Dig for Victory - Mark II

Suzy_M · 6 January 2009 at 11:56PM

ceridwen wrote: »

a lot more land would have been available then

The background to food supply ‘shortages’ during World War Two – and World War One, was initially more to do with the lack of a productive agricultural industry rather than an overall shortage of land.

Prior to World War One - The combined effects of industrialisation of European countries, including Britain, expansion of empires and improved transport, including refrigeration, led to more food being imported at much cheaper prices. European farmers were unable to compete with the very much cheaper imports and as a result farmers simply stopped farming and farmland was left derelict. If land is left derelict it takes a good five years to get it back in to full production. Those that continued to farm tended to produce only what they could sell locally.

By the start of World War One Britain and other European countries were producing very little of their own food. At the start of the war efforts were made to get some of the agricultural land back in to production. However, with the general attitude being ‘it will be all over by Christmas’, it wasn’t done with much enthusiasm. And of course a great deal of skilled agricultural labour was lost to the Armed Forces. (The Women’s Land Army originated during World War One, not Two.)

Also, in Europe great tracts of some of the most fertile agricultural land, particularly in the low countries were lost to battlefields and it was impossible to farm in these areas. However, initially shipping was not a badly affected as during World War Two and imports were still getting through. But the government still did not introduce rationing until very late in the war (when Britain had only about two months food left I think!).

After World War One it took several years to get back to some sort of normality in farming, not helped by the now permanent loss of skilled agricultural labour. However, governments failed to learn the lessons of World War One and countries continued to import cheap food from their colonies at the expense of their own native farming industry. As a result by World War Two the proportion of productive agricultural land had again fallen. Also because of the low prices there was little incentive for farmers to invest in improved farming methods.

So by the start of World War Two European countries were again too reliant on imported food. This time around the problem was much worse because ‘commercial’ shipping was deliberately targeted by Hitler and his cronies very early on. But at least the UK government introduced rationing at a very early stage this time!

After the war food rationing continued for some time, partly because Britain was not yet up to full production but also to share any surplus with our European Allies, who in some cases had suffered far more than Britain had.

In the years following World War II European countries at last recognised the need for individual countries to be as “self-sufficient” in food production as possible. (This was what brought about the Common Agricultural Policy and farm subsidies.) - Unfortunately, we’ve come full circle again with land being taken out of food production, for bio-fuels and leisure uses etc. - and we could be heading back to where we were 100 years ago.

So has Britain got enough land to be self-sufficient in food? - Counting only agricultural land, and not gardens or allotments etc. we’ve got a total land area of 18.5 million hectares of productive land (including some grazing for animals) and a current population of around 65 million. We need roughly to 0.2 hectares per person (average from a number of sources) so we should be OK. But if the population does radically increase we will of course lose productive land and then we could be in deep doodoo.

ceridwen · 7 January 2009 at 7:54AM

Hi Suzy

Thanks for taking the trouble for that - by the way how much is 0.2 hectares in feet please?

Some good points there.

Certainly the fact that the population is still increasing is a matter of deep concern - and me leaping up and down any time anyone thinks its nothing to do with them personally - so they'll have as many children as they please:eek: . I could start a whole new thread on a different Board on that - and wait to see just how many people attacked me for stating the obvious:cool: - only I've not got a "virtual crash helmet" yet;)

Its a good point particularly re land taking 5 years to get "fully up and going" at producing food - whooops! rather a long time!

One thing I often think too when it comes to the question of how much food we need as a country is the sheer fact that most people eat more than they physically need - many by a very large margin - as we know! When calculations are made about how much food is needed - do these calculations only take into account the amount of food we actually need on the one hand OR the amount of food British people actually eat on the other hand (as there would be a very substantial amount of land needed to cater for all this "extra" food many people have). Also - I note the attempts to "educate" people into not wasting food - but there is still one heck of a lot of food wasted (at every stage of the process from farm to shop to consumer) - is this food also factored into the calculations of how much land we need? (or is it assumed we live in a "perfect world" where no-one anywhere ever wastes a morsel of food).

rhiwfield · 7 January 2009 at 12:37PM

Read this thread with interest.

A lot of people will have started growing veg to get better tasting veg and/or veg grown organically. For example, supermarket carrots are often bland and sometimes seem tainted by preservatives if packaged. Just compare that taste to the taste of carrots just picked from the kitchen garden.

If I recall, saving money was often dismissed as a reason to grow veg due to availability of cheap food. But that seems to be changing as world food prices rise and growing your own can really save money. I think we are still some way from having our food supply threatened but it may come to that pass.

Another reason people give for fruit and veg growing is the sheer pleasure of getting your hands dirty, and nourishing plants from seed to table. I like to grow for all the above reasons and a bit of unashamed nostalgia. I have a 1930's picture of the house that was knocked down to make room for our house and the one next door. Next door was built in the large garden/orchard of the demolished cottage, full of fruit trees.

Three years back we started to convert our largely ornamental garden into a fruit and veg garden, perhaps harking back to that 1930's photo but also wanting to be severely practical. A greenhouse was added last year. We now have a maturing productive garden but it will still be some time before everything reaches full potential. I'm having to ban my eldest daughter from the asparagus sown 2 year ago, while the apple trees (espaliered to maximise space) cropped for the first time last year but have several years to go before being fully productive. The new greengage is yet to show any sign of bearing fruit

If we are to go down this more productive road we have to preserve our crops. We had some existing soft fruit bushes that was the birds treat every June/July. Now we net them and convert them into blackcurrant jam, fruit pies and fools, as well as blackcurrant wine. Next to build is an apple store in anticipation of bigger crops this Autumn. Our (bigger!) freezer still has a good supply of frozen broad beans, runner beans and blackcurrants while the garage has half the onion crop left and we should have enough garlic to last until early summer. And we need to start blending the rhubarb, elderflower and gooseberry wines that we made some months ago. Sadly the tomato puree has all gone and I wasnt quick enough to cloche up the leaf beet/swiss chard before the bad weather started

You also quickly realise the importance of good soil. Much of ours was converted form lawn and of poor quality. Gradually we are building the structure and fertility, composting all our waste bar cooked meat waste. Our veg scraps are currently going in the runner bean trench and we plan to use the wooden compost heap (used for garden weeds) for growing pumpkins this year thru a layer of carpet.

Perhaps the hardest thing to get your head around is what to grow. Ther's not much point growing stuff people wont eat! So I've had to give away surplus courgettes, beet and turnips. Radishes lie untouched, and lettuce has to be sown sparingly and our top veg picks are:
early potatoes
onions
leaf beet
peas
carrots
runner beans
broad beans
sweetcorn
garlic
swiss chard
kale
tomatoes

but we also grow some salad veg, welsh onions, horseradish, some brassicas for spring/summer greens, cucumber and herbs as well as the soft fruit

Perversely, we've cut down on the veg beds this year. Last winter we terraced part of the heavily sloping front garden that was previously full of leylandii and made a new front hedge of beech. In the other beds I promised my wife she could have a rose garden but it needed a year of working over so it was planted with new potatoes and broad beans. The rose garden I planted in November as an early christmas present, but I cant help regretting the cut back of growing space!

When I look at the old photo I realise how much space they had to play with. Where our oil tank and garage are now, previous owners used to keep pigs! If we want to make extra space for fruit and veg we will have to convert our last area of lawn or take over our wildlife pond/lawn/woodpile. And we really dont have room for chickens. So I dont think we'll ever be self sufficient, but I dont regret the journey one iota

mardatha · 7 January 2009 at 8:00PM

I'm finding this all very interesting too, because anythign to do with history has me hooked, and there's a lot of history in this thread

I think a huge cause of food shortages in wartime was lack of men to work the land.. I think then it was reversible and now it isn't, because we plant houses instead of food.
Did anybody watch the tv series "the 1900 House"...the first thing they did was sort the kitchen garden and the hens. So maybe a lot of us can at least go back to what every victorian family did, even the ones in small cramped houses with tiny gardens. Maybe start small and like the plants (hopefully !!) grow bigger ? I just wish I'd got around to this when I was younger and not so decrepit as I am now!

ceridwen · 7 January 2009 at 8:08PM

All info. on this is useful.

I've been sitting there at work today thinking "...and another thing when the calculations are made about how much land we need available to feed ourselves....what about our pets? Have they been taken into consideration as well - or were these calculations solely based on people?" Between us all - we have literally millions of pets I gather - and they're part of the family too:p

Rhiwfield - and thats yet another consideration - the increasing use of gardens for other things - as in many older houses have had extensions built on a bit of what was formerly garden space. More to the point - many bungalows with decent size gardens have been grabbed by developers and - bingo - a lot of that garden has vanished - as it has been built on.

All further info. welcome.

Larumbelle · 7 January 2009 at 10:17PM

I think scrapping current EU agricultural policies and subsidies is one way to solve a lot of our agricultural issues in one fell swoop. It encourages environmentally unsound production of unnecessary crops, and then charges us a lot of money for the pleasure of being screwed.

Regarding pets, well, I doubt they've been included in any calculations. During the war era, the majority of cats were expectected to catch their own food, and dogs were fed off scraps - even most working dogs. And many, many pets who were previously fed by their owners were put to sleep during the war. Although I think a lot - most? - of pet food these days is produced from waste animal parts and a healthy dash of other manufacturing and petrochemical waste, there are still a lot of additives, and the trend is towards nutritional balancing, adding vitamins, fish oils and the like. I recently read about how much marine damage is currently being wreaked to fulfil the growing demand for omega 3 fish oils and it wasn't pleasant reading :eek: I have to admit I am guilty of turning a blind eye to the environmental cost of my kitty chow.

Rhiwfield, I agree about making the most of the resources you have available. NO organic matter leaves this house (even meat waste goes in the bokashi) and rather than tearing out the brambles I am cultivating them in a way that allows me to use the land around them. Only problem is, most of last year's crop ended up as wine

Modern living is a big factor - houses are being crammed together with only tiny green areas in between, which is good in that it limits the amount of land being given over to it, but causes a whole host of problems as well that are having a knock-on effect on the environment. Often local infrastructures aren't improved to cope with the additional pressure, and so many gardens round here are gravelled or paved over, with no greenary at all. It's widely believed to be a factor in the increase in urban flooding, because rain that falls on a hard impervious surface ends up in sewers far quicker than water that must filter through organic material, and some of that will be absorbed by the soil and the plant's roots. That is one of the big reasons for the rise of the green roof. But flats take up less space but otherwise place just as big a burden on the infrastructure, and inhabitants there have no means of growing their own at all. In this case the problem is not so much one of overpopulation as changing demographics

We have more people to house, and more people are living alone rather than in bigger family units. I'm not sure we've found the right way to deal with this yet.

I can tell you of a dozen new developments round here, but not one single extra allotment has been provided. Our council has just been given a huge wodge of cash to 'regenerate' the local area, and when we asked for some of the money to be allocated to a new allotment site, we were told it was unneccesary and there was no demand. That's despite the fact we've already got a 10-year waiting list and they're building hundreds more houses and flats.:rolleyes: Most houses round here also have rules in the deeds that livestock and poultry cannot be kept, although when I've tried to persuade OH that we should get some I point out that we don't have hen police (at least not yet). I mean, if the police don't care about the serious crimes being committed round here, I can't see them being arsed with a few chooks.

I'm trying a new tactic - I'm going to bet him that I can hatch some chicks from some shop-bought eggs. If I win, I can keep any female chicks from the brood. If I fail, I'll stop harking on about the chicken thing. Trouble is, I haven't been able to get him drunk enough to agree to the bet yet...

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure most of that 'felt' on-topic as I wrote it. Ah well.

rhiwfield · 7 January 2009 at 11:15PM

"Most houses round here also have rules in the deeds that livestock and poultry cannot be kept, although when I've tried to persuade OH that we should get some I point out that we don't have hen police (at least not yet). I mean, if the police don't care about the serious crimes being committed round here, I can't see them being arsed with a few chooks.

"

Silvercharming, you'll prob find that the hen police are your neighbours who wont put up with the noise of the hens or cockerel (even tho its ok for radios to be on full blast!)

Ceridwen, I recently edited a local history book and it was clear how much we've moved from a local agricultural economy to one where we have become separated from the production of food crops. Gardens now are for entertainment while the local must have is a hot tub.

Overall I think it will take a seismic event of some kind to shake the dependency on third parties/foreign countries for our food production

lesley1960 · 7 January 2009 at 11:28PM

silvercharming wrote: »

I think scrapping current EU agricultural policies and subsidies is one way to solve a lot of our agricultural issues in one fell swoop. It encourages environmentally unsound production of unnecessary crops, and then charges us a lot of money for the pleasure of being screwed.

Regarding pets, well, I doubt they've been included in any calculations. During the war era, the majority of cats were expectected to catch their own food, and dogs were fed off scraps - even most working dogs. And many, many pets who were previously fed by their owners were put to sleep during the war. Although I think a lot - most? - of pet food these days is produced from waste animal parts and a healthy dash of other manufacturing and petrochemical waste, there are still a lot of additives, and the trend is towards nutritional balancing, adding vitamins, fish oils and the like. I recently read about how much marine damage is currently being wreaked to fulfil the growing demand for omega 3 fish oils and it wasn't pleasant reading :eek: I have to admit I am guilty of turning a blind eye to the environmental cost of my kitty chow.

Rhiwfield, I agree about making the most of the resources you have available. NO organic matter leaves this house (even meat waste goes in the bokashi) and rather than tearing out the brambles I am cultivating them in a way that allows me to use the land around them. Only problem is, most of last year's crop ended up as wine

Modern living is a big factor - houses are being crammed together with only tiny green areas in between, which is good in that it limits the amount of land being given over to it, but causes a whole host of problems as well that are having a knock-on effect on the environment. Often local infrastructures aren't improved to cope with the additional pressure, and so many gardens round here are gravelled or paved over, with no greenary at all. It's widely believed to be a factor in the increase in urban flooding, because rain that falls on a hard impervious surface ends up in sewers far quicker than water that must filter through organic material, and some of that will be absorbed by the soil and the plant's roots. That is one of the big reasons for the rise of the green roof. But flats take up less space but otherwise place just as big a burden on the infrastructure, and inhabitants there have no means of growing their own at all. In this case the problem is not so much one of overpopulation as changing demographics We have more people to house, and more people are living alone rather than in bigger family units. I'm not sure we've found the right way to deal with this yet.

I can tell you of a dozen new developments round here, but not one single extra allotment has been provided. Our council has just been given a huge wodge of cash to 'regenerate' the local area, and when we asked for some of the money to be allocated to a new allotment site, we were told it was unneccesary and there was no demand. That's despite the fact we've already got a 10-year waiting list and they're building hundreds more houses and flats.:rolleyes: Most houses round here also have rules in the deeds that livestock and poultry cannot be kept, although when I've tried to persuade OH that we should get some I point out that we don't have hen police (at least not yet). I mean, if the police don't care about the serious crimes being committed round here, I can't see them being arsed with a few chooks.

I'm trying a new tactic - I'm going to bet him that I can hatch some chicks from some shop-bought eggs. If I win, I can keep any female chicks from the brood. If I fail, I'll stop harking on about the chicken thing. Trouble is, I haven't been able to get him drunk enough to agree to the bet yet...

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure most of that 'felt' on-topic as I wrote it. Ah well.

Arent shopbought eggs infertile?,not to mention been laid for a while?

Davesnave · 7 January 2009 at 11:57PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhiwfield

Overall I think it will take a seismic event of some kind to shake the dependency on third parties/foreign countries for our food production

Isn't that already under way?

Although we'll depend upon importing food for many years to come, and for developing economies it's as well that we do, I'm sure too that we'll see more value being placed upon our land as global demand for food rises inexorably. Present weather excepted, we have a favourable climate, and it's likely more marginal land will be brought into production as prices rise.

Meanwhile, Crunch 2009 will see many more people with time on their hands and little money looking for places to grow food. It would only take a few far- seeing councils to provide new allotment areas for a bandwagon to start up, powered by a media hungry for 'good news' stories. OK, this won't happen overnight, but by 2012 we could see quite a radical turn around in people's thinking and aspirations. After all, by 2020, the latter will need to be 'moulded' into something more realistic to suit the era of heavily declining oil production.

As for the chicken police, I live in a conservation area in a World Heritage City, and close neighbours had chickens for years, apparently without complaint. I'd have a few myself, but I'm off to join the country set, as I don't fancy the city during the coming years of adjustment, reality check, or whatever you want to call it.

Larumbelle · 8 January 2009 at 12:38AM

lesley1960 wrote: »

Arent shopbought eggs infertile?,not to mention been laid for a while?

Not all shop-bought eggs are infertile, I wouldn't hedge my bets on a battery egg, but it's one of those things a lot of people would rather not think about; their egg is just a really immature fluffy yellow easter chick! The farm shop I buy my eggs from (who have their own flock of chickens that are free-range to the point of blocking the road on occasion) says there's a really good chance I can hatch some

but they also said that even a lot of supermarket ones would hatch if you incubated them. It's one of those weird little quirks that eggs can cool down into a sort of suspended animation, then when they're incubated again they'll start developing, even if they're a week old.
But don't tell OH any of this, I WANT MY CHICKENS! :rotfl:

I think a lot of the problem is that the majority of people lack the time, inclination or level of understanding needed to probe where their food comes from and why it matters. I had a rather heated discussion with my father about this over Christmas, and I think a lot of it does seem to come down to that good ol' British obsession with class. Speaking with my father and his other guests, it became clear that so far as they're concerned, caring about what you eat is a decadent middle-class thing for people with the luxury of a full belly and too few 'real' issues to care about. It rather shocked me as I'd never really observed that puritanical streak in any of them before (I shouldn't be surprised, mind you; this was Cromwell country

) but I know that this is the prevalent mood amongst large sections of society. Of course the irony is that I was being told this by a room full of rather affluent, well-fed individuals who are so crashingly unaware of what it is to be poor that it never occurred to any of them that I am myself one of those working-class every-penny-matters people that they so like to speak patronisingly about... even more shocking is that this is a rural community, and that most of those people I was with have cosy countryside homes and have paid good money to ensure that they have a nice view of 'the country'. And yet they are entirely divorced from any of the things going on (or not) under their noses.

The big point about 'the poor need cheap food' really does my head in. It implies that the masses have no interest in their food other than the cost, that they are ignorant through choice, and worst of all that they deserve no better. I'm not stupid, I know how difficult it is to feed your family good, ethical, seasonal, locally produced food when you're on a tight budget. I know because I do it, day in, day out. It reminds me of all the times I heard my former bosses at the DWP smugly reassuring each other (and themselves) that it's perfectly possible to live well on the dole, only the ignorant peasants don't want to. In this country we have a new kind of poverty; it's not lack of food, it's lack of knowledge and lack of feeling able to do anything about the things that matter to them. I mentioned earlier in this thread about friends who did not care where the food comes from, or what conditions it is produced under, so long as it is cheap. I have to say that, at a time when money is tighter than ever since any of us had our own households to care about, that actually they are becoming more aware and are making informed choices. And this isn't because I've wagged my finger, it's been a natural by-product of them asking me what I am doing and why - the kind of things we used to learn from our parents and grandparents; how to cook, how to shop effectively, how to grow foods. So there is hope, and for all that I dislike about Jamie Oliver, he has a point; you have to find a way to pass knowledge on peer to peer and let them make their own choices based on that.

The fact is that the majority of people, rich and poor, want cheap food at any cost, even though cheap food is eventually the most expensive of all. There's precious little incentive for elected bodies to forge a real change because they are only ever looking as far as the next election. Our food economy is based upon invented foods and fabricated needs. The money that this generates is the primary factor in deciding policy. For instance, we intensively produce tons and tons of sugar beet that requires millions of gallons of oil in the form of agrochemicals to produce. Our governments subsidise this production and we pay for those subsidies through our taxes. Then, because we don't actually need all that sugar anyway, we subsidise it's production all over again, this time in the form of export rebates to the processors who dump it on third world countries at a thumping great loss, often undermining the crop prices for these countries' own sugar cane production. And we none of us NEED sugar, we managed perfectly well without it until 100 years ago. And for all of the bags of Silver Spoon we buy, we are ingesting ten times that from heavily processed food.

Dig for Victory - Mark II

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free