Re: Question about "Foursquare" garden

[news.verizon.net]

Get the book "Square Foot Gardening" by Mel Bartholomew. his entire theory is based on 4ft x 4ft square beds, each divided into 16 squares. Excellent!

Mark

> > > > WCD wrote: > > > > > > > > We bought a place in central Maine last year with an existing kitchen > > > garden that seems to lend itself very nicely to a "Foursquare" layout. I > > > would like to pursue this, but I'm confused about a few things. > > > > > > It seems like a foursquare layout will give you raised beds with depths > > > much larger than the 4 feet I've always heard you wanted for raised > > > beds. The 4 foot depth is to enable you to reach into the garden from > > > either side and never have to get up and walk around in there. Those are > > > among the benefits of raised beds. > > > > > > What am I missing here? > > > > Re-draw your beds until they -do- meet this design characteristic (Don't > be > > a slave to 48" ... a little larger or a little smaller will both work just > > fine.) You can also have the garden contain smaller repeats of the larger > > figure ... that is, cut a large square into two rectangles, two triangles > > or four smaller squares. > > > > Aim for structure and symmetry and the design goal will have been met. > > > > Bill > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Noydb" > Newsgroups: rec.gardens.edible > Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:10 PM > Subject: Re: Question about "Foursquare" garden > > > > WCD wrote: > > > > > > > > We bought a place in central Maine last year with an existing kitchen > > > garden that seems to lend itself very nicely to a "Foursquare" layout. I > > > would like to pursue this, but I'm confused about a few things. > > > > > > > > > > > What am I missing here? > > > > Re-draw your beds until they -do- meet this design characteristic (Don't > be > > a slave to 48" ... a little larger or a little smaller will both work just > > fine.) You can also have the garden contain smaller repeats of the larger > > figure ... that is, cut a large square into two rectangles, two triangles > > or four smaller squares. > > > > Aim for structure and symmetry and the design goal will have been met. > > > > Bill > > -- > > > It seems like a foursquare layout will give you raised beds with depths > > > much larger than the 4 feet I've always heard you wanted for raised > > > beds. The 4 foot depth is to enable you to reach into the garden from > > > either side and never have to get up and walk around in there. Those are > > > among the benefits of raised beds. > > > Lost me here but that's always a good idea. To me, l x w x h refers to > overall lenght, overall width and h is overall height from grade (floor). So > reaching into a garden is a function of w, not of h. > As to width, 48" is considered to be optimal although 36" is a great deal > easier to work with. > > As to 48" of soil depth, there is no doubt that the larger the volume of > soil mass, the better but.... a large cubic volume of soil will also take > much longer to gradually become stable as to pH and humus content. We're > talking years, from start to 'perfect' and few people take that needed 'long > view'. Moreover, much depends on terrain, personal preferences and budget. > The vast majority of plants will do well in far less than 10, let alone 40 > odd inches of soil and the substrate (the soil beneath the raised beds) has > a lot to do with that, as does the type of plants to be grown. Tomatoes may > prefer access to unlimited soil depth but one would not grow tomatoes in the > same soil twice anyway. Therein is the logic of creating multiple smaller > raised beds: makes crop rotation easier. > > The most cost-effective way to raise a raised bed is to form a midden, a > flat hump that should contain rocks, rubble etc. as well as soil. Drainage > is of critical importance and a 24 inch soil pad will add that, plus cost is > far less than an additional 2 feet of raised bed wall, unless you use field > stones as walls. Central Maine is full of good rocks, there is no better > material than rock to create a raised bed. > > Back to width: raised beds are semi-permanent structures. If you can reach > in to 24" from either side could you do so in 10, 15 years from now? Why not > 40" wide? 38"? It all depends on what you want to do. > > If all there is on da teevee is reruns, this may prove to be of some > amusement value: > :) > John > -- > John H. Immink > [e-mail] > > >