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

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

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

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

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

there really is no such thing as a balanced veg only diet.

(Edgar S.) wrote in message . com...
(Tallgrass) wrote in message . com...
Thanks for the info and gardening tips. Now I have a definitive use
for those old tires in the ravines.

Excellent. Using existing materials is very commendable.

This refrigerator is in a ravine, as well. Walkable, but don't think
I can get the garden tractor down there. Not quite sure how I will
get this bugger up the hill.

If u decide to haul it up, remove the motor first. Maybe u could wrap
a rope around it and use the tractor to pull it up.

Thanks for the tip on the motor.

And if I get a long enough rope on the 'fridge, I can use the RamVan
to pull it out of the ravine!

My place looks somewhat picturesque, until gazing directly down into
this creekbed. "Out of sight, out of mind" must have been the
previous owner(s)' motto.

Another reason to buy a harness for the malamute!

Linda H.

On 16 Dec 2003 18:53:44 -0800,
(Tallgrass) wrote:

(Edgar S.) wrote in message . com...
(Tallgrass) wrote in message . com...
Thanks for the info and gardening tips. Now I have a definitive use
for those old tires in the ravines.

Excellent. Using existing materials is very commendable.

This refrigerator is in a ravine, as well. Walkable, but don't think
I can get the garden tractor down there. Not quite sure how I will
get this bugger up the hill.

If u decide to haul it up, remove the motor first. Maybe u could wrap
a rope around it and use the tractor to pull it up.

Thanks for the tip on the motor.

And if I get a long enough rope on the 'fridge, I can use the RamVan
to pull it out of the ravine!

My place looks somewhat picturesque, until gazing directly down into
this creekbed. "Out of sight, out of mind" must have been the
previous owner(s)' motto.

Another reason to buy a harness for the malamute!

If you look in a book which covers climbing rescues, there are many
different systems using portable gear and rope to make a hauling
system with significant mechanical advantage. Same gear and technique
would be useful for a number of other things.

No vehicle required, although other people make this a good bit
simpler and safer.

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

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

On 15 Dec 2003 14:50:55 -0800,
(Tallgrass) wrote:

It comes down to the biochemistry of the carbon bonds in vegetable
fats vs. those in animal fats. The animal fats are saturated
fats...two bonds between the carbon atoms. The vegetable fats are
often Unsaturated fats...one bond between the carbon atoms.
Breaking/metabolising the bonds produces energy; More bonds means more
energy to release per quantity of fat. Saturated fats have more
energy/calories than unsaturated fats.

ooops...you got it exactly backwards here...UNsaturated fats have two
bonds between two carbons in at least one place on the chain, and
Saturated fats only have one bond between all the carbons...they are
"Saturated" with hydrogen.

The energy released from both types of fats is grossly the same (9
Calories per gram), but certain types of unsaturated fats are not
produced by the human body but are needed in the diet to stay healthy.

ck (a DO physician, not an MD)
--
country doc in louisiana
(no fancy sayings right now)

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

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

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

Both herding and hunting are trade-offs. Herding vastly
increases your chances of finding the animal you're
"hunting," as well as allowing you to use the animal's milk
- at the cost of additional calories spent doing the
herding. The question is - do you spend fewer calories
hunting (in which case you may come up empty handed) or more
calories herding? The historic evidence seems to favor
herding.

You're absolutely right, Robert. Domestication of animals was what
began the road towards civilization, not the planting of crops as
quite a few folks still believe. When mankind found out that he could
grow rabbits in a pen, he was able to eventually break the
"hunter/gatherer" cycle that had continually forced him to move on.

It only takes 600 calories (assumning that is correct) if
there is no division of labor. It certainly doesn't take
600 calories to put a loaf of bread on a modern American's
table.

It takes a minimum of 600 cals per loaf of bread no matter who does
the actual labor or how. The only reason it doesn't cost *you* 600
cals in modern America is the use of machinery.

Self-sufficiency....you will be planting/tending/harvesting all the
grain and then, when most other crops would be ready to eat, you will
more than double the necessary cals by winnowing/grinding/baking it.

No matter how you cut it, a grain-based diet, without the benefit of
machinery or a local ag co-op, is a labor-intensive one.

Self-sufficiency is just another way of saying - no division
of labor. It's the division of labor (along with technical
progress) that increases output. Self-sufficiency is a
great leap backwards.

Yes, it is....but some folks like the challenge and the reward. Me, I
learned how to knap flint into arrowheads not because they were better
than a Kolpin Twister on an aluminum shaft etc but because it was
simply one more skill to have mastered. Passin ton that skill to the
Boyscouts my wife and I often work with is reward enough.

ral

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

Exactly 19 acres...
We have 19 acres of vineyard and we never run out of wine.
Skully
"Mike Warren" wrote in message
news:eHGDb.730362$9l5.518038@pd7tw2no...
(bob peterson) writes:

Did you take a look at how much time was spent on this project? I
don't doubt it took every minute he admitted to. If you think self
suffiency is for you think about the amount of effort just to grow
enough food to starve.

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

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

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

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:48:10 GMT, Mike Warren
wrote:

(bob peterson) writes:

Did you take a look at how much time was spent on this project? I
don't doubt it took every minute he admitted to. If you think self
suffiency is for you think about the amount of effort just to grow
enough food to starve.

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

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

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

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

"gregpresley" wrote in message
...

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

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


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


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


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

"gregpresley" wrote in message
...

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I had no idea. No, really.