On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:38:07 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:



Primitive subsistence farming is backbreaking, seemingly never-ending
labor and you die when you're 40.

And that's probably why the hunter-gatherers kept on until population
pressure and resource needs forced them to stay in one place and farm.
Hunter-gatherer can be a rough life, too, but I'd prefer it. Food
variety is better, which probably improves health. Works best with
some social structure (extended family, for instance) to do it, but
then everything does. For a whole civilization, quite large numbers
of cooperating people are necessary.

Post apocalypse it's what I'd go for, if I'd live long enough. Not
that I would. If civilization dies, so do I and numerous other people
who are more or less dependent on modern medicine. I'll just die
pretty slowly and comfortably compared to diabetics and hemophiliacs
and extreme asmathics and dozens of others I'm sure everyone can think
of.

Fortress mode of survivalism just doesn't sound right to me unless
there's a mechanism for trade for some essentials. It probably can
work. But all of the isolates I've ever read about had some way to
trade and interact with other places. Even the fabled mountain men
had relationships with AmerInds and went into towns or trade areas
with some regularity. But everything decreases in quantity and
quality from day one except difficulty, hard work, and need for things
that aren't in the fortress area.
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email.
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

"Peter H" wrote in message
...
Tallgrass wrote:

My point being that the numbers of tillable acreage, in the US, has
DECLINED over the past couple of decades,

Indeed it has. And of late the pace of its loss has been an aritmetical
accelleration. Far too much of what used to produce food now gives a


"Far too much"? Whats actually happening is basic economics. land that is
more valuable for other purposes is being put to those uses. we have far
more farm land than can ever be economically used.

fine vista of of the family across the road. As a wise (?) realtor once
advised, look very closely at the house next door or across the street;
it's the one you'll be looking at most of the time.

Pete H

--
Never needlessly disturb a thing at rest.
anon.

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:38:07 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:



Primitive subsistence farming is backbreaking, seemingly never-ending
labor and you die when you're 40.

And that's probably why the hunter-gatherers kept on until population
pressure and resource needs forced them to stay in one place and farm.
Hunter-gatherer can be a rough life, too, but I'd prefer it. Food
variety is better, which probably improves health. Works best with
some social structure (extended family, for instance) to do it, but
then everything does. For a whole civilization, quite large numbers
of cooperating people are necessary.

A silly analysis. Hunter-gatherer societies faced periodic total
wipeouts, due to shortages of game or wild berries, etc.

They didn't "adopt" farming for some abstract reason. Rather, before it
existed it wasn't an option, and after it was invented there was no
going back. About 8000 years ago in central Turkey.

--Tim May

In article t,
says...

(Edgar S.) wrote:

As for "farming"... Many farming communities do just fine, such as
the Shakers, and several other communal religious groups.

They had plenty of time to work on their well known hand made
furniture, and time for their religious endevours.

They had literally thousands of years of uninterrupted practice, too.
You and David and I don't.

Today, a farming community would have access to tractors, harvesters
and other machinery that would make farming much easier and faster.

Thanks for the input, Edgar, but the point Dave and I were discussing
was "post Apocalypse". Tractors and harvesters etc aren't in the
equation. Hand plows, totally organic farming, and heirloom seeds
are.

Actually, he's not TOTALLY incorrect; it IS possible that a
farming community could have harvesters and tractors and such
after TEOTWAWKI, and even in the absence of gasoline. As
long as they had water. Firewood.

And a steam driven tractor.

Such things DO exist. In fact, they were widespread before
the internal combustion engine replaced them. You can
sometimes see them at county fairs; they're like miniature
train engines on wheels, and you could not only use them to
pull plows and carts, in some models you could divert the
motive power from the wheels to fanbelts to run thrashers,
grinding mills, bailers, all sorts of machines. If you had
one of these, post Apocalypse , then as long as you could
keep it repaired, fully fueled... and from blowing up as
steam engines sometimes do and killing everyone around - you
COULD have a productive farm that didn't exhaust you to run.

I've been on this group (misc.survivalism) for quite a few years and
only met one person who actually had and had used a horse-drawn plow.
David doesn't and hasn't....you don't make offhand remarks like
"plenty of time for all sorts of recreation" if you ever have.

Does trying one out for a few minutes at a demonstration
at a county fair, count?

If so, I can tell you that while the horses may provide
the draft power, it still requires plenty of strength,
skill, and effort to keep that plow in the ground and
going straight. It's nothing *I* would want to do if I
could avoid it.

Primitive subsistence farming is backbreaking, seemingly never-ending
labor and you die when you're 40.

Or sooner, if the harvest fails and you starve.

FW

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:30:34 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

=====================
That wasn't what I claimed you lied about. You lied about people being able
to eat the food cattle do directly.
Here, since you have snipped out most of the thread without any annotation
to that fact, I'll restore your original statement.
"...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. Put
that food into yourself and you get far more efficient use out of it..."
Like I said, that's the typical vegan delusion lys of continuing to indicate
by either a:deceit, or b:ignorance that cows eat only grains and feeds for
all or most of their lives.


You're right, I was very imprecise when I made that statement. Well,
OK, what I said was absolutely not what I meant to say. Which was
that, vast NM rangeland notwithstanding, the land used to produce
cattle could frequently produce far more people food if it were used
to grow vegetables, such as soybeans, instead. The figure I saw most
recently was 20 times the protein.

Keith
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 Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:30:34 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

=====================
That wasn't what I claimed you lied about. You lied about people being
able
to eat the food cattle do directly.
Here, since you have snipped out most of the thread without any
annotation
to that fact, I'll restore your original statement.
"...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. Put
that food into yourself and you get far more efficient use out of it..."
Like I said, that's the typical vegan delusion lys of continuing to
indicate
by either a:deceit, or b:ignorance that cows eat only grains and feeds
for
all or most of their lives.


You're right, I was very imprecise when I made that statement. Well,
OK, what I said was absolutely not what I meant to say. Which was
that, vast NM rangeland notwithstanding, the land used to produce
cattle could frequently produce far more people food if it were used
to grow vegetables, such as soybeans, instead. The figure I saw most
recently was 20 times the protein.

are soybeans vegatables? I always thought they were legumes.


Keith
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 Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:47 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:


The .348 has taken many a deer in the Pennsylvania area over the decades.
The bullets, 225 grain silvertips, are becoming rarer all the time but I
manage to scrounge up a few boxes everytime I go to a gun show.

More deer are taken with .30 cal rounds than all other rounds
combined. The question stiull stands....why do you suggest that *I
need* something other?

ral

The 3030 is reputed to be the #1 deer cartridge in the US. Id
suspect..if the truth be known..that its actually the .22lr that has
shot the most deer...generally in company with a spotlight and out of
season.

Neither of which cartridge Id much care to shoot a polar bear with.
The eskimos used to hunt polar bear with a .22 Hornet. Shot them in
the nose, let them drop into a hole in the ice, where they would
drown, then pull them back out on the ice and butcher them.


Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

In article .net,
says...

Jim Dauven wrote:


David

I love you man.

I can always count on you to make my day with your creative
paranoid explanation of things. I always get a chuckle out
of reading your posts.

The Independent



That's fine. But "paranoia" is an unreasonable fear.

You're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you!

If you think that anyone who has read the posts of many of the people
on this group, or has spent any time relating to the average family or
group or person that calls themselves "survivalists" shouldn't be
afraid of them, then you are simply stupid.

Hey!

Not ALL of us are Gunkid or Mabu or alanc, you know!

And those that are will probably not last long, purely as a
matter of survival of the fittest.

Given Gunkid's history of accidental discharges and arrest,
it's suprising he's lasted this long...

Basically, they can shoot things and "open cans" and I mean by that that
they will be helpless when their stored supplies run out and the technology
they are relying on breaks down.

You know, survivalism involves MORE than just Armageddon. Do
your preparations include being able to make it through a snowstorm
that eliminates all power for three days while making travel
impossible and plunging the temperatures below freezing, being laid
off, having a heart attack, going through a hazmat spill and enforced
emergency evacuation, someone breaking into your house, your
computer blowing up, someone choking on a piece of food right in
front of you, or any of a raft of dangers big and small that could
happen suddenly and without warning?

THAT'S survivalism!

If you want to have firefights with these pathetic dolts, then you can do
so.
I prefer that they simply cannot find me.
Nor do I need or want your approval or consent to do things the way
we have chosen.

Yes. I am afraid of you and those like you.
You are really nothing but thugs.

Thank you, thank you, we didn't know you cared.

When you have run out of supplies and your technology has broken down
and you have killed every game animal for miles, you will be looking'
around for someone to steal from.

You mean we're going to become the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?!?!?

Sholy Hit.

I intend to see that you don't find me.
Don't like it? That's just too ****ing bad.

You're assume we WANT to find you...

I can't help but noting that gundamentalists are probably the most
paranoid group on the planet, so it is *me* that finds you amusing.

It's not a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but rather
a case of you looking in a mirror and mistaking it for a window.

If you look in a mirror and mistake it for a window, you
either need your eyes checked or you're the Invisible Man...

I raise an umbrella to protect myself from the rain.

I wear a rain parka, it's more protective.

I camoflauge my retreat to protect myself from bandits.

Is this only in the future, or is your retreat currently
safe from theft and burglry?

Many of those addicted to or involved in producing meth
comb the countryside and unoccupied areas for stuff to
steal...

Bet I survive a lot longer than you do, and have a better life to boot.

The best vengence is living long and well.

FW

The big steam powered engines that you are referring to were used
for thrashing of grains. They were two big to use as prime
movers. During the Buhl Idaho Sage Brush days in 1967 I got the
chance to be a fireman on a 42 hp Peerless steam thrashing
engine.
Let me tell you keeping the dammed thing in water for a two mile
parade was a backbreaking chore and I never wanted to do that
again. The thrashing machine was also pretty large and took
a two man crew to keep it fed and lubricated during operation.
A thrashing crew was generally 6 men for the engine the thrasher.

The first really successful tractors were the Rumley Oil pulls.
They
were fired by a heavy oil internal combustion engine. They were
started by lighten them off on a light fuel like naphtha and then
when they got running hot switching them over to heavy oil like
kerosene. They were hand cranked for starting.

The Oil pull were not as efficient as today's tractors but the
beat the hell out of a team of horses. The modern Gasoline
tractor didn't really become available until the 1930's

Since I have horses I have been collecting horse drawn farm
equipment. I have a horse drawn two bottom plow, a horse drawn
disk harrow, a horse drawn spring tooth harrow, a horse draw
cultivator, a horse drawn rake, a horse drawn hay mower, a horse
drawn grain drill, a horse drawn grain reaper and a horse drawn
manure spreader..

I also have a horse drawn wagon with a double tree (4 horse team)

The only thing I need to complete my farming suite is a trashing
machine (I know where one is at but they guy wants too much
for it), and a hay bailer. (putting up hay the old fashioned way
with a derrick is a pain in the ass.)

Last but not least I have the plans for the building of a
replica Wells Fargo type stage coach. The original Wells Fargo
Stage coach was a fully sprung six passenger coach with driver
and assistant.

I two bottom horse drawn plow that I have operates by the
weight of the plow shares drives them into the soil and there
is a foot operated trip that allows the gear and rack driven by
the wheels to raise the plow for turning around. Once you are
ready to start plowing another furrow, you hit the release with
your foot to drop the plows into the ground.

However with today no till technology I think that using a
disk and spring tooth harrows, and cultivators would be more
efficient and less likely to have erosion problems.

With my set up I should be able to farm 40 acres of hay 40
acres of grain, and corn. To control disease and erosion you
can also plant canola (a relative of Rapeseed)) for use in
making vegetable oil for human consumption. The stalks and
seed husks that remain after it has been pressed for the oil
content makes an excellent cattle feed. Rapeseed can also
be planted but its oil is toxic and is used as lubricants and
synthetic diesel oil. I plan to have an additional 20 acres
of Spuds, a couple of acres of squash, onions, turnips, beets
some garlic. And then dedicate a couple of acres to garden
veggies such as beans, peas, tomatoes, berries and then have
fruit trees. The hay and grain will be dry farm, (no irrigation)
while the rest of the stuff will have to be irrigated.

The planting amounts are tentative but in TEOTWAWKI times
synthetic diesel fuel made from rape seed may be worth more
than its weight in gold.

With the farming, cattle rasing, a little dairy opeations with
goats, catching, breaking, and selling wild horses, raising
sheep for fiber, and maybe some flax for linen and linseed oil,
canola oil, and rape seed oil for synthetic diesel fuel I figure
200 acres should do it.

I should do all right if TEOTWAWKI ever occures.

The Independent


Frank White wrote:

In article t,
says...

(Edgar S.) wrote:

As for "farming"... Many farming communities do just fine, such as
the Shakers, and several other communal religious groups.

They had plenty of time to work on their well known hand made
furniture, and time for their religious endevours.

They had literally thousands of years of uninterrupted practice, too.
You and David and I don't.

Today, a farming community would have access to tractors, harvesters
and other machinery that would make farming much easier and faster.

Thanks for the input, Edgar, but the point Dave and I were discussing
was "post Apocalypse". Tractors and harvesters etc aren't in the
equation. Hand plows, totally organic farming, and heirloom seeds
are.

Actually, he's not TOTALLY incorrect; it IS possible that a
farming community could have harvesters and tractors and such
after TEOTWAWKI, and even in the absence of gasoline. As
long as they had water. Firewood.

And a steam driven tractor.

Such things DO exist. In fact, they were widespread before
the internal combustion engine replaced them. You can
sometimes see them at county fairs; they're like miniature
train engines on wheels, and you could not only use them to
pull plows and carts, in some models you could divert the
motive power from the wheels to fanbelts to run thrashers,
grinding mills, bailers, all sorts of machines. If you had
one of these, post Apocalypse , then as long as you could
keep it repaired, fully fueled... and from blowing up as
steam engines sometimes do and killing everyone around - you
COULD have a productive farm that didn't exhaust you to run.

I've been on this group (misc.survivalism) for quite a few years and
only met one person who actually had and had used a horse-drawn plow.
David doesn't and hasn't....you don't make offhand remarks like
"plenty of time for all sorts of recreation" if you ever have.

Does trying one out for a few minutes at a demonstration
at a county fair, count?

If so, I can tell you that while the horses may provide
the draft power, it still requires plenty of strength,
skill, and effort to keep that plow in the ground and
going straight. It's nothing *I* would want to do if I
could avoid it.

Primitive subsistence farming is backbreaking, seemingly never-ending
labor and you die when you're 40.

Or sooner, if the harvest fails and you starve.

FW

On 27 Dec 2003 03:29:05 GMT,
(Frank White) wrote:

In article t,
says...

(Edgar S.) wrote:

As for "farming"... Many farming communities do just fine, such as
the Shakers, and several other communal religious groups.

They had plenty of time to work on their well known hand made
furniture, and time for their religious endevours.

They had literally thousands of years of uninterrupted practice, too.
You and David and I don't.

Today, a farming community would have access to tractors, harvesters
and other machinery that would make farming much easier and faster.

Thanks for the input, Edgar, but the point Dave and I were discussing
was "post Apocalypse". Tractors and harvesters etc aren't in the
equation. Hand plows, totally organic farming, and heirloom seeds
are.

Actually, he's not TOTALLY incorrect; it IS possible that a
farming community could have harvesters and tractors and such
after TEOTWAWKI, and even in the absence of gasoline. As
long as they had water. Firewood.

And a steam driven tractor.

Why use a steam tractor? Do you really think people will
forget how to make gasoline and diesel fuel? Why? And you
seem to think it would be easier to figure out how to run
steam engines than to figure out how to get modern fuels.
In my honest opinion, this doesn't make a lick of sense. If
we find ourselves out of diesel fuel and/or gasoline, we'll
start figuring out how to get some, NOT figure out how to
farm with steam engines. When IC tractors first came on the
scene, we HAD steam engines and wood, but not much in the
way an infrastructure for the creation and distribution of
refined fuel. When faced with the obvious advantages of IC
over steam, what did we do? We got fuel for those IC
engines. That's what we'd do the next time, if there is a
next time.

This looks like pure atavism, kinda like planning on using
arrows when we run out of ammo. No, we won't. We'll make
more ammo. If they could make cartridges in 1860, we can
make them now. If they could refine oil into fuels in 1890,
we can do it now. Of course, it doesn't make as exciting a
fantasy.

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

"Tim May" wrote in Primitive subsistence
farming is backbreaking, seemingly never-ending
labor and you die when you're 40.

And that's probably why the hunter-gatherers kept on until population
pressure and resource needs forced them to stay in one place and farm.
Hunter-gatherer can be a rough life, too, but I'd prefer it. Food
variety is better, which probably improves health. Works best with
some social structure (extended family, for instance) to do it, but
then everything does. For a whole civilization, quite large numbers
of cooperating people are necessary.

A silly analysis. Hunter-gatherer societies faced periodic total
wipeouts, due to shortages of game or wild berries, etc.

They didn't "adopt" farming for some abstract reason. Rather, before it
existed it wasn't an option, and after it was invented there was no
going back. About 8000 years ago in central Turkey.

Some of these analyses also forget that the "aim" of farming, and what made
it THE successful model of human society which enabled civilization to
flourish, rather than surviving long enough to procreate and raise children
to self-sufficient ages, (which was the pattern of a hunting and gathering
lifestyle) - was that many crops could be stored for more than one year. The
Biblical story of the seven years of famine in Egypt following the seven
years of plenty was probably loosely based on some real event, in which
stored grain permitted survival in bad years. Potatoes will not survive for
more than one winter, it is true, (and will be pretty gross by the end of
that time) but dried beans and most grains, if able to be kept dry enough,
(and protected from insects and rodents) can survive for years. I think the
idea in most farming minds for millenia was not just subsistence, but the
dream of storing ahead, so that there didn't need to be wholesale panic if
there was a severe drought, (which might also kill off the livestock), an
insect infestation, or some disease of the crop. This dream didn't always
pan out, because sometimes the drought lasted too many years, or the armies
came sweeping through and stole all the grain, or an undetected leak in the
storage chamber made all the grain moldy. But long success at this storage
strategy made civilization possible in Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, and
India - civilizations that lasted in some cases for thousands of years.
And, yes, the first few generations of farmers on a single plot of land
probably did die at 40 or younger - but succeeding generations on that same
plot probably edged that gradually up to 50, 60, or even 70 - not that bad
in times without antibiotics and vaccinations, and when infant mortality was
probably 40-50%.

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:30:34 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:

=====================
That wasn't what I claimed you lied about. You lied about people being
able
to eat the food cattle do directly.
Here, since you have snipped out most of the thread without any
annotation
to that fact, I'll restore your original statement.
"...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. Put
that food into yourself and you get far more efficient use out of it..."
Like I said, that's the typical vegan delusion lys of continuing to
indicate
by either a:deceit, or b:ignorance that cows eat only grains and feeds
for
all or most of their lives.


You're right, I was very imprecise when I made that statement. Well,
OK, what I said was absolutely not what I meant to say. Which was
that, vast NM rangeland notwithstanding, the land used to produce
cattle could frequently produce far more people food if it were used
to grow vegetables, such as soybeans, instead. The figure I saw most
recently was 20 times the protein.
====================
And that would be the case if it really were more profitable. fact is, it
must not be in very many of the places you're talking about, otherwise,
farmers would switch. They aren't raising cattle for us out the goodness of
their hearts, and if the land would truly support crops at a greater profit,
they would change.



Keith
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/

snipped
You're right, I was very imprecise when I made that statement. Well,
OK, what I said was absolutely not what I meant to say. Which was
that, vast NM rangeland notwithstanding, the land used to produce
cattle could frequently produce far more people food if it were used
to grow vegetables, such as soybeans, instead. The figure I saw most
recently was 20 times the protein.
====================


The problem with most vegetarians and their persistence
belief that the land used to grow livestock could be better
used to grow food for human consumption.

Well there is a problem with that. A hell of a lot of live
stock is grown on land that has neither the water of the
quality of soil to grow food for human consumption. In the
arid lands of the west, North africa, or the cold short
growing seasons of northern Canada, Russia, and Europe the
land is not capable of supporting agriculture for growing
human food stuffs. There fore that land is used for growing
livestock which can be used for human consumption.

The Independent


Also

Bob Peterson wrote:



"Far too much"? Whats actually happening is basic economics. land that is
more valuable for other purposes is being put to those uses. we have far
more farm land than can ever be economically used.

Have you looked at the population densities compares with arable land
potential world-wide? There's a bubble there waiting to burst.



And, once you've reached what Douglas Adams called "the shoe event
horizon" and this giddy develop-increase-grow-engulf-or-bust economy
we're riding either collapses under its own weight or at least goes into
the spasms of severe change & redirection, the definition of
"economically used" will suddenly point in a radically different (and
totally unpredictable) direction. Even if Sony, General Motors & the NFL
go up in smoke, people will need to eat.

Pete H

--
Never needlessly disturb a thing at rest.
anon.

"Jim Dauven" wrote in message
...
The big steam powered engines that you are referring to were used
for thrashing of grains. They were two big to use as prime
movers. During the Buhl Idaho Sage Brush days in 1967 I got the
chance to be a fireman on a 42 hp Peerless steam thrashing
engine.
Let me tell you keeping the dammed thing in water for a two mile
parade was a backbreaking chore and I never wanted to do that
again. The thrashing machine was also pretty large and took
a two man crew to keep it fed and lubricated during operation.
A thrashing crew was generally 6 men for the engine the thrasher.

The first really successful tractors were the Rumley Oil pulls.
They
were fired by a heavy oil internal combustion engine. They were
started by lighten them off on a light fuel like naphtha and then
when they got running hot switching them over to heavy oil like
kerosene. They were hand cranked for starting.

The Oil pull were not as efficient as today's tractors but the
beat the hell out of a team of horses. The modern Gasoline
tractor didn't really become available until the 1930's

I thought most modern tractors were diesel. Hmm...


Since I have horses I have been collecting horse drawn farm
equipment. I have a horse drawn two bottom plow, a horse drawn
disk harrow, a horse drawn spring tooth harrow, a horse draw
cultivator, a horse drawn rake, a horse drawn hay mower, a horse
drawn grain drill, a horse drawn grain reaper and a horse drawn
manure spreader..

I also have a horse drawn wagon with a double tree (4 horse team)

The only thing I need to complete my farming suite is a trashing
machine (I know where one is at but they guy wants too much
for it), and a hay bailer. (putting up hay the old fashioned way
with a derrick is a pain in the ass.)

Last but not least I have the plans for the building of a
replica Wells Fargo type stage coach. The original Wells Fargo
Stage coach was a fully sprung six passenger coach with driver
and assistant.

I two bottom horse drawn plow that I have operates by the
weight of the plow shares drives them into the soil and there
is a foot operated trip that allows the gear and rack driven by
the wheels to raise the plow for turning around. Once you are
ready to start plowing another furrow, you hit the release with
your foot to drop the plows into the ground.

However with today no till technology I think that using a
disk and spring tooth harrows, and cultivators would be more
efficient and less likely to have erosion problems.

With my set up I should be able to farm 40 acres of hay 40
acres of grain, and corn. To control disease and erosion you
can also plant canola (a relative of Rapeseed)) for use in
making vegetable oil for human consumption. The stalks and
seed husks that remain after it has been pressed for the oil
content makes an excellent cattle feed. Rapeseed can also
be planted but its oil is toxic and is used as lubricants and
synthetic diesel oil. I plan to have an additional 20 acres
of Spuds, a couple of acres of squash, onions, turnips, beets
some garlic. And then dedicate a couple of acres to garden
veggies such as beans, peas, tomatoes, berries and then have
fruit trees. The hay and grain will be dry farm, (no irrigation)
while the rest of the stuff will have to be irrigated.

The planting amounts are tentative but in TEOTWAWKI times
synthetic diesel fuel made from rape seed may be worth more
than its weight in gold.

With the farming, cattle rasing, a little dairy opeations with
goats, catching, breaking, and selling wild horses, raising
sheep for fiber, and maybe some flax for linen and linseed oil,
canola oil, and rape seed oil for synthetic diesel fuel I figure
200 acres should do it.

I should do all right if TEOTWAWKI ever occures.

The Independent


Frank White wrote:

In article t,
says...

(Edgar S.) wrote:

As for "farming"... Many farming communities do just fine, such as
the Shakers, and several other communal religious groups.

They had plenty of time to work on their well known hand made
furniture, and time for their religious endevours.

They had literally thousands of years of uninterrupted practice, too.
You and David and I don't.

Today, a farming community would have access to tractors, harvesters
and other machinery that would make farming much easier and faster.

Thanks for the input, Edgar, but the point Dave and I were discussing
was "post Apocalypse". Tractors and harvesters etc aren't in the
equation. Hand plows, totally organic farming, and heirloom seeds
are.

Actually, he's not TOTALLY incorrect; it IS possible that a
farming community could have harvesters and tractors and such
after TEOTWAWKI, and even in the absence of gasoline. As
long as they had water. Firewood.

And a steam driven tractor.

Such things DO exist. In fact, they were widespread before
the internal combustion engine replaced them. You can
sometimes see them at county fairs; they're like miniature
train engines on wheels, and you could not only use them to
pull plows and carts, in some models you could divert the
motive power from the wheels to fanbelts to run thrashers,
grinding mills, bailers, all sorts of machines. If you had
one of these, post Apocalypse , then as long as you could
keep it repaired, fully fueled... and from blowing up as
steam engines sometimes do and killing everyone around - you
COULD have a productive farm that didn't exhaust you to run.

I've been on this group (misc.survivalism) for quite a few years and
only met one person who actually had and had used a horse-drawn plow.
David doesn't and hasn't....you don't make offhand remarks like
"plenty of time for all sorts of recreation" if you ever have.

Does trying one out for a few minutes at a demonstration
at a county fair, count?

If so, I can tell you that while the horses may provide
the draft power, it still requires plenty of strength,
skill, and effort to keep that plow in the ground and
going straight. It's nothing *I* would want to do if I
could avoid it.

Primitive subsistence farming is backbreaking, seemingly never-ending
labor and you die when you're 40.

Or sooner, if the harvest fails and you starve.

FW