Sustainability

[Deberosa]

It's a great buzzword lately. They call businesses sustainable, projects sustainable, processes sustainable... What does it mean to you?

To me it ties to my idea of a homestead as a system that I posted before. That production occurs and continues with a minimum of inputs. For the homestead it means each project supports the others - animals and plants supporting each other to produce food. Such as using animals to clear the land and prepare it for agriculture that can then also support the animals...

Any thoughts on this or things you have tried?

[LeatherneckPA]

sustainability, self-sufficiency, back-to-the-earth, homesteading,,,it's all the same thing to me. the ultimate goal is to be able to provide for the greatest majority of the needs of your family entirely by yourselves, with little or no outside assistance. I don't subscribe to SHTF theories, but I also don't have much faith in the inherent good of human nature.

In the end I believe it will be a lot of media hype for several years, and then you won't hear about it much anymore except in snippets about those "crazy sustainability people". The VAST majority of the modern society is too spoiled and lazy to take any action to prepare or provide for themselves.

[grams]

Well to me, sustainability means maintainability. Can I sustain my way of heating if I heat with wood heat, cut my own wood off of my own land, but don't maintain my woodlot. Can I sustain my manner of eating if I don't know how to get my food without going to mcD's or the grocery store. If it takes two people to accomplish things on your place, can you figure out a way to do it by yourself in case of injury, or death.

[WileyCoyote]

Funny, just the other day, a developer friend and I were talking about how much he hates that word. He is an older and very wise gentleman, raised poor and hardscrabble in a coal mining town. He said that all developers talk about to potential buyers is "sustainability", when in actuality, there is little to no sustainability anywhere, simply because there is no interrelated process of constant renewal. You build a development, a group of houses, with commercial development inside or on the outside, with schools and greenspace and drainage, and you can have interconnectivity, but - unless each part of what you build or create not only feeds off of all the other parts, but holds up its function to sustain all of the other parts, you do not have sustainability.

[WRTN]

When it comes to sustainability, there is ONE THING that is sustainable.................retreat.

[Deberosa]

The difference between true sustainability to me vs self reliance or preparedness is that one will last for varying periods of time but a sustainable setup would last indefinitely.

For instance - stock piling ammunition, grain, fuel, even toilet paper will insure self reliance for a time but what about when the supplies run out? Sustainability is much more difficult to achieve. I have thought of the example of wood heat mentioned above. If you don't maintain your own wood lot it's not really a sustainable resource, but then again it's better than depending on electricity or other fuel.

I really don't think it's possible to be completely sustainable, but steps in that direction are what I try for. Bill Jeavons book on Growing More Vegtables than you ever THough Possible talks about the amount of land needed to sustainably supply a family of 4 with vegetables, but what about meat and fuel,etc? I wonder what the space per human is for that kind of sustainability?

[LeatherneckPA]

Cindy and I were just talking about this today, in fact.

We are working the idea around in our heads right now to maximize our self-sufficiency. What we have come up with so far is a minimum of 10 acres to support a garden, a small orchard, a berry patch, a dozen laying hens, 6 dairy goats, a pig and calf for butchering each year. That should easily provide very nearly all of the food a couple can eat in a year.

But I am conflicted. I am also kicking the idea around of going "full steam ahead" into a small farm lifestyle. This includes all of the above plus about 50 chickens for the freezer each spring, a sow to provide our piglet plus a few for sale, a cow to provide our yearly beef calf plus milk for the pigs, and a pair of draught horses for farm work. small horse-popwered farms used to provide all a large family needed plus some excess in good years. I don't see any reason it couldn't still work.

[Deberosa]

Cindy and I were just talking about this today, in fact.

We are working the idea around in our heads right now to maximize our self-sufficiency. *What we have come up with so far is a minimum of 10 acres to support a garden, a small orchard, a berry patch, a dozen laying hens, 6 dairy goats, a pig and calf for butchering each year. *That should easily provide very nearly all of the food a couple can eat in a year.

But I am conflicted. *I am also kicking the idea around of going "full steam ahead" into a small farm lifestyle. *This includes all of the above plus about 50 chickens for the freezer each spring, a sow to provide our piglet plus a few for sale, a cow to provide our yearly beef calf plus milk for the pigs, and a pair of draught horses for farm work. *small horse-popwered farms used to provide all a large family needed plus some excess in good years. *I don't see any reason it couldn't still work.

I have in my mind that it would take about 20 acres of tillable land and pastures to raise your own meat sustainably. I may be wrong though, just my thinking. That's because I would need to grow grain or some kind of feed for the poultry and have enough pasture to grow some hay and rotate pastures for livestock. So I was thinking 20 acres to accomplish all of that. It might take more if draft horses are included to give space to grow their food. Again, not sure, but just what I've been thinking on this topic.

[LeatherneckPA]

I spend a lot of time on Homesteading Today (http://www.homesteadingtoday.com) as well. By putting out little feelers in various forums (poultry, equine, and pig) I have pretty much come to the conclusion that 20 acres is about right. And that a couple who use rotating pastures and the like can probably farm about 40 acres with very good results and little to no gas. It's the entire concept of minimizing my dependence upon anyone else that appeals to me the most.

The greatest obstacle I will have to overcome is the annoying little voice in the back of my mind that keeps telling me that 50 is too old to be starting this whole thing.

[AlchemyAcres]

The greatest obstacle I will have to overcome is the annoying little voice in the back of my mind that keeps telling me that 50 is too old to be starting this whole thing.

Stop it! I know folks who've started out much older than 50!!!!
Follow your dreams!
;)


~Martin

[bookwormom]

sustainability to me means something that can keep going. Like the place where I was raised. It had been farmed for at least 800 years, fertility maintained, maybe improved during that time. Nothing was brought on the place, like bought feed for instance. We never raised a hog because we could not feed one. The place sustained two milk cows, a flock of hens and a bunch of geese and some rabbits, a couple of goats,but not a hog. Everything went back to the land, nothing ever went to waste. we grew rye, oats and wheat, lots of potatoes. the fowl got rye, oats and wheat crushed up and mixed with boiled and crushed potatoes. The cows got grass and clover in summer and hay, mangels and turnips in winter, they also got some oatstraw mixed in with the chopped hay.
If modern agriculture had not made its way even to my remote village, I guess this setup could still work and sustain itself.
I guess to go beyond the limit is the end of sustainability.
we buy feed on our place here and it bothers me. Basically by bringing in to the homestead from the outside takes of the fertility in one place and puts it in another, applied to cities it is wasted, flushed down the toilets.

[TNDadx4]

The greatest obstacle I will have to overcome is the annoying little voice in the back of my mind that keeps telling me that 50 is too old to be starting this whole thing.


Don't let that deter you. I keep telling myself that 39 is too old to smake the move to my dream property, but there will always be people older and always be people younger that us making the move. Although I will say that I do wish that I had gotten my head straightened out earlier in life so I would already be on my land.

Anyway, you can do it. What have you got to lose? Speaking for myself, I would regret it when I got older that I didn't start when I was 50 or 39 or whatever age.

Follow your dreams!

[WileyCoyote]

Ditto, Leatherneck. We too are 'starting out' at 50, even though I guess the best way to put it would be "starting over". We have raised our own vegies and greenhoused and raised chickens and goats and cows and horses - but never all at once. Now we are about to put all of our experiences and knowledge together for the second half of our lives. It really is scary, because old bones and joints don't work like they used to. But it is something I've planned on doing since I was 14, and now am finally in a position financially, mentally, emotionally, and educatedly to do it. Experience is a great resource; don't discount it!

[LeatherneckPA]

Wiley I know what you mean. *We have wanted to do something like this for decades. *but we had to (a) get our heads straight, and (b) get financially ready. *I really believe the best part of this venture is going to be the fact that we will be able to concentrate on making a living rather than making a livelihood. *don't remember where I heard that from, but it is a distinction that must be made.

[flatwater]

The to old question will pop it's ugly head up from time to time but really age has nothing to do with it. Well maybe a little. So I would suggest the first sustainability that we have to work on is our selves. You have to keep the body sustainable the best you can. I'm 60 and I have finally learned that I'm not as good as I once was but once I'm as good as I've always been. Take naps drink plenty of good water and exercise. And always remember it's far better to wear out then rust out.
Flatwater

[machinemaker]

It is not how old in years you are, but how young you are in your head and heart! With age has come experience and knowledge, so that we can do it better not harder. Beside, I fully tend to become a tough old geeser some day.
kent

[WileyCoyote]

LOL Machinemaker - Exactly.
My hero is the 87 year old man who spends his winters plowing the driveways and sidewalks of "the elderly" in his community. :o ;D I want to be 94, "that tough mean old lady down the gravel road; she'll shoot ya if you don't sing out first!".

[Catalpa]

Oh, it did me good to see the "attitude check". * ;)

I have my bit of land, but can't build there until I sell the house I'm in. *Being in Michigan, that may not happen anytime soon. *I'm in my mid 40s, and beginning to feel like I'll never manage to make my dream come true.

But you folks are right, my age doesn't really matter, I just have to keep working at it! *;D

"I want to be 94, "that tough mean old lady down the gravel road; she'll shoot ya if you don't sing out first!". "

LOL, me too - but I'll have to remember to get a smaller shotgun that doesn't kick so hard! * ;)

[bee_pipes]

There was a book I came across three or four years ago - can't remember the title - but it focused on sustainable agriculture on a small parcel of land. I may be mistaken, but believe it was 5 acres - certainly not much more than that. The property was divided into 5 interchangeable fields/pastures. The livestock was poultry, pigs and cattle. The typical progression was 1) crops, 2) poultry, 3) cattle, 4) pigs, 5) fallow. You grow the crops one season, let the chickens in for the gleanings the next season, let the cows in the following season to graze and fertilize, the pigs basically do your tilling and further fertilize the next season, then the field sits fallow for a season before being replanted. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but it ran somewhere along these lines and was based on the small family farms of Europe - very tight and compact for life in a place where all the land was owned by someone. What really struck me about the book was that they made no bones about everything coming into the farm stayed on the farm. This included human wastes - kitchen scraps to the animals as feed, manure from the people and animals returned to the land in the form of compost (or direct deposits by the animals themselves). The only way something left the farm was to generate income or as exchange for other products needed for the farm.

I wish I could remember the title, but the focus of the book fits well with this topic. The small farm was a never ending cycle that continuously renewed the place. Deb's earlier post is right - the ammo will eventually run out, the machines will break down, the only renewable resources are living things.

Regards,
Pat

[Deberosa]

There is 5 acres and independance, and I also have a book called Micro-Eco Farming that is pretty good. By Barbara Berst Adams. I have others, I'll look them up tonight.

Not only is sustainability a good idea for TSHTF senarios, but I think it's going to be needed to put off impending disaster. We cannot go on as a society using resources without replenishing them.

[homesteadingnky]

With intensive planting you can grow much more produce on much less land. *Acording to a study done by Cornell University, I think it was. *Crow Miller grew more on his 2 acres with biointense gardening principles than a 15 acre traditional garden. *You can also check out Pathtofreedom.com as they grow over 6000 pounds of produce on 1/5 of an acre. *I know they live in Pasadena Cal. but on 1/5 of an acre, think about that.

If you are raising cattle you need roughly 1 acre per cow and calf for goats 1 acre would ideally support 8 does and their kids. *Obviously larger animals need more pasture. *A pig can be kept in a small pen and feed scraps, garden produce, ect. chickens, rabbits, and fish take much less land, cost much less to raise, and in my opinion taste better and are much healthier for you. With a good green house you could grow year round. *We intend to build an attached greenhouse to our house when we build. *I read in a Countryside article about a family who grew zone 10 fruit trees in their attached greenhouse. *They lived in CO. *Zone 10, just imagine. *:o *

I really thank it's a personal thing. *You know everybody wants to do their own thing. *I want to see how much I can do on a small amount of land. *We have 3 acres but will eventually split a 50 acre farm that joins us with my wife's sister and her husband. *We grew a really nice garden together last year and have big plans for the farm eventually. *However, I like the idea of being able to support ourselves entirely from the 3 acres. *It's just an experienment at this point but I hope and really think we can do it! *To each his own I guess but I sure enjoy reading all the ideas that everyone shares on here! *:D

Best wishes to you all!
Homesteading Dad

[flatwater]

For those of you who have poor land or no level surfaces , Hydroponics is the way to go. In fact when my wife and I move to our cabin I believe thats the way we will go.
Flatwater

[JAK]

Sustainability is an awareness of your place within both nature and civilization. For sustainability to be achieved, a balance must be struck which satisfies economics, social justice, and the laws of nature. Neglect any of these and the other two are not sustainable.

How can you achieve sustainability when others around you are not. The simple answer is, you can't. The choice is, whether or not to do your part even while others are not, and when and how to engage in and resolve such conflicts. This is not always easy, but I think the best revenge is living sustainably.

[JAK]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability_metric_and_indices#The_.22Daly_Rule s.22

University of Maryland School of Public Policy professor and former Chief Economist for the World Bank Herman E. Daly (working from theory initially developed by Romanian economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and laid out in his 1971 opus "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process") suggests the following three operational rules defining the condition of ecological (thermodynamic) sustainability:

1. Renewable resources such as fish, soil, and groundwater must be used no faster than the rate at which they regenerate.

2. Nonrenewable resources such as minerals and fossil fuels must be used no faster than renewable substitutes for them can be put into place.

3. Pollution and wastes must be emitted no faster than natural systems can absorb them, recycle them, or render them harmless.

[JAK]

I've always considered 'Sustainable Development' to be an oxymoron,
even though I don't think sustainable means static. I think sustainable means everchanging yet stable, strong yet peaceful and democratic, natural yet civil. So even though I don't like the term 'Sustainable Development' because development as it currently exists is so monstrous and nonsustainable, I still think this is a very useful model of what sustainability should be. I think a better term would be Sustainable Peace and Prosperity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sustainable_development.svg

[hillsidedigger]

We can talk about and some might achieve near sustainablility on an individual or small group basis. We are trying here but our family and in-laws think we are just simply backward.

There seems to be no such possibility for all the masses of people in the world, though.

[Deberosa]

We can talk about and some might achieve near sustainablility on an individual or small group basis. We are trying here but our family and in-laws think we are just simply backward.

There seems to be no such possibility for all the masses of people in the world, though.

The trick is that the world "may" be able to sustain the current population, at least according to John Jeavons in his book on Grow More Vegetables... *But *not to the style of living to which they are accustomed. *That is the key. *

Just because others don't care to follow is not really a consideration for me as long as they don't get in my way. *I feel that persisting and sharing how things are working both here and on my blog will eventually lead to first one or two and then maybe more people to think about starting a garden or growing some chickens. *To abandon it because it's not "popular" won't help the problem at all. *

I can't influence the world to change, but I can influence my own lifestyle and share with others that experience even though I am far from perfect. * I hope the dissention doesn't discourage you.


I started this endevour 5 years ago and I am not nearly where I would like to be, but when I look at the progress I made it's significant. *If everyone makes even one little adjustment the net affect would be significant but it's not going to happen from "above" it's got to be individuals adjusting their lifestyles, ever so gradually. *It won't work to force others or ridcule them, rather educate on the alternatives. *I think more and more people are going to see the need to downscale soon. *

[FirestarterKY]

In mind mind I mentally take note:
I have eggs and garden veggies.
Debbie makes soap and sews like crazy.
Nell has an orchard.
I soon will have the milk cow.
I guess I hope to work as a community.
That way, no one has to do it all.
We share what we do best.
Allisah is great at making herbal meds.
Oh, and Debbie has the GOOD well water.
I have the nut trees.
And, I have extra pasture in case someone is in need of grass for their animals.
I feel we have to work as a community.
Rather than each family being totally sustainable.
I have draft horses that could be borrowed to plow, that way not everyone has to keep there own.
By the way, draft horses heads are down eating 24/7!
I am making my chickens now ready to go off others support by feeding them only minimal commercial (amish) feeds.
They HAVE to eat what God gave them or go hungry.
The horses are on very small feed rations.
Only like, 2 cups a day of feed.
I figure, if it came to it, and I couldnt go get stuff, their lives wouldnt be too different.
Sustainability......that's why I got into heirloom veggie seeds.
I'm into heirloom tobacco this year.
Oh wish me luck!
It is just me and hubby and we wonder why we didnt have 10 children when it's time to put up hay for the winter. (again, need others)
The amish are good examples for me.
They are sustainable, but as a community.
One family does feeds.
One family does the BIG greenhouse.
One family does Dairy.
One family does the saw mill.
One family does the bees/honey.
etc....
I couldnt see myself doing all that myself.

Love the conversation!!!

Oh, and my friend Debbie already agreed to be the cheese maker.
Yah!

[Deberosa]

Very good points! And it is true that it's difficult to be totally sustainable as one or two individuals. That's not how humans are designed.

Hadn't thought about the Amish example but you are right, they have a sustainable community and they do specialize.

So you have draft horses? I would like to hear more about them and how you train, care for and use them. Maybe start another thread on that please?

[LeatherneckPA]

beepipes the book you are probably thinking of is titled The Self Sufficient Life and How To Live It and it's by a fella named John Seymour. It should be in every homestead dreamer's library. I am wearing out the library's copy and will have to get my own sometime soon.

firestarterKY I LOVE the community concept. and I have an 80 acre parcel in mind, within 15 minutes of a 50,000 person market for all the fresh, pasture fed livestock we could possibly raise. Not only could we feed ourselves, but we could make a significant source of income as well. Thanks for the idea.

[MooseToo]

so you guys saying stainability don't mean how mustard ruins my undershirts ?

[LeatherneckPA]

Moose those t-shirts aren't "ruined",,,,they just have "character".

[Steve_L]

Sustainability == composting toilet.

You eat it, you poop it, you put it back into the soil, you grow it, you eat it...

[rph]

If anyone is interested in sustainable farming check out joel salatin polyface farms

[Drawbar]

Growing up we had the lifestyle that many people on here are dreaming of. We raised and sold beef, chicken, sheep, pigs and dairy milk. We also sold wool, butter,replacement heifers and forest products. In the spring we sold plants and veggies out of our greenhouse and had huge gardens. So I would say we we were about as self-sufficient as a family can be.

It also took wayyyyyy more then 5 acres. It took wayyy more then 20 acres....

I know in todays modern way you can glean more product per given acre, but there is just no way a person can do much with five acres. A cow unto itself takes up two and that is before factoring in winter feed.

I think a lot of times people take the USDA recommendations of stocking rates as chiseled in rock. They are merely guides for a given region. Where I live, this time of year an acre of tame pasture can easily support two cows, but in two months time when the heat of summer drops the grass growth back, it will take two to support a single cow. Of course that all averages out to one cow per acre which can be misleading.

Forest ground is the same way. Here we can sustainable harvest 1 cord per acre on average, so in theory you only need 4 acres of ground to gather say 4 cord of wood to heat your home. The problem is, if you only have 4 acres in which to do this, you are going to capture every twig that is produced. At some point the wood that is no longer being reclaimed by the forest floor is going to deplete the soil and your trees will lose vigor. It will take awhile, but it will happen.

A few years ago I cut 130 cords of wood on 150 acres of land and while I was well under the sustainable 1 cord per acre level, it was truly amazing the volume of wood I took out. Even today (15 years later) I can see that it thinned the woods considerably.

I don't want to tromp on anyone's dreams here, but I think if someone is truly into self-sufficiency it takes some serious acreage. You can get by with far less, but it will mean relying on other landowners to harvest firewood, raise winter feed (hay) and using tillage and crop equipment. And as I found out in life, the more you have to rely on others, the more you are let down.

So am I an advocate of buying vast acreages? Hell no. As a large landowner myself I can tell you that it takes up to much working capital, too much time and is just to big to effectively manage. A prudent homesteader who is intent on near self sufficiency would be better off to lease or pay per use other landowners for firewood, crop ground and pastures. There is plenty out there and its silly to spend a ton of money on property taxes every year. My point here is though, that its going to take a lot more then 20 acres to be self sufficient.

I'll gladly field any questions from people that feel I am wrong, but let me say this. We were self sufficient. We were not looking to be self sufficient, or going by theories or the written ideas of others, we lived it and it was tough and it took a lot of land. (400 acres to be exact)

[bee_pipes]

Drawbar, I gotta agree with a lot of what you said. I don't know that Deborosa was quite pushing for 100% complete and independent sustainability - that is impossible. Unless you mine your own ore, have a refinery and foundry, raise cotton and sheep, spin and weave your own thread, yarn and fabrics, none of us are 100% sustainable. You're right - a big spread with a large family to work like dogs could cover most of their needs, but there will still be barter and other exchange.

For those of you getting overwhelmed, back it off a notch. Everything you can produce is one more thing you won't need to seek outside the home. Everything you can produce in surplus is something you can use to barter for the goods and services you can't produce. If you have enough woodland to produce your own firewood (a good example Drawbar) in accordance with sustainable harvest, that's one thing you don't need to acquire. If you have a big enough place to produce a surplus of firewood, now you have coin of the realm. If producing that surplus is at the cost of depleting your acreage, then we really haven't learned anything ;D

Likewise, if you can produce a surplus of chickens, eggs or meat. Bearing ni mind chickens are easily kept, they might not have that much value. Pork, beef and goat require a larger investment in time and resources, so should command a higher price. When thinking about sustainability in that respect, look at what you can produce in surplus.

Skills? When the lights go out, you'll need someone to repair tools, do woodwork beyond your abilities, etc. No skills? Someone will need labor to run their larger spread. Washing, sewing, spinning, weaving, even baking.

Much of what Deborosa was getting at was one system sustaining another - chicken manure feeding the garden, the garden producing feed for the chickens, etc.

None of us can be 100% sustainable without our neighbors and division/specialization of labor. Sooner or later the clothes will wear out, and Tennessee is too dang hot to run around in furs during the summer, and has too many chiggers to do work in the buff (ouch!)

Regards,
Pat

[Deberosa]

Yes, Pat, you pretty much summarized what I was talking about. I am thinking the same kind of cycle with pigs and corn. I saw an example of someone who fenced off a 20 by 40 area, then divided it in half. Each year pigs would go into one half and corn in the other half, the next year switching. She had great luck with this. I plan on fencing off my field - I have the extra cattle panels into a 30 by 60 equivalent. Then other garden plants could go into that area also.

Complete sustainability is simply not possible, especially for me, but I like to experiment to find out what the limits are. Time is a major limit for me, since I work full time, and I will soon end up stretching my 4.5 acres about as far as I can.

Another thought on this topic. Sustainable also means sustainable over time to me. As I finish another weekend of work around here, I am constantly reminded that I am not getting any younger! I look for ways that will allow me to maintain the system for many years rather than systems that require significant maintenance. Rotating animals like the pigs and garden become useful for this.

Getting the fencing in now so that animals and gardens can be rotated easily and mulching to control weeds as well as feed the soil gets at these long term maintenance issues.

[Drawbar]

Debrosa and Bee Pipes...thanks for understanding. I was afraid you would read something into what I said an be offended. It was not meant to.

In some ways I am fortunate, a lot of land and a lot of potential for that land, but when its all said and done, its just overwhelming. For 30 years now I have watched my dad do absolutely NOTHING with his land, a sizable chunk. Now as its about to be handed over to me, managing it seems almost impossible.

I would like to clear some land into more tillable farming and tamed pastures, but at $4.50 a gallon to feed a bulldozer, its prohibitive. Its the same thing for cleaning up an old gravel pit, or making some access roads into some woods that have never been cut...all cost prohibitive.

Then there is the worry. Taxes, destructive trespassing and managing the wildlife. If you don't think the latter is important, you need to see the numerous dead carcasses of the baby deer the coyotes killed this year. Very sad...

I think most homesteaders put far too much value in number of acres and try to get as many acres per budget as possible. Up to a point that is okay, but I think a far better approach is to figure out a few things to specialize in and concentrate on that.

If you are looking at raising some beef and sheep, then look for quality tamed pastures. Concentrate on that and don't worry too much about forest ground. You can still have a woodstove and stuff, you just might have to get your wood off-site. No big deal, wood grows everywhere and it can often be had for free...you just have to hunt for a source. (But its better to hunt then it is to pay property taxes every year :) )

If you are into gardening, then you are really fortunate. A few acres can produce A LOT of food. Don't look for tons of land with wood and pastures, concentrate on good soil, availability to water, southern exposure and a potential greenhouse site. Again wood can be found off-site, as can pastures if you want to try animal husbandry. Even buying wood and feed can be cost effective. Its better for a gardener to produce some extra food and sell it and buy feed and wood then it is to pay property taxes :)

Finally if you have your heart set on animal husbandry, find land that is nearby to a good LARGE ANIMAL VET. They are harder to find then you might think. Also be looking for water. Animals drink a lot of water,and the better the water quality, the better they taste. (They should only drink water you would drink as a rule). Take stocking rates into account, but talk to the locals too. They have a better idea of what grass is produced for pasture feeding then USDA stocking rates. You may need more or less land then you think. Again look for potential leased or borrowed pastures. Again feed can be purchased so its silly to spend money on property taxes for land that produces only a little feed 6 months out of the year.

What I am trying to say here is that by prioritizing homesteaders wants, they can limit their searches and their needed acres to down to whats required and not whats wanted. Creativity is far better then paying property taxes. (notice a theme on this reply???)

[Deberosa]

Hadn't thought of the property tax perspective but it's a really good point! If an acre costs more in taxes and upkeep than it produces then it's not really all that great a deal.

[Drawbar]

Hadn't thought of the property tax perspective but it's a really good point! If an acre costs more in taxes and upkeep than it produces then it's not really all that great a deal.

Oh you got that right. Land is kind of funny, between tax incentives, taxes, usage and yields you can get some strange numbers!!

Take my tillable fields for instance. I have 100 acres in tillable fields. I rent this out to a local dairy farmer for feed (corn and ensilage) and get paid 600 dollars a year. That is roughly 6 bucks and acre...pathetic.

Add to that 4 years without pay and I should be sideways mad. The thing is though, because I am a USDA recognized Farm, I get tax breaks for having tillable farm ground. Even though the guy is essentially farming my land for free, it is being farmed. With so few farmers now, I am lucky I got someone that wants to use it!!

So without him I would lose my framing tax incentive and really pay for that acreage property tax wise. So its actually better to let him farm it, and then when I do get paid something for it, just call it a bonus and smile.

Now I did take 12 acres a few years ago that was in tillable/tamed pasture and plant high-bred trees on that. That is currently producing 84 dollars an acre per year, so it would seem like tree planting would be the way to go.

Well not really. There is a huge cost in planting trees, and even even bigger cost in reverting that land back to tillable ground should I want farm land again. So for now I am on a mission to find a more lucrative use for that land, and it would seem my own operation would be the best way to go. It will be 10 plus years before I can take full advantage of that land though.

My point with all this is, more land is not the answer to all homesteading problems. It just means you have more headaches and issues. I think homesteaders would be far better off having the logistic problems of getting wood from other landowners, using pastures and all the other headaches that come from off-property uses and distances then they would having lots of land. You are going to have headaches with more land anyway, as well as paying high property taxes. Let others pay the taxes and merely worry about how you are going to make their land work for you.

[rAcErRicK]

Drawbar, hard to ask, without seeming nosey, but just querious, have you checked into the grass fed (only) beef on perhaps a local only basis ? That is to say, without all the harmones, antibiotics, and other poisons that is in all the normal meat market beef ? In my small hometown there is a local pioneer family that has done well over the years butchering and selling locally raised grass fed beef. You can get small packages, or a 1/4 side or even a whole beef, depending on freezer space. There is a rising demand for "good clean" meat, as the knowledgable become aware of the junk in the meat counters at W/M. A partnership adventure ? Good hay is also in great demand anymore. Of course, I understand these things are very different, in different places. I'm wondering if one might advertise in small, "local shopper" type publications, in nearby communities, where the "real" people are, so to speak.

Just some thoughts, in my part of the country these two things are in great demand, the market isn't significant in the "sheeple" or big city invironments, but in more rural communities, it is flourishing.

[Drawbar]

Yeah I looked into raising beef, and still am considering it I guess. I went to the Northeast Livestock Expo yesterday and was shocked at what cattle were going for, obviously the market has just been pulled out under that industry. Good Hereford Steers at well over 1000 pounds going for 94 cents a pound live weight. Black Angus, $1.05...I was just shocked. So was everyone else. I think with the economy people are just the wait and see approach.

At this point I am looking more at sheep. We have raised sheep in the past on this farm and did quite well at it, so that is what I am looking at now. I got to solidify a market first and run the numbers again (and again, and again) then maybe pull the trigger on it in a few weeks.

I will most likely go grass-fed with either species.

[MooseToo]

read recently that the absolute most lucrative usage for small acreage (other than pot) is horticultural products - at least in this type of ag there is more opportunity for the grower to reach the consumer without middle-men and there is the significant advantage of minimal govt regulation - of course, the market will fluctuate *moreso regarding disposable consumer income than it will with foodstuffs -

just a thought -

[Drawbar]

You make a good point but I think that market is kind of saturated. Its also the same reason I kind of decided to opt out of grass-fed beef...everyone is doing it.

You have to keep in mind too...and I mean this as no disrespect for anyone on here...its just that I am more of a farmer then a homesteader. That being defined as someone that is trying to make a profit and putting food on the table of others rather then just providing for myself. Its a huge difference, and kind of moving outside the original scope of this thread (sustainability).

[WileyCoyote]

Aint nothin wrong with bein a farmer, drawbar! ;D

While self-sustainability is a worthwhile goal, raising foodstuffs for others is very cool. The place we are moving to (THIS WEEK! dance dance dance) is a place where folks raise Angus beef. That's mostly it - few local vegetable gardens, and greenhouses are 50 miles apart or more for plant starts. So I mentioned to the seller that we wanted to put in a greenhouse, and that the two acres off to the side of the house would be perfect for our vegie garden. I told her about the chicken coop next to the garden, with the chicken moat to run around the garden, and eggs and chicken meat to be our secondary 'start' project. (The chickens run around the garden in a fenced 'moat' to keep out the bugs.) She was tickled pink. "You know," she said, "if you raise fresh vegetables, and have plant starts in a greenhouse, and have chickens and eggs, you could open a barter store. The local ranchers will trade you beef for these items. All you need is someone to bake bread, and everyone could have everything they need, all right here!" She's told some other locals what we want to do, and everyone is thrilled and wants to be a part of it! So we can be self-sustaining as well as put food on other folks' tables. Maybe we won't make a 'profit' - although we might if we have to resort to cash trade - but if we have all that we need amongst ourselves, and don't have to drive 50 miles to the grocery store for what we need, I guess we could consider that profit as well. And the house/property we are buying used to be the area dairy, and our 'third thing' in the plan is Dexter cattle for milk, cheese and yogurt.

IMHO, having everything work together and complement each branch of productivity - like cow and chicken manure for fertilizer for the garden - is the same as people working together to feed each others' needs. So people paying you for the food that they put on your table, so that you can grow more food to put on their (and your) table, sounds like sustainability to me! ;D

[Drawbar]

It could be. For me its mostly about keeping the family farm in the family, and then getting a bit more use out of it.

Last year we produced 600 dollars from the lease of 100 tillable acres, and 1080 dollars from the sale of 18 cords of firewood for a total of $1680. The taxes were over 6 grand so we obviously need to start putting the land to a more productive use.

As for farming and sustainability, oh it certainly cane be done. It seemed my Grandparents were good at this, changing primary farming from one venue to another as the markets shifted. For instance they were primarily potato farmers at one time, then kind of switched to chicken farming, and then into dairy farming. Of course while they did that, they had pigs, sheep and cows too, but tried to concentrate on one big area of farming to make a living.

In my own farm plan I have listed every possible revenue generator I could think of, just to have it factored in as potential income. This includes such things as quarrying the gravel I have, the numerous apple trees, etc...the stuff I really don't want to do now, but the stuff I could do if need be.

As for your property, congratulations. Sounds like you are off to a good start, but we'll want pictures you know :)

[LeatherneckPA]

Drawbar sounds like your grandparents had the right idea. *I'm not a big fan of mono-culture farms. *In my admittedly new and unexperienced opinion (in other words based soley upon my research and readings) the secret to self-sustainability is diversification. *Gram and Gramps focusing on a primary "cash cow", but dabbling in several other animals also, was probably the smartest way to do things. *And it worked for centuries. *Why did we ever change it? *We became blind subscribers to the hype of Madison Avenue (victims), I believe. *Newer ain't always better.

Wiley, what a wonderful adventure you are about to embark upon. *Your plan is very similar to what I hope to achieve for myself in the next 3-5 years myself. *Best of luck. *Invest in a digital camera, and keep us posted.

[Drawbar]

I am very proud of my Grandparents really. Their method, and style of farming was so successful that it enabled their son to basically skate by on their farming profits for his entire life.

My Dad did very little with the farm except cut some wood and lease out the tillable land, but that's okay, he paid his dues at a young age.

Now the cost of living and property taxes have caught back up, but as much as I whine about paying taxes, I look forward to the opportunity to make the farm productive again and having livestock on the land again.

As for being a farmer? It's all I know really. Yeah I do metalworking as a machinist off-farm, but the farm never really leaves you even then.

[WRTN]

It's a great buzzword lately. *They call businesses sustainable, projects sustainable, processes sustainable... *What does it mean to you? *

To me it ties to my idea of a homestead as a system that I posted before. *That production occurs and continues with a minimum of inputs. *For the homestead it means each project supports the others - animals and plants supporting each other to produce food. *Such as using animals to clear the land and prepare it for agriculture that can then also support the animals...

Any thoughts on this or things you have tried?

I think I misinterpreted sustainability in the economic sense of the word Deb.

I hunt lease the parcels of land out to various hunt clubs. *It covers my cost of insurance, property taxes, and other expenses and usually have some left over to the next year. *I may put that to fencing, gates and other measure to keep poachers and trespassers out although nothing will keep them out if they want to sneek in.

Areas that qualify, I have put into CRP (concervation reserve program) with the NRCS. *Not all land qualifies for this but in most cases it must be crop land. *The annual rental payments and incentive payments are a big help as well as the fencing that was cost shared for fencing out the tree that were planted.

A little logging here and there help add some income and actually benefits the forest if done properly.

This year we tried out hand at bee keeping but we are off to a shaky start by loosing our queen but we got another 2 nucs of bees delivered and installed. *The jury is still out on this project.

I have thought about cattle and other livestock but they are money loosers in my opinion when you add up all of the costs.

Each area differs in what folks want to pay for. *You will just have to experiment and see what works. *

[Drawbar]

We have always allowed hunting on our farm, but I am thinking about posing it this year to deer hunters. Last year we had some issues with deer hunters wrecking our fields with trucks and cars by slogging through wet holes, and then there was an especially nasty confrontation between a hunter and some kids on an ATV.

The kids asked for, and received permission, and then this hunter felt they were ruining his hunting and started screaming and yelling at these kids, which he had no right to do.

All in all, just too many problems so its just easier to say no to everyone. It sucks because as a large landowner I always felt managing wildlife and allowing those without land to hunt, was the responsible thing to do. I mean if I shut hunting down, that is 2½ square miles that is now hunter restricted. But I am just tired of being the only one responsible.

We have huge problems with turkey here, and this year I begged and pleaded with the hunters to come and hunt Turkey on us. Not a soul showed up. Not one, but when its deer hunting season, they come by the pickup load. I figure since the coyotes took such a heavy toll on the deer this year, the best way and easiest way to deal with hunters is to just post the land and not deal with them anymore.

Its sad though. A 251 year tradition of hunting is over.

[logansackett]

I am new at this, but I just wanted to say that I very much like the idea of a small parcel to maintain, with a network of other people in the area to trade with. I think Claire Wolfes article this month was about that.
Drawbar- It may just be me but I think you are a lucky person, I can feel the excitment you have about working your farm and finding better ways to do it. Being happy with what you do is most of the battle.
WileyCoyote- I am happy for you, great luck to you and keep us posted.

[StephiLou]

Drawbar -

Where are you so we can come for turkey season? ;D

Steph

[Drawbar]

This is a working farm, so right now I am working with the Game Wardens to issue me some nussence permits to rid the farm of these Waldo County Rats.

With livestock now on the farm and the Turkeys so plentiful in number,and carrying toxic somenella, I got a good reason to thin the numbers on those.

I have already killed 2 with my snowmobile, and 2 with my car so if working with the Game Wardens doesn't amount to anything, I am going to take matters into my own hands and manage the Turkey's myself. (which incidentally can taste pretty good if you turkey fry the ones that are eating the grain :) )

[DaleK]

Turkey season's just over here, think they got 4 or 5 on us this year. More would have been nice.

Drawbar I have a neighbour here who's had over 300 turkeys at a time eating off his silage stack, his steers all got coccidiosis even though he was giving decox heavily. He and his son ended up killing 30 of them one day with hockey sticks (no guns on the farm) and the rest decided to stay away for a while.