Tim Lamb > writes
>In message >, Oz
> writes
>>Buddenbrooks > writes
>>> I assume that there is a difference between a claim that one acre can
>>>produce enough food for a person, and that a specific acre can do so.
>>> A million acres can support a million people may be correct (or not).
>>
>>Pearl seems to think that forage acres are just as good as arable acres.
>>Anyway, in the UK, for most soils, pretty well any lowland acre can be
>>farmed arably BY HAND.
>
>Huh! Many months of my childhood were spent bouncing a push-hoe from
>one flint to the next. The trick was to avoid damaging the crop rather
>than destroying the weeds.

There weren't many who would do it then, and almost none now.
As a child, of course, you had little option.
For me one spring/summer was enough to understand why hoemen got paid so
much, and were so hard to get.

>The land was chosen for convenience rather than quality as it could be
>watered and was within shotgun reach for pigeons. However, none of my
>land within 1/2 mile of a Domesday book village is any better.

Quite.

Should be used for forage and proper downland/brekland soils for arable.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.