It will be worse than you think: the energy key to homestead farming

The collapse scenario that people frequently discuss will not take us back to the Victorian 1880s, but to  the 1680s.
It will take us a moment to wind our way to the subject referenced by the title:  I appreciate your patience.  If you are in a hurry, you could start after the last quote and get the summation.

In the early modern period there were a number of countries that were very modern in political and commercial methods.  You had the Netherlands, Japan, France and England as primary examples.  The Netherlands is of particular interest because it preceded the English in modernization, but they peaked early and were not the ones who began the industrialization of the world.  The Japanese are of interest because, they have many similarities to the English, and caught up so quickly once they were shown the way.  All of these countries were "modern" in some way, but they were missing a key element that differentiated the English:  the English were extremely productive farmers.

What is not realized by many is that England did not just lead with the industrial revolution, but also prior to that time period had lead with an agricultural revolution.

In England the output per man employed in agriculture probably doubled between 11550 and 1750, whereas much to the continent, there was hardly any increase in per capita productivity…There was also a much greater output per acre of land in use.  Starting from a roughly similar level in the sixteenth century, the increase in output per acre appears to have been much greater in England than was normal on the continent over the two succeeding centuries.

The average man on the land in 1800 was able to provide foodstuffs for about 1.5 families in addition to his own [thus 2.5 total] whereas his forerunner 200 years earlier had been able to provide only the needs for his own family and, at most, half those of one other family [1.5 families total].  Alan Macfarlane, E.A. Wrigley and the Riddle of the World

I will cut to the chase, and get straight on with how they did this:  They used animals.   A will also tell you that this was unusual.

Each working horse needs the fodder produced by about 5 acres of land to keep it in good condition over the working year.  Oxen can feed of lower value foods, but as we will see they are also less productive.  So most societies, as their population increases, gradually phase out animals and replace them with crops (with some extra human labor input).

So why did the English use horses (and oxen to a lesser degree).  Oxen in one hour can do the work of about 4 men, and a horse the work of six.  In some forms of agriculture the horse is the equivalent of between 5.1 and 7.6 men.  A man can only produce 1/10^th the foot/pound efforts of a horse in an hour.

So how did the English do it?  How were they able to use horses and oxen, when other cultures faced with land pressures reduced them?  To understand this we most for a moment switch subjects.

The average inhabitant of the town needed about 1-1/2 pounds of wheat or other grain each day for his bread, but about 10 pounds or more of firewood to bake it, to brew his beer, roast his meat, boil his water, heat his living room and to cover his industrial needs, heating a dye vat or working metal for example.  Alan Macfarlane, E.A. Wrigley and the Riddle of the World

As Macfarlane notes, even in today’s world, the poor person in Bangladesh pays more for his fuel needs than for his food:  and Bangladesh is not a particularly cold country.

The fuel was as important as the food.  And the English started running out of wood, so they started using coal.  Even before they had an industrial revolution they began developing coal as a fuel.  They had access to coal and good inland water routes to get it to the markets where it was needed.

So how did this coal help revolutionize their agriculture.  Well, in other countries they would always reserve a large amount of forest land for fuel.  In England they could chop down the forest and use it as pasture for their horses and cows.   This allowed the English to push for more advanced uses of animal power, and also set up an advanced market for the fuel of industry before the industry even existed.

So what is the point here?

When worrying about sustainability in homesteading situations, you frequently here discussions of food output and security.  But what exactly is being lost with the loss of power is not just heat, or convenience, or communications, it is also food.    It may not be a concern for a few years, but eventually the lack of dependable-hopefully sustainable source of energy will cost you food.  From a large societal point of view, it will keep your community from having very little in the way of surplus:  a hard life with some enjoyment versus a hard life.