"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

"Peter H" wrote in message
...
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.

Not a problem in the US. WE have far more arable land than what we would
ever need to feed ourselves and much of the world as well. Modern
agriculture is extrememly efficient at producing the most food per area
planted.




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.


Just like the 100 years now where the so called "experts" have predicted we
will run out of oil, these people are wrong too. At present there is far
more food grown than could ever be eaten on this planet by the current
population, and there is a LOT of land not used for food production that
could be used, and we have not even begun to explore the potential for ocen
based aquaculture. I am not worried about a few kooks that have an almost
religious belief that there are too many people for the earth to support.
Its true that there are places where people starve to death, but virtually
all cases of starvation on this planet at present are due to politcal
reasons, often the starvation is used as a weapon.

Pete H

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

In article ,
says...

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.

We're talking about a complete and total breakdown
scenario, here, something that shuts down all commercial
and government operations and lasts for years. And
while I'm sure that, eventually, we'd get the oil
pumping, the refineries producing, and the transport
network going again in such a case, it could take a
LONG TIME.

If you want to sit around and not do anything until
gas starts being delivered to your local filling
station again, no matter how hungry you get, fine with
me. Or if you have a oil well in your back yard and
the knowledge and ability to crack the crude down, or
you can produce bio-diesel, that's fine too. As for
me, if it's a matter of starving, farming by hand
and horse, or firing up a steamer, I know which *I*
am going to do.

YMMV

FW

Bob Peterson wrote:

"Jim Dauven" wrote in message
...
I wrote it so I snipped it

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

The farm tractor as we know it became available in the early
1920's. The Ford Model F with 20 HP four Cylinder gasoline
engine was produced from 1917 to 1928. Starting with the
1930's the Ford tractor lost popularity due to high costs
and obsolete features. With the 1930's many tractors were
still powered by heavy oil (Kerosene with a compression
ratio of 4.5 to one) gasoline and toward the end of the
30's Diesel.

Most farm tractors up until the 1970's were gasoline
powered. Diesel started making into wide spread farm
use in the late 1970's.

The Independent

On 27 Dec 2003 15:06:03 GMT,
(Frank White) wrote:

In article ,
says...

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.

We're talking about a complete and total breakdown
scenario, here, something that shuts down all commercial
and government operations and lasts for years. And
while I'm sure that, eventually, we'd get the oil
pumping, the refineries producing, and the transport
network going again in such a case, it could take a
LONG TIME.

You can call me a raving optimist if you like, but my honest
best guess is that it will always take less time to restart
oil refineries and an economy to support them than to
refurbish steam engines, learn to use them and put them to
efficient use.

If you want to sit around and not do anything until
gas starts being delivered to your local filling
station again, no matter how hungry you get, fine with
me. Or if you have a oil well in your back yard and
the knowledge and ability to crack the crude down, or
you can produce bio-diesel, that's fine too. As for
me, if it's a matter of starving, farming by hand
and horse, or firing up a steamer, I know which *I*
am going to do.

YMMV

Our mileage will be the same. We're guessing which scenario
is the more likely and which planning makes the most sense.
You are certainly welcome to fiddle with your steam engines
or whatever you're doing. In my honest opinion, people who
do that are pursuing a hobby, like archery or going to
renaissance fairs, SCA gatherings, whatever. The survival
aspects are so minimal as to be insignificant. But survival
is a good excuse for the expenditures.

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

"Peter H" wrote in message
...
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.
=================
LOL Now you're depending on a second rate sci-fi hack to base your world
predictions on?
What a hoot.















Pete H

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

Bob Peterson wrote:



Not a problem in the US. WE have far more arable land than what we would
ever need to feed ourselves and much of the world as well.

And if the remainder should come knocking at the door?

Modern
agriculture is extrememly efficient at producing the most food per area
planted.



A good geal of what's produced isn't very good.

Pete H

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

rick etter wrote:

"Peter H" wrote in message



and this giddy develop-increase-grow-engulf-or-bust economy
we're riding either [will] collapse under its own weight or at least goe into
the spasms of severe change & redirection, ...... people will need to eat.


=================
LOL Now you're depending on a second rate sci-fi hack

Satirist, not sci-fi. Hack? Most likely.

to base your world
predictions on?

The obsession with growth & continued expansion of consumerism to keep
an economy afloat can't be sustained forever. Someday a vigorous if not
violent shift will come about, regardless of which fanciful parallel is
used to point out its ineveitability. No culture can last indefinitely,
not even the current one.

What a hoot.



Some people are easily amused.

Pete H

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

Go_Chiefs wrote in message
.net...
Lets say something happens to your Tofu supply... You have NO
food but 10 Goats & 30 Chickens. Are you willing to Starve to
death or become an omnivore?


a vegetarian or vegan diet does not need to contain soy.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:25:08 -0600, "Bob Peterson"
wrote:


are soybeans vegatables? I always thought they were legumes.

from Webster's II New Riverside Dictionary:
vegetable n. 1. A plant, as the beet or spinach, raised for an edible
part, as the root or leaves.

Yes, it is a legume. it is also a vegetable.

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 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:04:34 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


====================
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.

Who said anything about a profit? I said you get 20X the protein from
the same acreage.

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/

Richard Lewis wrote:


David I. Raines wrote:

I won't be busy hiding. That will all be long done. We will be working
on our gardens and storing food and learning more about the
crafts and technologies we have only just learned the basics
of while we have to deal with present-day life in America.

Gardens? You don't feed families off of "gardens", Dave. Farming, on
the other hand, is very difficult and leaves you next to no time for
"recreation".

Dead wrong. A pure vegetarian, which we are working towards being, can
live on about a tenth of an acre, which is about 4500 square feet.

That's a big garden, not a farm.

This includes grains and oilseeds and sugar plants.

If you use no-till gardening techniques, and only dry and root cellar
to preserve your food there is very little work involved.

This has been thoroughly covered on a current thread.


And you might not be so quick to declare yourself some sort of
"survival god" over anyone else and then pop cherries like "learning
more about the crafts and technologies" *AFTER* the fact.

ral


I am only a "survival god" compared to you. Not to someone with common
sense and a solid education.

-dir

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

Abraham Lincoln

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:66088 rec.gardens:260348 misc.survivalism:505088 misc.rural:117109 rec.backcountry:173508

Edgar S. wrote:


David I. Raines wrote in message hlink.net...
Edgar S. wrote:


In times of disaster... it always seemed to me the smell of cooking
would draw out starving ppl more than smoke, noise or anything else.

I know when we cook out here on our farm, we can smell it from far
away.


You won't ever smell any from our retreat, but thanks for the heads up
anyway.

Controlled ventilation and filters on the outlets are very important.
It isn't people's noses that are the challenge, it is *dog's* noses.
Or horse's noses.

Ok... We'll see. Thinking about it... if one WANTED to lure
stragglers, they could cook some meat on an open fire. Bait strangers
into following the sent, then trap them.

Smoke alone would attract ppl in adverse conditions. The scent of your
cooking goes into the charcoal where it is then trapped. Burn the used
charcoal, release much of the smell into the air.


Burning it in the woodgas generator does a fine job of incinerating the
trapped odor chemicals.


We're using crushed charcoal at present, and it has passed all the tests
so far. Needs to be changed once a week or so. It can then be used as
fuel.

The woodgas burner makes making charcoal really easy. It's very pure, too.

Merry Xmas.

-dir

Best of luck with it. Hiding a scent from a dog can be a challenge.

It's working well now. Tested it with several dogs. There's also using
powerful scents to lure the dogs away.

You could launch a "scent pack" off in one direction or another, which
used 'gunpowder' to burn a grain/legume/garlic/salt mixture, which dogs
*really* love, and lure them away while masking any scents from your
retreat.

Other scents could work too. Using dog whistles to lead them off somewhere
seems to be a promising tactic.


-dir

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

Abraham Lincoln

Richard Lewis wrote:


David I. Raines wrote:

I won't be busy hiding. That will all be long done. We will be working
on our gardens and storing food and learning more about the
crafts and technologies we have only just learned the basics
of while we have to deal with present-day life in America.

Gardens? You don't feed families off of "gardens", Dave. Farming, on
the other hand, is very difficult and leaves you next to no time for
"recreation".

Dead wrong. A pure vegetarian, which we are working towards being, can
live on about a tenth of an acre, which is about 4500 square feet.

That's a big garden, not a farm.

This includes grains and oilseeds and sugar plants.

If you use no-till gardening techniques, and only dry and root cellar
to preserve your food there is very little work involved.

This has been thoroughly covered on a current thread.


And you might not be so quick to declare yourself some sort of
"survival god" over anyone else and then pop cherries like "learning
more about the crafts and technologies" *AFTER* the fact.

ral


I am only a "survival god" compared to you. Not to someone with common
sense and a solid education.

-dir

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

Abraham Lincoln

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:66088 rec.gardens:260348 misc.survivalism:505088 misc.rural:117109 rec.backcountry:173508

Edgar S. wrote:


David I. Raines wrote in message hlink.net...
Edgar S. wrote:


In times of disaster... it always seemed to me the smell of cooking
would draw out starving ppl more than smoke, noise or anything else.

I know when we cook out here on our farm, we can smell it from far
away.


You won't ever smell any from our retreat, but thanks for the heads up
anyway.

Controlled ventilation and filters on the outlets are very important.
It isn't people's noses that are the challenge, it is *dog's* noses.
Or horse's noses.

Ok... We'll see. Thinking about it... if one WANTED to lure
stragglers, they could cook some meat on an open fire. Bait strangers
into following the sent, then trap them.

Smoke alone would attract ppl in adverse conditions. The scent of your
cooking goes into the charcoal where it is then trapped. Burn the used
charcoal, release much of the smell into the air.


Burning it in the woodgas generator does a fine job of incinerating the
trapped odor chemicals.


We're using crushed charcoal at present, and it has passed all the tests
so far. Needs to be changed once a week or so. It can then be used as
fuel.

The woodgas burner makes making charcoal really easy. It's very pure, too.

Merry Xmas.

-dir

Best of luck with it. Hiding a scent from a dog can be a challenge.

It's working well now. Tested it with several dogs. There's also using
powerful scents to lure the dogs away.

You could launch a "scent pack" off in one direction or another, which
used 'gunpowder' to burn a grain/legume/garlic/salt mixture, which dogs
*really* love, and lure them away while masking any scents from your
retreat.

Other scents could work too. Using dog whistles to lead them off somewhere
seems to be a promising tactic.


-dir

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

Abraham Lincoln