Frogleg wrote in message . ..
(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

you can find them anywhere. Grains give you 3200-3400 Kcal (what we
call "calories") per kg regardless of grain ( a bit less for
corn).Grain yields have been above 2 tons per acre for decades now.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:09:44 GMT, Mike Warren
wrote:

"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.

AFAIK, it's not in seaweed, but is in some kinds of yeast.

what seaweed does have in large amounts, is iodine...another needed
nutrient that is in poor supply away from the ocean.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:09:44 GMT, Mike Warren
wrote:

"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.

AFAIK, it's not in seaweed, but is in some kinds of yeast.

what seaweed does have in large amounts, is iodine...another needed
nutrient that is in poor supply away from the ocean.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

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

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.

I have no idea how it is done, but oil is, somehow, used to make the
much dreaded "inorganic" fertilizer. Oil, or gasoline and diesel, is
also necessary for shipping both raw and finished goods, of course.

Some people refer to roto-tillers as tractors, but I did not notice
you were refering to a mere 1/6 acre. I concede that does not need a
roto-tiller. Raised beds, no till gardenning, etc.

Nobody in Montana is going to get all his or her calories from a plot
that size. No way.

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'm in a rainforest. The "dirt" is all organic, and leached of most
nutrients. I'd *love* to get a few tons of silt, sand, and clay mixed
in with all this peat dirt.

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.

Well, I'd say that depended on sunshine and water, more than anything.
Consider Iraq: It should be one of the biggest ag crop producer areas
in the world, between the sunshine and those two rivers.

Still, I'm having trouble with the idea that you can grow all the
calories you need on 1/6 acre. Lots of great tasting food, sure.
Calories, no.

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

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.

I have no idea how it is done, but oil is, somehow, used to make the
much dreaded "inorganic" fertilizer. Oil, or gasoline and diesel, is
also necessary for shipping both raw and finished goods, of course.

Some people refer to roto-tillers as tractors, but I did not notice
you were refering to a mere 1/6 acre. I concede that does not need a
roto-tiller. Raised beds, no till gardenning, etc.

Nobody in Montana is going to get all his or her calories from a plot
that size. No way.

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'm in a rainforest. The "dirt" is all organic, and leached of most
nutrients. I'd *love* to get a few tons of silt, sand, and clay mixed
in with all this peat dirt.

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.

Well, I'd say that depended on sunshine and water, more than anything.
Consider Iraq: It should be one of the biggest ag crop producer areas
in the world, between the sunshine and those two rivers.

Still, I'm having trouble with the idea that you can grow all the
calories you need on 1/6 acre. Lots of great tasting food, sure.
Calories, no.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:09:44 GMT, Mike Warren
wrote:

"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.

AFAIK, it's not in seaweed, but is in some kinds of yeast.

what seaweed does have in large amounts, is iodine...another needed
nutrient that is in poor supply away from the ocean.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 20:09:44 GMT, Mike Warren
wrote:

"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.

AFAIK, it's not in seaweed, but is in some kinds of yeast.

what seaweed does have in large amounts, is iodine...another needed
nutrient that is in poor supply away from the ocean.

ck
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

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

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.

I have no idea how it is done, but oil is, somehow, used to make the
much dreaded "inorganic" fertilizer. Oil, or gasoline and diesel, is
also necessary for shipping both raw and finished goods, of course.

Some people refer to roto-tillers as tractors, but I did not notice
you were refering to a mere 1/6 acre. I concede that does not need a
roto-tiller. Raised beds, no till gardenning, etc.

Nobody in Montana is going to get all his or her calories from a plot
that size. No way.

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'm in a rainforest. The "dirt" is all organic, and leached of most
nutrients. I'd *love* to get a few tons of silt, sand, and clay mixed
in with all this peat dirt.

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.

Well, I'd say that depended on sunshine and water, more than anything.
Consider Iraq: It should be one of the biggest ag crop producer areas
in the world, between the sunshine and those two rivers.

Still, I'm having trouble with the idea that you can grow all the
calories you need on 1/6 acre. Lots of great tasting food, sure.
Calories, no.

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

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.

I have no idea how it is done, but oil is, somehow, used to make the
much dreaded "inorganic" fertilizer. Oil, or gasoline and diesel, is
also necessary for shipping both raw and finished goods, of course.

Some people refer to roto-tillers as tractors, but I did not notice
you were refering to a mere 1/6 acre. I concede that does not need a
roto-tiller. Raised beds, no till gardenning, etc.

Nobody in Montana is going to get all his or her calories from a plot
that size. No way.

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'm in a rainforest. The "dirt" is all organic, and leached of most
nutrients. I'd *love* to get a few tons of silt, sand, and clay mixed
in with all this peat dirt.

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.

Well, I'd say that depended on sunshine and water, more than anything.
Consider Iraq: It should be one of the biggest ag crop producer areas
in the world, between the sunshine and those two rivers.

Still, I'm having trouble with the idea that you can grow all the
calories you need on 1/6 acre. Lots of great tasting food, sure.
Calories, no.

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
[...]

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.

It is my observation that very few in MS agree with the idea of going
vegan (or even normal "vegetarian" for that matter).

Most plan, or are, more opportunistic with their feeding habits. Yes,
this means meat. Whether captured, or "harvested" from your own crop
of critters, it's a necessary staple.

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!!).

Most gardeners know how to supplement their purchased food diet with
fresh veggies. To produce enough that one becomes "self sufficient"
(which IS the concept that Bucket asked about), is much more difficult.

There's a big difference between growing yourself a fresh salad, and
producing the 600-800 pounds of grain that you'd need to be "self
sufficient".

And self sufficient could have multiple meanings. Does it mean that
he can make enough money to purchase the fuel to run his tractor for
planting and harvest? Or does it mean that the individual can plant
and harvest his crop without energy from the rest of society? (say,
by producing and running biodiesel for his completely owned tractor,
or owning harness broken horses).

In MS, "self sufficient" would usually take on the latter meaning.

This perhaps means hand tilling a few acres of soil, then planting and
harvesting again all by hand.

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

Chuckle... Maybe it was your apparent snobbery that garnered such an
overwhelming response to your query...

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...............

So how much is your bet?...

Why don't you ask for everyone's favorite vension recipe... (let us
take care of the bogus "slaughterhouse" and "cooking" claims at the
same time)

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

Why would one wish to specialize in vegetables? I consider vegetables
to be "vitamins", and should be counted as effectively zero food
energy for any planned diet.

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.

Now Richard, these taters would be cooked. If they were fried, a
substantial part of that water weight will be cooked off (and the
volume will likewise be reduced).

And taters aren't especially high in calories, unlike other foods...

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.)

Much of it as water. Recall that it is recommended that you drink 1/2
gallon of water a day (that's 4 pounds of water).

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

Yeah, he left out hogs, cows, sheep, goats, horses, squirrels,
groundhogs, chickens, ducks, pheasants, grouse.... And all those
other important "food groups"...

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."

And goat cheese...

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.

What Richard is saying is that you can run the vegetable numbers any
way you want, but you'll be hard pressed to grow enough food to keep
you healthy -- unless you raise animals to eat or provide byproducts
(e.g. milk, cheese, butter, eggs).

So your acreage needs enough room for animals, in addition to the
space needed for your various grain crops, which will be the bulk of
your diet, in addition to the space needed for your vegetable garden...

But Richard's other point is that to do the work necessary to grow
such a large crop is hard work. You need lots of calories to do this
hard work. And those grain/vegetable based calories are not as dense
and compact as fats and oils.

While Richard and I often disagree as to whether a person can actually
eat that much food (day in, and day out), his point is well taken.

It isn't exactly an accident that when horses are fed only hay, they
develop a "hay belly". If you feed them more concentrated foods, more
calorie rich foods, they don't get that way...

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Bob Peterson wrote:

"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?

maybe. but wouldn't it be muich simpler to just grow some pigs and cows?

And let us not forget the positive contributions that grazing those
animals on your fields has during your planned crop rotation.

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

dstvns 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? A thanksgiving dinner is
2000. Are you going on personal experience with calorie intake? I
would hate to have you as a dependent.

When I worked my dads farm, I would eat upwards of 6,000/day,
depending on how much work there was being done.

The number I recall for the Lumberjacks of past years was more like
12-15,000 (hard work, and in cold weather).

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Richard A. Lewis wrote:

food that they lose much of their advantage. One can easily say "I'll
simply eat three loaves of bread a day" and it sounds logical....but
that would be dismissing the 600 cals per loaf work that it took to
get that bread to your table.

No it doesn't, Richard. That 600 calories was part of the 3000/day
you're spending producing the food. As long as I don't spend 3100
calories in collecting 3000 calories worth of food, it'll be fine...

In fact, you wouldn't need the normal 2000/day, if you were working.
Right now people eat 2000/day, work, and harvest enough green (money)
to more than cover the cost of those 2000 calories. It's the same in
a farm setting, just the caloric intake will be higher, and the work
will be harder, longer and dirtier.

The reason we know it can be done, is that it has been done (poor,
ragged farmers are nothing new). Plowing fields with mules, horses,
cows, or even by hand...and yet our ancestors somehow survived...

Self-sufficiency *sounds* easy....but in reality, our ancestors, who
had far more experience at it than we do, tended to starve to death on
a regular basis.

Certainly. A bout of bad, uncooperative weather and you lose this
years crop (that even happens today, with our superior science).

Nobody said that there were any guarantees...

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

"rick etter" wrote in message 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


For an interesting discussion of Vitamin B12, why we have a need for it, and
why vegetarian primates also have a need for it, the following website is
available. It speculates that "accidental" ingestion of insects found on
plant material probably provide the main source for most primates, as well
as certain fermentation bacteria.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-7a.shtml

(Tallgrass) wrote in message om...
"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.

Oh, Linda, don't talk about it. The ignorance of these misc.* types is
staggering. Probably they got into survivalism because they can't get
a job at McDonald. Their view of the world barely extends out to their
county line. Here is a collection of their pearls:

- we need many acres per person (A/P) to feed ourselves. The Dutch
(who have a whopping 0.8A/P in the whole country, of which 24% is
cultivated, totaling 0.19A/P) feed themselves, and vegans, they ain't
(not to mention, ob:rg mention, that they are the world's largest
flower exporter, which means a good part of the land if for cash crops
- and much of the land is for animal feed anyway). But wait, it gets
worse. In Egypt they have some 0.07 A/P of arable land, and they still
manage to live. Mechanized, they ain't, unless one counts donkeys.

- mechanization is fundamental for high yields (these are guys who
want to survive on their couch)

- we need petroleum to make fertilizer, and all fertilizer is
inorganic. They do not understand that one acre of soybeans fixes 4
50lb bags of urea (more if the straw is plowed under), which is a huge
amount (tired of soybeans? try favas). Also, a fertilizer complete in
everything else except P and S comes out of their survivalist wood
stoves in huge amounts, certainly in quantities suitable for
fertilization of a few acres every winter (it is called wood ash, and
has K as well as all micronutrients).

- big problems with fat. Given that a optimal ratio is 20% by
calories, there are many staples (including oats, 20%, white acorns,
20%, chickpeas, 22%, soybeans, 34%) which have more fat than is
needed. Even in temperate/cold zones, there are several abundant
producers of high fat foods (including walnuts, 92%, pumpkin or squash
seeds, 80%, and hazelnuts, 90% fat), without even growing a crop for
the purpose of getting fat.

- big problems with proteins. The protein profile of oats is better
than that of meat. Obviously, in a survival mode one would gravitate
towards these foods...

- big problems with winter vitamins. A single plant of pumpkins (make
that Hubbard squash if taste is important, though these are funny
survivalists) will provide enough vit. A for a whole winter, one
person (and enough Vit. C to prevent scurvy). Also, only known winter
vegetables are beans and cabbage (but not the chinese ones, which last
through the winter...). The San Diego zoo just gives sprouted seeds to
most animals, as vitamin supplements to keep them healthy, but
apparently survivalists will not eat that stuff.

now they are getting into B-12.....