51–60 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand if you follow the NHS guidelines (70g/day) 20-30kg of meat from a deer would last a family of four ~80-120 days. Not that bad
Not if other foods were unavailable (the assumption). You need 2000 calories a day. 70g of meat is ~600 calories. So triple that, divide by 4 and you've got the week I mentioned.
Why is that your assumption?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It takes about 2-6 deer to provide meat for a family of four for a year. So, a single deer is about two months of meat. (a deer is 50-125lbs of meat... depending on species and size)
Not if that's all the calories you have - then it adds up to a week's nutrition. But sure, as a trivial additive for fun, deer can work for a tiny fraction of the population. My state of 3M had 100,000 deer harvested last year. That's deer for 3% of the population. One deer each. Not gonna put a dent in our food supply. That was my only point.
And what about rabbits, squirrels, turkeys, ducks, quail, bison, elk, feral hogs, etc., etc? There's more game out there than just deer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, there is every reason to believe (know) hinting/foraging is woefully inadequate. Simple numbers. Natural 'foods' are pitiful fractions of modern cultivars. It takes a quarter acre(?) of Jerusalem Artichoke to gather a few baskets of roots, which must be boiled and peeled down to a few score pounds of edible material. Even a bonanza 10-acre plot in a meadow would feed 40 people for a few days. Early Americans s…
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make, w/r/t the post you're replying to. Again: A family might feed themselves through a combination of any or all of: hunting, trapping, fishing, foraging for wild edibles, home gardening, AND buying from whatever is available on the market. I'm saying that hunting, etc. are individuals components of a broader strategy for providing food - not that any one of tho…
Fewer steps in the seafood supply chain, doesn't offset the fact that in America anyway, it currently provides a whopping total of 1 meal a week per. That's gotta be dropping too. So still the numbers don't support any idea of supplementing food supplies to any great degree.
The OP was just a puff piece about an uptick in hunting. That was fun and interesting. I just posted to provide the insight that, this isn't going to ever matter to our situation in any significant way. We have to support/restart our commercial food chain, or its going to get very bad. No alternatives are reasonable.
Calling it a "meat shortage" is glossing over the situation. In the US we're killing 160,000 pigs a day just to throw their bodies in the landfill.[1] So the solution is to go kill more wild animals. Awesome. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/closed-jb...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if other foods were unavailable (the assumption). You need 2000 calories a day. 70g of meat is ~600 calories. So triple that, divide by 4 and you've got the week I mentioned.
Not if other foods were unavailable (the assumption). Why is that your assumption?
I think a lot of these folks underestimate what it takes to hunt an elk, field dress it, bring it back to their vehicle, and put away 300 lbs of meat. Even if you borrow a gun as one person interviewed here would, you need a truck, knives, a bone saw, camouflage, maybe a tree stand, and a large freezer, among other things. It is reasonable to hunt for food, but it's not reasonable for your typical "hospital manager"…
People could also stock up on dried beans if they are worried about future food shortages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if that's all the calories you have - then it adds up to a week's nutrition. But sure, as a trivial additive for fun, deer can work for a tiny fraction of the population. My state of 3M had 100,000 deer harvested last year. That's deer for 3% of the population. One deer each. Not gonna put a dent in our food supply. That was my only point.
My state of 3M had 100,000 deer harvested last year. And what about rabbits, squirrels, turkeys, ducks, quail, bison, elk, feral hogs, etc., etc? There's more game out there than just deer.
I don't mean to be a scrooge - go hunting if it pleases you! But its not gonna feed America, not even a percent or two of us. The numbers don't support it.
I can relate to this, to an extent. I never hunted in my youth, despite having grown up in redneckville. I was all about bass fishing in farm ponds, not hunting. I was enthusiastic about shooting though, and I'm a lifelong gun owner and have done a fair amount of sport shooting. So at least I already know how to use a gun and do so safely. Anyway, even before this COVID thing started, I had gotten into the whole prep…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if that's all the calories you have - then it adds up to a week's nutrition. But sure, as a trivial additive for fun, deer can work for a tiny fraction of the population. My state of 3M had 100,000 deer harvested last year. That's deer for 3% of the population. One deer each. Not gonna put a dent in our food supply. That was my only point.
My state of 3M had 100,000 deer harvested last year. And what about rabbits, squirrels, turkeys, ducks, quail, bison, elk, feral hogs, etc., etc? There's more game out there than just deer.
The bigger issue is getting one's family on board. A spouse or kids who have grown accustomed to CAFO beef and chicken and not much else will be difficult to transition to gamier meats, to say nothing of offal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make, w/r/t the post you're replying to. Again: A family might feed themselves through a combination of any or all of: hunting, trapping, fishing, foraging for wild edibles, home gardening, AND buying from whatever is available on the market. I'm saying that hunting, etc. are individuals components of a broader strategy for providing food - not that any one of tho…
Responded to the comment directly above (?) As a supplement to a family's food supply, hunting and foraging are totally insufficient. Not if everybody was doing it. The numbers aren't there. Fewer steps in the seafood supply chain, doesn't offset the fact that in America anyway, it currently provides a whopping total of 1 meal a week per. That's gotta be dropping too. So still the numbers don't support any idea of su…
You can't really make that claim without quantifying the degree of supplementation in question. And that's an unknown. So really this is all just speculation. But I can say that for myself, I'd rather have the ability/knowledge/skills to acquire food by hunting, trapping, foraging, fishing, etc. than not, all things being equal. If you want to take a defeatist attitude and not pursue those things, well... that just means you'll be one less person I'll be competing with for food eventually.
I just posted to provide the insight that, this isn't going to ever matter to our situation in any significant way. We have to support/restart our commercial food chain, or its going to get very bad.
I think we're ultimately talking about two different things here. Of course we have to restart the commercial food supply chain. That, to me, goes without saying. It's also somewhat irrelevant to that I'm talking about (which I think is different from what you're talking about). I'm talking about things to do in the interim for base survival... until the commercial food supply chain is working again. It sounds like you're assuming that we're talking about depending on hunting/foraging/fishing etc. as the default way of life for perpetuity. On that point, I agree with you... it's not reasonable to sustain a population of our current size for an indefinite period of time.