I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to farming but I have to say that this young presenter enthralled me with his passion and explaining much to the layman such as myself. Many thanks and keep up the good work.
It's fascinating hearing that rationing actually lead to better nutrition amongst the urban working class, especially because Atlee was primarily voted out because he didn't end rationing.
Speaking of being voted out..... One theory from Wm Manchester's biography of Churchill is that his refusal to demobilize the conscripted miners led to wholesale vote against him. They weren't released from national service until 1946 Iirc, the number of conscripted miners (all coal related jobs actually) was as high or nearly so as that of the Army, who were quickly demobbed
@@willbass2869 that's fascinating, but I think the first thing I'd say is that coal workers were already labour voters, and also labour had ran the home front and were approved of, but your idea might be one of the many reasons!
I really do enjoy your videos. It is good for making me think. Keep up the good work. As to subsided I feel one of the big benefits is that it keeps small scale farming profitable. Farmers have to get bigger to take advantage of economies of scale. I run 3 farmers now. The previous generation also amalgamate 3 farms. I am doing the work of 9 family's. Also land prices are far to high now.
Olly, I have to thank you for opening my eyes about the rewilding projects and underlying ideology. I handt realized how linked it was to the idle and parasitic aristocracy. I'm Spaniard and I'm not familiar with the details of British society class structure, but now that you have connected the dots I can see clearly that all those rewilding projects promotional videos I saw in the past were, in quite a big number, being promoted or being carried on on the lands of aristocratic landowners. I'm sure there are details and elements about how farming its done today that can be adressed, taking into account the fact that the energy-intensive, non-renewable energy based social system we live today is destined to exprire when we finish these resources; but its also obvious that simply abandoning the fields and countryside its not an option. In fact, its more urgent than ever to keep all these lands well maintaned and cared for. How are we going to feed all these people without land when petrol tractors and combines become useless, since there is no more petrol? Thank you for bringing up these points and raising awareness about the situation from the point of view of the farmers. We all know the rural folk get the short end of the stick when it comes to media represnetation and voicing their concerns and perspective. Its making me think about the situation in my own country.
I think it's important to look at rewilding with nuance as it really matters what is done and where. I think a lot of stuff falls under that word. There is a ton of land that is not farmed but is still very degraded and it would take nature ages to turn that into a diverse later succession ecosystem. We can REALLY speed that up by planting key species which fights against deforestation(and the same thing for grasslands etc) which is especially relevant in southern Europe that is so hot and dry.
Most population growth is happening in Africa, while Europe is in decline. To feed the people of the future, what is needed is the mechanisation of African agriculture, which isn't happneing because Europe wants to keep African labour cheap to keep coffee and tea cheap and to prevent Africa from competing with European manufacturing industries such as the automotive industry. Rewiliding Europe won't starve anyone, considering that Europe isn't nearly as important as America, India, or China in food exports.
@@موسى_7 coffe and tea are luxurious good anyway. If real hunger would come anyway near, they would just replace these crops with stuff which provides actual calories
Thanks for making this one. Understand more where you're coming from now. I still think there are reasons to probe these issues more deeply, in order to address the topics you raise. A means must be found to achieve more satisfactory outcomes for all (that includes wildlife & increasing their abundance), but revealing these past ideological underpinnings is a necessary step to freeing ourselves from them (as well as explaining why these issues are attractive to the more conceited members of our society/s).
I live in the northeast of Brazil. Here the climate is semi-arid, the government does not offer subsidies to farmers and rural credit is quite unfair. As we were having social indices worthy of Africa, the government implemented an income distribution program, paying poor families monthly; result: the majority of peasants have become accustomed to living on handouts and no longer work, agricultural production belongs to rich landowners who maintain it as a hobby, and most of the food comes from the center-south of the country.
As ever, thought provoking. On reflection, though, you confirm my ever-growing view that the old-fashioned, 20th century division of ideas into "left" and "right" simply doesn't cut it any more. Prominent campaigners on the left like George Mombiot and Guy Shrubsole will be having apoplexy at some of the ideas you put forward, and the irony of you finding Reform's agricultural policy closest to the immediate post-war policies is telling. But you cannot (on the one hand) berate the aristocracy for discouraging the production of cheap food while also berating the "big supermarkets" for keeping food prices down to shift volume - which does benefit the less well-off. If we went back to the food distribution and retailing world I was born into in the 1950s food would be more expensive. Your point though about the current establishment (political, media etc.) and much of society losing sight of the importance of food production is well made.
Best commentary I have ever seen on farming. I'm dairy farming in Ireland and we're hearing nothing but re-wilding. Now I understand that farming has environmental issues but forcing productive farmers out of business due to low profits
living in Ireland All bread made British flour Potatoes Most Veg Fruit Imported Rivers polluted by Farmers Just want be Ranchers Can't work unless arse planted on seat of tractor or like Irish Fishermen employ Cheap foreign Workers
Irish dairy farmers need a dose of reality. Cheap fuel, no inheritance, grants for slurry tankers ( no grant for a contractor who spreads multiples of the farmer) grants for slurry storage, grants for accounting fees to educate them on the near zero inheritance tax, the list is endless. Paying no rates on commercial buildings.......
Frankly without subsidies, farmers like myself would continue albeit at much lower volumes managing our opportunity cost much tighter. Those that would also feel the real pinch are those that supply us and those we supply and ultimately the consumer. The rush to net zero in agriculture is a real tricky one to square too
How then do Australian and New Zealand farmers produce so much high quality exported food at low cost without subsidies? Why can’t British farmers match them despite subsidies?
Excellent, most informative. I used to work in Agricultural subsidies, so take some interest in all this. From what I see in the changes to subsidies currently, is a policy that is primarily detrimental to small grazing farms in the hills , but not to huge agribusiness and landowners. I'm concerned to see how this all fits in with Freeports and Special economic zones that the Country is set to be carved up into.
As a small holding farmer in Ireland, under the EU, the hoops you have to jump through and the red tape for a few hundred yoyos aren't worth the stress. Yet if I want to seperate myself from the shackles of governement and diversify away from schemes I come under threat from farm inspections that can happen at any time, and can shut me down for any reason. It's funny how the current farming policy is 'shackle then hand that feeds you'. Thanks for the balanced, and in context explanation.
The Labour Party budget this week may deal the Agricultural Property Relief making things difficult for landowners. I suspect inheritance tax may also increase over this governments period in office. Small family farms are a good way of producing food sustainably, I try to farm but do not own land. I went to agricultural college and there were many who would have liked to have farmed but there were few opportunities. The rationalisation of food production into bigger units with fewer people seems set to continue. Your channel seems to have some insight into the problems facing farming, but implementing a cohesive policy to maintain cheap food with small businesses able to operate in the market place is difficult to achieve. I like your channel and the videos you produce, keep up the good work 👍.
So we are returning to the subsidies of the 80s and 90s when big corporate farms were buying out all the small farms, when small group of very rich farmers owned thousands of hectares of land along with the trucking companies that moved cattle or grains to market pricing out the small farmers to then buy more small farms. Then in the 00s they had to sell up or rent because subsidy changes, but then they moved into contracting to be then hired by the farmers that bought/rented smaller farms from them or other members of thier old corporation
Very enlightening video, thank you. It seems clear to me that the environmental subsidies completely miss the point of farming. I am certainly pro farmer and I think deep down most people are, just not journalists and politicians it seems.
Supporting agriculture is also support for certain regions to secure economic activity. I miss product development like in Italy. Raising pigs for the international bulk market does not make very much sense where a pig is about GBP 150 while 1 black foot ham from Spain is GBP 2.800.
UK climate and geography does not favour farming compared to some other countries. Economically we would be better off buying from abroad. Until a global shock disrupts international trade and we all starve to death. In such an event we need farmers. But the only way to make sure we have them when we need them is to have them all the time. Hence the need to support farmers. I don't think it is about cheap food because as you yourself pointed out it has been cheaper to buy from abroad since 1870. Love your channel. I don't know enough to agree or disagree with you but I can see that your opinion is very well informed.
A cheap food subsidy policy is supposed to keep British food as cheap as foreign food for British consumers according to what I was taught in economics at school.
I was questioning the whole cheap food line whilst listening to this brilliant video too. Probably an unpopular view but what about scraping the subsidies, having a decent national debate on what environmental regulations we want to impose on farmers, putting tariffs on any imports that don't meet our regulations (or even excluding certain products) and giving food stamps to those in food poverty, then leaving the market to deal with the rest?
The question is; does Britain need inefficient small holding farmers sucking on the government tit, or would it be more secure and productive with larger efficient farms? Clearly fewer farmers producing more is better for Britain in peace or war.
I dont know so much about british agriculture or what would be this rewildeing. I just share what I know in my country Hungary. Here had lot of wetland and all were dried out (mostly after the war) These wetlands was used as pasture, but now all of them arable land, and the 80% of the crop use for the life stock! the same life stock that could graze on much more natural land and live vitout tractors and industrial input. But more important: The drainage system and the constant plowing start to turn the lands into DESERT! the groundwater dropped 5-15m! Losing the wetlands and combinaton with the climate change it means we lost the summer rainfalls, there is not enough moisture in the lower atmosphere to become a rainfall, comes the huge black clouds, thunders, and not a drop a rain! apocalyptic!
This is why I am more of an environmentalist than Oli who runs this here channel. In Iraq, there is suffering because of dams, climate change, and pollution.
I remember an old school friend of my mum who lived on disability allowance for mental health problems telling my mum how disgusting it was that farmers got subsidies. While my dad worked 7 days weeks on long days for the luxuries of his yearly Dick Francis novel and Toblerone.
My understanding is that the immediately pre-Brexit payment was a per-hectare payment for land in agricultural condition. Surely for land whose rental value exceeds the subsidy this makes no difference to production or prices? That is why the food lakes and mountains stopped existing.
How is food affordability in Britain? I am a Canadian and farmers are less subsidized here, at least directly, than in many other developed countries, including the USA. Our food prices have increased less than general inflation for many years and, around 2022 they started inflating quite quickly. When I visited Ireland this July I was pleasantly surprised to find that many foods in the grocery stores were less expensive than in Canada.
One big thing where Canadian food costs more is in “supply managed” sentries like milk, eggs, and poultry. Farmers must buy quota which gives them the right, and to a large extent responsibility, to sell a certain amount of product at a set price which has been determined to be fair. Some complain that this discourages dairies and laying hen operations from being more efficient but it does guarantee farmers are paid fairly and the necessary supply exists within the country.
Super interesting topic, thank you! I agree that the subsidies are too low and that implies the politics forgot about the actual historical reasons behind them. Im not sure if simply shifting back to a land-based subsidies system is the answer here tbh. It had side effects and the main focus on productivity in the agriculutral sector also led to environmental compromises that have been normalized. Finding now new solutions to those things will - yes - also lower productivity short-term and even long term in some cases. But we cant deny reality. Population nutrion is as you say a super vital topic and with more single households every year I think its something that should be tacled not just by farming subsidies. It should be made easy for everyone to enjoy a healthy and social (in the sense of low co2, local produce, seasonal stuff) diet without having to think. We basically handed over food to huge conglomerates that squeeze the farmers and feed the consumer more saw dust every year for infinite growth of their shareholders bags.
One of the most striking things about the old documentaries you show (and maybe it is at least partially idealistic propaganda) is the apparent holistic concern for the cooperation of British society - of rural and urban Britons alike - and that there was something really 'social' as the foundation of post-war socialism. It feels as though current governments wouldn't dream of producing such films, and seem to have an atomised worldview of market producers and consumers that defies the sort of social consciousness that makes (truly democratic) socialism viable
Love your videos, which always challenge my views of the food system. But a question if I may. If 17% of the population are in food poverty is subsidizing food prices for the entire nation the best policy? Why not some form of food stamps for those in food poverty, whilst the rest of the nation pays what the market will bear, Scrap the subsidies, have a decent national debate on what environmental regulations we want to impose on farmers and putt tariffs on any imports that don't meet our regulations (or even exclude certain products). Probably very unfashionable ideas and I am not nearly as informed as Oli, but is the socialist contract promising cheap food really the best way to go?
You might want to elaborate why a cheap food policy through farm subsidies is superior to just supplementing low incomes, because while it may seem obvious to you, it isn't that obvious to a townie like me.
Very true why pay a farmer 1 pound in subsidy for every pound the shopper spends be far better to give the pound to the shopper in the first place and let the farmer survive on his own account without subsidy aid that would eradicate the bad farmers and the good farmers will thrive as not shown on media there is lots of terrible farmers still getting subsidy for poor animal welfare etc
you missed the very first piece of this model. At a Bank of Canada Governors meeting , one of the speakers stated on the record, "the canadian farmer is too stupid to manage their own interests, so we will". CANADA, along with the UNITED KINGDOM, operate on a trust system with the CROWN. All derived value in any economic system comes from the land and the ability to grow food. Matter not gold, silver, petroleum. No food, no people. The Bills of Exchange Act , UK version, is an interesting read.
You talk about the prevalence of food insecurity and that a cheap food policy funded by agricultural subsidies is necessary to prevent this. But most western societies have both obesity epidemics and massive food waste. Would it be possible to reduce food insecurity primarily by reducing overconsumption and waste over increased production?
While overproduction is a large driver of food waste, obesity is more driven by increased amounts of sugar, fat and so such in the food we consume. As well as life style changes to be more sendentry, car driving office work, so on. If the only food we had in mass abundance was boiled potatoes i woludnt imagine people become as obese as offen, then in a situation were we have a pack of donutes that contain more then a daily recomended amount of suggar for less then a cheese samwidge. But you are right that we overproduce and waste food, but i dont think that we wolud nesseraily solve obsesity by producing less food.
Love your videos, is it possible that the effects of farm subsidies in the Uk can also have somewhat comparable effects in others countries like here in the Philippines?
I'd say its and interesting look, buuut would need to understand the domestic agri policy and history of the Philippines. Which done poorly could lead to Johnny foreigner telling Filipinos how to farm. Which is not ideal.
Britain either grows its own food or imports it , to import it has too have exports to pay for them , problem is UK electricity is so expensive the economy is slowly dying , it can't compete with somewhere that pays one third of uk prices for their electricity . In a few years England will be hungry , no imports ( can't afford them ) no home grown because its been rewilded / abandoned .
I enjoy your passionate delivery,,but really has the cheap food policy delivered for anybody. As a food producing farmer for the last 40 years ,financially ,not really. For a food buying citizen my food budget savings have been reallocated to keeping a roof over my head and allowed others to provide me with processed “crap”. Environmentally it’s been a slow decline happening over a long period . Food isn’t valued, a commodity to have value added by over processing ,consumed to excess and thrown away.
5:48 blackcurrent stuff is quite popular here in the netherlands, or atleast the part i live in. tons of blackcurrent flavoured drinks. even blackcurrent fanta. from what I have read America also tried growing blackcurrants but it had a very negative affect on their woodlands so the plants are illegal. this probably has a negative affect on its popularity.
Happy to be corrected but I always thought that agricultural drainage and monocultures had the unintended consequences of flooding downstream and decreased biodiversity
They call farmers far right because being in an office all day writing articles means you have to confirm to a hierarchy system and what is socially popular were as self employed people are able think and act for themselves. Office workers follow trends.
Would it be completely incorrect to think of agricultural subsidies as a kind of inverse of the corn laws with regards to international agricultural commodities markets?
Interesting video as always and cherry picking your information as always 😉for my farming system ( organic dairying ) the SFI has led to an increase in payments over BPS ,herbal leys ,rotation of livestock and crops letting some fields get wetter to hold water and prevent flooding and producing healthy nutritious food 🤷makes sense to me ,to support this method of food production .
Well idk what crop you have, but flooded fields in my experience leads to the destruction of crops. I mean it could make sense if you have sedge cover crop, which deal with water fairly well, and is reasonably good grazing, is not a good crop in of itself.
The EU subsidy system does not support working the land productively or sustainably either, since landowners get money regardless of output. I like your vision of the independent solidaric farmer. I would love to see a Video about the changing structure of land-ownership, hedge-fonds buying out broke farmers, who really cared for the land. They former just care for their margins. It costs to work your land sustainably and there is a difference in the health of organically and conventionaly grown food. Finally would you not think that a government should promote farming practices that promote biodiversity, which are usually more laborious in getting high yields.
is that why some Nigerians told me that bananas in their country are more expensive than in the UK? Does UK also subsidise imported food, or is it cheaper only due to economies of scale?
Besides supermarkets another that has changed is international trade. The point of food security being national security is important. I belive more in UBI than farm subsides but UBI doesn't do the national security part nor the climate part. (But still I think it does have a place but not on its own). So to balance affordable food, climate change, and national security ... There should be a tariff on carbon for imported food. Only when that is fairly in place can you consider a cost of farm carbon for domestic production. The subsides should be made on output, how much output/over output is for a what level of national self suffiency. So the old subsidies but per useful unit up to a cap/do finishes for national "over production". Carbon tariffs then fees. (And UBI just well because, that is a separate topic anyway).
Carbon taxes shouldn't be applied until poverty is eliminated. Enough children are going hungry and enough elderly are freezing to death. Saving the climate without saving the people makes no sense. Socialism/welfare state must precede environmentalism.
@@موسى_7 I feel like that is where UBI comes in. It can prevent poverty then as you say we can circle back to other things. They can follow each other closely or even at the same time. First is to prevent poverty as a base. Then the inflation caused by other policies need to be mitigated to avoid poverty.
Manure. Subsidies (and tariffs) have increased the cost of food as well as putting the price of farmland beyond the point of farming being economically viable. The burden of billions in subsidies means that the overall economy suffers from inefficiency.
It’s a shame farmers aren’t payed properly for their produces, supermarkets are a real pain, I believe it’s them that set the prices for farmers and can then go elsewhere and cheaper if someone doesn’t want to accept the price the supermarkets set. I understand cheap food is good but we should be focusing on people eating better foods (not cheap freezer or fast foods) and being healthier. Tbh we need a whole societal shift, there’s no respect for anything anymore and communities are gone, crime is rising, poor health and poor mental health is rising, it’s crazy! But I digress, this is a farming channel.
@@موسى_7 people know what I mean when we are talking about bad food and someone says “freezer food”. Yes exactly things like French fries or freezer chicken nuggets and fish fingers etc. basically it’s all ultra processed, full of sugars and other harmful chemicals and preservatives, frozen veg also comes under that if it has had preservatives added to it. There’s a saying that goes something like the longer the food lasts the shorter your life will be. Basically saying that the more food we eat in its natural state the better it is for us.
You're very sharp - quite correct. Suppressive types always go for good food. Famine is their standard product - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao. So of course they target good farmers.
Same in Iraq. When Iraq became a Republic (but not a very democratic one), agriculture was left to rot, because the government took all the land of the rich landlords, and all the farm workers had no idea how to manage it, so they all went to cities (especially Baghdad, a city with 8 million people, while the next largest city only has 3 million). This came back to bite Iraq when Iraq faced sanctions for invading Kuwait. A million people, mostly children, starved to death.
I have been a dairy farmer for 40 years.worked hard all my life.started with 20 acres now own 200 acres farm 350 you have just demoralised me.never felt so unappreciated
Before chemical fertilizer... farmers used animal and pigion manure, companion planting, bone and blood meal from animal and fish. Law that states farmers must use a certain amount of processed feeds and chemical products and fertilizer is the problem adding to high operation cost and a leading cost of cancer rates.
Animal manure is difficult to apply to wheat fields, though, isn't it? I think it's more appropriate for more labour intensive vegetables such as watermelon and cucumber and brll pepper which cannot be machine harvested.
You make a valiant effort at describing the problem however the point central to your argument, which you miss is that subsidizing farmers to be able to provide cheap food comes at the cost of the taxpayers so in essence, the same people who were gleaning the benefits of cheap food are paying for those benefits in alternative ways and the true beneficiaries of cheap cheap foods are the capitalists the owners of capital Who are able to pay the working class a less than livable wage because they are wages are subsidized by cheap foods so ultimately all the benefits of providing cheap foods end up in the pockets of the very wealthy capitalist at the end of the day anyway. What it also does is it provides an unrealistic market which enables farmers to grow crops which they otherwise would not grow and to waste food and to not take into account Term, well-being and fertility not only of the land, but the surrounding landscape and all of the waterways all of which are affected through industrial farming adversely. Our society has grown to the point where too large percentage of the population is engaged in activities for the production of meaningless, stupid goods and services, and none of which truly benefit the land or the people on any level. We are trying to maintain the structure of capitalist consumption through subsidies of various kinds, but at the end of the day, it is still the well-being of the land biologically and wildlife which suffer. I do not take issue with your questioning the motivation behind the aristocratic desire to wild the land, but if they’re willing to put their money where their mouths are subsidize, farmers not in an industrial model, but to create a new food system based on rec capitalizing the land from a biological standpoint and include nature as a beneficiary of farming then there’s an opportunity. You also say that farming is about food, not about farming I would disagree with that whole heartedly. as a farmer who puts the well-being of the soil and the non-life at the forefront of my practices, I have come to recognize that ultimately with patience by adopting a diet, which is flexible and based on perennial crops, I am able to create a net positive affect for the land Domestic animals, the non-domestic animals and self personally by moving away from the crops central to the industrial farming model, which are the culprit in many modern diseases and move back to a diet which aligns my well-being and that of the land and wildlife. We need to make some very fundamental changes and I don’t think you recognize that your arguments are still, confirmed by your inherent bias as a farmer steeped deeply within the industrial model. You are not realizing that your perspective is not really the only perspective and that if the well-being of the planet as a hole is put first and foremost, many of the practices to which you subscribe or not maintainable.
I sorta agree with you, except for your first point about subsidies and taxes. The people who benefit from are the consumers, but only the poor consumers. The middle class and rich pay taxes, but they don't need that money as much as the poor do. Subsidies benefit the capitalist class by allowing them to reduce wages, but that can be a good thing as it makes businesses more competitive on an international scale and makes investing easier. More importantly though, is that farmers are also a group of people who deserve to be protected just like the proletariat, and subsidies are their minimum wage.
@tisFrancesfault C40 cities planned worldwide. Sadiq Khan is chairman of C40 cities. Read up! It's no myth. Oxford UK is already suffering with other UK cities and towns on their way.
Peasants could revolt, but farmers must quit without sufficient funds. That is always the strategy of the merchants. A couple of generations without farming, and all of us peasants are now stuck in cities. Need to be rich to start a farm, and as it doesn't pay - it is a hobby.
Maybe too much cynicism, but I'm being asked to believe that farmers would never abuse subsides, and everything they do is to help the poor (including dumping milk in the US). But fine, why not subsidize the poor directly and have farmers charge what they may? No more yoke of the government telling you how to run your farm. The poors have an equivalent chance at cheaper food. Perverse incentives is right. It would almost be better to have the government buy up any surpluses and give it directly to the poor.
Well farming can run into a situation were productive farms are actually worse off. if farms for what ever reason, have a productive year, they can be screwed. Why? Prices can fall below production. So farmers can end up paying for the privilege of producing food. Subsidies allow offsetting costs of producing a cheap product.
@@tisFrancesfault Simple idea: government purchases surplus to store for shortage, like the Prophet Joseph did in the 7 years of plenty for the 7 years of famine
Where do you find the time to do all the reading and curation and filming and editing AND farming? I'm afraid your channel is getting popular enough to warrant a "This is how I do things" video :)
People's diets have become so terrible, largely from their own choice or lack of cooking from scratch. What's the best way to get people to eat healthy whole foods again? Tax on all retail processed food?
Insightful and concise perspective on Re 'Wilding'; Isabella Tree who by default of owning castle and land has created a 'Disney' land visitor tourist attraction! Culling, land management and selling of produce is still farming! Bourgeoisie who bought her book welcomed to spend in the cafe/restaurant! Kaleb on Tour (Cambridge) was a brilliant introduction to real issues farmers growing food and caring for livestock face day to day.
As a consistently left wing person myself, I don't think "this is a socialist policy" is always sufficient to convince people that it's a good policy.... On the contrary, if you listen to Americans much you can easily find people for whom "this is a socialist policy" means that a policy is obviously stupid and not even worth considering. I hate that "people should have enough food to eat" is something that needs to be justified, but these days I think it does. I mean, poor people should just stop being lazy, work harder and then they could afford food for their kids, right? (yes, sarcasm).
Hello, American here. Why do farmers in the UK typically dress in a knitted vest, flat cap, and what not...while American farmers typically wear a T-shirt, and jeans?
The environmental stuff is crazy. You get paid more for leaving your land empty 'enhanced stubble' than pretty much any profit you will make from break crops. Harry's Farm is just growing wheat and flowers this year. Why are we paying for bird feed instead of good honest legumes, seeds etc?
No subsides in Australia. Here, you are on your own. That's why you need 4000 acres to make a decent living farming wheat. . Anything less and you are poverty farming with 60 year old tractors.
By "grain finished" I'll assume cattle fed on grains. Thats not actually that common in the UK, excluding, in my experience, young cattle, and during winter. though sileage is preferred. In general, most British cattle are grass fed.
@@موسى_7 if you compare the grain finished beef (that with all the marbling, and no, it is not a special breed of cow, it is grain finished and fattened, like it was done for hundreds of years) the lean beaf available in UK to normal people is very dry and tastes like cardboard ... there is some fat in there but very little, and butchers trim all the fat they can see anyway.
Well researched and I appreciate you, but...straight subsidy system did not "subsidize the land", as you describe. It subsidized the farmers and ag workers who themselves make choices that benefit their right now today pockets first. When faced with the choice of feeding your children or protecting the habitat of some little crested or striped bird with zero sales potential, literally everyone with a lever to pull is going to choose their children. Same goes for the soil enrichment and restoration. Nobody "wants" to strip mine agricultural soil. It's entirely financial. We need the money right now today, and some unnameable day in future generations just simply doesn't pay bills--sorry. Nobody acts in the soil's best interest, not any more than trees have rights to life and liberty. Britain is making an admirable attempt (however imperfect, I'm sure) to steer that money toward "the land", as your famous guy said. Slowing down and breaking up water drainage (including terracing, planting on contour and keyline plowing) begins the million-years process of restoring what we've taken out. Reducing irrigation by holding more water in the soil (artificial irrigation both leeches good stuff out, as well as accumulate salts in) is essential to our survival. I wish the US would make some similar attempt. Here, make no mistake, we're not subsidizing to "feed the people". Actually farmers who make the vast majority of what we think of as "food" don't receive subsidies here. Those a are reserved exclusively for corn and soybeans, the building blocks for our economic and military power (and cheap industrial food). Plastics, polymers, even building material, and "contains up to 10% ethanol" gasoline. This is how the subsidies are employed in my country.
Interesting Australia doesn't have subsidy. But its future farmers like me that hit road blocks, my generation is more poor then my grandfather especially post depression years, cant afford land, can't afford efficient expensive farm machinery, even stock why because cost of living, corp manufacturing corp supermarkets all of them are greedy, they dont care if they kill family farms future they would just replace us n government allows them to benefit. As a farmer i grow what i need first before giving any to greedy corporations, stuff government red tape, rules n taxes then they might learn that they need farmers.
But it is *not* socialist, or in societies interest, to subsidise ways of farming that create cheap food but also very costly negative environmental externalities which then put a higher burden of costs and taxes on the very people who enjoy the benefits of cheaper food (in addition to the financially non-quantifiable costs of biodiversity loss). So limiting subsidies for these activities makes sense for wider society, even if it increases the cost of food. If restoring wetlands reduces flood damage downstream then undoing drainage can deliver a net benefit for society even if it reduces food production and increases food prices. There are societal benefits to rewilding that come with increased biodiversity and natural resilience, and in specific cases these may well exceed the cost from lowered food production. Of course, this isn't always true, and it's also important to consider indirect land-use effects (if rewilding in the UK leads to more imports of beef from Argentina which drives deforestation there, then the global environmental impact may be negative), but it is just as wrong to assume it is never true. And the description of organic farmers as fascist-inspired "peasants" who seek aristocratic guidance is enough BS to fertilize your pumpkin patch
Look, a lot of claims made are grossly overstated (as you note), and oft ignores that a significant number of farms do actually care about the environment. The Organic movement *is* inspired by fascist sentiment. And one of the biggest causes of flooding in the UK is because we build on flood planes. This is dumb in the first place, And once layered with tarmac and concrete compounds the issues of flood planes. And again, as you note, the alternative is importation from areas that a a) less efficient b) care considerably less of environmental impact. I mean, I do support rewilding barren heathland, like the north york moors, but thats not what we do. we re-wild prime agri-land.
How did rationing disproportionately help the working class? They still had to oay for it just like they did before the war. If they couldn't afford it, which in just cases they couldn't, they couldn't buy it so their ration was useless and would go usued because they couldn't afford it.
Have you considered that many of the scientists you are so fond of(the class/cast not nessisarily each of your favored members)are frequently just subverters who cloak their goals in pretext; that many of them are the children of aristocracy. Also, why "aristocrat" you do know that title means a virtuous patron, why not say oligarch; wich means one out for their intests in conflict to the comon good.
Drainage ditch improvements being reverse or not maintained isn't about "environment" on the local farm level, or emissions- its explicitly about the issues our water management system and the increased pressure that it is already under due to climate change. While it will obviously lose value for land on the local level, which is why doing it is subsidised, slowing water down on cheap and marginal farmland has a net societal benefit and the subsidy isn't priced enough that people would sacrifice it on high yielding land. This is because of what happens downstream of that land- SUDS and schemes like this are far cheaper than the large scale infrastructure that will be needed otherwise eg the £5bn Thames Tideway Tunnel costs and the insurance costs of doing nothing would be staggering. There might well be farms where its not necessary in the UK due to their placement on river catchments or the river catchment they're in but that's just a balance of whether the savings of it being more targeted is worth the extra cost of doing the targeting- the principle itself is sound. As your last video went into details on more marginal land was brought into use as farmland during the war with maximising output being the priority and the wider costs not considered.
The primary issue is the building of floodplains. who knew floodplains are prone to flooding? Why should farms be forced to *change* decent practice because some idiot thought that buy a cheaply built semi on a floodplain was a good investment? *Edit added to correct the missing word "change".
@@tisFrancesfault They're not forced? They can choose to avail themselves of a direct financial benefit in exchanged for doing (or in this case not doing) something that reduces the value of their property in exchange for wider social benefits. As the video points out plenty of farmers are choosing not too engage, that is their business but we're not talking about a couple of semis built on a water-meadow. London is on a flood plain and has real estate worth trillions, as are many other UK towns and cities- even tiny rises in insurance costs will dwarf the value of the productivity of land lost to these schemes. With climate change making weather patterns more extreme (both more dry period but also more period of heavy rain) the systems in place don't guarantee what they did. We have too adapt and the removal or degradation of water improvement channels is one of the most cost effective adaptions we can make and i would argue that the subsidy is one of the more efficient ways of doing that. Farmers will know where their land better than anyone else and should be able to pick the most cost effective (i.e. least productive) land to take the subsidy for.
@@The96thIdiot Im sorry but this just comes off as longwinded townie nonsense; In which, urban property values supersede all, along with pseudo-environmentalism. And no, people did not build cites on floodplains (in general) as that was seen as dumb. They are close to flood plains as that has been convenient, as those areas grew the food for such cites. London is a old metropolis and is a general outlier. The general practice of building on floodplains is fairly new for most urban areas (floodplains generally being avoided for housing) and getting worse.
@@tisFrancesfault Urban centres don't supersede all, and farmers aren't forced to do anything. Again, its nothing to do with environmentalism- its just economics. The government can either pay tens of billions or more to safeguard areas that large percentage of the population live and work (and therefore its own tax base) through large scale flood mitigation works or they can pay farmers less than that to achieve the same end by getting them to take out works that improve their land but add flooding risk lower down river catchments. Its a win-win if enough farmers take that deal but the cities will be protected either way and something will be done- insurance rates rises would cost our economy more than doing nothing. Building on floodplains is relatively new in the sense that until we were doing large scale water management systems it was avoided more but only relatively and many cities or towns have always had some areas that are prone to flooding. Cities didn't often develop near floodplains for food grown locally, they developed near rivers because moving good by ship was much more efficient. Unfortunately rivers have the unfortunate side effect of flooding.
Oli needs to stand for parliament, to get a cabinet position and get this country healthy again.
If he moved to my district in the United States, I’d sure vote for him!
Who'd vote for him? Voters are idiots.
I'm a complete ignoramus when it comes to farming but I have to say that this young presenter enthralled me with his passion and explaining much to the layman such as myself. Many thanks and keep up the good work.
It's fascinating hearing that rationing actually lead to better nutrition amongst the urban working class, especially because Atlee was primarily voted out because he didn't end rationing.
Speaking of being voted out..... One theory from Wm Manchester's biography of Churchill is that his refusal to demobilize the conscripted miners led to wholesale vote against him. They weren't released from national service until 1946
Iirc, the number of conscripted miners (all coal related jobs actually) was as high or nearly so as that of the Army, who were quickly demobbed
@@willbass2869 that's fascinating, but I think the first thing I'd say is that coal workers were already labour voters, and also labour had ran the home front and were approved of, but your idea might be one of the many reasons!
I studied Agriculture at SRUC Edinburgh and have to say you have some of the best videos on youtube regarding farming in Britain
It's a blessing to have voices like your's echoing in the head of the masses. Amazing work Sir, keep it up 🫡
Excellent and informative, thank you
I really do enjoy your videos. It is good for making me think. Keep up the good work.
As to subsided I feel one of the big benefits is that it keeps small scale farming profitable. Farmers have to get bigger to take advantage of economies of scale. I run 3 farmers now. The previous generation also amalgamate 3 farms. I am doing the work of 9 family's.
Also land prices are far to high now.
Could listen to you for hours
Olly, I have to thank you for opening my eyes about the rewilding projects and underlying ideology. I handt realized how linked it was to the idle and parasitic aristocracy. I'm Spaniard and I'm not familiar with the details of British society class structure, but now that you have connected the dots I can see clearly that all those rewilding projects promotional videos I saw in the past were, in quite a big number, being promoted or being carried on on the lands of aristocratic landowners.
I'm sure there are details and elements about how farming its done today that can be adressed, taking into account the fact that the energy-intensive, non-renewable energy based social system we live today is destined to exprire when we finish these resources; but its also obvious that simply abandoning the fields and countryside its not an option. In fact, its more urgent than ever to keep all these lands well maintaned and cared for. How are we going to feed all these people without land when petrol tractors and combines become useless, since there is no more petrol?
Thank you for bringing up these points and raising awareness about the situation from the point of view of the farmers. We all know the rural folk get the short end of the stick when it comes to media represnetation and voicing their concerns and perspective. Its making me think about the situation in my own country.
I think it's important to look at rewilding with nuance as it really matters what is done and where. I think a lot of stuff falls under that word.
There is a ton of land that is not farmed but is still very degraded and it would take nature ages to turn that into a diverse later succession ecosystem.
We can REALLY speed that up by planting key species which fights against deforestation(and the same thing for grasslands etc) which is especially relevant in southern Europe that is so hot and dry.
it is of great benefit that they don't have wild bears/wolves in the UK, yet many are too dumb to understand that
Most population growth is happening in Africa, while Europe is in decline. To feed the people of the future, what is needed is the mechanisation of African agriculture, which isn't happneing because Europe wants to keep African labour cheap to keep coffee and tea cheap and to prevent Africa from competing with European manufacturing industries such as the automotive industry.
Rewiliding Europe won't starve anyone, considering that Europe isn't nearly as important as America, India, or China in food exports.
@@موسى_7 coffe and tea are luxurious good anyway. If real hunger would come anyway near, they would just replace these crops with stuff which provides actual calories
Thanks for making this one. Understand more where you're coming from now.
I still think there are reasons to probe these issues more deeply, in order to address the topics you raise. A means must be found to achieve more satisfactory outcomes for all (that includes wildlife & increasing their abundance), but revealing these past ideological underpinnings is a necessary step to freeing ourselves from them (as well as explaining why these issues are attractive to the more conceited members of our society/s).
I live in the northeast of Brazil. Here the climate is semi-arid, the government does not offer subsidies to farmers and rural credit is quite unfair. As we were having social indices worthy of Africa, the government implemented an income distribution program, paying poor families monthly; result: the majority of peasants have become accustomed to living on handouts and no longer work, agricultural production belongs to rich landowners who maintain it as a hobby, and most of the food comes from the center-south of the country.
Interesting
Thanks for the video really enjoyed it agree with you completely 👍
As ever, thought provoking. On reflection, though, you confirm my ever-growing view that the old-fashioned, 20th century division of ideas into "left" and "right" simply doesn't cut it any more. Prominent campaigners on the left like George Mombiot and Guy Shrubsole will be having apoplexy at some of the ideas you put forward, and the irony of you finding Reform's agricultural policy closest to the immediate post-war policies is telling. But you cannot (on the one hand) berate the aristocracy for discouraging the production of cheap food while also berating the "big supermarkets" for keeping food prices down to shift volume - which does benefit the less well-off. If we went back to the food distribution and retailing world I was born into in the 1950s food would be more expensive. Your point though about the current establishment (political, media etc.) and much of society losing sight of the importance of food production is well made.
Best commentary I have ever seen on farming.
I'm dairy farming in Ireland and we're hearing nothing but re-wilding.
Now I understand that farming has environmental issues but forcing productive farmers out of business due to low profits
living in Ireland All bread made British flour Potatoes Most Veg Fruit Imported Rivers polluted by Farmers Just want be Ranchers Can't work unless arse planted on seat of tractor or like Irish Fishermen employ Cheap foreign Workers
@@johnpurcell7525 Those are written words...
Irish dairy farmers need a dose of reality. Cheap fuel, no inheritance, grants for slurry tankers ( no grant for a contractor who spreads multiples of the farmer) grants for slurry storage, grants for accounting fees to educate them on the near zero inheritance tax, the list is endless. Paying no rates on commercial buildings.......
Frankly without subsidies, farmers like myself would continue albeit at much lower volumes managing our opportunity cost much tighter.
Those that would also feel the real pinch are those that supply us and those we supply and ultimately the consumer.
The rush to net zero in agriculture is a real tricky one to square too
In my country farmers get subsidies because inflation has been rampant for the past 16 years making their costs skyrocket.
How then do Australian and New Zealand farmers produce so much high quality exported food at low cost without subsidies? Why can’t British farmers match them despite subsidies?
All in vain because the supermarkets rip of consumer, processors and producers.
Excellent, most informative. I used to work in Agricultural subsidies, so take some interest in all this. From what I see in the changes to subsidies currently, is a policy that is primarily detrimental to small grazing farms in the hills , but not to huge agribusiness and landowners. I'm concerned to see how this all fits in with Freeports and Special economic zones that the Country is set to be carved up into.
Fascinating sir ! Please keep them coming !
Thank you Oli.
Well thought out and compelling delivery backed by contextualising history. Keep it up!
As a small holding farmer in Ireland, under the EU, the hoops you have to jump through and the red tape for a few hundred yoyos aren't worth the stress. Yet if I want to seperate myself from the shackles of governement and diversify away from schemes I come under threat from farm inspections that can happen at any time, and can shut me down for any reason. It's funny how the current farming policy is 'shackle then hand that feeds you'.
Thanks for the balanced, and in context explanation.
This is a brilliant channel
Really appreciate your work!
Excellent video. You make an excellent point - which I think even farmers (like myself) forget. Ag Policy, is Food Policy.
The Labour Party budget this week may deal the Agricultural Property Relief making things difficult for landowners. I suspect inheritance tax may also increase over this governments period in office. Small family farms are a good way of producing food sustainably, I try to farm but do not own land. I went to agricultural college and there were many who would have liked to have farmed but there were few opportunities. The rationalisation of food production into bigger units with fewer people seems set to continue. Your channel seems to have some insight into the problems facing farming, but implementing a cohesive policy to maintain cheap food with small businesses able to operate in the market place is difficult to achieve. I like your channel and the videos you produce, keep up the good work 👍.
Glad I found this channel 👍
The book "The Taste of War: World War 2 and The Battle For Food" gives a good overview.
So we are returning to the subsidies of the 80s and 90s when big corporate farms were buying out all the small farms, when small group of very rich farmers owned thousands of hectares of land along with the trucking companies that moved cattle or grains to market pricing out the small farmers to then buy more small farms. Then in the 00s they had to sell up or rent because subsidy changes, but then they moved into contracting to be then hired by the farmers that bought/rented smaller farms from them or other members of thier old corporation
Very enlightening video, thank you. It seems clear to me that the environmental subsidies completely miss the point of farming. I am certainly pro farmer and I think deep down most people are, just not journalists and politicians it seems.
Supporting agriculture is also support for certain regions to secure economic activity. I miss product development like in Italy. Raising pigs for the international bulk market does not make very much sense where a pig is about GBP 150 while 1 black foot ham from Spain is GBP 2.800.
Great work.
UK climate and geography does not favour farming compared to some other countries. Economically we would be better off buying from abroad. Until a global shock disrupts international trade and we all starve to death. In such an event we need farmers. But the only way to make sure we have them when we need them is to have them all the time. Hence the need to support farmers. I don't think it is about cheap food because as you yourself pointed out it has been cheaper to buy from abroad since 1870. Love your channel. I don't know enough to agree or disagree with you but I can see that your opinion is very well informed.
A cheap food subsidy policy is supposed to keep British food as cheap as foreign food for British consumers according to what I was taught in economics at school.
I was questioning the whole cheap food line whilst listening to this brilliant video too. Probably an unpopular view but what about scraping the subsidies, having a decent national debate on what environmental regulations we want to impose on farmers, putting tariffs on any imports that don't meet our regulations (or even excluding certain products) and giving food stamps to those in food poverty, then leaving the market to deal with the rest?
The question is; does Britain need inefficient small holding farmers sucking on the government tit, or would it be more secure and productive with larger efficient farms? Clearly fewer farmers producing more is better for Britain in peace or war.
I dont know so much about british agriculture or what would be this rewildeing. I just share what I know in my country Hungary. Here had lot of wetland and all were dried out (mostly after the war) These wetlands was used as pasture, but now all of them arable land, and the 80% of the crop use for the life stock! the same life stock that could graze on much more natural land and live vitout tractors and industrial input. But more important: The drainage system and the constant plowing start to turn the lands into DESERT! the groundwater dropped 5-15m! Losing the wetlands and combinaton with the climate change it means we lost the summer rainfalls, there is not enough moisture in the lower atmosphere to become a rainfall, comes the huge black clouds, thunders, and not a drop a rain! apocalyptic!
This is why I am more of an environmentalist than Oli who runs this here channel.
In Iraq, there is suffering because of dams, climate change, and pollution.
Subsidies are the slow death of farming because its increased land values to the level that has made farming uneconomic.
...that agricultural land's protected IHT status
I love your videos they are very informative
Well done again, Oli!
I remember an old school friend of my mum who lived on disability allowance for mental health problems telling my mum how disgusting it was that farmers got subsidies. While my dad worked 7 days weeks on long days for the luxuries of his yearly Dick Francis novel and Toblerone.
My understanding is that the immediately pre-Brexit payment was a per-hectare payment for land in agricultural condition. Surely for land whose rental value exceeds the subsidy this makes no difference to production or prices? That is why the food lakes and mountains stopped existing.
How is food affordability in Britain? I am a Canadian and farmers are less subsidized here, at least directly, than in many other developed countries, including the USA. Our food prices have increased less than general inflation for many years and, around 2022 they started inflating quite quickly.
When I visited Ireland this July I was pleasantly surprised to find that many foods in the grocery stores were less expensive than in Canada.
One big thing where Canadian food costs more is in “supply managed” sentries like milk, eggs, and poultry. Farmers must buy quota which gives them the right, and to a large extent responsibility, to sell a certain amount of product at a set price which has been determined to be fair. Some complain that this discourages dairies and laying hen operations from being more efficient but it does guarantee farmers are paid fairly and the necessary supply exists within the country.
Super interesting topic, thank you! I agree that the subsidies are too low and that implies the politics forgot about the actual historical reasons behind them. Im not sure if simply shifting back to a land-based subsidies system is the answer here tbh. It had side effects and the main focus on productivity in the agriculutral sector also led to environmental compromises that have been normalized. Finding now new solutions to those things will - yes - also lower productivity short-term and even long term in some cases. But we cant deny reality. Population nutrion is as you say a super vital topic and with more single households every year I think its something that should be tacled not just by farming subsidies. It should be made easy for everyone to enjoy a healthy and social (in the sense of low co2, local produce, seasonal stuff) diet without having to think. We basically handed over food to huge conglomerates that squeeze the farmers and feed the consumer more saw dust every year for infinite growth of their shareholders bags.
Excellent!
The solution is our plan.
One of the most striking things about the old documentaries you show (and maybe it is at least partially idealistic propaganda) is the apparent holistic concern for the cooperation of British society - of rural and urban Britons alike - and that there was something really 'social' as the foundation of post-war socialism.
It feels as though current governments wouldn't dream of producing such films, and seem to have an atomised worldview of market producers and consumers that defies the sort of social consciousness that makes (truly democratic) socialism viable
Love your videos, which always challenge my views of the food system. But a question if I may. If 17% of the population are in food poverty is subsidizing food prices for the entire nation the best policy? Why not some form of food stamps for those in food poverty, whilst the rest of the nation pays what the market will bear, Scrap the subsidies, have a decent national debate on what environmental regulations we want to impose on farmers and putt tariffs on any imports that don't meet our regulations (or even exclude certain products). Probably very unfashionable ideas and I am not nearly as informed as Oli, but is the socialist contract promising cheap food really the best way to go?
You might want to elaborate why a cheap food policy through farm subsidies is superior to just supplementing low incomes, because while it may seem obvious to you, it isn't that obvious to a townie like me.
This is a good question, we'll have a look in the future!
Very true why pay a farmer 1 pound in subsidy for every pound the shopper spends be far better to give the pound to the shopper in the first place and let the farmer survive on his own account without subsidy aid that would eradicate the bad farmers and the good farmers will thrive as not shown on media there is lots of terrible farmers still getting subsidy for poor animal welfare etc
you missed the very first piece of this model. At a Bank of Canada Governors meeting , one of the speakers stated on the record, "the canadian farmer is too stupid to manage their own interests, so we will". CANADA, along with the UNITED KINGDOM, operate on a trust system with the CROWN. All derived value in any economic system comes from the land and the ability to grow food. Matter not gold, silver, petroleum. No food, no people. The Bills of Exchange Act , UK version, is an interesting read.
Brilliant!
You talk about the prevalence of food insecurity and that a cheap food policy funded by agricultural subsidies is necessary to prevent this. But most western societies have both obesity epidemics and massive food waste. Would it be possible to reduce food insecurity primarily by reducing overconsumption and waste over increased production?
Is obesity caused by food fresh from farms or food processed with treatments and additives produced in factories?
While overproduction is a large driver of food waste, obesity is more driven by increased amounts of sugar, fat and so such in the food we consume. As well as life style changes to be more sendentry, car driving office work, so on.
If the only food we had in mass abundance was boiled potatoes i woludnt imagine people become as obese as offen, then in a situation were we have a pack of donutes that contain more then a daily recomended amount of suggar for less then a cheese samwidge.
But you are right that we overproduce and waste food, but i dont think that we wolud nesseraily solve obsesity by producing less food.
@@janwhite6038
Both most processed foods, however it clearly shows there is enough food.
Why does it please? Processed food contains Rapeseed oil. That's not food l. It used to be called machine oil. @dererik9070
Just tax fast food and junk food by 500%, simple as
Excellent
Love your videos, is it possible that the effects of farm subsidies in the Uk can also have somewhat comparable effects in others countries like here in the Philippines?
I'd say its and interesting look, buuut would need to understand the domestic agri policy and history of the Philippines. Which done poorly could lead to Johnny foreigner telling Filipinos how to farm. Which is not ideal.
Britain either grows its own food or imports it , to import it has too have exports to pay for them , problem is UK electricity is so expensive the economy is slowly dying , it can't compete with somewhere that pays one third of uk prices for their electricity . In a few years England will be hungry , no imports ( can't afford them ) no home grown because its been rewilded / abandoned .
I enjoy your passionate delivery,,but really has the cheap food policy delivered for anybody. As a food producing farmer for the last 40 years ,financially ,not really.
For a food buying citizen my food budget savings have been reallocated to keeping a roof over my head and allowed others to provide me with processed “crap”.
Environmentally it’s been a slow decline happening over a long period .
Food isn’t valued, a commodity to have value added by over processing ,consumed to excess and thrown away.
5:48 blackcurrent stuff is quite popular here in the netherlands, or atleast the part i live in. tons of blackcurrent flavoured drinks. even blackcurrent fanta.
from what I have read America also tried growing blackcurrants but it had a very negative affect on their woodlands so the plants are illegal. this probably has a negative affect on its popularity.
We could do with a lot more like you!
great vid
21:50 Oli, that is a hopelessly naive viewpoint to have. Labour have not been true, pragmatic socialists since the Tories won in 1950.
Happy to be corrected but I always thought that agricultural drainage and monocultures had the unintended consequences of flooding downstream and decreased biodiversity
They call farmers far right because being in an office all day writing articles means you have to confirm to a hierarchy system and what is socially popular were as self employed people are able think and act for themselves.
Office workers follow trends.
Would it be completely incorrect to think of agricultural subsidies as a kind of inverse of the corn laws with regards to international agricultural commodities markets?
Similar concept, different beneficiaries.
Interesting video as always and cherry picking your information as always 😉for my farming system ( organic dairying ) the SFI has led to an increase in payments over BPS ,herbal leys ,rotation of livestock and crops letting some fields get wetter to hold water and prevent flooding and producing healthy nutritious food 🤷makes sense to me ,to support this method of food production .
Well idk what crop you have, but flooded fields in my experience leads to the destruction of crops. I mean it could make sense if you have sedge cover crop, which deal with water fairly well, and is reasonably good grazing, is not a good crop in of itself.
@@tisFrancesfault
He said dairying, not crops
Great Sociology material
The EU subsidy system does not support working the land productively or sustainably either, since landowners get money regardless of output. I like your vision of the independent solidaric farmer. I would love to see a Video about the changing structure of land-ownership, hedge-fonds buying out broke farmers, who really cared for the land. They former just care for their margins. It costs to work your land sustainably and there is a difference in the health of organically and conventionaly grown food. Finally would you not think that a government should promote farming practices that promote biodiversity, which are usually more laborious in getting high yields.
is that why some Nigerians told me that bananas in their country are more expensive than in the UK? Does UK also subsidise imported food, or is it cheaper only due to economies of scale?
Do Nigerians eat the same bananas as British people? Or do they eat local varieties? I don't think imported food is subsidised
Besides supermarkets another that has changed is international trade. The point of food security being national security is important.
I belive more in UBI than farm subsides but UBI doesn't do the national security part nor the climate part. (But still I think it does have a place but not on its own).
So to balance affordable food, climate change, and national security ... There should be a tariff on carbon for imported food. Only when that is fairly in place can you consider a cost of farm carbon for domestic production. The subsides should be made on output, how much output/over output is for a what level of national self suffiency.
So the old subsidies but per useful unit up to a cap/do finishes for national "over production". Carbon tariffs then fees. (And UBI just well because, that is a separate topic anyway).
Carbon taxes shouldn't be applied until poverty is eliminated. Enough children are going hungry and enough elderly are freezing to death.
Saving the climate without saving the people makes no sense.
Socialism/welfare state must precede environmentalism.
@@موسى_7 I feel like that is where UBI comes in. It can prevent poverty then as you say we can circle back to other things. They can follow each other closely or even at the same time. First is to prevent poverty as a base. Then the inflation caused by other policies need to be mitigated to avoid poverty.
No subs need, just pay 5 times the price in the shops
Bull. A 20% saving in tax because of the end of subsidies means a family budget is substantially better off.
Manure. Subsidies (and tariffs) have increased the cost of food as well as putting the price of farmland beyond the point of farming being economically viable. The burden of billions in subsidies means that the overall economy suffers from inefficiency.
Ablsolutely smack on👍👍
It’s a shame farmers aren’t payed properly for their produces, supermarkets are a real pain, I believe it’s them that set the prices for farmers and can then go elsewhere and cheaper if someone doesn’t want to accept the price the supermarkets set.
I understand cheap food is good but we should be focusing on people eating better foods (not cheap freezer or fast foods) and being healthier.
Tbh we need a whole societal shift, there’s no respect for anything anymore and communities are gone, crime is rising, poor health and poor mental health is rising, it’s crazy! But I digress, this is a farming channel.
Frozen vegetables are excellent. What do you mean by frozen food being unhealthy? French fries?
@@موسى_7 people know what I mean when we are talking about bad food and someone says “freezer food”. Yes exactly things like French fries or freezer chicken nuggets and fish fingers etc. basically it’s all ultra processed, full of sugars and other harmful chemicals and preservatives, frozen veg also comes under that if it has had preservatives added to it.
There’s a saying that goes something like the longer the food lasts the shorter your life will be. Basically saying that the more food we eat in its natural state the better it is for us.
You're very sharp - quite correct. Suppressive types always go for good food. Famine is their standard product - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao. So of course they target good farmers.
Same in Iraq.
When Iraq became a Republic (but not a very democratic one), agriculture was left to rot, because the government took all the land of the rich landlords, and all the farm workers had no idea how to manage it, so they all went to cities (especially Baghdad, a city with 8 million people, while the next largest city only has 3 million).
This came back to bite Iraq when Iraq faced sanctions for invading Kuwait. A million people, mostly children, starved to death.
I have been a dairy farmer for 40 years.worked hard all my life.started with 20 acres now own 200 acres farm 350 you have just demoralised me.never felt so unappreciated
Game shooting is expensive, subsidies are a way of supporting it!
Before chemical fertilizer... farmers used animal and pigion manure, companion planting, bone and blood meal from animal and fish. Law that states farmers must use a certain amount of processed feeds and chemical products and fertilizer is the problem adding to high operation cost and a leading cost of cancer rates.
Animal manure is difficult to apply to wheat fields, though, isn't it? I think it's more appropriate for more labour intensive vegetables such as watermelon and cucumber and brll pepper which cannot be machine harvested.
Do the farmers really get the subs, in the end inputs just go up and up ,farm penalty to take it back
You make a valiant effort at describing the problem however the point central to your argument, which you miss is that subsidizing farmers to be able to provide cheap food comes at the cost of the taxpayers so in essence, the same people who were gleaning the benefits of cheap food are paying for those benefits in alternative ways and the true beneficiaries of cheap cheap foods are the capitalists the owners of capital Who are able to pay the working class a less than livable wage because they are wages are subsidized by cheap foods so ultimately all the benefits of providing cheap foods end up in the pockets of the very wealthy capitalist at the end of the day anyway. What it also does is it provides an unrealistic market which enables farmers to grow crops which they otherwise would not grow and to waste food and to not take into account Term, well-being and fertility not only of the land, but the surrounding landscape and all of the waterways all of which are affected through industrial farming adversely. Our society has grown to the point where too large percentage of the population is engaged in activities for the production of meaningless, stupid goods and services, and none of which truly benefit the land or the people on any level. We are trying to maintain the structure of capitalist consumption through subsidies of various kinds, but at the end of the day, it is still the well-being of the land biologically and wildlife which suffer. I do not take issue with your questioning the motivation behind the aristocratic desire to wild the land, but if they’re willing to put their money where their mouths are subsidize, farmers not in an industrial model, but to create a new food system based on rec capitalizing the land from a biological standpoint and include nature as a beneficiary of farming then there’s an opportunity. You also say that farming is about food, not about farming I would disagree with that whole heartedly. as a farmer who puts the well-being of the soil and the non-life at the forefront of my practices, I have come to recognize that ultimately with patience by adopting a diet, which is flexible and based on perennial crops, I am able to create a net positive affect for the land Domestic animals, the non-domestic animals and self personally by moving away from the crops central to the industrial farming model, which are the culprit in many modern diseases and move back to a diet which aligns my well-being and that of the land and wildlife. We need to make some very fundamental changes and I don’t think you recognize that your arguments are still, confirmed by your inherent bias as a farmer steeped deeply within the industrial model. You are not realizing that your perspective is not really the only perspective and that if the well-being of the planet as a hole is put first and foremost, many of the practices to which you subscribe or not maintainable.
I sorta agree with you, except for your first point about subsidies and taxes.
The people who benefit from are the consumers, but only the poor consumers. The middle class and rich pay taxes, but they don't need that money as much as the poor do.
Subsidies benefit the capitalist class by allowing them to reduce wages, but that can be a good thing as it makes businesses more competitive on an international scale and makes investing easier. More importantly though, is that farmers are also a group of people who deserve to be protected just like the proletariat, and subsidies are their minimum wage.
Of all the gov waste, at least this produces something for the population
Does any political party that promotes 15 minute cities and net zero, support farming or townspeople?
In general, nope.
tbf, the fear of "15 min cites" is primarily a moronic fear for Americans.
@tisFrancesfault C40 cities planned worldwide. Sadiq Khan is chairman of C40 cities. Read up! It's no myth. Oxford UK is already suffering with other UK cities and towns on their way.
Peasants could revolt, but farmers must quit without sufficient funds. That is always the strategy of the merchants. A couple of generations without farming, and all of us peasants are now stuck in cities. Need to be rich to start a farm, and as it doesn't pay - it is a hobby.
One guarantee on life is a farmers ability to moan
😂I’m a farmer and your not wrong
Sir, I want to any job in dairy farm
Standing applause.
1947: India became independent from Britain. Agricultural imports from India took a hit. I'm surprised this didn't get mentioned.
fascinating
What agricultural imports from India?
Just curious.
The only one I can think of was Jute.
Maybe too much cynicism, but I'm being asked to believe that farmers would never abuse subsides, and everything they do is to help the poor (including dumping milk in the US).
But fine, why not subsidize the poor directly and have farmers charge what they may? No more yoke of the government telling you how to run your farm. The poors have an equivalent chance at cheaper food.
Perverse incentives is right. It would almost be better to have the government buy up any surpluses and give it directly to the poor.
Well farming can run into a situation were productive farms are actually worse off. if farms for what ever reason, have a productive year, they can be screwed.
Why? Prices can fall below production. So farmers can end up paying for the privilege of producing food. Subsidies allow offsetting costs of producing a cheap product.
@@tisFrancesfault
Simple idea: government purchases surplus to store for shortage, like the Prophet Joseph did in the 7 years of plenty for the 7 years of famine
Where do you find the time to do all the reading and curation and filming and editing AND farming?
I'm afraid your channel is getting popular enough to warrant a "This is how I do things" video :)
People's diets have become so terrible, largely from their own choice or lack of cooking from scratch.
What's the best way to get people to eat healthy whole foods again? Tax on all retail processed food?
I don't think kids are going ungry really because of the price of food, their parent have no money, and zero is zero no matter how cheap the food is.
The real reason farmers get subsidies is because of the influence of Big Farma 😛
Insightful and concise perspective on Re 'Wilding'; Isabella Tree who by default of owning castle and land has created a 'Disney' land visitor tourist attraction! Culling, land management and selling of produce is still farming! Bourgeoisie who bought her book welcomed to spend in the cafe/restaurant! Kaleb on Tour (Cambridge) was a brilliant introduction to real issues farmers growing food and caring for livestock face day to day.
As a consistently left wing person myself, I don't think "this is a socialist policy" is always sufficient to convince people that it's a good policy.... On the contrary, if you listen to Americans much you can easily find people for whom "this is a socialist policy" means that a policy is obviously stupid and not even worth considering.
I hate that "people should have enough food to eat" is something that needs to be justified, but these days I think it does. I mean, poor people should just stop being lazy, work harder and then they could afford food for their kids, right? (yes, sarcasm).
I'm against all subsidies, 1. Most subsidies go to chemical companys, 2 people should pay what the food actually cost.
Tell that to poor people, which the UK is full of if newspapers are to be believed
Hello, American here. Why do farmers in the UK typically dress in a knitted vest, flat cap, and what not...while American farmers typically wear a T-shirt, and jeans?
It rains a lot in Britain. .
Politicians now own farming. Ie the means of production ,oh where have I read that!
The environmental stuff is crazy. You get paid more for leaving your land empty 'enhanced stubble' than pretty much any profit you will make from break crops. Harry's Farm is just growing wheat and flowers this year. Why are we paying for bird feed instead of good honest legumes, seeds etc?
No subsides in Australia. Here, you are on your own. That's why you need 4000 acres to make a decent living farming wheat. . Anything less and you are poverty farming with 60 year old tractors.
I really like this channel, but I would love to see you have a good faith talk with a environmentalist who knows about this stuff.
"bread, milk, potatoes" ... how is that called when it is about cows "grain finished" ? :)
By "grain finished" I'll assume cattle fed on grains. Thats not actually that common in the UK, excluding, in my experience, young cattle, and during winter. though sileage is preferred. In general, most British cattle are grass fed.
@@tisFrancesfault Yes, grass fed and no fat in the beef; UK went a little too far with the "no fat" craze, even pork is dry.
@@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi
No fat in beef? Is that even possible except by starving the cow? I'm from a city do I don't know much.
@@موسى_7 if you compare the grain finished beef (that with all the marbling, and no, it is not a special breed of cow, it is grain finished and fattened, like it was done for hundreds of years) the lean beaf available in UK to normal people is very dry and tastes like cardboard ... there is some fat in there but very little, and butchers trim all the fat they can see anyway.
Well researched and I appreciate you, but...straight subsidy system did not "subsidize the land", as you describe. It subsidized the farmers and ag workers who themselves make choices that benefit their right now today pockets first. When faced with the choice of feeding your children or protecting the habitat of some little crested or striped bird with zero sales potential, literally everyone with a lever to pull is going to choose their children. Same goes for the soil enrichment and restoration. Nobody "wants" to strip mine agricultural soil. It's entirely financial. We need the money right now today, and some unnameable day in future generations just simply doesn't pay bills--sorry. Nobody acts in the soil's best interest, not any more than trees have rights to life and liberty.
Britain is making an admirable attempt (however imperfect, I'm sure) to steer that money toward "the land", as your famous guy said. Slowing down and breaking up water drainage (including terracing, planting on contour and keyline plowing) begins the million-years process of restoring what we've taken out. Reducing irrigation by holding more water in the soil (artificial irrigation both leeches good stuff out, as well as accumulate salts in) is essential to our survival.
I wish the US would make some similar attempt. Here, make no mistake, we're not subsidizing to "feed the people". Actually farmers who make the vast majority of what we think of as "food" don't receive subsidies here. Those a are reserved exclusively for corn and soybeans, the building blocks for our economic and military power (and cheap industrial food).
Plastics, polymers, even building material, and "contains up to 10% ethanol" gasoline. This is how the subsidies are employed in my country.
This is the best comment here
Interesting Australia doesn't have subsidy. But its future farmers like me that hit road blocks, my generation is more poor then my grandfather especially post depression years, cant afford land, can't afford efficient expensive farm machinery, even stock why because cost of living, corp manufacturing corp supermarkets all of them are greedy, they dont care if they kill family farms future they would just replace us n government allows them to benefit. As a farmer i grow what i need first before giving any to greedy corporations, stuff government red tape, rules n taxes then they might learn that they need farmers.
But it is *not* socialist, or in societies interest, to subsidise ways of farming that create cheap food but also very costly negative environmental externalities which then put a higher burden of costs and taxes on the very people who enjoy the benefits of cheaper food (in addition to the financially non-quantifiable costs of biodiversity loss). So limiting subsidies for these activities makes sense for wider society, even if it increases the cost of food.
If restoring wetlands reduces flood damage downstream then undoing drainage can deliver a net benefit for society even if it reduces food production and increases food prices.
There are societal benefits to rewilding that come with increased biodiversity and natural resilience, and in specific cases these may well exceed the cost from lowered food production. Of course, this isn't always true, and it's also important to consider indirect land-use effects (if rewilding in the UK leads to more imports of beef from Argentina which drives deforestation there, then the global environmental impact may be negative), but it is just as wrong to assume it is never true.
And the description of organic farmers as fascist-inspired "peasants" who seek aristocratic guidance is enough BS to fertilize your pumpkin patch
Look, a lot of claims made are grossly overstated (as you note), and oft ignores that a significant number of farms do actually care about the environment. The Organic movement *is* inspired by fascist sentiment.
And one of the biggest causes of flooding in the UK is because we build on flood planes. This is dumb in the first place, And once layered with tarmac and concrete compounds the issues of flood planes.
And again, as you note, the alternative is importation from areas that a a) less efficient b) care considerably less of environmental impact.
I mean, I do support rewilding barren heathland, like the north york moors, but thats not what we do. we re-wild prime agri-land.
@18.16 Conshoomers, lol.
How did rationing disproportionately help the working class? They still had to oay for it just like they did before the war. If they couldn't afford it, which in just cases they couldn't, they couldn't buy it so their ration was useless and would go usued because they couldn't afford it.
Class politics. End of.
Have you considered that many of the scientists you are so fond of(the class/cast not nessisarily each of your favored members)are frequently just subverters who cloak their goals in pretext; that many of them are the children of aristocracy. Also, why "aristocrat" you do know that title means a virtuous patron, why not say oligarch; wich means one out for their intests in conflict to the comon good.
Drainage ditch improvements being reverse or not maintained isn't about "environment" on the local farm level, or emissions- its explicitly about the issues our water management system and the increased pressure that it is already under due to climate change. While it will obviously lose value for land on the local level, which is why doing it is subsidised, slowing water down on cheap and marginal farmland has a net societal benefit and the subsidy isn't priced enough that people would sacrifice it on high yielding land. This is because of what happens downstream of that land- SUDS and schemes like this are far cheaper than the large scale infrastructure that will be needed otherwise eg the £5bn Thames Tideway Tunnel costs and the insurance costs of doing nothing would be staggering. There might well be farms where its not necessary in the UK due to their placement on river catchments or the river catchment they're in but that's just a balance of whether the savings of it being more targeted is worth the extra cost of doing the targeting- the principle itself is sound. As your last video went into details on more marginal land was brought into use as farmland during the war with maximising output being the priority and the wider costs not considered.
The primary issue is the building of floodplains. who knew floodplains are prone to flooding? Why should farms be forced to *change* decent practice because some idiot thought that buy a cheaply built semi on a floodplain was a good investment?
*Edit added to correct the missing word "change".
@@tisFrancesfault They're not forced? They can choose to avail themselves of a direct financial benefit in exchanged for doing (or in this case not doing) something that reduces the value of their property in exchange for wider social benefits. As the video points out plenty of farmers are choosing not too engage, that is their business but we're not talking about a couple of semis built on a water-meadow. London is on a flood plain and has real estate worth trillions, as are many other UK towns and cities- even tiny rises in insurance costs will dwarf the value of the productivity of land lost to these schemes. With climate change making weather patterns more extreme (both more dry period but also more period of heavy rain) the systems in place don't guarantee what they did. We have too adapt and the removal or degradation of water improvement channels is one of the most cost effective adaptions we can make and i would argue that the subsidy is one of the more efficient ways of doing that. Farmers will know where their land better than anyone else and should be able to pick the most cost effective (i.e. least productive) land to take the subsidy for.
@@The96thIdiot Im sorry but this just comes off as longwinded townie nonsense; In which, urban property values supersede all, along with pseudo-environmentalism.
And no, people did not build cites on floodplains (in general) as that was seen as dumb. They are close to flood plains as that has been convenient, as those areas grew the food for such cites.
London is a old metropolis and is a general outlier. The general practice of building on floodplains is fairly new for most urban areas (floodplains generally being avoided for housing) and getting worse.
@@tisFrancesfault Urban centres don't supersede all, and farmers aren't forced to do anything.
Again, its nothing to do with environmentalism- its just economics. The government can either pay tens of billions or more to safeguard areas that large percentage of the population live and work (and therefore its own tax base) through large scale flood mitigation works or they can pay farmers less than that to achieve the same end by getting them to take out works that improve their land but add flooding risk lower down river catchments.
Its a win-win if enough farmers take that deal but the cities will be protected either way and something will be done- insurance rates rises would cost our economy more than doing nothing. Building on floodplains is relatively new in the sense that until we were doing large scale water management systems it was avoided more but only relatively and many cities or towns have always had some areas that are prone to flooding.
Cities didn't often develop near floodplains for food grown locally, they developed near rivers because moving good by ship was much more efficient. Unfortunately rivers have the unfortunate side effect of flooding.