Author Topic: A disurbing thought (Read 3953 times)

don heath · « **on:** September 15, 2009, 07:29:13 PM »

My Wife and family have just moved to rural Sweden. A fairly large 'Kommune' (County) with three small villages, lots of lakes and forest and a reasonable ammount of crop land. Population of the Kommune is c14,000.

The community natural resources officer is an ex Zim parks research officer- we were at university together more than 20 years ago. I asked him as an accademic exercise to calculate the carrying capacity of the Kommune for People- with no outside input.

He whipped up a model looking at the annual moose and roe deer offtakes, known fish catch (+75% cause alot doesn't get reported), Known local wild berry harvest (Big Buisness with migrant workers comming in from east Europe to pick them) and assumed that local oats production would fall 50% without diesel etc. Assumed local meat and milk production would remain constant- (the ammount of pasture hasn't changed in the last 500 years).

Disturbing Answer - 'Don, Just under 1000'. Any competant wildlife ecologist sould be able to work out the human carrying capacity for the couty where you are planning your 'retreat'. It would be worth asking- and it will also tell you how many of your neighbors have to go before a self sustaining equalibrium is achieved.

WD45 · « **Reply #1 on:** September 20, 2009, 04:44:52 AM »

I would not assume that meat and milk production would stay the same. My guess is that even your small farms do not rely on pasture alone unless it never snows in your county! They still need to cut and transport hay and most dairy farms are feeding higher protein feed than just grass hay to boost production. Do they still use stack hay in your area? Even though the pasture availability has not changed in 500 years you still have to get the cow to the grass or the hay to the cow

I have been all over hungary and Romainia Where their farming methods have changed little in the last 100 years. If your area is similar to those places then I could agree production would stay the same. If they have been modernized then I would say not.

WD45 · « **Reply #2 on:** September 24, 2009, 04:27:53 AM »

Well Don,
Your thought must be to disturbing for anyone else to answer

don heath · « **Reply #3 on:** October 08, 2009, 11:52:53 PM »

WD45- Methinks you're right. So many folk seem to belive they can 'live off the land', if things go seriously wrong....The fact of the matter is that the world has roughly 5 billion more people than it can sustain without fertiliser and fossil fuel inputs.

Where I live in Africa I could easily sustain 30 people with no mechanical input other than the windmill to pump water- assuming we could keep the starving masses from invading, poaching the game, and stealing the crops and fruit.

A girl I know moved to America- Illegally- she had a weeks visa, and she and her fiance went walk about in the public forests around Idaho for 7 years. Finally reapeared when she was pregnant. He had a small income and bought fishing and occasional hunting permits. Had a black powder rifle as neighther were US Citizens and they fished, collected fruit and berries and just hiked around. Bought rice as a staple from the stores though - but they had no competition for resources from thousands of others also trying to live off the same land!

teamnelson · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2009, 01:18:46 PM »

I disagree that there are too many people for the planet; other research suggests the opposite. Its all a matter of lifestyle and sustainability. I do agree that people, particularly Western outdoorsmen, who imagine that they can live indefinitely off the land are missing some key factors from the equation. Competition, particularly inept competition for resources (wildlife, crops, fresh water, etc.) will gouge far deeper into your plan than you can possibly factor.

Seriously, I think a lot of survival concerned Americans don't pay attention to the other 5.75 Billion people on the planet.

burntmuch · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2009, 01:29:55 PM »

Disturbing thought for sure. But whats the answer? Stock up. Outlast your compitition. Kill em off.

teamnelson · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2009, 02:25:07 PM »

Its back to the stay put vs. move about (agrarian vs. nomadic) arguments. Social anthropology suggests that a complex system requires different models working simultaneously; i.e. some farm, some ranch, some fish, some move about. So there isn't really a single answer.

I think "outlast" is the goal ... I think we will lose far more after the fact due to other factors (i.e. power surges over an untended grid igniting fires, disease, and yes violence). When you consider all the fragile complex systems that require regular maintenance just to keep them operational, never mind dangerous, that will go neglected when your single thought is food, water or shelter ... I think outlast is a great short term goal. Then break out the heirloom seeds and build a society.

don heath · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2009, 09:22:31 PM »

I would go with -outlast! Disease is the biggest killer and once sanitation in the cities breaks down, cholera and dysentry will reduce the population drastically in a couple of months unless the anti-biotics are available...

From the Zimbabwe experiece, having a well stocked first aid kit with adequate anti biotics etc is probably as important as a good rifle and more important than 300 cans of beaked beans in the cellar...

gypsyman · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2009, 07:28:28 AM »

While knowing how much food would be attainable in a given area is good to know for the long term, the short term is were most will lose out. Grocery store's only carry a 3 to 5 day supply of food. Given a Katrina like event where food and water are gone for 2 weeks, and things get real ugly. And, if it happens on a national scale, no amount of NG or assistance from the govt. would be enough to keep things from getting out of hand. gypsyman

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2009, 09:14:31 AM »

Living off the big game in an area is easy to figure , most states know the deer/bear per sq mile and number of people per sq mile . In most places east of the Mississippi River you might be looking at a couple weeks at best . Small game ( rats etc included )would be the best bet in all but cold times of the year to reduce waste . An event that makes stored food unuseable , IE nuke attack , bio etc. and all bets are off on getting food .

WD45 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 18, 2009, 06:48:22 AM »

With winter coming on it makes me think of all the people in the bigger cities up north with no electric and no HEAT. Wonder if there would be a mass exodus into the warmer climates ?

locutius · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2009, 04:21:05 PM »

Don, you have hit on a very important statistic that, as you say doesn't equate to many idealised concepts of self sufficiency and more crucially..sustainability.

I actually came to a conclusion many years ago that one of the best indicators for healthly population levels is the numbers of indigenous peoples that the land supported PRE farming/agriculture. This figure allows for a healthy indicator of populations including humans into the complex biological web. For instance, (and the figures are startling) Australia's healthy population figure would be around the 200,000 - 300,000 for subsistance sustainable living. I think this can only be increased very marginally by small scale agriculture and animal husbandry and still maintain biodiversial integrity...this is not cosmic or green thinking. I am talking about the environment often supplying amonst other things ALL the complex ingredients for traditional medicines.

I think the figure for the US would be somewhere around the 5 million mark, but that figure is my own and not thoroughly researched.

I would suggest Dr Tim Flannery's book "The Future Eaters" as an excellent read and an expose on the eventual necessary balances that traditional populations had to accept in order to survive.

Imagine what a paradise this world would be with maybe a global population of only 100-200 million. More than enough to enjoy economies of scale and all the goodies of technology, invention and progress with a minimalist foot print on the natural world. I've never believed that human don't have a right to be here, but I certainly rail against the idea that we have a right to stomp on everything or that it is all here simply for our own whims.

Enjoy your village life. It sounds challenging and facinating.

Cheers

WD45 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2009, 03:54:08 AM »

I would think more on the lines of pre modernized farming not pre agriculture altogether. People will still be able to farm but it will be on the pre 1900 level to my way of thinking.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2009, 04:22:07 AM »

In 1900 before mechanized farming, (except steam tractors), the US supported around 60,000,000 people. 90% of the people lived on farms. 10% in cities. A family could survive on 40 acres east of the Mississippi. 10 acre pasture for cow, horse or mule, and hay. A 10 acre corn or wheat field, 10 acres of woodland, for hunting and firewood sustainability. and 10 acres for home, barn, corn crib, smokehouse, hog pen, vegetable garden, fruit and nut trees. Hunting and fishing would supplement your meat. It would be hard, but doable. If you add solar, wind, hydro on a creek for electricity, maybe make alcohol fuel to operate some powered farm equipment, or even a steam engine, life could be easier and more productive. Also, a semi underground home would require less fuel to heat or cool.

Many farmers by 1900 had already begun to specialize for more productivity and trade. Orchard farmers for peaches, pecans, maple syrup, wheat, corn, hogs, ranches with cattle out west, peanuts, cotton, etc.

In order for things to become better in America, we need to produce all of our own energy period. Then bring back the factories to provide decent paying middle class jobs with benefits. Otherwise, a homestead with a semi underground home, and self sufficient in most food and energy production. Probably the only way to ride out an economic colapse. If we get high inflation, and a war in Iran, there will be more chaos to come.

BeanMan · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2009, 02:52:35 PM »

IMHO your biggest problem would be trying to keep the small horde of food you have. Starving people will do many things that they wouldn't have thought of before. I don't think one well prepared family could hold em off for long. You'd need to have a group of like minded and commited people to pull it off.

vacek · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2009, 05:03:28 AM »

This is one reason my bug out place is on the Texas/Oklahoma border (panhandle).
1. The population in my home county there is still less than 3000.
2. Windmills are a mature technology to get good water from the Ogallala Aquifer. Also solar powered pumps.
3. It is a farm/ranch area that while has some irrigated agriculture it still pretty much relies on dry land and fallow cropping.
4. The people there are naturally self-sufficient and pretty much all know how to shoot well. Well educated.
5. Developed natural gas, wind, and oil for the immediate; and possibly long term once it is figured out how to harvest the fuel with less technology.
6. Terrain is rather flat with few natural trees which is good for field of fire.
7. No worries about earthquakes, floods, and who is afraid of the occasional tornado and rattlesnake. We find them interesting.
8. We do get drought, but have learned how to prepared for that. Many graneries and elevators.
9. Much of the original wheat ground has been in the crop reserve program for 20 years so much of the marginal land is back to native grasses.
10. Primary medical care is available.
In the final analysis the original post was correct, protein and calories today is largely a function of fossil fuel for the production of nitrogen and for tillage. Without it, the population is not sustainable even at a very simplified lifestyle.

The Poet · « **Reply #16 on:** December 22, 2009, 03:10:38 AM »

   vacek,

   Howdy, I live in far south Dallas county
and have 25 acres with 10 pasture and 15 wooded.
I love my land and have lived here for 27 years.
Dead end road and 1,000 acres all around me.
I know the landowners and actually 'know every tree'
being a trapper and coon hunter.

   I never see people out in the woods,
even with a million people living in Dallas county
no one ever comes out here.
However, it is getting crowded in town.

   Taxes are up,
{to pay for every body else's kids to go to school}
A 10 lane road is due to go in one mile south of me
and that will kill coon hunting here.

   I have a friend who's Dad owns 300 acres in the panhandle,
Lipscomb county, north east panhandle.
Near the Canadian river.
Deer everywhere and down on the river hog!
If I moved away from my land where I have trees and unlimited fire wood,
close to 'Baylor hospital' and a 'good grocery store'.
And moved to the panhandle to get away from people,
and high taxes,
I have to get used to no trees and I don't think I could do that.
I have lived around here all my life
and 'it would take 58 years {my age}
before any place else seemed like home'.

   'Where about's' do you live now
and where in the panhandle are you interested in?
Pecos, New Mexico is nice, and I have friends in Colorado.
Maybe I will just stay here as long as I can
and end up south of here 30-40 miles.
But I would like to move to a place better than here,
few people but a good hospital
{Baylor saved my life as 'I was reported dead' by police 9 years ago after 'motorcycle wreck'}
{I look pretty good for a dead man}
...And a good grocery store because I am an amature gourmet chef.

   I live on disability but can get around well.
The panhandle is weird as there are no trees except down in the river bottoms.
The water tastes bad and it is just unfamiliar.

   Where to live?

   Thank you

   J. Winters von Knife
   And Sandymay
   {she's a hound}
http://jacksknifeshop.tripod.com/

.

vacek · « **Reply #17 on:** December 22, 2009, 05:14:57 AM »

Poet,

Lipscomb county is where I grew up. I now live in the Front Range of Colorado but still own land there. There are more trees than you think, just not everywhere you look. The water tastes weird because you are use to city made water from a surface resevoir. The water in the panhandle comes from an aquifer 200-300 ft down. It has some hardness in it and a little bit of sulfate. That water is actually pretty sweet, but the local towns over chorinate it making it awful; or the local farmer has a build up of sulfur reducing bacteria in his well casing and that causes the nasty odor sometimes. That is all easy to remedy, and the actual water is quite nice.

If I may ask, who is it you know in Lipscomb county?

vacek · « **Reply #18 on:** December 22, 2009, 05:16:10 AM »

Pecos.......... man that is where the nasty water is.

The Poet · « **Reply #19 on:** December 23, 2009, 04:12:46 AM »

   vacek,

   A friend 'who lives in Dallas' said his Dad bought 300 acres in Lipscomb co.
Not near the Canadian river, but right in Lipscomb town, 'north of the river',
on 'Wolf creek'. Jim Buzzard, Kay Turner, Merle Kraft, {rancher}
Jim Price {rancher} and Floyd Desil {a preacher who writes poetry}
are some of the locals.
   Danny hunts deer and turkey and just got back.
He said it is real weird up there and the water dries your skin out real bad.
It's 200 miles to every where, and people won't hardly sell the land.

   Now, look up the Davis mountains.
From the north east panhandle, go to the north west panhandle.
Then down till the Texas line turns west towards El Paso,
and go 50-100 miles west.

   That is the location of the Davis mountains.
Ft. Davis is higher in elevation than Denver!
All the pictures behind the animals in the museum of natural history in fair park, Dallas,
the buffalo, cougar, bear, ect. are of the Davis mountains.
Real wild land the wildest.

   That land is kept in families and never sold.
For a dozen generations all the land has been kept from the public,
as it is desert like but real beautiful. High country,
much cooler than Dallas being 5300' in elevation rather than 600.
But 600 miles south of Denver so it isn't nearly as cold.

   Where is the 'front range' of the Rockys?
The east side?

   Real interesting running into a panhandle person.
My Dad lived in Borger and when he was a kid
where every body in the town works for Phillips Petroleum.
I still have cousins up there.

   Lets git ignert and go Coon Hunting

   J. Winters von Knife
   'the Poet'
   http://jacksknifeshop.tripod.com/

vacek · « **Reply #20 on:** December 23, 2009, 10:05:36 AM »

I know Wolf Creek well. It is a unknown paradise. People have little knowledge and or respect of the Texas / Oklahoma Panhandle. That all right with us citizens. We don't mind keeping it that way.

I know some of the names, but have lived in Colorado for 30 years. The front range is on the east slope.

Couger · « **Reply #21 on:** March 06, 2010, 06:59:26 AM »

Quote from: don heath

I would go with -outlast! Disease is the biggest killer and once sanitation in the cities breaks down, cholera and dysentry will reduce the population drastically in a couple of months unless the anti-biotics are available...

From the Zimbabwe experiece, having a well stocked first aid kit with adequate anti biotics etc is probably as important as a good rifle and more important than 300 cans of beaked beans in the cellar...

Don: What antibiotics do you recommend? First choice? 2nd choice? 3rd?

And I'll bite at the "subject" ...... How many people would a certain piece "land" support? Where and how would one go about educating himself about such matters? What books? What sources?

Squeemish relatives aside Don, 99% of Americans don't think about such things! And educating oneself about long-term survival and sustainability isn't like learning about roughing it on a camping trip or walking out of a "crash" ......

I fully agree in a "fit" hits the "shan" scenario huge portions of populace will die in the cities. After 1 week to 2 months. Three months. Six months ...... vast numbers of unprepared and ignorant people will die. That's a sight 99% of americans have never seen! and are unprepared for.

(I recall the civil wars between Bosnians and Serbs ...... Thinking how "western" (American?) many of those refugees looked!)

As for living off the land ...... Many "successful" survivors will use methods like the indians and aboriginal peoples used to find water, vegatables, fruit, grain and protein. That's not necessarily synonimous with hunting with a gun, or even hunting at all! I'd expect to become quite professient (sp) at using bird traps, fish trap and just "traps!"

If I can impose on you Don, what "sources" are available to you in your part(s) of the world to learn about "survival?" What do you recommend? If a cousin you mentioned got her head out of the sand and wanted to learn "survival" how would you direct her? Thanks!

vacek · « **Reply #22 on:** March 06, 2010, 05:11:48 PM »

While we are waiting for Mr. Heath to respond, I it will be a good answer.... I have to travel a lot internationally. In fact I leave for Indonesia 3/13 and then end up in Thailand before getting back 4/1. My family practitioner who also travels a lot gives me a prescription of Levaquin. The associate I travel with, her doc (also who travels a lot) gives her Cipro. These are powerful, require on taking 1 per day and are reasonably stable.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #23 on:** March 07, 2010, 05:09:43 AM »

Before Y2K, there was a pharmsist on another forum who said you could go to a farm supply store and buy amoxicillin and I think a few other antibiotics. He gave the instructions as to how much to administer to humans. I think he said if it was for sheep, it was the same dosage for humans. He even told what antibiotics were good for certain disease too. Only problem is long term storage. Colera can be avoided by using sanitary means of human waste disposal, and clean drinking water.

vacek · « **Reply #24 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:57:14 AM »

Google Ragnar Benson (Bensen). He has at leaset 2 books that are based on vet medicines.

teamnelson · « **Reply #25 on:** March 07, 2010, 02:23:57 PM »

2 books available free on the Internet that I've used and recommend on this topic: where there is no doctor, and where there is no dentist. Couple others on womens healt and midwivery.

don heath · « **Reply #26 on:** March 07, 2010, 07:30:03 PM »

i A good reference book- Where there is no doctor is a good start, Family medical Guide I bought from B&N a few years back in the states has been invaluable in deeling with my own children away from 'regular' medical support. A US 'Nursing Drugs Handbook' is essential- tells you what interacts with what, and also all the side effects that your GP has forgoten to mention.

We are very limited in what we can get- Amoxycilan is 100% Useless in Africa.
Cipro is a good choice, Levaquin is better.
I carry Injectable ceftrioxone- It even cures drug resistant tick bite fever (and anything else I have tried it on)
I carry and use a large ammount of doxycycline- both as a prophylaxis for malaria and tosupliment co-artem in treatment. Also first choice in dealing with tick bite fever, tick fever (Lymes disease)
Carry Metronizadol- Giadia is endemic here as is cholera. My 4 year old daughter has had three severe giadia infections- all caught while at visiting friends etc-Our home water is safe.
Most places are only too happy if somebdoy volanteers to help with the ambulance service- and they usually throw in alot of good training, even if you are just there to carry a stretcher.

don heath · « **Reply #27 on:** March 07, 2010, 07:39:16 PM »

There are also a fair number of 'survival' courses - ranging from good to rip off out there. Our militarty one was geared at keeping you alive and effective for two weeks behind enemy lines (no use of a firearm). It was a good grounding.

I suspect that if you can survive the first two weeks in good condition you will adapt and be able to carry on. Note- I say survive in good condition- you can live for a couple of months with minimal food, but you cannot walk or work all day for even a week without supplies. Also lack of shelter kills more folk than lack of food, and out where I hunt, lack of water kills hundreds of rural blacks every year- people who should know about living in a semi desert environment.

Last thought, I have mentioned else where - I used to prepare for an EOTW scenario, and all my real life survival cases have been due to an old Government aircraft that put me down in some very remote spots!I have learned to prepare for 'most likely' and just be aware of longer term needs.

teamnelson · « **Reply #28 on:** March 07, 2010, 07:41:59 PM »

don, you reminded me ... our fmf corpsman have a quick reference card for drug interactions that they can keep in their trauma kit so they can scan the red id tag, ref the card, and medicate appropriately. I'll see if I can get one, scan it and post it somewhere.

Victor3 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 07, 2010, 09:02:01 PM »

Sure would be nice to have a supply of drugs one might need on hand.

My Mom, trained as a nurse during WWII and an RN for 45 years had all kinds of stuff when we were growing up and gave us shots many times. At 83, she's still the neighborhood nurse that the ol' timers visit to have their blood pressure checked.

One day at school I got a bad rash covering my whole body and my eyes swelled almost shut. The school nurse called Mom asking for permission to send me to the hospital. Mom came, took me home and shot me up with something. An antihistamine I guess. It cleared up right away.

My Dad burned his arm badly with a welding torch once and was yelling in pain. I don't know what Mom shot him up with but he seemed quite happy minutes later.

My Sister's an MD. I rekun she's got a stash of stuff for her family but I've never asked. Probably a 'don't ask don't tell' situation nowadays...