"gregpresley" wrote in message
...

"Bob Peterson" wrote in there really is no
such
thing as a balanced veg only diet.

Well, this is clearly incorrect, and scientifically unsound. As Diet for
a
Small Planet proved 40 years ago, amino acids from different plant groups
can be combined so as to constitute completely useable protein for the
body.
(ie legumes combined with grains = complete protein) . There is only one
essential nutrient that is not commonly found in plant foods, and that is
vitamin B12. However, it is said to be manufactured by certain yeasts and
I
think can be a byproduct of certain kinds of fermentation, although I'm
not
sure how extensively this has been researched. (Of course it is available
in eggs and milk,
====================
LOL Than it's not vegan, is it? b12 does not come in unfortified veggies.
This fortification is yet another level of production that violates the
stated claims of vegans. Of course, those claims are just lys and delusions
anyway, as far as 'vegans' here on usenet are concerned. B12 is available
to vegans to the extent that you don't wash your veggies, or you don't wash
your hands. The statement stands, no vegan diet is balanced.


but I assume you're counting those as non-plant sources,
as I do). It is pretty widely accepted that our distant simian ancestors
(on
the basis of examination of teeth and skeletal remains) were nearly
completely vegetarian, with perhaps an occasional supplement of a handful
of
termites or other insects found in their foraging,
=======================
Then again, they weren't vegan, as they are not now.


so it is eating meat and
meat products which is a newer part of our evolution. However, the density
of calories, both fat and protein in meat was a boon to mankind when it
began to eat it, and probably assisted in the transition from animal to
human. But eating meat also carries risks. Tainted meat has been a source
of
many deaths in the past - from salmonella poisoning, trichinosis, etc - to
things like mad-cow disease in the present. In a self-sufficient kind of
farming/herding situation, all meats would have to be eaten fresh, or old
ways of preserving meats with salt, or by dry curing would have to
revived.
In any case, there is not a situation I can imagine where a small
operation
would be able to supply meat on a daily basis.
==========================
Doesn't really have to daily. Nobody claimed it did.


My grandmother, born in
Ireland in 1890, frequently mentioned that in her childhood, they only
had
meat 3 times a YEAR......that was in a family of 11, living on perhaps 5
acres total. Milk of course is a different story - but also not available
year around in nature......
====================
Yet the discussion isn't really about what is found in nature, is it?

"gregpresley" wrote in message
...

"Bob Peterson" wrote in there really is no
such
thing as a balanced veg only diet.


Diet for a Small Planet is hardly evidence of anything other than left wing
kookiness. If you want to trust your life to something that nutty then do
so, otherwise have some animal products in your diet.

Well, this is clearly incorrect, and scientifically unsound. As Diet for
a
Small Planet proved 40 years ago, amino acids from different plant groups
can be combined so as to constitute completely useable protein for the
body.
(ie legumes combined with grains = complete protein) . There is only one
essential nutrient that is not commonly found in plant foods, and that is
vitamin B12. However, it is said to be manufactured by certain yeasts and
I
think can be a byproduct of certain kinds of fermentation, although I'm
not
sure how extensively this has been researched. (Of course it is available
in eggs and milk, but I assume you're counting those as non-plant sources,
as I do). It is pretty widely accepted that our distant simian ancestors
(on
the basis of examination of teeth and skeletal remains) were nearly
completely vegetarian, with perhaps an occasional supplement of a handful
of
termites or other insects found in their foraging, so it is eating meat
and
meat products which is a newer part of our evolution. However, the density
of calories, both fat and protein in meat was a boon to mankind when it
began to eat it, and probably assisted in the transition from animal to
human. But eating meat also carries risks. Tainted meat has been a source
of
many deaths in the past - from salmonella poisoning, trichinosis, etc - to
things like mad-cow disease in the present. In a self-sufficient kind of
farming/herding situation, all meats would have to be eaten fresh, or old
ways of preserving meats with salt, or by dry curing would have to
revived.
In any case, there is not a situation I can imagine where a small
operation
would be able to supply meat on a daily basis. My grandmother, born in
Ireland in 1890, frequently mentioned that in her childhood, they only
had
meat 3 times a YEAR......that was in a family of 11, living on perhaps 5
acres total. Milk of course is a different story - but also not available
year around in nature......

(Offbreed) wrote in message . com...
(simy1) wrote in message . com...

I have a feeling your argument does not stand up. At least here in the
US, the caloric production per acre is close to 12-15000 calories per
day for a whole year (and indeed US vegans do survive on far less than
1 acre).

Are you considering how much that production depends on oil for
fertilizer, or fuel for tractors?

I have no idea on how oil can be turned into fertilizer. I also have
no idea how a tractor can help over 1/6 of an acre.


How about food suplements from the store, such as soybeans or vit B12?
They could be shipped thousands of miles, and few would be aware of
that, or the ecological cost of that shipping.

Parts of the US cannot provide a balanced veg only diet grown locally,
due to weather and soil. (I live in one of these areas.)

Obviously not. You have to have fertile soil, or the means to secure
enough organic matter to make it fertile. I do not know about weather
(well, 1/6 of an acre in the desert would not be good), because ways
to preserve food have been around for centuries. You are not going to
get scurvy if you have winter squashes and chinese cabbage in the
cellar, or if you have a sprouter. In fact, you could be pretty
healthy. I am still harvesting stuff in Michigan, after all.

"simy1" wrote in message
om...
(Offbreed) wrote in message
. com...


Obviously not. You have to have fertile soil, or the means to secure
enough organic matter to make it fertile.

Organic matter does not necessarily equate to fertile soil in the way you
imagine. Organic matter is not fertilizer, although it can usually be made
into such. Any true fertilizer must necesarrily be inorganic.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:01:50 -0500, "SkullyWV" wrote:

Exactly 19 acres...
We have 19 acres of vineyard and we never run out of wine.
Skully
Is this a time warp message or a message from beyond?

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler

Jim Dauven wrote in message ...
Once you let your body aclimated to sub zero temps, your
metabolism
increases to the level of 4000 to 5000 calories a day just to
provide the heat to keep you warm

Yeow! Ok...here's a hint: don't settle somewhere that gets all that
cold in the first place... or at least don't winter there.

I'm in the pacific NW. Seldom even frosts over here.

"PMS" in the know wrote in message ...
"simy1" wrote in message
om...
(Offbreed) wrote in message
. com...


Obviously not. You have to have fertile soil, or the means to secure
enough organic matter to make it fertile.

Organic matter does not necessarily equate to fertile soil in the way you
imagine. Organic matter is not fertilizer, although it can usually be made
into such. Any true fertilizer must necesarrily be inorganic.

I had no idea. No, really.

"Fran" wrote
"Richard A. Lewis" wrote in message

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

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.

Unless "Bucket" is completely ignorant (i.e. a troll), he/she asked
a very open ended question. One which RAL and others have apparently
attempted to get qualifying info, for. Using animals and a small
garden, is very different from "Vegan." It's like saying, "How high is
up?" :-) Even Permaculture (a sideline interest of mine) asks
qualifying questions, before attempting answers.

The "gardening folks" understand very well what work is involved in food
production. Instead of simply chewing the fat and weaving the odd dream
about how they might get or produce food when it comes to a survival
situation, they actually do it (REGULARLY!!).

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.

That is it precisely - planning and critiquing but not doing anything about
producing food at all.

You fall into the same mistake that many make. If we do not
constantly talk about something, we a doing nothing about it;
totally ignorant about it; consider it beneath our notice; etc. Most
of us here, specialize in non specialization. :-) We know something,
about a *lot* of things, and a lot about a very few things. Mostly, we
know where to look, or who to ask, about things.

Admittedly, we have more than our fair share of idiots, but "if it's
Usenet, there are idiots and trolls." :-E) Many of us are, for various
reasons, reluctant to talk about exactly what we may be "experts" on.
Sda to say, the same effort to grow "foodstuffs" in winter/bad
weather, looks just like marijuana growing to police and prosecutors.
That is until, they have busted in the door, and raided you. At which
point, you have a broken door, damaged house/building, and an official
"sorry about that (which, with $3, buys a cup of Starbucks coffee)."

There are also many, who for various reasons, cannot "move to the
country." No matter how much they might wish to. Therefore, they plan
based on staying where they are. Along with this, goes the knowledge
that even if they _did_ live in the country, they must plan to protect
what they have, if a disaster happens.

I remember once asking how many gardeners there were in misc.survivalism and
there were about 3 who admitted to it and a couple more who had had a garden
in the past but not now. AND if one reads the posts in misc.survivalism it
is clear that many have never been nearer to a food producing garden than a
Municipal Park. As for how many who have ever been on a farm or to an
abattoir or killed a hen then I think the mix of all those experiences would
drop the numbers to perhaps one or two at the most. And if one adds in
cooking or preserving...............

You are again making the same mistake you accuse us of making. I
have no garden, but I "can." That is if you define it as "storing
items in containers for future use." I have neither room, nor money to
do what I would like to do. So, I do as much as I am able. As do
others here, I am sure. Not everyone is like Bob G. He and his wife
"can" much of their food supply (in one way or another).

MS is a *generalist survival based group.* It is not
Alt.Permaculture, Alt.Gardening, etc. In MS, we are more likely to
discuss something like, "How would permaculture principles work, after
a large scale disaster," than "How do I apply it to my garden?" :-)
BTW, how to make "permaculture" self sustaining, in a low tech world,
is a subject that Alt.Permaculture should pursue occasionaly. Places
like Haiti/El Salvador/Etc. desperately need such ideas. Unless *my*
understanding of what permaculture means, is deficient. A very real
possibility.

3 vegetable growers is an appalling figure for any group which aspires to
survive anything worse than a mosquito bite.

I do many things that does not mean I talk about them all the time.
To my knowledge, MS has a farmer, several gardeners (hobby), and many
"If God wants it to grow here, He can keep it alive," types. (I love
flowering plants, but I cannot keep them alive.:-( )

I stopped reading misc.survivalism some time back. Instead of finding a ng
which SHOULD be an interesting group (since "survival" involves so many
basic "homesteading skills"), it was a group dominated by a bunch of
deranged nutters of limited life experieinces but a huge dose of paranoia
and with a weapon fixation who tended to drown out the few who were worth
reading and who had some relevant experience.

Which brings us back to my original point. You can be the most
fantastic gardener, but if you cannot/will not protect it, you won't
keep it for long. Whether it is someone taking away your guns, your
freedom to speak, your freedom to grow as much of your own food as you
wish, or anything else. No matter what you do, or where you live,
someone doesn't like your doing it. They will tax it, legislate it, or
otherwise try to control it, "for your own good." Which really means
they are offended by your doing it, and want you to stop.

This last summer, people were cited by Local officals (Board of
Health, IIRC), for having a *compost pile.* As absurd as it sounds, it
really does happen. It usually happens when someone with power, has
more time than they should. They start looking for things to regulate.
I won't even discuss the idiots who move to the "country," and are
offended by the sounds/smells of "all those nasty animals."

It still amazes me, how many think meat comes from grocery stores,
or butcher shops. Who think that "eating primitively," means bringing
home from Jack in the Box, or Wendy's. Or, worse yet, "Making Bread,"
is opening a can from Pillsbury, to put in the oven. And, these are
"educated" types. Most of us in MS, know how to start with wheat
berries, and go from there. It doesn't mean we do it all the time. We
don't need to, yet.

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.)

Given that small list of edibles there are clearly still very few gardeners
and no permaculturists who post to misc.survivalism even now!

It is a short list, because it is an example. One meant to
introduce reality to those who know nothing, yet. Too many know little
about what/how/how much to even store. In some areas, NYC for example,
they *pride* themselves on buying food every day. They have no concept
whatsoever, of what they really need for 6 months to a year, or how
much is involved. Many of us, do. We may not know/describe our plans
as "permaculture," but it really is.

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.

Bucket's original question said "I am willing to eat anything that is
healthy, preferably remaining vegetarian (although I am quite willing to
have chickens for eggs, and perhaps a goat for milk" and "I realise that the
yearly food yield will have to be spread out via preserving, canning, etc."

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.

Bucket asked a much more broadly based question. He/she states PREFERABLY
vegetarian but since eggs and milk are included and it is only a
"preference" then why restrict it to only annual veg and exclude a wider
range of animals and perennial veg and tree crops?


Perhaps, because he/she has so little understanding of what is
needed. Most want to eat *only* Vegan style. A chicken can provide the
same protein as soybeans, but with a *lot* less work. Chickens also
self replicate, regardless of most weather conditions. :-) Growing
your own food, requires work, no matter what you eat. Proper planning,
requires that you choose how, based on weather (long and short term),
proper nutrition, and *manpower* available.

Walter Daniels, trying to get his PC going so he can read a variety of
ngs again.

(simy1) wrote

I have a feeling your argument does not stand up. At least here in the
US, the caloric production per acre is close to 12-15000 calories per
day for a whole year (and indeed US vegans do survive on far less than
1 acre).

References? Nearly 5 million calories for one acre seems a little, um,
incredible. What crop? A 6oz tomato has 35 calories, takes about 9
square feet for a plant which may yield, say, 10-12 pounds over a 3-4
month season.

And what US vegans 'survive' on less than an acre of garden? They may
grow all the fresh vegies they use in summer and fall, but they
*certainly* don't survive on garden produce alone. As has been
exhaustively pointed out, a complete, even vegan, diet includes fats,
sugars, and high-protein grain combinations. Simply not possible in a
limited space.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:26:47 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

extensive snipping all 'round

The statement stands, no vegan diet is balanced.

I *think* a vegan diet can provide all necessary nutrition, however
B12 is achieved. But it's darned difficult. However, people have
existed on *highly* inadequate diets in many situations. Existed, that
is, as distinct from thriving. Enough calories from whatever source to
keep the furnace stoked. What we know now as food deficiency
conditions were/are common. Rickets, pellagra, kwashiorkor, and scurvy
were obsersved well before their causes were understood. People can
live for *years* with these conditions, perhaps occasionally remedied.

We're talking about modern self-sufficiency with diets adquate in
vitamins, protein, fats, carbs, and minerals. This supposes something
more than a small plot of veg and a few chickens. One can probably
*exist* on a nutrient-deficient regimen for some time. Whether it is
"healthy" or sustainable over time is a different question.

Mike Warren wrote:

Yes, that's right: nobody survived before industrialisation.

That's one of the most idiotic replies I've ever heard on the topic
and it's always made by the ones that don't seem to understand the
topic in the first place.

Yes, people survived before industrialization....they just had one
hell of a hard time doing it most days. In fact, in most years before
the nineteenth century (the majority of human life on this Earth),
seven in ten births died before they could reproduce. *THAT'S* the
kind of numbers and the odds we're talking about.

It would literally take you five mins to search out even the most
basic population charts and see that your above remark is total
idiocy....but you would rather simply make a snide remark and look
like one.

ral

ral
--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD

"gregpresley" writes:

There is only one essential nutrient that is not commonly found in
plant foods, and that is vitamin B12.

It's in some types of seaweed, I believe.

--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD

"PMS" in the know wrote in message ...
"simy1" wrote in message
om...

Organic matter is not fertilizer, although it can usually be made
into such. Any true fertilizer must necessarily be inorganic.

???HUH??????

Linda H.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Frogleg writes:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:48:10 GMT, Mike Warren
wrote:
(bob peterson) writes:

If you translate this to a real life situation where you have 10
hours a day worth of other work to do just to survive, its clear
that this type of arrangement is only for desperation mode, and
even then you probably cannot do it alone.

Yes, that's right: nobody survived before industrialisation.

Very few survived *alone*.

So what? The original-poster wasn't talking about isolating himself
from society, just "working towards self-sufficiency".

Division of labor and specialization are early characteristics of
human living. Hunter/gatherer cultures are, by definition, not all
hunters OR all gatherers. It's just more efficient to devote *some*
concentrated effort (and experience and knowledge) to different
tasks.. Has little to do with industrialization. Unless that is
interpreted as cooperation and specializaion within a larger group.

Industrialisation is, in some ways, viewable as "merely"
hyper-specialisation. In this sense, the "self-sufficiency" talked
about by the OP is "merely" the opposite sentiment: a desire to become
less specialised.

Obviously, there is a continuum here, from "go away, leave me
alone"-type isolationism (i.e. 100% individual self-sufficiency [1])
to something worse than what we have now, like "I know how to attach
tab A to slot C and that's what I do 45 hours a week"-type
specialisation. The answer to a happy life is not at either of these
extremes, so arguing that complete isolationism is unworkable is, of
course, merely a straw man.

Consider land use. It must be rare that a single plot of ground of
whatever size would be ideal for growing grain AND veg AND fruit AND
beekeeping AND animal fodder. You don't grow tomatoes in a rice
paddy; you grow as much rice as you can and trade for tomatoes.

....and you don't grow coffee away from the equator. Yes, of
course. (And if absolutely everyone was trying to be 100%
self-sufficient, we'd probably be in worse shape than we are now [no,
I've no evidence, just intuition]).

So, I guess the real question is: do you think our (or your) country's
level of specialisation is too great or too small? How about level of
consumption? Could/would you do with less, or do you want to force
others to do with less instead (or, alternatively, kill off some
people [or wait for them to die])?


Footnotes:

[1] which is trivially and obviously unsustainable: there can be no
"breeding" at such an extreme...

- --
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAj/gwLIACgkQEIcIhFeZEb0YzgCghPTsJ0wPKgec85guf+xlMPle
/94An11cP/vWrfD+5X3Fkplxm1H4kl2m
=WSp2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Mike Warren" wrote in message
news:cK2Eb.744034$9l5.736694@pd7tw2no...
"gregpresley" writes:

There is only one essential nutrient that is not commonly found in
plant foods, and that is vitamin B12.

It's in some types of seaweed, I believe.
===================
You'd find analogs of b12 with only mask the absorbtion any any real b12 you
might find. You could of course just not wash your veggies, or your hands
as either could then supply your b12 needs.


=
"...Seaweed and soy products do not contain significant levels of active B12
despite the claims made for such products. The basis for the erroneous
claims stems from the fact that the method that is often used to measure B12
does not distinguish between the active and inactive forms of the
vitamin..."
http://www.nadadventist.org/hm/gcnc/vitb12/vitb12.html





--
mike [at] mike [dash] warren.com
URL:http://www.mike-warren.com
GPG: 0x579911BD :: 87F2 4D98 BDB0 0E90 EE2A 0CF9 1087 0884 5799 11BD