Newbie Land Question

JonM · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 10, 2005 Posts: 24

Greetings All... Thought Id finally get around to making my first post after lurking for awhile trying to absorb the wealth information and ideas on this site. My wife and I stumbled across the PO issue while surfing the news a few months ago, and have gone through experiences very similar to most here in the emotional and family reaction areas.

First off, I want to say Thanks to all the people who take the time to post here. Our families are not supporters of the PO theory, and it is a relief to know there are people who we can talk to and get help with ideas in planning for the future.

We moved 2 yrs ago to a new house in the burbs West of Toronto... (wish we had know about PO before making that decision) anyway, we carry no debt other than a fair size mortgage, but all our savings are tied up in retirement investments so we currently have no liquid assets. We planned to buy some recreational property and Ive convinced my wife that instead of paying a ton for a small lakefront lot we should buy an acreage and just use the public beaches in the area so we have something available to us when TSHTF.

Question is, where and how much property.... I have 2 areas in mind and have found suitable lots in both. Based on some things Ive read Im looking for at least 15+ acres for our family of 3.

Northern Ontario - Sudbury\North Bay area
76 acres - 30acres clear field ready to plow\46 mixed bush
Pros:
- Cheap property
- away from large population centers
- forests\firewood available on property
- Hopefully clear of projected "fall out" areas (God forbid it gets that bad)
- Lots of lakes\rivers and good water quality
- Close to Georgian Bay\Great Lakes
- next to 1000s of acres of public land (rock\bush and marsh)

Cons:
- unknown soil quality for growing
- not the best growing season due to climate
- East of Sudbury - Nickel mining = potential pollution problems
- Isolated. No family or friends in the area
- Winters can be tough

South Eastern Ontario - Kingston\Ottawa area 50 acres
Pros:
- lots of family in the area
- Good farming land
- lots of small farming communities with experienced people nearby
- Lots of lakes and good water quality

Cons:
- Large cities nearby (Ottawa and Kingston are both 1 hr drive)
- Bush mostly cleared for farmland
- Land is fairly expensive (50% more than the North)

Personally, I like the North, but not the isolation... my wife prefers to be near family.

Any additional thoughts?
Thanks... Jon

Wednesday · Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:43 pm Post subject:

a community of family and experienced farmers sounds like heaven

Soo · Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 1:10 pm Post subject:

Hi Jon,

I've had to make a similar choice. I live in Toronto and have decided on the North (Sault Ste. Marie). My choice was easy because we have family up there.

Either choice is a good one. I've lived in Kingston and you are correct, there is fantastic farmland in the area. Kingston is a little more accessible should you wish to make weekend trips and setup your homestead.

I will say that the North is spectacular. Yes there are shorter growing seasons, but it is still doable. In fact hundreds of Menonites recently moved up to the Soo area....and they live entirely off the land.

I would have some concern about being close to Sudbury. The soil there will likely be acidic from the mining.

kelee877 · Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:12 pm Post subject:

Soo..if I can where abouts I live near Sault st Marie...and I moved here 5 years ago from London Ontario..it is abit of an adjustment, but I would never change it for the world..my kids love to go fishing and we are a 3 minute walk to the beach..jobs are tough to get here, but your cost of living is a third smaller then the larger cities..

Laurie · Coal Joined: Jun 13, 2005 Posts: 9

My first experience with "life on the land" didn't end anywhere near self suficiency. My husband and I bought two and half acres of land in Washington State where we planned to do things like - garden, raise goats, have chickens . . . the whole shebang. Well, without imported topsoil and a lot of fertilizer the garden was practically a fizzle. A fizzle means that we got stuff to eat from it but producing enough to feed a family of six is something that takes skill and experience. I didn't/don't yet have it. The goats were a handful and I never managed to get one bred to have milk. I loved them though . . . The chickens did real well until the local carnivors started finding them and spreading the word. It got so bad my husband once leapt out the window in the middle of the night (naked) to defend the chicken house from the coons.

I'm sure most of you could do a better job than I did, but just to let you know my tiny veggie garden in the burbs is getting all kinds of compliments - I always thought I had a green thumb. So be sure and get as much experience as possible before relying on your own self for production.

Does anybody have any stats on how much food (with rationing) it takes to feed a family for say a year or two? I just did some potato research and was appalled to discover that it takes a lot of acres to feed a family of six.

An acre produces about 80 bushels a bushel weighs about 60 lbs and a family can eat about 250 pounds a week. Those numbers don't make me very comfortable . . .

http://www.dole5aday.com/ReferenceCenter/Encyclopedia/Potatoes/potato_history2.jsp?topmenu=1

The Royal Society of London proclaimed potatoes to be a nutritious food for the poor and regarded them as a

food for people without status. The Irish were the first to recognize the food value of potatoes, and in

the late 1600's Ireland became the first European country to plant potatoes as a staple food crop. For the

next 200 years, every factory worker received 12 pounds of potatoes every day and a typical family ate more

than 250 pounds of potatoes every week.

uNkNowN ElEmEnt · Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:52 pm Post subject:

My goodness, my family can't go through 5 pounds in a week, but 250? is that all they were eating???

RdSnt · Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:59 pm Post subject:

I'm glad to see someone else posting some "reality check" info. to these posts, thanks Laurie.

Living off the land is hard, hard work and it takes lots of experience to do. You point to Mennonites and say see it can be done. However, that is a way of life that has been passed along for centuries, and Mennonites are not adverse to technology just inappropriate and unnecessary technology.
How many farmers do you know that live completely self-sustaining lives? Supplying and using only their own grown and raised foods. None would be the correct answer.

I would start practicing at home, grow food there, change your life to prepare. How many cars do you have? If more than one get rid of them. It is a lesson you'll need to learn, compromise and patience are essential farming skills.
Wait for better price opportunities, they will come around soon enough. If you have no experience, buying property now is just going to be a distraction and a drain on your finances. You don't know what to spend money on and thus will waste lots of it.
_________________
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.

I_Like_Plants · Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:48 am Post subject:

How the hell does a family go through 250 lbs a week of anything?? Potatoes?? Is that taking into account feeding the horse and cow on them? You might be thinking it's harder than it actually is.....

smallpoxgirl · Moderator Joined: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 5734

Well, I would not have guessed this, but I just looked it up. A pound of potatoes has 318 calories. So a family of 6 probably could go through 250 pounds of potatoes in a week if that's all they were eating.

Ludi · Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:46 am Post subject:

There are methods of growing food on small amounts of land, the important thing is to choose the proper crops, those which produce a lot of food in a small amount of space. Biointensive methods produce large amounts of food on small acreage - often less than 4000 square feet per person. Some people have managed to get this down to 1000 square feet per person. This is a vegan diet. In a vegan diet, the main difficulty is in providing enough calories, especially for men. Nutrients are usually sufficient, with careful selection of crops, though iodine is often lacking.

Ecology Action publishes many detailed pamphlets about designing and growing a complete vegan diet in a small amount of space. Even if you decide to use a different method to grow the crops, their diet planning information is very helpful:

http://www.bountifulgardens.org/shop/gb-research-papers.html
_________________
No original ideas are contained in this post.

LadyRuby · Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:10 am Post subject:

We have about a 3/4 acre lot, nothing compared to what you folks are talking about! I know we could never feed our family entirely on that, but I think with (a lot of effort) we could do a lot to supplement it. I have a book called "Square Foot Gardening" that has a lot of good suggestions for growing a lot in small spaces.

I wonder, if you have 20 acres and no farm equipment to speak of, and a relatively small family, who's going to work all that land?

Ludi · Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:17 am Post subject:

I have 20 acres and a two-person family. I see the extra land as a buffer against being crowded by neighbors and also as a place to forage and hunt. Also, we're planting lots of edible native plants and fruit trees. So that much land can be made "productive" for a small family. A 20 acre empty field might not be much use though.

JonM · Tar Sands Joined: Jun 10, 2005 Posts: 24

Thanks for the replies,

RdSnt, good advice, and believe me I have no delusions, or even intentions of leaving the city and starting a self-sufficient farm... as much as I think I would enjoy that lifestyle. Spent far too many summers working my grandparents and their neighbor’s farms and know first hand how right you are right about the work involved. No one farm in the area was self-sufficient, but the cooperation and community helped bridge the gaps.

Regarding land, I don’t discount your point but also not sure I agree that investing in property would be a waste of money at this point in time. Other than the Great Depression, property has typically been a fairly solid investment, albeit not the best performing. We have no intentions of diving in eyes closed here. All we can really do is speculate on how things may go, analyze the options and try to plan cautiously. Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.

As for the potatoes.... that’s about 6 lbs per person per day! I glanced at the 5lb sack of spuds at the market last night, and couldn’t imagine eating all that in a day. Gonna need an extra pound of butter or sour cream to go with.

heyhoser · Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 10:34 am Post subject:

My whole two cents here regarding land:
We're extremely lucky to have three fresh-water mountain springs on our land (we get all the water we need for the house just from one of them that also fills the pond, a second one waters the crops and animals). Living anywhere, no matter how great the land is for growing crops or having good neighbours, would be very 'difficult' without access to your own clean water!!

oowolf · Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:48 pm Post subject:

I once decided I would try to live on the Irish all potato diet. I whipped up 10 pounds of mashed potatoes and started in. I found it impossible to consume 10 pounds in 1 day without getting utterly sick of potatoes. Drastic diet changes are not easily made. If you expect your survival diet to differ from your present diet begin to adapt now-don't think you can easily do it "when you have to". Reverting to eating "plain food" will probably result in a healthier diet than most people in "developed" societies now eat.

A diet of root vegetables is mostly water. You will need to grow nutrient dense foods like grains, seeds, nuts which require more square footage. Learning to hunt and fish is essential. However, a family of four could feed themselves on 1 acre of quality soil. A KNOWLEDGABLE subsistence farmer can produce 10 calories of food for every 1 calorie of work (and you did know that " modern" machine agriculture takes at least 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce 1 calorie of food---add to that processing and shipping, etc and the ratio soars to as much as 100 to 1). And make no mistake---farming is work.