Using Biological Resources

Definition and orientation

Using Biological Resources asks whether plants, animals, fungi and microbial processes can provide services otherwise supplied through repeated mechanical or chemical inputs. Living resources reproduce, adapt and interact, but they also have welfare needs, ecological limits and uncertain behaviour. Their use must be designed as stewardship rather than free labour.

Practical meaning: Define the function first, then examine suitable organisms, climate, welfare, containment, establishment time and backup. Design habitat, food, water and care around the organism rather than adding it as a device. Monitor both the intended service and wider effects, including disease, invasiveness and displaced wildlife.

Questions it can guide:

• Which living process could perform this function?
• What does the organism need to remain healthy and contained?
• When is a mechanical, legal or hygienic control still necessary?

Origins, lineage and attribution

This page belongs to the ecological principle tradition published by Bill Mollison and Reny Mia Slay. The displayed title follows the authorised Academy catalogue; the closing acknowledgement records the nearby source wording where it differs.

Similar themes appear in David Holmgren’s twelve principles, but overlap is handled through explicit cross-links. The formulations are not represented as one list, and authorship is not transferred between traditions. The Academy paraphrases the practical meaning rather than reproducing substantial passages from the source books.

Ethical and principle context

Holmgren’s renewable-resources principle values living services through a separate formulation; Input-Output Analysis makes care needs visible; GRAZER organises animal-system relationships and review.

Use Earth Care, People Care and Fair Share to test purpose, consequence and distribution. A provocative principle can widen judgement, but it cannot certify a preferred action. Pair it with evidence, a counter-question and a named review point.

When and how to use it

1. Name the decision, scale, affected people and living systems.
2. Translate the principle into context-specific questions rather than repeating it as a command.
3. Add a counter-question about safety, consent, urgency, maintenance or unequal effects.
4. Use a suitable framework or tool to gather evidence and compare alternatives.
5. Choose a proportionate action, state uncertainty and distinguish proposal from completion.
6. Record what observation or feedback would trigger adaptation or stopping.

Application in Mark’s Diploma and at Vila Pinheiro

Design 08 records goats and chickens moving through a paddock system in two-week cycles to encourage disturbance and fertilisation, with fodder-tree corridors intended to support them. The page explicitly labels this Using Biological Resources. It documents a system described as operating, but does not establish soil improvement, stocking suitability or long-term animal-welfare outcomes.

Evidence boundary: the representative connection was checked in Mark D’Cruz, Design 08: Regenerative Silviculture, controlled Diploma PDF, PDF page 22. The master register records broader use across Designs 1–10, but declaration alone is not converted into a public case result.

Limits, critiques and common misuse

• Treating animals as tools while omitting welfare and competent care.
• Introducing species without assessing invasiveness, disease or escape.
• Assuming biological always means benign, low-risk or low-labour.
• Removing necessary engineering controls before living systems are established.

No principle replaces consent, law, competent technical advice, ecological assessment or accountable maintenance. Where principles pull in different directions, make the tension visible rather than selecting only the phrase that supports an existing preference.

Where this material comes from

This ecological design principle comes from Bill Mollison and Reny Mia Slay’s Introduction to Permaculture (1991), where the source wording is “Using biological resources”. It belongs to an early practical teaching set focused on placement, function, energy, living resources, scale, succession, diversity and edge. This page uses the authorised catalogue title “Using Biological Resources”; although teaching summaries use minor wording variants, these do not make the principle part of David Holmgren’s later twelve-principle formulation. Mark D’Cruz used or recorded this principle in his Diploma register; he is not its originator, and the master register records it as LIB-044. Its lineage and wording have been checked against the named publication tradition and Permaculture Association teaching records. The representative Diploma connection is limited to PDF page 22, with proposals kept distinct from measured outcomes.

Related entries

• How to Use Principles Without Turning Them into RulesPair a principle with evidence, counter-questions and a review point.
• Comparing Permaculture Principle TraditionsKeep the Mollison and Slay, Mollison attitudinal and Holmgren traditions distinct.
• Principles, Patterns and Systems ThinkingUse principles together without treating a slogan as proof.
• Bill Mollison: Permaculture as a Design SystemFollow Mollison’s wider contribution and Mark’s critical appreciation.
• Use and Value Renewable Resources and ServicesCompare Holmgren’s emphasis on renewable resources and living services.
• Input-Output AnalysisTrace needs, outputs, exchanges and hidden work.
• GRAZERExamine Mark’s documented closed-loop animal-system framework and its limits.
• Understanding and Respect for NatureCompare Mark’s separately authored bonsai tenet without transferring lineage.