Matthew Nistico

Carla Burke wrote:You've answered your own question, Matthew. Jam is shelf stable. Unpreserved fruit is not.

It all depends on total sugar content.  In theory, raw fruit pulp with sufficient sugar would keep.  Like I said, perhaps American persimmon pulp qualifies, but I don't know and have not demonstrated it.  And probably don't particularly care to try.

I will say this, though: I scavenge my persimmons from a public tree (I have one of my own, but it is still small) and pick everything windfall off of the ground.  Many of those fruit have likely lain on the ground for a good while before I get to them.  Some get smushed, some dry up and become mummies, some succumb to ants.  But I have never seen a moldy persimmon where I forage.

I don't think they do mold.  I think they have too much sugar.

Zach Moreau wrote:I eat a raw vegan diet...  Eating a simple diet is very important for maintaining good health. Our bodies digest whole foods much better than processed foods with a paragraph-long ingredient list.

A good point about whole foods vs highly processed foods, but I don't believe you are using the phrase "simple diet" the same way as the OP intended.

Zach Moreau wrote:Digestion is the most metabolically expensive process our bodies undergo, so the less energy we expend on digestion, the more we have for other important functions like growth and repair.

I am not following your logic here.  Yes, digestion is metabolically expensive.  That is why we cook food.  So, why do you follow a raw diet if you're concerned with metabolic efficiency?

Cooking many foods improves their taste and texture in the opinions of most people, and it can make some difficult-to-eat foods - the kinds you have to chew for five minutes just to eat them raw - more easily palatable.  But the primary benefit of cooking food is to increase energy available to the body.  This has always been the primary benefit, whether primitive humans first adopting the habit of cooking consciously realized it or not.

Here is an illustrative example using numbers I just made up: a beef steak contains 1000 calories of energy.  But the body must dedicate 500 calories in order to digest it - all of those proteins are hard to break down.  By breaking down its constituent molecules a little bit in advance with heat, we reduce the caloric value of a cooked steak to 900 calories, but the body now only requires 300 calories to digest it.  Thus, the net value in energy available to the metabolism is INCREASED by cooking the steak, from 500 calories to 600.

Mary Cook wrote:I had the experience as Carla, only trying to can pawpaw pulp. So I've never tried to make persimmon jam, as I figured it would turn out the same. What I do is pick out the seeds, then freeze the pulp till I want it for a recipe--muffins, cake and cookie bars ate my three persimmon recipes.

I don't know why anyone would want or need to make persimmon jam.  At least as it concerns American persimmons (I'm less familiar with, and therefore can't comment on Asian persimmons).  They are so sweet naturally that I simply spread raw persimmon pulp - the result of smashing the persimmons into goo by hand in order to remove the seeds - on toast and on cakes, similar to how one might use jam.  It's delicious.  The only drawback is that I keep it frozen between fruiting seasons; I don't know that it is shelf stable like a jam with added sugar.  Perhaps, but I doubt it and have never put it to the test.

Gray Henon wrote:While studying indigenous cultures, I’ve noticed several that survive on very simple diets, perhaps 3-4 staple foods.  They may or may not be supplemented with in-season wild, minimally cultivated foods, or game.  I know I’d get bored with it, but I wonder how this would affect weight control. No reason to overeat when the next meal is just more of the same.  A simple staple diet may also combat “homesteaders fatigue”, which seems to be induced by running around trying to produce the food variety that we are used to in the modern world.  Thoughts?"

I think the OP's focus on potential weight control benefits is likely misguided.  I suspect the greater weight control benefit for indigenous peoples comes from a more physically active, less sedentary lifestyle, not from their available foods.  Most staple foods are starchy, so the more reliant one is on staples, the more naturally inclined to weight gain one's diet would be, I should think.

But producing the majority of your own food without technological assistance requires substantial physical exertion.  Actually, it requires substantial exertion even with technological assistance!  As does simply getting around without technological assistance; i.e. walking everywhere all the time.  I suspect this is the most relevant factor for health.

My father is a Type II Diabetic.  Last winter, he and I took a week-long vacation to the Florida Keys that included a lot of nature- and bird-watching as well as tourism.  We spent a lot of time hiking around town and through the bush.  He stopped taking his normal diabetes medications entirely that week, based on his blood sugar readings.  It turns out the best management of Type II Diabetes is measured in steps per day.  Our diet during the week was not significantly different than at any other time.  Only his level of aerobic exercise had changed.

As to the larger question, I am sure with adequate vigilance for specific micronutrient deficiencies, one could make a simplified diet work for a very long time.  My immediate response: why should one try?  Surely a diverse diet is best for optimal health.  The human body is a natural machine.  As permaculturalists, we appreciate more than most how vital diversity is to the optimal functioning of any natural system.

A diverse diet is good for optimal mental health as well.  I love to cook, because I love to eat.  I recognize that some people don't have the same positive and stimulating relationship to food that I do, even if I don't understand them.  Still, most people would simply become bored by a simple diet, as the OP wrote.

As to "homesteaders fatigue," I'm not familiar with that phrase.  Certainly, homesteading is a LOT of work.  I suppose focusing production on a few staple crops would simplify and thus reduce the workload a bit.  I would think livestock should be one of those staple crops.  Animals take a lot of attention, but they are effective at concentrating a wide and diverse number of system elements - many different plants and other animals - into just a couple of yields.

All of this will vary based on one's homesteading goals and circumstances.  For example, I aim to be a "modern homesteader," not a "survivalist."  I don't need to produce 100% of the calories, 100% of the nutrition, or 100% of the variety in my diet.  I still enjoy convenient and affordable access to the global economy, particularly to the continental food distribution network.  In fact, the more money I save growing a portion of my own food, the more remains to spend on specialty items - exotic, out-of-season, or specially processed foods - to enhance my menu.  I have no desire to abstain from such items.  If I lived remotely, or if I were choosing to prep for a future collapse scenario, I might think differently.  With my medical limitations, in any type of major collapse I'm likely doomed, so I don't bother planning for extreme eventualities.

So long as I'm content to plug in to the larger system, and so long as that system remains available to me, this actually has the opposite effect on my homesteading plans than what I think the OP implied by mentioning "homesteaders fatigue."  I am LESS inclined to dedicate space to staple crops.  I give them some space, but I focus more on low-calorie crops, including lots of herbs, veggies, and berries.  Why?  Because I can readily get my staples from the larger system.  Bread, pasta, potatoes, dry beans, even bulk onions, etc., are reliably and affordably available at the store in just as good a quality as I could grow.  Whereas high quality fresh herbs, veggies, and berries at the store are expensive!

John Suavecito wrote:Some TLUDs are retorts, and thus less efficient. My TLUD is not a retort.

Yeah, took me a while to figure out that difference reading through all of these posts.  Sorry for oversimplifying the situation.

Several here have mentioned varying degrees of success feeding biochar through a wood chipper.

Here is a potentially cost-effective DIY alternative.  It is definitely a solution for a small-scale operation.  I can envision it working just fine on my own, suburban-scale homestead.  Any larger-scale operation would probably find it too small and slow.

I have not yet built one myself, but I plan to.  I don't foresee it clogging with sludge, as some have reported their wood chippers doing.  I guess time will tell.  I will post again once I've fabricated my own version of this.

I definitely like the look of the finely flaked, but not powdered, biochar he produces at the end of this video:

Farm Life Australia

jack spirko wrote:Large - most of this is about the size we used to call "nut coal" in the coal industry (about a nickel to a quarter in size).  None is ever very big.  So if I need more it gets the bag and drive over trick and a couple screenings.  And sorted again, into the three classes.  But what if i don't want to crush more.  First it is also fine in bedding but I think we are missing a reality here, biochar is CHARCOAL and damn good charcoal.  

So gasp I end up with may be 20% of a run as large, I keep it separate and when I want to cook with charcoal I use it for that purpose.  It is fantastic for it.

I have also cooked on the grill with the largest of my biochar chunks.  I can't imagine why anyone would think this is odd or inappropriate.  Before it has been inoculated, biochar is no more and no less than lump charcoal.

In my experience, the biochar lit quickly and burned fast and hot.  I had spread it out and let it air dry for about a month after quenching it before sending it to the grill.

BTW, Jack, I have gotten so much invaluable info and inspiration from your podcasts over the years.  Thanks for all that you do!

Great thread!  I notice that most of the posts here are debating the pit burn method vs top-lit updraft retort (TLUD) kilns.  The pit method is simple and certainly the cheapest method - it costs nothing - but it necessitates digging the char out of your pit once complete, which is a deal-breaker for me.  The TLUD is less efficient in terms of combustible materials, since nearly half of your wood generates heat only but no char.  However, the TLUD promises to be more efficient in terms of time, as once you have a proven kiln and methodology you can set it and forget it.  You don't even have to quench at the end, just come back the next day and collect your dry, cooled char.  This intrigues me, and I may experiment with a TLUD in the future.

In the meantime, I have pursued a third option: a simple and cheap homemade take on the Kon-Tiki kiln.  Like a name brand Kon-Tiki kiln, mine has a solid bottom and solid sides; you build the fire up in layers, but all air flows from the top down.  I have built and operated mine fairly faithfully to this man's design and method: Farm Life Australia

I've only burnt char once, but I would call that one burn a success.  My observations:
- In the video, he is using 44-gallon drums (?)  I used 55-gallon drums, which is a standard size here in North America.
- I actually use two identical 55-gallon kilns side by side.  Both can be tended easily enough at one time, doubling the output per man-hour invested in each burn.
- Where I live, this design of kiln is easy to build with minimal capital investment.  The only expense, besides a few metal-cutting disks for your angle grinder, are the steel drums themselves.  I was able to obtain mine, used, for $10 each.  Finding ones with the solid top and bungs, as opposed to a clamp-down removable lid, was somewhat difficult.  Still, I obtained mine within a 1-hour drive.
- At first, burn a pilot fire with kindling and the bottom (larger) bung open.  (Note in the video that the opening cut into the "top" of the kiln, as laid on the drum's side, is exactly opposite the larger bung, which is closest to the ground.)  The extra airflow from the open bunghole will facilitate the burn.  This pilot fire is meant only to heat up the kiln.
- Once hot, reclose the bung hole.  I used a pair of tongs to manipulate the bung.  It isn't easy to get that close to the hot, radiating kiln, but it is possible if one is careful!  Then start layering additional fuel.  With all airflow now restricted to top-down, the kiln is ready to make char.
- Unlike a TLUD, this style kiln requires continual, though not constant, maintenance.  On average, I found myself adding wood and poking and prodding for about 20 minutes at a time, then taking 20 minutes to rest until the next layer.  This varies with the size of wood you're burning; larger wood, longer rest between layers.
- What he says in the video is true: so long as the fuel is well seasoned - and you really don't want to try burning green wood in this type of biochar kiln (ask me how I know this) - it is amazing how little smoke is produced.  This is because...
- The burn is hot!  The BTUs it puts out are staggering.  Next time, I will wear a face mask and a thermal apron to facilitate tending the fire without getting heat stroke, to which I thought I might succumb last time!  It was also a very hot day to begin with.  Poor timing on my part.
- To fill a 55-gallon kiln (or two, in my case) with char will take 4-5 hours burn time.  This includes a solid 30 minutes  to fill each barrel with quenching water using a garden hose.  Sadly, this is one part of the process that does require double the time for my two side-by-side kilns, unless you have two people wielding two garden hoses at once.
- In the video, he doesn't show how he drains the kiln after quenching, but describes using a syphon (only because his kiln has a busted bung).  Instead, when setting up your kiln, do so on slightly sloping ground and point the end with the bungs downhill.  Then, draining the kiln is simple: unscrew the bottom bung and 95% of the water drains out quickly.
- Perhaps I'm just a noob.  And as alluded to above, I had an unfortunate encounter half-way through my first burn with some unseasoned logs that nearly sent the burn off of the rails: they smoked to high heaven and seriously compromised the intensity of the fire for a while.  Still, I was surprised at how many incompletely-charred logs I was left with.  I still made huge amounts of good char, but there remains a nice little pile of too-heavy logs to add to my next burn.  I hope to improve on this: next time, I will split all logs into smaller diameters to avoid a repeat of these results.  I didn't think any of the logs were too large, but apparently it pays to be conservative.

Hello Victoria, I am intrigued by your post.  Why don't you tell us where you are located?

Christopher Weeks wrote:This is the walnut oil I use:

Me too!  Thanks for all of the in depth info on kitchen oiling options.