On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:07 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:42:22 GMT, Frogleg wrote:



Nope. I grew up in New Mexico where cattle roamed on vast acreages of
tumbleweed, grass, and brush. The "cultivation" was fences. And they
weren't hunted, they were rounded up periodically. You might call
rounding up cattle "hunting," but what's the diff? If you shoot a deer
who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or collect a meat cow who's
been wandering around in the general area, you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.
okay, now I wonder if New Zealand offers similar grazing
opportunities. Incidentally, I've seen NM pastureland; I'm thinking
it takes a hell of a lot of acres to raise cattle on what grows there
alone. I admit I may be wrong, never having looked closely at teh
question.


Please cite references. I did quite a search and found *no* references
to a complete vegetable protein, incl. soy. Which *is* a high, 'though
incomplete protein source. Complete proteins include all the
"essential" amino acids. Many can be synthisized in the human body;
however, nine "essential" ones must be supplied by either animal
sources or *combinations* of vegetables. Geez, Google's getting so
commercial/advertising oriented it's hard to find *any* actual
information.
http://www.iasoybeans.com/ispb/soybe...ries/cos9.html
found on google search "soybean complete protein"

I'm not inclined to spend any more time looking, but perhaps if you
don't go in assuming you will find nothing you will have some luck
finding other sources of the info.

Sophistry aside, the original question of self-sufficency, in the
sense of relying on a single person's efforts for food, is pretty much
impossible in the modern sense.
Granted. I think it's obvious from the OP that he knew that, too. He
may have used self-sufficiency imprecisely, but it seems clear he is
trying to get as close as possible to that goal, not acheive
perfection.

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 Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:07 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

Please cite references. I did quite a search and found *no* references
to a complete vegetable protein, incl. soy. Which *is* a high, 'though
incomplete protein source. Complete proteins include all the
"essential" amino acids.
here's a less self-motivated source that was farther down the page in
hte same search:
http://www.annecollins.com/diet_foods/soybeans.htm
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/

Frogleg wrote in message . ..

If you shoot a deer who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or
collect a meat cow who's been wandering around in the general area,
you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.

No, this is not the case.

Introducing domesticated species is, by its very nature, agriculture.
Call it ranching if you must, but it falls under the auspices of
agriculture.

And to gum up the works even further, this form of "farming" is one of
the most destructive to habitat that we have extant.

Linda H.

On 21 Dec 2003 11:31:44 -0800,
(Tallgrass) wrote:

Frogleg wrote in message . ..

If you shoot a deer who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or
collect a meat cow who's been wandering around in the general area,
you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.

No, this is not the case.

Introducing domesticated species is, by its very nature, agriculture.
Call it ranching if you must, but it falls under the auspices of
agriculture.

And to gum up the works even further, this form of "farming" is one of
the most destructive to habitat that we have extant.

Since people have been herding for thousands of years, it's
amazing that we're still alive! I think I'm going to eat a
nice big beef steak. Yummy.

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

Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On 21 Dec 2003 11:31:44 -0800,
(Tallgrass) wrote:

Frogleg wrote in message . ..

If you shoot a deer who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or
collect a meat cow who's been wandering around in the general area,
you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.

No, this is not the case.

Introducing domesticated species is, by its very nature, agriculture.
Call it ranching if you must, but it falls under the auspices of
agriculture.

And to gum up the works even further, this form of "farming" is one of
the most destructive to habitat that we have extant.

Since people have been herding for thousands of years, it's
amazing that we're still alive! I think I'm going to eat a
nice big beef steak. Yummy.
Enjoy it. When the system breaks down, you won't be eating much meat at
all.
The competition for large animals will be incredible, and they won't last
long and hunting will be a dangerous activity indeed. Someone will be claiming
every single acre of hunting ground anywhere. Probably more than one person.
Engaging in any sort of ranching will both give away your location as if
you had put up a 200' neon sign, and draw every predator and scavenger,
on two and four legs. for many miles around.
The amount of work involved, without the government subsidies and equipment
and energy and piped in water that are used now, is incredible. You wouldn't
have time for anything else, including watching your back.
Shooting off a gun will tell everyone for miles that you have a gun and
bullets and probably a nice juicy deer to eat.

-dir

--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.

Abraham Lincoln

David I. Raines wrote:

Enjoy it. When the system breaks down, you won't be eating much meat at
all.

Bullshit!

Type and quality might suffer but quantity, if you have even a modicum
of intelligence anyway, will always be there for those capable of
taking it.

As to keeping it....since you make the claim that taking it will
simply alert everyone else that you have it and for them to come to
see you....let's ask a simple question. Would you rather go hunting
for a defenseless squirrel with your .22 rifle or go hunting for
someone that you know is armed and far more capable than you of using
his weapon?

Nuff said.

ral

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65773 rec.gardens:259709 misc.survivalism:502679 misc.rural:116024 rec.backcountry:172742

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:45:01 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:07 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

Nope. I grew up in New Mexico where cattle roamed on vast acreages of
tumbleweed, grass, and brush. The "cultivation" was fences. And they
weren't hunted, they were rounded up periodically. You might call
rounding up cattle "hunting," but what's the diff? If you shoot a deer
who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or collect a meat cow who's
been wandering around in the general area, you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.

okay, now I wonder if New Zealand offers similar grazing
opportunities. Incidentally, I've seen NM pastureland; I'm thinking
it takes a hell of a lot of acres to raise cattle on what grows there
alone. I admit I may be wrong, never having looked closely at teh
question.

New Zealand -- have no clue as to conditions there. New Mexico
-- I'd scarely call it "pastureland." SW cattle operations have long
been turning loose a bunch of animals on a considerable patch of
ground and gathering ("round-up") for food. It *does* take a lot of
land to raise a cow in NM. If you can find 'em, that's all you care
about. There're a *lot* of vacant lots in New Mexico. :-)

Richard A. Lewis wrote:


David I. Raines wrote:

Enjoy it. When the system breaks down, you won't be eating much meat at
all.

Bullshit!


We'll see, won't we. I suggest you do the math.

Type and quality might suffer but quantity, if you have even a modicum
of intelligence anyway, will always be there for those capable of
taking it.
Not for long. The ratio of hunters and their dependents to prey animals will
be far to high to last more than a year or so.


As to keeping it....since you make the claim that taking it will
simply alert everyone else that you have it and for them to come to
see you....let's ask a simple question. Would you rather go hunting
for a defenseless squirrel with your .22 rifle or go hunting for
someone that you know is armed and far more capable than you of using
his weapon?


What's there to "using a weapon"? You point and shoot. If you can. If you
have a shot. Their simplicity is their largest limitation.


If I had to, say, drive you out of the area, the fact that you had a gun
wouldn't slow me down for one second. There are so many ways of making
a person miserable without them ever seeing you, especially in a survival
situation. Your reliance on guns would just make you as predictable as the
squirrel you mention above. Predictability is a characteristic of prey not
predators.


Nuff said.


You can say that again.


-dir

ral



--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.

Abraham Lincoln

"Tallgrass" wrote in message
om...
Frogleg wrote in message
. ..

If you shoot a deer who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or
collect a meat cow who's been wandering around in the general area,
you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.

No, this is not the case.

Introducing domesticated species is, by its very nature, agriculture.
Call it ranching if you must, but it falls under the auspices of
agriculture.

And to gum up the works even further, this form of "farming" is one of
the most destructive to habitat that we have extant.

of course that is a far leftist political viewpoint, and brings out one of
the problems with this type of discussion, as it can never seem to stay in
the realm of science, but always ends up in the realm of politics or
religion (which are pretty close for most leftists).


Linda H.

"David I. Raines" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On 21 Dec 2003 11:31:44 -0800,
(Tallgrass) wrote:

Frogleg wrote in message
. ..

If you shoot a deer who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or
collect a meat cow who's been wandering around in the general area,
you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.

No, this is not the case.

Introducing domesticated species is, by its very nature, agriculture.
Call it ranching if you must, but it falls under the auspices of
agriculture.

And to gum up the works even further, this form of "farming" is one of
the most destructive to habitat that we have extant.

Since people have been herding for thousands of years, it's
amazing that we're still alive! I think I'm going to eat a
nice big beef steak. Yummy.
Enjoy it. When the system breaks down, you won't be eating much meat at
all.
The competition for large animals will be incredible, and they won't last
long and hunting will be a dangerous activity indeed. Someone will be
claiming
every single acre of hunting ground anywhere. Probably more than one
person.
Engaging in any sort of ranching will both give away your location as if
you had put up a 200' neon sign, and draw every predator and scavenger,
on two and four legs. for many miles around.
The amount of work involved, without the government subsidies and
equipment
and energy and piped in water that are used now, is incredible. You
wouldn't
have time for anything else, including watching your back.
Shooting off a gun will tell everyone for miles that you have a gun and
bullets and probably a nice juicy deer to eat.

There are far quieter ways to kill a crtitter if you need to than shooting
one. My guess is that any activity (such as smoke from your fireplace) is
just as likely to draw unwanted attention. This also has zero to do with
the OP.



-dir

--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.

Abraham Lincoln

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:45:01 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:07 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:42:22 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

Sophistry aside, the original question of self-sufficency, in the
sense of relying on a single person's efforts for food, is pretty much
impossible in the modern sense.

Granted. I think it's obvious from the OP that he knew that, too. He
may have used self-sufficiency imprecisely, but it seems clear he is
trying to get as close as possible to that goal, not acheive
perfection.

The OP (who hasn't surfaced thorugh all this rather interesting
discussion) produced the title of this message thread. The query was
how much land was required for an individual "self-sufficient"
lifestyle. I think the answer is 100,000 acres aren't enough, and 1
acre is too much. In fact, no one AFAIK (I haven't read all the
cross-posted msgs) has offered a 1, 3, 5, 10, 100 acre plan with
evidence to back it up.. "Close as possible" don't feed the bulldog. I
could say that I'd like to be "self-sufficient" to the extent of not
having to resort to store-bought veg. Enough preserved tomatoes and
squash and strings of onions drying in a shed and maybe dried beans
let me have an evening meal of home-grown stuff. I'm pretty sure I
wouldn't want to search out my own salt source, or make my own veg
oil. Hmm. I like pepper, too.

I don't think the OP's goals were clearly stated at all. In fact, he
surfaced in rec.gardens, as far as I can recall, as a first-season
gardener asking very basic questions about growing a tomato or
zucchini. Growing and preserving your own veg is fun and may be
econonomically advantagous over time. That is, once you invest in
canning supplies, dehydrators, grain grinders, cheese-making supplies,
etc. And engage in the labor of canning tomatoes in mid-summer (I'd
rather eat bees).

How is it that formal debates are framed? "Resolved -- that single
physically active human is capable of producing enough foodstuffs for
his own sustenance." I don't think so.

"Frogleg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:45:01 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 14:50:07 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:41:01 GMT,
(Babberney) wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:42:22 GMT, Frogleg wrote:

Sophistry aside, the original question of self-sufficency, in the
sense of relying on a single person's efforts for food, is pretty much
impossible in the modern sense.

Granted. I think it's obvious from the OP that he knew that, too. He
may have used self-sufficiency imprecisely, but it seems clear he is
trying to get as close as possible to that goal, not acheive
perfection.

The OP (who hasn't surfaced thorugh all this rather interesting
discussion) produced the title of this message thread. The query was
how much land was required for an individual "self-sufficient"
lifestyle. I think the answer is 100,000 acres aren't enough, and 1
acre is too much. In fact, no one AFAIK (I haven't read all the
cross-posted msgs) has offered a 1, 3, 5, 10, 100 acre plan with
evidence to back it up.. "Close as possible" don't feed the bulldog. I
could say that I'd like to be "self-sufficient" to the extent of not
having to resort to store-bought veg. Enough preserved tomatoes and
squash and strings of onions drying in a shed and maybe dried beans
let me have an evening meal of home-grown stuff. I'm pretty sure I
wouldn't want to search out my own salt source, or make my own veg
oil. Hmm. I like pepper, too.

I don't think the OP's goals were clearly stated at all. In fact, he
surfaced in rec.gardens, as far as I can recall, as a first-season
gardener asking very basic questions about growing a tomato or
zucchini. Growing and preserving your own veg is fun and may be
econonomically advantagous over time. That is, once you invest in
canning supplies, dehydrators, grain grinders, cheese-making supplies,
etc. And engage in the labor of canning tomatoes in mid-summer (I'd
rather eat bees).

I can remmebr canning tomatoes in August. I don't know about eating bees
but it was hot and unpleasent work.


How is it that formal debates are framed? "Resolved -- that single
physically active human is capable of producing enough foodstuffs for
his own sustenance." I don't think so.

(Tallgrass) wrote in message om...
(Richard A. Lewis) wrote in message ink.net...

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/

These ecosystems are long gone, many are all but extinct. The Plains
Buffalo, case in point, is gone; rebuilding the prairies cannot happen
for this reason.

A close facsimile can be produced by using the Woods Buffalo, perhaps,
but it is not the ecosystem of the idealists dreams.

As for small mammals.....most squirrels and rabbits seem to be
thriving, as are mice and rats. Wood Rats, no, probably not, but I
didn't think their demise was due to farming, per se. Voles, moles,
white footed mice...dunno.
========================
Not the point I was making. In fact, croplands probably provide for
far more of these small mammals and birds to live than the natural
habitat that was there. The problem becomes that when all the easy
food and cover are removed that allowed an unnatural number of animals
to breed in these fields is gone the animals that didn't die outright
from the mechinization now die from starvation and predation. Vegans
that claim their diet is cruelty-free are just lying and delusional.
It's just their hate that makes them focus instead on what they think
others are doing, while ignoring their own bloody footprints.



And...in the US...are there really that many acres being put INTO
production, destroying habitat?...

I didn't think so.
===================
Really? I'd think that 1/4 of mainland US would be a significant
amount of area, even to you.
http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/farm/tot_crop.shtml


Linda H.

(Tallgrass) wrote in message . com...
Frogleg wrote in message . ..

If you shoot a deer who's been living on stuff you can't eat, or
collect a meat cow who's been wandering around in the general area,
you are still getting a
good dose of protein without engaging in agriculture of any sort.

No, this is not the case.

Introducing domesticated species is, by its very nature, agriculture.
Call it ranching if you must, but it falls under the auspices of
agriculture.

And to gum up the works even further, this form of "farming" is one of
the most destructive to habitat that we have extant.
=================
Total BS and just plain ignorance. Between cows grazing grasslands
and a monoculture crop operation in the same area, your crop
production loses the destructive argument everytime. That's by
definition the destruction of natural habitat. You can't seriously
say otherwise, unless of course you just ly and spew ignorance because
of a dogmatic spasm about meat.





Linda H.

Bob Peterson wrote:



"David I. Raines" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Robert Sturgeon wrote:

There are far quieter ways to kill a crtitter if you need to than shooting
one.

Which is but one small part of the picture.

My guess is that any activity (such as smoke from your fireplace) is
just as likely to draw unwanted attention.

No smoke. See Mother Earth News 69 & 70. Or Google "woodgas".

What I said is basically true. If you are not prepared to deal with those
exigencies, you won't survive.

Why do so many people here seem to think that they can live like the settlers
or Indians did? Sorry. There are many, many more people and a fraction of the
wild lands in this modern world.


-dir

--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.