During World Wars One and Two, Americans (and people in other countries) were encouraged to have “victory gardens”. These were gardens planted with vegetable in people’s backyards and such.
I’m not clear what the point was. Let’s say me and my neighbor have similar plots of land and he decides to grow vegetables in his back yard and I decide not to.
Other than pointed looks and veiled accusations of being an enemy agent, what are the results?
We’re both presumably on food rations. Does his rations get reduced because he’s growing his own food so he needs to buy less? Or do we get the same amount of rationed food and the food he grows is extra food he gets and I don’t?
Or was the food grown in victory gardens not intended for personal consumption? When you harvested your vegetables, did you donate them to some agency that would use them in the war effort?
They were meant for personal/family consumption, in a time when retail food supplies were tight, and when resources for commercially growing and transporting food could be used for other things.
Also, they were intended to be a morale booster, to help Americans feel like they were doing something to contribute to the war effort, even if they were not serving in the military or working in a factory building war materiel.
Also, insurance against the possibility of more severe food shortages and food distribution network disruptions. We’re used to thinking of the continental US in WWII as physically secure and far removed from direct attack, but that’s hindsight: people at the time had no assurance that things would stay that way.
Take out the “war” factor. Does “my neighbor has a garden and I don’t: does that mean that he has garden produce and I don’t” seem like a difficult question?
The point is that there’s now more fresh vegetables in the system than there would have been otherwise, and the population is, on average, healthier. Plus, it keeps people busy, which is good for morale.
More food for the public. Less demand for farming, the manpower to work the farms, the fuel to carry goods to market, etc. Or from a different perspective, more food despite rations. Less farmhands, more soldiers.
I recall reading somewhere that fuel was rationed to reduce the demand for rubber (tires) so I assume to some extent rationing was intended to reduce frivolous consumption to concentrate on war production, although overeating was not a vice of that era.
In war, the number of mouths to feed remains the same, the number of agricultural workers drops with the mass recruitment of farm boys for the forces, and the production tonnage will also drop unless something is actively done to replace them on farms. Given naval blockades and other distractions your food imports (excluding mainly wheat or other key staple) will drop dramatically, and only make things worse.
Many countries developed versions of womens’ land armies, where women were brought in to replace men in commercial agriculture. These and backyard agricultural production all played a part in maintaining food levels to the point where the nation could still participate effectively in the war.
Contributes food, reduces family reliance on the “system,” back then one couldn’t be sure that shortages weren’t right around the corner, and, like said, it improved morale.
I don’t know about the US, but in the UK at least there wasn’t much rationing of vegetables, just sugar, fats, animal proteins and things derived from them.
Just because they weren’t rationed, that didn’t mean a good selection of vegetables were necessarily available though. With supplies expected to run low, fields were turned over to staple crops over low-yield gourmet type fruit and vegetables, with established plants being ripped out in some cases. Availability and price of asparagus was just not a government concern; if you wanted it, grow your own.
The supply chains and calculations of what needed rationing were partly based on the expectation that people would be growing their own produce where possible. The UK government mapped the country out using aerial photographs in the early stages of the war to determine which areas would need more food supplies and which would be able to keep themselves supplied with fresh vegetables. If those with the space to do so were producing their own, that meant the fresh vegetables that were commercially produced could go to to shops in the urban centres- though many of the parks were also turned into allotments for locals to grow in as well, allowing some urban dwellers to have space. There wasn’t enough for everyone though.
If you lived in a rural area considered to have enough space for people to supply their own needs you probably wouldn’t be able to buy much fresh veg locally, unless you got it off a neighbour. Even aside from the prioritising system, it wouldn’t have been viable to sell much stuff with a short shelf life in a small place where most people were growing their own anyway.
I suspect in the US where there was less reliance on food imports and shortages weren’t so severe there was an element of trying to push people into giving it a go, in case things got worse later.
In the UK a lot of work had gone into nutritional research (bearing in mind the shortages during the submarine warfare of WW2), which made clear that there was more food value in arable than meat, hence tight rationing of meat and animal products, getting the farmers to grow more wheat, and encouraging the consumption of vegetables, hence the “Dig for Victory” campaign, and digging up parks and gardens. It was a matter of trying to make sure people got a good supply of vitamins along with all the starchy foods, hence campaigns to persuade people to eat more carrots, potato skins and so on.
I guess what I was wondering is why people needed to be encouraged to start gardens. You’d figure that if food was scarce, people would be growing extra unrationed food out of self-interest and nobody would need to push them in that direction.
How many of the people currently having trouble with food prices have responded by starting gardens?
The number’s not zero, I’m sure. But a lot of people don’t have the soil, or the time, or the knowledge. Or the seed and the tools. A push to provide some of that would most likely increase the number.
Well, if you know you’re going to be modifying the direction of industrial food production, you want people to start filling the gaps with household-level food production before actual shortages hit. It takes several weeks or months between the time you say “gosh, I should start growing my own produce” and the time you actually get any homegrown produce, after all.
Also, a lot of people in developed countries in the early 20th century had little or no direct experience with growing their own food, or associated skills like canning and bottling, storing root vegetables for winter months, etc. There was a huge amount of instructional literature aimed at getting the ordinary non-farmer citizen up to speed quickly on these practices.
I have actually been thinking that we need a new “Dig for Victory” campaign to alleviate the impacts of higher food costs (and especially of higher fuel costs for transporting industrially produced foods), but I suppose that’s straying from the FQ topic here.