Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My grandparents were as close to full self-suffeciency as you can get, but I do not think it can be done today. With the increased regulation of farming and licensing of any and all operations, it would be a logistical, legal, nightmare today.
And then there was the liability of it all. Back in there day, people took responsibility for themselves which is something that does not happen today. For instance they made a fair amount of money taking the cream from their Jersey cows and making butter and selling it at a local store. Regulation and liability today would preclude anyone from doing that. Perhaps as their main enterprise, but it took my Grandparents doing chickens, cows, sheep, logging, and a greenhouse to pull it all off. There was no way they go through all the regulations today to do a little butter making enterprise...along with doing everything else. Bcause they were left alone, they could do a lot of little things, in conjunction with some bigger operations, to pull it off. And they did it without putting liability insurance on anything that they could get sued for.
And then there is the magical quesion...could spouses today match the same devotion and vision as their husbands and wives? Back in the golden age of homesteading, divorce was unheard of, and just leaving was not an option a lady had. Today they have that choice and at some point a couple will disagree on the direction to take and argue about the worlds lazy conviencies.
The sad truth is our society today has just become too complex and that is our true undoing. I see this as a farmer myself. I should be able to put a ram behind my ewes, some hay in front of them, and make a simple living off the sold lambs. Now I am forced to be a soil scientist, vet, businessman, accountant, mechanic and botanist. And even then, I know my wife could never make the hard life style changes that needs to be made to live a full self sufficient life. I am not so sure I could.
As for the Amish...they should never be looked at as self-suffecient because they are the complete opposite. They are socialism at its best at a microscopic scale. It could never be duplicated on a large scale obviously, but self-suffecient they are not!
as far as refrigeration, you can get by without it. traditionally, food was preserved through drying, canning/pickling, root cellars, and freezing (for people who lived in places with winters and had access to snow and ice). you can also use salting or storing food in animal fat (people in this part of the world used to store their gathered greens in seal oil, it is very effective).
another old trick of making food last is through soup (ever wonder why soup was such a common dinner in older times?). if you have vegetables or meats on the verge of going bad, you make a soup out of them. boiling for 10+ minutes will kill anything that might harm you. so you make your soup, and you make it large, and leave the leftovers on the stove (covered). the next night, you boil for another 10 minutes and serve again. i did this for a week at a time at one of the off-grid places i've lived (i.e. same pot of soup for a week, never refrigerated).
if you have dairy animals, cheese is another great way of preserving food. if you can do it with a good rind on there, you've got some dairy that'll last a very long time (assuming it's not left somewhere warm).
ChrisC, I like your ideas alot. Could you elaborate on having no refrigeration please?
Well, another post beat me to the answer, but my eventual goal is to have a functioning root cellar, and of course canning and drying. The thing with a root cellar is that once it's constructed, it's free. No power needed. Also, I prefer colder climates, so in the winter, at least, keeping things cold wouldn't be a problem.
Overall, it's not that I want to do everything the 'hard' way or be completely primitive, but I'm convinced that many older technologies that were replaced by the way we do things now really were not so bad (maybe just a bit more work) and far cheaper and energy efficient (many need no energy at all--like the root cellar). Once I started looking into and thinking about them... well they make sense if one is just able to 're-evaluate' the assumptions that are drilled into our modern brains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrokenTap
My grandparents were as close to full self-suffeciency as you can get, but I do not think it can be done today. With the increased regulation of farming and licensing of any and all operations, it would be a logistical, legal, nightmare today.
And then there was the liability of it all. Back in there day, people took responsibility for themselves which is something that does not happen today. For instance they made a fair amount of money taking the cream from their Jersey cows and making butter and selling it at a local store. Regulation and liability today would preclude anyone from doing that. Perhaps as their main enterprise, but it took my Grandparents doing chickens, cows, sheep, logging, and a greenhouse to pull it all off. There was no way they go through all the regulations today to do a little butter making enterprise...along with doing everything else. Bcause they were left alone, they could do a lot of little things, in conjunction with some bigger operations, to pull it off. And they did it without putting liability insurance on anything that they could get sued for.
And then there is the magical quesion...could spouses today match the same devotion and vision as their husbands and wives? Back in the golden age of homesteading, divorce was unheard of, and just leaving was not an option a lady had. Today they have that choice and at some point a couple will disagree on the direction to take and argue about the worlds lazy conviencies.
The sad truth is our society today has just become too complex and that is our true undoing. I see this as a farmer myself. I should be able to put a ram behind my ewes, some hay in front of them, and make a simple living off the sold lambs. Now I am forced to be a soil scientist, vet, businessman, accountant, mechanic and botanist. And even then, I know my wife could never make the hard life style changes that needs to be made to live a full self sufficient life. I am not so sure I could.
As for the Amish...they should never be looked at as self-suffecient because they are the complete opposite. They are socialism at its best at a microscopic scale. It could never be duplicated on a large scale obviously, but self-suffecient they are not!
Sounds like your grandparents were very similar to mine. Seems it was fairly common back then.
I think the number one stumbling block to living a more self-sufficient lifestyle now, which our grandparents had to put up with a lot less, is government regulations, codes, rules, fees, taxes, red tape, etc. You practically need a permit to wipe your own butt these days... and call an inspector . Seriously, though, even if you own your land, you still pay rent (property tax) in almost every county and/or municipality in the US. The only exceptions I can find are interior Alaska (in unincorporated regions) and certain townships in Upper Peninsula Michigan (which is really just a reduction of specific types of taxes and could change at any time). If we could get the government out of our hair on this matter, we could do a lot of things.
Yeah I agree. I live in Maine so property taxes are a HUGE problem. There are government programs that reduce the overall burden, but that also means you have to bow to their wishes. :-(
I think the common denominator in succesful enterprises is in working together...not in the commune type of way, but finding like-minded people and working together. On a homestead there is a huge workload and if you can team up and share labor and equipment costs, it goes a long ways towards success.
I am a tribute to what I say. My sheep operation has never lost money because I do this. My family has a dairy farm and so they lease part of my farm for corn and haylage crops. This has high protein grasses and grows corn very well due to the soil. So the dairy farm really needs these fields. I could use the land to feed my sheep, but they do not need such good feed. So instead we trade, I feed my sheep by less then stellar fields that the dairy farm has, and use their big equipment to get it. By working together the farm gets bonuses for high protein milk, and I can fed my sheep for free. Working together we make both farms more economical.
The problem is, for most self-sufficient people, they are independent and want to do things all by themselves. The harsh reality is, they really can't do that, at least not if they want to be fully self-suffecient. But by finding local, like-minded people you will be better off. Let them raise an extra pig in their pig pen for you, and you in turn can raise a few extra sheep for them. Since it takes the same amount of time to feed 25 sheep as it does 4, well you are not overwhelming yourselves like you would ifyou have o feed 6 sets of different animals since all need to be fed differently and have different needs. This is what our grandparents did and why they were more succesful. Of course they also had children in litters which helped as well. :-)
From what I have seen o the surface farmers look to be self sufficent but looking closer they are dependent on the governamnt to a large degree. I had a uncle who owned a dairy farm and without government he could not have made it . I also know many here in Texas who thru the years have changed thier production on their ranches as government policy changed. For instances :I knew some that raise angora sheep because for decacdes after WWII the government guarantee buy the wool . That ended and they went to cattle farming. The of course they never could afford that land still if they did not get huge tax breaks. It even gets down to the plates on their vehiles.Just a look at recent farm bills shows the support in huge.
My grandparents were as close to full self-suffeciency as you can get, but I do not think it can be done today. With the increased regulation of farming and licensing of any and all operations, it would be a logistical, legal, nightmare today.
And then there was the liability of it all. Back in there day, people took responsibility for themselves which is something that does not happen today. For instance they made a fair amount of money taking the cream from their Jersey cows and making butter and selling it at a local store. Regulation and liability today would preclude anyone from doing that. Perhaps as their main enterprise, but it took my Grandparents doing chickens, cows, sheep, logging, and a greenhouse to pull it all off. There was no way they go through all the regulations today to do a little butter making enterprise...along with doing everything else. Bcause they were left alone, they could do a lot of little things, in conjunction with some bigger operations, to pull it off. And they did it without putting liability insurance on anything that they could get sued for.
And then there is the magical quesion...could spouses today match the same devotion and vision as their husbands and wives? Back in the golden age of homesteading, divorce was unheard of, and just leaving was not an option a lady had. Today they have that choice and at some point a couple will disagree on the direction to take and argue about the worlds lazy conviencies.
The sad truth is our society today has just become too complex and that is our true undoing. I see this as a farmer myself. I should be able to put a ram behind my ewes, some hay in front of them, and make a simple living off the sold lambs. Now I am forced to be a soil scientist, vet, businessman, accountant, mechanic and botanist. And even then, I know my wife could never make the hard life style changes that needs to be made to live a full self sufficient life. I am not so sure I could.
As for the Amish...they should never be looked at as self-suffecient because they are the complete opposite. They are socialism at its best at a microscopic scale. It could never be duplicated on a large scale obviously, but self-suffecient they are not!
just curious why do you say they are not self sufficient?
Yeah I agree. I live in Maine so property taxes are a HUGE problem. There are government programs that reduce the overall burden, but that also means you have to bow to their wishes. :-(
I think the common denominator in succesful enterprises is in working together...not in the commune type of way, but finding like-minded people and working together. On a homestead there is a huge workload and if you can team up and share labor and equipment costs, it goes a long ways towards success.
I am a tribute to what I say. My sheep operation has never lost money because I do this. My family has a dairy farm and so they lease part of my farm for corn and haylage crops. This has high protein grasses and grows corn very well due to the soil. So the dairy farm really needs these fields. I could use the land to feed my sheep, but they do not need such good feed. So instead we trade, I feed my sheep by less then stellar fields that the dairy farm has, and use their big equipment to get it. By working together the farm gets bonuses for high protein milk, and I can fed my sheep for free. Working together we make both farms more economical.
The problem is, for most self-sufficient people, they are independent and want to do things all by themselves. The harsh reality is, they really can't do that, at least not if they want to be fully self-suffecient. But by finding local, like-minded people you will be better off. Let them raise an extra pig in their pig pen for you, and you in turn can raise a few extra sheep for them. Since it takes the same amount of time to feed 25 sheep as it does 4, well you are not overwhelming yourselves like you would ifyou have o feed 6 sets of different animals since all need to be fed differently and have different needs. This is what our grandparents did and why they were more succesful. Of course they also had children in litters which helped as well. :-)
This is exactly right. And it used to be so common in rural America--that cooperative attitude. Many people equate it with communism or socialism. That's silly. There's a big difference in cooperating with others because you want to and being forced to 'cooperate.' In rural areas, the people often came together for the big jobs that needed doing every year and would have been very time consuming for one person or a few: harvests, etc. Also, they helped each other build: barn raisings, houses, etc. Then you had the farmer's cooperatives where you pool your different types of grains, corn, potatoes, flour was milled, etc. Then everyone gets a little of what they need rather than being stuck with only 40 acres worth of potatoes for winter. I, too, think that cooperative community attitude is critical for this sort of lifestyle; and I happen to think that it's far superior to the replacement we have come up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
From what I have seen o the surface farmers look to be self sufficent but looking closer they are dependent on the governamnt to a large degree. I had a uncle who owned a dairy farm and without government he could not have made it . I also know many here in Texas who thru the years have changed thier production on their ranches as government policy changed. For instances :I knew some that raise angora sheep because for decacdes after WWII the government guarantee buy the wool . That ended and they went to cattle farming. The of course they never could afford that land still if they did not get huge tax breaks. It even gets down to the plates on their vehiles.Just a look at recent farm bills shows the support in huge.
Well, your very post points out the problem. These small farmers should not even have that ridiculous tax burden. It's only imposed to starve the small farmers out of existence so that we can have big corporations running the show... and then later complain about how 'evil' they are.
I'm all for paying taxes. What's fair is fair. BUT, I'm not for being overtaxed and being forced to participate in 'fluff' programs. I really feel that we all should be taxed on the essential services we consume that are provided by the government--and no more. That farmer who is being taxed to death: how much is he consuming and why should his taxes be so high?
Tax me for the highways I use. Tax me for the police protection, ambulance, fire, etc. Tax me for the protection the military provides for me. Tax me for the park in my town. Tax me for the snow removal and pothole repair on the local roads. Tax me for all the services I actually benefit from. But do not tax me for the other 95% of the absolute crap programs that have no business being part of the government services offered. Not only that, but taxes need to be much more localized than they are. For instance, if you choose to live in LA, then YOU should be taxed for the problems that exist there, not me. I don't live there, nor do I want to. I should be paying for my neck of the woods, not yours (with regards to the more localized services). If you feel you need all the artsy-fartsy federal programs that exist in cities such as LA, then great... but YOU need to pay for them as a resident, rather than me who will never set foot there.
Personally, I don't really agree with property taxes either, unless it's for specific services being consumed within the municipality or county (roads, water if you're using it, sewer, ect). The fewer services used, the less the tax should be. If no services are used, no tax should be imposed. The way property tax works now, you are basically paying rent to the government--even though you are supposed to own the land.
From what I have seen o the surface farmers look to be self sufficent but looking closer they are dependent on the governamnt to a large degree. I had a uncle who owned a dairy farm and without government he could not have made it . I also know many here in Texas who thru the years have changed thier production on their ranches as government policy changed. For instances :I knew some that raise angora sheep because for decacdes after WWII the government guarantee buy the wool . That ended and they went to cattle farming. The of course they never could afford that land still if they did not get huge tax breaks. It even gets down to the plates on their vehiles.Just a look at recent farm bills shows the support in huge.
------"Just a look at recent farm bills show the support in huge "--
When you looked at recent farm bills, did you notice that 67% of the expenditures goes for -------nutritional aid ?
Yup, all the govt spending for food stamos/food assistance comes out of the farm bill's budget.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Seriously, though, even if you own your land, you still pay rent (property tax) in almost every county and/or municipality in the US. The only exceptions I can find are interior Alaska (in unincorporated regions) and certain townships in Upper Peninsula Michigan (which is really just a reduction of specific types of taxes and could change at any time). If we could get the government out of our hair on this matter, we could do a lot of things.
