Homestead mailing list

["Lynda" <lurine AT com-pair.net>]

The would be a change of the definition that was in effect many long years
ago.  The "old" definition was that a homestead would support the
homesteader and the homesteaders' needs.  Thus, if the homesteader needs
cash to pay property taxes, then the homestead should in some form or
another supply the means of providing the money to pay the taxes.

It becomes a business, agri-business or otherwise when the intent is simply
to make money, not make money to support the needs of the homestead and the 
homesteader.

If the intent is to trade to supply a need that the homestead itself can't 
provide for, then that would still be homesteading.  Thus the example of 
raising the beef to trade for the honey or . . . would be part of the "true" 
homestead model.

I have my great-grandfather's diaries.  He was quite prolific in his
recordkeeping and dairy writing.  The model used then was to raise, on the
homestead, what you need and what would be needed to provide for the 
homesteader and his family.

There is no way that any sustanunce homesteader can grow absolutely 
everything they need.  Sooner or later you need something that can't be 
grown on your particular piece of ground.  There are things that can't be 
traded for in the modern world.  The local hardware store isn't going to 
trade you a roll of field fencing for a few steaks.

So, the intent to raise something with the intent to sell for cash is not a 
defining moment.  The defining moment is whether or not the intent to sell 
for cash is simply a means of acquiring money, not cash for taxes, or cash 
for field fencing, or cash for something you can't raise or barter for.

Lynda
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Clansgian AT wmconnect.com>
> Cathy, the distinction I make, and it is not always a popular one, is that
> if
> one goes about on a small farm to raise some farm product with the full
> intent of not using it themselves (or all of it themselves) and instead
> raise it
> with the full intention of selling it for cash, that is a business and in
> my
> parlance it is not a function of a homestead.
>
> Some people on this list (for examples) repair cars for their cash needs,
> others do editing, others write, some have sold houses, I myself work wood
> and
> specifically am a luthier.
>
> When I speak of homesteading I divide in my reckoning what people do as
> their
> direct use economy including what they do with the invevitable but not
> always
> intentional surpluses (on the one hand) and what they do as a business (on
> the other hand).  I don't address the two the same way, don't hold that
> the the
> same principles apply.
>
> I know that many don't agree with this taxonomy.  To many just raising
> farm
> products for your own use is homesteading 'lite' but going into some
> agricultural sideline for cash is the heavy duty homesteading, Real McCoy!
>
> But the way I view it, when one engages in mini-farming as part of one's
> cash
> income, that's just another job or vocation they have chosen the same as
> many
> of us have chosen something else.  More power to them, and no mistake.
>
> This comparison might get muddy, but bear with me.  One of the financial
> guru's, one Dave Ramsey that many here probably know of, used to field
> calls on a
> regular basis where the caller would say to the effect of "I can make 12%
> on
> this stock but my mortgage is 6%.  I have an extra $50K, doesn't it make
> more
> sense to buy the stock rather than pay off my mortgage?"  Ramsey's answer
> is
> "If your mortgage were paid off, would you borrow $50K against your house
> to buy
> stocks?"  The answer is always a resounding "No way!"   But, says Ramsey,
> that's what you'd be doing.
>
> I look at farm produce as a business that way.  If I weren't raising eggs
> for
> my own consumption, would I set up in a business to raise them for cash or
> would I do something else for cash?  If I didn't have a garden for my own
> food
> supply, would I set up gardening to sell at the farmer's market for my
> cash
> income?   For me the answers to those questions is a definate 'no'!  (for
> reasons
> I'll mention below).
>
> That is, setting up in a business to sell beef, or eggs, or vegetables
> must
> stand alone as an enterprise.  I don't view it as "super" homesteading or
> "real" homesteading or "complete" homesteading to earn one's cash from
> farming
> rather than from some other type of work.
>
> A person can well be a homesteader (in my use of the word) and a small
> farmer
> at the same time.  It makes all the sense in the world that if you are
> going
> to attempt to pay your cash bills as a small farmer, you would take
> advantage
> of the direct use aspect of your work and products as well.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> But here is why I have, let me say, a reserved view about that.  A few
> years
> ago the gardens came into a new level of fertility as a result of fifteen
> years of composting and mulching.  Probably not 50%  of what was grown
> that year
> was eaten, preserved, fed to animals, of given away.  Moreover, by hiving
> my
> own swarms, I had (through no particular plant to do so) gotten up to 13
> bee
> hives.  Ditto too many chickens etc, etc.
>
> So the following two years we loaded up the vehicle once or twice a week
> and
> hauled all and sundry to the farmers' market.  We offered vegetables,
> honey,
> eggs, and bread.  Probably some other stuff, it was  a while ago.  We made
> pretty good there but we earned it.  And a little math showed why:
>
> By coincidence those two years were the record years for the percent of
> income spent on food.  By the reckoning used, the average family was
> spending 6.25
> percent of their income on food.  Now suppose you wanted to make the
> average
> income of those families by selling food to them.  You would have to raise
> all
> the food that 16 families ate in order to have the full income of one of
> those
> families!   Times are a bit harder now than in those particular years.
> Last
> year using the same formula families spent 8.75% of their total income on
> food.  Still, to have the average income of those families, you have to
> supply the
> equivalent of  all the food needed by nearly twelve families.
>
> No doubt that this percentage will go up in coming years.  It may even go
> up
> to the point that the surplus from sustainable homesteading might yield
> quite
> a bit more of the homesteader's cash income.
>
> Using completely sustainable, no cash methods of raising food, I can
> probably
> grow enough for three families without it being all that much more work
> than
> I do for one (my own).  But soon there comes point past which my primitive
> methods become much less "efficient" in terms of producing more and more
> food.
> So if I wanted to feed seven or ten or the whole twelve families, I'd have
> to
> begin to use machines, purchased fertilizer, maybe even pesticides and
> such.
> All that costs money that has to be paid for from the sell of farm
> produce.
> Now I am not only trying to raise the food for twelve or more families,
> but also
> enough to cover my expenses and that can mean twice to three times as much
> total produce.
>
> This is the point at which the model begins to look a lot like an
> agribusiness model to me, that is, cash is required to keep the output
> higher than the
> natural output of the land in order to have even more cash coming in to
> support
> the next round.
>
> Since those summers of the farmer's market (and subsequent summer of
> produce
> by subscription), I have scaled back my operation to plan on having not
> more
> than four times what we can use directly.  It doesn't always work out,
> sometimes it ends up being ten times.  But by and large the number of
> animals, fruit
> pantings, and gardens represent about four times what we can reasonably
> use in
> a year.  This allows for some pretty miserable failures (up to 75%) and we
> still have plenty.   Most of the rest will usually be fed to animals or
> composted.  For example, almost all the surplus milk and milk products are
> fed to the
> hogs.  If we get too many hogs out of that deal, they will be sold as meat
> by
> subscription.  But we don't plan on doing that.
>
> There's quite a bit of cash income from surplus actually.  But it is
> casual
> income and purely opportunistic.
>
> If you choose to go into food production as a business, then great!  More
> power to you.  But do not take umbrage that in my comments and writing I
> do not
> include that as in integral part of the definition of homesteading.  I
> will
> always view it as something different with good reasons and experience for
> holding that view.
>
> James
> _______________________________________________
> Homestead list and subscription:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/homestead
> Change your homestead list member options:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/homestead/lurine%40com-pair.net
> View the archives at:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/homestead
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.2/1873 - Release Date: 1/3/2009
> 2:14 PM