On 8 Dec 2003 12:25:37 -0800,
(Tallgrass) wrote:

Don't forget what the ambient temperatures are when all these foods
ripen and need to be preserved over that hot cookstove, either.

^_^ Why can't an over-abundance of tomatoes occur in (N. hemisphere)
October? Figs are nice. Here (zone 7b or 8), they ripen in late fall.
No problem atall filling the kitchen with the scent and steam of jam.
Tomatoes in July? I'd rather eat bees than add heat and humidity (and
labor) to an already sauna-like day. Collards are sweeter after a
frost, I understand.

Even though you are a vegetarian it is a good Idea to have
some livestock. My choices would be:

chickens, (they eat the bugs that will harm your crops
produce eggs, feathers for pillows etc. chicken dung
for fertilizer)
Geese, (intrusion detection and down for clothing
comforters etc.).
bees (pollination of your crops and a source of sugar, bees
wax for leather preservative and water proofing also
for making candles)
cashmere or angora dairy goats, (produce, milk and cheese plus
keep brush down around the place. Also while goat
droppings are not the best fertilizer it is better
than nothing, and is easy to collect (dry, doesn't smell
and can be swept up with a broom) add it to your compost
pile to decompose into your compost. Also the shearing
or combines can be used to make fine fabrics to keep you
warm in the coldest of weather. When one dies of
natural
causes you can use the hide for leather to make water
proof wind proof outer wear, like pants, jackets and
gloves. (Leather is not strong enough for shoes and
boots)

So you can see that even though you are a vegetarian you will
still
have a need for livestock.

The Independent



House Todorovich wrote:

Yes, got the idea from an old copy of TMEN.

Also you might be interested in "No Till" Agriculture for raising grains and
other food stuffs to minimize the energy expenditure vs. return on food. We
have homesteaded on as little as 3 acres, but currently have around 25.
Five would provide for the six of us. Buckwheat, 1/4 acre hand mowed, and
winnowed provided enough when stretched. I also collect acorn and make
acorn flour, and also cattail flour.

My son is almost a pure vegetarian by nature, so meat is of less importance
at our house these days. It is more of a side dish.

Grains and foraging are more important than vegetables to survival
homesteading.

Potatoes, peanuts, and Yams are also of high value.

IT is all in the calories.

Jim


Ever actually done this? or is this just an 'educated guess"?

"gregpresley" writes:

Most people would want to have eggs for an additional protein
source, but keeping chickens adds another layer of work to a
one-person operation.

Chickens are pretty easy to raise, IME, especially if they're
free-range and you don't mind losing one or two every once in a while
to things like foxes.

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

"Fran" writes:

John Seymour who is British wrote a very similar one with an almost
identical title. I think it was "Indepencce on (and?) 5 acres".

"Farming for Self-Sufficiency"

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

"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.

Where *is* the Bucket Farm guy? We need more parameters.

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)

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!