I watched a documentary not long ago on the BBC which was called "A Farm For The Future", and one of the segments of the documentary was an interview with a man called Martin Crawford who had designed a forest-garden. He claimed that if the forest-garden was designed for maximum yield, it could actually feed 10 people per acre. I was quite astonished by that claim - given that it contradicts everything that I've been taught about the possibilities of subsistence agriculture. I've been having a heated argument with an organic farming advocate recently about the nature of permaculture. He claims that permaculture is actually an over-hyped "cult" and that it is impossible for one family (of about 4 to 6 people) to even live off 3 acres. He cited an example of when he lived in Nicaragua for a year and helped some families work on their 3-acre plots and he found that some of the children were occasionally malnourished (families averaged 4 to 6 people in total). So he uses that experience against my example. Yet...I've seen statistics from governments claiming the following:- "A family of four could live ten years off the bread produced by one acre of wheat." https://wbc.agr.mt.gov/consumers/basics_wheat.html Now...if that crop was turned into buckwheat you can get several yields per year, because it's fast growing. Also - if you have a forest garden and space the trees carefully (or just grow in natural oak and birch woodland), you can inter-sperse a variety of root-vegetable crops as your staple diet, grow peas and beans as crawlers, as well as a variety of other things. You could even surround your 3-acre plots with borders of nut tree's. Obviously good food storage techniques would be essential. So, it is possible to live off 3-acres even in a temperate climate without getting malnourished. However, the guy I'm arguing with keeps insisting that it's not possible and that you need much more. I'm starting to doubt my own arguments. What are your thoughts or experiences?