Dig for Survival

[British Red]

Interesting article in the Telegraph today. Something I have believed for some time - and we have discussed here before.

David Heath, the agriculture minister, revived the memory of the Second World War government campaign that urged the public to “dig for victory”, as raised the prospect of “digging for survival” in future.

Britain wrongly assumed that it would be possible to import all the food the country needed from abroad, he said, as experts warned that food prices would rise dramatically if the supermarket supply suffered.

“With an increasing population, increasing demand not just in this country but across the world, we are going to have to increase food production,” Mr Heath said.

“We made a huge mistake a few years ago when the idea got around that we didn’t need to produce in the agricultural sector any more, that we would be able to buy our way through whatever was necessary to feed the country.”



continues in article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...y-need-to-dig-for-survival-minister-says.html

 

[treadlightly]

Funny how history repeats itself. During WW2 we were woefully short of food and after 1945 there was a determination to increase the proportion of our food we produced ourselves, hence more intensive, mechanised agriculture and the increased use of fertilisers and pesticides.

Now it seems the way to be more self-reliant is GM????

Red, could we really solve this problem by all of us growing our own? Is there room on our small island?

 

[Stringmaker]

The short answer is no, there isn't enough space, not enough infrastructure and not enough knowledge.

We have over developed, over populated and over depleted. It is insane that people are using valuable arable land for solar farms and growing rapeseed for biofuels.

Good article though, somebody had to be brave enough to say it.

 

[British Red]

Red, could we really solve this problem by all of us growing our own? Is there room on our small island?

Well under an acre a person in total land - and that includes lakes, roads and mountains.

We certainly cannot be self sufficient in food and fuel both. We are, as Stringmaker says, wildly over populated to have food or energy security in the long term.

The GM thing is, I think, a blind alley - it might buy some increase, but not enough, and not sustainably. Indeed it is the opposite of small local, sustainable production.

It is a thorny problem with no easy solutions - but I'm glad to see it openly discussed rather than filed under "too hard"

 

[boatman]

“We made a huge mistake a few years ago when the idea got around that we didn’t need to produce in the agricultural sector any more, that we would be able to buy our way through whatever was necessary to feed the country.”

WE didn't, it was they who think themselves fit to rule us who may have done, for a start. Anyway what's with the assorted subsidies to farmers over all these years? Oh yes to enable them to sell produce abroad if they can get a better price.

As to people not knowing where their food comes from, there never was a bucolic awareness golden age, at least not since the industrial revolution. This alleged ignorance of children and the origin of their food has been "discovered" at least every decade as long as I can remember.

Of course food security should be addressed and perhaps the reduction in the sizes of new gardens might be examined. Work about thirty+ years ago showed that using farm gate prices as the test the combined gardens on a new estate had higher food production than the agricultural land they were built on. Be useful to get people gardening of course, and allotmenting.

Solar panels or tiles on new houses does though make more sense than covering fields with them.

 

[sandbender]

Over here in the parts of Europe that were once on the other side of the 'Iron Curtain' it was very common for families to own a 'holiday' or 'weekend' house in the country, not just well to do people but really almost everyone. Those houses would often have quite large gardens where people would grow their own food. I have often heard it said that it was the ability to pull a couple of sacks of tatties out of the ground which helped many folks through the difficult transition at the end of the 'socialist' times.

There a lot of people still working away in those little plots, mostly middle aged folks and pensioners.

Not having enough land to grow all the needed food is certainly one problem, but also the lack of knowledge amongst the young, most kids these days wouldn't know where to start. At least over here some important skills and knowledge are being maintained by the older generation, so that if the young start to find the shelves in Tesco empty or that cost of basic foodstuffs starts to climb to high, they will have someone to teach them.

 

[British Red]

the lack of knowledge amongst the young, most kids these days wouldn't know where to start.

I suspect that may be true sadly. I am far from an expert, but if I can help anyone here get a garden going, with some open pollintaed seeds, advice and the odd article, I would be glad to do so!

 

[Stringmaker]

If you are thinking of growing your own, then it is important to know this:

"Black Sabbath helps plants to grow but Sir Cliff Richard 'kills them'"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gardenin...to-grow-but-Sir-Cliff-Richard-kills-them.html

 

[boatman]

Oh, the ongoing despair at the ignorance and failings of the young!

Apart from all those who are gardening and running allotments of course and those who cannot get one. In the past four years at least three new private allotment sites have been opened near to us. Most of the new allotment holders are youngish.

Most of these new allotments seem in good heart and are productive although the number of sheds are a bit of a (tolerable) eyesore.

 

[Nomad]

I don't quite get this lack of knowledge idea. People aren't born with knowledge of gardening, so they have to get it from somewhere, and it is out there. If nothnig else, there are umpteen books and web sites on the subject.

 

[Bushwhacker]

My boy has recently started pre-school and it's a cracking little village set up. They have their own allotment where the kids can grow things and take produce home, they also go on nature walks and learn about what's around them. Not sure if other pre-schools do that sort of thing, but it's a great start for them.

 

[Elen Sentier]

The short answer is no, there isn't enough space, not enough infrastructure and not enough knowledge.

We have over developed, over populated and over depleted. It is insane that people are using valuable arable land for solar farms and growing rapeseed for biofuels.

Good article though, somebody had to be brave enough to say it.

+1 absolutely agree. The sustainable "human footprint" for Planet Earth is about 2 billion ... that means we're at least 5 billion over the limit!

 

[Goatboy]

+1 absolutely agree. The sustainable "human footprint" for Planet Earth is about 2 billion ... that means we're at least 5 billion over the limit!

It's OK, Kim Jong-un will help get that number down.

 

[swright81076]

It's OK, Kim Jong-un will help get that number down.

I think we're safe from north Korea. I've just seen the leaked images of his nuclear weaponry....

touched by nature

 

[Goatboy]

Funny just finnished reading Jon Ronsons "The Psychopath Test". There's a bit about how some psychiatrists think that a high proportion of leaders in politics and buisiness are psychopaths. I wonder if this is an evolutionary kink to keep our numbers down? Maybe we need another town like Vienna in 1913. Maybe not but I do think we should all think about the "whole food / air deal" as the wonderfull Bill Hicks put it and stop having so many little miracles called kids.

 

[Andy BB]

+1 absolutely agree. The sustainable "human footprint" for Planet Earth is about 2 billion ... that means we're at least 5 billion over the limit!

I'm sorry, but sustainable "human footprint" for Planet Earth is about 2 billion" - says whom, and what herbs were they smoking when they made that number up? And how come we're 5 billion above that (and have been consistently above 2 billion for decades), yet the population seems to not only be sustained, but has positively flourished, despite the odd major war or two! (and if CO2 levels really are increasing, thats good news for the agriculturalists, as every botanist knows that plants thrive in higher co2 concentrations...)

Fact is, modern farming techniques, pest control and modified crops (not necessarily genetically modified, but they all help) have massively increased food production to feed the world. Production from industrial farming - think Canadian or US wheat fields (or even those in East Anglia) - create huge additional volumes compared to the "small-holding" farms of old. And that production could sky-rocket if - for example - hydroponics were used on large scale in some of the world's less hospitable places - eg Namibia.

Don't believe everything you read in Green Activist Weekly

 

[wingstoo]

They say that the whole human race could live a fairly compact life-style in France, the rest of the land could then be used for agriculture. If we didn't waste so much food every day then it would be a start, just look how much "food" ends up in land-fill every year. We should also stop being so picky about the shape of our food stuffs, is it too big, is it too small, is it misshapen etc etc. Even if we only produced enough for say two meals a week it would be of help. That's what we "hope" to do this year, let's hope the weather is on our side.

 

[British Red]

I suspect what Elen was referring to Andy is that modern farming techniques rely on finite resources like fossil fuels - not just to power the machinery, but also to provide the fertilisers, pesticides etc. Whilst its arguable that other energy sources may be able to power vehicles eventually, they are extremely unlikely to be able to provide the cheap chemicals necessary.

To an extent that is a side issue - even with modern farming, we, as in the UK, cannot feed ourselves, or provide the fuels necessary for the agriculture we do have. One could argue we can "trade" for both food and energy - but remind me agin - what is that we make that other countries want to trade for?

 

[Andy BB]

I suspect what Elen was referring to Andy is that modern farming techniques rely on finite resources like fossil fuels - not just to power the machinery, but also to provide the fertilisers, pesticides etc. Whilst its arguable that other energy sources may be able to power vehicles eventually, they are extremely unlikely to be able to provide the cheap chemicals necessary.

To an extent that is a side issue - even with modern farming, we, as in the UK, cannot feed ourselves, or provide the fuels necessary for the agriculture we do have. One could argue we can "trade" for both food and energy - but remind me agin - what is that we make that other countries want to trade for?

Maybe thats what Ellen meant (and if so, she's wrong!), but thats not what she said. ie sustainable "human footprint" for Planet Earth is about 2 billion."
Which is clearly preposterous, given that the population was last at 2 billion around 1920, and now stands at 7 billion and still rising!

However, it is a typical scare tactic to support the latest weird and wonderful "solution" to a problem that doesn't really exist.

 

[santaman2000]

Maybe thats what Ellen meant (and if so, she's wrong!), but thats not what she said. ie sustainable "human footprint" for Planet Earth is about 2 billion."
Which is clearly preposterous, given that the population was last at 2 billion around 1920, and now stands at 7 billion and still rising!

However, it is a typical scare tactic to support the latest weird and wonderful "solution" to a problem that doesn't really exist.

Andy I too believe that the world can sustain more (vastly more) than 2 billion.

But that said, just because the population has been well over that for LESS than a century is hardly proof of long term sudtainability.