3 ms·

I remember reading something about a square foot or three of tightly packed grow space (using vegetables that complement each other or whatever; I also remember

I remember reading something about a square foot or three of tightly packed grow space (using vegetables that complement each other or whatever; I also remember reading about was it tiered gardening?) is enough to feed a person. My mother grows a bunch of vegetables in about ~3 square feet of space and while its not everything she eats (vegetable or otherwise), it does cover a good bit and she always has more of what she grows than she needs. So if that's true, seems like a decent plot of land should be plenty for feeding a family yet still having some left over, at least for vegetables and maybe eggs. If you want to keep other livestock (lettergram mentions grass-fed beef), then I guess you do indeed need an actual farm.

slfnflctd 6y ago
> a square foot or three of tightly packed grow space [...] is enough to feed a person That seems insanely optimistic to me. I've done a lot of reading about people's attempts to feed themselves with home-grown agriculture, and it's way more difficult than many assume. I would multiply that square footage requirement about 1000x before even trying it-- and that's if all possible relevant research is implemented and everything goes smoothly. I tried & failed to find an article I read a few years ago which broke down a whole bunch of the math behind this, but here is a video that matches pretty closely with what I've read elsewhere (despite being short on sources): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926Z6wzf278 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926Z6wzf278
- fock 6y ago
  yes, I think I've come to the conclusion that around 1000m² per person should be enough to have a significant impact on food supply per person in a non-optimal, manual-labor based workflow. 1/3m² won't cut it as the mother of the preposter probably also ate a healthy dose of carbohydrates, proteins and fat which generally are not abundant in any typical "decorative" vegetables. And if you want to selfsustain your family you really need a lot (just look at the weight of military ready-made meals and think that you have to produce that (as a baseline) (x 365 x number of people supplied). Also in any urban setting, the supply of clean water will kill you faster than any lack of food.

slfnflctd 6y ago

> a square foot or three of tightly packed grow space [...] is enough to feed a person That seems insanely optimistic to me. I've done a lot of reading about people's attempts to feed themselves with home-grown agriculture, and it's way more difficult than many assume. I would multiply that square footage requirement about 1000x before even trying it-- and that's if all possible relevant research is implemented and everything goes smoothly. I tried & failed to find an article I read a few years ago which broke down a whole bunch of the math behind this, but here is a video that matches pretty closely with what I've read elsewhere (despite being short on sources): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926Z6wzf278 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=926Z6wzf278

fock 6y ago
yes, I think I've come to the conclusion that around 1000m² per person should be enough to have a significant impact on food supply per person in a non-optimal, manual-labor based workflow. 1/3m² won't cut it as the mother of the preposter probably also ate a healthy dose of carbohydrates, proteins and fat which generally are not abundant in any typical "decorative" vegetables. And if you want to selfsustain your family you really need a lot (just look at the weight of military ready-made meals and think that you have to produce that (as a baseline) (x 365 x number of people supplied). Also in any urban setting, the supply of clean water will kill you faster than any lack of food.