3 ms·
Did you forget a /s ? Growing food is much harder than that. Growing a few tomatoes or something is easy. But growing enough food to sustain yourself and your
by BytesAndGears 3y ago
Did you forget a /s ?
Growing food is much harder than that.
Growing a few tomatoes or something is easy. But growing enough food to sustain yourself and your family is much more involved and requires a lot of training and experience.
Most people could likely do it. But it would take them 3-5 years of failures before they could reliably grow enough food for themselves. Probably more on the scale of a whole family.
- bongodongobob 3y agoGrowing food year round for your entire family is quite literally impossible unless you have acres of land.
- kefabean 3y agoThere’s a widely quoted myth that the UK’s ‘dig for victory’ campaign during WWII deemed a standard allotment plot (~250m2) sufficient to feed a family of 4.
- vik0 3y agoWhy do you think it takes that much land to feed an entire (average[1]) family? Besides plants, you could have animals, and get milk and meat from them. Chickens for eggs and meat too. It doesn't take too much land for it in my opinion. And if you live in a community that does that sort of thing, you could trade meat for tomatoes, and vice versa, or whatever, without relying on megacorps to give you your calories Localism is the way [1]https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-households-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-h...
- wrycoder 3y agoYou have to feed the animals, too. Check out the famous book, “Five Acres And Independence”. That was the basic size of a family farm in the USA a hundred years ago.
- sokoloff 3y agoMy gut feeling (before searching) was that it would take around 2 acres to feed a person. Searching for data, it seems like estimates ranged from 1-3 acres per person, meaning that feeding an entire family would quite literally take acres of land.
- vik0 3y agoCan you link your source/s?