Growth in Domestic Food Production in Britain During & After WW2

[mike]

I came across some interesting statistics when listening to a podcast yesterday. Apparently, before WWII, Britain produced only about 30% of its food and imported about 70%. By the end of the war, Britain produced about 40% domestically. And it continued rising, reaching 60% by 1970.

The reasons given for the low rate of domestic food production prior to the war were simple economics. Food could be imported more cheaply from the Americas and elsewhere, and so many farms and buildings in Britain were run down and disused. What was fascinating to me is how quickly agriculture recovered when the incentive was there.

I think the fear of the world running out of food does not consider how quickly food supplies can be generated when there is economic incentive. I buy at produce auctions regularly, for years at this point, and it is obvious that farmers keenly watch the market and supply/demand and base their decisions of what and how much to grow on the numbers. There is a lot of land that can quickly be switched over to food production if demand exists.

Flowers and plants prices shot up during 2020, and growers increased production over the next several years and reaped the benefits. But I think in the last year or so, demand has dropped back again, and my observation is that auction prices overall have dropped significantly from 2020-2021 levels. Next year, they will probably grow less product.

The bottom line is that it is amazing what you can do, if you have to. History proves that massive turnarounds can be achieved when there is incentive.

[barnhart]

A good portion of that increased production came from mechanization. I read accounts of the last plowing competition held in a small English town after the war. The champion horses were sent directly to be butchered for meat as plowing was now done with tractors imported from America.

I agree with your broader point, economics are powerful forces. The US employed economic strategies to lower food prices as part of the anti-soviet/anti-communist movement. It was effective, soviets starved while the US grew fat. But the other side of that coin was decreasing profit margins in farming leading to mega farms and eventually imports.

[JohnH]

A good portion of that increased production came from mechanization. I read accounts of the last plowing competition held in a small English town after the war. The champion horses were sent directly to be butchered for meat as plowing was now done with tractors imported from America.

I agree with your broader point, economics are powerful forces. The US employed economic strategies to lower food prices as part of the anti-soviet/anti-communist movement. It was effective, soviets starved while the US grew fat. But the other side of that coin was decreasing profit margins in farming leading to mega farms and eventually imports.

Imports? America exports billions of agricultural products. Imports are mostly seasonal stuff that can’t be grown here at a larger scale (eg coffee, cocoa, produce out of season) or luxury goods.

[mike]

A good portion of that increased production came from mechanization. I read accounts of the last plowing competition held in a small English town after the war. The champion horses were sent directly to be butchered for meat as plowing was now done with tractors imported from America.

But mechanization happened during WW2 again because of the sudden economic incentives. And a lot of the tractors apparently were built in England by hastily constructed factories. Smaller farms that couldn’t afford their own equipment joined machine pools from which each could rent tractors, harvesters, etc. The tractor brands sounded American to me, I.e Fordson, but I believe at least a good portion if not more were being made in the UK. Remember shipments from the US weren’t fully reliable early in the war due to U-boat attacks on convoys.

I believe I heard on the podcast that the English government requested farmers to turn over an additional million acres into food crops, and the farmers must have done it.

[barnhart]

A good portion of that increased production came from mechanization. I read accounts of the last plowing competition held in a small English town after the war. The champion horses were sent directly to be butchered for meat as plowing was now done with tractors imported from America.

But mechanization happened during WW2 again because of the sudden economic incentives. And a lot of the tractors apparently were built in England by hastily constructed factories. Smaller farms that couldn’t afford their own equipment joined machine pools from which each could rent tractors, harvesters, etc. The tractor brands sounded American to me, I.e Fordson, but I believe at least a good portion if not more were being made in the UK. Remember shipments from the US weren’t fully reliable early in the war due to U-boat attacks on convoys.

I believe I heard on the podcast that the English government requested farmers to turn over an additional million acres into food crops, and the farmers must have done it.

It didn't take long for factories to be set up in postwar England to be sure. I basically agree with your premise but I think it is fair to notice economic incentives are more often synthetic (created by government) than organic. We chose cheap food as a strategy against communism with little concern for the long-term economic interests of agriculture.

[mike]

A good portion of that increased production came from mechanization. I read accounts of the last plowing competition held in a small English town after the war. The champion horses were sent directly to be butchered for meat as plowing was now done with tractors imported from America.

But mechanization happened during WW2 again because of the sudden economic incentives. And a lot of the tractors apparently were built in England by hastily constructed factories. Smaller farms that couldn’t afford their own equipment joined machine pools from which each could rent tractors, harvesters, etc. The tractor brands sounded American to me, I.e Fordson, but I believe at least a good portion if not more were being made in the UK. Remember shipments from the US weren’t fully reliable early in the war due to U-boat attacks on convoys.

I believe I heard on the podcast that the English government requested farmers to turn over an additional million acres into food crops, and the farmers must have done it.

It didn't take long for factories to be set up in postwar England to be sure. I basically agree with your premise but I think it is fair to notice economic incentives are more often synthetic (created by government) than organic. We chose cheap food as a strategy against communism with little concern for the long-term economic interests of agriculture.

In the case of England, I assume that government created some of the economic incentive, but survival was a strong incentive of itself. The whole country knew what it was facing down with the war.

In the case of the US, farmers operate at the margins of profitability, just like many other businesses. The government subsidizes agriculture for whatever reason, whether from disasters or market downturns, to ensure competitiveness against rival nations, or just simply because they want to give aid to a vital industry. I don't know. But the fact of it is, farmers are primarily driven by economic incentive, and they make decisions based on market (economic) conditions. The produce farmers I know don't get government money. And the fact remains that very large shifts in food production can be made quickly if the incentive is there, whether that incentive comes from the government or from normal supply/demand.

[mike]

Number of tractors in Britain 1939: 56,000 1946: 203,000
Number of farm horses 1939: 649,000 1945: 545,000

[joshuabgood]

A good portion of that increased production came from mechanization. I read accounts of the last plowing competition held in a small English town after the war. The champion horses were sent directly to be butchered for meat as plowing was now done with tractors imported from America.

But mechanization happened during WW2 again because of the sudden economic incentives. And a lot of the tractors apparently were built in England by hastily constructed factories. Smaller farms that couldn’t afford their own equipment joined machine pools from which each could rent tractors, harvesters, etc. The tractor brands sounded American to me, I.e Fordson, but I believe at least a good portion if not more were being made in the UK. Remember shipments from the US weren’t fully reliable early in the war due to U-boat attacks on convoys.

I believe I heard on the podcast that the English government requested farmers to turn over an additional million acres into food crops, and the farmers must have done it.

It didn't take long for factories to be set up in postwar England to be sure. I basically agree with your premise but I think it is fair to notice economic incentives are more often synthetic (created by government) than organic. We chose cheap food as a strategy against communism with little concern for the long-term economic interests of agriculture.

I have never heard the argument that US food production was aimed at communism. I would always have attributed it to the FDR era subsidies inflating the market (which still exist) and artificially driving down prices. But that said New Deal subsidies were well intentioned...though perhaps, from my perspective, ill advised.

[barnhart]

I have never heard the argument that US food production was aimed at communism. I would always have attributed it to the FDR era subsidies inflating the market (which still exist) and artificially driving down prices. But that said New Deal subsidies were well intentioned...though perhaps, from my perspective, ill advised.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-th ... -cold-war/

[mike]

I have never heard the argument that US food production was aimed at communism. I would always have attributed it to the FDR era subsidies inflating the market (which still exist) and artificially driving down prices. But that said New Deal subsidies were well intentioned...though perhaps, from my perspective, ill advised.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/how-th ... -cold-war/

The freakonomics episode summary says:

Aisle upon aisle of fresh produce, cheap meat, and sugary cereal — a delicious embodiment of free-market capitalism, right? Not quite. The supermarket was in fact the endpoint of the U.S. government’s battle for agricultural abundance against the U.S.S.R. Our farm policies were built to dominate, not necessarily to nourish — and we are still living with the consequences.

That strikes me as simplistic and historically suspect. It would be worth reading the ChatGPT response to the question of whether that summary is true. ChatGPT rates the claims in that paragraph respectively as No, Partly True, Mostly False, True, False/misleading, Substantially True, True, Simplistic.