Heroes have a week of food/water with them at the start of a Journey.

When there is no more food/water a successful roll of Hunting can provide enough food/water for the day.

Who can roll for the test? Every heroes? Only Huntsman?(what if you do not have one!)
What happen for each day that you go without food or water? Do you loose Endurance? Are you only weary? Or both,you loose Endurance and are Weary?

Page 36 of The Loremaster's Book the Sample Hazard Episode Scanty Provisions require (if the hazard test is failed) that every companions succeed at a Hunting roll to clear the temporary Wearyness.
This rule seems to assume that the Heroes will soon passes the Hunting test.

But what about a more lasting starvation?

And we must also keep in mind that a adventurer can make only two actions(rolls) while travelling(page 37).

I'd let the huntsman provide food and water for the day only, but for the whole party.

Note that the hazard is a hunting roll itself, by the huntsman. (If multiple, only one need succeed.)

It makes you weary, without hitting your endurance directly; to clear it, you must be both (1) End above Fatigue, and (2) either (2a) in a place with plenty of food or (2b) able to pass a hunting test.

I'd say that superior levels of success would allow pulling others out of the hole (you fed and watered yourself and one or two extra people). So, those who can, they can make up for it.

Don't forget to use traits (specializations and distinctive features) to get autosuccesses. Be generous - if they can make a halfway decent case for a given trait, let them use it! Require them to describe it. For example, they're near desert spider's lair (they avoided the spider encounter) - they use spider lore to steal the spider's lunch; or they killed the spider, and use their lore to know which parts they can eat.

As for more persistent... First, it makes you weary. Then it makes you miserable, too. Then it wounds you. Then you die. But death by starvation really isn't dramatically interesting.

The Huntsman is a party function generally given to the character with the highest Hunting skill rating. As such anyone can hold this title. However, any character(s) with the Hunting skill can attempt to find game in the wild.

Generally hunters attempt to bring down a single, large game animal. These kills should be sufficient to feed a Party for at least a couple of days without rationing. Unless hunting in a severely limited biome (wastes, desert, polar, etc) or terrible weather conditions (blizzard, 100 degree plus temps), there should be sufficient opportunities to hunt meat that within a couple days a hunter should succeed.

Note that the wording of Scanty Provisions presumes that the Party is already food deprived and suffering the beginning affects of starvation. So I would not base normal hunting on that example.

While I cannot find any official TOR mechanic for starving, Aramis' suggestion appears right. If it works properly I would probably suggest using this same system for dehydration.

On a side note, in the Marsh Bell adventure, the dwarves are mentioned as being starved and dehydrated. Earlier, when talking to Gloin, it is revealed that these dwarves have been missing for a couple days - so perhaps 4 days max?

Thus SG/C7 are handling this more as a narrative element rather than a game mechanic. However, they have the leeway to do so with NPCs.

Note that the wording of most Travel and Hazzard tests relates to the number of successes, not to "failure". It is almost but not quite the same thing.

If, for example the role of Huntermis left vacant then by default the Company achieves no successes at this task,nthey technically do not Fail because they rolled no failures. It is a subtle point but worth considering.

Interesting point Horsa, I had not considered things from that angle.

Except that it's wrong.

LMB p. 35, rt col, 1st para, right after the bit about spending hope to jump in: "If no-one does so, the hazard test is considered a failure."

cf LB36 Cruel Weather, Monsters Roused, Scanty Provisions, No way forward.

It would be nice if the rules used consistent wording throughout.

Aramis,
Thanks for the correction.


Horsa,
Hah! You're not 'Lawyering up on me now, are you? (Sorry, couldn't resist!) But this is a situation where more game mechanics and less flavor text would have been helpful.

No, not at all. I read one section of the rules, Aramis another. Different wording for the same effect.