Yes.... I would make the most of that acre. Organic all the way baby!
2007-07-28 14:35:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Honey Girl 3
·
3⤊
5⤋
crittersitter was the first answer I came to that showed any knowledge
i will agree that a thumbs down is needed for asker,,because ignorance is not a reason for reporting abuse
what about a requirement to show age range and locality(state,,region of country) ,,
putting a cow or 2 on an acre would be great ,,lots of big time ranchers would like to know how to do that
i have neighbors that come from a northern state and bought a few acres of land(less than 10),,they have 5 head of cattle,,3 horses..2 asses(mules),,,and a pretty good job to support this
they have way overloaded the land and have no grass left and are hauling in hay twice a week
this is not going green--they have destroyed the land and do not have the knowledge of how to bring it back
2007-07-29 09:23:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by daorangejello 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If the government was in charge of picking out the acre, it would probably not be tillable, and the land-tax would probably exceed the value of the vegetables harvested. I already give way too much of my income to our government, so sharecropping is definitely out of the question. An acre is not enough land to support a cow, so the answer is NO.
2007-07-28 21:44:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by crittersitterjenna 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Yes I would. Then what I would do is make enough from the produce of whatever I grew there (vegetable or animal) to purchase my OWN acre or two of land, and get off the government's land.
Of course while on the govt's land I would probably have to give them a cut of whatever I make, I assume, but even so I would save up my part to get off their land and go buy my own that I could own outright.
2007-07-28 21:38:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Actually, I have several acres and have turned it into a private, self funded, animal sanctuary. I run the business and my significant other takes care of feeding the creatures and doing the watering, here at our sanctuary.
All of the animals that we've taken in have been abandoned or abused. I'd likely add that acre on to the sanctuary. If I took in a cow or two, they'd be pets. :)
2007-07-28 21:39:14
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
Definitely. Living off the land gives self satisfaction.
2007-07-28 21:35:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
An acre isn't large enough. You would starve trying to provide your own food. I think I would stick to hunting.
2007-07-29 08:15:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Tall Chicky 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd plant weed and buy my food with the profits. There is no way you could survive as a farmer unless you are a corporate one these days.
2007-07-29 08:23:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by The prophet of DOOM 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I already have 113 acres. Another acre wouldn't mean much. But I'll take it anyhow if they are giving it away.
2007-07-28 21:37:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Yinzer from Sixburgh 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
I would farm and grow my own food, but i would be skeptical as to why the GOVERNMENT was giving me land. They don't just give way things without getting something in return. Probably some alterior motive.
2007-07-28 21:35:10
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
I grow organically now so yes I would....one more thing...because I grow my own vegetables organically my carbon footprint is far less then most of the greenies....but they still feel the need to tell ME how to live to reduce carbon emissions.....cracks me up.
2007-07-28 21:41:58
·
answer #11
·
answered by greatrightwingconspiritor 5
·
6⤊
1⤋