I've been struggling with this question, mainly because my footprint for food production is so small.

Does a plant have to contribute to the culture in order for it to be part of the culture?

Do visual aesthetics for the sake of beauty alone have a place in permaculture even if they don't attract bees, drop leaves, or produce food?

Milkmood. I think a basic answer to this question would be that a properly designed permaculture landscape IS quite aesthetic in appearance. And the design is supposed to permanent with every plant contributing to the whole.

So if you are talking about having a plant that makes no contribution I would ask why do you want to put it in the context of a permaculture landscape?

I am thinking perhaps of the Knockout roses. Why use them when natural roses attract wildlife, have edible rose hips, they bloom in season instead of boringly all the time?

But then what ever one finds "aesthetic" is highly personal.

I think "beauty alone" is insufficient reason to add an element to a permaculture landscape. But the other functions that ornamentals bring make them good candidates for permaculture.

Every element in a landscape should provide at least 3 functions. One function of ornamentals is, of course, that they are aesthetically pleasing. Another function may be that they might attract beneficials. Another function may be that they increase the species diversity.

I noticed that some people can adapt quite arrogant theories as to which plants are more desirable than others. Some say only native plants. But there are good arguments that hardly anything qualifies as native when the plant ecosystems have been so drastically modified by human populations. Some say only food (human or animal) providing plants. But, others really don't want animal pests hanging around their property. I tend to dislike highly hybridized or GMO plants.

I like your 3 functions rule, Dave.

hazelnut...that's kind of why I asked the question. I mean, I'm of the belief that if it can grow in your region and you want it in your system, why not. I'm not a big fan of ornamentals personally...given the size of my space, I want to make the most of it.

I think even aromatic ornamental roses can be useful. Ever made rosewater by distilling boiled rose petals? I'd be more inclined to use rosewater than rose hips, so I guess it comes down to usefulness to me. Rosewater is used lightly in baklava, and can be traded or sold.

As can rose hips. Terrific steeped (fresh or dried) for rose hips tea and loaded with Vitamin C. Highly sought after in some cultures.

And rose hips jelly.

A life without roses would be a sad life indeed.

But do we really need super-hybrids that are no different than plastic roses? Old fashioned roses that you can actually grow from seed, smell good, they act like roses, they have hips, you can make all the rosewater you want, they attract birds and other animals. They are great plants for the hedgerow. They are great plants for the kitchen or herb garden, or even along the back fence. They are hard working, functional, and beautiful. And dozens of other beautiful plants are also.

I agree, hazelnut ... OGR and species roses are my faves, hands down. I have a couple of the "plastic" type ... they don't even smell. But I suppose they have their fans. If I could only choose one type of rose, it wouldn't be hybrids teas.

For me, *if* I were capable of keeping roses alive...I would keep them for the aroma, and to keep aphids off of more desirable plants

I see your point about old world roses; never been a fan of super hybrids or GMs at all anyway...which is probably why I'm...here.

milkmood said:I've been struggling with this question, mainly because my footprint for food production is so small.

Does a plant have to contribute to the culture in order for it to be part of the culture?

Do visual aesthetics for the sake of beauty alone have a place in permaculture even if they don't attract bees, drop leaves, or produce food?

Leaving the roses behind for a moment, I'm curious as to what you are considering ornamental?

What type of plant wouldn't attract the pollinators if it blooms, wouldn't be deciduous or produce edible material for something in nature?

I am unable to determine what that would be. Perhaps cactus ~ but many cacti bloom, are edible or can be used for medicinal purposes.

I believe that every plant has been put on this earth for a reason. What that reason is, may be unknown to us at this time but I cannot visualize a plant that will fall into your category. I am just curious... Kristi

pod... that's one of the reasons I asked the question. *Are* there any plants that aren't beneficial in some way or another? I'm finding several schools of thought on this ranging from 'native only' to 'plant what you want' if you can grow it. Thanks for the input.

I think there are some plants that aren't beneficial. They're called invasives. But some (permaculturists) even claim those are just pioneers and a lot of them are nitrogen fixers. Examples I can think of in my yard are acacia and Asian wisteria.

Back to roses. I remember many years ago I visited the mission at San Juan Capistrano. In the courtyard was an olive grove, and at the outer edges of the courtyard, the nuns had planted old fashioned roses, and under the roses were onions and lettuces. I can still remember the scent of the olives on a hot summer day.

I think it would be a very sad and one dimensional world if we couldn't appreciate something and grow it simply for its beauty.

extranjera said:I think it would be a very sad and one dimensional world if we couldn't appreciate something and grow it simply for its beauty.

"I think it would be a very sad and one dimensional world if we couldn't appreciate something and grow it simply for its beauty. "

True. But that's not what permaculture is about. And in fact, most plants we grow for their beauty are not just beautiful. They have other dimensions as well, and that's when they would have a role in a permaculture landscape. Otherwise, we are talking about something like an English Border, or formal beds. Or even a potted patio plant.

Have to pop in here for a sec...

I can't see how a formal bed or a potted plant wouldn't qualify. Useful plants can be planted in a pleasing manner, even in a pot, and still be beneficial.

'Useful", "pleasing", or "beneficial" still is not permaculture.

Maybe this article will be helpful.

Or, here is Bill Mollison's Introduction to Permiculture (155 pp PDF)

http://www.barkingfrogspermacu...

Permaculture is a design system that mimics natural ecology. It is a holistic way of thinking that pertains to gardening.

So any discussion of a single plant unless it is in relation to the whole system is not doing permaculture.

It does take a leap to get beyond thinking of a whole (say your back yard) is more than the sum of plants you have planted there. Instead, when you start thinking about the plants in relation to some natural design goal such as a food forest, a hedgerow, a bog, or whatever, then you begin to think within a permaculture framework.

Even then you may not have accomplished a successful permaculture system. The test is does it work?, does every part play a role in contribution to the whole design? And does it keep working over time?

Maybe the whole topic is above my head. I did read in the article:

Gardens are not only more productive than agriculture, they are less damaging to the environment. Of course, some gardening strategies are more productive and protective of the environment than others. Defining those strategies is what permaculture is about. Permaculturalists prefer non-cultivation techniques.

My gardens are full of herbs, medicinal plants, veggies, and I compost regularly. The gardens pretty much take care of themselves at this point. I'm the only house in the village that has toads, frogs, snakes, turtles, rabbits, chippers, red squirrels, birds,etc. living here comfortably and we're all being fed by my gardens. Is that not permaculture to some degree?

Seems to me that somebody who understands permaculture in its entirety needs to write a good basic article explaining its concept(s). It would align our thoughts so opinions are not so scattered.

It's one thing to read links, it's another thing to read an article on the front page of ATP.
I think we'd reach more people on the front page.