OSE Proposal Enterprise Models

From Open Source Ecology
Jump to: navigation, search


To summarize until the present point, we have so far discussed:

1. The concept of Global Village infrastructures, and implications for a wide array of applications, from individual households, to eco-enterprise facilities, to whole Global Villages 2. A choice of technologies for meeting infrastructure needs 3. Motivation for why certain technologies were selected on grounds of localization agendas 4. A pattern language for clarifying relationships between technology components 5. Possible enterprise applications of the technology set

Now we turn to a more rigorous economic models by which various enterprises may be introduced and replicated. Our focus is on breaking new ground in open source economic development of small enterprise. We aim to achieve this by utilizing drastic, cascading92 cost reduction that arises from the open-sourcing of the critical components and fabricating them via flexible and digital fabrication.

To date, we have solid experience only with the CEB machine.93 Thus, we have firm understanding of the bill of materials and fabrication procedure, such that we have a solid foundation for building an open source enterprise for CEB machine production. This concept is in section c. below.

We also mention other enterprises that we are developing in 2008: sawmill, grid-intertie turbine, skid loader, and open source nursery. Our experience with these is not based on working prototypes. We mention these enterprise ideas anyway, to provide the general index of possibilities regarding open source enterprise, and what limited experience we do have should still provide economic insight to the reader.


We need to emphasize the definintion of what it means to open-source a product according to OSE specifications.94 It means to produce openly-accessible:

1. Designs, documentation, definitions, requirements, features95 2. Physical prototypes 3. Fabrication procedures (instructions) 4. Physical production facilities for demonstrating optimized production, 5. Demonstration and documentation of a working business model by which a certain good or service can be provided to others. 6. Training programs for users and entrepreneurs

These six steps guarantee the replicability of enterprise, and serve as a basic validation of the open source development method. If OSE's aim is accountability in terms of producing worthy and replicable results, then it is imperative that we take product development from beginning to end by pursuing steps 1 through 6 above. These steps may be carried out in-house or remotely.

Regarding Step 4, Factor e Farm aims to be the host for the demonstration production facilities of the 16 technologies and resulting enterprises. The demonstration facility does not have to be located at Factor e Farm, but until someone else volunteers a location, Factor E is a good site. We are attached only to making sure that thorough documentation of the ergonomics and economics of production is produced, and the product meets OSE Specifications.

OSE is also committed to optimized production as mentioned in Step 4. To this end, we will employ CNC-controlled Fab Lab procedures whenever suitable. For example, we aim to automate CEB machine production by using an XYZ torch table. All the metal, including bolt holes, can be prepared right on a torch table for the CEB. This is an example of utilizing bolt-tegether (DfD) construction with CNC procedures to optimize production ergonomics. We are already collaborating with the Iceland Fab Lab team to deliver a working implementation of XYZ table-assisted CEB production, and aim to deliver the world's first high-performance, open source CEB machines to market by October, 2008.

XYZ table-assisted digital fabrication of CEB machines may be one of the first breakthrough examples of open source production in appropriate technology products for sustainable and just living. This may have cascading effects, as the same XYZ table may be utilized in the production of agricultural machinery, heavy equipment, and many other items, at the click of a button, if open source designs are available. Serious attention should be given to the XYZ table to make it well-documented and affordable ($1k range).

In order to complete the process of product open-sourcing, we will be documenting the economics and ergonomics of production in order to promote enterprise replication. This information will be part of an integrated business model, which will be published openly. We are interested in wide distribution of production capacity, according to principles of Jeffersonian democracy.96 We are also interested in training others to become producers and users of the technologies, which is the last of the 6 steps.

The CEB press is a good example of a work in progress with reference to the 6 steps. Conceptual designs have been posted at the Worknets site.97 Fabrication of the protytype has been documented largely on the Factor E Farm weblog, where one can trace the daily progress of the 35 working days that it took to make a successful prototype.98 Presently, we are working on producing the second prototype to verify fabrication procedures and to make some optimizations. Michael Koch,99 a senior undergraduate in mechanical engineering from U. Missouri, Columbia (UMC), will be producing the second prototype with his team. The aim is to produce CAD100 drawings, build the machine, perform testing, and do finite element analysis101 for structural studies. The UMC team will be iterating steps 1-3 of the open-sourcing procedure. Steps 4-6 are addressed by neo-commercialization, defined in the next section.


Our program of enterprise creation and replication is called neo-commercialization. Neo-commercialization means that we can both 'commercialize' a product - make it available for sale at competitive prices to others - and help others replicate the enterprise itself. We are interested not only in production, but also in business replication by others, because it's good for the world. The replication goal is grounded firmly on the open source nature of the entire development program.

The concept of neo-commercialization embodies both our own ability to produce and earn from the products, as well as our interest to disseminate the products via open franchising. Open franchising means that our products and production processes are under an unrestricted, open license, where users are free to decide for themselves as to how they will use, develop, or market the technologies. There are no strings attached. It is our private interest to have people contribute back to open production capacity, but we are not interested in policing the use of our creations. We are interested in maximum dissemination, because we believe that our products have a beneficial contribution to society. People are free to make living from our products, and modify them how they choose.

We can earn ourselves by producing the product, or by providing training and other associated services. Information is free, but physical products and our time are not. For example, we may offer free training materials online, but if we spend our time teaching producers or leading workshops, then we should be compensated.

An apparent criticism of this technique arises to many in that giving away the enterprise concepts eliminates one's competitive advantage. In the context of the open source economy of interest, standard competitive advantage - in the form of dog eats dog or GNP- is irrelevant. It is replaced by quality of life102 or Gross National Happiness103 as the economic success metric. Quality of life is founded on the effective meeting of needs and wants, and open enterprise supports this foundation. Open enterprise has the following qualities:

1. Shared development of optimized products, combined with digital fabrication, promotes cost-competitiveness even with centralized, mass-production industry for many products 2. Lifetime design, product service, and easy maintenance are unmatched by design 3. One may serve a localized market without competition from remote producers by virtue of quality service 4. On-demand production capacity reduces overhead costs 5. Capacity to produce a large array of products from open source blueprints allows for the diversification necessary to survive hardships 6. Low overhead and entry barriers allow for economic feasibility by many producers 7. Low entry barriers provide for diversified economies on an increasingly small scale 8. Open enterprise phases out monopolies, which have a tendency to disservice the buyer


In order to address steps 3-6 of the open-sourcing process, we are designing an explicit funding mechanism. This funding model is aimed at turning the concept for an open source enterprise into reality by providing the capital to fund an optimized production facility. This production facility is used to prove the economic model of production for OSE and others. We believe that this model stands without precedent: we know of no significant, optimized physical production facility that was funded by distributed volunteers. The goal is to produce a significant contribution to the peer-to-peer104 economy, and extend this concept to physical production. We aim to produce an alternative route to corporate product development that can take a significant foothold in how people meet their needs, for those who like to think of what can succeed 'after intellectual property.'105

The key to proving the feasibility of such a funding model is to perform the due development diligence that brings about credibility and makes the deliverable realistic. It is useful to return to the CEB machine as a case in point.

We have done the due diligence on the CEB machine that we believe warrants bounty-based funding support from distributed stakeholders. Bounty refers to the clearly-defined deliverable that stakeholders are interested in funding.106 Stakeholders are those people who are interested in buying a product at a predicted cost estimate, or those who are interested in becoming producers themselves. We have accomplished the following to date: (1), we produced a working prototype and are currently testing it for durability. (2), we are currently beginning the second prototype to demonstrate replicability and to optimize construction, and (3), we have defined the basic requirements for an on-demand production facility that can produce CEB machines within a 5 day turnaround time.

To realize the bounty-funded mechanism for funding the production facility, the general OSE program is to:

1. Produce a clear proposal for the equipment and infrastructure requirements for a production facility 2. Produce an enterprise economic analysis 3. Utilize Factor e Farm as the facility location and as the facility leadership 4. Utilize the CEB machine itself to build the facility 5. Set up a social enterprise website with a donation collection mechanism 6. Communicate a clear definition of the bounty product of interest 7. Communicate the due diligence that has been performed 8. Recruit a qualified fabricator 9. Identify stakeholders and direct stakeholders to the social enterprise website 10. Collect voluntary contributions via the website 11. Execute deliverables 12. Make a product available

The bottom line of this program is presenting a compelling case whereby contributions to build the production facility are collected from stakeholders. Note that the fabrication expertise has to be provided by Factor e Farm, and day-to-day operators of the fabrication facility must be recruited and trained. As such, fabrication capacity is deployed to meet orders for on-demand fabrication. The price structure is such that high earnings on the order of $50/hour are collected for funding OSE developments. At the same time, the production process is so streamlined that the buyer receives superior product at competitive cost.

Collection of a large number of voluntary contributions allows for a high level of risk-sharing in the development process. It also promotes wide collaboration. A large number of collaborators can direct traffic to the funding website to assist in project deployment. The freeloader dilemma107 is addressed somewhat by the fact that production for the stakeholders is not begun until after the funding for the fabrication facility is collected, and if the desired sum is not collected, progress is delayed. This is an incentive for the stakeholders to donate money or equipment.

As a byproduct of deploying and proving the economic model for fabrication, OSE will enjoy production earnings to fund further product development. It is an earned funding model, and it also benefits others because they are free to replicate the model as soon as it is developed. Great potential exists for creating a robust funding mechanism, if: (1), digital fabrication measures are applied for rapid fabrication, and (2), a significant number of orders can be filled.

Our policy is to 'publish early and often' according to the open source software development model. We are committed to keeping absolutely no secrets regarding fabrication procedures or any other enabling details, and to publishing developments as soon as they are available. Our goals are far larger than economic success of any single product. Our goals are to develop an entire array of products, starting with the 16-point focus in this proposal. We believe that the more open we are, the more resources will avail themselves to make further developments possible. We believe that that failure of many do-gooders lay in their inability to give up possession of things so they could profit greatly. We are much more interested in the societal change that occurs when self-sufficiency becomes accessible as a result of certain key, generative, lifetime-design products. Our goals are to transcend material constraints by making survival a trivial task. Our goals are spiritual, in that we want to remove material constraints from dictating the course of civilizations, which has been happening for the past thousands of years.

The summary of our funding model is:

1. Product prototypes are developed. 2. Once sufficient development has occurred, the funding website is deployed 3. Economic analysis is provided 4. Resources are gathered to build and deploy integrated production capacity - this is the heart of the funding process 5. Products are delivered via on-demand fabrication a. Production method is verified b. Others are encouraged to replicate the model c. Earnings provide further support to OSE for developing other products


The heart of the neo-commercializatoin funding model is economic analysis. Here we present a sample economic analysis for the CEB machine as a case for motivating the economic feasibility of open CEB machine franchising.

Here is the bill of materials (BOM) for the CEB prototype:

ITEM QUANTITY PRICE (US $) 6" channel, 7/16" thick 20 feet 182 Grade 8 bolts, washers, nuts, 1/2"x2" 48 20 Main cylinder108, 5", surplus 1 125109 Hopper cylinder, 1.5"x15"110 1 65 Control Valve, open center, 2 spool111 1 75112 Hopper sheet metal, 3/16" 24 square feet 62 Hydraulic fittings various 81 Hydraulic hoses113 4 61 Cylinder mounting metal rods and angle various 46 Main press plates, 1"x6", 1"x8" 3 pieces, 3 feet total 47 Pressing plate sides, 1/2"x6" 3 feet 18 Nylon 6/6 liner 5 square feet 50 Rubber for press plate114, 6"X12" 1 7 Hopper table 1/4" steel: 2" tubing and plate 10' & 6 square feet 60 Hopper alignment rail: 2"x1/4" angle 2 feet 4 3-point mount for a tractor, 2"x4"x1/4" tubing 4 feet 50 Legs, 2"x1/4" square tubing 12 feet 40 TOTAL


Table 1. Bill of Materials for the first prototype CEB machine built by OSE.

This BOM does not include the outsourced cutting of metal pieces to size, which can be done readily in house.115 Also, the main cylinder and control valve used were from surplus, so this price may rise by about $250 for the cylinder and $100 for the valve, for a total of about $1350 in readily-accessible parts. The total number of hours spent building this protoptype was about 140 hours. The time expected for fabricating the second prototype is 40 hours. Production runs are expected to take about 20 hours per machine, using an XYZ torch table for fabrication assist.

Here are the capitalization requirements for fabrication capacity. The Cost column reflects the price structure if off-the-shelf tools and materials - and proprietary development procedures - are utilized. This cost is conservative, as intellectual property costs are probably higher than the $10k that was specified. The alternative route, or the Open Source Cost, is that which utilizes open source know-how and is built on a land-based facility. The open source option means that certain equipment may be fabricated readily from available components when a design and bill of materials is available.

ITEM Cost ($) Open Source Cost XYZ CNC table116 with controller117 8400118 <$900119 Wire feed welder 1050120 1050 Acetylene torch 500 500 7" angle grinder 150121 150 Hoist (3 ton) 100122 100 1000 sq ft workshop123 5700124 1000125 Intellectual property 10000126 0 TOTAL 25900 3700

Table 2. Costs for erecting and equipping a fabrication facility for the CEB machine.

In particular, the great cost reducer in the open source route is the availability of: (1) a low-cost XYZ table, (2), low cost workshop building, and (3), absence of intellectual property costs. In total, the price of putting together a fabrication facility is only $3700 if one has access to land, some kind of tractor or skid loader for material handling, and utilizes onsite building materials (CEBs and milled lumber) to construct the workshop space. It should be added that more labor will go into building an XYZ table than buying one, but not much more, if a transparent bill of materials and fabrication procedure is available. Workshop building time may also increase over the off-shelf option.

The XY table is a pricey solution if obtained off-the-shelf. New kits cost $8k at the low end for an industrial duty, 4x8 foot table. We should note that, as expected from the open source development method, ridiculously low costs are feasible with the CNC table.127 The electronics of a CNC XY table are inexpensive. Three stepper motors plus controller and power supply cost $45.128 Rails may be the expensive part, and other than that, it's mostly a structure that can be fabricated via xyz bolt-together design. The CNC table should be accessible at <$500 plus structural steel at approximately $400.129 That is a Factor 10 reduction over the competition.

The cost structure for building a physical production facility for the CEB will be documented fully with forthcoming experience in 2008. We will be building this facility at Factor E Farm. Part of the development will be deploying an open source XYZ table, which we expect to cost <$900 in parts. There may be additional costs involved in finalizing a simple design for the XYZ table. The goal is a facility that can produce 1 CEB machine every 3 days with 1 fabricator working full time.

We will set up a social enterprise website to raise between $3700-5000 for deploying CEB machine fabrication. This site will designed to motivate the minimal funding of the facility, by directing as many potential stakeholders to the site as possible. Stakeholders include owner-builders interested in natural building, building organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, disaster relief organizations, building contractors, and a wide range of others. We are asking for collaboration in directing potential stakeholders to the funding website.

In summary, this is our first experiment of co-funding a significant production facility. Deployment funds will be used to build the facility, procure some tools, and build an open source version of the XYZ table. Utilizing existing collaboration, we will use up to $3k from the budget to design, build, and deploy the XYZ table. Together with Factor e Farm contribution of facility space, a fabricator who has already been recruited, and utilization of onsite materials for facility construction - we believe that we have an attractive package that can be funded. Costs and risk are distributed, and low overhead makes the entire project dirt cheap for the significance of the promised deliverable. It is a pressing issue130 for us to deploy CEB machine production with 3-5 day delivery time - for proving a novel, state-of-art peer production mechanism. We are interested in machine production times- in our small workshop- similar to or faster than that of any any larger, competing industry - to demonstrate the power of flexible fabrication.


Figure 4c showed the sawmill prototype that we fabricated at Factor E Farm. Further design details and material costs are at found at Worknets.131 The prototype in Fig. 4c is a band sawmill (band sawblade is not mounted in picture). After further consideration of sawmill technologies132, we decided to pursue a swing-blade circular sawmill.133

Our decision is based primarily on two features: speed and blade maintenance. First, the rate of lumber production is twice that of a comparably-priced bandsaw mill. This is because the swing-blade mill cuts lumber in both the forward and backward motion of the cutting carriage. Second, blades can be sharpened on the mill in a few minutes, as opposed to more extensive blade maintenance requirements for the band sawmill.

The blade issue is central to informing our choice against the band sawmill. In practice, we would be spending between 1/2 to 1 hour sharpening a blade with a manual sharpener once a bandsaw blade dull, and one may go through one or more blades in one day of cutting. One may be able to sharpen in less than 1/2 hour with some sharpeners,134 but bandsaw blades also need tooth-setting, or bending of individual teeth slightly outwards, if the tooth set is corrupted. With a manual device, that is another 1/2 hour or so of time, and it should be done once for every 2 sharpenings. This story changes if one procures professional, automatic sharpeners and tooth setters, but those cost thousands of dollars. All in all, present practical considerations mean that we would be sharpening blades manually, and we are interested in designing evenings of maintenance time out of our milling operations.

Swing-blade circular blades last much longer and require much less time sharpening.135 This means that blade costs are about 10 times lower for swing-blade mills. This is a good point for localization, as long blade lifetime minimizes external dependency. Moreover, blades for circular mills could be fabricated locally.

Swing-blade mills are attractive from the opensourcing perspective due to their price: they are expensive. The lowest cost band sawmill can be obtained for $1600 new for a mill that can cut up to 18" trees. The smallest swing-blade mill, the Skillmill, costs $3900.136 Larger manual mills start at about $8k.137 Since we expect fabrication costs to be similar to bandsaw mills, there is a larger cost reduction possible with the swing-blade. This is valuable to pursue from the standpoint of human benefit, as the swing-blades produce lumber faster than bandsaw mills, and are in our opinion, the superior choice from the standpoint of localization.

As such, we are pursuing the swing-blade mill for our 2008 building program. We will utilize our existing track and carriage for the prototype, since we already have these built. We will have to build a swing-blade cutting head and replace the bandsaw head, which is feasible because of our bolt-together design for disassembly. The technical challenge is deploying the 90 degree swing mechanism for the circular blade.

We are inviting others to join this opensourcing effort, as it is our next current project. We are expecting to have the CEB and sawmill in full operation by the time we can start building in April. We are interested in people who can help in building additional prototypes to document the fabrication procedure. As of this writing (1/08), we are designing the swing-blade cutting head.


An interesting route for promoting the boundary layer turbine developments is to produce the turbine and add grid-intertie capacity. This would allow for sales back to the electrical grid. A good strategy may be to produce a waste-oil fired generator, sell power to the grid, and with the proceeds, capitalize the development of a solar power generation capacity. The pattern language diagram for this endeavor is:

Figure 8. Grid intertie turbine technology pattern language.

From prior discussions in the Product Ecology section, we have the following open source cost estimates for materials:

ITEM Material Cost ($) Returns ($) Burner 200

Steam generator (20 hp) 300

Turbine (20 hp) 500

Generator (10 kWe) 500

Grid-intertie inverter 500 700/month

Total $2000 $700/month

Solar concentrators (4 kWe) $2000 $70/month

Table 3. Materials costs for grid-intertie turbine and solar concentrators.

A proposed business model is to develop a not-for-profit fabrication facility for producing the turbine electric system, such that this system can be produced at essentially the cost of materials. The trick is funding the facility with voluntary contributions, and selling products at cost. At cost means that the enterprise remains afloat financially, but it simply does not charge a lot for its product.

In the first implementation, the turbine system is $2000 in parts. The beauty is that a grid tie system could produce electricity for the grid. At 10 cents per kilowatt hour, that means $1 sold to the grid every hour. For an entire month, that yields over $700. This could be fed at a rate of 1 gallon of waste vegetable oil per hour. This implies that a dedicated person could seek out 5 or more restaurants, to get a 55 gallon drum of waste oil every two days. With this earning, the system pays back for itself in approximately 3 months. In another 3 months, enough money could be earned to pay for a solar concentrator array of 4 kW, such that from then on, the individual would earn $70 per month in electricity credits - assuming an average insolation of 6 hours per day. This is the average power necessary to take an average American household to self-sufficiency in electrical production.

There is not so much waste vegetable oil available to power many 10 kW burners running 24/7, but there is enough for about 300,000 people.138 Even if this .1% of the population were to switch to renewable solar energy - by funding its solar concentrator arrays by selling WVO electricity to the grid - that would be a great contribution to ecology. Collecting the WVO necessary is not a trivial task, so we would recommend that people do that for only a few months, until they finance their own solar concentrators. After that, they could pass on the WVO task to other adopters of this technology. Note that a 55 gallon drum of oil is required every 2 days for this adventure.

Such a proposition is valuable at face value. Even at $4000 for the entire package - without using the WVO electricity sales - there could be many potential adopters of the turbine-grid intertie system. It's one of those investments that last a lifetime, as one could gather free electricity for as long as the system is in working order.

The grid intertie concept is an interesting one because it relies on an untapped waste product, oil. This is just one application for motivating the turbine development. Other motivations are various enterprises in stationary and mobile engines.

We are currently working out the bill of materials for the turbine itself. We are looking for other fabrication bids. We need collaborators on the grid intertie aspect. There may be significant costs involved with certification of the open source grid intertie equipment, but that can be funded collaboratively as well.

This turbine-grid intertie project is hard core development from the start, since the turbine, burner, concentrator, and inverter cost predictions need to be verified. We are considering fabricating turbine rotors with a lathe, such as a CNC Multimachine.


We have mentioned the skid loader, OSTrac, as one of the product ecologies. It is useful to consider the OSTrac after the turbine system is developed as its engine. Skid loaders are expensive - at least $5k for one that is used and in decent working order - and an open source version would make access to a skid loader more palatable. If lifetime design is included with local fabrication capacity, then it's a great success for localization.

We may rely on hydraulic motors from the proprietary economy at the beginning. Eventually, it would be a good idea to open-source hydraulic motors. Another option may be developing wheel motors that are sufficiently high in torque to satisfy skid loader requirements.


To provide abundant plant stock for local economies - orchards, edible landscaping, wineries, etc. - we are proposing a bioregional, open source nursery at Factor e Farm. The nursery is dedicated primarily to useful and edible perennials. The nursery is to:

1. Provide access to low-cost plant materials, on an exchange basis or for pay 2. Serve to distribute, share, and collect plant material 3. Provide workshops on plant propagation 4. Serve as a genetic repository for plant diversity and preservation 5. Be a one-stop-shop for all the types of plants that can be grown bioregionally 6. Serve as an incubator for other nurseries and enterprises, in the spirit of localization

The primary objective is to collect and distribute a diversity of economically significant plants. This means that we:

1. Maintain a supply of propagation stock, including entire plants for cuttings, seedlings, rootstocks, scion wood, seeds, stool beds, layering beds, plants for collecting seed, etc. 2. Engaging in regular propagation of existing stock for planting out on approximately 20 acres of land. Plantouts include productive orchards and berry patches, display material, and future propagation material. 3. Encourage exchange of plant material by various means, including but not limited to: a. Website - participants, what they have, and what they need b. Free exchange for onsite plant material c. Exchange of seeds and plant materials through the mail d. Sweat equity propagation- where a participant takes what they want from us while propagating a certain quantity of plants to leave with us e. Propagation workshops f. Sale of onsite materials g. Mail order 4. Seek out sources of rare, unusual, or old varieties for genetic diversity 5. Test and adopt nonlocal species 6. Breed varieties by selection for various improvements or local adaptation 7. Maintain a website for documenting propagation and other cultivation experience 8. Produce economically significant information for incubating enterprise related to plant propagation and fruits - such as nurseries, plant product enterprises, dried fruit, or freeze dried fruit powder producers, and others

This nursery is dedicated to the common benefit of all. It may also be used as a mail-order and local nursery for funding futher Factor e Farm developments.

Regarding economics, nurseries and orchards are a great long-term investments. They do take several years to become established, though, so we aim to assist people in that process. Orchards, for example, are great sideline enterprise if one then does u-pick operations that require a limited amount of time from the orchardist.

Another business opportunity for the orchardist that requires special mention is freeze dried139 fruit powders. Freeze drying is the most effective preservation method for retaining nutritional content, and it results in high quality powders that could become the mainstream of the soft drink industry. Localization potential lies in having a large number of producers supplying diverse markets, if open source freeze drying equipment is widely accessible. This has the potential of replacing billions of dollars of junk food colas with high quality, healthy drinks. Freeze dried fruit powders should be taken seriously as the next step in the evolution of human softdrinks. Carbonation may be added to these, if necessary, with a small home appliance.

Plants such as grapes and raspberries may be propagated readily from hardwood cuttings or root cuttings, respectively, and could be ready for sale after one season. Rootstocks for apples or peaches may be grown out so that they are grafted after 1 year, and a tree may be sold for $10-20 each after 2 years. If one has abundant propagation stock, then it is easy to propagate with limited costs. The primary cost would be the preparation of nursery beds.

Figure 9. Peach rootstocks after 1 year of growth, with 1.1 inch (2.8 cm) thickness at the base.

The unique feature of this nursery concept is its aim to self-replicate. As with other open source enterprises, we are interested in sharing the information, simply because orcharding and plant propagation are fundamentally important to human health.