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.
I came across a two-part essay by an economist asserting that the cherished self-sufficiency goal of a few acres to have a big garden and small livestock may be unrealistic.
(Of course, this is an ECONOMIST'S viewpoint. On a Precious Metals site, no less.)
What do you think of his assertions? I have to admit I'm rethinking some of my goals about self-sufficiency:
Are you asking can you feed you and your faimly on 5 acres? With modern equipment probably. With a horse? If you only plan on liveing till your 40 or you have 10 kids to help maybe......
Well, he's an economist, and wants people investing and/or buying gold. He has a very urban mindset. There is a mindset amongst some that they can buy their way through a collapse. I find it unlikely in a serious situation.
Some issues: he bases the second article's conclusions on the amount of land required, on growing grains. Root crops such as potatoes are more efficient, and indeed the Irish showed you can survive off potatoes grown on a little land (but they also showed why you need genetic diversity in your plants).
Furthermore, I grow most of my vegetables in a garden about 20 by 40 feet now (showing it can be done, and I know many others doing the same). Now, if you need potatoes all year, obviously more room is needed (I like potatoes but I don't rely on them for my sole source of food so I don't grow as much as I could) but not a significant amount of room.
Wood heat? Obviously, outside of some Southern locations and Southern CA, you won't supply firewood on a few acres. But, you don't need to. There's wide swaths of woodlands, public lands, where you can already get firewood from (and more could be opened up, our woods are incredibly dense and overgrown here).
The idea behind having a small farm/homestead is to reduce your reliance on the outside world. Not to make a profit or be the most productive per acre producer of food. If you can grow most of your own food, you've won half the battle. You can, believe it or not, live without constant heating even in Northern New England. Get a good arctic rating sleeping bag. Trappers and others did it for years, I've spent considerable time doing so in the dead of winter in areas I couldn't be building a lot of fires (dense scrubby trees would have caught fire). In a house you're sheltered from wind and rain and such which is the worst of it. Have a large rumford fireplace and the proper cooking gear and you can build only tiny cooking fires if wood is scarce. Wear wool, fur, etc. to keep warmer.
There's people out there who'll never make it outside of a city and they should stay in cities. It frees up more land for those of us who can use it. Even 200+ years ago in frontier Vermont not everyone was a farmer for we needed tradesmen, people like blacksmiths, etc.
Something interesting to add is the model of the early New England colonies (MA, for instance). There was a village center, where people lived. Set up for defensive purposes (because of Indian raids and even raids from rival colonists). Houses close together, all in view of the meetinghouse, all easily alerted to danger. No one was to build more than a certain distance from the meeting house. If there became too many people they moved and started a new village rather than live distant from the center. Yet land outside of the village center was divided amogst the citizens to be worked. A rather efficient system. The town common in New England was once a lot more than a grassy park. It was used. Everyone had a right to use it for crops, livestock, etc. Actually in some places that right still exists though few take advantage of it.
This may be a slightly better model in many areas should a collapse happen than everyone living apart, though, I've never been the town sort myself...
Are you asking can you feed you and your faimly on 5 acres? With modern equipment probably. With a horse? If you only plan on liveing till your 40 or you have 10 kids to help maybe......
You wouldn't even need a horse on 5 acres. You wouldn't even want to work all 5 acres, only half or less. A garden, some small grain or potato fields, maybe a tiny flock of chickens (tiny, one really doesn't need a big flock for yourself, but do get a rooster to ensure continued supply), add in some fruit and nut trees in the areas not cleared, sugar maples too in good sugaring areas. Perhaps some bees. The trees wouldn't need constant care generally (if you aren't scared off by some worms in your apples), I suspect an acre or 2 of fields/gardens at the very maximum which would be no problem to work by hand with even one or two people. Of course one must have the skills to do so. Some people think they can overnight become expert growers, etc., and then they get discouraged and quit.
The life expectancy stats in the past were skewed by a high infant mortality rate. Even just knowledge of good sanitation and food safety greatly extends one's life.
It depends on where you live on how many acres you need to sustain yourself. Those articles were more about commercial farming, not a family plot to provide food supliments.
I have 10 acres now but it's way too much for me to manage. I'd like 1 acre in a rich soil environment - plenty to grow gardens, have fruit trees and some chickens. The only problem I see, is FINDING one acre of land that is zoned for agriculture in a soil rich environment.
I grew up in Oregon in the Willamette valley, everyone outside of a subdivision had gardens and fruit & nut trees and a few chicks for eggs. They were on 1-2 acres and could provide A LOT of food for themselves and friends, but the zoning laws have done away with alot of this. Plus they were small enough to manage if you worked full time like most of us do.
A guy here in GA who had an acre of land had chickens and he's had to get rid of them because of zoning.
Using the term "Little Teeny Farms" is both disrespectful and opinionated to say the least. This fella's assertions are called to question by using this title.
Many a "Victory Garden" fed entire families with produce to spare during WWII along with a few chickens, rabbits & goats or ducks.
Well, he's an economist, and wants people investing and/or buying gold. He has a very urban mindset. There is a mindset amongst some that they can buy their way through a collapse. I find it unlikely in a serious situation.
Some issues: he bases the second article's conclusions on the amount of land required, on growing grains. Root crops such as potatoes are more efficient, and indeed the Irish showed you can survive off potatoes grown on a little land (but they also showed why you need genetic diversity in your plants).
Furthermore, I grow most of my vegetables in a garden about 20 by 40 feet now (showing it can be done, and I know many others doing the same). Now, if you need potatoes all year, obviously more room is needed (I like potatoes but I don't rely on them for my sole source of food so I don't grow as much as I could) but not a significant amount of room.
Wood heat? Obviously, outside of some Southern locations and Southern CA, you won't supply firewood on a few acres. But, you don't need to. There's wide swaths of woodlands, public lands, where you can already get firewood from (and more could be opened up, our woods are incredibly dense and overgrown here).
The idea behind having a small farm/homestead is to reduce your reliance on the outside world. Not to make a profit or be the most productive per acre producer of food. If you can grow most of your own food, you've won half the battle. You can, believe it or not, live without constant heating even in Northern New England. Get a good arctic rating sleeping bag. Trappers and others did it for years, I've spent considerable time doing so in the dead of winter in areas I couldn't be building a lot of fires (dense scrubby trees would have caught fire). In a house you're sheltered from wind and rain and such which is the worst of it. Have a large rumford fireplace and the proper cooking gear and you can build only tiny cooking fires if wood is scarce. Wear wool, fur, etc. to keep warmer.
There's people out there who'll never make it outside of a city and they should stay in cities. It frees up more land for those of us who can use it. Even 200+ years ago in frontier Vermont not everyone was a farmer for we needed tradesmen, people like blacksmiths, etc.
Something interesting to add is the model of the early New England colonies (MA, for instance). There was a village center, where people lived. Set up for defensive purposes (because of Indian raids and even raids from rival colonists). Houses close together, all in view of the meetinghouse, all easily alerted to danger. No one was to build more than a certain distance from the meeting house. If there became too many people they moved and started a new village rather than live distant from the center. Yet land outside of the village center was divided amogst the citizens to be worked. A rather efficient system. The town common in New England was once a lot more than a grassy park. It was used. Everyone had a right to use it for crops, livestock, etc. Actually in some places that right still exists though few take advantage of it.
This may be a slightly better model in many areas should a collapse happen than everyone living apart, though, I've never been the town sort myself...
I'd rather bust my back working for " da boss" 12 hours a day than live in a house in winter with no heat bundled up in --wool,fur,etc------to stay warm.
Bundled up inside ones house might be your idea of ---self sufficency living-- but I don't even consider that living.
I'd rather bust my back working for " da boss" 12 hours a day than live in a house in winter with no heat bundled up in --wool,fur,etc------to stay warm.
Bundled up inside ones house might be your idea of ---self sufficency living-- but I don't even consider that living.
I only suggested that for a real collapse/emergency/SHTF/etc. to point out the possibility. Even if I had to buy firewood in the meantime it'd still be worth spending a little money for heating.
I'd rather bust my back working for " da boss" 12 hours a day than live in a house in winter with no heat bundled up in --wool,fur,etc------to stay warm.
Bundled up inside ones house might be your idea of ---self sufficency living-- but I don't even consider that living.
These are not the only two options. If you can supply an item that's in demand, you'll do just fine. I don't mention services because there's no economy of scale. Medical services would likely be an exception, but not much else. Every self-proclaimed survivalist talks about a trade of skill. I suspect that after TEOTWAWKI we'll see them coming out of the wood work. A few of the competent will earn a good living, but only a living. Wealth comes from innovation or supplying a need. You'll make more supplying rotgut whiskey than you will as the best blacksmith in the county.
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.
.
