Thanks to the collapse of the USSR and with help of our inept corrupt leaders (Gorbachev and Yeltsin and their US "friends") destroying all the industry and economy, millions of ex-soviet citizens know exactly how hard it is to become self sufficient.

I worked really hard on our family "farm" all my childhood and that's maybe the only thing that helped us survive. Although we did experience hunger from time to time.

It's not even a question of land, it's a question of how much work you can put into that land. It's a backbreaking work every day.

It's a good option if society collapses and there's no other option to survive. Otherwise, it's just not worth it. Millions of current Russia population hate working on the land because they already have that inoculation from 90s.

I think most are targeting the supermarket supported form, where you grow some vegetables and spices on your own. Russia is probably hard land, because most regions have long winters.

Our agriculture (Ger) is completely dependent on workers from abroad. If you send the average office worker on a field, he will probably collapse after a day or two.

Friends of mine have some chickens and that alone causes so much work everyday... They give away the eggs which is nice for us. Selling them wouldn't even pay for the fuel to transport them anywhere. Same with most other kinds of produce.

> supermarket supported form

"Self sufficient" where you buy things from the supermarket is just greenwashing cosplay. Just like a "self driving" car where you can't take your hands off the steering wheel.

It is, but self sufficiency is nearly impossible. To pay for tools and machines, electricity and water you would need to sell parts of your produce. That is hard if you do not scale up to a level to compete with highly advanced industrial agriculture.

Of course you could scrap the electricity and get your water from the nearest river, but I doubt many people would want to put up with that.

Self sufficiency is possible if you are given 5-10 acres with no taxes. Even then eventually you will need to trade your animals with someone else just so your breeding stock doesn't get inbred too much.

Most people wouldn't want true self sufficiency if they could have it. I admire people who "go into the woods" for years (they are generally more hunter/gathers than farmers); but even as introverted as I am, I still like to have a larger group of people around me.

> Self sufficiency is possible if you are given 5-10 acres with no taxes.

Where do you get the iron for your implements? Or are you going to use wooden hoes?

Where do you get medicine, when you need it?

Where do you get clothes?

Et cetera.

Wooden hoes. No modern medicine either. You have to make sacrifices for true self sufficiency.

For clothing, you grow it. Between Flax, wool, furs, and cotton you can grow something anywhere (except near the poles). Having to grow clothing and shelter more than doubles your needed land area in some places.

OK, but then, how do you make your wooden hoes? With wooden tools? Wooden knives and saws? How do you sew your clothes? With wooden needles? Sooner or later, don't you need some metal somewhere? If you don't have it, aren't you essentially living a Stone Age existence?

pretty much stone age. Anything more than that depends on civilization. Even stone age depended on civilization for the most part.

Well also Russia is not such a nice environment to grow land... cold winters and hot summers - it must be hard be a peasant there!

Russia is huge and USSR was even bigger. I didn't specify where I was born (on a southern border). The climate is very good for agriculture.

Sill it requires a lot of work. And I doubt that it is possible to be 100% self-sufficient.

There're many things farmer needs that are produced by other people. From tools like shovels to water pumps to animal fodder (which is also very expensive).

It's a nice thing to try though, to prepare oneself for some nasty events. When COVID-19 started I was thinking that if the world comes to an end, at least I'll be able to survive somewhat longer than others with my skills. I know how to grow my food. Didn't do it for a long time, but it's hard to forget the basics.

Indoor hydroponics. No question at all. It’s the only way to be self sufficient in a harsh climate.

A quarter of an acre will give you plenty of food to fill multiple freezers for the year. Some vegetables have a very high yield (potato, tomato, carots). Hens/eggs also have a very good yield, most farms used to have hens.

It's nowhere near self sufficiency though. The amount and the variety of things you eat today is tremendous and coming from many places, you're not going to cultivate a fraction of that at home.

If you're talking bare subsistence, 1-2 acres of wheat should be enough to feed a family in grain/bread.

I prefer to aim for community sufficient, rather than self sufficient. You probably won't do a good job of being entirely self sufficient. A small healthy community could be, or almost.

Historical evidence shows this to be factual.

Although not at present-day population levels.

How much land does one need? Tolstoï wrote a short story with this title on this topic: https://www.online-literature.com/tolstoy/2738/

It depends on how you use it, but at least a couple of acres. Potatoes are quite efficient, and rabbits and chickens can pretty much live off left-overs and patches of land that are otherwise unused. That would be a rather boring existence, though.

3-4 acres should be more than enough for the basics for a _small_ family, if you accept to buy the more exotic items from a store, and that you will probably never grow fat.

My relatives who run a farm (some tens of cows, pigs, chickens, various crops for sale and food) do it on I believe around 25 acres of farmland plus a few acres of forest (for firewood). They are able to sustain a family of 5 people (3 grown ups, 2 school age kids) this way, plus hire a few seasonal/part time workers.

It does require quite a bit of machinery though- several tractors plus all the attachments (plowing, harvesting, cutting etc).

You're asking the wrong crowd. Go talk to an Amish about this, you'll get a lot better answers.

You might get better answers but probably not optimal ones? I imagine the avoidance of technology leads to inefficiencies that most people would want to avoid.

Maybe the permaculture people, or intentional communities that seek to be self-sufficient (as a community); perhaps kibbutzim hold useful knowledge here?

Amish do not avoid tech, they test it and see pro/cons and then they take a decision if it will get adopted or not. They have a lot of tech enthusiast that will try new tech and then the elders will decide to keep it or not. And they strive for self-sufficiency 100%.

Depends on which inefficiency you want to avoid. Do you want to not use modern machinery, or do you want to pay for modern machinery? Each approach has a cost, in different ways.

This question was addressed on HN recently with much talk of potatoes and how much yield one needs to survive. Might be worth searching.

It's kind of a 'how long is a piece of string' question. You could probably do it on 2-3 acres but you're going to be making sacrifices that you wouldn't need to if you had 10-20.

The typical term is 'homesteading' and there are tons of resources for it. My aunt does it and is part of a collective and it's nearly a full time job.

It depends on your growing zone but 10 acres is typically suggested.

(There are many opinions so I don’t put one particular source here.)

1 acre per person not including oil and grain and fiber.