(Tallgrass) wrote in message . com...

White acorns, eh? As in White Oak? I have yet to find an acorn that
has tasted anything but bitter (unless we consider filberts...?).

The literature on acorn use by Indians says that the acorn from the
white oaks are (were?) not as bitter, and that a few could be eaten
straight from the tree, but that varied withen the species. There are
also some comments attributed to Indians in my anthro or sociology
text books (over 30 yrs ago, so I cannot remember the titles) that the
acorns were wormier after whites showed up. That suggests some sort of
shift in ecology, and my first guess would be that the plants eaten by
the adult form of one of the parasitic wasps got wiped out (they tend
to be vegetarian, IIRC).

Short of it is, you probably will never find a sweet acorn without a
dozen worms in it already, IMO.

BAck to the original poster's question, in my opinion, being fully
self sufficient on a single, small plot of land would be *very*
difficult without eating some sort of animal products. First, there's
a limit to how many varieties of plants will grow in one place.
Second, a typical garden produces vegetation that humans cannot eat
and animals can, so a gardiner can get more food value out of a small
piece of land by adding chickens, quail, rabbits, guinea pigs, or some
other small livestock to the "farm". That vegetation that humans
cannot eat represents sunshine, hours of weeding, buckets of water
carried, and a lot of other resources, and it seems to me a waste to
stick it in a compost heap without processing it through some critter
first.

Such self sufficiency would not be "easy", even with livestock,
without a lot of knowledge and skill, and suitible land.

That match up with what you think?

None of my gardening experience is applicable to where I am now, so I
generally stay out of discussions on growing stuff. Not all of us in
misc survivalism enjoy proving ourselves to be fools by mouthing off
about stuff we don't know.

Unless we can get a rousing good arguement going. G You know how men
can be.

(Tallgrass) wrote in message . com...
d!

White acorns, eh? As in White Oak? I have yet to find an acorn that
has tasted anything but bitter (unless we consider filberts...?).

ttfn....
Linda H.

I have eaten acorn bread - not too bad. I suppose in a survival
situation bitter will do.

"Offbreed" wrote in message

BAck to the original poster's question, in my opinion, being fully
self sufficient on a single, small plot of land would be *very*
difficult without eating some sort of animal products. First, there's
a limit to how many varieties of plants will grow in one place.
Second, a typical garden produces vegetation that humans cannot eat
and animals can, so a gardiner can get more food value out of a small
piece of land by adding chickens, quail, rabbits, guinea pigs, or some
other small livestock to the "farm". That vegetation that humans
cannot eat represents sunshine, hours of weeding, buckets of water
carried, and a lot of other resources, and it seems to me a waste to
stick it in a compost heap without processing it through some critter
first.

Such self sufficiency would not be "easy", even with livestock,
without a lot of knowledge and skill, and suitible land.

A very good summation of the situation.

None of my gardening experience is applicable to where I am now, so I
generally stay out of discussions on growing stuff. Not all of us in
misc survivalism enjoy proving ourselves to be fools by mouthing off
about stuff we don't know.

Another very good summation of the situation.

"Babberney" wrote in

Well, I'm not a vegan, but as a vegetarian I definitely disagree with
that. to produce meat, you have to feed the animal in question.

Not if you pick the right animal in the right climate.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:24:00 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:



I don't think so. How much grass is in your diet? Animals can take
completely inedible, to people, plant material and turn it into tasty,
wholesome, nutricious food sources. And, they can do that without *any*
outside labor on the part of the person that ends up eating that meat.
Really, very effecient.

Sure, if you have an unlimited source of grass year-round. The cattle
operations I've seen have to supplement feed in winter.

Soybeans are the closest vegetable to complete protein
=====================
One that you cannot eat without processing. Time and labor intensive, plus
using resources that contribute to even more animal death and suffering than
if you just ate certain meats.
I admit shelling beans can be tedious and time consuming, but I don't
know how that contributes to animal suffering (I may have had a
different take back when my parent made me shell beans every night,
but I don't think that's what you're talking about). Perhaps you're
confusing soybeans grown on a farm for subsistence with those grown by
corporate farms to make soy burger, soy hot dogs, etc.

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:09:06 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


=====================
And I doubt those suppliments and fortified foods are made without any
impact on animals. Therefore, not realy vegan, are they, just like I said?
I suspect there are vegan purists out there who would be swayed by
this argument, but I think most people, even most vegans, acknowledge
and accept that there is no perfect solution to any problem. We make
the compromises we have to and make progress where we can.


Since a self-sufficient farm would likely not employ
the extreme sanitation of commercial kitchens, I suspect a vegan diet
would provide plenty of B-12.
============================
So would not washing the crap off your hands. That's a quick easy way to
get it.

You feel free to go that route if you wish. I don't know why you keep
suggesting it, though, because even the most hardcore vegans I've
known are not stupid, despite what you may think.

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

"Walter Daniels" wrote in message
om...
"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.

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.

So what questions did RAL ask in order to get this info hmmmmm?

Using animals and a small
garden, is very different from "Vegan."

Precisely! Which is why I got stuck into RAL and his silly comments.

It's like saying, "How high is
up?" :-) Even Permaculture (a sideline interest of mine) asks
qualifying questions, before attempting answers.

When qualifying questions ARE asked they can certainly be very interesting
and add much to the discussion. Unfortunately I don't recall a RAL asking
one qualifer.

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;

I admit that talking about something (even if only to oneself in a
structured thinking exercise) is important and very much a part of the
planning process. My beef about misc.survivalism is that it is ALL talk and
no action.

An edible gardent takes a lot of time to develop. It is not something that
can be started form a lot of saved seeds when disaster strikes. If you wait
till that disaster happens then you are done for and will certainly starve
(and diservedly so if one claims to belong to a 'survivalist group'. All
that preplanning and jawing on about food should have made event he dimmest
realise that food, although basic is THE most important item for survival).

(snip)
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 have no beef with the fact that as a "survivalist" group, that scenario
you describe (in the US at least) is considered to include weapons. I do
quibble about that "if disaster happens" bit. "Food" is an everyday, and 3
times a day, need. THAT reality is a 3 times a day basic survival reality
and if you aren't growing it when that disaster happens then forget starting
to grow it - it's too late as you don't have the (probably) 10 years
available to have a good self sufficinet garden and you certainly won't have
the skills or knowledge you need.

Bucket is from NZ. The reality that Bucket will face will be 3 meals each
day and given that NZ is a Pacific rim country then he needs to know what to
do when the ground shakes. Guns? I would imagine he/she
would add them somewhere in his needs list about where he/she would put in
pink toe nail polish.

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).

You think you can, and perhaps if you start now you will have a decent
edible garden in 5 or more likely 10 years.

Stoing items in containers for future use doesn't quite cut it. Especially
given the fact that seeds have differing shelf lives and even within
particular plant group some will grow in an area and others will not.


ome 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.

Rubbish. I have had a veggie garden for 30 years and I expect to have it
till I need the zimmer frame

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.

A good demonstration of the sort of paranoia for which misc.survivalism in
well known.

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.

No, you don't need to do it but if you don't do it oftent ill you DO need to
do it then you will not know how to do it properly. Theory and practice are
two very different beasts.

Baking bread is easy, but only when one has done it for sufficient time to
know what the texture of the bread should feel like when it has been kneaded
sufficently. Gardens ar not bread though Walter. They are neither as
instant as bread nor do they rely wholly on the owners skill or experience
base. Gardent ake time and I would expect that a minimum of 5 years would
be needed before a good productive garden is under way and even THAT will
take a lot of effort.

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.

It was s short list because RAL doesn't have a clue about the time it will
take to establish a basic edible garden.

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.

Rubbish. That is not at all what permaculture is.

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.

Get with it Walter. Bucket NEVER said that a vegan lifestyle was the way to
go. RAL was the one who was off on the vegan trip not Bucket!

Why don't you reread what Bucket said.

"Fran" wrote in message
u...
"Babberney" wrote in

Well, I'm not a vegan, but as a vegetarian I definitely disagree with
that. to produce meat, you have to feed the animal in question.

many critters that are quite edible are fairly low maint. fish being one.
poultry another.



Not if you pick the right animal in the right climate.

(Babberney) wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:24:00 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

One that you cannot eat without processing. Time and labor intensive, plus
using resources that contribute to even more animal death and suffering than
if you just ate certain meats.

I admit shelling beans can be tedious and time consuming, but I don't
know how that contributes to animal suffering (I may have had a
different take back when my parent made me shell beans every night,
but I don't think that's what you're talking about). Perhaps you're
confusing soybeans grown on a farm for subsistence with those grown by
corporate farms to make soy burger, soy hot dogs, etc.

I believe Rick is talking about the actual "resources" that go into
growing a field of soybeans....ie a large area that's practically
destroyed as a habitat for most animals that might live there. In
other words, you are in effect destroying the habitat for countless
numbers of small animals/insects etc to grow a field of soybeans that
vegans try to justify to replace the small animals they
destroyed/displaced in the first place.

It's circular logic that most vegans adhere to without seeming to
notice it.

ral

K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:09:06 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


=====================
And I doubt those suppliments and fortified foods are made without any
impact on animals. Therefore, not realy vegan, are they, just like I
said?
I suspect there are vegan purists out there who would be swayed by
this argument, but I think most people, even most vegans, acknowledge
and accept that there is no perfect solution to any problem. We make
the compromises we have to and make progress where we can.


Since a self-sufficient farm would likely not employ
the extreme sanitation of commercial kitchens, I suspect a vegan diet
would provide plenty of B-12.
============================
So would not washing the crap off your hands. That's a quick easy way to
get it.

You feel free to go that route if you wish.
=================
Don't need to. I get it from perfectly good natural sources, not from an
industrialized supplement industry. Really doesn't sound all that vegan to
me. But then, there are no real vegans on usenet anyway.

I don't know why you keep
suggesting it, though, because even the most hardcore vegans I've
known are not stupid, despite what you may think.
=================
That's yet to be shown, at least here on usenet...



K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please
visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

In article , "Bob Peterson"
wrote:

"Fran" wrote in message
u...
"Babberney" wrote in

Well, I'm not a vegan, but as a vegetarian I definitely disagree with
that. to produce meat, you have to feed the animal in question.

many critters that are quite edible are fairly low maint. fish being one.
poultry another.

As a kid, I couldn't eat my chickens, as they were so friendly. They lived
loose on the property and never wandered far, and came whenever I called
them. When they got old & ceased to be good layers they were sort of
"worthless" but they liked me so much how could I eat them. My
great-grandma raised huge lazy rhode island reds which lived about 80% of
the time in a big barn, plus guinea hens that roamed semi-wild, & she of
course thought nothing of wringing a neck & plucking then burning off the
pinfeathers & preparing meals, but even seeing this as a normal activity,
& eating plenty of the dear things with great relish at gran Elvy's table,
i still could never eat mine, which got so old they'd've only been good
boiled anyhow.

If I raised them today I'd probably go for the ultra-fanciest miniature
chickens since I wouldn't be able to eat them anyhow. But when I weigh the
sensibility of keeping a shitload of chickens as pets instead of to eat,
in the context of even a moderate degree of self-sufficiency, eating them
makes vastly greater sense environmentally & wholistically than keeping
'em around cuz they're cute & friendly. And I wonder if that couldn't also
be said of one's dogs. To me meat is meat, & I don't eat any of it, but
for the greater majority who have decided it's essential for their needs &
lifestyle, why in the world are chickens & gross-out pigs "in" but dogs &
donkeys are "out." Personally if I was a meateater I'd even include worms
(& DID include worms, experimentally, aeons ago before I became
vegetarian). Some meat eaters think it's odd I won't eat cows, but I think
it's weirder they CAN eat cows but get a gag reflex pondering a feast of
bugs or puppies. But then, I don't fault the Donner party either.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:24:00 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:



I don't think so. How much grass is in your diet? Animals can take
completely inedible, to people, plant material and turn it into tasty,
wholesome, nutricious food sources. And, they can do that without *any*
outside labor on the part of the person that ends up eating that meat.
Really, very effecient.

Sure, if you have an unlimited source of grass year-round. The cattle
operations I've seen have to supplement feed in winter.
====================
Then your blanket staement was a ly, right? Typical vegan/ar delsuion about
how meat is raised.



Soybeans are the closest vegetable to complete protein
=====================
One that you cannot eat without processing. Time and labor intensive,
plus
using resources that contribute to even more animal death and suffering
than
if you just ate certain meats.
I admit shelling beans can be tedious and time consuming, but I don't
know how that contributes to animal suffering
=======================
Really? Tell me how you grow all these wonderful beans with no impact on
animals or the environment. Man, around your house they must just fall
like manna from heaven, eh?


(I may have had a
different take back when my parent made me shell beans every night,
but I don't think that's what you're talking about). Perhaps you're
confusing soybeans grown on a farm for subsistence with those grown by
corporate farms to make soy burger, soy hot dogs, etc.
====================
Which is, btw by far the soy that is grown most. Since you like to pretend
that all meat is raised the same way, then I can claim that all soy beans
are the same, right? Oh, doesn't work that way? then why do you and all
other ar/vegan loons here on usenet continue with the same old lys about how
meat is raised?



K
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please
visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

(Babberney) writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:09:06 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

And I doubt those suppliments and fortified foods are made without
any impact on animals. Therefore, not realy vegan, are they, just
like I said?

I suspect there are vegan purists out there who would be swayed by
this argument, but I think most people, even most vegans,
acknowledge and accept that there is no perfect solution to any
problem. We make the compromises we have to and make progress where
we can.

....and besides, just because one may have to cause some small amount
of harm to some animal (say, yeast) to get a complete balanced diet
doesn't mean that person needs to give up on their convictions and
start eating all types of meat. This is like concluding that because
we can't stop all genocide, we may as well go buy a machine gun and
start shooting up ethnic groups.

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

"Mike Warren" wrote in message
news:UGIEb.752095$6C4.483281@pd7tw1no...
(Babberney) writes:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:09:06 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

And I doubt those suppliments and fortified foods are made without
any impact on animals. Therefore, not realy vegan, are they, just
like I said?

I suspect there are vegan purists out there who would be swayed by
this argument, but I think most people, even most vegans,
acknowledge and accept that there is no perfect solution to any
problem. We make the compromises we have to and make progress where
we can.

...and besides, just because one may have to cause some small amount
==================
Better get a better idea of the impact you have, killer. We aren't talking
about a 'small' amount of animal death and suffering for veggies...


of harm to some animal (say, yeast) to get a complete balanced diet
doesn't mean that person needs to give up on their convictions and
start eating all types of meat.
======================
That was never said, now was it, ideological liar?



This is like concluding that because
we can't stop all genocide, we may as well go buy a machine gun and
start shooting up ethnic groups.
=======================
No, it isn't. Analogies aren't easy for you are they?
The difference is we aren't talking about yeast and bugs. Those are just
vegan strawmen. The animals you kill for your diet are mammals, birds,
reptiles, fish, and amphibians. They die by the millions and millions to
produce your cheap, conveninet veggies. Vegans don't even choose between
their own foods that cause less death and suffering to animals. They have
only a simple rule, for simple minds, eat no meat. regardless of the fact
than some meats cause far less death and suffering than some veggies, they
catagorically claim all veggies good, all meat bad. They have never been
able to prove any of their claims that their diet causes less animal death
and suffering, but that doesn't stop the lys and delusions.



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

Babberney wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:24:00 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

I don't think so. How much grass is in your diet? Animals can take
completely inedible, to people, plant material and turn it into tasty,
wholesome, nutricious food sources. And, they can do that without *any*
outside labor on the part of the person that ends up eating that meat.
Really, very effecient.

Sure, if you have an unlimited source of grass year-round. The cattle
operations I've seen have to supplement feed in winter.

maybe you didn't look in the right places for those that don't have to g.

Maren, in HI
(yes, there's cattle here. Grass fed too)