X-post to uk.rec.gardening who are perhaps more likely to be expert in this
subject.

wrote in message
...
Where in the UK can you buy a piece of land of around 2-3 acres with a
house on it, where you can be self-sufficient, i.e. farm the land non-
commercially for your own family's needs only (without keeping any
livestock), without breaking any regulations or requiring permission?

Is there anywhere where you can get this for less than say 300K?

ISTR my self-sufficiency books said that you needed a minimum of 4 acres to
fully rotate crops and feed a family.
They were keeping a pig, though, for meat and for ploughing up the land.
I would have thought you might to keep at least chickens and bees (assuming
you regard these as livestock).

AFAIK you can use all your garden to grow food without requiring any
permission, so I presume the basic question is 'where can I get a house and
two or more acres of land for under £300K'.

If you want a wide range of growing conditions you will need to be fairly
well south, which will push the price up.
Scotland can be cheaper but you have a restricted growing season.

Lincolnshire, perhaps?

HTH

Dave R

On 03/06/10 18:58, David WE Roberts wrote:
X-post to uk.rec.gardening who are perhaps more likely to be expert in
this subject.

wrote in message
...
Where in the UK can you buy a piece of land of around 2-3 acres with a
house on it, where you can be self-sufficient, i.e. farm the land non-
commercially for your own family's needs only (without keeping any
livestock), without breaking any regulations or requiring permission?

Is there anywhere where you can get this for less than say 300K?

ISTR my self-sufficiency books said that you needed a minimum of 4 acres
to fully rotate crops and feed a family.
They were keeping a pig, though, for meat and for ploughing up the land.
I would have thought you might to keep at least chickens and bees
(assuming you regard these as livestock).

AFAIK you can use all your garden to grow food without requiring any
permission, so I presume the basic question is 'where can I get a house
and two or more acres of land for under £300K'.


Of course You can also keep chickens and rabbits without further ado.
Pigs, sheep, etc require a license, but that's not impossible either.

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:16:11 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

On 03/06/10 18:58, David WE Roberts wrote:
X-post to uk.rec.gardening who are perhaps more likely to be expert in
this subject.

wrote in message
...
Where in the UK can you buy a piece of land of around 2-3 acres with a
house on it, where you can be self-sufficient, i.e. farm the land non-
commercially for your own family's needs only (without keeping any
livestock), without breaking any regulations or requiring permission?

Is there anywhere where you can get this for less than say 300K?

ISTR my self-sufficiency books said that you needed a minimum of 4 acres
to fully rotate crops and feed a family.
They were keeping a pig, though, for meat and for ploughing up the land.
I would have thought you might to keep at least chickens and bees
(assuming you regard these as livestock).

AFAIK you can use all your garden to grow food without requiring any
permission, so I presume the basic question is 'where can I get a house
and two or more acres of land for under £300K'.


Of course You can also keep chickens and rabbits without further ado.
Pigs, sheep, etc require a license, but that's not impossible either.

I think the OP said that he didn't intend to keep livestock.

--
Frank Erskine

On 03/06/10 22:42, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:16:11 +0100, Tim wrote:


Of course You can also keep chickens and rabbits without further ado.
Pigs, sheep, etc require a license, but that's not impossible either.

I think the OP said that he didn't intend to keep livestock.


Yes, but I think that's going to be hard to be fully (or is the OP after
*mostly*) self sufficent without. You really need dairy even if you
don't eat the cow (well, not until it's getting past it). I suppose a
goat would be an more manageable option for milk. And I can't see how
you could survive without some hens (eggs and meat).



--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 03/06/10 22:42, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:16:11 +0100, Tim wrote:


Of course You can also keep chickens and rabbits without further ado.
Pigs, sheep, etc require a license, but that's not impossible either.

I think the OP said that he didn't intend to keep livestock.


Yes, but I think that's going to be hard to be fully (or is the OP after
*mostly*) self sufficent without. You really need dairy even if you don't
eat the cow (well, not until it's getting past it). I suppose a goat would
be an more manageable option for milk. And I can't see how you could
survive without some hens (eggs and meat).


In my cousin's experience, you get the eggs until the fox gets the meat. :-(

OG wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 03/06/10 22:42, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:16:11 +0100, Tim wrote:
Of course You can also keep chickens and rabbits without further ado.
Pigs, sheep, etc require a license, but that's not impossible either.
I think the OP said that he didn't intend to keep livestock.

Yes, but I think that's going to be hard to be fully (or is the OP after
*mostly*) self sufficent without. You really need dairy even if you don't
eat the cow (well, not until it's getting past it). I suppose a goat would
be an more manageable option for milk. And I can't see how you could
survive without some hens (eggs and meat).


In my cousin's experience, you get the eggs until the fox gets the meat. :-(


until you buy the factory made energy intensive shotgun, or chicken wire.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "OG"
saying something like:

In my cousin's experience, you get the eggs until the fox gets the meat. :-(

The most annoying thing is, the fox doesn't bother it's arse eating its
kills, it just keeps killing.
My neighbour lost 40 chinkens one night a couple of months ago.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:36:56 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/06/10 22:42, Frank Erskine wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:16:11 +0100, Tim wrote:


Of course You can also keep chickens and rabbits without further ado.
Pigs, sheep, etc require a license, but that's not impossible either.

I think the OP said that he didn't intend to keep livestock.


Yes, but I think that's going to be hard to be fully (or is the OP after
*mostly*) self sufficent without. You really need dairy even if you
don't eat the cow (well, not until it's getting past it). I suppose a
goat would be an more manageable option for milk. And I can't see how
you could survive without some hens (eggs and meat).


Perhaps the OP and/or his loved ones are vegetarian or vegan? He
seemed very firm in his first posting about no livestock.

Being a vegan isn't easy. I married someone strictly vegetarian who
is keen to go vegan, so I know. But many people seem to achieve a
dairy-free diet quite successfully. I couldn't do it, and it seems as
though you probably couldn't either, but the fact is that many do.

It really isn't up to us to judge what other people do or don't eat. I
don't like being put under pressure *not* to eat certain foods, and I
know that others don't like being pressured by society into eating
things that they don't believe people should eat.

On 04/06/10 11:26, Bruce wrote:

It really isn't up to us to judge what other people do or don't eat. I
don't like being put under pressure *not* to eat certain foods, and I
know that others don't like being pressured by society into eating
things that they don't believe people should eat.


I wasn't judging him, just questioning the practicalities. TNP said soya
beans - I don't honestly know if that's enough. I thought nuts were par
for the course of being a vegan too???

Chickens are usually high of the list of a truely self sufficient
lifestyle because: they're fairly easy (apart from keeping foxes off
them); they eat lots of kitchen waste; they produce 2 useful products.

Cows OTOH would be a nightmare. When the inevetible happens, having to
kill it and process that much meat in one go would be a serious
undertaking. If it were me, I'd probably develop a liking for goats or
sheeps milk at that point(!)

--
Tim Watts

Hung parliament? Rather have a hanged parliament.

Bruce wrote:
others don't like being pressured by society into eating
things that they don't believe people should eat.

Broccoli for one

"Bruce" wrote in message
...


Being a vegan isn't easy.

No, its impossible, but that doesn't stop people deluding themselves.

Bruce wrote in
:

Being a vegan isn't easy. I married someone strictly vegetarian who
is keen to go vegan, so I know. But many people seem to achieve a
dairy-free diet quite successfully.

The key difficulties are to get enough B12 and calcium. Note that
deficiencies in those take *decades* to appear, so it is entirely
possible that someone that become a vegan diet can easily appear
to be getting adequate nutrition.

Often vegans correctly state that there are many vegans in
developing countries, and they don't get B12 deficiency, so it
must be OK. It is then amusing to watch their face when they hear
the actual source of their B12. Hint: it isn't a nice thought, and
definitely is not for the squeamish. See the "dietary sources"
section of http://www.vegsoc.org/info/b12.html

Clearly B12 and calcuim can be safely obtained from "artificial"
supplements, but they can be difficult to obtain them directly from
food. If in doubt, use the USDA nutrient database to calculate
the amount of an ingredient that someone would have to eat to
get their RDA.

On Jun 3, 11:36*pm, Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/06/10 22:42, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:16:11 +0100, Tim *wrote:

You really need dairy even if you
don't eat the cow (well, not until it's getting past it). I suppose a
goat would be an more manageable option for milk. And I can't see how
you could survive without some hens (eggs and meat).

FWIW, I'm vegetarian but not vegan and while I don't take milk
(preferring the soya alternative), I eat eggs and various foods that
contain milk products. The reasons I don't want to keep livestock
include wanting to minimise the extent to which officialdom may poke
its nose in, and also because I've still got a lot to learn about
agriculture! :-) However my wife may be able to persuade me at some
point that having a cow would be worthwhile to supply milk for cheese-
making...

Michael

wrote:
On Jun 3, 11:36 pm, Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/06/10 22:42, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 21:16:11 +0100, Tim wrote:

You really need dairy even if you
don't eat the cow (well, not until it's getting past it). I suppose a
goat would be an more manageable option for milk. And I can't see how
you could survive without some hens (eggs and meat).

FWIW, I'm vegetarian but not vegan and while I don't take milk
(preferring the soya alternative), I eat eggs and various foods that
contain milk products. The reasons I don't want to keep livestock
include wanting to minimise the extent to which officialdom may poke
its nose in, and also because I've still got a lot to learn about
agriculture! :-) However my wife may be able to persuade me at some
point that having a cow would be worthwhile to supply milk for cheese-
making...


Goats easier for amateurs, and don't need grass: will browse all sorts
of crap and turn it into 'interesting' lactates.

Just don't feed them newspaper or silage..

Michael

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying
something like:

However my wife may be able to persuade me at some
point that having a cow would be worthwhile to supply milk for cheese-
making...

Having done it in the past, I can recommend keeping a goat or two for
milk, meat, and keeping the grass trimmed. They're not too hard to keep
and are fairly tough creatures for the most part. Just don't let them
near any rhododendrons though - they love them, but the leaves are
fatal.