RE: Considering standard of living (was Re: Land of let's only talk about whats wrong with the US)

From: Barbara Lamar (barbaralamar@sanmarcos.net)
Date: Sat Aug 23 2003 - 14:14:49 MDT

  • Next message: Olga Bourlin: "Re: Considering standard of living (was Re: Land of let's only talk about whats wrong with the US)"

    Robert B wrote:

    > I would like to see someone cite some Google references on the actual
    > land area required to produce 2500 calories per day. (There seems
    > to be a lot of hand waving going on here).

    I responded with a reference to John Jeavons's book but forgot to mention my
    own experience. I've found that in central Texas, a person can grow most of
    the food needed by two people on 1/2 acre. This includes raising chickens
    and rabbits (I've heard that guinea pigs and iguanas are also efficient meat
    animals). I had to supplement what I grew with purchased grain and
    occasionally some purchased beef and fish in order to get enough calories
    and protein, and I've never personally seen anyone grow 100% of their food
    on 1/2 acre, but I've heard people (including Jeavons) claim that it can be
    done (in fact, I believe Jeavons claims it can be done on something like
    1000 square feet per person). I initially had a pond stocked with perch,
    bass and catfish, but we had a severe drought. The level of the pond got so
    low that the great blue heron who dropped by every day for breakfast could
    wade across the whole thing. If I'd had a well stocked pond or tank, I think
    we probably could have gotten along without purchasing additional food.
    Ponds are incredibly efficient food producers, since the entire volume is
    productive, not just the surface area. However, by layering crops, you can
    achieve something of the same effect on land (e.g. growing lettuce and other
    somewhat shade tolerant vegetable crops under fruit trees and by training
    vining plants such as squash and melon on trellises or fences).

    Seed crops, although they have a high calorie content per pound of grain,
    are not square foot efficient (although some grain crops, such as hemp,
    might be square foot efficient when you consider the fiber value as well as
    the value of the seed [the medicinal or recreational value of hemp leaves is
    artificially high and would be negligible in the absence of drug laws]). One
    of the most square foot efficient calorie crops here is the sweet potato
    (especially if the vines are trained up a trellis or fence). Irish potatoes
    aren't bad either, although we have a limited growing season -- gets too hot
    from May on, and you can't set them out in the spring until February,
    because they're frost sensitive. Mesquite beans are also efficient if you
    consider that the roots of the mesquite tree fix atmospheric nitrogen in the
    soil, and the leaves produce a very light shade, so you can grow other crops
    directly underneath. Of course agribusiness farmers consider mesquite trees
    to be the work of the devil, because they're almost impossible to kill, and
    they interfere with the heavy equipment.

    Barbara



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 23 2003 - 14:27:20 MDT