EduFarm - User contributions [en]

Space Planning: Assessment of Sub-project

2026-06-29T12:13:01Z

Nils: remove numbers

== General legal bases ==
See https://bravors.brandenburg.de/de/gesetze-212898.

== Everything regarding the overall project, structures, and infrastructure ==

=== Residential buildings ===

==== Buildings and Agriculture – General ====
At edufarm those buildings should ideally be shielded from potential disturbances associated with agriculture: noise, odors, waste and unsightly views. They also should be a retreat for residents and guests.

Plastic elements (netting, fleece, polytunnels), Machinery in operation, People at work and Visitors should also be the least visible.

==== Details regarding the expansive view ====

===== Agroforestry strips =====
Strips of shrubs and trees are acceptable in North-South orientation. There are no height restrictions (since they are narrow strips, not broad areas) and we will position them close to buildings only where no machinery or human activity is visible.

===== East-West oriented hedges (to act as windbreaks and screen vegetable beds). =====
These hedges should not obstruct expansive views and they should ideally rise slightly towards the background (to create a sense of depth and distance) but not obscure the forest at the very back (which represents the highest and most distant point). The height of the hedges will be arranged once they are growing.

===== Building Content =====
At Edufram, residential buildings must include event spaces to accommodate events and dinners for up to 50 people and be able to provide living space for several user groups: Short-term guests or day visitors: for a maximum of 10–20 (?) people, some apartments for families, regular overnight accommodation and, if applicable, living space for staff (permanent employees, interns, volunteers in the Voluntary Ecological Year program).

=== Utility buildings ===

==== Key criteria ====
These buildings should be 26 x 19 m according to the current design, should feature a loading ramp for vegetable crates on one side and must provide sufficient space for all operational areas/sub-projects.

==== Nice as a bonus ====
These buildings could have an orientation aligned with solar exposure for maximum energy efficiency, have good insulation to buffer internal and external temperatures and be orientated and placed so that they can provide a pleasant view of the façade from the residential building.

=== Paths criteria ===
Service road and main paths in the north should be wide enough for trucks and tractors (plus a parked car alongside). Edufarm also thought possible to have turning circles for delivery traffic. Indeed Turning circle for fire trucks at the end of the greenhouses can be very useful (the path must be "surfaced" up to this point).

Another criteria to the path-building is to physically separate paths for regular visitors and pedestrian groups from paths used by tractors, machinery, etc.
[[File:Water concept and topographie.png|thumb|468x468px|Water concept and topography]]

=== Water concept and topography ===

=== Plot widths ===
[[File:Plot width.png|thumb|Plot width]]
to be completed

=== Shelter and annexes ===
to be completed

=== Fence ===
See Brandenburg Neighbor Law.

The fence may be situated on the property boundary. A criteria will also be local nature conservation authority: fence permitted provided the land is under agricultural/commercial use.

Another criteria is the Vole barrier: vegetation directly along the fence should be easy to keep short: sufficient space should be left for a mower and potential specific mowing requirements if a conservation hedge is present (mowing permitted only with a sickle-bar mower).

=== Areas for deliveries and storage ===

==== Key criteria ====
Important is to think of Minimum size for storage areas (in the north): of which covered ans of which uncovered.

==== Not essential, but a nice bonus ====
Adding unloading areas in the south or in the center of the site could be very useful. At the far south end, access could also possible via a path on the east side.

== Sub-projects ==

=== Vegetables ===

==== Greenhouses & propagation greenhouse ====

===== Key criteria =====
Distance between greenhouses in the east-west direction should be at least 2 m and not directly visible from the residential building. Dimensions of the 10 greenhouses will be 12 m wide x 50 m long. 1 of these greenhouses will serve as a propagation greenhouse.

Distances between them and to the utility building should be minimized (they should not be positioned too far south). Specifically, the distance between greenhouses in the north-south direction should at least be 6–7 m, ideally 15–20 m.

===== Not essential, but a nice bonus =====
The distance to the water surface in the center should be sufficient to allow a biotope to develop around it (at least 20–30 m between the greenhouse and the water, including a tractor path).

==== Vegetable plots / field-grown vegetables ====
Dimensions of vegetable blocks in the north: 18.4 x 45 m. This is sufficient for 20 vegetable blocks (16,560 m²).

Dimensions of vegetable blocks in the south: 18.4 x 95 m. This is sufficient for 8 blocks (13,248 m²).

Spacing should between aligned vegetable blocks be at leats 10 m, between staggered vegetable blocks in the south at least 15 m (Blocks must be as “straight” as possible).

=== Agroforestry ===

==== Legal Basis ====
See Brandenburg Neighbour law, the following values apply regarding the distance of trees, shrubs, and hedges from the boundary of agricultural holdings:

Fruit trees: 4 m, other trees: 8 m, and in all other cases (including hedges and shrubs over 2 m in height): at least ⅔ of the height above ground level.

Measurement of distance for trees: from the center of the trunk above ground level. In all other cases (including hedges and shrubs over 2 m): “measured from the outermost point of the planting closest to the boundary.”

==== Funding guidelines ====
For the combination of investment support and agricultural subsidy applications (specifically ÖR3) several points are important:

* The distance between agroforestry strips and hedges or other agroforestry strips should be 20 m and no required distance from the field edge.

* Measurement points (MLUK): strip width (maximum crown diameter) and strip spacing (between strips and relative to hedges) is measured from the outermost edge of the strip (at the point where the two strips are closest to each other). Ploughing or sowing is not permitted within the "woody strip" itself.
* The required distance applies only to the majority of the strip's length.
* Dimensions should have a maximum width of 25 m along the majority of the length and continuously planted strips (adhering to recommended planting distances)
* Number/Area: minimum of 2 strips per agroforestry system; combined area of all strips: maximum 40% of the applied-for parcel (multiple parcels per area are permitted).

All of the funding guidelines should also be combinable with: Basic support, redistributive payment, ÖR 6.

=== Hedge ===
to be completed

=== Forest garden ===
to be completed

=== Tree nursery ===
to be completed

Space Planning: Assessment of Sub-project

2026-06-29T12:09:14Z

Nils: Created the page

== 1.General legal bases ==
See https://bravors.brandenburg.de/de/gesetze-212898.

== 2.Everything regarding the overall project, structures, and infrastructure ==

=== 1.Residential buildings ===

==== 1.Buildings and Agriculture – General ====
At edufarm those buildings should ideally be shielded from potential disturbances associated with agriculture: noise, odors, waste and unsightly views. They also should be a retreat for residents and guests.

Plastic elements (netting, fleece, polytunnels), Machinery in operation, People at work and Visitors should also be the least visible.

==== 2.Details regarding the expansive view ====

===== 1.Agroforestry strips =====
Strips of shrubs and trees are acceptable in North-South orientation. There are no height restrictions (since they are narrow strips, not broad areas) and we will position them close to buildings only where no machinery or human activity is visible.

===== 2.East-West oriented hedges (to act as windbreaks and screen vegetable beds). =====
These hedges should not obstruct expansive views and they should ideally rise slightly towards the background (to create a sense of depth and distance) but not obscure the forest at the very back (which represents the highest and most distant point). The height of the hedges will be arranged once they are growing.

===== 3.Building Content =====
At Edufram, residential buildings must include event spaces to accommodate events and dinners for up to 50 people and be able to provide living space for several user groups: Short-term guests or day visitors: for a maximum of 10–20 (?) people, some apartments for families, regular overnight accommodation and, if applicable, living space for staff (permanent employees, interns, volunteers in the Voluntary Ecological Year program).

=== 2.Utility buildings ===

==== 1.Key criteria ====
These buildings should be 26 x 19 m according to the current design, should feature a loading ramp for vegetable crates on one side and must provide sufficient space for all operational areas/sub-projects.

==== 2.Nice as a bonus ====
These buildings could have an orientation aligned with solar exposure for maximum energy efficiency, have good insulation to buffer internal and external temperatures and be orientated and placed so that they can provide a pleasant view of the façade from the residential building.

=== 3.Paths criteria ===
Service road and main paths in the north should be wide enough for trucks and tractors (plus a parked car alongside). Edufarm also thought possible to have turning circles for delivery traffic. Indeed Turning circle for fire trucks at the end of the greenhouses can be very useful (the path must be "surfaced" up to this point).

Another criteria to the path-building is to physically separate paths for regular visitors and pedestrian groups from paths used by tractors, machinery, etc.
[[File:Water concept and topographie.png|thumb|468x468px|Water concept and topography]]

=== 4. Water concept and topography ===

=== 5.Plot widths ===
[[File:Plot width.png|thumb|Plot width]]
to be completed

=== 6.Shelter and annexes ===
to be completed

=== 7.Fence ===
See Brandenburg Neighbor Law.

The fence may be situated on the property boundary. A criteria will also be local nature conservation authority: fence permitted provided the land is under agricultural/commercial use.

Another criteria is the Vole barrier: vegetation directly along the fence should be easy to keep short: sufficient space should be left for a mower and potential specific mowing requirements if a conservation hedge is present (mowing permitted only with a sickle-bar mower).

=== 8.Areas for deliveries and storage ===

==== 1.Key criteria ====
Important is to think of Minimum size for storage areas (in the north): of which covered ans of which uncovered.

==== 2.Not essential, but a nice bonus ====
Adding unloading areas in the south or in the center of the site could be very useful. At the far south end, access could also possible via a path on the east side.

== 3.Sub-projects ==

=== 1.Vegetables ===

==== 1.Greenhouses & propagation greenhouse ====

===== 1.Key criteria =====
Distance between greenhouses in the east-west direction should be at least 2 m and not directly visible from the residential building. Dimensions of the 10 greenhouses will be 12 m wide x 50 m long. 1 of these greenhouses will serve as a propagation greenhouse.

Distances between them and to the utility building should be minimized (they should not be positioned too far south). Specifically, the distance between greenhouses in the north-south direction should at least be 6–7 m, ideally 15–20 m.

===== 2.Not essential, but a nice bonus =====
The distance to the water surface in the center should be sufficient to allow a biotope to develop around it (at least 20–30 m between the greenhouse and the water, including a tractor path).

==== 2.Vegetable plots / field-grown vegetables ====
Dimensions of vegetable blocks in the north: 18.4 x 45 m. This is sufficient for 20 vegetable blocks (16,560 m²).

Dimensions of vegetable blocks in the south: 18.4 x 95 m. This is sufficient for 8 blocks (13,248 m²).

Spacing should between aligned vegetable blocks be at leats 10 m, between staggered vegetable blocks in the south at least 15 m (Blocks must be as “straight” as possible).

=== 2.Agroforestry ===

==== 1.Legal Basis ====
See Brandenburg Neighbour law, the following values apply regarding the distance of trees, shrubs, and hedges from the boundary of agricultural holdings:

Fruit trees: 4 m, other trees: 8 m, and in all other cases (including hedges and shrubs over 2 m in height): at least ⅔ of the height above ground level.

Measurement of distance for trees: from the center of the trunk above ground level. In all other cases (including hedges and shrubs over 2 m): “measured from the outermost point of the planting closest to the boundary.”

==== 2.Funding guidelines ====
For the combination of investment support and agricultural subsidy applications (specifically ÖR3) several points are important:

* The distance between agroforestry strips and hedges or other agroforestry strips should be 20 m and no required distance from the field edge.

* Measurement points (MLUK): strip width (maximum crown diameter) and strip spacing (between strips and relative to hedges) is measured from the outermost edge of the strip (at the point where the two strips are closest to each other). Ploughing or sowing is not permitted within the "woody strip" itself.
* The required distance applies only to the majority of the strip's length.
* Dimensions should have a maximum width of 25 m along the majority of the length and continuously planted strips (adhering to recommended planting distances)
* Number/Area: minimum of 2 strips per agroforestry system; combined area of all strips: maximum 40% of the applied-for parcel (multiple parcels per area are permitted).

All of the funding guidelines should also be combinable with: Basic support, redistributive payment, ÖR 6.

=== 3.Hedge ===

=== 4.Forest garden ===

=== 5.Tree nursery ===

File:Plot width.png

2026-06-29T11:16:13Z

Nils:

measurements

File:Water concept and topographie.png

2026-06-29T11:12:27Z

Nils:

Map

Drinking water pond

2026-06-26T13:25:20Z

Nils: Formating

== 1.Geotextile fabric, LDPE rubber and Wall protection ==

===== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup =====
LDPE is very thin, there is an outgassing of methane and ethylene upon exposure to sunlight and material supply is the least energy-intensive.

===== Durability =====
This system can last around 20 years and the recycling is easier than with only LDPE.

===== Microplastics =====
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water (of all the other systems presented on this page).

===== Susceptibility to problems and repairability =====
This System can still be welded even after 20 years.

===== Water conservation =====
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

===== Impact on water quality =====
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

===== Miscellaneous =====
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

===== Cost =====
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM.

== 2.Geotextile fabric, EPDM rubber and Wall protection ==

===== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup =====
This system uses more materials than the LDPE system.

===== Durability =====
This System has a longer service life than the LDPE system (approx. 40 years) but has poorer recyclability.

===== Microplastics =====
This system has a better impact on microplastics in water than the LPDE system has.

===== Water conservation =====
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

===== Impact on water quality =====
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

===== Miscellaneous =====
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

===== Cost =====
Pure film is roughly twice as expensive as LDPE and more complex to install.

== 3.Geotextile fabric, Clay slabs and Geotextile fabric ==
In this system, there must be at least 20 cm of gravel ballast to keep everything in place.

===== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup =====
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.

===== Durability =====
The geotextile fabric of the textile would eventually need to be replaced.

===== Microplastics =====
This systems holds similar density of microplastics to the 2nd system.

===== Susceptibility to problems and repairability =====
This system has problems with plant roots growing through the clay layer.

===== Water conservation =====
The pond surface area is increasing by because excavator access is required for cleaning; consequently, there will be significantly higher evaporation.

===== Impact on water quality =====
With this system one most be careful to Leaching of nutrients from clay.

===== Miscellaneous =====
Underground extraction and cleaning are not possible; an excavator must be able to drive in. This also increases the ponds surface.

===== Cost =====
Significantly more expensive than using a pure film. Clay tiles, delivery and Installation of the materials are the main factors of this increase.

== 4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer ==

===== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup =====
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.

===== Durability =====
This System is Virtually unlimited in durability.

===== Microplastics =====
Water in this system has no microplastics.

===== Susceptibility to problems and repairability =====
This system has problems with plant roots growing through the clay layer.

===== Water conservation =====
In this system, Pond surface area is largest, as the slope angle for the gravel layer must be even shallower. Consequently, evaporation is highest. There is also an Additional water loss due to lack of capillary break (geotextile).

===== Impact on water quality =====
In this system, the leaching of nutrients from clay and the covering layer is significant, resulting in rapid algal blooms.

===== Miscellaneous =====
No underground extraction and purification possible in this system.

===== Cost =====
This system is the most expensive of all presented: there is significantly more excavation required, a larger waterproofing surface area and higher delivery costs to be careful of.

This system also has significantly more complex installation, which can also increase the cost.

Drinking water pond

2026-06-26T13:21:44Z

Nils: 4th system

== 1.Geotextile fabric, LDPE rubber and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
LDPE is very thin, there is an outgassing of methane and ethylene upon exposure to sunlight and material supply is the least energy-intensive.

=== Durability ===
This system can last around 20 years and the recycling is easier than with only LDPE.

=== Microplastics ===
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water (of all the other systems presented on this page).

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===
This System can still be welded even after 20 years.

=== Water conservation ===
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

=== Impact on water quality ===
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

=== Miscellaneous ===
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

=== Cost ===
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM.

== 2.Geotextile fabric, EPDM rubber and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
This system uses more materials than the LDPE system.

=== Durability ===
This System has a longer service life than the LDPE system (approx. 40 years) but has poorer recyclability.

=== Microplastics ===
This system has a better impact on microplastics in water than the LPDE system has.

=== Water conservation ===
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

=== Impact on water quality ===
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

=== Miscellaneous ===
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

=== Cost ===
Pure film is roughly twice as expensive as LDPE and more complex to install.

== 3.Geotextile fabric, Clay slabs and Geotextile fabric ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.

=== Durability ===
The geotextile fabric of the textile would eventually need to be replaced.

=== Microplastics ===
This systems holds similar density of microplastics to the 2nd system.

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===
This system has problems with plant roots growing through the clay layer.

=== Water conservation ===
The pond surface area is increasing by because excavator access is required for cleaning; consequently, there will be significantly higher evaporation.

=== Impact on water quality ===
With this system one most be careful to Leaching of nutrients from clay.

=== Miscellaneous ===
Underground extraction and cleaning are not possible; an excavator must be able to drive in. This also increases the ponds surface.

=== Cost ===
Significantly more expensive than using a pure film. Clay tiles, delivery and Installation of the materials are the main factors of this increase.

== 4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.

=== Durability ===
This System is Virtually unlimited in durability.

=== Microplastics ===
Water in this system has no microplastics.

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===
This system has problems with plant roots growing through the clay layer.

=== Water conservation ===
In this system, Pond surface area is largest, as the slope angle for the gravel layer must be even shallower. Consequently, evaporation is highest. There is also an Additional water loss due to lack of capillary break (geotextile).

=== Impact on water quality ===
In this system, the leaching of nutrients from clay and the covering layer is significant, resulting in rapid algal blooms.

=== Miscellaneous ===
No underground extraction and purification possible in this system.

=== Cost ===
This system is the most expensive of all presented: there is significantly more excavation required, a larger waterproofing surface area and higher delivery costs to be careful of.

This system also has significantly more complex installation, which can also increase the cost.

Drinking water pond

2026-06-26T13:12:53Z

Nils: 3rd System

== 1.Geotextile fabric, LDPE rubber and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
LDPE is very thin, there is an outgassing of methane and ethylene upon exposure to sunlight and material supply is the least energy-intensive.

=== Durability ===
This system can last around 20 years and the recycling is easier than with only LDPE.

=== Microplastics ===
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water (of all the other systems presented on this page).

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===
This System can still be welded even after 20 years.

=== Water conservation ===
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

=== Impact on water quality ===
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

=== Miscellaneous ===
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

=== Cost ===
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM.

== 2.Geotextile fabric, EPDM rubber and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
This system uses more materials than the LDPE system.

=== Durability ===
This System has a longer service life than the LDPE system (approx. 40 years) but has poorer recyclability.

=== Microplastics ===
This system has a better impact on microplastics in water than the LPDE system has.

=== Water conservation ===
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

=== Impact on water quality ===
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

=== Miscellaneous ===
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

=== Cost ===
Pure film is roughly twice as expensive as LDPE and more complex to install.

== 3.Geotextile fabric, Clay slabs and Geotextile fabric ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.

=== Durability ===
The geotextile fabric of the textile would eventually need to be replaced.

=== Microplastics ===
This systems holds similar density of microplastics to the 2nd system.

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===
This system has problems with plant roots growing through the clay layer.

=== Water conservation ===
The pond surface area is increasing by because excavator access is required for cleaning; consequently, there will be significantly higher evaporation.

=== Impact on water quality ===
With this system one most be careful to Leaching of nutrients from clay.

=== Miscellaneous ===
Underground extraction and cleaning are not possible; an excavator must be able to drive in. This also increases the ponds surface.

=== Cost ===
Significantly more expensive than using a pure film. Clay tiles, delivery and Installation of the materials are the main factors of this increase.

== 4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
This system has Energy-intensive material supply.

=== Durability ===

=== Microplastics ===

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===

=== Water conservation ===

=== Impact on water quality ===

=== Miscellaneous ===

=== Cost ===

Drinking water pond

2026-06-26T11:14:49Z

Nils: 2nd system

== 1.Geo fleece, LDPE and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
LDPE is very thin, there is an outgassing of methane and ethylene upon exposure to sunlight and material supply is the least energy-intensive.

=== Durability ===
This system can last around 20 years and the recycling is easier than with only LDPE.

=== Microplastics ===
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water than all the other systems presented on this page.

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===
This System can still be welded even after 20 years.

=== Water conservation ===
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

=== Impact on water quality ===
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

=== Miscellaneous ===
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

=== Cost ===
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM.

== 2.Geo fleece, EPDM and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
This system uses more materials than the LDPE system.

=== Durability ===
This System has a longer service life than the LDPE system (approx. 40 years) but has poorer recyclability.

=== Microplastics ===
This system has a better impact on microplastics in water than the LPDE system has.

=== Water conservation ===
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

=== Impact on water quality ===
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

=== Miscellaneous ===
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

=== Cost ===
Pure film is roughly twice as expensive as LDPE and more complex to install.

== 3.Geo fleece, Clay slabs and Geo fleece ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===

=== Durability ===

=== Microplastics ===

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===

=== Water conservation ===

=== Impact on water quality ===

=== Miscellaneous ===

=== Cost ===

== 4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===

=== Durability ===

=== Microplastics ===

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===

=== Water conservation ===

=== Impact on water quality ===

=== Miscellaneous ===

=== Cost ===

Drinking water pond

2026-06-26T10:58:12Z

Nils: 1st System

== 1.Geo fleece, LDPE and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===
LDPE is very thin, there is an outgassing of methane and ethylene upon exposure to sunlight and material supply is the least energy-intensive.

=== Durability ===
This system can last around 20 years and the recycling is easier than with only LDPE.

=== Microplastics ===
This system has the most negative impact on the microplastics in the water than all the other systems presented on this page.

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===
This System can still be welded even after 20 years.

=== Water conservation ===
This system has the best water conservation of all the systems presented here. On the EduFarm field it would only have a surface of 1100m².

=== Impact on water quality ===
This system has the most positive impact on water quality of all the presented systems: no leaching of nutrients, and easy to clean.

=== Miscellaneous ===
In this system, underground extraction and purification are possible.

=== Cost ===
The most cost-effective option, although the liner may need to be replaced sooner than with EPDM.

== 2.Geo fleece, EPDM and Wall protection ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===

=== Durability ===

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===

=== Water conservation ===

=== Impact on water quality ===

=== Miscellaneous ===

=== Cost ===

== 3.Geo fleece, Clay slabs and Geo fleece ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===

=== Durability ===

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===

=== Water conservation ===

=== Impact on water quality ===

=== Miscellaneous ===

=== Cost ===

== 4.Jute fabric, clay slabs and 50 cm natural covering layer ==

=== Life Cycle Assessment – Initial Setup ===

=== Durability ===

=== Susceptibility to problems and repairability ===

=== Water conservation ===

=== Impact on water quality ===

=== Miscellaneous ===

=== Cost ===

Alternatives to screw foundations

2026-06-24T14:31:27Z

Nils: English page

Edufarm opted for screw foundations for the construction of the footings. However, other types of concrete-free foundations exist. This page focuses specifically on two of these alternatives: the tire foundation and the cyclopean foundation.

== 1.Tire foundations ==
Tire foundations are frequently used in Europe for constructing small structures, such as garden sheds. In Asia, they are valued for their good seismic resistance.

The method involves drilling holes into the ground in a grid pattern; a spacing of 3 meters or less between grid points is ideal. The diameter of the holes should match the size of the tires used, while the depth depends on the load of the structure. Anchor posts (such as those used for agricultural greenhouses or other suitable alternatives) are set in the center of these holes. Next, the tires are installed: place a first layer of tires in the holes, fill them with a mixture of gravel and soil, and repeat the process until the tire stack reaches the desired height. If there is any gap between the sides of the hole and the stack of tires, stones can be inserted to ensure stability.

Note: This method is not suitable for fully sustainable projects due to the composition of the tires (rubber).

== 2.Cyclopean foundations ==
Cyclopean foundations date back millennia. The Romans originally coined the name because they believed that Cyclopes had built the foundations.

In principle, holes are drilled into the ground where the load-bearing walls are to be located. A mixture of lime concrete and stones is then placed into these boreholes. Thanks to the inclusion of pumice stone, they offer excellent mechanical and seismic resistance and prevent rising damp. In practice, these foundations can last for centuries. Eventually, these foundations can also be converted into sand.

Note: Unfortunately, it is not recommended to use this sand to make new concrete; thus, while these foundations are more sustainable than tire foundations, they are less so than screw foundations.

Roslag: a Norwegian method of protecting wood from moisture

2026-06-24T14:30:17Z

Nils: Introduction

Roslag is a traditional norwegian method to protect wood from moisture, fire and other risks.

== 1.Composition and Application ==

=== Composition ===
(1/3) Pine tar (Norwegian tar), (1/3) turpentine oil, and (1/3) linseed oil

=== Application ===
Initially 2 to 3 coats on dry wood (light layer), then 4 to 5 coats on wet wood to fully saturate the wood fibers.

== 2.Risks of degassing ==
The Risks only until several days after the application.

Gum turpentine (a natural solvent) evaporates rapidly during drying. This release is normal, is accompanied by a strong pine or smoky odor, and dissipates within a few days.

During the drying process (which occurs through oxidation upon contact with air and UV light), the pine needle oil releases a characteristic odor. While it does not emit toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, it can cause a persistent odor that may recur during hot summer weather.

Linseed oil carries a risk of spontaneous combustion. Cloths or materials soaked in this mixture must be disposed of in water or safely burned. This applies specifically to the saturation stage.

Roslag: norwegische Weise Holz von Nässe beschützen

2026-06-24T14:24:42Z

Nils: risks of degassing

== 1.Composition and Application ==

=== Composition ===
(1/3) Pine tar (Norwegian tar), (1/3) turpentine oil, and (1/3) linseed oil

=== Application ===
Initially 2 to 3 coats on dry wood (light layer), then 4 to 5 coats on wet wood to fully saturate the wood fibers.

== 2.Risks of degassing ==
The Risks only until several days after the application.

Gum turpentine (a natural solvent) evaporates rapidly during drying. This release is normal, is accompanied by a strong pine or smoky odor, and dissipates within a few days.

During the drying process (which occurs through oxidation upon contact with air and UV light), the pine needle oil releases a characteristic odor. While it does not emit toxic chemicals such as formaldehyde, it can cause a persistent odor that may recur during hot summer weather.

Linseed oil carries a risk of spontaneous combustion. Cloths or materials soaked in this mixture must be disposed of in water or safely burned. This applies specifically to the saturation stage.

Roslag: norwegische Weise Holz von Nässe beschützen

2026-06-24T14:23:03Z

Nils: /* 1.Composition and application */

Roslag: norwegische Weise Holz von Nässe beschützen

2026-06-24T14:11:47Z

Nils: English Struktur

== 1.Composition and application ==

== 2.Risks of degassing ==

Alternativen zu Schraubfundamente

2026-06-24T14:10:24Z

Nils: Translate everything in English

Roslag: norwegische Weise Holz von Nässe beschützen

2026-06-24T14:04:06Z

Nils: Struktur

== 1.Zusammensetzung und Anwendung ==

== 2.Risiken von Entgasung ==

Alternativen zu Schraubfundamente

2026-06-24T13:59:02Z

Nils: Paragraph über Zyklopfundamente

Edufarm hat sich für den Bau der Fundamente au Schraufundamente gestützt. Doch andere Arten Fundamente ohne Beton gibt es. Diese Seite interessiert sich besonders an zwei dieser Alternativen: das Reifenfundament und das Zyklopfundament.

== 1.Reifenfundament ==
Reifenfundamente werden in Europa oft genutzt um kleine Häuser (z.B GartenHäuser) zu bauen. In Asien bieten sie eine gute seismische Wiederstandsfähigkeit an.

Das Prinzip ist den Boden auf einer quadriierten Weise zu bohren. Ideal sind 3 Meter oder weniger zwischen den Knoten. Die Bohrungen sollen die Form der genutzten Reifen anpassen, ihre Tiefe hängt von der Last der Struktur ab. In der Mitte dieser Löcher Verankerungspfähle für landwirtschaftliche Gewächshäuser (oder andere angepasste Pfähle) verankern. Dann kommen die Reifen: eine erste Etage Reifen in den Löcher stellen, diese Reifen mit Kies und Erde füllen und die Operation wiederholen bis die gewünschte Größe Reifenstapel erhalten ist. Falls es Spiel zwischen den Rahmen des lochs und den Reifenstapel gibt kann man Steine für Stabilität in den Lücken stellen.

Bemerkung: nicht für komplet nachhaltige Projekte geeignet wegen der Komposition der Reifen (gummi).

== 2.Zyklopfundament ==
Zyklopfundamente sind Jahrtausende alt. Die Römer haben ursprünglich diesen Namen gefunden denn sie dachten das Zyklope die Fundamente gebaut hatten.

Prinzipiell bohrt man die Erde wo die Lagerwänder später sein sollen. In diesen Bohrungent eine Mischung von Kalkbeton und Steine einsetzen. Dank des enthaltenen Bimssteins bieten sie eine hervorragende mechanische und seismische Widerstandsfähigkeit und halten aufsteigende Feuchtigkeit ab. Praktisch können diese Fundamente bis zu Jahrhunderte halten. Diese Fundamente können dann auch in Sand verwandelt werden.

Bemerkung: Mit diesem Sand ist es leider nicht empfohlen erneut Beton zu machen, diese Fundamente sind also nachhaltiger als die Reifenfundamente, doch weniger als das Schraubenfundament.

Alternativen zu Schraubfundamente

2026-06-24T13:44:36Z

Nils: Paragraph über Reifenfundamente

Alternativen zu Schraubfundamente

2026-06-24T09:05:02Z

Nils: seite gegründet