As an organic farmer, I have to agree with you. Organic farming is a luxury for the upper middle class and the rich. Our products are way more expensive than conventional farming because they require a lot more labour and, in some cases, will produce less than conventional farming. Now, I have to disagree that the health of the soil isn't inherently correlated to the health of the livestock and the health of the people. When we spray chemical fertelizers and pesticides, the soil and the plants absorb them and go into our body when we eat them. The same happens with animals that are given certain anti-biotics. Now this small amount of unhealthy chemicals and such don't warrant extreme unhealthy changes in your body. But given enough time and exposure, they can increase the risk of certain diseases. Does this warrant a need to stop conventional farming? No. Like I said before, organic produce is a luxury for the whealthy. I will always recommend buying organic. But if you can't afford it, I won't tell you to starve to death. One aspect of farming that you haven't talked about is those farms where chickens are all crammed together in a super small space. People tend to see these as evil. I tend to see them as the only way to keep meat prices down. I wonder what's your opinion on this.
When you look at the toxins that people put into their bodies, the chemicals sprayed on plants are miniscule. Animal products are different, however, people get overly concerned about pesticides and what not. If someone is getting half their calories from sugar and the fats found in processed foods, with the emulsifiers and whatnot to make these products shelf stable, then that has to be seen as a lot of toxins. To live on a healthy diet it is best to cut out the obvious garbage, then the body can do its job of dealing with the toxins that do arrive from non-organic farming practices.
@@FLopesVieira Given the choice, everyone would buy the organic produce if it was the same price and equally available. But the truth is that buying organic is usually conspicuous consumption. By the time I have that organic broccoli in the pot with a dozen other things, I can't tell if it is organic. Hence I have not gone 'all in' with organic. I buy single ingredient foods and cook with them from scratch, thereby avoiding 99% of the toxins that would be in my diet if I was eating junk food and processed foods.
@@pdsnpsnldlqnop3330 a big problem in my country (Netherlands) is that the pesticides have got into the water supply, and that it is killing native insect populations. Pesticides and herbicides have a lot of other downsides besides health effects
@@armiferafatum2459 No more cheap gas from Russia has solved that problem. In the UK we no longer have plasticulture products from the Netherlands in the supermarkets. Everything shifted to the south of Spain, Morocco, Senegal and other water stressed countries where labour is cheaper and regulatory standards are lower. I don't buy any of the salad plasticulture, I am more likely to buy a swede from Scotland or spring greens from Wales than anything overly intensive. Sure, there is still runoff but I don't eat animal products, so I am causing a fraction of the damage. For me, a peasant's diet with modern inputs works out really well. Posh food isn't all that it is cracked up to be and neither is processed food any good. I don't even use a fridge or freezer, yet I always have fresh food. The person in the UK buying organic posh foods impacts the planet much more than I do. I like the art of frugal food and I have made an art of it. So much aligns, whether it is health, wallet considerations, time spent in the kitchen, waste and even recycling. Most people are not even trying. Meanwhile, I have the best food in abundance with no need to be concerned for being contradictory. I am the change I wish to see, even if there are nasty chemicals used here and there.
This recovering dairy farmer says Good Luck. A typical consumer in the developed world has no clue about how food gets to their dinner plate. Most Covid gardens are now weedy. Stay safe.
This is why I have labored hard to show my kid where food comes from. Eggs, vegetables, seeds, wheat, my goal is to ensure that she has seen them all growing and understands how much work they take to produce.
I agree with you for most of this, although I do think regenerative farming can do everything that organic farming does and more. Cholderton estate for example farms organically and regeneratively and still has 500 head of sheep and 600 head of cattle, plus arable. It is one of the most nature friendly farms in the UK and still provides a very good amount of food etc. Have you heard of this and what is your take on this? I’m not an expert so always keen to hear your opinion on things.
yep if you are interested in the expose of the influnce of this eugenisist and population obssessed malthusian theories genesis i recomend historian matthew ehrets books and his wife cynthia chung
Here's the conundrum: Organic farming is only viable if we reduce our population. Yet, organic farming is more labour-intensive. I'm seeing a problem here.
Wrong. All we have to do is subsidize agriculture correctly. Instead of just incentivizing every single farmer to grow primarily corn and soybeans. The real problem is corporate ownership of farmland, which makes agriculture a slave to the profit motive
@@kylenmaple4668It's always a red flag to hear someone state what the "problem is" regarding a complex topic, especially when it's accompanied with all "all we have to do" solution. Farming in the modern age is a business, so the concept of eliminating "profit" from the activity is ludicrous. Should we return to pre modern times where the overwhelming majority of the population is involved in subsistence farming, then sure, farming is done to survive individually. I'm ok with that as I produce all I consume for a year. I even have the animals, skills, and equipment to return to pre industrial farming techniques should the other activists in the green movement get their way. I do think, however, that many urban individuals may find themselves going hungry. Again, I'm OK with that, as they need to actually be impacted with by the policies they advocate for.
A mostly vegan society (with regenerative poultry and occasional hunting) could feed about 100 billion people from current agricultural land (meat and dairy is insanely inefficient, yet gets most of the subsidies). Market gardens and food forests are much more efficient in food production, but also way more labor intensive. I'd guess around 5% of workforce would be required, instead of the current 1%. But that would probably result in needing way less medical staff in chronic diseases, so overall the total workforce for other stuff could even increase. Mechanization in food forests and vegetable farming will make tractors obsolete in a couple of decades. And hippies will probably complain that industry has taken their gardens 🙃
I think one of the biggest problems with our current system is food wastage, the US department of Agriculture estimates that 30-40% of food in the US goes to waste. With a better distribution system and a greater willingness by people to eat pickled or canned produce instead of exclusively fresh we could feed a lot more people. Also with EVs gaining in popularity could cause a large decline in corn to fuel alcohols which could free up more land for food production.
Combine that with the fact that our diets (in developed countries) are incredibly inefficient and feeding the planet organically would suddenly be a lot more feasibe. What I am pointing to is the consumption of animal produce: about 70-75% of global agricultural land is used for meat and dairy produce. Of course a large part of that is pasture, which may not always be usable for crops that can directly feed humans. Still, 43% of cropland is used to feed animals. To put that in to perspective further: 25kg of grain are used to produce a single kg of beef, 4kg are used to produce a single kg of chicken meat.
I farm organically because I chose too. I also believe that it would be disastrous if farmers were forced to farm organically. I ALSO believe that farmers have no compulsion to feed everyone. We have customers, not faithful followers. If you don't want/can't afford my products, eat/wear something else.
Sprays can absolutely mobilize nutrients and cause nutrient overload in waterways. Glyphosate mobilizes phosphorus, this has been known in the US for a few years. The combined impact of tillage, glyphosate, fungicide and so on means a nitrogen efficiency of about 40-45%, the rest goes down the river or in to the air, and causes various issues for aquatic life, well water, climate and even the biodiversity in wild ecosystems on land.
Though I am a fan of organic agriculture (because I don't want to rely on fertiliser supply chains and use toxic pesticides), I love your channel because it explains the sociology and politics of agriculture, something I didn't know even existed. I didn't think agriculture had such an interesting history. I am writing this to show my appreciation for your previous videos which I have watched, explaining the history of the Soil Association.
Would love to hear your opinion on regenerative farming, particularly adaptive multi-pasture grazing, with regards to these concerns about productivity and feeding people. A lot of regenerative agriculture enthusiasts talk about increased “profit per acre” rather than “yield per acre” led by reduced costs. However, to my eyes if yield per acre drops across the country then that’s a significant reduction in food production and productivity, this may lead to an increase in food prices in the long term.
Any methods that lower my farms dependence on chemical fertiliser are welcome. The energy, expense, and labour are expensive; and add significantly to the bottom line. That being said, i need to maintain profits, and you as a consumer need me to maintain production rates
There are organic methods. You are just too lazy to search and learn. Actually organic farming is easy to be done, most organic farmers just do not get the insight.
@@hairy-dairyman I can't tell you in here because it would be long talk, but I tell you what it is about: "Regenerative Agriculture". You can find by yourself some scientists that work on this field, I recommend; Christine Jones, Alan Savory, John Kemp, James White (Rhizophagy), the explanation yt 'Young Red Angus' about Johnson-Su compost is quite interesting. Actually, plants do not need any fertilizer (organic or inorganic (very bad)) because most of soil on earth has all mineral that the plants need, it is just our mistake in agricultural practices for over human history. You also need to differentiate working with organic and inorganic (conventional); manure is inorganic while compost is organic. You should understand Regenerative Agriculture priciples: no till, cover crop, diversity, no chemical fertilizer & insecticides-herbicides. Lastly, it is not related to Regenerative Agriculture but still similar, it is in Japan about "Natural Farming" and look up related people; Masanobu Fukuoka, Larry Korn and Yoshikazu Kawaguchi.
@@hairy-dairyman I can't tell you in here because it would be long talk, but I tell you what it is about: "Regenerative Agriculture". You can find yourself some scientists that work on this field, I recommend; Christine Jones, Alan Savory, John Kemp, James White (Rhizophagy), the explanation yt 'Young Red Angus' about Johnson-Su compost is quite interesting. Actually, plants do not need any fertilizer (organic or inorganic (very bad)) because most of soil on earth has all mineral that the plants need, it is just our mistake in agricultural practices for over human history. You also need to differentiate working with organic and inorganic (conventional); manure is inorganic while compost is organic. You should understand Regenerative Agriculture priciples: no till, cover crop, diversity, no chemical fertilizer & insecticides-herbicides. Lastly, it is not related to Regenerative Agriculture but still similar, it is in Japan about "Natural Farming" and look up related people; Masanobu Fukuoka, Larry Korn and Yoshikazu Kawaguchi.
Although I understand that the strict requirements of organic might limit certain results, I would strongly advise to have more cattle or other livestock on crop land making use of cover crops and to increase the organic matter in our soils to over 3%. We also shouldn't forget that meat is one of most nutritious foods that exists. There are enough examples of farms producing more than most conventionally farmed land and have eliminated pesticides and fungicides and only use herbicides every 2nd or 3rd year. It is important to find a way to have harvests with less hills and valleys and I think that starts with improving our soils to above 3% OM, improve the biodiversity around the crop land and reduce the use of products that put the the soil life and the stability of the crops at the risk.
I intend to farm in an urban environment, so I rely on low mechanization so that I can produce more in a smaller area. I have no issue with fertilizer. My primary interests are heritage (or more recently localized) crops and animals, small-scale intensive production techniques, an increased emphasis on perennial or otherwise slightly-lower-maintenance foodstuffs, and the least polluting ways to harvest bast fiber from plants (my other intended crops are flax, hemp, and Japanese banana). "Organic" for me as a grower is just a search term to help me find techniques I might be able to use. I would also be very interested in what your views are of more nebulous concepts like "permaculture" design. Do you think this movement carries the same baggage, very different baggage, or how does it play into more recent ... er ... husbandry politics?
Thank you, I do enjoy your videos, but rarely bother reading the comments so this one was even more enlightening. As conventional, grazing dairy farmers we just try to use the best of both worlds. I do not think most non farmers realize how restrictive many organic rules are. Nor how impractical they make the task of of running a viable business without the difficult to achieve organic premium. I fully support your statement that a compulsory switch to organic farming will solve the world overpopulation issue. Probably in less than a year.
A conversation Ive had with non farmers about organic is how unsustainable it is from a volume standpoint and at least here in the states a labor shortage issue. The best we can hope for short term is the continued growth of precision technology to prevent fertilizer and other chemical runoff into the environment, and then long-term start reducing meat agriculture. Lees feed lots and more free range grazing.
I'm in the great lakes region, and my worry will be the amount of rain we're forecasted to have over the next 50 years due to global warming. I don't know what technology will help with this, but from my reading, a focus on using compost and similar materials to absorb and retain the water during wet and dry seasons (e.g.. to prevent run off). Maybe new machinery that doesn't compact the soil as much? I'm a non-farmer, so I'd love to hear what farmers think of this and whether organic/regenerative can help.
@@Mastadex over water is easier to manage than less water. Billions are being spent on canals, levees and water management systems in the Mississippi basin… the army corps of engineers are preparing for the future. The big concern for the Great Lakes is late spring frosts and early summer frosts. The jet stream becomes unstable with less sea ice and glaciers from what I’ve been reading
@@priestesslucy no labor shortage. Less than 300,000 row crop farmers in the united state and the average age is 58. Pay is so tight families are finding it difficult to bring the next generation into the family business. Been a huge problem since the 80s.
I do organic farming, but as a hobby, in my half an acre of land dedicated to that, it's my leisure and my therapy. It does work quite well for fruits and cassava here in Brazil, I have to say, but people won't eat that many fruits. For grain production I can't see it working that well, although there are some people working on that. For cocoa production sintropic farming, for example, has gained traction since some farms proved the organic method is superior against droughts than the industrial method, since last year the drough and heat waves hit hard the cocoa production in Brasil. The cocoa plants that were among trees and with the soil covered in organic matter survived and produced as if nothing had happened. I'm a great admirer of nature, I have to say that the rewilding idea has a strong pull on me.
As usual a very well structured argument with much truth spoken. Our lifestyle is half of the problem with the overflowing shelves of the supermarkets encouraging waste whilst people are quite unaware of food seasonality. Some UK schools try to teach their children where food comes from but most have no conception of the production of food. I have use of a little land on a farm to grow vegetables on and it’s difficult with insect pests and birds to get a good yield but then i look across at the adjacent arable field. Numerous years have left the soil in very poor condition, clay with little that I would call topsoil and Bean crops for example that would be considered very poor in a garden context. The adjacent pasture has much better soil. Fertilisers and sprays keep production up whilst the supermarkets force payments down. How can the farmer expect to survive with from an organic four course rotation even though it promotes soil health. Those who complain of food prices dig their gardens up and dump the irreplaceable soil to pave their gardens, even those who choose to move out to our village to “enjoy” the countryside. Organic farming is a lovely ideal but difficult in practice.
If the population reduced to say 2 billion then the 2 billion left would still use conventional farming techniques because society has moved on. I wouldn't want to go back to hoeing crops and hand picking weeds and nor would the remaining population. The only advantage to a reduction in population is the demand on resources. But on the flip side such a dramatic reduction would cause more wars and suffering. The real way we could all do our bit was to eat less and definitely waste less.
Broadly agree with this but think the argument that an organic feed Britain would need to reduce its population to 23m is tenuous. Its a slight of hand to allow the 46% sustained by imports currently but not in the organic calculation. Also don't think you need any significant action to take to see the worlds population fall, birth rates are dropping and population is likely to start declining fairly rapidly over the following decades due to demographics- so i don't think pencilling in a potential lower demand is inherently evil. The issue would be that organic farming is more intensive in terms of labour per calorie, and labour would be more restricted in a situation of global population decline than today. So in reality if we want the worlds population (whatever size it is) fed both well and cheaply the more capital intensive directions would need to be taken overall, but that doesn't necessarily mean more intensive farming everywhere, rather an intensification in some areas completely outcompeting other areas. Within this some aspects of organic farming or "rewilding" in targeted places can be appropriate in areas which can't compete in that high capital investment and labour costs environment and this process has happened repeatedly well before these terms exist, scotch whisky is by-product of these economic trends. In this farming is no different to other businesses, farming just uniquely impacts on the landscape and carries more emotional baggage than how centuries of efficiencies within transport has repeatedly changed economic logic and therefore urban and rural landscapes. So if there is a profit in it for niche businesses or if there is a wider social benefit that outweighs the lost efficiencies then organic or "rewilding" will be part of the picture. For example "rewilding" river catchments areas seen primarily as risk management required because of global warming is i think a sensible thing- the moral hazard comes in when the government focus is to sustain landowners profit margins as the core of a scheme.
Masanobu Fukuoka in his books makes the argument that regenerative farming done correctly is actually significantly more calorie efficient than conventional farming (most forget to factor in the building and upkeep and energy production for all the machinery).
The FAO advocates for agro-ecology, my understanding is that this is a more pragmatic approach where you don't outright ban chemistry. I like that idea.
Once organic farmer here , no longer organic , no market for what we were producing , the only way forward would have been to create a brand and market our own produce and being organic adds no value if you are doing that , your drop in production going totally organic is not big enough , 50% would be a dream the reality will be far more than that and during some years you might get nothing , there are lots of things we learned being organic that we still do , in fact what we are doing now is in reality not far off organic status , if you are farming in an attempt to make a living in U.K. right now you will be fully aware of the cost of inputs and the absolute reality that your profitability depends on the economic use of everything you use , in short nothing is applied to a crop or given to an animal without it being needed and by needed I mean a risk of total loss without it , the people talking about rewinding need not worry , compared to 40 years ago there are huge swathes of land producing little or nothing , and that area is getting bigger , people generally hate farmers , certainly those who voted for Tony Blair do and the vast majority who voted for Mrs T are dead , society has changed and it became clear to me over 5 years ago that they will want to take farms off the families that have owned and worked them for hundreds of years and insert vegans and climate wombles who believe they know how to run them better , and I think they will succeed , the number of people leaving the industry along with their skills will mean agricultural business in many cases will cease , here in the U.K. we are not at the front of Modern Monetary Theory , we are lagging a long way behind through utterly incompetent governments
This man is changing my long held views on the topic of chemical fertilizers and organic farming . Never knew I would ever support chemical fertilizers . Full support from India 🇮🇳.
Regenerative farming and Permaculture are interests of mine I really appreciate the spotlight you’re putting on the difference between these and organic farming. This has definitely been a blind spot for me
Brilliant rebuttals. I gave a hitch hiker a lift once who told me all wee needed to do was to give everyone an acre and they can farm organically and support themself. I asked if they had worked out how many is able acres there are and if this was even possible but was told "Oh I don't know but I'm sure it would work.". Of course its not just the right for whom simple agriculture is the answer to our woes. I am 100% sure you don't need to be told this but just a reminder for others the Pol Pot was a communist and seeked an agrarian society in a similar fashion and that didn't work out too well. Also Mao Tse Tung loved sending people out to the fields as he believed this was central to building the utopia but also loved telling them to smelt all their tools and that plan went a little awry. I would say I think on a wider point a growing population serves no one except economic statistics and that population growth will reverse in the long term as this becomes more apparent. This however will take hundreds of years
It is already happening. Population is currently growing only in Africa and Arabia. China and Japan and Soouth Korea are experiencing the beginning stages of collapse.
I farm in the Southern United States. I agree with you. I get the same argument you get here. Farmers only do what works and insurers their survival. So we’re not going to harm our land and livestock. It Would mean an end to our lifestyle and livelihood. Town folk seem to think they know best. There lobbying for there own demise.
I don’t know any farmers that would rather spend money on in puts if they didn’t have to. The more one learns about the world, they will find it works the way it does for a reason.
One thing I want to note is that in the long term (over about 100 years) a population decline without any sort of invasive or unethical methods is possible. And the reason is that more and more people simply are choosing to have less children. Birth rates in countries across the world are below replacement levels of 2 births per women. In Ireland in 2023, the birth rate was 1.5 births per woman and I assume it's similar in Britain. This trend is true across the planet, with the only exceptions being in Sub-Saharan Africa, although their birth rate is expected to fall soon as they develop. With this in mind, it is possible that the global population will never hit 10 billion and we will see a natural population decline without the use of any invasive or unethical methods. Although this might be cold comfort to the organicists as it will take a long time to happen and they seem set on urgently implementing organic farming.
Agree totally. Suggesting that to even speak of population reduction is unethical, i.e.an unspoken suggestion that it necessarily involves forced sterilization or infanticide or murdering whole populations, is utter showboating. Of course the resulting reduced demand for agricultural produce and consequent fall in farm prices would never be a consideration to such an 'ethical' young man, would it?
yes this is all happening however,population drop is becoming an issue for developed nations as it involves an age shift in the population,that is to many old people not enough young; this results in not enough tax payers and wealth generators and to many retired people relying on those taxes etc to live off.
@@jonathanwhite460 A decreasing workforce is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. If we invest into labour saving technology/automation, then the decreased amount of labour available will be made up for with machines.
@@jonathanwhite460 This is not a taxation issue- it's feasibility is always a matter of allocation of real resources- materials and labour. Mainstream economists will always propose that there is a problem of 'how do we pay?'- Their job is, on behalf of themselves and the private capital that pays their salaries, to trick the general public into believing that money is a finite and scarce resource (gold-standard mentality, and an 'easy sell' to the general public, because that's exactly how it is for businesses and households). In reality at a national level, the money supply is entirely flexible (both private banks and government have the capacity to create and destroy 'modern' money on demand) and can be bountiful up to the limit of the resources on which it can be spent (after which it becomes inflationary). The function of taxation is to create space in the economy to allocate resources to those things deemed socially necessary- in this case, to maintain a reasonable standard of living for those unable to work- including the elderly. Given technology's effect on human productivity, the birthrate would have to fall to a very low level to constrain the future labour resource to below the necessary level.
Most excellent work young chap. I do have a few disagreements, but you're providing the world with an insightful series of videos. Very impressed, best of luck.🤠
I’m an organic no till “regenerative” producer. I’m not a proponent of a “cause” per se. The conventional side has come a long way. I do think they have a long way to go. I also don’t believe organic is being done properly in many cases, it is often worse environmentally than a well run conventional operation with intense data usage and precision techniques. I just need the independence. I can’t see the point in making other people money, and making so little or none. It’s a pretty good gig.
I grow organically for my own reasons, and I agree with your assessment 100%. The way we grow is difficult and labor-intensive. We can't grow cheap food and we don't intend to, but we're not all whackjobs!😏 PS. I will gladly give food to anyone who asks free of charge and will also take trade and barter. Just because you grow organically doesn't necessarily mean you are greedy.
I enjoy these discussions. Austria is 30% organic farming. I think there is a good logical compromise - eg elimate biocidal laboratory chemicals but no issue with reasonable applications of inorganic elements - fertilisers - whether manure or industrial fertilisers. Improving soil biology is not incompatible with certain conventional practices. Large scale farmers eg Gabe Brown US cattle rancher is passionate about organic techniques eg rotational grazing never exposing soil etc. He says it takes about 4 years for soil biology to recover when switching to organic where the biology will recover and naturally release minerals from soil and sand. Quite often studies involve 1st year organic output versus conventional so the organic has not recovered and the output is poor .
You are an optimist with regards to the amount produced with organic farming. Before the advent of fertilizers, the world was barely able to feed 1 billion people. In other words: The Georgia Guidestones had "keep world pop at 500million" for a reason. 15 out of 16 people or 87% need to leave so that organic farming can feed the world.
Organic farming can still have higher production in areas like Pakistan because the land can produce even with low/No Synthetic Fertilizers whereas Areas like England can't produce as well with less synthetic fertilisers because of cold winds
Fascinating and thought-provoking examination of reality vs ideology. Concerning the population, if people were to eat a great deal less (UK population is 66% overweight or obese) and also eat real food, rather than hyperprocessed chemical stews then we could support more healthy people. There is no likelihood that spreading the population widely round the world will help, farming generally is becoming more commercialised requiring less people per hectare to produce the same amount of food. People in developing countries are migrating to the towns and cities to escape the drudgery and uncertainty of family farming. Forcing people back onto the land will not work. Mao imposed a reduction of food in Communist China, and as with all Communist systems it was a failure, killing tens of millions of people, more than anyone else in history, including his Communist buddy, Stalin. So perhaps the Organic movement could advocate a Communist approach to agriculture instead of getting itchy about its Fascist roots?
I dairy farm in southern Ireland and i would love to go organic. You'd swear by peoples talk farmers enjoy spending money and time to buy and spread fertiliser. It would be great if there was ability to not have to without halving current production. Unfortunately this doesn't exist. Many means of reducing fertiliser are there but none good. We're being encouraged to set multispecies swards at the moment but results from these are not living up to anything like conventional grass. Reducing and using fertiliser as efficiently as possible is the solution. More land being put into organic and thus not producing will only mean other land needing to be more intensive to compensate. And before someone comes in telling me it can be done ill be needing an actual example or study to show it.
I love your videos. These arguments are nuanced and well-considered, and you present them well. I look forward to hearing more. I'd be very interested to hear your take on the economic dangers of reliance on inputs which are not locally produced and possible workarounds. (Ideally, I'd love to see a miniaturized version of the haber-bosch process that can run on the scale of a single farm so that modern farms can vertically integrate more effectively). Would electric tractors be possible, desirable, or economically viable based on your experience (vertically integrating fuel via solar). What is your opinion on AI and automation in farming generally? Is it a positive good in your view for people to farm, irrespective of the output? (would it be a sad thing if all farming was automated?) What is the subjective core of your desire to farm? Is it an end in itself or purely a means to some other end? If it is an end in itself to some degree, what constraints does that place on what you will or will not do in your farming practices? What are your thoughts on the ideas of Henry George?
Thankyou! I came across your videos when researching what I might do with my wool and I thought them very interesting. To answer some of your questions, I think farming must feed people and not drive climate change (firstly) but also that it is a way of life that provides meaning to some people so they should be able to find fulfillment through this kind of work. So there is definitely a 'subjective' element - I have a great sentimental attachment to my land and community. Electric tractors might be difficult (although there have been some prototypes I understand), as a local haber process would be excellent if achievable. Ai and automation allow precision farming which has benefits and probably (?) Doesn't present a mortal risk to agricultural labour any more than continuing advancements in mechanisation do. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for responding to my comment, Oli. It’s not that I think we don’t need environmentalism. The issue I have with what I called the 'climate agenda' is that much of it presents the same problems as organic agriculture: more expensive food and energy, which causes hardship for many people, especially those already at the edge of their financial limits. I agree that we need environmentalism paired with affordable food policies and reasonable emissions targets, but I fear that's not what we have today.
I mean, Lord Lymington was at least quite consistent and definitely a moral superior to the "too many people" loons running around. Thankful most of these people are boomers soon to fulfil their own beliefs. Absolutely excellent coverage of history, agri and aristo as well ❤️❤️❤️
First, thanks for the video, it really got me thinking! But I was wondering if part of the reason why we should advocate for synthetic fertilizer free food systems, that synthetic fertilizer is an unsustainable resource? I say this in the sense that natural gases are simply not infinite. This would mean that at a certain point a very large famine is going to happen, if we want it or not. I'm personally, of course, against any forms of forced depopulation. But at least I would say an argument could be made that we do need to do something if we want to dodge this collapse. This could be done by investing in developing more sustainable farming methods, in which organic methods seem important. Also, if I'm not mistaken the reason why people have such powerful opinions on this topic, is because people actually care about the health and happiness of future generations (assuming that most people are empathetic to human wellbeing). I wonder if this is why a lot of people or so sympathetic to population reduction? Because they feel like it is unjust to keep going down this road. Which, if we don't find an alternative for synthetic fertilizer, would result in a great famine as well. I would love to hear your(or anyone's) thoughts!
There are as many battles between vegans and meat eaters as there are pro organic and synthetic fertiliser groups and many, many more. As long as there is a choice to have both there should be no resentment really. I would say that the till sales at the Supermarkets will be the judge, but I think that they deliberately scupper organic veg sometimes. Whilst the term 'organic' does relate to a certain standard, it's not as high as people think it is, it doesn't necessarily mean the soil is being looked after for instance. If anything this video highlights that the vast majority don't care where their food comes from or much else, all they want is cheap, perfect looking produce all year round and that's what they get. If farmers think they can change that then good luck.
Another fantastic video, Olli! Yours is truly one of the most informative, educational and entertaining sources for information on British agriculture I've come across. As someone who lived for many years overseas, I find that there are many people in modern British society that have some rather odd ideas about food, about where it comes from, how its made, and its effects on our overall health. This takes many different forms: veganism, gluten-free, and, to an extent, organic. I literally laughed out loud when I saw a certain national coffee chain advertising a "gluten free ploughman's lunch" sandwich. I think many people express support for organic farming largely out of a belief that by not putting any "chemicals" in their food, they will lessen their risk of getting cancer or other serious disease. I think you've already explained why chemical fertilisers don't cause cancer. But some people aren't going to be persuaded. Lastly, I'd be very interested in hearing your views on the role farming can play in restoring the health of Britain's waterways. I understand (and have to explain to many people I know) that a lot of our current problems with our water system has to do with things people do in their own homes. Like putting wet wipes down the loo, or paving over their front garden to create parking spaces. But in spite of that, as stewards of great stretches of Britain's land surface, surely farmers can, and do, have a great responsibility to help mitigate the effects of rainfall on our rivers and streams. What are your thoughts, as a farmer, on the return of beavers to small parts of Britain? Best wishes, and many thanks!
Organic, regenerative, conventional - they're all tools that must be used where suitabe and needed. Ideally we would all want unspoiled nature and pure untainted food, but I agree that farmers do know more what works where and how it should be applied. Perhaps instead of enforcing re-wilding and "organic food", the focus should be on supermarkets squeezing farmers, or market mechanics placing demands that actually cause poor farming practices.
EROEI pre-mechanisation was 150%, and almost all of that renewable, but this did mean that 2/3 of the population worked in farming, thus 2/3 of the output went to feed farmers, labourers and horses. EROEI of mechanised agriculture is a mere 10%, and almost all that energy input is non-renewable, i.e. fossil fuel. This is the real 'elephant in the room' of modern farming, whether it be organic or otherwise.
i’m sympathetic to everything you say, *But* (* to denote me stepping out onto the thin ice) I think you also have to grapple with the issue that industrial agriculture may have created a paradox of enrichment which has allowed the human population to overshoot the planets carrying capacity. Which is also a hard truth. So either 1) we have to reduce the resources required to provide the vast majority of people with a meaningful and worth while life 2) OOOOOooor the the logical conclusion is that we either have to select some people to …….. Not be here. 3) Oooooor we ignore the problems we have and have to face a very large population crash when the wheels fall off this high energy industrialised society. Obviously the picture is mixed but to me it looks like we are on path 3) which is to just ignore problem and hope it goes away. Path 1) would obviously be the best, but my god are people resistant to it. I think in part because the solutions that would cause 90+% reduction in resource consumption by their nature look very different to most people. For instance, you use the word ‘peasant’ quite a lot. But arguably a peasant is just someone that gets most of what they need from an area of land around them. They can weave a wicker basket for instance. So for instance if you say: ‘hey, not everyone, but wouldn’t it be great if more towns foke moved about by e-bike’ someone will rush up to respond: ‘you want to take us back to the dark ages.’ or if you say:’Hey some pulses taste great, cost very little and are good for your health’ the response is: ‘don’t ask me to eat like a peasant’. So the question is, we have these 3 levers we can bring to bear on this problem. A) Population reduction B) Efficiency and C) magic technollogy. We can all agree that the ‘Population reduction’ leaver can’t be pulled at all. So we are left with some mixture of B) and C) e.g. eating pulses not meat,we can call this lower preference foods. Or Magic technology. But the trouble is waiting for the magic technology could have disappointing results where, if it doesn’t materialise, everyone dies. We are accelerating toward a cliff edge and we haven’t even pumped the breaks to see if they work. As someone who has had a very good go at producing as much of a 4 persons house holds food as possible, I have a great respect for farmers and what they do. And I’m very realistic about my ability to produce calories (I have a spread sheet). But I do think there is a lot to be said for increasing the number of people who have a working knowledge of what it takes to make food. [FYI we are not organic cos we use slug pellets.] No-one who has had a polly tunnel of lettuce turned to sludge in days by aphids is an enemy of commercial farmers or chemicals…
can we look at a possible conflation between international commodity production and local food production? and maybe their disparate perspectives on the world's resources and it's peoples...
The confluence of two threads puts organic farming back into the class-based box it belongs. Firstly is Regenerative Agriculture's contribution. Fully regenerated soil is a teeming, interdependent mass of fungi and bacteria locating, extracting and shipping the nutrients their energy suppliers need. Secondly, the growing acceptance of the keto-carnivore diet (optimal human nutrition) means many traditional crops and the methods/skills involved to create abundance will become redundant. Rotating stock, chicken tractors, clever composting... are the new Orange. Science, not fairies feed the world. Sustaining a humus layer so we never even need to see the soil again is the ticket to pastoral bliss. Thx for the opportunity to rant.
Man, thanks for talking about these things that is rampant in every corner of farming world; and i can adress this too for experience in brazil where some parts of leftists are trying to impose this kind of thinking in universities and ngo's
If the organic farmer has less output than a non organic farmer, then that is just a skill issue. Organic is not the whole deal, it is just the base line. As you said, it pretty much just is going back to older farming methods. But just because modern organic farms on average yield less, doesn't mean it can't yield as much as non organic. The majority of our air is nitrogen, sooo yeah we can try get ourselfs into the world of endophytes! People who say stuff like the population control or something should happen are fricking weird. We can feed everyone without haber-bosch.
As a member of the class which caused (or oversaw, if you want to be kind) famines in Ireland and India, you would think that Lord Lymington would know that mass disorder that destroys civilization isn't an inevitable famine outcome. As long as the soldiers are well fed, as they were under the British (and under the Soviets in Ukraine, to pick the ideological flip side), starving people can be contained in place to weaken and die. The European aristocracy kept its power through hundreds of famines over the course of a millennium, and only lost it after European famine had been defeated.
More then once i was in conversations with people saying "chemical agriculture" is awfull, a crime, and only eat "organic"...while they put another line up their noses!
theres a lot more to sustainability than climate change. fields wash the life out of small streams over time just with sand, no chemicals needed. classical agriculture is not cyclic and the environmental effects are not part of a healthy system that balances itself out. In many cases we still don't understand long term effects, what we do know is that a lot of debt has already been accrued for future generations, and we can never quite be sure what harm we are doing unless our methods actually integrate into natural cycles.
Australia has more organic farmland than the rest of the world combined. It’s the most productive use of the land and it’s in no way a reduction in production from conventional agriculture.
Here in the USA, I’ve noticed the successful organic farmers are actually a lot like the conventional farmers in that they make huge investments in machinery and technology to get all the extra work done. They don’t buy synthetic fertilizer but they do spend a lot of money importing manure from animals which were fed roundup ready crops raised with synthetic fertilizer. Probably not what the organic advocates have in mind….. And yes, flesh out an organic advocate long enough, they will tell you there’s just too many people.
I couldn't help but be wryly amused that the person championing organic farming (and criticising fascism) started complaining about immigrants; it did seem a little blood and soil. Should we tell him that many areas of UK farming are very dependent on immigrant labour?
This Oli mainly thinks of farming in terms of grains, legumes, and animals rather than fruit, vegetables, and other more luxurious stuff. Also, leftist socialists like George Galloway don't like open borders, because it requires more resources from the host state, and causes brain drain in the supplying state.
Yes, the stats were that 50% of the population required fertiliser to live, but the 10million number is clearly about migrants. 50% of the population would be more like 35million.
@@malkomalkavianthat's rather the point made in the video that I was alluding to. Such people insist the population needs to be reduced, yet he specifically blames the portion of the population who perform the labour organic farming would require. Presumably the retired will be soylent greened along with immigrants. Is he actually prepared to up tools and do some farming, or is he removing immigrants, yet insisting his countrymen service 'his' land for him so he may remain fed? Sounds awfully like aristocracy really.
The whole organic argument aside, I don't understand what is so wrong with family planning. China's one child policy was dumb and over the top, but come on, what is the need for 5 to 10 children per family? There was a time where that was necessary, but now thanks to advances in medicine, the child survival rate has improved dramatically, and people live longer. Even with technology advances, I think there is a limit to improving the yield of crops. Besides food, there's only so many resources to go around, housing, property, jobs etc.
i thought this over a bit, and why not just grow in indoor tunnels. spain does that and you can make it organic or not, ideally you could do it organically but then you increase your growing seasons and allow more plants to grow. and you can farm a lot more efficiently in less space. wouldn't work for wheat or rapeseed, and england would be competing with spain but i still think you could still do it organically and not use the haber bosch process
I have watched most of your videos on this topic and appreciate your insights. Here are my thoughts. This entire debate is really whether or not we should put faith in technology to continually support what is in reality an artificially propped up amount of people and urban lifestyles or simply allow that system to collapse sooner rather than later in order to avoid progressively increasing disastrous consequences. The main error here, I think, is the assumption that opting for the less disastrous path automatically makes you a fascist and therefore wrong/evil. The Malthusian assumption in response to a shift to natural (what you refer to as "organic") farming from conventional is also misguided. This is only true if you rely on the current records for mostly urban populations surviving (surprise!) on farming they do not themselves practice rather than every single family doing some form of sustenance farming in mostly non-urban environments. One actual consequence of this shift, admittedly, would be a shift of welfare responsibilities from the state back to charity groups and spiritual groups, since the way state welfare operates tends to require to concentration of disabled individuals in urban areas. Anyways, the whole ideology here is this: if you don't support liberal-capitalist technocracy then you are de facto a fascist. The logic is interesting though: people who support natural/traditional farming (what you call "organic" and I suspect you like to use that word because as you point out it was actual fascists who coined its use in agriculture originally) admit that people will die off (whether passively or actively) thru a switch to natural farming--yet they are not killing themselves, so that means they think other people and not them deserve to die--this implies a criteria of who deserves to live and who doesn't--ergo fascism. This of course ignores that this already happens rampantly in liberal capitalism via war, criminology, and abortion--simply having a standard of who gets to live or die is not fascism but in fact an operation of every political system in history. Indeed, this entire principle arguably happens more than ever in modernity because of the scale that industrial technology gives us in our ability to kill people. If the natural farmers necessarily want to choose to wipe out populations based on a modernist, Darwinian idea of race and genetics, then your argument here would be correct, but any traditional farming advocate doing so would already visibly be a fascist and not a crypto one as you are suggesting, and most traditional farming types are either far out hippies or, if they are on the right, are not fascist (ignoring that historically fascism is a leftist movement, but I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt here.) In his book "One Straw Revolution" Fukuoka, who was practicing natural farming (what would nowadays be called regenerative farming), was producing per acre as much as the most industrialized farms in Japan--this was in the 1960's-70's. If you have not read his books I definitely recommend them, as he goes over why natural farming (done correctly) is actually more calorie-efficient and less labor intensive than industrial farming.
As someone who works in farming with mostly regenerative farmers, I can say most of us do not like the term "organic" either and view it with cynicism.
Fukuoka was not producing as much as "industrial farmers". And even if he was (was not) what is produce does not matter per si. What matter is how much you can deliver to the market. Mix agriculture is much less efficient, in most process, and namely in its capacity to produce for the markets.
@@srantoniomatos Well, that is what he says in his book, going by bushel per acre. I suppose he could be lying, but many farmers in Japan visited his farm for this reason among others and were amazed by it even if they still stuck to conventional farming.
Regenerative farming is not necessarily organic. The problem with pure "conventional" systems is they tend to kill the soil. Pumping chemical fertilizers without a plan for maintaining a healthy field ecosystem is a lit like shooting steroids until organs start failing. As an aside, close to 40% of corn is used for ethanol. Replace that with nuclear and that is 10s of millions of acres that can be replaced with rotational grazing and human food production.
I bet we could go 100% organic, but the price would be loss of the rest of wildlife we got left on the planet, making at least half of ppl go back to the farms from cities, and huge life quality drop.
Good content, I had no idea about the roots of organic farming before your videos, but it really aligns with so much of the on-going ecological movement, degrowth, lower human living standards, etc. that will place undue burdens (and cause death and disease) for the poor to feel good about themselves. In reality we need more people to keep our living standards and way of life going.
*_Objection!_* Chemical based farming is robbing from Peter to pay Paul, eventually Peter isn't going to have anything for us to rob. I would also like to call into question the claim that farming without chemical additives is less productive. Less productive per man hour yes, but my experience demonstrates yields per acre comparable to or in some cases superior to chemical agriculture so long as you get the boots on the ground.
@@jonathanwhite460 I can't say I'm personally fond of large scale grain agriculture, but the below are my results from a brief Google search, which may or may not be accurate. UK organic wheat yields, at 4-5 t/ha, are comparable to conventional yields in the mid-1970s, and much higher than pre-war yield levels when no fertilisers were used. *EDIT:* right you wanted per acre. Splitting that 4-5 down the middle gets you 1.8 tons per acre *EDIT 2:* if that figure was using tonnes (metric tons) then it would be 1.98 Yank Tons per Acre
@@priestesslucy so your comment 'my experience demonstrates' is nonsense.and clearly farming with modern science is less productive,that is organic is yield around half,this is optimistic.With organic methods will result in year a with complete crop fail.
@@jonathanwhite460 🤷♀️ I feed my family organically off our land. Just because I grow our limited grain in small patches that don't attract swarms of pests doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. Chemical agriculture is not a long term solution, petrochemicals will continue to get progressively more expensive until we as a society can no longer afford it. You say organic results in crop failure. Mind showing me the magic that makes conventional immunite to crop failure? My production is a hell of a lot more resilient to drought and pest pressure than a system dependent on external inputs.
You could look at organic farming as pushback against the horrors of factory farming, where people are rightly horrified at the conditions their food is produced. Is it misguided? Maybe, but so is the other extreme. Recommend Reactions The End of Haber Bosch to put organics in context.
What we need is decentralisation of agriculture, more market gardening and people willing to grow food in their own gardens. I agree with your argument but it is laid out in an extremely black and white way. Obviously farming 100s of acres "organically" isnt going to work as well. But i believe smaller scale operations would be a lot more efficient in terms of output. Seed saving is another component to this too, which has created a system of debt for farmers, and could be argued is creating relience on other products like fertilisers and pesticides. Look into landrace gardening particularly Joseph Lofthouse's book. It adds a whole new angle to this subject.
P.s I also think the rewilding movement is anti human and i heavily disagree with it. Those people assume humans and nature are separate entities. I believe we can live as part of the ecosystem and in balance with nature. It annoys me that they just want to throw everybody into concrete megacities and leave land to go "wild". The obvious result of that is mass dependency on the system, and eventually mass starvation.
@@TransportSupremo its more of a cultural issue imo. Gardens are getting smaller though in new homes and people are getting pushed into apartments and flats in inner cities.
@@06a09 i agree. But considering the complete lack of use of most gardens. Smaller gardens is good. The insane waste of having millions of homes with pieces of grass being grown for no purpose in homes is insane. People should be using them to grow food. I personally dont even have a garden. I live on a farm and see no reason for it. Where one was there is some trees for nature and i farm the rest of the land.
This completely misses the increased yields of intensive polycultures. It will require more human labor as tractors become obsolete for superior yields per acre.
I have a very different take on this. Industrial / chemical agriculture is insanely labor efficient, but also insanely inefficient in regards to economic outputs (practically everyone is going bankrupt without subsidies), and health outcomes (chronic disease and obesity). If you compare caloric / nutritional and economic output of a food forest, or even a biointensive market garden, it would beat most monocroped nonsense. But it needs more people, who know what they are doing. We could easily feed double the current population, if more people were involved in farming than in candy production 😂
@@eingrobernerzustand3741 That's just a lie. And 50% of their income is government checks. Market gardens are already doing very well, with almost no subsidies and insane bureaucracy. I don't need to demonstrate anything, farmers need to open their eyes 😊 And governments need to stop paying for their failures. It would sort itself out rather quickly without their interventions.
@@eingrobernerzustand3741That's just a lie. Most farmers are decades behind, and if they weren't forced by the war and guided by subsidies, they'd just stick to whatever they always did. It'd take a couple of generations to replace them, if ever enough people were interested in cutting through all the red tape required to try anything else.
Your assertion that there was correlation between early organics and early 20th century fascism is correct, but your assertion that quid pro quo modern organics = fascism is fallacious. It's an invitation to 'throw the baby out with the bath-water'. Having said that, I agree that organics as a movement is quite 'cultish', and unfortunately much focussed on obtaining the premium price with the New- Age 'wellness' cult as its constant bedfellow. It is for that reason that in 22 years of farming and horticulture I have always been 'organic-adjacent' but never certified. For me, its all about planetary boundaries, which weren't even considered until the 'Limits to Growth' study in the 1960's and the resulting development of 'system dynamics' as a discipline determined that the overshoot of planetary boundaries occurred around 1975 when the Earths population was about 3 Billion. Damage caused by the 50 years of overshoot suggests that capacity is now reduced to around 1 or 2 Billion. You may have noticed that the indigenous populations of European countries have been intuitively reducing themselves to a sustainable level by breeding at less than replacement rate for many years now. Up steps the global financial elite, who have no alternative to 'growth paradigm'. Using the tools available to them- the USA & NATO's financial and military power- USA and NATO destroys the economies, social fabric and infrastructure of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. etc thus ensuring a constant supply of refugee population and breeders to replace the 'treacherous' indigenous Europeans that refuse to 'breed on demand' to supply Financialised Capitalism with the bodies it need to perpetuate it's cancerous growth. Had those countries not been thrown back into the dark ages, inc. the emergence of religious extremism that encourages large families, I believe it likely that they would have followed the West into self-directed, intuitive population reduction.
Organics is idealism not fascism. Link organic with nature and environmental health. Don’t link organic with fascism or racism. This guy is on payroll of fertilizer manufacturers. If people chose to eat organic food, farmers will cultivate organic food. Eating organic food is healthy for environment and for individual and biodiversity. Children growing in natural richness are healthier and happier. People should eat naturally rather than commercially and stop wasting food. It’s all about what people value. Humans occupy 10 percent of earth. Earth is big enough to support organic farming for entire population.
I enjoyed listening to your views, and agree with you about those who wish to reduce the population. But I'm not really interested to hear that the organic movement was supported by fascists. They probably supported jogging too. I think that using fewer chemicals would be a good thing in principle, and also that some people might like access to the land to grow their own food.
When you show that graph from Erisman at al. (2008) and keep saying that we "couldn't feed the people on the red zone", I think you are overstating. They can be fed, they just wouldn't have access to the cheap "food paraphernalia" they have been taught to buy (myself included). And, by the way, I bet it's the "developed" western world population in that red zone. It's not the farming practices that will determine whether we can feed the entire world population or not: it's the industrial dynamics, the international trade, the greed, and the absurd consumer behaviours we have developed.
I believe in you Ollie. Ignore the dickwads on your channel. If you haven't already you should look into the concept of new medievalism and incorporate that into one of your videos. A lot of people voted for Brexit because they were under the delusion that it'd cause us to regress to medieval types of agriculture because we'd be free from European common agricultural policy. It eventually persuaded even older hippie type people; the sorts of people you'd traditionally associate with being left wing; to vote for Brexit against their better judgement. Counting for abstentions, the Brexit vote didn't carry a majority. It was an undemocratic decision motivated by the whims of aristocratic privilege. There's a serious problem in the West of people wishing to regress to a simpler, more rural lifestyle; I'm sympathetic with them, and I want the same thing for myself, but I reject the philosophies and methodologies that could bring that about in practice. The realities of such things may lead to atrocities being committed in efforts to try and subvert contemporary democratic culture with a form of feudalism rising to replace it. Then there's the associated politics of immigration and notions of ethnic cleansing added to an already very fraught discussion. What results is a neo-fascist, or proto-fascist syndicate arising in the political mainstream and subverting all other forms of power beneath a military dictatorship. Is it conceivable that such things could happen in the West again?
As an organic farmer, I have to agree with you.
Organic farming is a luxury for the upper middle class and the rich. Our products are way more expensive than conventional farming because they require a lot more labour and, in some cases, will produce less than conventional farming.
Now, I have to disagree that the health of the soil isn't inherently correlated to the health of the livestock and the health of the people. When we spray chemical fertelizers and pesticides, the soil and the plants absorb them and go into our body when we eat them. The same happens with animals that are given certain anti-biotics. Now this small amount of unhealthy chemicals and such don't warrant extreme unhealthy changes in your body. But given enough time and exposure, they can increase the risk of certain diseases. Does this warrant a need to stop conventional farming? No. Like I said before, organic produce is a luxury for the whealthy. I will always recommend buying organic. But if you can't afford it, I won't tell you to starve to death.
One aspect of farming that you haven't talked about is those farms where chickens are all crammed together in a super small space. People tend to see these as evil. I tend to see them as the only way to keep meat prices down. I wonder what's your opinion on this.
When you look at the toxins that people put into their bodies, the chemicals sprayed on plants are miniscule. Animal products are different, however, people get overly concerned about pesticides and what not.
If someone is getting half their calories from sugar and the fats found in processed foods, with the emulsifiers and whatnot to make these products shelf stable, then that has to be seen as a lot of toxins.
To live on a healthy diet it is best to cut out the obvious garbage, then the body can do its job of dealing with the toxins that do arrive from non-organic farming practices.
@pdsnpsnldlqnop3330 makes total sense what you are saying. But I still prefer eating organic if I have the possibility.
@@FLopesVieira Given the choice, everyone would buy the organic produce if it was the same price and equally available. But the truth is that buying organic is usually conspicuous consumption. By the time I have that organic broccoli in the pot with a dozen other things, I can't tell if it is organic.
Hence I have not gone 'all in' with organic. I buy single ingredient foods and cook with them from scratch, thereby avoiding 99% of the toxins that would be in my diet if I was eating junk food and processed foods.
@@pdsnpsnldlqnop3330 a big problem in my country (Netherlands) is that the pesticides have got into the water supply, and that it is killing native insect populations. Pesticides and herbicides have a lot of other downsides besides health effects
@@armiferafatum2459 No more cheap gas from Russia has solved that problem. In the UK we no longer have plasticulture products from the Netherlands in the supermarkets. Everything shifted to the south of Spain, Morocco, Senegal and other water stressed countries where labour is cheaper and regulatory standards are lower.
I don't buy any of the salad plasticulture, I am more likely to buy a swede from Scotland or spring greens from Wales than anything overly intensive. Sure, there is still runoff but I don't eat animal products, so I am causing a fraction of the damage.
For me, a peasant's diet with modern inputs works out really well. Posh food isn't all that it is cracked up to be and neither is processed food any good.
I don't even use a fridge or freezer, yet I always have fresh food. The person in the UK buying organic posh foods impacts the planet much more than I do. I like the art of frugal food and I have made an art of it. So much aligns, whether it is health, wallet considerations, time spent in the kitchen, waste and even recycling.
Most people are not even trying. Meanwhile, I have the best food in abundance with no need to be concerned for being contradictory. I am the change I wish to see, even if there are nasty chemicals used here and there.
This recovering dairy farmer says Good Luck. A typical consumer in the developed world has no clue about how food gets to their dinner plate. Most Covid gardens are now weedy. Stay safe.
This is why I have labored hard to show my kid where food comes from. Eggs, vegetables, seeds, wheat, my goal is to ensure that she has seen them all growing and understands how much work they take to produce.
@@MrKoobuhgood on you, you're doing great work
I agree with you for most of this, although I do think regenerative farming can do everything that organic farming does and more.
Cholderton estate for example farms organically and regeneratively and still has 500 head of sheep and 600 head of cattle, plus arable. It is one of the most nature friendly farms in the UK and still provides a very good amount of food etc. Have you heard of this and what is your take on this? I’m not an expert so always keen to hear your opinion on things.
The things you are addressing are so important it is criminal this channel is not getting better traction in the algorithm
yep if you are interested in the expose of the influnce of this eugenisist and population obssessed malthusian theories genesis i recomend historian matthew ehrets books and his wife cynthia chung
Here's the conundrum: Organic farming is only viable if we reduce our population. Yet, organic farming is more labour-intensive. I'm seeing a problem here.
What if a greater share of the population participate in agriculture?
Wrong. All we have to do is subsidize agriculture correctly. Instead of just incentivizing every single farmer to grow primarily corn and soybeans. The real problem is corporate ownership of farmland, which makes agriculture a slave to the profit motive
Robots
@@kylenmaple4668It's always a red flag to hear someone state what the "problem is" regarding a complex topic, especially when it's accompanied with all "all we have to do" solution.
Farming in the modern age is a business, so the concept of eliminating "profit" from the activity is ludicrous. Should we return to pre modern times where the overwhelming majority of the population is involved in subsistence farming, then sure, farming is done to survive individually. I'm ok with that as I produce all I consume for a year. I even have the animals, skills, and equipment to return to pre industrial farming techniques should the other activists in the green movement get their way. I do think, however, that many urban individuals may find themselves going hungry. Again, I'm OK with that, as they need to actually be impacted with by the policies they advocate for.
A mostly vegan society (with regenerative poultry and occasional hunting) could feed about 100 billion people from current agricultural land (meat and dairy is insanely inefficient, yet gets most of the subsidies).
Market gardens and food forests are much more efficient in food production, but also way more labor intensive. I'd guess around 5% of workforce would be required, instead of the current 1%. But that would probably result in needing way less medical staff in chronic diseases, so overall the total workforce for other stuff could even increase.
Mechanization in food forests and vegetable farming will make tractors obsolete in a couple of decades. And hippies will probably complain that industry has taken their gardens 🙃
I think one of the biggest problems with our current system is food wastage, the US department of Agriculture estimates that 30-40% of food in the US goes to waste. With a better distribution system and a greater willingness by people to eat pickled or canned produce instead of exclusively fresh we could feed a lot more people. Also with EVs gaining in popularity could cause a large decline in corn to fuel alcohols which could free up more land for food production.
Combine that with the fact that our diets (in developed countries) are incredibly inefficient and feeding the planet organically would suddenly be a lot more feasibe. What I am pointing to is the consumption of animal produce: about 70-75% of global agricultural land is used for meat and dairy produce. Of course a large part of that is pasture, which may not always be usable for crops that can directly feed humans. Still, 43% of cropland is used to feed animals. To put that in to perspective further: 25kg of grain are used to produce a single kg of beef, 4kg are used to produce a single kg of chicken meat.
I farm organically because I chose too. I also believe that it would be disastrous if farmers were forced to farm organically. I ALSO believe that farmers have no compulsion to feed everyone. We have customers, not faithful followers. If you don't want/can't afford my products, eat/wear something else.
Sprays can absolutely mobilize nutrients and cause nutrient overload in waterways. Glyphosate mobilizes phosphorus, this has been known in the US for a few years. The combined impact of tillage, glyphosate, fungicide and so on means a nitrogen efficiency of about 40-45%, the rest goes down the river or in to the air, and causes various issues for aquatic life, well water, climate and even the biodiversity in wild ecosystems on land.
Though I am a fan of organic agriculture (because I don't want to rely on fertiliser supply chains and use toxic pesticides), I love your channel because it explains the sociology and politics of agriculture, something I didn't know even existed.
I didn't think agriculture had such an interesting history.
I am writing this to show my appreciation for your previous videos which I have watched, explaining the history of the Soil Association.
Would love to hear your opinion on regenerative farming, particularly adaptive multi-pasture grazing, with regards to these concerns about productivity and feeding people.
A lot of regenerative agriculture enthusiasts talk about increased “profit per acre” rather than “yield per acre” led by reduced costs. However, to my eyes if yield per acre drops across the country then that’s a significant reduction in food production and productivity, this may lead to an increase in food prices in the long term.
Any methods that lower my farms dependence on chemical fertiliser are welcome. The energy, expense, and labour are expensive; and add significantly to the bottom line. That being said, i need to maintain profits, and you as a consumer need me to maintain production rates
I personally want to grow organic because I don't want to be hit by fertiliser supply shocks like what happened after the war in Ukraine.
There are organic methods. You are just too lazy to search and learn. Actually organic farming is easy to be done, most organic farmers just do not get the insight.
@terusanzues6571 Enlighten me. Apparently, my doctorate in agricultural science and undergraduate in organic food production is worthless.
@@hairy-dairyman I can't tell you in here because it would be long talk, but I tell you what it is about: "Regenerative Agriculture". You can find by yourself some scientists that work on this field, I recommend; Christine Jones, Alan Savory, John Kemp, James White (Rhizophagy), the explanation yt 'Young Red Angus' about Johnson-Su compost is quite interesting. Actually, plants do not need any fertilizer (organic or inorganic (very bad)) because most of soil on earth has all mineral that the plants need, it is just our mistake in agricultural practices for over human history. You also need to differentiate working with organic and inorganic (conventional); manure is inorganic while compost is organic. You should understand Regenerative Agriculture priciples: no till, cover crop, diversity, no chemical fertilizer & insecticides-herbicides. Lastly, it is not related to Regenerative Agriculture but still similar, it is in Japan about "Natural Farming" and look up related people; Masanobu Fukuoka, Larry Korn and Yoshikazu Kawaguchi.
@@hairy-dairyman I can't tell you in here because it would be long talk, but I tell you what it is about: "Regenerative Agriculture". You can find yourself some scientists that work on this field, I recommend; Christine Jones, Alan Savory, John Kemp, James White (Rhizophagy), the explanation yt 'Young Red Angus' about Johnson-Su compost is quite interesting. Actually, plants do not need any fertilizer (organic or inorganic (very bad)) because most of soil on earth has all mineral that the plants need, it is just our mistake in agricultural practices for over human history. You also need to differentiate working with organic and inorganic (conventional); manure is inorganic while compost is organic. You should understand Regenerative Agriculture priciples: no till, cover crop, diversity, no chemical fertilizer & insecticides-herbicides. Lastly, it is not related to Regenerative Agriculture but still similar, it is in Japan about "Natural Farming" and look up related people; Masanobu Fukuoka, Larry Korn and Yoshikazu Kawaguchi.
I don't hold anything against people who are young, naive, and British.
Although I understand that the strict requirements of organic might limit certain results, I would strongly advise to have more cattle or other livestock on crop land making use of cover crops and to increase the organic matter in our soils to over 3%. We also shouldn't forget that meat is one of most nutritious foods that exists.
There are enough examples of farms producing more than most conventionally farmed land and have eliminated pesticides and fungicides and only use herbicides every 2nd or 3rd year.
It is important to find a way to have harvests with less hills and valleys and I think that starts with improving our soils to above 3% OM, improve the biodiversity around the crop land and reduce the use of products that put the the soil life and the stability of the crops at the risk.
I intend to farm in an urban environment, so I rely on low mechanization so that I can produce more in a smaller area. I have no issue with fertilizer. My primary interests are heritage (or more recently localized) crops and animals, small-scale intensive production techniques, an increased emphasis on perennial or otherwise slightly-lower-maintenance foodstuffs, and the least polluting ways to harvest bast fiber from plants (my other intended crops are flax, hemp, and Japanese banana).
"Organic" for me as a grower is just a search term to help me find techniques I might be able to use.
I would also be very interested in what your views are of more nebulous concepts like "permaculture" design. Do you think this movement carries the same baggage, very different baggage, or how does it play into more recent ... er ... husbandry politics?
Thank you, I do enjoy your videos, but rarely bother reading the comments so this one was even more enlightening. As conventional, grazing dairy farmers we just try to use the best of both worlds. I do not think most non farmers realize how restrictive many organic rules are. Nor how impractical they make the task of of running a viable business without the difficult to achieve organic premium. I fully support your statement that a compulsory switch to organic farming will solve the world overpopulation issue. Probably in less than a year.
I’ve loved the journey you’ve taken us on Oli. Please keep up the good work.
A conversation Ive had with non farmers about organic is how unsustainable it is from a volume standpoint and at least here in the states a labor shortage issue.
The best we can hope for short term is the continued growth of precision technology to prevent fertilizer and other chemical runoff into the environment, and then long-term start reducing meat agriculture. Lees feed lots and more free range grazing.
I'm in the great lakes region, and my worry will be the amount of rain we're forecasted to have over the next 50 years due to global warming. I don't know what technology will help with this, but from my reading, a focus on using compost and similar materials to absorb and retain the water during wet and dry seasons (e.g.. to prevent run off). Maybe new machinery that doesn't compact the soil as much? I'm a non-farmer, so I'd love to hear what farmers think of this and whether organic/regenerative can help.
@@Mastadex over water is easier to manage than less water. Billions are being spent on canals, levees and water management systems in the Mississippi basin… the army corps of engineers are preparing for the future.
The big concern for the Great Lakes is late spring frosts and early summer frosts. The jet stream becomes unstable with less sea ice and glaciers from what I’ve been reading
Labor shortage? Don't you mean job shortage?
@@priestesslucy no labor shortage. Less than 300,000 row crop farmers in the united state and the average age is 58. Pay is so tight families are finding it difficult to bring the next generation into the family business. Been a huge problem since the 80s.
I do organic farming, but as a hobby, in my half an acre of land dedicated to that, it's my leisure and my therapy. It does work quite well for fruits and cassava here in Brazil, I have to say, but people won't eat that many fruits. For grain production I can't see it working that well, although there are some people working on that. For cocoa production sintropic farming, for example, has gained traction since some farms proved the organic method is superior against droughts than the industrial method, since last year the drough and heat waves hit hard the cocoa production in Brasil. The cocoa plants that were among trees and with the soil covered in organic matter survived and produced as if nothing had happened. I'm a great admirer of nature, I have to say that the rewilding idea has a strong pull on me.
I like that you pick topics that make people in the comments seeth. Have you considered doing videos on ranching and pastoralism?
As usual a very well structured argument with much truth spoken.
Our lifestyle is half of the problem with the overflowing shelves of the supermarkets encouraging waste whilst people are quite unaware of food seasonality. Some UK schools try to teach their children where food comes from but most have no conception of the production of food. I have use of a little land on a farm to grow vegetables on and it’s difficult with insect pests and birds to get a good yield but then i look across at the adjacent arable field.
Numerous years have left the soil in very poor condition, clay with little that I would call topsoil and Bean crops for example that would be considered very poor in a garden context. The adjacent pasture has much better soil. Fertilisers and sprays keep production up whilst the supermarkets force payments down. How can the farmer expect to survive with from an organic four course rotation even though it promotes soil health. Those who complain of food prices dig their gardens up and dump the irreplaceable soil to pave their gardens, even those who choose to move out to our village to “enjoy” the countryside.
Organic farming is a lovely ideal but difficult in practice.
If the population reduced to say 2 billion then the 2 billion left would still use conventional farming techniques because society has moved on. I wouldn't want to go back to hoeing crops and hand picking weeds and nor would the remaining population. The only advantage to a reduction in population is the demand on resources. But on the flip side such a dramatic reduction would cause more wars and suffering. The real way we could all do our bit was to eat less and definitely waste less.
People need to understand that "organic" is mostly just a label on a box or a packet , not necessarily what is in it .
Broadly agree with this but think the argument that an organic feed Britain would need to reduce its population to 23m is tenuous. Its a slight of hand to allow the 46% sustained by imports currently but not in the organic calculation.
Also don't think you need any significant action to take to see the worlds population fall, birth rates are dropping and population is likely to start declining fairly rapidly over the following decades due to demographics- so i don't think pencilling in a potential lower demand is inherently evil. The issue would be that organic farming is more intensive in terms of labour per calorie, and labour would be more restricted in a situation of global population decline than today.
So in reality if we want the worlds population (whatever size it is) fed both well and cheaply the more capital intensive directions would need to be taken overall, but that doesn't necessarily mean more intensive farming everywhere, rather an intensification in some areas completely outcompeting other areas. Within this some aspects of organic farming or "rewilding" in targeted places can be appropriate in areas which can't compete in that high capital investment and labour costs environment and this process has happened repeatedly well before these terms exist, scotch whisky is by-product of these economic trends. In this farming is no different to other businesses, farming just uniquely impacts on the landscape and carries more emotional baggage than how centuries of efficiencies within transport has repeatedly changed economic logic and therefore urban and rural landscapes. So if there is a profit in it for niche businesses or if there is a wider social benefit that outweighs the lost efficiencies then organic or "rewilding" will be part of the picture. For example "rewilding" river catchments areas seen primarily as risk management required because of global warming is i think a sensible thing- the moral hazard comes in when the government focus is to sustain landowners profit margins as the core of a scheme.
Masanobu Fukuoka in his books makes the argument that regenerative farming done correctly is actually significantly more calorie efficient than conventional farming (most forget to factor in the building and upkeep and energy production for all the machinery).
@@ThePhilosophicalINFPin the context of calorie in, calorie out but not in the context of calorie to cost.
The FAO advocates for agro-ecology, my understanding is that this is a more pragmatic approach where you don't outright ban chemistry. I like that idea.
Once organic farmer here , no longer organic , no market for what we were producing , the only way forward would have been to create a brand and market our own produce and being organic adds no value if you are doing that , your drop in production going totally organic is not big enough , 50% would be a dream the reality will be far more than that and during some years you might get nothing , there are lots of things we learned being organic that we still do , in fact what we are doing now is in reality not far off organic status , if you are farming in an attempt to make a living in U.K. right now you will be fully aware of the cost of inputs and the absolute reality that your profitability depends on the economic use of everything you use , in short nothing is applied to a crop or given to an animal without it being needed and by needed I mean a risk of total loss without it , the people talking about rewinding need not worry , compared to 40 years ago there are huge swathes of land producing little or nothing , and that area is getting bigger , people generally hate farmers , certainly those who voted for Tony Blair do and the vast majority who voted for Mrs T are dead , society has changed and it became clear to me over 5 years ago that they will want to take farms off the families that have owned and worked them for hundreds of years and insert vegans and climate wombles who believe they know how to run them better , and I think they will succeed , the number of people leaving the industry along with their skills will mean agricultural business in many cases will cease , here in the U.K. we are not at the front of Modern Monetary Theory , we are lagging a long way behind through utterly incompetent governments
Very well said my friend
This man is changing my long held views on the topic of chemical fertilizers and organic farming . Never knew I would ever support chemical fertilizers . Full support from India 🇮🇳.
Regenerative farming and Permaculture are interests of mine I really appreciate the spotlight you’re putting on the difference between these and organic farming. This has definitely been a blind spot for me
Brilliant rebuttals. I gave a hitch hiker a lift once who told me all wee needed to do was to give everyone an acre and they can farm organically and support themself. I asked if they had worked out how many is able acres there are and if this was even possible but was told "Oh I don't know but I'm sure it would work.".
Of course its not just the right for whom simple agriculture is the answer to our woes. I am 100% sure you don't need to be told this but just a reminder for others the Pol Pot was a communist and seeked an agrarian society in a similar fashion and that didn't work out too well. Also Mao Tse Tung loved sending people out to the fields as he believed this was central to building the utopia but also loved telling them to smelt all their tools and that plan went a little awry.
I would say I think on a wider point a growing population serves no one except economic statistics and that population growth will reverse in the long term as this becomes more apparent. This however will take hundreds of years
It is already happening. Population is currently growing only in Africa and Arabia. China and Japan and Soouth Korea are experiencing the beginning stages of collapse.
I farm in the Southern United States. I agree with you. I get the same argument you get here. Farmers only do what works and insurers their survival. So we’re not going to harm our land and livestock. It Would mean an end to our lifestyle and livelihood. Town folk seem to think they know best. There lobbying for there own demise.
I don’t know any farmers that would rather spend money on in puts if they didn’t have to. The more one learns about the world, they will find it works the way it does for a reason.
Very true
One thing I want to note is that in the long term (over about 100 years) a population decline without any sort of invasive or unethical methods is possible. And the reason is that more and more people simply are choosing to have less children. Birth rates in countries across the world are below replacement levels of 2 births per women. In Ireland in 2023, the birth rate was 1.5 births per woman and I assume it's similar in Britain. This trend is true across the planet, with the only exceptions being in Sub-Saharan Africa, although their birth rate is expected to fall soon as they develop. With this in mind, it is possible that the global population will never hit 10 billion and we will see a natural population decline without the use of any invasive or unethical methods. Although this might be cold comfort to the organicists as it will take a long time to happen and they seem set on urgently implementing organic farming.
Agree totally. Suggesting that to even speak of population reduction is unethical, i.e.an unspoken suggestion that it necessarily involves forced sterilization or infanticide or murdering whole populations, is utter showboating. Of course the resulting reduced demand for agricultural produce and consequent fall in farm prices would never be a consideration to such an 'ethical' young man, would it?
yes this is all happening however,population drop is becoming an issue for developed nations as it involves an age shift in the population,that is to many old people not enough young; this results in not enough tax payers and wealth generators and to many retired people relying on those taxes etc to live off.
@@jonathanwhite460 A decreasing workforce is a challenge, but not an insurmountable one. If we invest into labour saving technology/automation, then the decreased amount of labour available will be made up for with machines.
@@jonathanwhite460 This is not a taxation issue- it's feasibility is always a matter of allocation of real resources- materials and labour. Mainstream economists will always propose that there is a problem of 'how do we pay?'- Their job is, on behalf of themselves and the private capital that pays their salaries, to trick the general public into believing that money is a finite and scarce resource (gold-standard mentality, and an 'easy sell' to the general public, because that's exactly how it is for businesses and households). In reality at a national level, the money supply is entirely flexible (both private banks and government have the capacity to create and destroy 'modern' money on demand) and can be bountiful up to the limit of the resources on which it can be spent (after which it becomes inflationary). The function of taxation is to create space in the economy to allocate resources to those things deemed socially necessary- in this case, to maintain a reasonable standard of living for those unable to work- including the elderly. Given technology's effect on human productivity, the birthrate would have to fall to a very low level to constrain the future labour resource to below the necessary level.
The UK could literally reduce population just by mostly closing its borders and booting out the refugees
Most excellent work young chap. I do have a few disagreements, but you're providing the world with an insightful series of videos. Very impressed, best of luck.🤠
I’m an organic no till “regenerative” producer. I’m not a proponent of a “cause” per se. The conventional side has come a long way. I do think they have a long way to go. I also don’t believe organic is being done properly in many cases, it is often worse environmentally than a well run conventional operation with intense data usage and precision techniques.
I just need the independence. I can’t see the point in making other people money, and making so little or none. It’s a pretty good gig.
I grow organically for my own reasons, and I agree with your assessment 100%. The way we grow is difficult and labor-intensive. We can't grow cheap food and we don't intend to, but we're not all whackjobs!😏 PS. I will gladly give food to anyone who asks free of charge and will also take trade and barter. Just because you grow organically doesn't necessarily mean you are greedy.
I enjoy these discussions. Austria is 30% organic farming. I think there is a good logical compromise - eg elimate biocidal laboratory chemicals but no issue with reasonable applications of inorganic elements - fertilisers - whether manure or industrial fertilisers. Improving soil biology is not incompatible with certain conventional practices. Large scale farmers eg Gabe Brown US cattle rancher is passionate about organic techniques eg rotational grazing never exposing soil etc. He says it takes about 4 years for soil biology to recover when switching to organic where the biology will recover and naturally release minerals from soil and sand. Quite often studies involve 1st year organic output versus conventional so the organic has not recovered and the output is poor .
You are an optimist with regards to the amount produced with organic farming. Before the advent of fertilizers, the world was barely able to feed 1 billion people. In other words: The Georgia Guidestones had "keep world pop at 500million" for a reason. 15 out of 16 people or 87% need to leave so that organic farming can feed the world.
Organic farming can still have higher production in areas like Pakistan because the land can produce even with low/No Synthetic Fertilizers whereas Areas like England can't produce as well with less synthetic fertilisers because of cold winds
and the weeds, a farm i worked on had a few fields next to organic ones and weeds just spread from their fields so readily
That happens in every field, I don’t know a farmer who doesn’t have problems with weeds, organic, intensive or anything else.
Amazing how many people are like, “Organic farming isn’t fascist, let me quickly elucidate some fascist policies and you will see.”
Fascinating and thought-provoking examination of reality vs ideology. Concerning the population, if people were to eat a great deal less (UK population is 66% overweight or obese) and also eat real food, rather than hyperprocessed chemical stews then we could support more healthy people. There is no likelihood that spreading the population widely round the world will help, farming generally is becoming more commercialised requiring less people per hectare to produce the same amount of food. People in developing countries are migrating to the towns and cities to escape the drudgery and uncertainty of family farming. Forcing people back onto the land will not work. Mao imposed a reduction of food in Communist China, and as with all Communist systems it was a failure, killing tens of millions of people, more than anyone else in history, including his Communist buddy, Stalin. So perhaps the Organic movement could advocate a Communist approach to agriculture instead of getting itchy about its Fascist roots?
This is the channel I have been waiting for well done love the content
I dairy farm in southern Ireland and i would love to go organic. You'd swear by peoples talk farmers enjoy spending money and time to buy and spread fertiliser. It would be great if there was ability to not have to without halving current production.
Unfortunately this doesn't exist. Many means of reducing fertiliser are there but none good. We're being encouraged to set multispecies swards at the moment but results from these are not living up to anything like conventional grass.
Reducing and using fertiliser as efficiently as possible is the solution. More land being put into organic and thus not producing will only mean other land needing to be more intensive to compensate.
And before someone comes in telling me it can be done ill be needing an actual example or study to show it.
I love your videos. These arguments are nuanced and well-considered, and you present them well. I look forward to hearing more. I'd be very interested to hear your take on the economic dangers of reliance on inputs which are not locally produced and possible workarounds. (Ideally, I'd love to see a miniaturized version of the haber-bosch process that can run on the scale of a single farm so that modern farms can vertically integrate more effectively). Would electric tractors be possible, desirable, or economically viable based on your experience (vertically integrating fuel via solar). What is your opinion on AI and automation in farming generally? Is it a positive good in your view for people to farm, irrespective of the output? (would it be a sad thing if all farming was automated?) What is the subjective core of your desire to farm? Is it an end in itself or purely a means to some other end? If it is an end in itself to some degree, what constraints does that place on what you will or will not do in your farming practices? What are your thoughts on the ideas of Henry George?
Thankyou! I came across your videos when researching what I might do with my wool and I thought them very interesting. To answer some of your questions, I think farming must feed people and not drive climate change (firstly) but also that it is a way of life that provides meaning to some people so they should be able to find fulfillment through this kind of work. So there is definitely a 'subjective' element - I have a great sentimental attachment to my land and community. Electric tractors might be difficult (although there have been some prototypes I understand), as a local haber process would be excellent if achievable. Ai and automation allow precision farming which has benefits and probably (?) Doesn't present a mortal risk to agricultural labour any more than continuing advancements in mechanisation do. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for responding to my comment, Oli. It’s not that I think we don’t need environmentalism. The issue I have with what I called the 'climate agenda' is that much of it presents the same problems as organic agriculture: more expensive food and energy, which causes hardship for many people, especially those already at the edge of their financial limits. I agree that we need environmentalism paired with affordable food policies and reasonable emissions targets, but I fear that's not what we have today.
Mitchell and Webb sketch still best of this generation
I mean, Lord Lymington was at least quite consistent and definitely a moral superior to the "too many people" loons running around.
Thankful most of these people are boomers soon to fulfil their own beliefs.
Absolutely excellent coverage of history, agri and aristo as well ❤️❤️❤️
First, thanks for the video, it really got me thinking!
But I was wondering if part of the reason why we should advocate for synthetic fertilizer free food systems, that synthetic fertilizer is an unsustainable resource? I say this in the sense that natural gases are simply not infinite. This would mean that at a certain point a very large famine is going to happen, if we want it or not. I'm personally, of course, against any forms of forced depopulation. But at least I would say an argument could be made that we do need to do something if we want to dodge this collapse. This could be done by investing in developing more sustainable farming methods, in which organic methods seem important. Also, if I'm not mistaken the reason why people have such powerful opinions on this topic, is because people actually care about the health and happiness of future generations (assuming that most people are empathetic to human wellbeing). I wonder if this is why a lot of people or so sympathetic to population reduction? Because they feel like it is unjust to keep going down this road. Which, if we don't find an alternative for synthetic fertilizer, would result in a great famine as well.
I would love to hear your(or anyone's) thoughts!
There are as many battles between vegans and meat eaters as there are pro organic and synthetic fertiliser groups and many, many more. As long as there is a choice to have both there should be no resentment really.
I would say that the till sales at the Supermarkets will be the judge, but I think that they deliberately scupper organic veg sometimes.
Whilst the term 'organic' does relate to a certain standard, it's not as high as people think it is, it doesn't necessarily mean the soil is being looked after for instance.
If anything this video highlights that the vast majority don't care where their food comes from or much else, all they want is cheap, perfect looking produce all year round and that's what they get.
If farmers think they can change that then good luck.
Sir, I salute you. And one day, with permission, I’d like to buy you a pint.
Probably need to have a discussion over the definition of what the term "organic" is today vs. 100 years ago.
Another fantastic video, Olli! Yours is truly one of the most informative, educational and entertaining sources for information on British agriculture I've come across.
As someone who lived for many years overseas, I find that there are many people in modern British society that have some rather odd ideas about food, about where it comes from, how its made, and its effects on our overall health. This takes many different forms: veganism, gluten-free, and, to an extent, organic.
I literally laughed out loud when I saw a certain national coffee chain advertising a "gluten free ploughman's lunch" sandwich.
I think many people express support for organic farming largely out of a belief that by not putting any "chemicals" in their food, they will lessen their risk of getting cancer or other serious disease. I think you've already explained why chemical fertilisers don't cause cancer. But some people aren't going to be persuaded.
Lastly, I'd be very interested in hearing your views on the role farming can play in restoring the health of Britain's waterways. I understand (and have to explain to many people I know) that a lot of our current problems with our water system has to do with things people do in their own homes. Like putting wet wipes down the loo, or paving over their front garden to create parking spaces. But in spite of that, as stewards of great stretches of Britain's land surface, surely farmers can, and do, have a great responsibility to help mitigate the effects of rainfall on our rivers and streams. What are your thoughts, as a farmer, on the return of beavers to small parts of Britain?
Best wishes, and many thanks!
Organic, regenerative, conventional - they're all tools that must be used where suitabe and needed. Ideally we would all want unspoiled nature and pure untainted food, but I agree that farmers do know more what works where and how it should be applied. Perhaps instead of enforcing re-wilding and "organic food", the focus should be on supermarkets squeezing farmers, or market mechanics placing demands that actually cause poor farming practices.
EROEI pre-mechanisation was 150%, and almost all of that renewable, but this did mean that 2/3 of the population worked in farming, thus 2/3 of the output went to feed farmers, labourers and horses.
EROEI of mechanised agriculture is a mere 10%, and almost all that energy input is non-renewable, i.e. fossil fuel.
This is the real 'elephant in the room' of modern farming, whether it be organic or otherwise.
i’m sympathetic to everything you say, *But* (* to denote me stepping out onto the thin ice) I think you also have to grapple with the issue that industrial agriculture may have created a paradox of enrichment which has allowed the human population to overshoot the planets carrying capacity. Which is also a hard truth.
So either 1) we have to reduce the resources required to provide the vast majority of people with a meaningful and worth while life
2) OOOOOooor the the logical conclusion is that we either have to select some people to …….. Not be here.
3) Oooooor we ignore the problems we have and have to face a very large population crash when the wheels fall off this high energy industrialised society.
Obviously the picture is mixed but to me it looks like we are on path 3) which is to just ignore problem and hope it goes away.
Path 1) would obviously be the best, but my god are people resistant to it. I think in part because the solutions that would cause 90+% reduction in resource consumption by their nature look very different to most people.
For instance, you use the word ‘peasant’ quite a lot. But arguably a peasant is just someone that gets most of what they need from an area of land around them. They can weave a wicker basket for instance.
So for instance if you say: ‘hey, not everyone, but wouldn’t it be great if more towns foke moved about by e-bike’ someone will rush up to respond: ‘you want to take us back to the dark ages.’ or if you say:’Hey some pulses taste great, cost very little and are good for your health’ the response is: ‘don’t ask me to eat like a peasant’.
So the question is, we have these 3 levers we can bring to bear on this problem. A) Population reduction B) Efficiency and C) magic technollogy.
We can all agree that the ‘Population reduction’ leaver can’t be pulled at all.
So we are left with some mixture of B) and C) e.g. eating pulses not meat,we can call this lower preference foods. Or Magic technology.
But the trouble is waiting for the magic technology could have disappointing results where, if it doesn’t materialise, everyone dies.
We are accelerating toward a cliff edge and we haven’t even pumped the breaks to see if they work.
As someone who has had a very good go at producing as much of a 4 persons house holds food as possible, I have a great respect for farmers and what they do. And I’m very realistic about my ability to produce calories (I have a spread sheet). But I do think there is a lot to be said for increasing the number of people who have a working knowledge of what it takes to make food.
[FYI we are not organic cos we use slug pellets.]
No-one who has had a polly tunnel of lettuce turned to sludge in days by aphids is an enemy of commercial farmers or chemicals…
can we look at a possible conflation between international commodity production and local food production? and maybe their disparate perspectives on the world's resources and it's peoples...
The confluence of two threads puts organic farming back into the class-based box it belongs. Firstly is Regenerative Agriculture's contribution. Fully regenerated soil is a teeming, interdependent mass of fungi and bacteria locating, extracting and shipping the nutrients their energy suppliers need. Secondly, the growing acceptance of the keto-carnivore diet (optimal human nutrition) means many traditional crops and the methods/skills involved to create abundance will become redundant. Rotating stock, chicken tractors, clever composting... are the new Orange. Science, not fairies feed the world. Sustaining a humus layer so we never even need to see the soil again is the ticket to pastoral bliss. Thx for the opportunity to rant.
Man, thanks for talking about these things that is rampant in every corner of farming world; and i can adress this too for experience in brazil where some parts of leftists are trying to impose this kind of thinking in universities and ngo's
If the organic farmer has less output than a non organic farmer, then that is just a skill issue. Organic is not the whole deal, it is just the base line. As you said, it pretty much just is going back to older farming methods. But just because modern organic farms on average yield less, doesn't mean it can't yield as much as non organic. The majority of our air is nitrogen, sooo yeah we can try get ourselfs into the world of endophytes! People who say stuff like the population control or something should happen are fricking weird. We can feed everyone without haber-bosch.
As a member of the class which caused (or oversaw, if you want to be kind) famines in Ireland and India, you would think that Lord Lymington would know that mass disorder that destroys civilization isn't an inevitable famine outcome. As long as the soldiers are well fed, as they were under the British (and under the Soviets in Ukraine, to pick the ideological flip side), starving people can be contained in place to weaken and die. The European aristocracy kept its power through hundreds of famines over the course of a millennium, and only lost it after European famine had been defeated.
More then once i was in conversations with people saying "chemical agriculture" is awfull, a crime, and only eat "organic"...while they put another line up their noses!
theres a lot more to sustainability than climate change. fields wash the life out of small streams over time just with sand, no chemicals needed. classical agriculture is not cyclic and the environmental effects are not part of a healthy system that balances itself out. In many cases we still don't understand long term effects, what we do know is that a lot of debt has already been accrued for future generations, and we can never quite be sure what harm we are doing unless our methods actually integrate into natural cycles.
Is spraying agricultural chemicals drifting on homes and gardens a cult?
Thats a bad neighbour. Give out to them
Thank you for these videos and for pushing back on these inconsistent ideas
Australia has more organic farmland than the rest of the world combined. It’s the most productive use of the land and it’s in no way a reduction in production from conventional agriculture.
Here in the USA, I’ve noticed the successful organic farmers are actually a lot like the conventional farmers in that they make huge investments in machinery and technology to get all the extra work done. They don’t buy synthetic fertilizer but they do spend a lot of money importing manure from animals which were fed roundup ready crops raised with synthetic fertilizer. Probably not what the organic advocates have in mind….. And yes, flesh out an organic advocate long enough, they will tell you there’s just too many people.
Its not organic if they import animal fertilizer made with normal crops.
I couldn't help but be wryly amused that the person championing organic farming (and criticising fascism) started complaining about immigrants; it did seem a little blood and soil.
Should we tell him that many areas of UK farming are very dependent on immigrant labour?
This Oli mainly thinks of farming in terms of grains, legumes, and animals rather than fruit, vegetables, and other more luxurious stuff.
Also, leftist socialists like George Galloway don't like open borders, because it requires more resources from the host state, and causes brain drain in the supplying state.
Yes, the stats were that 50% of the population required fertiliser to live, but the 10million number is clearly about migrants. 50% of the population would be more like 35million.
@@malkomalkavianthat's rather the point made in the video that I was alluding to. Such people insist the population needs to be reduced, yet he specifically blames the portion of the population who perform the labour organic farming would require. Presumably the retired will be soylent greened along with immigrants. Is he actually prepared to up tools and do some farming, or is he removing immigrants, yet insisting his countrymen service 'his' land for him so he may remain fed?
Sounds awfully like aristocracy really.
why is exploitative migrant labour a good thing?
@@toddberkely6791 Why is asking a loaded prejudicial question something you think is worth anyone's time?
Wow,well done thought provoking and who knew about the Fascist ideology behind the organic movement.
The whole organic argument aside, I don't understand what is so wrong with family planning. China's one child policy was dumb and over the top, but come on, what is the need for 5 to 10 children per family? There was a time where that was necessary, but now thanks to advances in medicine, the child survival rate has improved dramatically, and people live longer. Even with technology advances, I think there is a limit to improving the yield of crops. Besides food, there's only so many resources to go around, housing, property, jobs etc.
i thought this over a bit, and why not just grow in indoor tunnels. spain does that and you can make it organic or not, ideally you could do it organically but then you increase your growing seasons and allow more plants to grow. and you can farm a lot more efficiently in less space. wouldn't work for wheat or rapeseed, and england would be competing with spain but i still think you could still do it organically and not use the haber bosch process
I have watched most of your videos on this topic and appreciate your insights. Here are my thoughts.
This entire debate is really whether or not we should put faith in technology to continually support what is in reality an artificially propped up amount of people and urban lifestyles or simply allow that system to collapse sooner rather than later in order to avoid progressively increasing disastrous consequences. The main error here, I think, is the assumption that opting for the less disastrous path automatically makes you a fascist and therefore wrong/evil.
The Malthusian assumption in response to a shift to natural (what you refer to as "organic") farming from conventional is also misguided. This is only true if you rely on the current records for mostly urban populations surviving (surprise!) on farming they do not themselves practice rather than every single family doing some form of sustenance farming in mostly non-urban environments. One actual consequence of this shift, admittedly, would be a shift of welfare responsibilities from the state back to charity groups and spiritual groups, since the way state welfare operates tends to require to concentration of disabled individuals in urban areas.
Anyways, the whole ideology here is this: if you don't support liberal-capitalist technocracy then you are de facto a fascist. The logic is interesting though: people who support natural/traditional farming (what you call "organic" and I suspect you like to use that word because as you point out it was actual fascists who coined its use in agriculture originally) admit that people will die off (whether passively or actively) thru a switch to natural farming--yet they are not killing themselves, so that means they think other people and not them deserve to die--this implies a criteria of who deserves to live and who doesn't--ergo fascism.
This of course ignores that this already happens rampantly in liberal capitalism via war, criminology, and abortion--simply having a standard of who gets to live or die is not fascism but in fact an operation of every political system in history. Indeed, this entire principle arguably happens more than ever in modernity because of the scale that industrial technology gives us in our ability to kill people.
If the natural farmers necessarily want to choose to wipe out populations based on a modernist, Darwinian idea of race and genetics, then your argument here would be correct, but any traditional farming advocate doing so would already visibly be a fascist and not a crypto one as you are suggesting, and most traditional farming types are either far out hippies or, if they are on the right, are not fascist (ignoring that historically fascism is a leftist movement, but I'm granting you the benefit of the doubt here.)
In his book "One Straw Revolution" Fukuoka, who was practicing natural farming (what would nowadays be called regenerative farming), was producing per acre as much as the most industrialized farms in Japan--this was in the 1960's-70's. If you have not read his books I definitely recommend them, as he goes over why natural farming (done correctly) is actually more calorie-efficient and less labor intensive than industrial farming.
As someone who works in farming with mostly regenerative farmers, I can say most of us do not like the term "organic" either and view it with cynicism.
Fukuoka was not producing as much as "industrial farmers".
And even if he was (was not) what is produce does not matter per si. What matter is how much you can deliver to the market. Mix agriculture is much less efficient, in most process, and namely in its capacity to produce for the markets.
@@srantoniomatos Well, that is what he says in his book, going by bushel per acre. I suppose he could be lying, but many farmers in Japan visited his farm for this reason among others and were amazed by it even if they still stuck to conventional farming.
@@ThePhilosophicalINFP in 5 years "regenerative" will also be assimilated into another meaningless buzzword.
@@toddberkely6791 Yes. I still find Fukuoka's "natural" farming most useful, and it never really seemed to have caught on.
Regenerative farming is not necessarily organic. The problem with pure "conventional" systems is they tend to kill the soil.
Pumping chemical fertilizers without a plan for maintaining a healthy field ecosystem is a lit like shooting steroids until organs start failing.
As an aside, close to 40% of corn is used for ethanol. Replace that with nuclear and that is 10s of millions of acres that can be replaced with rotational grazing and human food production.
Love the way you explain everything about farming! 🌿 Your tips are super helpful! 🙌
Well done sir, you have, incredibly gracefully, shut down each and every comment. ive enjoyed this
organic farming is a waste of time. I tried it for a year or two. I finish a good few cattle, and it is impossible and quite depressing
to.
I bet we could go 100% organic, but the price would be loss of the rest of wildlife we got left on the planet, making at least half of ppl go back to the farms from cities, and huge life quality drop.
Good content, I had no idea about the roots of organic farming before your videos, but it really aligns with so much of the on-going ecological movement, degrowth, lower human living standards, etc. that will place undue burdens (and cause death and disease) for the poor to feel good about themselves. In reality we need more people to keep our living standards and way of life going.
Eugenics was a good idea but it didn’t end well!
It was done well in many different situations. It could also be improved.
*_Objection!_*
Chemical based farming is robbing from Peter to pay Paul, eventually Peter isn't going to have anything for us to rob.
I would also like to call into question the claim that farming without chemical additives is less productive. Less productive per man hour yes, but my experience demonstrates yields per acre comparable to or in some cases superior to chemical agriculture so long as you get the boots on the ground.
how many tonnes per acre of wheat do you get per acre organic farming,?some figures would be interesting.
@@jonathanwhite460 I can't say I'm personally fond of large scale grain agriculture, but the below are my results from a brief Google search, which may or may not be accurate.
UK organic wheat yields, at 4-5 t/ha, are comparable to conventional yields in the mid-1970s, and much higher than pre-war yield levels when no fertilisers were used.
*EDIT:* right you wanted per acre. Splitting that 4-5 down the middle gets you 1.8 tons per acre
*EDIT 2:* if that figure was using tonnes (metric tons) then it would be 1.98 Yank Tons per Acre
@@priestesslucy so your comment 'my experience demonstrates' is nonsense.and clearly farming with modern science is less productive,that is organic is yield around half,this is optimistic.With organic methods will result in year a with complete crop fail.
@@jonathanwhite460 🤷♀️ I feed my family organically off our land. Just because I grow our limited grain in small patches that don't attract swarms of pests doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.
Chemical agriculture is not a long term solution, petrochemicals will continue to get progressively more expensive until we as a society can no longer afford it.
You say organic results in crop failure. Mind showing me the magic that makes conventional immunite to crop failure?
My production is a hell of a lot more resilient to drought and pest pressure than a system dependent on external inputs.
@@priestesslucy so what yield do you get per acre?and over what acreage?
You could look at organic farming as pushback against the horrors of factory farming, where people are rightly horrified at the conditions their food is produced.
Is it misguided? Maybe, but so is the other extreme.
Recommend Reactions The End of Haber Bosch to put organics in context.
I don't think the plants are too concerned.
And if one is horrified of animals treatment, you simply go vegan.
What we need is decentralisation of agriculture, more market gardening and people willing to grow food in their own gardens.
I agree with your argument but it is laid out in an extremely black and white way.
Obviously farming 100s of acres "organically" isnt going to work as well. But i believe smaller scale operations would be a lot more efficient in terms of output.
Seed saving is another component to this too, which has created a system of debt for farmers, and could be argued is creating relience on other products like fertilisers and pesticides.
Look into landrace gardening particularly Joseph Lofthouse's book. It adds a whole new angle to this subject.
P.s I also think the rewilding movement is anti human and i heavily disagree with it. Those people assume humans and nature are separate entities. I believe we can live as part of the ecosystem and in balance with nature. It annoys me that they just want to throw everybody into concrete megacities and leave land to go "wild".
The obvious result of that is mass dependency on the system, and eventually mass starvation.
Anyone is already free to do this if they have a garden
@@TransportSupremo its more of a cultural issue imo. Gardens are getting smaller though in new homes and people are getting pushed into apartments and flats in inner cities.
@@06a09 i agree. But considering the complete lack of use of most gardens. Smaller gardens is good. The insane waste of having millions of homes with pieces of grass being grown for no purpose in homes is insane. People should be using them to grow food. I personally dont even have a garden. I live on a farm and see no reason for it. Where one was there is some trees for nature and i farm the rest of the land.
More CO2 = larger crops, No?
No
This completely misses the increased yields of intensive polycultures. It will require more human labor as tractors become obsolete for superior yields per acre.
Utter nonsense.
@@TransportSupremo OH dang u right, glad everyone can stop demonstrating
@@marclipska1991 show us these great demonstrations
I have a very different take on this. Industrial / chemical agriculture is insanely labor efficient, but also insanely inefficient in regards to economic outputs (practically everyone is going bankrupt without subsidies), and health outcomes (chronic disease and obesity).
If you compare caloric / nutritional and economic output of a food forest, or even a biointensive market garden, it would beat most monocroped nonsense. But it needs more people, who know what they are doing.
We could easily feed double the current population, if more people were involved in farming than in candy production 😂
@@eingrobernerzustand3741 That's just a lie. And 50% of their income is government checks. Market gardens are already doing very well, with almost no subsidies and insane bureaucracy. I don't need to demonstrate anything, farmers need to open their eyes 😊
And governments need to stop paying for their failures. It would sort itself out rather quickly without their interventions.
@@eingrobernerzustand3741That's just a lie. Most farmers are decades behind, and if they weren't forced by the war and guided by subsidies, they'd just stick to whatever they always did.
It'd take a couple of generations to replace them, if ever enough people were interested in cutting through all the red tape required to try anything else.
I feed 400 people with my farm labour. How many do you?
Excellent video
Your assertion that there was correlation between early organics and early 20th century fascism is correct, but your assertion that quid pro quo modern organics = fascism is fallacious. It's an invitation to 'throw the baby out with the bath-water'. Having said that, I agree that organics as a movement is quite 'cultish', and unfortunately much focussed on obtaining the premium price with the New- Age 'wellness' cult as its constant bedfellow. It is for that reason that in 22 years of farming and horticulture I have always been 'organic-adjacent' but never certified.
For me, its all about planetary boundaries, which weren't even considered until the 'Limits to Growth' study in the 1960's and the resulting development of 'system dynamics' as a discipline determined that the overshoot of planetary boundaries occurred around 1975 when the Earths population was about 3 Billion. Damage caused by the 50 years of overshoot suggests that capacity is now reduced to around 1 or 2 Billion.
You may have noticed that the indigenous populations of European countries have been intuitively reducing themselves to a sustainable level by breeding at less than replacement rate for many years now. Up steps the global financial elite, who have no alternative to 'growth paradigm'. Using the tools available to them- the USA & NATO's financial and military power- USA and NATO destroys the economies, social fabric and infrastructure of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc. etc thus ensuring a constant supply of refugee population and breeders to replace the 'treacherous' indigenous Europeans that refuse to 'breed on demand' to supply Financialised Capitalism with the bodies it need to perpetuate it's cancerous growth. Had those countries not been thrown back into the dark ages, inc. the emergence of religious extremism that encourages large families, I believe it likely that they would have followed the West into self-directed, intuitive population reduction.
Organics is idealism not fascism. Link organic with nature and environmental health. Don’t link organic with fascism or racism. This guy is on payroll of fertilizer manufacturers. If people chose to eat organic food, farmers will cultivate organic food. Eating organic food is healthy for environment and for individual and biodiversity. Children growing in natural richness are healthier and happier. People should eat naturally rather than commercially and stop wasting food. It’s all about what people value. Humans occupy 10 percent of earth. Earth is big enough to support organic farming for entire population.
Nowdays "organic agriculture" = plastic agriculture.
Brilliant video Ollie 👍
I enjoyed listening to your views, and agree with you about those who wish to reduce the population. But I'm not really interested to hear that the organic movement was supported by fascists. They probably supported jogging too.
I think that using fewer chemicals would be a good thing in principle, and also that some people might like access to the land to grow their own food.
When you show that graph from Erisman at al. (2008) and keep saying that we "couldn't feed the people on the red zone", I think you are overstating. They can be fed, they just wouldn't have access to the cheap "food paraphernalia" they have been taught to buy (myself included). And, by the way, I bet it's the "developed" western world population in that red zone.
It's not the farming practices that will determine whether we can feed the entire world population or not: it's the industrial dynamics, the international trade, the greed, and the absurd consumer behaviours we have developed.
One of Ollie's best
Very good video.
They would lead by example and do the gentlemanny thing😂😂🎉
Is this chap a farmer?
Very sharp - well done!
Good job!
I believe in you Ollie. Ignore the dickwads on your channel. If you haven't already you should look into the concept of new medievalism and incorporate that into one of your videos. A lot of people voted for Brexit because they were under the delusion that it'd cause us to regress to medieval types of agriculture because we'd be free from European common agricultural policy. It eventually persuaded even older hippie type people; the sorts of people you'd traditionally associate with being left wing; to vote for Brexit against their better judgement. Counting for abstentions, the Brexit vote didn't carry a majority. It was an undemocratic decision motivated by the whims of aristocratic privilege. There's a serious problem in the West of people wishing to regress to a simpler, more rural lifestyle; I'm sympathetic with them, and I want the same thing for myself, but I reject the philosophies and methodologies that could bring that about in practice. The realities of such things may lead to atrocities being committed in efforts to try and subvert contemporary democratic culture with a form of feudalism rising to replace it. Then there's the associated politics of immigration and notions of ethnic cleansing added to an already very fraught discussion. What results is a neo-fascist, or proto-fascist syndicate arising in the political mainstream and subverting all other forms of power beneath a military dictatorship. Is it conceivable that such things could happen in the West again?
Why this take though? What if you pay people to not have children? Is that too easy?
You can start paying them
Eugenics was awesome.
thanks