Quote from: flyingmice;1005118Now here's the fun thing. This is a mashup, and the PCs are from 2017 California, all grads of UCLA who have remained friends. They were flying to the Alaska Panhandle for a camping trip when they transited to the renaissance level world of flying islands in mid cloud. So they know what a group like that would know. One of them is an engineer, another is a veterinarian. There is also a professional park ranger/guide and a professional bush pilot. So maybe they can introduce some aspects of American style agriculture here.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1005199Heh, well ... if none of them are professional farmers ...

And that being said, US-style agriculture's heavily dependent on oil-fueled machinery, modern fertilizers and modern-produced seeds, and it's an expertise-driven craft.  Take it low tech?  Eh, here's my analogy for that.  I'm a lifelong camper.  Between the ages of six and eighteen I lived in a tent for three months out of every year.  From 1989-2003 I camped out 10-15 weekends a year.  You'd think I'm an expert at it, and I am.  I've absorbed a lot and done a lot and read a lot.

But.

Save for fishing, I've never hunted for meat.  I've never lived off of forage.  I've never camped without a nylon or canvas tent, with ample supplies for repairs.  I've almost always cooked off of propane stoves.  I've never been more than five miles from a paved road.  The only time I ever had to deal with a serious wound in the wilderness, I packed the poor lady into my car and drove like the clappers for the Dartmouth College Medical Center, which was less than 45 minutes away, and I had recourse to a paramedic's crash kit while treating it.  I've camped out in midwinter, but only three times in my life and never more than a week.  I've never camped without ready access to an automobile.  Sure, I know that if dumped with a bunch of you into a low-tech survival situation, I'd be better than most of you at it (to the degree that I turn 58 this Sunday, with several health woes).  But I'm not sanguine about our chances; Grizzly Adams I make no pretense to be.

Quote from: flyingmice;1005211All agreed with. that's why I said "some aspects". Conceptual stuff, like proper crop rotation, contour plowing, nitrogen fixing by legumes, wind breaks, evaporative cooling - that kind of stuff they would know about and could introduce. I would assume they could probably eventually double or triple output per square mile.

Quote from: flyingmice;1005118There is also a professional park ranger/guide and a professional bush pilot. So maybe they can introduce some aspects of American style agriculture here.

Quote from: flyingmice;1005211All agreed with. that's why I said "some aspects". Conceptual stuff, like proper crop rotation, contour plowing, nitrogen fixing by legumes, wind breaks, evaporative cooling - that kind of stuff they would know about and could introduce. I would assume they could probably eventually double or triple output per square mile.

Quote from: Headless;1005263American style agriculture is increadibly inefficient per acre.  Becuase thats not what it is optimised for.  American agriculture is optimised for person.   The most efficient the world has ever seen in food per person growing it.  But we waste a lot of space.  

Using 18% of the available space sounds right for a working farm.  Around here 5 acres of farm, field and pasture, to 20 arces of wood lot seems to be the ratio.  

What will they do for heat and building material?  

If they chop down all the trees on that island they will all die.

Quote from: Bren;1005266Simple crop rotation (grains/beans) was a huge advantage over medieval agriculture. It enabled the Dutch Golden Age, among other things. IIR their productivity per acre and per person was higher than the rest of Europe. Somebody over in Britain picked up similar methods which enabled the British to grow their population and economy. Of course trying to persuade people to change from the way grandad's grandma did things to some new fangled notions can be difficult.

Quote from: Ravenswing;1005332That, and a staple of post-apoc fiction is the scared band of survivors with the Wise Old Low-Tech Expert, who tells them how to farm with the means to their hands.

And they listen to the WOLTE.  And the WOLTE is right, and not talking out of his ass.  We all know full well the propensity of people to hear what they want to hear, listen to the people who make them the airiest promises that seem to involve the least degree of sacrifice, that facts and hard science come far behind shibboleths, and that knowing what you're talking about doesn't make you able to express that eloquently.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1005405Yes, yes you are a GM! Keep on keepin' on!

Quote from: flyingmice;1005401the PCs are well aware of that. For example, there is a small rain forest on the island, up against the central mountain, which used to face the prevailing wind. However, since the island tore itself loose from the earth, the island is free to float with the wind, and consequently it rotates in the wind. The PCs know that the rain forest will die because it no longer precipitates rain, and they plan to replant the dying trees with species gathered from other places on the island.

Quote from: Headless;1005443They need a keel or a sea anchor so thr island stops spinning and the rain patterns can stabilize.

Quote from: flyingmice;1004714So I spent hours last night figuring out that the 14 mile by 9 mile floating fragment that the PCs claimed in my Volant/StarCluster 4 - Sabre & World mashup could potentially support a population of 14,400, of which 4200 could be non-farmers.

No one asked.

I'm a GM!

Quote from: Headless;1005443They need a keel or a sea anchor so thr island stops spinning and the rain patterns can stabilize.