state of nature. It is not. That vegetable on your plate has more to do with human labour than it does with a state of nature qua nature. Seen in this way, French intensive gardening is simply another system of getting plants to produce what we want, when we want it. As you say, [the French intensive makes use of] shade, sun, spacing, nutrients, beneficial insects, raised bed, square foot, permaculture, organic and more. There is really nothing natural about that. In a state of nature, the plants that survive are hardly suitable for human consumption because they are tough, woody, and tasteless. They have adapted to the natural state by putting their energy into survival and reproduction, whereas the vegetable and the human work together to have that energy directed into an edible fruit, root, leaf, etc. Is this just a philosophical distinction? Perhaps, but it does point to a glaring problem with the intensive system: it makes the plants conform to the system/plan rather than having the system/plan adapt to the plants. If you doubt me, simply take a look at Weaver and Bruner's root sketches for common vegetables. There is no way you can tell me sprawling vegetables like squash, cucumbers, tomatoes, etc. are best suited being crammed together with only a foot or so separating them. For the record, I do practice a semi-intensive system for my kitchen garden: lettuce, spinach, herbs, carrots, etc. But for my large "production" garden I find the intensive system to be a waste of time, energy and inputs. I still build wide, raised beds, ammended with organic inputs and very carefully cultivated and nurtured. The difference is that each plant is given the space required to grow to it's full development. This means less water and larger individual vegetables. It also means less time on my part, which is a very limited commodity. Here is a link that might be useful: Root diagrams

Lou, I think it's important to recognize, that while peat itself may be antimicrobial, it may not be significantly or substantially antimicrobial in all situations. Peat bogs are one environment, the european/canadian cold murky bog areas and those unique conditions lead to the breakdown of the plants that create highly acidic conditions. I don't think that dried out peat, mixed in to soil, in the U.S. or expecially the hot south is in an environment anywhere near the origional bog conditions. So I think it can be used as an organic amendment in certain situations, like growing or blueberries in Dallas. It's not fair to say because peat bogs don't favor a lot of microbial activity that a mixture of peat in alkaline soil presumably with compost and other amendments it is antimicrobial and therefore not organic because the conditions are just so different. I do think that the slow breakdown of peat that is added to soil is an advantage in certain situations, like the azaleas in Dallas. It is just like we say with all organic amendments, slow release. That's exactly what is needed in an alkaline buffered soil, the prolonged addition of acid to keep the soil from being to alkaline so that the plants can actually absorb the nutrients they need. Something that brakes down too quickly, especially in high heat, would only help the plant for maybe a season while I believe you get 3-5 years with peat. Oh,I looked up the meat preservation, which you and I briefly discussed in a previous post, and the articles I read said that peat plus salt was used; which is a really more like making jerky :) U5, urea doesn't come from blood and blood meal is not the exact same thing as sold in 'chem fert' bags. Blood meal does not equal urea from blood and Urea nitrogen does not equal nitrogen from blood; urea is not a protein. I think something is confused on this point. Urea is synthesized chemicaly from carbon dioxide and ammonia. Urea isn't obtained from blood. If there is anything more than small levels of urea in the blood then you have gout or kidney problems. Urea is filtered out by the kidneys and concentrated in urine, like you said. However, the blood is primarly protein so basically it would be like applying any other protein meal to the soil (ie soybean meal). Proteins are made up of amino acids many of which should be able to be directly taken up by the soil bacteria and plants. As you said, Proteins are broken down to urea but it happens as the protein is used up in organisms. Blood meal should contain other minor elements like iron that would be good additions to the soil. I agree that urea is naturally occuring, and I'm personally on the fense, I prefer not to use urea because it is highly purified and therefor doesn't have the potential to add as many components to my soil.

The issue Nancy describes of making the beds accessible is not unimportant, and that is why it is handy to have a garden cart that is sized to run over the beds. Some carts have a set of legs in front that don't permit this, but there are others that do, and it's not hard to fabricate something that will work. If you go to the Carts Vermont website and look at the different leg configurations between the medium and large sized carts you will see what I mean. Two wheeled garden carts aren't always a better choice than wheelbarrows, but in many cases, including capacity and balance, they are a vast improvement. In intensively gardened hoop-house operations they are an excellent tool. Both Eliot and I use drip and spray irrigation. The hose you see in the picture is a thin tube that runs from a larger feeder line, and the head is designed to create a fine circular spray pattern, for some crops, these are a good choice, but it is important that you are able to ventilate properly so the foliage doesn't remain wet for too long. With a little experimentation you will discover what height and pressure will allow you to irrigate the beds but keep the paths relatively dry... this all started with the paths, remember? Sprays also offer more cooling effect, which can be a real advantage when the greenhouse is hot but the outside air temps are colder than one would wish, so ventilation for cooling purposes is less than ideal. Drip irrigation is better for less dense plantings, where you have water emitted for individual plants. You can set up your sprayers with a quick-connect system that alternates with the drip tape, or you can install a Y-fixture with shut-off valves, or you can get much more elaborate. Timers are definitely handy. If you use drip irrigation, you will frequently have to remove it when you are doing certain chores. I generally just lift the far end and pull it over one of the support bars that form the roof trusses over the beds. When I'm ready to put it back I just stretch it back out over the soil and pin the end with a wire anchor to keep it in place. In winter, your will need to do very little irrigation - air and soil moisture levels are typically much higher, and transpiration rates lower. This is good, because it means your less likely to be experiencing the joys of frozen pipes. When you won't be using the drip, it is best to drain it and store it away from sunlight and extreme temperatures, and it will last for years. I prefer the perforated tape to the "weeping" hose, but your mileage may vary. If snow is an issue, and especially wet heavy snow, you may want to explore the possibility of having two layers of plastic with air blown in between the layers. This reduces light transmission slightly, but it provides a lot more insulation and adds a surprising amount of strength. Because the greenhouse stays warmer, the snow slides off more readily, and you will spend less time removing it. The best method I've found is to use a nylon-bristle broom to brush off the snow from the inside. Outside the greenhouse, it is good to leave a layer of snow up against the foundation, it actually provides good insulation, but you don't want it too high, because it puts a lot of pressure on the plastic. You must be VERY CAREFUL when shoveling anywhere near the plastic not to tear it, and should keep a roll of repair tape handy (but don't let it freeze). Somewhere towards the back of the Winter Harvest Handbook there's a picture of a bunch of people in one of Eliots' greenhouses amongst a swath of fabric row covers - I think it's on page 198, but my copy is loaned to someone right now, so I can't be sure. Among that crowd there's a guy standing off to the side with bushy hair and blue jeans and a white sweater vest, looking down at the ground - that would be me. The link below is to some quick-connect fittings that are durable and don't leak. They aren't the most affordable ones, and there is likely a cheaper source - I use this company for woodworking tools - not cheap, but excellent quality products. Here is a link that might be useful: quick-connect hose adapters

I have Sara Williams' book Creating the Prairie Xeriscape and agree with you that it is an excellent book, and not just for those on the Prairies. I live in southern Ontario. Another good one that I bought several years ago is Growing Perennials in Cold Climates by Mike Heger and John Whitman, two gardeners in Minnesota.