Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:50:33 GMT, (dstvns) wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:42:22 GMT, (Richard A. Lewis) wrote: On a 3,000-4,000cal diet, you'll need to eat approximately 12 pounds of potatoes per day just to maintain your body weight. Add in the artichokes, if they're of a comparable cal level as the taters, and you got just over two days of food before you start starving. Who the hell eats 4 thousand calories a day? And of those that did, how many would try to get all of those calories from a single food source like potatos? I just pray for their sake that they don't try to raise a lone crop of Habanero peppers. I don't know how many pounds of those you would have to choke down per day but I think spontanious human combustion would be the result. :-) A thanksgiving dinner is 2000. Are you going on personal experience with calorie intake? I would hate to have you as a dependent. By the way, thanks for being a regular ray of sunshine, I didn't know there was gonna be a pop quiz on this. As I said in my first post, I DONT KNOW how many acres require self-sufficiency. Dan kb9wfk |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"rick etter" wrote:
Obviously not the lard butt that sits on the computer all day. There are, however, many occupations/activities that will burn off far more than 2000 calories in a days work or a few hours a day workouts. That you are too lazy to actually work/exercise doesn't mean that others are. Well-said, Rick. Too many folks think that gardening or farming is just as easy as using a can opener in the long run. It's far from it. ral |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
|
#215
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:10:31 GMT, KB9WFK said:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 19:50:33 GMT, (dstvns) wrote: On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:42:22 GMT, (Richard A. Lewis) wrote: On a 3,000-4,000cal diet, you'll need to eat approximately 12 pounds of potatoes per day just to maintain your body weight. Add in the artichokes, if they're of a comparable cal level as the taters, and you got just over two days of food before you start starving. Who the hell eats 4 thousand calories a day? And of those that did, how many would try to get all of those calories from a single food source like potatos? I just pray for their sake that they don't try to raise a lone crop of Habanero peppers. I don't know how many pounds of those you would have to choke down per day but I think spontanious human combustion would be the result. :-) There is a way to get your cals from taters and other veggies, simply fry them in lard, or fat, even veggie oil. Another way is to eat some taters with a hamburger. By frying the veggies in fat, you change everything. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"Andrew Ostrander" wrote in message ... But isn't it possible to grow oil-producing plants, like peanuts or sunflowers or canola, and get calory-rich oils from them? ==================== Sure, but then you're taking up space and time needed to grow the food you'll need to survvive the year. It's far easier to get the fats from an animal source. In some cases not much work or time is needed at all. "Richard A. Lewis" wrote in message ink.net... (Tallgrass) wrote: It's not that hard to burn that many calories when using hand tools, bucking bales, turning soil by hand, and especially if cutting lumber. It was once a common topic on the misc.survivalism group....how many acres would it take to grow a year's food and all that. The bottom line was that if you plan *nothing but a veggan diet*, you pretty much have resigned yourself to a slow death. Most of our folks had heard or believed that it was possible to grow enough food on an acre, but it never stood up to scrutiny. I have a feeling I just started the argument again on these cross-posted groups as well. You gardening folks have fun We on ms had gone so far as to plan out and critique pretty much every possible diet and analized the requirements vs the benefits etc and we came out with, at most, two possible ones (nothing but grains and beans etc) and dozens of proven impossible ones. One person, using a minimum 3,000 cal a day diet (necessary to produce those taters after all....gasoline engines don't last long in a survival situation) would have to eat between 12-15 pounds of taters per day depending on the type to get the necessary cals. Of course, as that one fellow pointed out above, you won't be trying to live on potatoes alone. We added spinach, onions, apples, corn, beans, cabbage, lettuce, carrots, peas, squash etc etc etc in equal amounts and in pretty much every case, the required poundage simply went up. (We tried that menu above and it came out to approx seventeen pounds a day if I recall correctly.) ""If you add corn to that diet of taters in equal proportions, you come out with a diet that consists of 17 large ears of corn and 13 potatoes to make 3000 calories a day. Want to know how much that weighs?"" It's thus not a question of how much food you have to grow, it's a question of how much food you have to eat and *NOBODY* can live by eating fifteen pounds of veggies a day. Right about now, someone on the gardening groups will be typing out an irate "but my family did it during the Depression and I grew up just fine". Problem is that their families, just like the Irish, the Europeans, and the Russians (all limited diets) all survived by eating massive amounts of fat. Why do you reckon fried foods were and are so popular in the US? Why do you think the Russian moms will stand in line for four hours to buy a pound of lard sold as "sausage"? Linda H. hit that nail on the head. ral Most people will not eat all of that in carbohydrates, tho, but make up a fair amount of those calories in animal fat. Bacon, butter, gravy, lard used in cooking. One can find caloric requirements of particular job types. It is very interesting to read. Linda H., M.D. |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
But isn't it possible to grow oil-producing plants, like peanuts or sunflowers or canola, and get calory-rich oils from them? ==================== Sure, but then you're taking up space and time needed to grow the food you'll need to survvive the year. It's far easier to get the fats from an animal source. In some cases not much work or time is needed at all. If you're talking about raising livestock confined to your own acreage, it's ALWAYS more efficient to raise crops that you can eat directly, rather than crops that you have to process through some other animal first. If you can raise your animals on acreage that you can't (for whatever reason) crop, then that's different. Personally, I'd try for coastal property, so that any agrarian effort could be supplemented by fishing (using traps, where legal). And seaweed makes pretty good fertilizer, once you've let it soak in the rain and rot for a year. It *DOES* make for some pretty foul tasting honey, if your bees get at it, though. --Goedjn |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"default" wrote in message ... But isn't it possible to grow oil-producing plants, like peanuts or sunflowers or canola, and get calory-rich oils from them? ==================== Sure, but then you're taking up space and time needed to grow the food you'll need to survvive the year. It's far easier to get the fats from an animal source. In some cases not much work or time is needed at all. If you're talking about raising livestock confined to your own acreage, it's ALWAYS more efficient to raise crops that you can eat directly, rather than crops that you have to process through some other animal first. ------------------------ What 'crops' *must* you raise for feeding to animals? You must be one of the vegan loons that believe all the nonsense that cows only eat grains. If you can raise your animals on acreage that you can't (for whatever reason) crop, then that's different. ======================= Why? If you have more than you can plant, grasses will grow just fine without any input of mechinazation, fertilizers, time, or labor. Game animals are bound to be around. Again, obtaining meat for the most part would be a far easier, less labor consuming chore than growing every calorie you'd need. Vegan's have a hard time with that, but then, they have a hard time with any truth and reality. Personally, I'd try for coastal property, so that any agrarian effort could be supplemented by fishing (using traps, where legal). ======================= Coastal fishing? I'd daresay you'd require far more equipment and time that if you just lived along a lake or stream. And seaweed makes pretty good fertilizer, once you've let it soak in the rain and rot for a year. ======================= So does the 'by-products' of the animals you can keep. And, no special equipment needed to go get it like with your seaweed. It *DOES* make for some pretty foul tasting honey, if your bees get at it, though. --Goedjn |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"rick etter" wrote in message ...
"Andrew Ostrander" wrote in message ... But isn't it possible to grow oil-producing plants, like peanuts or sunflowers or canola, and get calory-rich oils from them? ==================== Sure, but then you're taking up space and time needed to grow the food you'll need to survvive the year. It's far easier to get the fats from an animal source. In some cases not much work or time is needed at all. snipped Most people will not eat all of that in carbohydrates, tho, but make up a fair amount of those calories in animal fat. Bacon, butter, gravy, lard used in cooking. One can find caloric requirements of particular job types. It is very interesting to read. Linda H., M.D. It comes down to the biochemistry of the carbon bonds in vegetable fats vs. those in animal fats. The animal fats are saturated fats...two bonds between the carbon atoms. The vegetable fats are often Unsaturated fats...one bond between the carbon atoms. Breaking/metabolising the bonds produces energy; More bonds means more energy to release per quantity of fat. Saturated fats have more energy/calories than unsaturated fats. If the OP is willing to be a lact-ovo vegan, they would be better served to keep those critters that lac-tate and produce "ovos"/eggs. More than you ever wanted to know, I am sure... Linda H., M.D. |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"paghat" wrote in message
In article "Fran" wrote: "paghat" wrote in message In article "Fran" wrote: [clips] I've grown spuds in tyres and I live in a house that friends who live in the city think is quite posh. So how often do you encounter this sort of thing? Or more to the point, why do you live in an area with such slummy places or go to such slummy places? Hey, YOU'RE the one who lives where it's "posh" to stack used tires in your front yard. You aren't reading what I wrote. I don't live where it is "posh" to grow spuds in tyres. I live in a house which others have described as "posh". I also happen to have grown potatoes in tyre stacks. I don't put these tyre stacks in my front yard. The previous poster did not mention growing spuds in tyres in his front yard either. You are the one that assumes that anyone who DOES grow spuds in tyres is a "trashoid". And you've reinforced the truth of it. When you said you "hide" the tires with other plants (such as rubarb, I'm sure that's a year-round disguise of a wondrous sort) you pretty much admitted even you can tell that a stack of tires in the yard still looks like garbage & needs to be hidden. Yet again you are displaying problems reading and understanding English. You are also continuing to build your stereotypes to suit what you think makes a "trashoid". As usual you've made a pigs ear of it and sound even sillier. I DO NOT hide tyre stacks of spuds behind rhubarb. NOR did I ever say that I did that. You have made up your own story and not read what was written. I wrote: "Putting a stack of car tyres behind a big healthy rhubarb plant isn't going to cause any real offence". I wrote that, so that you, as a stereotyper of others, could perhaps manage to take it into your stereotyping brain and could perhaps understand that even if one does recycle then it is possible to disguise what one does in a way that even the most anal retentive neatoids could possibly understand. When I have grown spuds in tyres they have been right out in the open in the middle of the veggie patch. I don't have a "thing" about what others think of my growing practices. I like to experiment and if the spuds don't object to tyres then I see no reason why I should. So you lack sufficient aesthetic to care; I'm not saying people SHOULDN'T live like that, I'm just saying it takes trashoids to do so. LOL. Don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices will you? But when I make a planter, or a trellis, or any garden ornamentation, it doesn't need to be hidden; if it slowly does vanish behind vines or shrubs, it wasn't because it was butt-ugly & needed hiding. But of course. Given your rants, it is on the cards that you would consider yourself the queen of "aesthetics". That others might not find you so would never even occur to you. Just in case you aren't aware of it, many tips (or dumps) around the world are now becoming very well cared for and have permananet tip attendants. I know a great deal about recycling, but if you think keeping piles of tires in the yard is comparable to municiple composts, then there's just no easy communication between the earth I'm living on & your Tireland residence on Alpha Centauri. There you go again. Another bout of hysteria. You don't know how may tyres I may have in my garden but to you I live in "Tireland". But if you think that steroetyping, making up facts and being hysterical means you are in touch with reality then I'd have to say that I'm more than happy to be on Alpha Centauri. At least here where I dwell I am not surrounded by those who have the type of imagination that creates bogey men from the air or who have to bend the facts to suit the story. No one is compelling you to recycle anything but there is simply no call to leap to the worst possible scenario simply because someone does try to make use of discarded items. Keeping garbage in your yard is NOT recycling -- Well at least we can agree on something even if you do like to create your own facts. Keeping garbage in the yard certainly couldn't be described as recylcing. But then I'm sure that to any normal person who isn't anally retentive, keeping a few tyres to use to grow spuds wouldn't be considered to be garbage. However, since we are on the point of what people DO keep, what do you keep that you consider to be recyled and that others would see as junk? Or, are you the arbiter of what is recycling and what is junk? Junk only being what others keep but not what you keep? no more than tossing whiskey & beer bottles out your back window means they're "recycled" into a lovely pile that bindweed can "hide" for a couple months out of the year. You must still be hanging round slums. No one here that I know does that. Or are you just stereotyping or fantasising again? Our household uses as little as possible of anything that even needs to be thrown out or recycled by any means other than our own compost -- so in our case we don't have the city cart off very much (our weekly garbage pick-up is rarely more than a third full can, sometimes entirely empty, & it's mildly annoying that those of us who DO NOT GENERATE much garbage have to pay the same rates as people who cram their cans full every week, most of it for a landfill). If you care about the environment, give up your car & whatever else generates huge amounts of difficult-to-recycle waste, but don't convince yourself that leaving parts of your car in the garden & trying to hide it with rhubarb is ecofriendly. Eco is not spelled u-g-l-y. You really do get yourself into such stupid corners with your stereotyping don't you? You know nothing about where I live, how much garbage I do or don't generate, how my garbage is disposed of, whether I make my own shopping bags, whether I take plastic containers to my butchers so that he can put the meat directly in that rather than in a plastic bag or anything else about my eco credentials but you sure do run off at the mouth. Just for your information Stereotype Girl, I no longer grow spuds in tyres as I have now found an easier way of growing spuds. I grow them as I have already described in mounds of old hay, wilted weeds, old leaves etc etc. I haul my own garbage to the tip. I drive a vehicle because I live in the deep deep country and I have NO other pratical form of transport in either public or private mode. I do use my push bike but when I ride it for 15 kilometres I do it for excercise and not to haul back groceries. I have to haul my own garbage to the tip therefore I know very well what happens at my tip and who the regular scavengers are. Someone I know found the most beautiful brass and porcelain bed at the tip and it now takes pride of place in her guest bedroom. Only a complete prat would be offended by knowing where that particular beautiful item came from. But what about you Steroetype Girl? If you were REALLY sincere about how eco friendly you are, you wouldn't be using a computer would you Stereotype Girl? If you know as much as you claim to about being eco friendly then you would know that computers are EVEN more nasty for the environment that Tyres (which can and are recycled here). You are being hypocritical and hysterical to boot. They do not become your "trashoids" simply because they have discovered a good method to use for growing something in a tight space. The trashoids are in your mind. A couple things are just not rationally deniable, such as anyone who lines up "fancy" whiskey bottles of colored water in their window sills as "decorations," or uses tires for planters in their garden, really are going to be trash, even if most won't be able to know they're trash (or they wouldn't've mistaken old tires for a garden decorations to begin with). Some few are proud to be trash & good for them; if one's life is a living satire & that person knows it, that's just about admirable. I assume you mean a "couple OF things" as the other is obviously missing a participle. But, how (or perhaps more to the point, why) do your friends tolerate your superiority complex? The only possible exception would be a garden intentionally automobile oriented. I visited a garden decorated with vintage gasoline pumps with lovely winding paths amidst beautiful shrubs. Being aesethetic people they did NOT include tire planters nor even rusty cars up on blocks -- but I could imagine how tires MIGHT have been used in that context (in a satiric manner at least) given their collection of gas-station kitsch & the gorgeous old gasoline pumps. Snort! I would be quite prepared to lay a bet that the owners of that particular kitsch ridden garden also had significant amounts of money. It's amazing how often what is deplorable in the poor becomes highly desirable when done by the moneyed. |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"Richard A. Lewis" wrote in message
"Fran" wrote: Boy, I don't think I've ever seen anyone drop so quickly into stereotyping about such a simple thing. I have. Happened in one of the subs of this thread just above. Think it was written by you, in fact. :-))) You would think that, but don't forget your lack of comprehension skills are out there for the world to see and now you have added the fact that you don't understand the difference between stereotyping and critique. |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"Bob Peterson" wrote in message
However, the OP (and several subsequent posters) seemed to indicate no need for animal products. This is just totally unrealistic in my view. Nope, the OP didn't indicate no need for animal products. In fact the OP specifically included certain animals and stated a "preference" for vegetarian (ova-lacto vegetarian and NOT vegan) but only a "preference" and not an exclusion. As usual it was subsequent posters who climbed onto their own particular hobby horses for a quick gallop into fantasyland. |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement?
"Richard A. Lewis" wrote in message
"Fran" wrote: Oh for Heavens sake! You are being patronising and heading off the track into pure fantasy. Bucket asked about a self sufficient lifestyle. Bucket did NOT ask about a vegan lifestyle or what the many froot loops at misc.survivalism go on about when they congregate for a fantasy session. Sorry, Fran. I don't know who the hell "Bucket" is nor do I really care. As you very well know Bucket was the OP and you have previously managed to go back into the thread and include a quote from his/her original post in response to one of my posts. You either have deliberately told a lie or you have an extremely short retention span. I was replying to Dan, Linda, Noah, Gunner etc. Bull. If you had been replying to them then there was no need to even mention the gardening groups. You were doing a bit of grandstanding but I'm the only one who bit. I like pricking bullshit balloons. Snipped a bunch of useless bullshit.... I remember once asking how many gardeners there were in misc.survivalism and there were about 3 who admitted to it Ask how many gardeners in your group know how to treat a colicky mare or how to go about butchering a hog and I'd venture a guess that not many care to know. One such as yourself could argue that it's "a part of farming".... Then you would venture quite wrongly. At the moment misc.rural is infested by one particular troll and all the ratty cross posts so the regulars are a bit quiet, however if one asked that questiont here in misc.rural when the troll element was bit lowere then there would be no lack of responses and they would all be based on direct experience of the animals and not on some fantasy persona the poster was trying to project or on some wierd theory. In misc.survivalism, only the absolute hardcore folks bother to plan or prep for your Doomsday....most, plan and prep for the next blizzard or thunderstorm etc. You forget that I used to read that group too and for a long time. I well remember your name and you were not rated as one of those who I considered worth reading. Gunner and Noah were in the readable (for most of the time). I know very well what the majority of the posters at misc.survivalism were on about and most (not the sanest of course, but certainly the majority) would whip themselves into an orgy of disaster lust at any event of world news that could spell potential world wide disaster. They were desperate for a cataclysmic event so they could go out and prove themselves as being the best equipped (guns not food), the toughest and the most rugged. All quite amusing till the bullshit factor really got up ones left nostril. The few resident sane and experienced ones are constantly outweighed by the "gimme a test, gimme a disaster" element No mention of eating only spuds or even adding the odd cauliflower or bit of corn. Fantasy can be fun at times but all you are doing is restricting the topic to one hobby horse involving a restricted set of annual vegetables. No....I was answering a fellow who made the implied claim that growing a year's worth of food in a garden was easy. Was I wrong? Yes. But then explaining something to those who have no idea of what is involved is a waste of time. Read ratgirl on how she managed to produce from a garden and from the wild: you may understand but I won't bet on it. The one thing about a garden is that the more one does it the easier it becomes. It is new gardens with low fertility and made on 'new' ground that are very hard work. As the years go on and as one begins to understand about perennial veg and fruit trees and fruiting bushes edible weeds and garden 'ornamentals' that it all becomes much easier. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement? | Gardening | |||
Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement? (getting fuel) | Gardening | |||
Where is Bucket?! Was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement? | Edible Gardening | |||
Where is Bucket?! Was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement? | Gardening | |||
Where is Bucket?! Was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage Requirement? | Gardening |