Kick the Old Bucket: Review of the Collapsible Bucket

Conveyance or the ease of portability is one of the key facts when traveling in the great outdoors. Most of us would love to take everything from the house, but it is just too hard to fit into a backpack. However, every now and again a piece of gear comes out to make the impossible possible to pack.

In Dave Canterbury’s book, “Advanced BushCraft” in chapter 12 in the first paragraph on page 208 he says,

“I grouped containers and conveyances together in one chapter because they both relate to transportation: one to the transportation of goods and the other to the transportation of food.”

One of the biggest concerns that containers solve is the gathering, purifying, and storing of potable water. While our stainless steel water bottles can do a lot, a downfall they encounter is the capacity of water they can gather at one time or store after purifying. But I think I might have found a solution.

I purchased the 1.3 Gallon collapsible bucket by Ozark trail at Walmart for about $8 – 10. I wanted something that I could take fishing and ended up with so much more. Before I break down my experiments with this gear I must state the following.

“I am not being paid to endorse this item. I paid for it with my own money under my own volition. My review is genuine and accounts are from my, and mine alone, experiences with this item.” And with that, let us get on with it.

Out of the box you get a blue silicone bucket with a hard plastic rim and base to improve stability. 8 1/2 inches in diameter and 2 inches tall collapsed and 8 expanded. Attached to the plastic rim is a handle that can rest on a plastic tab with a hole in it that allows the bucket to be hung during storage. Also on the rim is a spout that allows for better pouring and a hand grip indent in the base to aid with the pouring. These features make this item a smart investment.

For my test I wanted to see if this bucket could function at least on par with a standard plastic 1 gallon bucket. I will be testing the following:

• How much it will actually hold while being carried?
• Ease of carrying, Ease of unfolding, Ease of storing?
• Holding of water and other materials?
• How does it handle the extreme temperatures?

As the name implies the bucket should hold about 1.3 gallons or 5 liters. I figured this would be a good starting test. After pouring in a gallon of water it came up to the plastic rim. Where the silicone meets hard plastic. Knowing another quart would bring it to 1.25 gallons, I proceeded to add this to the bucket. It came about a 1/3 of an inch from the lip.

This did make the bucket a little too full and caused some water to slosh out. Instead, of filling it to the brim, I would stop at the hard plastic lip this would give you the most water and with the best conveyance. The collapsible bucket weighs 12 ¾ oz. With a gallon of water inside  it weighs 9 lbs. This compared to a typical bucket which is 7 ½ ounces. and 8 ¾ lbs.

Compared to a standard plastic 1 gallon bucket, they both perform similarly. Not much could be noted differently. The biggest difference was that the standard plastic 1 gallon bucket sloshed out more water when filled than the collapsible bucket.

After all of my first measurements I decided to take it out fishing. The bucket was simple enough to carry out with the rest of my gear. A normal bucket would’ve been simple too, however with this I was able to have it folded up and tucked under my arm. Next I opened the bucket. By holding the handle in my left, then making my right hand into a fits and placing it against the base I applied force until the silicone unfolded itself. A common bucket would not have needed this step. Next I filled it up with water just like a normal bucket. After a time fishing I poured out the water using the special hand grips on the base of the collapsible bucket. A feature not found on a common bucket.

Later, I returned home and filled the bucket back up and left it there overnight. In the morning I checked the water level and nothing had changed. I would expect a common bucket would also do the same. A few weeks later I used the bucket in making clay cups and bowls. I ended up with about a cup of clay left in the bucket. Accidentally, I left it out in the elements for about 10 months. I am happy to report the bucket received no damage whatsoever during this time. The water even froze and thawed during this time and still work just fine. I have had common buckets crack under these circumstances. It even had developed rust stains from having metal in it. All was later cleaned using only water and a toothbrush.

The only real way a common bucket could beat this collapsible bucket is in the use as a seat. This bucket being collapsible makes it unable to hold up weight at all. Using weighted plates, only 5 lb could be support and I would guess not for very long. However, a common plastic bucket can hold my weight 250+.

In summary, the collapsible bucket gives the user the ability to move a gallon or more of water for some distance. It can be stored on or in a backpack easily and would not add much weight. I even got the bucket to hold water at 195 degrees F without damage to the container. It could even be used as a latrine, like Dave Canterbury suggest in Journal of the Yurt video 2 at 0:44.

“I’ll empty this bucket out tonight and use it as a urinal.”

It could hold items, obviously after washed out, or even used to mix dough for cooking. Apply a little wood ash and you have a hillbilly washing machine, plus you clean the bucket. And while you may think this last idea is silly, it could be used to keep the rain off of your head should you need that. The only ability it lacks when compared to a common bucket is being used as a stand. Make sure you keep one to cross off your bucket list, and so the old plastic one can finally kick the bucket. Next week I’ll be taking a typical Walmart rectangle tarp and improving it, you won’t want to miss it. As always feel free to comment, share this blog, and check back next week for a new one. Follow me on Facebook: @BPackBushcraft and on Twitter @BPackBushCraft. Until next time, keep those fires burning and put another log on for me.

Bake, Boil, and Fry. Oh My!: Testing Mess Kits for Bush Cooking Needs

Now that I’ve shown you my homemade kit, Click Here if you missed it, it needs to be tested. Now typically I would just record its bare stats and that would be enough to know which of my packs it would be going into, or would allow me to know what capabilities it would have before entering the field. However, to give more of a balanced review we will be measuring it alongside others that you could easily purchase at Walmart or Amazon on the cheap. Now, why these: Well not only are they the only other type of kits I currently own, they vary enough to allow me to see where my custom kit will fall into place. Before I break down my experiments with this gear I must state the following:

“I am not being paid to endorse this item. I paid for it with my own money under my own volition. My review is genuine and accounts are from my, and mine alone, experiences with this item.”

 And with that, let’s look at some questions.

As with any good test we decided the best course would be to question what we are looking for in a cooking kit. Besides the common baking, boiling, and frying, we were also concerned with volume. No more and no less than a quart is preferred. Stability; it’s important that it is able to cook on a fire without falling over and spilling water onto said fire. This eliminated round-bottomed bowls from the test. Speed; we were hoping to find an ideal configuration to optimize processing (baking/boiling/frying) time. Serve-ability; sometimes it’s nice to be able to serve your meal as opposed to eating it out of the pot that it was cooked in. This isn’t very important, but we are trying to see what all we can get out of each kit. Compact-ability; we really want the best gear we can get and store it in the smallest space possible. Storage-ability; we want to be able to add other items into the kit so we can store more things. This may be confused with compact-ability, however with this we are looking to see what we can store inside the kit rather than storing the kit itself. We will be conducting the test comparing only the materials used here without any base to compare them to. This means that only the pots in question will be compared only to each other. We will be using a 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd system and finding the average for statistics for each pot.

 Let us get to the lineup:

Mess Kit A                           

Ozark Trail 3 Piece Stainless Steel Cookware Set

5 3/4 inch wide   5     inch deep pot holding 5 cups

4 7/8 inch wide   4 ¾ inch deep pot holding 7 cups

A lid that fits both pots with a folding knob

Folding handles

Included by me -- A plastic cup with measurement

Initial impressions: Likely not good for baking or frying, but the optimal choice for boiling. Contents appear to be even or greater to Kit B, but there is not really anything to serve up food with. It appears that it would be stable in a cooking environment. There is opportunities for Storage-ability, however, not much in the way of Compact-ability.

Mess Kit B                                           

Coleman 5 piece aluminum mess kit:

One plate measuring 5 ¾ inch bottom with 1 ½ inch walls

Securing handle to lock all the pieces together

Another plate the same size except it can turn the securing handle in to a frying pan handle

Small pot that holds close to 2 cups more like 1 ¾

Metal cup with measurement markers

Initial impressions: This kit appears to be optimal for frying and baking, however, at first glance does not appear that it could do much in the way of boiling. Its volume appears to be adequate and it appears sturdy enough to stand up in a cooking environment. There are dishes to serve up the food with all stored within the kit itself. It is also compact so it could slide right into your pack.

Mess Kit C        

My custom kit:

9 inch wide 2 inch walls round cake pan

8 ¾ inch wide and 3 inch walls that hold 60oz (6 cups is better than full pot)

4 ½ inch wide and 1 ½ inch wall cup that is 7oz (close enough to a cup to be used for measuring)

Vice grip pliers

Initial impressions: This kit seems adequate for baking and boiling, but with no apparent handle frying appears to be difficult. It is similar, but a bit larger than B so it likely has a higher volume. With its larger size it may be a bit more unstable in a cooking environment, however this presents more opportunities for Storage-ability. It is slightly larger than pot B, but is still flat so Compact-ability still does not appear to present an issue.

To test these, I have decided to use the camp stove “Peak 1” made by Coleman. The test would be better if I could’ve used a campfire for each, however I wanted to make sure the performance was as equal across all the different kits and tests. The Stove will allow me to keep the heat source an independent variable from the different mess kits which will be my dependent variables. That’s science son, now let’s start the test.

Boiling Test

For the first test we timed how long it took to boil water. For the test we filled each pot with 2 cups of water then placed it on the burner and timed it till the water came to a rolling boil.

Mess Kit A: The kit had two different pots so both were boiled. About 7:05 minutes for both. The time came back a couple seconds apart. I chalked this up to human error with the stop watch. Some problematic elements that we discovered were that the lid began to shake the closer the pot got to boiling, there is no way to hang this pot up unlike Pot B, and also during this test both pots seemed to have balance issues, however nothing came of it.

Mess Kit B: The pot in this kit was made closer to what a typical pot looks like, however it’s smaller size limits the amount of water that can be boiled. We went with 1 ¾ cups over 2. I was afraid of over boiling and made this call. It came to a boil in 5:49 minutes. Beside it small size no other problems we noted during the test.

Mess Kit C:  Since the boiling apparatus in this kit is large dog bowl with a flat bottom gave this pot the most stability. However during the test it took 8:50 minutes to achieve a rolling boil. This was about 2 minutes longer than Mess Kit A and 3 minutes longer than Mess Kit B. Other problems were that the lid (round cake tin) was hard to remove during the boiling process as I checked and releasing the vice grips from the pot during the test made me nervous.

Overall: we found that Mess Kit B’s pot even though it was smaller worked the best. Followed by Mess Kit A and then Mess Kit C.

Frying Test

After completing the first test, we wanted to look at each kit’s ability to fry. For our testing medium, we used a slice of bologna and a ½’ cube of Crisco. For all three kits we allowed the Crisco to melt before adding the bologna and spread it around the frying surface. We then timed it to see how long it took to get a nice seared crust without overly burning the bologna slice.

Mess Kit A: We had to improvise with this kit and use the larger of the two pots as a frying pan. The pot was deep which made it challenging to flip the bologna and the actual surface which we fried on was so small the bologna barely fit, overall it took about 3:15 minutes. We wanted to experiment with the lid, however it has no walls to be used as a frying device.

Mess Kit B: This kit took 4:38 minutes to cook the bologna due to the issues we encountered while frying. The handle of the pan offset the balance on the burner of the Peak 1. I would like to add that this problem would be eliminated by cooking with it cooking irons or over a bed of coals or using a heavier food to counterbalance the handle.

Mess Kit C:  This kit continued to balance well and using vice grips as a removable handle made flipping the bologna a breeze. I did note that I did not use enough Crisco to account for the larger frying surface so there were issues with sticking in spots. The cook time was 4:00 even, a bit longer than Kit A, but a drastically better experience.

Overall: We found that Mess Kit C was best suited for frying due to its balance and manageability. Plus more space means more room for food. We believe Mess Kit A was at its limit with frying and were surprised that it could even do what it did. Kit B surprised us by being more difficult than expected to work with, however this is likely do to our experiments being done on the Peak 1.

(P.S. my wife ate all of the bologna.)

Baking Test

For the final test we wanted to see how well each kit could bake. Baking in the field allows you to produce food without having to expend any other energy in search of other local nutrients. Every ¼ cup of flour has 100 calories in it. Our bread mixture used during this experiment used one cup of self-rising flour and half a cup of water. This recipe could be altered as long as it maintained the two to one ratio. In addition, we added a pinch or two of flour, just enough to be able to work with the dough. It was not kneaded and all of the baking surfaces were greased with Crisco, about the same amount as before, but spread around the pan this time. We also flip the bread every 2-3 minutes to try and prevent sticking.

Mess Kit A: We used the larger pot to bake our bread in. There came an issue when flipping as we had to flip the bread into the smaller pot and then back again. Fortunately there was no sticking and the bread was finished in 12:53 minutes.

Mess Kit B: The biggest issue encountered with this kit was the handle slipping loose and removing the lid while flipping the container. There was also an issue with sticking as the bread became burnt on to one side of the pan and had to be scraped off. The cook time was 15:04 minutes.

Mess Kit C: In the future I would remember to include gloves with this kit as the only way to flip it was to use my fingertips to lift it off of the heat source and turn it over. Other than that the only problem was that we would find oil spots on the outside of the pan which is a potential fire hazard, however it was not an issue during testing. The bread finished baking in 12:35 minutes.

Overall: Kit C was the best choice for baking due to its faster cooking time, no sticking, and ease of flipping. Kit A surprised me once again, but due to the issue with flipping it came up short. Kit B could have done better, but there are some issues needing to be corrected which could set it apart significantly.

 

Other Test

Before we call a victor, there are a few other additional notes we are using to evaluate the

kits by. Volume: We chose Mess Kit A as number one because it has two pots, which each held a significant amount of liquid, followed by Mess Kit C, and lastly B.

Stability: Mess Kit C won out in stability as it never had a problem with wobbling or balance. B was next because it was reasonable stable when boiling, even though its handle when frying impacted its balance greatly. Mess Kit A had a constant wobble that could not be corrected.

Speed: Mess Kit A was overall the fastest when it came to cooking time. This could be because the metal was thinner allowing it to heat up easier. Next was Kit C which is made of a thicker metal, and Kit B typically took the longest or was neck and neck with Kit A.

Serve-ability: Kit B takes first place by leaps and bounds as it has an actual plate as part of the kit as well as a cup. Kit C followed behind due to the fact that you could serve with one pan while cooking with the other and there is room for a cup as well. Kit A comes in dead last as there is nothing to serve with, as well as little room to add a serving dish or a cup.

Compact-ability: We chose Kit B due to the fact that it lays flat and can just simply be placed in the bottom of your pack. Next was Kit C. Once again, it does lay flat, however it has more girth than Kit B. Kit A is very tall and wide and cannot lay flat causing it to take up a significant amount of room in your pack.

Storage-ability: We chose Kit C as being able to hold the most items due to the large area inside with only small tools currently occupying that space. Next we chose Kit B which is in some ways a smaller version of Kit C, Kind of where I got the idea from. Finally we found Kit A had the least amount of storage due to the fact that it is very tall and everything has to fit together like Russian nesting dolls.

FINALE

We find that Kit C either took first or second in all tests. It may not have always been the best choice, but it was always close enough to being the best without being unable to perform in any of the tests. It did not have a tendency to excel at one feature like Kit A with boiling or Kit B with frying, and then perform poorly in other tests like Kit A with baking and Kit B with boiling.

In closing, all of these kits can be the best kit for you depending on what you are looking

for. In starting this, I believed that Kit C would be the best overall and after these tests my hypothesis is now plausible. Does this mean the other kits are trash? NO! It just means that Kit C is the best kit for what I’m looking for. I like to bake, I like to fry, and I like to boil. So I want a kit that is going to be more versatile. I’m not looking for a kit that is going to be the best at boiling if it isn’t going to be able to do anything else. I would rather use the kit that is half way decent at boiling, but can be used for multiple purposes. This way I am not carrying around a different kit for every aspect of cooking in the bush. I also would like to point out that this is not a review of any of these kits, this was only a series of tests. To me a review is very in depth in revealing its pros and cons while focusing only on the subject matter. These tests focuses more on comparing the kits which gave me less time to spend with each kit which in turn makes me less comfortable saying whether a kit is good or not. That is why I can only give you the results of these tests. However, if you’re dying for a review, you won’t want to miss next week! As always feel free to comment, share this blog, and check back next week for a new one. Follow me on Facebook: @BPackBushcraft and on Twitter @BPackBushCraft. Until next time, keep those fires burning and put another log on for me.

Spot of Tea: A Review of The Folding Stove

 A problem you will have while hiking, trekking, or even while hunting is needing a good fire for a hot meal. I know out in the woods sticks are aplenty. However, in some conditions you don’t have time to get enough for a good fire, or enough time for a cooking fire, and sometimes you just can’t get a fire started period. This is an often overlooked problem that can be the difference between life and death for any of us who go out into the woods. Fortunately, I don’t just present you with a problem without giving you some solution. I recommend for those of you worried about this situation to pick up a folding stove. I purchased the “Folding Stove with Fuel” by Ultimate Survival Technologies, around the end of March. I don’t have the receipt with me anymore, but as I remember it was between $6-$9 from Walmart. The only goal of purchase being for “blog material”. However, after using this simple device I became quite the fan of them. While it is not 100% perfect, or multipurpose-able it still has earned a place in my pack. Before I break down my

experiments with this gear I must state the following.

“I am not being paid to endorse this item. I paid for it with my own money under my own volition. My review is genuine and accounts are from my, and mine alone, experiences with this item.” And with that, let us get on with it.

Out of the box you get this. The instructions and fuel folded into the metal box. It weighed in at 0.8 oz, which can be found on the back of the box. It folded together in a semi-locked fashion. Not water proof by any means, but capable of holding items on the inside of it. On the back side of it are holes I assume for airflow. My first experiment was to assemble the stove without reading the instruction. My reason is, items too complex require more practice and sometimes skills to use them. With fire we want the most streamline process possible. It was as simple as pulling open the center and revealing the fuel for the stove.

To my best knowledge you could use other fuel types here without any problem. With both of these results, the stove passed the simple mechanics test.

After opening it up I decided to proceed to my next experiment, lighting of the fuel. Like with my homemade fire starter criteria, I wanted to see what range of ignition sources would light the fuel. I first started with the magnifying lens. Unfortunately it was unsuccessful.

I then attempted the ferro rod. I was able to catch sparks on the block, but I was not able get it lit. Even with a little char-cloth, the ember wasn’t successful enough to catch. I skipped the flint and steel, because if the ferro wouldn’t work neither would the flint and steel. My last attempt was just a flick of the Bic. I did the recommended five seconds of flame and it caught in no time. Unfortunately, failing to light by any other means except the lighter makes it a bit harder to light. Of course, I could’ve used a fire starter. However, I felt that it could be a bit better. With both of these results, the stove failed the ignition test. After lighting the fuel I waited until it held a large flame and resembled a roasted marshmallow. I began the “one bottle container” test. The one bottle container test is using only one bottle to cover the container requirement in survival situations.

With this my fuel must heat the water in my bottle to purify it for cooking or drinking. These are the items you can see in the picture. It would not increase the temperature of the water in the bottle, let alone boil it. This test was a failure. Even trying to balance it on the teeth of the stove was unsuccessful. With this result, the stove failed the “One Bottle Container” test.

I switched to a tea kettle for two reasons. First, it would tell me when the water was boiling by sound off. Second, it was close to the size of my mess kit I keep in my pack. However, with the failed attempt of my water bottle, I burned up too much of the original fuel. Now having to add a fuel block to this made for a bit of a challenge. I decided that using the open flame on the first block with a new one would be the best result. Using my knife like a spatula I placed it next to the other one.

 I waited till it caught fire and begin timing it. My last experiment was to check the burn time and quality. It should be able to boil water in five minutes and at least go for ten to twelve. It took about six minutes to get the kettle to whistle and it burned for about ten minutes. While it didn’t hit the mark, like horse shoes and hand grenades, it was close enough for me. With these results, the stove passed: the adding of fuel test, the time to boil test, time to burn test, and heat distribution of my mess kit test.

I had a few final notes to add before passing my verdict on this piece of gear. First off, being an alcohol based stove it does put off a smell. I would recommend not using it in the process of roasting or for warmth. The fuel could be a fire starter if need be.
It does extend burn time and if it’s wet it will light. I would again recommend waiting until the smell dissipated until roasting on it. I even was able to dig out some charred material once it had burned all away. Though, when I tried to strike it with a ferro rod, nothing happened. While I don’t think user error was behind this fail, I don’t know exactly what caused this. Since I didn’t expect it, it washes itself out, no pass/fail.

Finally, after much more research than what has appeared in this blog, I have determined that this is in fact… A GOOD buy for one’s backpack. The test scores came out to five to two; pass to fail. I believe it is great for a quick fire. With this stove becoming more and more popular you should go out and pick one up and try them yourself. Click here for an Amazon page for the item.

Be looking forward for some cool stuff coming to the site in the following months. Next time we will be looking at a cheap and simple method for fireproofing a water bottle, you won’t want to miss it. As always feel free to comment, share this blog, and check back next week for a new one. Follow me on Facebook: @BPackBushcraft and on Twitter @BPackBushCraft. Until next time, keep those fires burning and put another log on for me.

Sounds like a Digestion Issue: Construction and Usage of the Dakota Fire Hole

One of the first things I learned when I started bushcraft was making a fire. And as some people know doing it the right way and the easy way are vastly different.

Fire is as simple as three things but as difficult as 30 different ways to make it. A fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat. Now fuel is you bigger logs for when it’s caught up to the little tinder bundle made of fluffy easy-to-catch-a-spark-on materials.

Next the oxygen. This is the air in the form of breath or wind. To heat the coals up and catch the next layer of fuel up. This is a lot of the time my problem if the fire fails. I don’t give them enough space and over crowd the pool. Fire doesn’t like that.

Finally the most important thing is heat. Quick! When I say fire what do you think of? If you say hotdogs or s’mores then you’re hungry; go eat. But really, have you ever had a cold fire? No. Heat is the “spark” that makes a fire grow. It eats the food and builds up by the wind and oxygen. And we usually carry a variety of instruments used to produce heat.

Like I said there are many different ways to make your fire. I’m just going to go over 4.

First is the teepee fire we are all familiar with. It layers your fuel with the tinder at the bottom and heavy sticks and split logs at the top using the fact that fire feed upwards. The layout’s design can allow for a funnel to let the air into its center and smoke out the top. At least in theory.

Second is the log cabin. Sometime turned into the upside down fire. It has the tinder at the top then kindling and finally fuel. This way you don’t have to worry about collapsing the fire. Also by arranging the sticks you can allow creation of air flow.

Third is the Swedish torch. I haven’t done one of these yet, but as I understand, you split roughly a 7 inch wide log into 8 section but stopping about 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through. This is usually done with a chainsaw for speed and ease. Next making a tinder bundle at the top in the center of the cross section you light your fire. This will burn down through until it starts to use the log as fuel. Benefits are: cooking, self-feeding, and resource management(only need one log).

Finally the fourth one is the main point of this blog. The Dakota fire hole is known for its smokeless, stealth, low impact, low maintenance, and cooking. The only problem is it will not provide the user much heat.

WARNING: In a survival situation you do not want this fire lay. This will not give the user any warmth and is hard to see for signaling purposes. Using a larger fire for warmth and signaling is your best option.
Now let’s get to the construction.
The first step was to find some flat ground in my back yard. I wanted a place where I could prevent fire spreading to other areas. This method uses the winds more than other fire methods and because of this I take special care to control where the fire will spread. I took some time to kick some of the leaves back and gather up the small branches so I could use them later during the fire. Next I test for the wind direction, as I said this is method is nothing without the wind. I didn’t have any other method so I did it the old fashion way. Once found I placed a large stick it the direction of the wind. The wind blew from the bottom right of the picture to the upper left.

Next I began digging two holes about 10 to 12 inches apart.I began at first using my shovel, but quickly tried a large tablespoon instead. I found that as long as I didn’t rush or get greedy with my bite, or the amount of dirt you pick up at a time, it was simpler to get done. I felt more in control because of the smaller precision bites. Another benefit was the storage of a spoon as opposed to the larger shovel. In the end it’s all up to what works for you and until I upgrade I’m keeping my spoon.

  Here are the three different items I worked with while digging the hole. The left most is just a fist size chunk of flint. I like flint because it is more primitive tech than something machine made. Next option is also kinda harder to find but has a few more uses. It's either a railroad spike or some large nail. I am not 100% sure, but I’m guessing it is a spike. I like to use it as a dig stick just because I can have it on me and to try to wedge logs I’m splitting.However, these days a spoon is going to be cheaper and easier to find than flint or the railroad spike. I say cheaper because you can get them at Walmart or dollar stores. This came out of my kitchen drawer, enough said.

However unlikely it really did wonders during the process. While connecting the holes I couldn’t use my spoon without risking breaking the neck. The spike came through, literally. With it I could break through the wall between the holes and make them one. To make a hole, I ended up knocking it through with a dense bit of wood on hand. You want a reasonable sized hole so that the air flow will come into the first hole and flow into the other.

This is what I had done in about 10 minutes to 15 minutes. The picture on the left is the completed holes that are connected down below the soil line. To the right is the other hole that I dug out more and sloped it a bit upward to try and capture the air flow. The slope is very key to getting the amount of wind you need to feed this fire.

I had the hole deepened to about my forearm’s length, about 9 inches. I then stacked wood and sticks vertical in the burning hole until it was full. Next all I did was light my fire with the fire starters I made in the blog before. I did this right on top of the sticks to start the process of heating up my sticks to get my fire up and off the ground. Not long after, it was up and roaring. The only thing to do after that was to add a few more sticks.

Well I hope you enjoy joining me in my first of many adventures with the Dakota fire hole. Next week I will be showing you what I used it for. In this picture to the right, all the tools used are shown. From the left to right is the military folding shovel, my leather gloves, that big peace of flint and that log I used to knock in the spike (shown above), and my spoon. As always feel free to comment, share this blog, and check back next week for a new one. Follow me on Facebook: @BPackBushcraft and on Twitter @BPackBushCraft. Until next time, keep those fires burning and put another log on for me.

"Keep Those Fires Burning" challenge

To celebrate the incoming spring season, I have decided to issue to anyone and everyone who reads this to participate in the first ever "Keep Those Fires Burning" challenge. The challenge is simple. Keep a fire burning from winter to spring. The idea for this is to instill the importance of maintaining a fire during cold nights during a survival situation. The other is to kick off spring with a fire. A common statement spread thorough-out the bushcraft and survival world is, "Without practice, you will lose the skill you've learned." Kicking off spring by building a fire testing parts of your kit. Sounds like just some good ole bushcraft fun to me.

So how to participate in the challenge. First is to have a fire started by 11:50 the night of March the 19th, this is will be the last minutes of winter. Make sure it is a decent campfire you can be proud of. Next, take a picture and post it on Twitter or Facebook with the hashtag #keepthosefiresburning, Bonus points if you live stream the event, which yours truly will be doing. After midnight take another picture and throw up the hashtag #anotherlogforyou. It's that easy. Just make a fire, take a picture, and post it with the hashtag #keepthosefiresburning before midnight. Then after midnight post another picture of the fire still burning with the hashtag #anotherlogforyou. Bonus points for doing it live. Tweet it @BPackBushCraft if you like or tag @BPackBushcraft on Facebook.

Looking forward to anyone who is up to the challenge. As always feel free to comment, share this blog, and check back next week for a new one. Follow me on Facebook: @BPackBushcraft and on Twitter @BPackBushCraft. Until next time, keep those fires burning and put another log on for me.