Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Globalism

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Clansgian AT wmconnect.com
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Globalism
  • Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 10:01:54 EST



> Perfectly possible and is being done. Just takes work! Just have to give
> up dairy, beef and pork. Switch to chicken and rabbit as the meat source.

Yes. Exactly.

The argument against most of the world producing MOST of its own food and
goods goes along the lines of your argument, Gene. But the posit bears
closer
scrutiny.

How much space does it take to supply MOST of a family's food (fuel, fiber)??
I live on twenty acres, but I have less than half an acre under cultivation
in the form of gardens, grain plots, and orchards. That provides those
products for six, some to extended family (maybe 20 people), some to sell
(surplus), and lots to go toward maintaining the animals. Also there are
about 11
acres total in pasture and hay fields, this provides milk, meat, hides, eggs,
and
power (draft animals).

Do we divide my half acre into the total arable land? Do we divide my 11
acres into the total of grazing land and the rest into forrest land to see
how
much there is available per person. No. Because when you look up my farm on
an
agricultural map, you find that the amount of agricultural land in this end
of the county (and for a 100 miles east) is zero. It is classified as
marginal
forrest and so does not deduct from the pool of land at all.

Why? Because huge motorized farm equipment is useless here. One of my most
productive hay plots is Freya's Field. It is a triangle about 600 feet long
and 60 feet wide at the widest jambed between the paved road and the first
creek. The topsoil is about 4" thick and under that are head sized alluvial
stones, that is, unsuited for anything by hay. Yet the sandy matrix around
those
stones wicks up water and the place, with a little manure and a little lime,
grows several thick cuttings of hay per season. It's the work of two
mornings
for two people with scythes to cut it and another afternoon to gather the dry
hay and put it into stacks.

Yet in your formula it doesn't exist. Chickens here roam the forrest slope
so steep it would give a billy goat a nose bleed and rabbits are fed from
dock
and clover and lambs quarter growing by the road ditches and forrest edges.
The Jersy cow browses scrub pine and the attack donkey is partial to the
lichens and moss that grow by the creek banks and cold side of the hill. In
the
reckoning of total farmland divided by total population, they nor their
domain
exist.

More than 80% of our household (heating and cooking) fuel comes from dead
trees and deadfall limbs. We've never cut a live tree. And yet as far as a
fuel
source, our forrest plot is classified as having the potential to yield none.

And the crux of the this question rests on the mistaken notion that
agribusiness is more efficient than horticulture. It decidedly is not in
terms of the
food and fiber and fuel produced from the given space and resources.

So three things need added to the formula:

1) How much space is really needed? As Lynda has pointed out, if you forego
the beef and pork and eat chicken and rabbit, 90% of your diet can come from
a
very small place.

2) Most of the land that could be cultivated like this is not counted as
potential farm land at all.

3) Horticultural cultivation is vastly more efficient than machine based
agribusiness in terms of resources needed for a given amount of produce.
</HTML>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page