Ok, Just to keep things lively I thought I'd add a few more questions to the list. Here is the first? Asuming that JOJ's predictions about population were to come true and the world became very crowded, How much land is absolutely necessary to produce most of your own food? Keep in mind that should an eventuality to come true our eating habits would have to change.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), April 19, 2000

Answers

There is a book called Full Circle, by David Duhon, that claims you can grow a complete,vegetarian diet in less than 1,000 square feet. The diet looks complete,but somewhat limited and boring to me.If we didn't have livestock, or had only chickens or ducks,we could probably grow a complete diet for our family of 5 on our five acres.That would be more interesting than the diet in the book, because I would include fruits and berries,eggs,with a little extra land you could keep a goat for milk and cheese.

-- Rebekah (daniel1@transport.com), April 19, 2000.

If the "experts" are correct, the population of the US alone will double in the next 25 years. And even fewer years to double again after that. Just think of what the rest of the world is doing.

If things got that crowded we would no longer be able to live such separate lives. Families or friends would have to band together in communal groups to raise food in limited space. If my immediate family banded together there would be 15 of us. We could raise all our own vegetables on a couple of acres. A couple of goats ,a dozen chickens, would get us by nicely. A little meat for those of us who are not vegetarians, but not as much as we are used to. I wonder how many acres it would take to support all those animals?

The kicker would be our winter, which would require some acres of renewable firewood to get us through the 9 heating months. My guess for us and animals would be about 30 acres- remember the woodlot. Then I'd have to add in a percentage for swampland- there's a lot of that here, too. Now I'm up to 40 acres. Very interesting question. Life will definitely be different.

-- Peg (wildwoodfarms@hushmail.com), April 19, 2000.

This is very interesting. A few years ago I picked up an old 70's issue of TMEN. In it there was this guy being interveiwed by the plowboy who predicted that by a few years ago the world would run out of space. Didn't happen. So last year or the year before they interveiwed the same guy to ask why it didn't happen. The guy hemmed and hawed around and basically said it was still going to happen, he'd just been wrong about the time. Population is self-controlling. God made it that way. When there gets to be to many people on the earth disease will control the population. I would say though that until then enough food to feed your family could be taken from 1acre of well used space. In the type of situation I am talking about large farm animals won't have enough space. Your looking at rabbits,fish, and chickens. maybe a goat if your lucky.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), April 19, 2000.

In the book, How To Grow More Vegetables* than you ever thought possible on less land than you can imagine, John Jeavons says that he believes with "biointensive" methods, you could grow all the food -- for a varied diet, including some animal products, I think -- for one person on about 4,000 square feet. Now, I would say double that, or even triple, because he's gardening in Southern California and has a much longer growing season than most places. And if you need wood to heat or cook, then you would have to add that into the amount. There are ways of being more efficient -- it's possible even in fairly cold climates to build a house that doesn't require much supplemental heat, and it is possible to use solar cookers part of the time. There are varieties of trees that can be planted that will produce firewood more quickly than average, though I don't think any of them rate really high as firewood -- and Russian Masonry stoves are very efficient, burning even twigs and waste paper, and using much less wood than a regular stove. It would be a challenge, but I think a family could produce almost all their food and fuel on five acres, possibly even a little less. Now, if you want to grow fiber for clothing, that would add a little more to your acreage, and we would all learn to 1. take better care of our clothing, and 2. make do with a much smaller wardrobe!! But I doubt that this is something we will see happen in our lifetimes, though (if Jesus hasn't come back by then), our grandchildren might see it. I wouldn't say it couldn't happen here, because we aren't exempt from the kind of overcrowding that afflicts other countries -- but there are some other factors involved in those other countries problems, too. It isn't just over- population.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), April 19, 2000.

How much land is needed is entirely conditional. If you have a good, dependable source of water and fertile soil, it will take far less land than if you are trying to farm in poor, dry soil. Actually, I am prone to agree with the above statement that populations are self- regulating. Sooner or later, despite antibiotics, a disease will come along and wipe out a large segment of the population. Or we will have another World War that wipes out millions of people. It is the way of things. Populations have risen and fallen just like civilizations have risen and fallen throughout the ages.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

Read the "Have More Plan"

-- Hendo (OR) (redgate@echoweb.net), April 20, 2000.

I think God has a hand in everything, but he has also given us free will and people use that free will to continue to bread like rabbits. WE may not see real crowding, but I see areas that were rural just a few years ago that are exploding down here where I live (and much to the dismay to the long time residents). One small town about forty miles from here is fighting a Wal-mart service center, which will make the traffic in their area become "real traffic". My sons are 20 and 22, so, it's their children (if they have any, but that generation anyway) will certainly be affected by crowding. It's coming, it's just a matter of time. I have two acres, I can probably get by with that for a good garden, some chickens for eggs and I might consider a goat for milk and cheese. Can't eat an animal that I knew.

Blessings,

Judy Murray

-- Judy Murray (jmurray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu), April 20, 2000.

Anybody have enough ambition to keep good records for a year or two (or more) of what they grow, how much they get from it, from how much land? Not necessarily to actually try to raise all your food, but just to get an idea of what it would take if you really had to? (I know we are all supposed to keep good records, but how many actually do :-) It might be useful information to have sometime.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), April 20, 2000.

I think if you included large animals and extended family, my family could get by on 20 acres, including woodlot and homes. I have around 20 people in my extended family, and no one is a vegetarian. With 6 acres set aside for large animals, about 4 cows, 3 pigs raised in confinement next to the barn, two dozen chickens in tractors on the garden and 1/4 acre set aside for each house (4), 2 acres for vegetable gardens, and 2 for field crops, the rest for barns, woodlot, etc. My extended family is very close emotionally, so leaving anyone out is out of the question. It would be much more crowded than I would like, but with all of the extra hands, (the ones that are really lazy have all moved away) we could make do with hand tools and no horses or other draft animals, and tractors waste too much room when every little bit counts. By the way the list is 2 elderly, 2 with grown kids (my parents), 4 with small kids, and 10 kids ages 13 to 1. annette

-- annette (j_a_henry@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

I have no experience with large animals. Just out of curiosity does anyone know how much land is considered necessary to support a cow? How many acres for hay, corn, etc. For the smaller animals I would need grains, and some grains for breads.

-- Peg (wildwoodfarms@hushmail.com), April 20, 2000.

Just thought I would point out that if the world became a crisis of over-crowding and we had to supply all of our own food, we would also have to consider replacing the large animals as they were eaten or died from other causes which means you would have to allow for breeding stock as well. Chickens and rabbits are obviously not that difficult but pigs and cows are because of their size and eating requirements. You also have to consider that you would need enough to ensure you had at least one of each sex so you couldn't just keep a breeding pair because if you lost one or the other you may not have a young offspring of the same sex to replace it. It is interesting when you think about situations like this that we don't always think of the total picture because we are not actually faced with the reality. If food was this scarce, no one would be willing to sell you one of their animals because they would need them themselves or the price would be too high for you to afford. I just thought I would throw this factor into the equation as well because the solutions are not quite as simple as they appear on the surface.

-- Colleen (pyramidgreatdanes@erols.com), April 20, 2000.

Well, as others have pointed out how much land you need to grow all of your own food will be strongly dependent on the nature of the land - its fertility, rain-fall, months of growing season and so on.

If I absolutely, positively had to I'm confident I could grow absolutely all the food my present family of three would need for a year on one acre of decent North Florida land. This would include a limited amount of animal protein. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I think it could be done.

Fortunately the U.S. population at present is fairly low when you consider the total square miles of nation divided by the total population. Of course, not all of that land is arable but there is still a vast amount of arable land not being used. This is mainly because it's not economically feasible to farm it but that can change. Now whether we really *want* to go that route is another matter entirely.

Any animal population (including we humans) *is* self-controlling. It's the *method* of control that's important. Given enough population growth and a static amount of resources (no new sources of materials or new technology to make more efficient use of what we have now) and eventually we'll achieve a steady-state population and then we'll have some hiccup in the system and the population will catastrophically crash. That's the Malthusian solution to population control and it works by die off, in the millions as we have it now or in the billions as it could be if things really go to heck. Dr. Malthus will always have the last laugh. Better to not let it get to that point because even folks with a sustainable homestead may be challenged to stay alive.

From what I read the U.S. population would probably be in a mild state of decline right at the moment were it not for all forms of immigration. That, however, is another problem entire.

.........Alan.

The Prudent Food Storage FAQ, v3.5

http://www.ProvidenceCo-op.com

-- A.T. Hagan (athagan@netscape.netq), April 20, 2000.

Peg, in answer to your question on how much land does it take for large animals, that depends on your land. Land in East Texas will support one momma cow and one calf/acre and a half in a good year, with hay being supplied in winter. Land at Lincoln, New Mexico, will support one cow/20 acres. If you are interested in keeping animals in a specific area, you really need to contact the county extension agent in that area and ask him. Or you might be able to find the information on a university website in the state you are interested in. The same will apply to the production of grain.

As to grain, you need to find out how many pounds of grain per animal is necessary for whatever type of animal you would like to keep. Then you would need to find out the average rate of production/acre for that type of grain in your area. And then you would need to add at least 25% to it for the years the yield is below average.

-- Green (ratdogs10@yahoo.com), April 20, 2000.

I think that all our talk about the U.S. population and what such impact that has is moot, since the rest of the world is breeding like rabbits (yes, I am the one who said that). It is a global system, and like it or not, we will pay the consequences for the weight of all the extra people.

As forum regulars know, I am very much for local involvement in problem solving. However, we are truly at God's mercy when it comes to globally raising the awareness of the rest of the world (by that I mean some 3rd and 4th world countries).

Do you really think rampant disease and resistance to antibiotics is respective of the concept of sovereign nations?

-- (rborgo@gte.net), April 21, 2000.

Make that respectful, not repective. Been a long night. Thanks.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), April 21, 2000.

I didn't get to read all the other replies so I may be repeating what's already been said, but I did a bit of research on the topic a few years ago and came up with each human requiring approximately 4.5 acres to survive with any degree of sanity. (Approximated land required:) 1 acre for septic and waste treatment; 2 acres for trees to produce oxygen, firewood, and lumber; a quarter acre for housing and recreation; a quarter acre for food production; and another acre combined with the first 3.5 for rainfall and other minor necessities. Quantities of oxygen may come from the oceans, but we also must have inland production as well. Water is already in short supply across the world including the USA. Irregardless of how many gallons can currently be had from a tap or well, it won't last forever (20-40 years tops until at critical levels). Our current world population has already pushed below the 5 acre per person level. As more people are born, our standard of living must decrease. The only reason we here in the USA haven't seen many serious troubles resulting from over-crowding is that city dwellers have already accepted living on less than an eighth acre as 'normal'. Society exists because city dwellers allow themselves to be herded into cubicles, fed chemical-laced food, and given chemical-laced water (exactly how we treat cattle in feed lots). In my opinion, each human should have a minimum of 40 acres, preferably 1,000 plus. When figuring needs for wild animals to exist alongside of man, the 40 acre figure is minimal. Again, thank city dwellers for their acceptance of being within sneezing distance of each other. Without their willingness to live without privacy, all life on earth would suffer.

Larry

-- Larry (sesquiq@mail.com), April 21, 2000.

Did you know that the entire population of the world, six billion people could fit into the state of Texas. Texas' area is 262,000 square miles divided by six billion. Each family of five would have 6085 square feet, leaving the rest of the entire world completely empty. Now we could do that, but I prefer the current system don't you.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), April 21, 2000.

Just thought I'd add that by doubling the population you can still put every member of earths population into texas by halving 6085. This assumes that nobody lives in multi-unit housing of more than one story. The myth of over population is an exercise in people wanting to control their fellow man. Government's use it th maintain their control over their citizens. Do the math. No matter how you look at this it is balogna.

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), April 21, 2000.

Larry, you must have some septic system, or very poor soils. But here's a related question: What is the absolute minimum amount of ammunition required? What caliber? What if your name is Elian? I sense I have just invited the skunk to the garden party! GL!

-- Brad (homefixer@mix-net.net), April 22, 2000.

Read ONE STRAW REVOLUTION, by Masanobu Fukuoka.........5-10 people can be fed off of the produce of 1/4 of an acre of land. That is done his way, totaly organic, totaly natural,and totaly with the mindset of "what can I not do". Thank you

-- Jimmy (Brotherfool@aol.com), December 14, 2000.

ONE STRAW REVOLUTION by Masanobu Fukuoka is really an eye-opener. Give any Fukouka book a read, they make so much sense. The concepts expressed are not expensive to implement, why not experiment in some corner of the yard, farm or ranch, the cheapest way to grow food, hands down.

-- Jerry (neljer@txcyber.com), December 14, 2000.