Steps to start homesteading from an experienced grower
worldwaterreserve.com
worldwaterreserve.com
Now, if only I can figure out how to start an avocado pit or a pineapple top because several experiments have failed.
I raid the neighbors citrus trees (with permission) and also prickly pear cactus fruit to make fancier lemonade.
I was always aware that store bought tomatoes had no flavor, but never had any interest in gardening. One time I took one of those store bought tomatoes and planted the seeds and what do you know, it actually sprouted and grew some more tomatoes? I don't think it's supposed to work that way, but it did. The thing I remember that always grew without any effort was rhubarb.
Compare to the crop of Chinese youtube channels, like Lingzhi, Diaxi that show village farm life. These are more attractive because it shows self-sufficiency in the context of a larger village community. Everyone comes to help in the harvest. Everyone comes to help to slaughter a pig. Everyone comes to preserve the latest crop of fruit.
But these America homesteading channels... so dreary. You and you alone have to work sun up and sun down, why? Where is the rural communal life?
But this article is an entirely different level of realism; this is talking about actually doing it, and taking an attitude that seems quite different from all those super great videos I mentioned.
I think that's something that not a lot of people really appreciate, and the linked article falls just short of touching on, which is a shame because they're almost there. The first point of "grow something - anything" is good advice, and it has the possibility of easing you into the physical labor part of homesteading.
And that's why I built an esp8266-based automated chicken door.
We live on a small farm and it pretty much mirrors my experience. No matter if it's -20F and gale force winds or 100F with insane humidity and clouds of mosquitoes, still gotta go out and feed the animals.
I wonder if this is true. Rural living is less efficient per capita then cities. The distributed electricity and water and transportation are less efficient and they have a physically larger impact on the environment. Even the food they grow themselves requires a lot of external inputs which are shipped in via far flung transportation networks and are used less efficiently than they would be at a larger farm.
The author of the article noted they got their fertilizer from a neighbor. A lot of small farmers get dung of some sort from locals and spread it.
>The distributed electricity and water and transportation are less efficient
Many (most?) homesteaders are off-grid, so not sure this applies either. I think you might be conflating "rural" living with homesteading, which are different. That said, I imagine per capita efficiency is probably more efficient in cities as you said. It all kind of depends on what you do. If you are a rural homesteader and don't drive anywhere and don't fly anywhere, then that's already a big chunk of impact reduced.
If you grow edible plants instead of grass, there is a net positive in your carbon footprint.
If you want a new house, it usually comes with an HOA.
In my poor rural neighborhood most people simply consume substantially less than the average urbanite, and they reuse as much as possible. Since everyone has a lot of space, they tend to keep everything around and repair stuff, make things from disused junk, repurpose materials from disused/broken structures, etc.
I've never lived in an urban setting where storage space was so readily available and eyesore messes tolerated that everyone could practice such extreme levels of reuse. I don't even have garbage service at my place.
My urban experiences have been exercises in rampant waste and consumerism.
There are folks who live an urbanite high-consumption lifestyle rurally, and those people are definitely burning a lot of energy getting everything brought to them continuously. But that seems to be the exception around me at least; those households stand out like a sore thumb, with a UPS truck visiting every day.
It also depends on the style of urban living we're talking about. People living in single-family houses and driving everywhere consume much more resources per person than those living in high-rise apartments and taking public transportation or walking. High population density, in general, means low per-capita consumption.
I'm not sure how this argument applies to people living completely off the grid and raising their own food. But many parts of the world have too many people to make that a practical option for more than a tiny minority.
Full caveat, I live on a homestead much like this story (except we still haven't gotten around to taking down the two dilapidated structures on our property). I sometimes think the story about high-efficiency urban living is myth. This is especially true when I think about the number of SUVs and trucks I see when I go to Boston, sigh.
Chicago and Boston are valid examples, of course. But I had more in mind cities like Seoul, Shanghai, Mumbai, Manila, Paris, and Dhaka.
The efficientcy is in the number of SUVs and Trucks that you don't see relative to the population. Even in a traffic jam of them you couldn't see an "equal" ammount of them because they wouldn't fit in the area in a per capita homogenized area. Well unless they were literally all stacked up.
Neither of those fall into what I'd consider a rural "homesteading" scenario.
In my experience rural living conditions involve such an inconvenient drive to town that you make shopping lists and coalesce needs for the infrequent trip. It's necessarily a bulk-mode operation with substantially improved efficiency over what you're describing which strikes me as the typical suburban American home.
Of course if rural folks are commuting to a city by car every day for work, it's not great.
Well no, those were both examples of urban living.
A cow contains 100 to 200 gallons of water, by my estimate.
In other metrics, though, rural living could be more efficient. Someone homesteading can have much less issue with nutrient and topsoil runoff, while producing much higher volumes of human-consumable calories per unit area. Not saying they do by default, but they could.
Suburban living is the least efficient land use, though - large distances travelled daily by everyone, large per-unit quantities of water/wastewater/electric/transport infrastructure, large per-capita land usage, low-to-negligible production of useful stuff (solar energy or food)
Those counter-points notwithstanding, your larger point is still valid -- but you are bringing in a pile of assumptions.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_conc...
It's a ton of work... By the end of March my arms are in the best shape they'll be all year (from hauling 5 gallon buckets of sap and splitting a couple cords of wood). It's also definitely not worth the time I put into it, from a financial perspective. I could earn enough money in an hour or two to buy my annual production.
It sure is tasty though...
I'm probably not doing the project justice with this description, because they've put together a really cool platform: https://farm.bot/
A lot of their code is open-source too. They've been really huge drivers for the Nerves project: https://github.com/FarmBot
These two words are not included in the article.
I grew up on a ranch-style property with homestead type parents. It was a great experience that involved an endless amount of physical labor.
Some examples; 1. Every morning before school, feeding the horses and in the winter checking their water for ice. 2. Every day after school. Feeding the horses again. 3. Weekly shoveling of horse shit, into a manure spreader. The spreading it in the fields. 4. Lots of work on small engines that break in the winter the Colorado winter in a cold barn. 5. In the fall if we were lucky we would kill an Ekl. This required lots of walking around the mountains off-trail looking for an animal. Once found and killed the grueling work of and caring the meat to a vehicle on a road system. Then hours of butchering. Then more hours of hyde tanning. 6. Winter storms can be powerful enough to rip the tin right off the roof of a hay barn. After the storm, the tins got to be put back on. More hard work. Plowing snow is less physical but still works. 7. Spring is calving season, a calf may be born in the middle of the night. So you may be up all night supporting the birth. Then haft to go to school the next day and try learning while sleep-deprived. 8. Summer is hay season, you might get two crops if you're lucky. There is always stress around the harvest time. It rains in the afternoons in the summer. And wet hay can not be bailed. If it rains after the hay is bailed and before it is bucked into a barn the bails must be dried. I remember being about 8 years old. So small I could not lift a bale. Me and my two brothers were sent into a 300-acre field to rotate hundreds of wet hay bails. So that they would be dry before we loaded them into the truck. It was exhausting. A few years later, when I was strong enough to lift a bail of hay. We would spend a few days lifting bails onto a flatbed trailer and then lift and stacking bails into a hay barn. It is amazing how nice cold glass of water taste after moving hay bails all day. 9. I need to get back to work. So I will end with one last note on the work of homesteading; filling a pantry with canned goods for the winter is another major project which takes hours and hours of work 10. Damn my tech job is so fucking easy compared to the work I did on my parents homestead growing up. 11. Ok, one more: cutting and chopping wood for heating it the winter. We would need between 5 and 7 cords for the house depending on the winter. My Dad found a way to make sure this process was always grueling as I grew up and learned to take on more and more of it. That said, coming home from high school and splinting wood for 20min to keep the house heated for the night was relaxing after a day in class. I guess by the time I was ~15 my body had adjusted to the physical demands of my parent's homestead.
My 2 cents ~ 01
On the political front, I find idealizing farmers obnoxious because it's mostly a taxpayer-subsidized existence for extremely dubious reasons
or welding, or plumbing, or...
However, I think there's also an effect of getting older, where you feel like you need more space and are willing to have a little more responsibility for it, because you then get to maintain it the way you like.
That doesn't necessarily mean farming or moving to the country, but it might mean shovelling and mowing.
Nowadays a lot of the most boring and repetitive stuff can be optimised even in commercial farming. Chopping wood (and felling the trees with a chainsaw!) for the whole year, for example, takes less than a week of combined relatively relaxed and certainly not mindnumbing labor with modern tools. Personally I just often use an axe anyway since it gives a superb workout and I like it (I grew up in a farm so it has no novelty value for me).
Doing a lot of various small tasks that itself are boring and mindless when done commercially is really the best lifestyle I know. Of course, your idea of perfect life is allowed to be different.
There are homesteading purists who refuse to use even tractors and that stuff includes a lot more hard labour with little results. Oil has really changed the game and running a homestead doesn't have to be from zero to completely self sufficient in a year sort of thing. Especially those who haven't grown up in a farm (or homestead) need to start slowly to see if the reality of homesteading is what they really are after.
I'm sure that education helps quite a lot.
I would love to have a small homestead (e.g. 1 acre) and I am currently in the process of finding a property to buy. I have been looking for about 6 months now for an appropriate place and it is quite difficult. Perhaps it is just the region I live in but the prices are ridiculous and the majority (like 99%) of available residential real-estate properties are cookie-cutter suburban homes embedded within suburban sprawl. The modern world is just not developed around the idea of people having gardens and chickens.
When I started looking I naively assumed I could find a rural property with high-speed internet within proximity of a small town. I even have extremely low expectations on the quality of the house and would take a quarter acre lot with a home built in the 1960's. I've been out to see probably 50 properties with my agent and it is like a non-stop crushing disappointment.
Still, the dream of living on my own quarter acre and working remotely is worth the effort. I just feel like the article glosses over the first hurdle: finding an appropriate property within a like-minded community. Depending on where you plan to live that could be significantly more difficult than you expect.
> Still, the dream of living on my own quarter acre and working remotely is worth the effort
That's just a house in a residential subdivision. A homestead should be at least 5-10 acres at a minimum IMO.
You can do a whole lot on an acre of land. You may not support a family of twelve and twenty head of cattle, but you could produce a pretty significant amount of food.