"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message ...
"simy1" wrote in message


Since the original poster was posting from subtropical Australia, I
doubt it. One just has to have winter vegetables, and things like
grains and beans.

Not really, he said



Your point about also using cool season veges is of course correct but,
speaking personally, you can only stomach so many meals of beans and
brassicas!

David

On this we will have to disagree. New Zealand is probably Zone 8 or 9.
There are many things you can have winter-round - we are just so
locked into tomatoes and corn in this country. But when in France
farmers were offering fresh vegetables at the market in Feb. or March.
I am told in Italy is even better. Besides the various types of
brassicas (please don't try to convince me that arugula, tatsoi, red
cabbage and broccoli are the same meal), there are all the root crops,
several types of chicory, many other winter greens, there is chard,
cardoon, favas, winter squash, sprouts and shoots.

In fact, one could argue that winter gardening is more efficient than
summer gardening, for all the most nutritious veggies are winter
veggies, so you get the same nutrition for less work. I am myself
still supported completely (veggie-wise) by my garden (currently,
onions garlic potatoes are in storage, beets and carrots are pulled as
needed, and I have also collards and radicchio), and this is December
in Michigan (Zone 5-6, minimum temp so far 17F). In the last two
months, we have only bought apples from the farmer market, and celery
for stock and lemons for juice.

Strider wrote:

There is no good answer to the question without more info. It
generally took at least 40 acres to barely keep a familiy going here
in East TN in the 19th century (before hybrid seeds, commercial
fertilizer, and the internal combustion engine).

That's the key topic of dissent that I have raised every single time
this thread has come back around. It is impossible to raise all the
food you need on "blah acres" because, if the situation comes to be
that you have to try to do it, you will in effect be reverting to
medieval stats and not modern ones.

By modern standards, one might live on whatever acres etc, but when
you *have* to do it, you won't have all the modern amenities.

That's the key problem with anyone who cites the "half and acre" or
"one acre" bull etc.

ral

Strider

(dstvns) wrote:

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 06:56:32 -0800, Down Under On The Bucket Farm
wrote:

So... How many acres of flat, farm-able land will I need?

I don't know, but I grew a years worth of garlic (fresh) and tomatoes
(canned) on about 400 square feet (0.009 acres?) of composted and
mulched soil this past year. My limitation is sun, due to so many
trees nearby. But I would definetly believe the figures that it
doesn't take a whole lot of land to live well.

You have looked at the calorie levels of that garlic and those
tomatoes, right? What you grew on 400 square feet will do nothing but
slow your starvation by a slight bit.

ral

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 03:57:10 GMT, (Richard Lewis)
wrote:

Strider wrote:

There is no good answer to the question without more info. It
generally took at least 40 acres to barely keep a familiy going here
in East TN in the 19th century (before hybrid seeds, commercial
fertilizer, and the internal combustion engine).

That's the key topic of dissent that I have raised every single time
this thread has come back around. It is impossible to raise all the
food you need on "blah acres" because, if the situation comes to be
that you have to try to do it, you will in effect be reverting to
medieval stats and not modern ones.

By modern standards, one might live on whatever acres etc, but when
you *have* to do it, you won't have all the modern amenities.

That's the key problem with anyone who cites the "half and acre" or
"one acre" bull etc.

ral

Strider


Jeez, I don't see that at all. The guy is keeping his day job. He can do it
from home via a satellite link up. He just wants to know what he would need
to keep himself in food and off the treadmill of consumerism. Noble goals,
although the slant towards isolation is a bit worrying. I have no idea
what to tell him other than it probably won't take much land and if he does
it right it shouldn't involve an excessive amount of work. It seems he
wants to mimic a Walden experience, not the one that lives in the popular
imagination of going into the woods and being a hermit, but the one of
Thoreaus true intention, i.e. "I wished to live deliberately, to front only
the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to
teach, and not, when I die, discover that I had not lived."


g.c.

In article ,
George Cleveland wrote:

Jeez, I don't see that at all. The guy is keeping his day job. He can do it
from home via a satellite link up. He just wants to know what he would need
to keep himself in food and off the treadmill of consumerism. Noble goals,
although the slant towards isolation is a bit worrying. I have no idea
what to tell him other than it probably won't take much land and if he does
it right it shouldn't involve an excessive amount of work. It seems he
wants to mimic a Walden experience, not the one that lives in the popular
imagination of going into the woods and being a hermit, but the one of
Thoreaus true intention, i.e. "I wished to live deliberately, to front only
the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to
teach, and not, when I die, discover that I had not lived."


g.c.

Back in the 30's and 40's, Helen and Scott Nearing did this in Vermont (I
think). They wrote several books on the subject, most of which are out of
print I suspect but you might still be able to find them. They were kind
of anal about their style of living but they raised all their food in a
couple of gardens on their property AND did it on a rigidly defined ration
of a half days work. The rest of their time was devoted to their cause.

It might be that not many people could do it their way, but they did and
this fellow might. I think the basic book was "Living the good Life" but
it's been a while since I read it so the title may be bogus.

Has anyone mentioned the US Department of Agriculture yearbook, "five acres and
Independence"? That would be a good reference.

Ted (who lives on the cash economy and wishes he didn't)

Down Under On The Bucket Farm wrote:

Hi Everybody,

I am working on long-term plans for self-sufficiency, oriented to
buying some bare land and building an off-grid house, rainwater
catchment, composting toilet, etc, etc.

One issue is the question of how much physical space would be
needed to grow enough food to completely support myself?

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.)

This would involve one person living alone, in decent physical
condition, willing to do hard work and learn whatever is needed.

I realise that the yearly food yield will have to be spread out
via preserving, canning, etc.

My "day job" can be done remotely, via wireless Internet
connection, with flexible hours, thus leaving time and
opportunity for extensive gardening/farming, etc.

I do understand the risk of, for example, having a bad year, bad
weather, etc, and so would have money set aside to buy food in
that case. But the plan is to avoid that if at all possible.

I live in New Zealand, with plenty of rain in winter, but also
reasonable sunshine in summer.

So... How many acres of flat, farm-able land will I need?


Thanks in advance!


Exactly what is meant by off-grid?

--
Susan N.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.

There are right here . . .

http://www.goodlife.org/



Back in the 30's and 40's, Helen and Scott Nearing did this in Vermont (I
think). They wrote several books on the subject, most of which are out of
print I suspect but you might still be able to find them. They were kind
of anal about their style of living but they raised all their food in a
couple of gardens on their property AND did it on a rigidly defined ration
of a half days work. The rest of their time was devoted to their cause.

Jim Dauven wrote:

Also try and get a a trio of dairy goats. A Buck and two does.
They will supply you with meat and milk,

How long do you reckon three goats will keep you in meat, idiot?

ral

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Dauven wrote:

Also try and get a a trio of dairy goats. A Buck and two does.
They will supply you with meat and milk,

How long do you reckon three goats will keep you in meat, idiot?

ral

You call him an idiot? You apparently know nothing about reproduction.
Animal husbandry? Raising food?

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:14:41 -0600, "Don Staples"
wrote:


"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
link.net...
Jim Dauven wrote:

Also try and get a a trio of dairy goats. A Buck and two does.
They will supply you with meat and milk,

How long do you reckon three goats will keep you in meat, idiot?

ral

You call him an idiot? You apparently know nothing about reproduction.
Animal husbandry? Raising food?

Fortunately, the one male and two female goats mentioned will figure
out how to produce more goats.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:52:26 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:14:41 -0600, "Don Staples"
wrote:


Fortunately, the one male and two female goats mentioned will figure
out how to produce more goats.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom


Us goats do have our reputations.

g.c.

Capricorns rule!

Ah Don,
R.L is just ****ed that I figured out he was a troll and
put him in a kill file.

But as for goats, a kid is born 156 days after conception and a
Doe can conceive two weeks after giving birth. A new born
doe can conceive between 160 to 180 days after birth. In fact
goats multiply almost as fast as rabbits.

With Two does and a two bucks (to keep from inbreeding) at the end
of a year you will have a goat herd of 16 with 4 of the goats
being
weathers. A weather when slaughtered at the end of 150 days
depending
on breed will have a body weight of 60 to 100 lbs. If you let the
weathers grow to a yearling the body weight will (depending on
breed
60 to 150 lbs.

At any rate after a year and a half you could slaughter a goat
every
month with out depleating your breed stock. However what you may
want to do is trade some of your bucks evey three years for a
bucks
from another breed line to keep your herd healthy.

The Independent


Don Staples wrote:

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
ink.net...
Jim Dauven wrote:

Also try and get a a trio of dairy goats. A Buck and two does.
They will supply you with meat and milk,

How long do you reckon three goats will keep you in meat, idiot?

ral

You call him an idiot? You apparently know nothing about reproduction.
Animal husbandry? Raising food?

Ya! you're all horny.

The Independent


George Cleveland wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 22:52:26 GMT, Gary S. Idontwantspam@net wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:14:41 -0600, "Don Staples"
wrote:


Fortunately, the one male and two female goats mentioned will figure
out how to produce more goats.

Happy trails,
Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

Us goats do have our reputations.

g.c.

Capricorns rule!

The Cook wrote in message . ..
Down Under On The Bucket Farm wrote:

Exactly what is meant by off-grid?

Not hooked into the municipality's electricity supply.

The Grid is what went bad on the east coast earlier this year and
caused that widespread blackout.

Linda H.

"Don Staples" wrote:

You call him an idiot?

You have some sort of evidence that he's not?

You apparently know nothing about reproduction.

*YOU* apparently know nothing about reproduction or you would know
that it's pretty much impossible for two female goats to "keep you in
meat".

If both reproduce as much as twice a year (next to impossible in
"survival" situations) or had multiple births and every single
offspring lived, that's still only four relatively small animals a
year....and one goat sure as hell won't "keep you in meat" for three
months.

Hell, two goats won't keep you in milk all year, either.

ral