I have looked at biointensive, etc, and have rejected it. Yes, one gets more crop from the space, but only in poundage; size suffers considerably. For greens or such for fresh use, that doesn’t really matter; but for anything where size matters, it can be very disappointing.
Example, Jerusalem artichokes: ( http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/jerusart.html)
conventional spacing 36 × 24 lbs/acre: 9791 dry weight/tuber 9.1 grams
versus
close spacing 18 × 12 lbs/acre 16011 dry weight/tuber 5.6 grams 160% higher yield, but 61% smaller tubers.
When things need to be scrubbed and/or peeled, that smaller size is a pain; and it also results in a higher percentage of waste. I’d rather peel & slice one big potato, than 3 or 4 small ones for the same amount on my plate.
IIRC the biointensive stuff is the opposite, sort of, of the SRI stuff.
I overplant greens but not going to do that with anything else this year.
Also, by reducing the spacing from 36 X 24 to 18 X 12, that is 4 times as much seed planted for less than double the poundage, so it is also actually a huge REDUCTION in production per plant.
Thanks for the info. I use part of the biointensive and not the rest. I did find that the sq. foot method worked pretty well for me, which also uses some close planting, but I am thinking it is not as close as the BI methods.
For example, the corn I grew did very well with 3 or 4 per square foot interspersed with beans and some melons.
Of course, I wasn’t growing potatoes either, so I’ll have to keep in mind what you said. I have never been a big fan of the little potatoes either.