The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 29, 2009, 11:45:48 PM

Title: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 29, 2009, 11:45:48 PM
We're talking about collapse-of-civilization type scenario - you got land and nothing else.  What do you plant?

Think of those categories as somewhat broad: zucchinis / pumpkins go with squash, broccoli / Brussels sprouts / kale go with cabbage, pears go with apples, etc.

I put the most popular cereals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cereal#Production) on top, but I think they're pretty hard to grow / harvest alone. 

This poll goes by what your primary source of carbs would be (calories from non-animal sources).  For most people that comes from more energy-dense crops like grains and root vegetables.  I'm not specifically listing lighter veggies like cucumbers or onions - they make excellent secondary choices, but you'd have to eat a lot of them to get enough calories for an active lifestyle.

I'm thinking - potatoes FTW!  Easy to grow in cold climates, easy to pick (without any tools / etc), relatively easy to cook, you never get tired of them, etc.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: inane on April 30, 2009, 12:02:50 AM
can you make alcohol with potatoes?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 30, 2009, 12:06:56 AM
Yessir, potato vodka.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: JWI on April 30, 2009, 12:10:43 AM
Yessir, potato vodka.

Have you ever had it?  I can't say I have, wondering how it tastes.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: inane on April 30, 2009, 12:11:05 AM
fuck yeah. Potatoes it is.


is there anything potatoes cant do?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Dylboz on April 30, 2009, 12:12:50 AM
Yessir, potato vodka.

Have you ever had it?  I can't say I have, wondering how it tastes.

It's the best Vodka. Some folks claim that it isn't even real Vodka if it doesn't come from potatoes.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 30, 2009, 12:14:54 AM
Yessir, potato vodka.
Have you ever had it?  I can't say I have, wondering how it tastes.

You know, contrary to my country of origin, I just don't have the taste for good vodka.  Don't remember the difference.  But a lot of people swear by it.  The only reason it's not more popular is traditionalism - potato vodka is a relatively recent invention.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: JWI on April 30, 2009, 12:22:57 AM
Yessir, potato vodka.
Have you ever had it?  I can't say I have, wondering how it tastes.

You know, contrary to my country of origin, I just don't have the taste for good vodka.  Don't remember the difference.  But a lot of people swear by it.  The only reason it's not more popular is traditionalism - potato vodka is a relatively recent invention.


I was gonna say that it can't be all that common.  I just checked the Ketel One and Putinka I have and it says they are both distilled from wheat.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 30, 2009, 12:32:07 AM
is there anything potatoes cant do?

They are very nutritious and have very diverse culinary applications, but there's one major downside: they're starchy and very high on the glycemic index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index).  That means they don't give you lasting energy, and eating too much of them would raise your risk of diabetes.  Shouldn't be a major problem if combined with other carb sources though.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: JWI on April 30, 2009, 12:34:03 AM
is there anything potatoes cant do?

They are very nutritious and have very diverse culinary applications, but there's one major downside: they're starchy and very high on the glycemic index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index).  That means they don't give you lasting energy, and eating too much of them would raise your risk of diabetes.  Shouldn't be a major problem if combined with other carb sources though.


Is it assumed that I would have no access or ability to raise my own meat sources such as fowl?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 30, 2009, 12:37:59 AM
Sure, why not, but meat won't offset the glycemic issue.  Beans or some leafy greens would though.

And you'll probably need to grow something other than potatoes to feed the fowl.  Pigs love boiled potatoes though, peels and all.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: JWI on April 30, 2009, 12:41:22 AM
Sure, why not, but meat won't offset the glycemic issue.  Beans or some leafy greens would though.

I already grow the beans and leafy greens.  Also some carrots, onions and radishes.  Since I live in a prime goose/duck hunting area, I'd pick off a bird once in a while to eat.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: coyote on April 30, 2009, 12:50:50 AM
I said apples for my second choice. I imagine they are not that labor intensive. What I didn't eat or trade could be turned into regular and / or hard cider very easily. The pulp that was left over could be fed to livestock.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 30, 2009, 12:56:28 AM
Actually, this article (http://www.kitchentablemedicine.com/the-top-eleven-laziest-foods-to-grow/) claims "the #1 laziest food to grow" is what I added late: squash.

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on April 30, 2009, 01:17:12 AM
Potatoes for the ease of growing, many uses, they taste great, and they are easy to store long term.

Maize because it too is easy to grow in great quantities, tastes awesome, easy to store.

I don't really like squash but you can grow a bunch all in one spot and its pretty hardy and stores great.

Also all of these are easy to harvest the seeds/kernels/eyes to replant again.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on April 30, 2009, 01:19:35 AM
In hindsite I should have voted for beans: Green Beans. Because they always grow too big and produce too much.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Ghost of Alex Libman on April 30, 2009, 10:35:11 AM
A lot depends on the climate, obviously.  Oats, potatoes, and rye do very well in the cold.  Sorghum and rice - not so much.  I've heard about some successes with rice in Vermont, but it probably requires higher tech than this scenario would allow.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on April 30, 2009, 11:25:45 AM
I sort of do grow my own food.

I garden so that i can learn skills I can use when I finally buy my own land . . . and be so poor I only have enough money to pay the quarterly property tax, so I have to grow food.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Rillion on April 30, 2009, 11:42:18 AM
Yessir, potato vodka.

Have you ever had it?  I can't say I have, wondering how it tastes.
(http://www.agjab.com/images/x375ml2.jpg)

Very tasty, not too pricey.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 11, 2009, 09:50:22 PM
So I've been a 100% vegan for the past two weeks - feeling great!  Planning on staying that way.  And not just vegan - I only eat food that can be grown economically in Coös County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coos_County,_New_Hampshire), which doesn't mean I abstain from any plants entirely, because you can grow anything in a greenhouse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse), but it does add to the cost, so I try to limit things like tropical fruits, rice, and so on.  I also avoid foods that have been processed, transported, and otherwise...  taxed.  ;)

This has lead me to start eating foods I wasn't very familiar with (not to say I've never had them, just never spent much time thinking about what I'm eating).  Today's great discovery - ye humble turnip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip)!

I don't know why potatoes replaced them in European cuisine so completely - sure, they have a much greater starch density (3x), but when comparing calorie for calorie (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=300g+turnip%2C+100g+potato) turnips have more everything: fiber, protein, calcium, vitamin C, magnesium, potassium, zinc, copper, manganese, and so on!  More importantly, they can be eaten raw or only lightly cooked, which means more vitamins stay in them!  Turnips are also more alkaline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkaline_diet) (less acidic) than potatoes, and most important of all - lower on the Glycemic Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index), especially when not overcooked!  I cooked a spicy split-pea stew with equal amounts of similarly chopped potatoes and turnips (both peeled, the latter was added later in the cooking), and I could hardly tell which was which!


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Turnip_2622027.jpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip)



(TODO:  insert witty Baldrick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldrick) joke here.)
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: blackie on November 11, 2009, 10:33:21 PM
So I've been a 100% vegan for the past two weeks
You are not using any animal products?

Leather and honey?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 11, 2009, 11:09:15 PM
I don't believe in anything even remotely connected to "animal rights".  Quite the opposite...  :lol:

I can use animal products, I just choose not to eat anything that naturally contains cholesterol (egg whites - bad; skim milk - bad; honey - OK) for health reasons.  The reasoning there is that I like large portions of food, and even if I limit myself to fish and chicken breast it still adds up to way more artery-clogging substances than nature intended.  When going vegan there are some things you just don't have to worry about, and it's easier to go 100% vegan than 90% because if you do the latter you never stop craving more meat.

It's also related to my fanatical hatred of government, and animal products are far, FAR more regulated and subsidized than plant-based foods.  It's much, MUCH easier to have an underground economy that's based on vegan agriculture - the economic advantage is staggering.  And it saves you money on doctor bills as well.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: blackie on November 11, 2009, 11:13:57 PM
So what does "100% vegan" mean?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: mikehz on November 11, 2009, 11:42:31 PM
So what does "100% vegan" mean?

It means that, for the past two weeks, they have been better and more moral than you.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on November 12, 2009, 12:04:39 AM
I have a cunning plan to eat potatoes despite blights.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Changed My Mind on November 12, 2009, 12:32:30 AM
blueberries and brusselsprouts
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on November 12, 2009, 12:44:49 AM
I didn't know you were planning on moving to Coos County.

I am. Well, at least during the NON WINTER times of the year.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 12, 2009, 12:54:34 AM
So what does "100% vegan" mean?

Zero cholesterol, no exceptions.


It means that, for the past two weeks, they have been better and more moral than you.

The only moral thing about localist veganism is that it avoids government subsidies, regulation, taxes, etc and keeps the money in the Gulcher economy.  If you like skinning kittens alive and frying them in Tabasco sauce for your own personal amusement, that is OK by me.


I have a cunning plan to eat potatoes despite blights.

Phytophthora infestans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytophthora_infestans) isn't really a problem in the 21st century thanks to better understanding of how to use organic fungicides.  And/or GE.


I didn't know you were planning on moving to Coos County.

I'm omnipresent.  And also invisible.


Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: blackie on November 12, 2009, 01:07:34 PM
So what does "100% vegan" mean?

Zero cholesterol, no exceptions.
You should probably add "diet" to "100% vegan", or use "strict/pure vegetarian" or "plant based diet".

"Vegan" by itself implies more than just diet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
Quote
Veganism is a diet and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. Vegans endeavor not to use or consume animal products of any kind.

...

Vegan diets (sometimes called strict or pure vegetarian diets) are a subset of vegetarian diets.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: atomiccat on November 12, 2009, 01:42:41 PM
I would pick Easy food to grow, like apples, pears ,peaches and potatoes are easy to grow and you can get a lot of them, the rest would be foraged like dandelion leaves for salad stuff and forage some berries and seeds if i were to make bread
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 12, 2009, 01:50:37 PM
Potatoes have relatively bad carbs (i.e. don't give you lasting energy) and relatively little protein, so they should be combined with something that compensates for that - fruits do not.  A lot of Russian diseases have been said to come from a potato-centric diet.  Beans are the undisputed nutrition champ when it comes to easy-to-grow protein up north, and they're easy to grow in complement with the two other "sisters", as the Native Americans of these parts called them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_%28agriculture%29): corn and squash.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Rillion on November 12, 2009, 02:06:45 PM
My question is....how much room would it take to grow enough food to live sustainably?  Say I have good weather most of the year, some goats for milk to make butter and cheese, some chickens for eggs and meat.  How much space would it take for that plus veggies and grains, such that I never need to go shopping for food and still eat well? 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 12, 2009, 03:32:59 PM
My question is....how much room would it take to grow enough food to live sustainably?  Say I have good weather most of the year, some goats for milk to make butter and cheese, some chickens for eggs and meat.  How much space would it take for that plus veggies and grains, such that I never need to go shopping for food and still eat well? 

Maybe check out how much land people in history were allowed to utilize for themselves, peasants and that sort of thing.  They would have to give like 9/10ths to the king, or some standard measure.  I'm not well versed on that stuff, but I think there was some sort of standard.  There were similar tactics in early American history with indentured people, I believe.  And they became very proficient at using the little allotment of land, one acre or whatever it was.  Since all farming was done by hand and they were ultimately responsible for 10/10ths, their little spot would require their time and labor as well.  Modern people in all their glorious flab should be able to handle 1/10th of a peasants chores.  (LOL, or maybe not)
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on November 12, 2009, 03:39:11 PM
My question is....how much room would it take to grow enough food to live sustainably?  Say I have good weather most of the year, some goats for milk to make butter and cheese, some chickens for eggs and meat.  How much space would it take for that plus veggies and grains, such that I never need to go shopping for food and still eat well? 

Depends on what you grow. A single apple tree can produce 840 pounds of apples.
Source:  http://urbanext.illinois.edu/apples/facts.cfm

The equivalent land area of wheat would get you a few pounds of flour.

It looks like acres. I would have to do more research but I could lowball because I am trying to find the average plot of land medieval serfs had.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: blackie on November 12, 2009, 03:58:26 PM
The rule of thumb I have seen is 3/4 to one acre per person for a mostly vegetarian diet, 9 acres per person for a meathead diet.


I have seen numbers as low as 1400 sq ft, requiring about 30 mins of work per day.

http://ask.metafilter.com/77287/How-much-land-does-a-person-need
Quote
One commonly-used estimate of the minimum amount of arable land to feed one person is 0.07 hectares. For example:

"The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc. [FAO, 1993]"
posted by sfenders at 5:20 AM on November 28, 2007



If you're interested in the maximum yield, you might look into the Biointensive method. This book, by John Jeavons, claims that less than half an acre (~ 0.2 hectares) can support a family of four, or about 0.05 hectares/person, which is lower still than the lower of sfenders' figures.
posted by harmfulray at 7:48 AM on November 28, 2007



These are from speech notes from a guy named Jason Bradford, to a Rotary group in northern California. I don't know where he got them. The presentation used to be online here, but the link is broken, so I don't know where it is now.

Each person needs --
vegan food -- 3000 sq. ft.
a few eggs/week -- 3,500 sq. ft.
one chicken/week -- 24,300 sq. ft.
one cow/year -- 67,300 sq. ft.
posted by salvia at 9:51 AM on November 28, 2007

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on November 12, 2009, 05:00:20 PM
I know my great aunt has a garden up in NH that grows really good because of the long summer days they have up there.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: hellbilly on November 12, 2009, 06:26:03 PM
We usually have a small garden about the size of a parking space, and another area a little smaller just for tomatoes. If we wanted to live off all we produced, I think a space of 3 dozen parking spots or so may do it.

I'd try apples trees and whatnot but I think it takes a few years for those to produce fruit.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 13, 2009, 02:11:14 AM
We usually have a small garden about the size of a parking space, and another area a little smaller just for tomatoes. If we wanted to live off all we produced, I think a space of 3 dozen parking spots or so may do it.

I'd try apples trees and whatnot but I think it takes a few years for those to produce fruit.

It takes a decade for apple trees to produce quality fruit in any considerable quantity, and you need a space for each tree approximately the size of a three-car garage, if not bigger.  You can't grow much of anything under them because their roots are shallow.  (Plus, of course, the shade)



Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on November 13, 2009, 02:53:48 AM
We usually have a small garden about the size of a parking space, and another area a little smaller just for tomatoes. If we wanted to live off all we produced, I think a space of 3 dozen parking spots or so may do it.

I'd try apples trees and whatnot but I think it takes a few years for those to produce fruit.



It takes a decade for apple trees to produce quality fruit in any considerable quantity, and you need a space for each tree approximately the size of a three-car garage, if not bigger.  You can't grow much of anything under them because their roots are shallow.  (Plus, of course, the shade)

At 240 lbs per season, and with a mature tree needing 50.25 square feet of space, you get 4.77 pounds of food per square foot, which seems to me to be a fairly high level of space efficiency. As far as I know, they only need to be pruned occasionally, so given the cost/benefit ratio, apple trees seem to be a good investment.


[/quote]
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 13, 2009, 03:22:14 AM
Here's a quick table I've put together from various sources showing optimistic "million calories per acre" (MCPA) and "percent protein" (PP) estimates, not really adjusting for NH's climate:

FOOD
         MCPA
         PP
Apple (http://www.localharvest.org/blog/15945/entry/calories_per_acre_with_apples)
23.6
2%
Hemp Seed (http://www.crrh.org/)  [2] (http://earthfriendlygoods.com/pages/NutritionalComposition.php)
18.1
18%
Potato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#History)
9.2
8%
Pear (http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_meatvsfruityield.html)
8.2
4%
Almond
8.0
14%
Maize
7.5
16%
Rice
7.4
8%
Carrot (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/hortcrop/h912w.htm)
5.8
9%
Garlic
3.8
17%
Rutabaga (http://nutrition.about.com/od/fruitsandvegetables/p/Rutabagas.htm)  [PDF] (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/hortcrop/h912.pdf)
3.2
13%
Wheat
3.0
14%
Sweet Potato (http://books.google.com/books?id=PglBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq="calories+per+acre"&source=bl&ots=TLZ1qTs_QY&sig=BcC4sXim2duOKBM6r4NluGavQD4&hl=en&ei=7xD9SvezI5TEnges6oiRCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q="calories per acre"&f=false)
2.9
6%
Soybeans
2.8
53%
Peas
2.5
28%
Brussels Sprouts
2.2
32%
Broccoli (http://fiveislandsorchard.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/why-everyone-should-stop-eating-industrial-meat/)
2.1
28%
Sweet Cherry (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/Press_Releases_Crops/cherryann.htm)
1.9
7%
Rye
1.8
18%
Turnip
1.4
13%
Okra
1.3
29%
Peanut
1.3
18%
Oats
1.3
14%
Beans
1.1
25%
Tomato
1.1
24%
Cabbage (http://chestofbooks.com/gardening-horticulture/Gardener-Monthly-V25/Profit-In-Cabbage.html)
1.1
19%
Swiss Chard
1.0
38%
Buckwheat
0.8
16%
Spinach
0.6
50%
Blueberry (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1765)
0.6
5%

Some of those numbers are pretty disappointing.  Buckwheat is one of the healthiest foods in the world, especially for people at risk for diabetes.  Beans are also very healthy, but less agriculturally efficient than I had hoped.

Note that sources differ quite a bit due to the decade when the study took place, location, variety of crops, planting methods, yield success, etc, etc, etc.  Another significant margin of error comes from differences between crop weight (as listed in the NDSU (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/hortcrop/h912w.htm) page) vs edible weight.  For example, when it says 50 tons of pumpkin per acre, how much of it is edible?  If all of it, according to WolframAlpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=50+tons+pumpkin) it would be 13.5 MCPA!

Protein percentages are also approximate.  You can find this number out by looking at a food label (ex. WolframAlpha.com (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=buckwheat)) and calculating P*4/C*100 where P is protein in grams (i.e. 0.05 if 50 mg) and C is the total number of calories.  A vegetarian diet becomes unhealthy if it drops below about 25% protein, so eating a lot of legumes, mushrooms, lean veggies, etc and less fruit is very important.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 13, 2009, 04:07:41 AM
We usually have a small garden about the size of a parking space, and another area a little smaller just for tomatoes. If we wanted to live off all we produced, I think a space of 3 dozen parking spots or so may do it.

I'd try apples trees and whatnot but I think it takes a few years for those to produce fruit.



It takes a decade for apple trees to produce quality fruit in any considerable quantity, and you need a space for each tree approximately the size of a three-car garage, if not bigger.  You can't grow much of anything under them because their roots are shallow.  (Plus, of course, the shade)

At 240 lbs per season, and with a mature tree needing 50.25 square feet of space, you get 4.77 pounds of food per square foot, which seems to me to be a fairly high level of space efficiency. As far as I know, they only need to be pruned occasionally, so given the cost/benefit ratio, apple trees seem to be a good investment.


[/quote]

I donno where you got that 50sq/ft statistic, but I can assure you they need more than that.

7 ft by 7 ft is 49 sq ft.  

Go into any apple orchard, you will see the trees are placed about 25 ft apart, give or take, from trunk to trunk.  That would be 625 sq ft per tree.  There are 40,000 sq ft in one acre - so you could fit 64 trees per acre. 

This would give a foliage spread of 12 ft  in any direction until the branches touched the branches from the next tree.  So even that is probably too close.  

50 sq ft is probably the root spread of an average tree.

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on November 13, 2009, 05:13:42 AM
We usually have a small garden about the size of a parking space, and another area a little smaller just for tomatoes. If we wanted to live off all we produced, I think a space of 3 dozen parking spots or so may do it.

I'd try apples trees and whatnot but I think it takes a few years for those to produce fruit.



It takes a decade for apple trees to produce quality fruit in any considerable quantity, and you need a space for each tree approximately the size of a three-car garage, if not bigger.  You can't grow much of anything under them because their roots are shallow.  (Plus, of course, the shade)

At 240 lbs per season, and with a mature tree needing 50.25 square feet of space, you get 4.77 pounds of food per square foot, which seems to me to be a fairly high level of space efficiency. As far as I know, they only need to be pruned occasionally, so given the cost/benefit ratio, apple trees seem to be a good investment.



I donno where you got that 50sq/ft statistic, but I can assure you they need more than that.

7 ft by 7 ft is 49 sq ft.  

Go into any apple orchard, you will see the trees are placed about 25 ft apart, give or take, from trunk to trunk.  That would be 625 sq ft per tree.  There are 40,000 sq ft in one acre - so you could fit 64 trees per acre. 

This would give a foliage spread of 12 ft  in any direction until the branches touched the branches from the next tree.  So even that is probably too close.  

50 sq ft is probably the root spread of an average tree.


[/quote]

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/hil/hil-8301.html
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 13, 2009, 05:48:40 AM
I've been editing my above post, adding more crops as I came across them.  Then I crunched the numbers on hemp.  WOW!

Can someone check my math please?  I'm so sleepy I can't think straight.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: mikehz on November 13, 2009, 07:36:21 AM
So, that's it, then. Apples and hemp--what more do you need?  :lol:
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 13, 2009, 10:58:14 AM
I think you need more than three things but if that was the limitation. 

Hemp
Yams
Sturmer Apple variety

Hemp because it has so many uses, ease of growth and ease of storage.
Yams because of the vitamin content, blight resistance, ease of growth, and ease of storage.
Sturmer Apples, best vitamin content and maintains vitamin levels even after months of storage.

However, I would like to have more in the garden than just three things. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: mikehz on November 13, 2009, 12:54:38 PM
Hey, if you have hemp, you can trade for whatever else you need.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 13, 2009, 01:14:32 PM
Man, this data is really hard to find, and those numbers are not specific to New Hampshire.  We Free Staters should start an "open source agriculture project" or something.  I wonder if we can get RMS to sing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BH7poMtPVU) "join us now and share the veggies"...  :lol:


So, that's it, then. Apples and hemp--what more do you need?  :lol:

I'm suspicious of that single source indicating such high apple yields - I think in real world conditions hemp is as unbeatable in total calories per acre as it clearly is in qualitative nutrition!  Apples would also perform much worse if you average the numbers for the first decade or two of a new orchard, since new trees don't reach full capacity immediately.  And many other parts of the hemp plant are useful, not just the seeds.  It also needs no pesticide, fertilizer, etc...  Hemp truly is as greatly advanced compared to other plants as human beings are advanced compared to other animals!  :D

If you're going to feed some of those apples and hemp to pigs and chickens and get your protein from them (lean cuts only), then you don't need much else, except a small vegetable garden with small patches of different plants to get any vitamins / minerals missing in hemp: kale, broccoli, etc.  If you're vegan, however, hemp has too much fat and apples have too much fructose to be staples of a healthy diet.


[...]  Yams because of the vitamin content, blight resistance, ease of growth, and ease of storage.  [...]

I included "sweet potatoes" in the above table, but I'm very ignorant of the differences between them and yams.  It seems that yams are native to even warmer regions, which means would be even more difficult to grow in NH.  You'll get 3-5 higher yield with regular potatoes; and, for vitamin content, a greenhouse growing small patches of different leaf veggies year-round can't be beat.


Hey, if you have hemp, you can trade for whatever else you need.

Yeah, but if all Porcupines grow hemp and trade with non-Porcupines for other food then it's not really agricultural independence now is it?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: shezmu on November 13, 2009, 01:39:55 PM
Question: What's stopping me from just working for real currency (i.e. silver) and paying someone else for farming? Obviously, if civilization (read: government) collapsed, then there weren't be men/women with guns to kill me for doing black market activities.


Edit: I'm probably not getting the point here....
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 13, 2009, 02:12:49 PM
Oh, sure, you can obtain a MUCH greater return for your time by kissing government's butt, paying taxes, and buying your food from someone else who kisses government's butt.  I was en-route to making a six figure salary by age 25, and I was pretty good at saving and investing, so I'm clearly not interested in subsistence agriculture because that's the greatest economic contribution I can make.  The point of this endeavor is agricultural independence!

Do you think the American colonies could have seceded from the British Empire if all of their food was imported under the protection of the King's Navy?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on November 13, 2009, 02:28:48 PM
Hemp is good stuff. I drink a hemp protein shake almost every day. There are also hemp oils that are great for your health.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 13, 2009, 02:32:06 PM
Hey, if you have hemp, you can trade for whatever else you need.

Not pot.  Hemp. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: thersites on November 14, 2009, 12:39:13 AM
My question is....how much room would it take to grow enough food to live sustainably?  Say I have good weather most of the year, some goats for milk to make butter and cheese, some chickens for eggs and meat.  How much space would it take for that plus veggies and grains, such that I never need to go shopping for food and still eat well? 

Maybe check out how much land people in history were allowed to utilize for themselves, peasants and that sort of thing.  They would have to give like 9/10ths to the king, or some standard measure.  I'm not well versed on that stuff, but I think there was some sort of standard.  There were similar tactics in early American history with indentured people, I believe.  And they became very proficient at using the little allotment of land, one acre or whatever it was.  Since all farming was done by hand and they were ultimately responsible for 10/10ths, their little spot would require their time and labor as well.  Modern people in all their glorious flab should be able to handle 1/10th of a peasants chores.  (LOL, or maybe not)

I actually am well versed in peasant's relationships to respective lords, and while its fantastically complex in some ways, never was there an amount even approaching fifty percent in "in kind"(barter-direct grain payment) or in specie payment. Indeed, usually it was far less. That said, medieval lords and kings were economic regulators that would make Keynes drool, virtually everything as a seignoirial monopoly(milling, brewing, baking...etc. ), and from these protected monopolies lords would gain a good bit of their income-that and the courts. Even so, the tax burden(especially in England where I'm most familiar) before say 1300, would have been minuscule compared to that demanded by modern states-including regulatory, and "legal" taxes that most sheep ignore today. 

The notion that peasants paid 9/10 to some lord is simply modernist propaganda-they had a hard life, no doubt, but they didn't need to pay for a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. We have not progressed...but in dentistry.

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 14, 2009, 01:19:36 AM
My question is....how much room would it take to grow enough food to live sustainably?  Say I have good weather most of the year, some goats for milk to make butter and cheese, some chickens for eggs and meat.  How much space would it take for that plus veggies and grains, such that I never need to go shopping for food and still eat well? 

Maybe check out how much land people in history were allowed to utilize for themselves, peasants and that sort of thing.  They would have to give like 9/10ths to the king, or some standard measure.  I'm not well versed on that stuff, but I think there was some sort of standard.  There were similar tactics in early American history with indentured people, I believe.  And they became very proficient at using the little allotment of land, one acre or whatever it was.  Since all farming was done by hand and they were ultimately responsible for 10/10ths, their little spot would require their time and labor as well.  Modern people in all their glorious flab should be able to handle 1/10th of a peasants chores.  (LOL, or maybe not)

I actually am well versed in peasant's relationships to respective lords, and while its fantastically complex in some ways, never was there an amount even approaching fifty percent in "in kind"(barter-direct grain payment) or in specie payment. Indeed, usually it was far less. That said, medieval lords and kings were economic regulators that would make Keynes drool, virtually everything as a seignoirial monopoly(milling, brewing, baking...etc. ), and from these protected monopolies lords would gain a good bit of their income-that and the courts. Even so, the tax burden(especially in England where I'm most familiar) before say 1300, would have been minuscule compared to that demanded by modern states-including regulatory, and "legal" taxes that most sheep ignore today. 

The notion that peasants paid 9/10 to some lord is simply modernist propaganda-they had a hard life, no doubt, but they didn't need to pay for a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. We have not progressed...but in dentistry.



Wow, really? 

Then get more well-versed.  Because it seems you've overlooked several billion people spanning ten centuries and six continents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serf
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 14, 2009, 03:16:13 AM
[...]  Yams because of the vitamin content, blight resistance, ease of growth, and ease of storage.  [...]

I included "sweet potatoes" in the above table, but I'm very ignorant of the differences between them and yams.  It seems that yams are native to even warmer regions, which means would be even more difficult to grow in NH.  You'll get 3-5 higher yield with regular potatoes; and, for vitamin content, a greenhouse growing small patches of different leaf veggies year-round can't be beat.


I am sorry I transposed the two in my mind.  The yam is rougher in texture and starchy vs sweet.  The Sweet potato has the higher vitamin content and does come in a white variant.  

Limiting to just three items is extremely difficult.  And then imposing the NH grow season on top of that.  I think you might want to look into hydroponics and expand the list to  staples.  If apples have to grow from seeds to maturity they would be too difficult in a pinch.  In that case I would switch out for tomatoes.

I use hemp products now but it is very difficult for me to cook with as of yet I haven't figured out how to make a go of the hemp flour.  But we enjoy hemp oil, and hemp milk in various things.

If I was to have a subsistence NH garden it would include more stuff than just hemp, sweet potatoes and tomatoes.  I would also include green beans, blackeyed peas, watermelon, spinach, green peppers, cayenne peppers, leeks, garlic, carrots, broccoli and popping corn variant.  

Popping corn can also be used to grind up for corn meal, cracked corn feed for animals and the dry cob is a cheap airlock for making vinegar.  Watermelon, since apples take too long you can make a kind of vinegar from watermelon similar to cider vinegar.  Peas, peppers, leeks, garlic, potatos can be successfully dry stored.  

The animal to keep would be chickens with pigs coming in at a close second.  Chickens are first because they produce eggs.  Pigs because they are fast growing massive breeding garbage disposals.  Pigs also produce methane which can be used to power a generator.  

Another thing I would have an underground home style home or tapped earth home to minimize energy costs.  But this is all pie in the sky as I don't have the funds to start up such a project.



Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 14, 2009, 03:55:54 AM
The number of pigs required to power anything with methane would be ridiculous, and the science behind stripping methane requires some extremely complex engineering.  It is so many orders of magnitude in the wrong direction from the simplicity of wind, solar, or hydro, that you should simply agree and abandon the thought as "oh, that hard, huh?"  without a lot of bantering around.  Way hard.  

If you wanted a combustible fuel source, to make flame for cooking or whatnot, you've got wood or you could distill alcohol from a crop that has a natural sugar content, or you could horde coal before the shit hits the fan..  Beyond that, occasionally you can find a farm that has a natural gas tap from its own dedicated well.  Thats not unheard of.  If I had one thing to hope for out of anything on a farm, it would be a gas well.  
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 14, 2009, 12:48:33 PM
[...]  Limiting to just three items is extremely difficult.

The poll question asks "your primary sources of carbohydrates" - you would of course want to eat a diverse diet, grow small patches of a wide variety of fruits and veggies, keep bees for pollination and honey, fish, hunt, trade with your neighbors, etc, etc, etc.


And then imposing the NH grow season on top of that.

My original FSP state of choice was Alaska.  :lol:

It might actually be easier to hunt / fish / gather enough food there though, and some varieties of potatoes / oats would do OK as well.  They even grow stuff in Iceland!  When there's a will, there's a way.


I think you might want to look into hydroponics  [...]

Definitely a good idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics#Advantages)!  The yield benefits are amazing!  But this thread is mostly about short-term low-budget solutions.


I just hemp products now but it is very difficult for me to cook with as of yet I haven't figured out how to make a go of the hemp flour.

Yeah, that's an important consideration - a lot of foods we're used to are dependent on a lot of mechanization that wouldn't be available / economical when bootstrapping an agricultural economy in the event of a crisis.


Another thing I would have an underground home style home or tapped earth home to minimize energy costs.

Hmmm...  Hobbit holes!  :lol:

That's probably something that still requires some research, and is probably more difficult to build for now.  This thread is about low-tech solutions for making sure you have enough food 2-8 months from now when your dried goods run out.  I'm imagining a scenario where the U.S. government was embarrassed into allowing New Hampshire (or just Coös County) to secede, but got the surrounding states & Canada to blockade us, thinking we'd be forced to surrender before we had the chance to apply pressure to lift the blockade.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 14, 2009, 01:38:43 PM
The number of pigs required to power anything with methane would be ridiculous, and the science behind stripping methane requires some extremely complex engineering.  It is so many orders of magnitude in the wrong direction from the simplicity of wind, solar, or hydro, that you should simply agree and abandon the thought as "oh, that hard, huh?"  without a lot of bantering around.  Way hard.  

If you wanted a combustible fuel source, to make flame for cooking or whatnot, you've got wood or you could distill alcohol from a crop that has a natural sugar content, or you could horde coal before the shit hits the fan..  Beyond that, occasionally you can find a farm that has a natural gas tap from its own dedicated well.  Thats not unheard of.  If I had one thing to hope for out of anything on a farm, it would be a gas well.  
The science behind it isn't what's hard.  It's the execution.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 14, 2009, 02:35:01 PM
The number of pigs required to power anything with methane would be ridiculous, and the science behind stripping methane requires some extremely complex engineering.  It is so many orders of magnitude in the wrong direction from the simplicity of wind, solar, or hydro, that you should simply agree and abandon the thought as "oh, that hard, huh?"  without a lot of bantering around.  Way hard.  

If you wanted a combustible fuel source, to make flame for cooking or whatnot, you've got wood or you could distill alcohol from a crop that has a natural sugar content, or you could horde coal before the shit hits the fan..  Beyond that, occasionally you can find a farm that has a natural gas tap from its own dedicated well.  Thats not unheard of.  If I had one thing to hope for out of anything on a farm, it would be a gas well.  
The science behind it isn't what's hard.  It's the execution.

I don't know this high school kids project made it look fairly easy and low cost.

http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/methane_generator.html (http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/methane_generator.html)

Poo to power seems like a fantastic idea to me.  Could always supplement with the family poo.   

To use solar, wind or hydro you have to have an outside energy source of either sun, wind or running water.  Methane is ultimately the most dependable because every animal poos.  Even if the methane is used more like propane as people use it for cooking and gas lighting.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on November 14, 2009, 02:54:29 PM
The number of pigs required to power anything with methane would be ridiculous, and the science behind stripping methane requires some extremely complex engineering.  It is so many orders of magnitude in the wrong direction from the simplicity of wind, solar, or hydro, that you should simply agree and abandon the thought as "oh, that hard, huh?"  without a lot of bantering around.  Way hard.  

If you wanted a combustible fuel source, to make flame for cooking or whatnot, you've got wood or you could distill alcohol from a crop that has a natural sugar content, or you could horde coal before the shit hits the fan..  Beyond that, occasionally you can find a farm that has a natural gas tap from its own dedicated well.  Thats not unheard of.  If I had one thing to hope for out of anything on a farm, it would be a gas well.  
The science behind it isn't what's hard.  It's the execution.

I don't know this high school kids project made it look fairly easy and low cost.

http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/methane_generator.html (http://www.small-farm-permaculture-and-sustainable-living.com/methane_generator.html)

Poo to power seems like a fantastic idea to me.  Could always supplement with the family poo.   

To use solar, wind or hydro you have to have an outside energy source of either sun, wind or running water.  Methane is ultimately the most dependable because every animal poos.  Even if the methane is used more like propane as people use it for cooking and gas lighting.
Of course we already do poo to power today.  I've read (but have not confirmed) that cow shit is a major source of Methane in the USA.  but I think its even less efficient than Hydro or Wind or Solar.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Diogenes The Cynic on November 14, 2009, 06:36:25 PM
My question is....how much room would it take to grow enough food to live sustainably?  Say I have good weather most of the year, some goats for milk to make butter and cheese, some chickens for eggs and meat.  How much space would it take for that plus veggies and grains, such that I never need to go shopping for food and still eat well? 

Maybe check out how much land people in history were allowed to utilize for themselves, peasants and that sort of thing.  They would have to give like 9/10ths to the king, or some standard measure.  I'm not well versed on that stuff, but I think there was some sort of standard.  There were similar tactics in early American history with indentured people, I believe.  And they became very proficient at using the little allotment of land, one acre or whatever it was.  Since all farming was done by hand and they were ultimately responsible for 10/10ths, their little spot would require their time and labor as well.  Modern people in all their glorious flab should be able to handle 1/10th of a peasants chores.  (LOL, or maybe not)

I actually am well versed in peasant's relationships to respective lords, and while its fantastically complex in some ways, never was there an amount even approaching fifty percent in "in kind"(barter-direct grain payment) or in specie payment. Indeed, usually it was far less. That said, medieval lords and kings were economic regulators that would make Keynes drool, virtually everything as a seignoirial monopoly(milling, brewing, baking...etc. ), and from these protected monopolies lords would gain a good bit of their income-that and the courts. Even so, the tax burden(especially in England where I'm most familiar) before say 1300, would have been minuscule compared to that demanded by modern states-including regulatory, and "legal" taxes that most sheep ignore today. 

The notion that peasants paid 9/10 to some lord is simply modernist propaganda-they had a hard life, no doubt, but they didn't need to pay for a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. We have not progressed...but in dentistry.



So if there serfs were taxed only 50% and not 90%, then you would expect one farmer for every nonfarmer in society, otherwise, where would the surplus food go? My understanding was that these societies were about 90% agrarian. Since you're the expert, you tell me.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 15, 2009, 01:02:29 AM
Quote
the science behind stripping methane requires some extremely complex engineering.

Read that sentence five times.  

--

pause


---

The science itself is not terribly hard.  As Joel said, the process is the bitch.  


Ok, now then.  Lets be clear, I'm not turning anything into a big know-it-all.  I've probably got a few details incorrect, and mini-setups on Mythbusters don't work int he long-term.  Just because you can create a cubic foot of methane doesn't mean you can do it consistently and run machines with it.  

Methane, in and of itself, is a viable source of BTUs.  Methane is a BY-PRODUCT of decomposition.  Other gasses are released as well.  It can come from animal waste, compost of garbage, all sorts of sources.  

This is where the term stripping comes into play.  Methane must be isolated from the total release of gasses.  Production of propane and butane are similar processes.  

All of these gasses have a different specific gravity.  Under conditions of temperature and pressure they will separate.  Trapped within the raw vapor is a whole bunch of undesirable chemicals.  Carbon, water vapor, and anything else that is capable of evaporation, depending on the source.  

I'm sure a few of you are familiar with the concept of a gas chromatograph.  A few probably even use them in laboratory settings.  

As you selectively create the mechanical environment prime for isolation of methane (meaning the pipe-works), the other shit will drop out in condensate, and create a wet toxic sludge.  These undesirable condensate particles are known as "heavies".  The remaining gas is raw methane, and anything lighter can be flamed off as it rises above the optimum gravity, as it passes through a process of gas scrubbing.  

You must pass the gas through cooling pressure drops to make this happen, which means compression and pressurization must occur, in order to - in turn - reduce pressure in the separation processing.  To make that pressure, you have to run compressors.  To run the compressors, you have to run engines.  

Trap raw material, pressurize, drop drop drop, separate separate separate.  Result is raw methane and heavies. Scrub scrub scrub, discard garbage, flame other shit, chromatograph, and finally a finished product that is in a BTU range of 1.01 to 1.05

The BTUs must be relatively consistent to burn properly, and any orifice through which the burning tip creates a flame has to be drilled to deliver the gas at a pressure/burn rate.  If the BTU quality fluctuates, it'll flame out the appliance.  

The whole picture I'm trying to deliver is, all the machinery in the process is extensive.  To run one generator, you're gonna have to run at least four engines.  Its totally inefficient.  It only becomes efficient when you have a very large source of gas, like a thousand acre farm with thousands of animals to produce all that waste.  Its like buying a huge fucking wheat combine to farm a tiny little back yard.  Not practical.

The little examples you see on YouTube science projects are done by people to show that it can be done, but that doesn't mean the process is efficient for the amount of energy produced in relation to the BTU requirements of any given situation.  In a small place where five people live, the ratio is totally ridiculous.  If a hundred people were dependent on that delivery of energy, maybe it would be worth it.  
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 15, 2009, 01:30:21 AM
Now that that unpleasantness is dealt with, I must ask...

Why is Breadfruit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breadfruit) not included?


I would think the yield of this crop would be worth protecting in a greenhouse. 

(http://www.treehugger.com/greenhouse-farming.jpg)

These types of greenhouses are economical enough for businesses to erect to sell plants to soccer moms, I see them often.  Theres no reason you couldn't put one up over a row of trees. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 15, 2009, 05:38:32 AM
Completely diverging from food production to self sustainability or off the grid living.

Algae Biodiesel is probably a better source for electric generation than methane recapture.   But again it is complicated and some will probably argue too complicated for home use by most.  I am not arguing it is a walk in the park so no need for a long winded post on complicated nature of the process.   Distillation can be complicated in fact many self sustaining sorts of applications have various pit falls, can be complicated and expensive to execute.  

Methane gas isn't the only by product of the methane generator process it creates fertilizer and soil amendment to help grow plants and return nutrients to the soil.   But I would have to research if it the waste is rendered safe for use via this method vs simply composting.  I believe with simply composting pig or human fecal mater is still too toxic to be utilized as a fertilizer and would have to be disposed of in another way like constructed wetland.  

This video is not about home use of an integrated methane system but explains the possibilities.   And as the technology improves it might move to smaller or private home use.   I suppose in working with agriculture for cost effective environmental solutions.   I might foster more optimism for these sorts of applications.  [youtube=425,350]0fFIg5WLnm0[/youtube]

Another interesting development in the poo to power field.  Article down the toilet and back into the grid. http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/09/10/down-the-toilet-and-back-into-the-grid-san-antonio-to-turn-sewage-into-energy/#more-649 (http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/09/10/down-the-toilet-and-back-into-the-grid-san-antonio-to-turn-sewage-into-energy/#more-649)  

Constructed wetlands can be used for sewage handling and feeding algae growth for Algae Biodiesel.   There are individual homes with constructed wetlands instead of the traditional septic tank system.   In a new construction a constructed wetland is on par with the cost of a septic system.  Another benefit perk-able land isn't needed for a constructed wetland application.  I am told that is a big problem in NH due to something called the shelf(?).  http://www.toolbase.org/Home-Building-Topics/Land-Use/constructed-wetlands (http://www.toolbase.org/Home-Building-Topics/Land-Use/constructed-wetlands)  The problem with constructed wetlands is that government zoning hasn't caught up with the technology and are still requiring perk testing as a requirement for new constructions.

Of the three options listed wind, solar or hydro.  Which has the lowest start up costs?  We will assume you are in an area with sustained winds over 15 mph, plenty of sun, and running water source near by.  All these systems, I suppose need a bank of batteries and inverters.  Batteries can explode and battery acid is very caustic.  

Can't get too carried away the bio dome experiment was a failure.  

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 15, 2009, 02:43:45 PM
The only problem with dumping human waste into "constructed wetlands" is, without the proper survey of the geology you can taint your fresh water well.  Waste water and other "gray water" will also collect there, everything that goes down the sink.  Grease and soap, you name it.  Its gotta go somewhere, right?  Human waste is just the half of it, bad enough in itself, we're not talking a little chamber pot with one turd per day.  The average household produces many many gallons of waste per day. 

When you direct that waste into an artificial wetland, you need a very large wetland to absorb it and dilute it down into negligible trace.  This stuff all percolates down through the aquifer, because it is deposited into a central location, wherever the pipe dumps, so it helps enormously if the area has moving water to disperse it into a larger footprint.  This all has to be done on your own property, because if the water leaves your property you are contaminating your neighbor.  Not even gonna begin the ethical argument of that one.

Anyway, the first year may not be bad.  But in time, this waste collects faster than it can be dispersed creating a very unhealthy area in your property.  This concentrated toxin is the concern that can ultimately pollute your fresh water source because it is very difficult to determine where the pollutant may emerge as it filters through underground geological formations. 

This is widely understood in a very common way, and why septic sanitation is   -- A) expensive to install professionally     B) regulated and inspected to adhere to local standards   and C) expensive to be trucked out by honeydippers

Waste disposal is one of the largest problems of going off-grid, the other being independent energy production and consistent food production.  Those are the holy trinity of off-grid situations.    Water is the simplest but most important of all.  Don't fuck with the water is a standing order that holds veto power over other things. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 15, 2009, 03:35:25 PM
Sorry Drifter you need to update your information on constructed wetlands.  They are already in use as a waste treatment system for private homes.   A modern constructed wetland uses a non-permeable barrier method and the effluent is up to standard by the end of the process.  I had to study this technology as part of my waste water management course work for certification. 
Quote
In general terms, a subsurface flow wetland consists of a basin, sometimes called a “cell,” that is lined with a barrier to prevent seepage. The basin is then filled with gravel to support the root structure of aqueous vegetation, which is planted directly into the gravel.

You are demonstrating the typical misunderstanding of how constructed wetlands have improved and actually do a better job of keeping ground water cleaner than the traditional septic tank with it's leach field approach.  It really doesn't help when there isn't much information on the subject on the web.  You probably haven't had access to the books I have had or done visited operational constructed wetlands.   
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 15, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
The constructed wetlands I had on my property didn't use a barrier.  They were to make up for disturbed wetlands that were removed for a sewer easement.  

I owned them.  

I donno how they can be considered wetlands if they have a barrier. 

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 15, 2009, 08:37:07 PM
The constructed wetlands I had on my property didn't use a barrier.  They were to make up for disturbed wetlands that were removed for a sewer easement.  
I owned them.  
I donno how they can be considered wetlands if they have a barrier. 

What can I tell you they are considered constructed wetlands firestone liners and all.  I am linking a commercial example and this 1 acre wetland which has a 30,000 gallons per day waste water treatment capacity.  The average household waste water is calculated on 150 gallons per bedroom.  So the typical house should be easily handled by constructed wetland with 1000 sq ft of surface area.  http://www.landandwater.com/features/vol50no1/vol50no1_2.html (http://www.landandwater.com/features/vol50no1/vol50no1_2.html) 

Here in NC we have some communities who share constructed wetlands rather than each individual homeowner having a constructed wetland on their property.  This has been a major advancement in that the land was previously unsuitable for development due to the high water table.  Also the wetland has increase the habitat available for flora and fauna.  I wish there was a web site about the project. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on November 15, 2009, 08:51:55 PM
Oh stop arguing for crissakes.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 15, 2009, 09:56:29 PM
A thousand sq ft. 

haha


 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: blackie on November 15, 2009, 10:15:43 PM
Eat crickets.

http://carolinapetsupply.com/crickets.htm
Quote
In general crickets are about 69% moisture, 21% protein, 6% fat   and 3% carbohydrates. Crickets have about 21mg of calcium/100g .
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AOD_Horseman on November 16, 2009, 03:07:16 AM
I voted for potatoes without looking at anything else. Damn the Irish in me!  :lol:
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 16, 2009, 03:55:30 AM
A thousand sq ft. 
haha
Here is a link to a small scale operation. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7671.html (http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/naturalresources/DD7671.html)  

Sorry whoever sold you a constructed wetland application without a liner was stealing your money.

(http://www.natsys-inc.com/media/constructed-wetlands-21.jpg)

The biggest advancements in the field have been with swine production because waste disposal for the pork industry has been a major problem.   http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/constructed%20wetland/constructedwetland.htm (http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/smithfield_projects/constructed%20wetland/constructedwetland.htm)

Most people simply don't understand how contaminated water is in America.  The old septic and sewage treatment technologies aren't doing as good a job as would be hoped.  And this failure could be another point source for contaminates which could be contributing to the increase in chronic diseases and genetic mutations.  I realize there are many young people who read these boards.  I hope they will get interested in this field of technology because really everyone's future depends on improved water quality.  

And to return this to being back on topic there are several edible wetland plants which can live happily in a constructed wetland.  So the space devoted to a wetland can be productive as well as providing for waste treatment.
http://bogs-marshes.suite101.com/article.cfm/edible_bog_and_wetland_plants (http://bogs-marshes.suite101.com/article.cfm/edible_bog_and_wetland_plants)


Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 16, 2009, 08:23:06 PM


Sorry whoever sold you a constructed wetland application without a liner was stealing your money.


Nobody sold me anything.  It was an easement.  For the sewer.  As I stated.  Actual wetland  --  not something that looks like a wet tennis court surrounded by fence. 

The sewer authority ran their newly constructed line through my property, and in exchange I was not charged to hook into it.  Which was fucking fortunate, because they calculate the tie-in fee by frontage footage.  Where sewer is located, you cannot refuse a tie-in and opt for sand mound or septic. 

Because they disturbed the corner of a designated parcel of surveyed wetland, they had to re-create the disturbed area elsewhere.  In order to do so, they measured the piece they disturbed, and drove their backhoe down to the edge of the swamp, and dug away some of the non-wetland until it became level and took on water.  They did a few other things like shoot with a transit level, plant flags, and come back the next year to make sure the flags were in proximity to the mucky part they had created.  I didn't ride around on the guys lap, so they may have done other things. 

I thought you took classes on this stuff.  I highly doubt you are supposed to put down non-permeable barriers in such a situation, when the DEP orders a re-creation of the natural environment. 

As far as this wetland stuff goes to deal with waste, I think the best solution is still to physically remove the waste from the property.  For a number of reasons.  If you have animals, they will drink from it.  In the long term, containment of waste can build up and create problems that are unforeseen.  Property is not unlimited, so unless you have an abundance of land, I would not want to use up much on an artificial swamp.  Since I don't trust the science I would want it oversized, if I used it at all.  Large earth-moving projects are expensive, and the application has additional expenses, like a much longer pipe and trench, because you would want it located far from the house, as standing water attracts mosquitoes.  Anyone with a pond in their yard can tell you that. 

Since this is a no-rules kind of "what if" scenario, I would go the opposite direction and use a traditional septic tank.  They're very cheap compared to all this, and people used them for a hundred years with no problems - as long as they were maintained properly, and sized correctly for the number of users. 

How much does this wonderful artificial wetland cost, anyway?  Since you brought up money, and being ripped off. 


Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: blackie on November 16, 2009, 08:35:28 PM
I would treat greywater and blackwater differently, and probably use greywater for irrigation.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 16, 2009, 08:40:36 PM
I would treat greywater and blackwater differently, and probably use greywater for irrigation.

I probably would too, if I had the chance to start from scratch.  But its probably kinda hard to make the determination what goes where.  Theres soap in shower water and dishwater. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on November 16, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
I don't want my ball sweat leeching into my taters.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 16, 2009, 09:52:43 PM
I don't want my ball sweat leeching into my taters.

Uncle Salty.

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 17, 2009, 11:08:28 AM
Drifter why are you such a twat.  You are the one who misidentified a wetland easement as a constructed wetland.  They are two entirely different things.  A constructed wetland is simply another approach to sewage treatment or storm water treatment.  A sewage pipe running through a wetland easement that isn't a constructed wetland.  

I am talking about a non-government waste treatment system which actually has a cleaner effluent than the traditional septic tank system and arguably a cleaner effluent than municipal sewage treatment.  I contend that a constructed wetland is better for self sufficiency and I get it you disagree.  I doubt you have read anything in detail about constructed wetlands and are basing your opinions on how you assume it works.  You are not alone in this misunderstanding.  It is a significant problem in obtaining permits and getting around zoning restrictions.

Old septic tank breeches have allowed for raw sewage to seep into ground water.  And these breeches are often sighted as a reason for expanding government sewage treatment.  Often these advocates are unaware that cracks in sewage pipes allow for raw sewage to seep into ground water or when pumping stations are overwhelmed by storm water influx  but that is another long discussion.  There are increased maintenance issues with septic tanks such as sludge removal.  Trust me this isn't a fun process and will be even more horrible and toxic if there is no sludge pumping equipment available.  Maintenance of Anaerobic bacteria due to die off.  Many of the maintenance issues with septic systems are virtually eliminated with constructed wetlands.  

Personally, I chose to buy a home that was part of a municipal system mostly because I did not want to deal with a septic tank.   Now, if I was seriously contemplating a self-sufficient agricultural project and building it from scratch, I would invest in a gravity fed constructed wetland.

Overview of benefits http://www.flemingc.on.ca/CAWT/index.cfm?page=benefits (http://www.flemingc.on.ca/CAWT/index.cfm?page=benefits)

If you are starting from scratch the costs are nearly the same to set up.  The difference shows up in the maintenance cost over the life of the system.  The other huge benefit is that this type of system makes it possible to build on land which is not suitable for a traditional system.  And that land tends to be far less expensive than land which perks and can handle a traditional septic system.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on November 17, 2009, 01:39:15 PM
Drifter I have no clue

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on November 17, 2009, 01:48:15 PM
Apples are delicious.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on November 17, 2009, 02:46:17 PM
Apples are delicious.

Especially organic ones grown with ball sweat?
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on November 17, 2009, 03:09:03 PM
Apples are delicious.

Especially organic ones grown with ball sweat?

I like mine with Mexican picker's urine.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 18, 2009, 09:36:30 AM
Speaking of Mexican picker's urine...

I wonder how hard it would be to farm seaweed - it seems to be one of the most micronutrient-dense foodstuffs in the world, especially for vegetable calcium, iron, B vitamins, etc.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on November 18, 2009, 08:32:44 PM
I wonder how hard it would be to farm seaweed - it seems to be one of the most micronutrient-dense foodstuffs in the world, especially for vegetable calcium, iron, B vitamins, etc.

Good call. Start searching for a starter source, I've got a large unused fish tank to test on.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on November 19, 2009, 04:29:51 AM
Speaking of Mexican picker's urine...

I wonder how hard it would be to farm seaweed - it seems to be one of the most micronutrient-dense foodstuffs in the world, especially for vegetable calcium, iron, B vitamins, etc.


That sounds like a fantastic project to try. 

Not sure how you would prepare it and incorporate it into the diet though.  I have only seen it used to wrap up sushi with rice.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 19, 2009, 04:41:48 AM
I'm just throwing ideas out there, I'm not serious about setting anything up - yet.  I know one type of seaweed that sorta looks like spaghetti that tastes good mixed with regular whole wheat pasta spaghetti, and another type is good in salads.  Not sure what they're called though.  I'm sure the Iron Chef guys (referencing the original Japanese version) would know about 10,000 dishes made with all kinds of sea plant-life.  :lol:



BTW, I recently came across a very interesting video about setting heterogeneous long-term low-maintenance farming: Establishing a Food Forest the Permaculture Way (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Establishing-a-Food-Forest-the-Permaculture-Way-2008/39524dfe5308c4d2ac2a707622426b49767ba5b0bc4a).

(http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp273/miikuo/dvd_food_forest2_large.jpg) (http://btjunkie.org/torrent/Establishing-a-Food-Forest-the-Permaculture-Way-2008/39524dfe5308c4d2ac2a707622426b49767ba5b0bc4a)

[youtube=425,350]QVo2bOIN_AA[/youtube]
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Terror Australis on November 19, 2009, 05:31:43 AM
http://www.wormdigest.org/content/view/44/2/  (http://www.wormdigest.org/content/view/44/2/)

A worm composting toilet can take  care of your poo and also gives you a high quality fertiliser in the form of worm castings which you can use to improve your soil thus increasing your crop yields.Grow a lemon tree and your pee will make the lemons better...

Hemp oil can power lots of things. Each acre of hemp could yield about 1000 gallons of methanol.

Right now if you planted 6 per cent of the US with hemp it could power the entire country. :D



Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on November 19, 2009, 08:28:09 PM
[youtube=425,350]QVo2bOIN_AA[/youtube]

30 seconds in and I saw them hauling a giant chicken tractor through the grass with chickens in it lol.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on November 19, 2009, 08:42:48 PM
Well, it does perform a function similar to a tractor-powered plow: what they do is have chickens live in a caged area for a week, clawing up and fertilizing the soil, and then they move the cage / coop over a few yards and plant the area the chickens prepared, and so onward the week after that.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on November 19, 2009, 09:08:19 PM
Well, it does perform a function similar to a tractor-powered plow: what they do is have chickens live in a caged area for a week, clawing up and fertilizing the soil, and then they move the cage / coop over a few yards and plant the area the chickens prepared, and so onward the week after that.


I have just never seen one so big that it takes that many people to carry it is all.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: One two three on December 08, 2009, 03:59:14 AM
Kale, a type of cabbage, grows fantastic in NH.  It is common in New England and very healthy.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on December 08, 2009, 04:39:45 AM
I haven't come across any yield statistics for kale yet, but I'd guess it would be close to Swiss Chard (~5 tons per acre = 1 million calories w/ 38% protein).  Those greens aren't champions of caloric efficiency, but they're great champions when it comes to vitamins and minerals (particularly calcium, if you're a vegan).

Freezing or canning veggies just doesn't compute in my mind, so I think it's best to grow them in a heated greenhouse year-round.  If you plan and time it out just right, you can just go to your greenhouse every day and have a variety of things to pick for your salad that just reached the peak of ripeness!  I wonder if we'll see any neighbourhood greenhouses popping up in Free Stater dominated areas (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19215) any time soon?  ;)
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: One two three on December 08, 2009, 11:19:24 AM
I haven't come across any yield statistics for kale yet, but I'd guess it would be close to Swiss Chard (~5 tons per acre = 1 million calories w/ 38% protein).  Those greens aren't champions of caloric efficiency, but they're great champions when it comes to vitamins and minerals (particularly calcium, if you're a vegan).

Freezing or canning veggies just doesn't compute in my mind, so I think it's best to grow them in a heated greenhouse year-round.  If you plan and time it out just right, you can just go to your greenhouse every day and have a variety of things to pick for your salad that just reached the peak of ripeness!  I wonder if we'll see any neighbourhood greenhouses popping up in Free Stater dominated areas (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=19215) any time soon?  ;)

You can grow Kale in NH so that it starts being ready at the end of October and leave it in the ground until the start of December so it stores itself for a good 6 weeks.  After that, you can just freeze it for a while, eat it, sell it, or can it if you really want.  It is also one of the easiest things to grow.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Lothar on December 08, 2009, 04:02:55 PM
Freezing or canning veggies just doesn't compute in my mind, so I think it's best to grow them in a heated greenhouse year-round.

I don't remember where it was that I came across this... http://www.omegagarden.com/index.php?content_id=1500  I apologize if it was from this thread.  lol..  I am curious if anyone here knows of these being used.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 10, 2010, 06:29:38 AM
Mushrooms! (http://tracker.concen.org/torrents-search.php?searchall=mushrooms&searchany=&searchphrase=&searchnone=&cat=0&searchfields=name&incldead=1&lang=0)

I highly recommend the documentaries Know Your Mushrooms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Your_Mushrooms) and especially Let's Grow Mushrooms! (http://www.mushroomvideos.com/) (torrent link above).  Just ignore all the silly stuff about "magic mushrooms" - killing your mental productivity is not what this thread is about!

Most commonly edible species of mushrooms have about 40% calories from protein - almost as high as sprouted kidney beans (the protein champion of beans) and spinach (one of the protein champs among leafy greens).  Most important of all is that mushroom farming can result in amazing agricultural productivity when grown indoors, much more so than non-fungal produce because they require very little light, which means they can be stacked in shelves of infinite height.  With skyscraper mushroom farms, humanity could feed trillions of people on this planet alone!
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: The ghost of a ghost of a ghost on January 10, 2010, 11:49:27 AM
I'm trying to grow morels right now.   Will update on success/failure.

ON a side note, I had these mushrooms in my yard that were bright peach and grew to form a little roof of sorts.  Underneath that roof oozed a shit brown liquid that smelled like death.  That's apparently how it attracted flies to spread it's spores.
Fucking nasty shit.  My yard smelled like a rotting elephant for months.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on January 10, 2010, 02:22:01 PM
Quote from: Alex  Libman
Mushrooms!
I've heard that since mushrooms are mostly air, they arent worth choosing as more than a delicacy.

People go crazy over morels around here, and are willing to pay a pretty penny. I find that funny because as long as you keep your ears open to determine when they are ready to be harvested, anyone can easily go out and find them.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 10, 2010, 02:42:36 PM
It's true, you'd have to eat like 4lb of mushrooms (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=4lb+mushrooms) to get your daily requirement of protein from them alone, but they do add nutritional value to whatever you use them in.  What other food type can you grow without any sunlight at all, like in basement stories underneath your hemp greenhouse, eating nothing but raw minerals like agricultural waste?


[youtube=425,350]<object width="660" height="525"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/XI5frPV58tY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/XI5frPV58tY&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object>[/youtube]

(Just ignore the hippie bullshit in the beginning, it does get interesting after that.)
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on January 10, 2010, 03:09:24 PM
Yes, I suppose you could grow them in the unused spaces. Like under porches or in cellars.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 14, 2010, 10:36:04 AM
I'm going to repeat this table from above (my account cycling habits got in the way of my ability to edit it) and add barley to it.  The columns are "Million Calories Per Acre" and "Percent Protein".  See the original post (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=29041.msg574036#msg574036) for other explanations.

FOOD
         MCPA
         PP
Apple (http://www.localharvest.org/blog/15945/entry/calories_per_acre_with_apples)
23.6
2%
Hemp Seed (http://www.crrh.org/)  [2] (http://earthfriendlygoods.com/pages/NutritionalComposition.php)
18.1
18%
Potato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#History)
9.2
8%
Pear (http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_meatvsfruityield.html)
8.2
4%
Almond
8.0
14%
Maize
7.5
16%
Rice
7.4
8%
Carrot (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/hortcrop/h912w.htm)
5.8
9%
Garlic
3.8
17%
Rutabaga (http://nutrition.about.com/od/fruitsandvegetables/p/Rutabagas.htm)  [PDF] (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/hortcrop/h912.pdf)
3.2
13%
Wheat
3.0
14%
Sweet Potato (http://books.google.com/books?id=PglBAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq="calories+per+acre"&source=bl&ots=TLZ1qTs_QY&sig=BcC4sXim2duOKBM6r4NluGavQD4&hl=en&ei=7xD9SvezI5TEnges6oiRCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBDgU#v=onepage&q="calories per acre"&f=false)
2.9
6%
Soybeans
2.8
53%
Barley (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-13588083.html)
2.8
12%
Peas
2.5
28%
Brussels Sprouts
2.2
32%
Broccoli (http://fiveislandsorchard.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/why-everyone-should-stop-eating-industrial-meat/)
2.1
28%
Sweet Cherry (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/Press_Releases_Crops/cherryann.htm)
1.9
7%
Rye
1.8
18%
Turnip
1.4
13%
Okra
1.3
29%
Peanut
1.3
18%
Oats
1.3
14%
Beans
1.1
25%
Tomato
1.1
24%
Cabbage (http://chestofbooks.com/gardening-horticulture/Gardener-Monthly-V25/Profit-In-Cabbage.html)
1.1
19%
Swiss Chard
1.0
38%
Buckwheat
0.8
16%
Spinach
0.6
50%
Blueberry (http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1765)
0.6
5%

Yes, this forum is my personal little notepad.  Deal with it.  :lol:
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 16, 2010, 01:01:37 PM
Yeah, though one needs to keep in mind that he's doing it in a much warmer climate.  I think greenhouses are an absolute necessity for successful year-round vegetable farming in New Hampshire, but you still need regular fields for seasonal crops that store well: beans, grains, beans, root vegetables, beans, peas, beans, and more beans.  ;)
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on January 16, 2010, 09:19:47 PM
I used to live in an area that has a local history of mushroom farming.  Stinkiest fuckin shit you'll ever grow.  If you think you're gonna put that in your basement but had issues with a few cows poopin a couple hundred yards away, you're unfamiliar with the process.  IT FUCKING REEKS.  BAD. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 16, 2010, 09:56:47 PM
(1)  Mushrooms are an experimental idea, I'm not really committed to as I am to beans and someday (THC-free) hemp.

(2)  A 1,000 pound cow produces an average of 10 tons of manure a year.  It would take a lot of mushrooms to equal that.

(3)  The stink factor probably depends on the species of fungus, I'll bet some don't smell at all.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on January 16, 2010, 10:45:30 PM
(1)  Mushrooms are an experimental idea, I'm not really committed to as I am to beans and someday (THC-free) hemp.

(2)  A 1,000 pound cow produces an average of 10 tons of manure a year.  It would take a lot of mushrooms to equal that.

(3)  The stink factor probably depends on the species of fungus, I'll bet some don't smell at all.


A couple little mushroom logs probably wouldn't stink at all.  Filling half your basement, in your optimistic fervor which translates from unlimited racks (previously mentioned by you) would be awful. 

Growing for personal use, people typically use a damp hay medium, or logs.  On a larger scale, they use hay and manure, probably peat and other stuff.  It stinks bad in any large scale.  The small hay blocks aren't cost effective when you get beyond a hobbyists scale.  So it'd be a nice way to supplement your diet, you'd probably have a little setup about the size of a 50 gal fish tank.  Bigger than that, you'd have to make less costly adjustments thus comes the stink. 

Dude, I'm telling ya, you can smell mushroom houses a mile away.  They look like little concrete office buildings, and every 45 days or whatever, they harvest, churn up the shit and its bad.  You wouldn't want those sorts of beds in your basement. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 16, 2010, 11:17:45 PM
I think that most rural homeowners engaged in self-reliant agriculture would have places other than their residential basements to use for growing mushrooms.  I'm thinking bottom shelf of the greenhouse maybe?  Greenhouses can also contain very large soil containers with multiple plant / fungus species growing symbiotically.

If you really wanted to make ideal use of limited land you could even have reinforced tunnels spiraling under your property (hey, it worked for Việt Cộng!) filled to the brim with fungus, but that would sound a little scary to some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._%28film%29)...  :lol:
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: hellbilly on January 16, 2010, 11:34:34 PM
*fumbling microphone sound*

Aaah yes, thank you.. Question for Alex. Alex, you have suggested that individuals, in the event of a food crisis, grow their own produce in a heated greenhouse. My question is, Alex, as a self-proclaimed "Tax Resistor Diet" adherent, which seems to align itself with Veganism, what will you do with all that meat?


"Meat? Vat iss dis 'meat' of what you speak for Comrade?"


Well, in the event of a food crisis, one would expect a significant increase in larceny committed neighbor against neighbor. Have you considered this as a reality that you may experience under such trying times? And if you have, it is supposed that you would be within your rights to eliminate those who would aggress against your produce with violent means if necessary, so what will you do with all that meat? Thank you.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: AL the Inconspicuous on January 16, 2010, 11:47:56 PM
I advocate something that resembles veganism for reasons of avoiding government subsidies and using Free Stater owned land most efficiently, and, coincidentally, there are some health benefits as well.  I don't advocate that everyone be very strict about it, however, just myself.

Hey, if you happen to kill a wild animal (four-legged or two), you might as well eat it.  :P

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: hellbilly on January 16, 2010, 11:56:43 PM
 :P
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on January 17, 2010, 05:57:09 PM
I think that most rural homeowners engaged in self-reliant agriculture would have places other than their residential basements to use for growing mushrooms.  I'm thinking bottom shelf of the greenhouse maybe?  Greenhouses can also contain very large soil containers with multiple plant / fungus species growing symbiotically.

If you really wanted to make ideal use of limited land you could even have reinforced tunnels spiraling under your property (hey, it worked for Việt Cộng!) filled to the brim with fungus, but that would sound a little scary to some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._%28film%29)...  :lol:


Sunlight is bad, and temperature must remain a constant 65ish (it varies a little with species).  Thats why they make shroom houses out of concrete.  Basements are ideal, but most old farmland has a root cellar located somewhere on the property, which you'd then have to climate control. 

Tunnels usually encounter groundwater problems. 

If energy wasn't a concern, you could just get a junker travel trailer, paint the windows silver, and climate control it with a regular thermostat - you'd have two growing seasons, spring and fall.  Dead winter and blazing summer it'd be a huge waste of energy out of proportion to the gain of some frickin mushrooms.  But one of the attractive features of mushrooms is they can be dried and stored for long periods, so the "seasonal" aspect shouldn't matter.  You'd pull the temperature records from NOAA and grow shrooms when the avg temps are right in line with the optimum conditions. 

Or, you could just be realistic about your consumption and grow them in a tub in the basement.  There, your season is all year long.  So you'd get a nice little pile of fresh every couple weeks.  Because, seriously, how many of these things are you gonna fuckin' eat?  As long as you don't have a mountain of cowshit down there, it might have a scent, but it wouldn't be overwhelming.  The Bad Stink only happens when you're doing big loads. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: ForumTroll on January 17, 2010, 05:59:08 PM
This week, in being almost completely vegan, I have realized that I really hate the taste of mushrooms.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Rillion on January 17, 2010, 06:46:37 PM
This week, in being almost completely vegan, I have realized that I really hate the taste of mushrooms.

I can only eat them raw. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: ForumTroll on January 17, 2010, 06:56:12 PM
This week, in being almost completely vegan, I have realized that I really hate the taste of mushrooms.

I can only eat them raw. 

Maybe that's it, I stir fried them.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on January 17, 2010, 07:06:18 PM
I like to pan fry them in butter with a little diced onion and black pepper, salt, and parsley.  I used to do the button shaped in that manner with some wine. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Alex Libman on September 02, 2010, 09:45:22 PM
Potatoes are easy.  And delicious.  Everything else is hard.  But the motherfuckers are nothing but starch (i.e. bad carbs), so I can't eat them (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31494).  Potatoes are the only rational argument I've ever come across for eating meat (I mean other than the taste of course), to revitalize the cheap starch with concentrated protein for a proper ratio of the two.


From some blog (http://tater-mater.blogspot.com/2009_04_19_archive.html#6733313855135508831):

Quote
[...]  Potatoes are roughly the most productive crop you can grow in most temperate climates.  They also happen to be a bit more nutritious than usually given credit for.  They are not "pure starch", but in fact contain roughly 2% fairly high-quality protein.  The percentage of protein is low, but potatoes are so prolific that you still end up with 500-1000kg of protein per year per hectare of potatoes, versus 164-500kg of protein from soybeans, 98-300kg of protein from wheat, and only 33kg protein from milk produced by cows.

The protein by the way is found almost entirely right under the skin -- it's in the yellowish layer you see when you gently peel just the outermost skin from the potato -- which is why you should never peel potatoes (you're throwing all their protein content away), but instead always cook them unpeeled and then carefully pull the skin off.

Potatoes are surprisingly rich in other nutrients. They contain the B vitamins and are surprisingly rich in B6, and contain plenty of vitamin C. If they have yellowish flesh then they usually have significant amounts of carotenoids, which are a precursor to vitamin A that your body can use to make vitamin A.


Given that, maybe we should be peeling the potatoes a bit deeper than normal, eating the outer parts with skin, and discarding the center!

Potato starch from the center can have many industrial applications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starch#Industrial_applications) for things like biofuel, paper, cosmetics, etc.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Bill Brasky on September 02, 2010, 10:23:13 PM
...Or, you could dice them with the skins on, and stir-fry them some onions and peppers.  If you have a massive boner to utilize the skins and avoid the bulk of the potato, leave a golf-ball piece of potato aside, like a core. 

We humans call them "home fries".  Snooty people call them Potatoes O'brien. 

Doesn't mean you have to do it all the time.  But if I had potatoes to burn, and other garden veggies, thats what I'd do.  They also re-heat nicely in a skillet with very little effort. 

You can also pan fry the skins as a snacky meal, if you liberally season the skins with some cayenne pepper, or something else zesty that meets your vegan approval. 

Don't do that faggy par-boiling horseshit, you'll make gruel. 



Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Terror Australis on September 02, 2010, 10:40:07 PM
...Or, you could dice them with the skins on, and stir-fry them some onions and peppers.  If you have a massive boner to utilize the skins and avoid the bulk of the potato, leave a golf-ball piece of potato aside, like a core. 

We humans call them "home fries".  Snooty people call them Potatoes O'brien. 

Doesn't mean you have to do it all the time.  But if I had potatoes to burn, and other garden veggies, thats what I'd do.  They also re-heat nicely in a skillet with very little effort. 

You can also pan fry the skins as a snacky meal, if you liberally season the skins with some cayenne pepper, or something else zesty that meets your vegan approval. 

Don't do that faggy par-boiling horseshit, you'll make gruel. 






Home made potato wedges are excellent.Cut the potatoes into 8 wedges each  and place them in a bag with a little bit of oil and add some herbs and spices then shake the bag coating the wedges .Then put in oven .You can also par boil them first for a different taste.

Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Alex Libman on September 02, 2010, 11:32:37 PM
I know how to cook a potato, thank you very much, but I'm inventing a whole new cuisine here, and it's a numbers game of considerable complexity.  A manly vegan diet (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=31494) is a struggle to maximize protein percentages.  Potatoes are a forbidden fruit by themselves, and adding more oil is just sacrilege!  I use no processed oils of any kind in my cooking.  I was thinking of peeling potatoes into my hearty pot of pea soup when it's almost finished simmering.  (Pretty much every main meal focuses on legumes.)

The question is what to do with the rest of the potato, the useless "carb junk" center.  I'm not set up to do anything on an industrial scale.  Obviously you can't plant them (in case any of you city slickers were about to suggest that), and they don't make particularly good fertilizer as they rot.  Trade them to people who are not protein-optimizing vegans?  Nah, they're not easy to store without dehydrating them.  We're talking about a firm white object ranging in size from a golf ball to a baseball...  Throw them through government office windows?  Nah, too obvious...  :roll:
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on September 03, 2010, 01:08:50 AM
Get a chicken and feed it to it. Chickens will eat basically any fruit or vegetable.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Alex Libman on September 03, 2010, 11:20:24 AM
That's precisely what the commies want you to do!  They'll say you're mistreating your chickens or trying to poison everyone with salmonella, etc, and have the excuse / PR leverage to just Brian Travis you (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=17356.0)...  Also passing nutrients through another animal's body is never an ideal solution, especially on an agriculturally-independent space-station where animals would take up precious life support resources like plant-made oxygen.  I'm not on a space-station yet, but I like to plan ahead...    :)
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: libertylover on September 03, 2010, 07:06:52 PM
Isn't the sweet potato considered the perfect food?  Or is it peanuts?  One of those has all the nutrients a human needs to survive.  It would be a boring a hell diet and might drive some people insane. 
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Alex Libman on September 03, 2010, 08:21:56 PM
There is no one "perfect food".  In terms of fulfilling human micro-nutrient needs, the closest thing is human blood, but that's damn expensive, and contains cholesterol other bad stuff.   :lol:

Sweet potato is just 6% protein.  It has tons of Vitamin A and other micro-nutrients, like most plants do, but to get the FDA daily dose of protein (and I like to get 2-3 times that) and calcium you'd need to eat 3.3 kilograms of them - so much "carb junk" will make you fat, and you'll be sick of them and craving meat very soon.  Peanuts are 18% calories from protein, but 71% calories from fat.  You get the idea.

The only way to have a healthy vegan diet is to focus on low-fat foods that are over 20% calories from protein (beans, peas, legumes, select vegetables, best kinds of bread, etc), and "JUST SAY NO" to foods that are under 10% calories from protein (most fruits, sweets, oils, rice, potatoes, etc).  So you only worry about macro-nutrients (i.e. protein / cabrs / fat), while micro-nutrients are pretty much taken care of by default from the veggies and beans, plus there's nothing easier and cheaper than vitamin supplements.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on September 03, 2010, 09:38:05 PM
In the Garden of the TimeLady tomatoes and squash grow the best, so I presume when the lights have grown dark and Detroit has deterioated further into Little Congo I will have food. So that's the best for me!
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Alex Libman on September 03, 2010, 09:47:30 PM
Stop posting on this forum, it's all about to be deleted.  This has got to be the biggest Nazi bookburning in human history!  My life has been completely and totally destroyed.  The only thing that matters now is revenge and death.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on September 03, 2010, 09:50:05 PM
Alex, no threats of violence.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Alex Libman on September 03, 2010, 09:52:44 PM
There's 0 doubt in my mind now that FTL is a fascist experiment of some sort to make fools like me throw away years of their lives for fucking nothing!
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on September 03, 2010, 09:53:27 PM
Stop posting on this forum, it's all about to be deleted.  This has got to be the biggest Nazi bookburning in human history!  My life has been completely and totally destroyed.  The only thing that matters now is revenge and death.


No. All your good threads are still there. Its the ones that havent been posted to in 500 days that are gone.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Alex Libman on September 03, 2010, 10:24:00 PM
That's more than half the forum!  I've been here since 2006.  That's it, there's no justifying this.  It's all over.  


IT'S ALL FUCKING OVER!


The commies won.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: anarchir on September 04, 2010, 12:31:04 AM
nah, you are wrong. The change is small. A very insignificantly small amount of data has been removed. The data that takes its place in time will be far greater. I guarantee that.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: BonerJoe on September 04, 2010, 12:32:00 AM
I wonder if he'll tape up all the windows in the trailer, eat 10lbs of beans, and fart himself to death.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on September 04, 2010, 02:40:04 AM
I now bid one dollar for Libman's anus.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: mrapplecastle on September 04, 2010, 10:05:26 AM
Its the mother fucking stanford prison experiment all over again
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Riddler on September 04, 2010, 11:13:19 AM
Stop posting on this forum, it's all about to be deleted.  This has got to be the biggest Nazi bookburning in human history!  My life has been completely and totally destroyed.  The only thing that matters now is revenge and death.



kill yourself & then get revenge
proper order, mind you
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Turd Ferguson on September 04, 2010, 03:17:32 PM
That's more than half the forum!  I've been here since 2006.  That's it, there's no justifying this.  It's all over.  


IT'S ALL FUCKING OVER!


The commies won.

No, if the commies won they would keep that old shit around forever just to satisfy a few peoples nostalgic bullshit quirks. Kinda like they do with "historica site" homes.
Title: Re: If you had to grow your own food...
Post by: Riddler on September 04, 2010, 05:02:46 PM
.
[youtube=425,350]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QiZdY9rw-uo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QiZdY9rw-uo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]