Experiment in Food Production Methods

xerces

After learning about the Peakoil Issue, I decided to familiarize myself with some of the basic skills that most urban/suburban people have either forgotten or have never learned. The best way of learning is by doing, so early this year I decided to run a small experiment in self-sufficiency.

I've been running the on-going experiment over the last year to see just how much food I can produce by myself(with as many hold made tools and materials as possible) on spare time alone. The point is to see just what fraction of my food supply can be locally produced on a recreational basis. I chose the 4 main methods of food acquisition: Gardening, Hunting, Fishing, Gathering.

This all turned into a bit of a hobby. I managed to build a square meter organic garden that has produced an incredible amount of food. While doing all of that, I picked up bits and pieces of how permaculture works and managed to construct my own working compost heaps. I learned how to make fishing poles, bait lines, and traps for fishing. I crafted longbows, arrows, bullets, axes and other weapons with simple handtools for hunting.

My experiment has been ongoing since January of this year and is now nearing the year end close. So far the tally for each category is as follows:

Gardening:

25 lbs Potatos
45 lbs Tomatos
5 lbs String Beans
5 lbs Squash Plants
(80 lbs veggies. Tomatos, Turnips, Kale, and Winter Cabbage still growing)

Hunting:

1 Boar 70 lbs Meat
2 Rabbits 3 lbs Meat
(73 lbs meat. Deer, Turkey, and small game hunts still ongoing)

Fishing:

22 Black Crappies 11 lbs
19 White Crappies 10 lbs
17 Blue Gills 10 lbs
24 Sunfish 12 lbs
7 Pumpkinseeds 8 lbs
3 White Perch 3 lbs
5 Yellow Perch 4 lbs
1 Small Mouth Bass 5 lbs
1 Catfish 1 lbs
( 64 lbs fish. Fishing continues)

Gathering:

25 lbs of Acorns -> 8 lbs of Acorn Meal
3 lbs of Wild Mushrooms

( 11 lbs of food )

My year-long experiment is detailed here:

http://backtowilderness.blogspot.com

So what do you guys think would be the most effective way to procure food during a Peakoil crisis?

AgentR

I clicked gardening, but thats with the concept being to a rural East Texas type, a garden starts at about a full acre of full sun and great rain, and grows until you run out of room on the far side for the watermelons.

Its a *lot* of food that can come from 44k square feet of dirt.

Oh, and suggestion regarding carp: Type in the words "bowfishing" in google.
_________________
Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.

TorrKing

Fishing with nets. In my area I could sustain my family on freshwaterfish through most of the year. Supplied by trapping/hunting and gathering we wouldn't starve. We would get really tired of fish though... Very Happy

By specializing in the hunter-gatherer lifestyle you would be able to keep a low profile, move away from trouble and exploit a niche most people don't have the skills to utilize.

If you go totally primitive, which is most sustainable. Hunting will play a minor role. In areas with lots of water, fishing will be second, trapping third and gathering fourth. In some areas (especially the tropics) gathering will be ranked higher though.
_________________
http://livingprimitively.com/

Loki · Expert Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 976 Location: Cascadia

xerces, I've read your blog and your posts here. Interesting experiments. Thanks for sharing.

I voted for gardening. I think in a post-collapse scenario, hunting and fishing will be played out within a year. The only thing left might be rodents and carp (nothing seems to get rid of these suckers around here). But it probably depends on the region. Here in western Oregon, which many might think of as being super-productive, salmon and trout populations are almost completely dependent on hatcheries, which are expensive to run. If a major depression hit, hatchery production would be reduced and/or eliminated. We don't have a lot of other freshwater game fish-- there are some bass, walleye, etc., but not in the abundance of the Northeast and South.

I know for a fact that Oregonians ignored hunting laws during the depression of the 1930s, but that was when our population was significantly smaller, so game populations weren't destroyed. With 3 million people now, deer, elk, and game bird populations would be decimated in short order. Gathering I think is more viable, but still not something most of us could rely on. Prior to white settlement, Native peoples in this region relied on plant gathering for about 50% of their calories. There were maybe 100,000 people in OR and WA then. There are about 9 million people now. Gathering ain't gonna cut it. But it might be OK to supplement your diet. There is basically an unlimited supply of blackberries here, and a fair supply of other berries. There are root foods, too, if you know what to look for, and since most people don't, they would probably last longer than game animals.

That leaves gardening/agriculture. Our population is completely dependent on agriculture right now. I don't see how that could change in a post-collapse situation unless there was a massive die-off.

TorrKing

Loki, do you think the number of people in Oregon that know how to hunt is higher today than in the 30s? That is the number that matters you know. I don't think that the number is any higher here. At least, overall skill per hunter is way lower.

The problem is that the wilderness is generally a lot more accessible today, but let's hope that is negotiated by excessive fuel costs.

Gathering is tedious and less productive than both trapping and fishing, but it could support a lot more people than there was around in pre-white days. The thing is that people didn't and don't want it. They'll rather fight to the death over hunting and fishing rights. No one wants to forage all day.
_________________
http://livingprimitively.com/

Loki · Expert Joined: Apr 08, 2006 Posts: 976 Location: Cascadia

TorrKing

If 2 out of the 3 millions are situated in such a small area, my guess is that you aren't to bad off. There would be a lot of barriers for the suburbanites to get out of such a place.

1st: A means of transport.
2nd: Courage/desperation.
3rd: Skills and/or primary tools.

Of a 100 people, maybe 40 people would try to make it in the city and die. 20 would die trying to escape the city. 20 would die in the wilderness.

My totally unqualified estimate is that: 15 would survive in the city. 5 would survive in the wilderness.

In other words: I think of the 2 millions suburbanites 400000 would survive. If you are one of those, then the game stocks in time will recover and you may live a good life.

The figures will of course be better in the countryside.

But then again, I believe in a fast crash. Who knows?
_________________
http://livingprimitively.com/

Ludi

I plan to use a combination of gardening, hunting/trapping, and gathering.
_________________
"...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy

gego · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 03, 2005 Posts: 1334

This experiment in self sufficiency is certainly a positive effort.

So that others might understand the realities of providing food for one's self, perhaps you could provide more information.

How long do you think the food you produced will last? For example, a family of four might get 5 to 8 starvation level mealsout of 25 lbs. of potatoes by themselves. What did you need to acquire in terms of "fertilizer", pumped water, pest control products, etc. (sort of an input/output type analysis)? Did you have your own land on which to hunt and fish or were you dependent on public land/water which might be overrun if everyone tried what you tried?

ChicknLittle · Heavy Crude Joined: Jan 22, 2006 Posts: 115

I am working hard to learn efficient (square-foot/permaculture) gardening, however if the question is "what is the most efficient" I would have to vote Government Food Stamps, as we have a loooooong way to go before the government cant afford the bread and cable TV subsidies needed to keep the masses calm and lethargic. Also, the effort is "zero." Very efficient.

TorrKing

xerces · Last edited by xerces on Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:01 am; edited 1 time in total

gego · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 03, 2005 Posts: 1334

In a serious breakdown situation resulting from peak oil, could you hunt and fish your way to survival?

In Missouri in 2005 the deer harvest was 287,536 deer with an average weight on the hoof of 130 lbs. Removing the lungs and guts (field dressing) brought this down to an average weight of 110 lbs. (skin, meat, and bones) and my guess is that you might wind up with 85 lbs. of actual meat to eat. So the actual meat harvested was 24,440,560 lbs (287,536 X 85lbs). The Missouri population is estimated at 5,595,000 so this works out to 4.4 lbs. of meat per person which might feed you for 20 meals. I think Missouri is in the upper group of states for good deer hunting and that other states with much larger human population per square mile or states with much lower deer populations would not produce as much deer meat per capita.

The Conservation department manages the number of deer to be harvested through issuance of hunting permits so that the population will remain fairly constant year to year and sustain the harvest level at near the current level, so this is more or less the limit of meat from deer in Missouri. Deer live in rural areas, but not many live in cities which adds to the dilema of how the population gets to the meat or visa versa.

My thinking is that wild life would not be even close to an adequate source of food for the general population, and that escaping to the woods to hunt and gather is just a Hollywood fantacy.

xerces

xerces