Here's why I'm not going to be fortifying in L.A.
We don't get enough rain. We're supposed to be getting 15 in. or so... but that's down to 5 in.
After looking around for information on basic daily intake needs I found that, on average,
1.5 acres of land is needed to feed a person per year.
That is about 65,000 square feet of arable land I have to defend per person.... around 20 houses worth. That's quite a perimeter to secure... multiply it by 20= land equivalent to 400 houses for twenty survivors to farm/guard.
Each acre, at least for corn, needs 20-25 inches of rain per year (I've heard conflicting numbers on wheat). That means you need to be coming up with 900,000 gallons of water per person, per year, just to produce food.
In the zombie apocalypse, if water is not coming from the sky or a river... it's not coming.
I can reasonably expect that without major government intervention our water supply will be gone within weeks, if not days.
Some may say you can get by on scavenging. True. You could do that for a while. But it's not going to last. No one is re-stocking the shelves. The dead are increasing in number.
The constant risk of leaving your perimeter to go find a can of Dinty Moore or that last gallon of Sparkletts will eventually devastate your survivor group. Attrition is a b....
So, since I have intentions for long-term survival, I need to grow my food inside the perimeter. That means I'll have to be heading north to find a place that rains.
I messed with Texas. |
thats 1.5 acres on average... zombie apocalypses are not average. also, i think human eating habits will change drastically during the apocalypse. i don't mean people will stop eating, but i mean, people are going to try to go for foods that are non perishable, or that are easy to make or get too.
in other words... wal marts will be emptied day one.
krupt
I totally agree with you... I'm just having trouble making the math make sense. It's still bad... bad enough to force a group of any size to move. There's just no water to make anything grow.
But, quoting from Human Rights Watch, the minimum survival intake is 18 ounces of food per day (that must include some fats... otherwise the kilo calorie count is too low).
18 oz. x 365 days = 411 lbs. of food.
A farmer in Iowa can average 166 bushels of corn per acre: 166 x 56 lbs. = 9,296 lbs. !
The figure is distorted because it's a single crop, fertilized, and protected from pests with the highest available technology.
But that number should support 20 people!? Why does the average say 1.5 acres per person per year?
I'm not sure why it would take so much more acreage to support less people. I guess it has to do with having to plant a variety of crops, questionable soil quality, pests and diseases, and a percentage of the grain crop fed to animals (and bio fuels for that matter).
Something's funny about the math. I hope somebody out there (Chilbert?) can find a reference to minimum acreage to support human life; and what would go on the acres?
I messed with Texas.
For now, this is what I came up with: Answerbag.com.
The reply states that we are focusing too much on the idea of farming and should be looking at gardening. It is relatively easy to start a garden and the hard part is knowing what crops to grow when. As long as the sun is out and the soil is usable, you should be okay. A large garden and trees that grow fruits and such would be great, but trees take a long time to grow. My advice is to pick your favorite tree grown fruit and plant a tree NOW! That said, gardening can be done above ground in pots and raised beds. This type of garden only needs slightly more attention than the ground grown one. Talk to Sanchez because I am sure he has much more information on the gardening idea.
Now, I am not saying that we should not farm, but gardening would most likely be a bit easier.
On the subject of food, everyone keeps speaking of the obvious sources. Canned goods, animals, but I have heard little mention of the survivalist last resorts. That's right, I am talking about BUGS! Most of them can be eaten and provide good amounts of the essential vitamins and nutrients needed by the body to survive. Those huge grasshoppers you see, yeah, those are great apparently. What if you don't have grasshoppers, well, you live in the southwest and scorpions are a pretty common occurrence there. Cut off the stinger, the only part that is really dangerous to you because it holds all the poison and poison production, and you have a tasty treat. In some countries, they are a delicacy. Common ants are a good source of protein if you can stomach them and ants live everywhere. All this said, these are last resort options, BUT they are still options. Eat a bug or die, goodness forbid you have to face that decision, you will probably eat the bug.
Now that I have sufficiently grossed people out, I am going to go look for more information.
"They drew first blood not me..." (Stallone in Rambo: First Blood)
Farming seems to me like a non-option for most. As you pointed out, 400 houses is quite a perimeter. I don't think it's possible.
Honestly, I think that we would have to go further back to our hunter-gatherer roots to survive. Agriculture is great, but next to impossible. And just how many knowledgeable farmers are there around nowadays? Better hope you have one in your camp.
That said, I still would hate to fortify in the southwest. Among all your threats, a harsh climate shouldn't be one. Pacific Northwest is where it's at. Mild weather all year, plenty of water.
Yeah,
when I say "farming," I mean farming everything: fruit trees, gardens, grain crops, etc. I'm still baffled as to how many pounds of potatoes, beans, tomatoes, I can get from the ground per year.
And sun and soil are great, but much of Southern California/Nevada/New Mexico/Arizona simply does not have the water resources to support the food needs of the resident population... even after the zombies cull us.
I read that the irrigation of the Empire Valley is on a slightly sloping gravity feed. So the Colorado River supply might still come there. But I'm certain there must be a mechanical breakdown somewhere along the line.
We have to look at the population count and behaviors of the original inhabitants: much smaller groups, more widely dispersed.
I messed with Texas.
Honestly, I think that we would have to go further back to our hunter-gatherer roots to survive. Agriculture is great, but next to impossible. And just how many knowledgeable farmers are there around nowadays? Better hope you have one in your camp.
That said, I still would hate to fortify in the southwest. Among all your threats, a harsh climate shouldn't be one. Pacific Northwest is where it's at. Mild weather all year, plenty of water.
Yup. That'll be where I'm heading. There are areas in Northern California with significant rainfall, so I can stop there. Unfortunately, I'd expect everybody on the West Coast to do the same. It'll be a mess.
I messed with Texas.
The thing about farming is that you cannot just take, and take, and take from the soil. You have to give back to it, this is the same reason farmers grow a crop and burn it. The burning puts essential things back into the soil to keep it fertile. If you do not give back, the soil eventually becomes unfit for growing crops.
"They drew first blood not me..." (Stallone in Rambo: First Blood)
I'll post a response later.