The Anti-Scientist

[@megatobias]

very interesting video but instead of expanding ideas and countering arguments you just keep repeating "textbook blood and soil stuff..." Id imagine for example that howards argument on that fungi and microbes aren't the enemy in a healthy soil system but can help a plant with immunity, growth and nutrient density (all scientifically proven) would be hard to counter (despite there being diseases and parasites present in that system, which btw are the reason that plants produce antioxidants, vitamins etc) and that depriving them of this protective system is making food systems more vulnerable. Because of depleting plants of natural defenses in large monocultures makes crops more sickly and dependent on expensive technologies which deminish farmer profits and drives big agri business like Bayer. 70% of the world is still feeding on subsistence farming yet the 30% relying on big agriculture which you frame as "scientific agriculture" is the mayor reason for desertification, deforestation, and nutrience deficiency and chemical related illness worldwide, its clearly not that sustainable of a practice which future generations should rely on... you are just using specific studies to support the current model you're subscribed to and disregard the rest.

[@FreeManFreeThought]

This hurt my brain to read... you cherry picked what was said, to accuse him of cherry picking? When people stand speechless at things you say like that wilted word salad of a critique, they are not marveling at your intelligence, they are speechless at your ignorance.

[@megatobias]

@@FreeManFreeThought which words would you need help with?

[@srantoniomatos]

​@@megatobias that 70% x 30% ratios arent true. Not in the world, not in our northen more productive world. In fact, the smallholders are disapearing at light speed and going to cities as they can. Wich is the cause of many abandon lands, wich in countries like mine means big fires.. And, consider this: those "70% self suficience farmers" usually aply more fertilizers and other chemical /sintetic products per acre then the big ones. I use to see it in my grandfathers homestead...the big ones usually have agronomous and try to aply the least they can, because its expensive. Nowdays humanity growns more food, better food then ever. Not only in absolutes, but also per acre...

[@megatobias]

@@srantoniomatos you go from: those numbers are not true too they are true but not where i live within 1 sentence. They are true according to UN Food and Agriculture Organization btw. small scale agriculture absolutely uses less fertilizers, i dont know where you got that fact from other than your grandpa because that 70% also have the least amount of financial means and government subsidies to buy which you correctly stated are expensive fertilizers, resistant seeds, antibiotics and vaccinations etc. Large agriculture companies, increasingly owned by enormous financial funds, autocratic state actors and multi-billion dollar assetbuyers do grow most food in the west that is true, but they also need an out of proportional amount of land, water, mineral, chemical and fossil fuel inputs. All this to deliver a product that is scientifically proven to be less nutrient dense, more disease and deficiency causing, and the biggest driver of desertification, habitat destruction, water pollution, and the list goes on and on. This way of farming is laying the costs with taxpayers not only to fund it, but also to deal with the pollution and loss of other potential industries (like for example the fishing industry, tourism, and all sectors that require clean water). and yet the biggest financial profits go to billion dollar multinacional corporations that dont pay tax in the countries they operate (or at all) im curious about the wildfires, in most systems large fires are caused by dead wood and invasive (often planted tree species) building up because small fires keep getting succesfully suppressed by firefighters which in turn is allowing dead wood to build up over time, acting like a time bomb which eventually does start an uncontrollable fire. but this is beside the point.

[@nickcalaway2955]

@@megatobias Wildfires in the US are one of the many problems we've made with industrial agricultural and unknowingly disturbing the ecosystem. By trying to suppress the wildfires that occurred, more and more material that would have burned built up, resorting to what we have now, big tinderboxes of forests, as well as the monoculture timber plantation that simply burn. We also caused the dust bowl with our practices. By killing off the 'pests' of pairie dogs, growing annual crops, and hunting the bisons to almost extinction caused the soil to erode to such a point we made a dust storm. Humans may be smart but nature has evolved through thousands of years to be where it is today for a reason. We should not support the monocultures that drive desertification, the dust bowl, the deforestation, the wildfires, and the chemical runoff that is toxic for people.

[@bobaloo2012]

I've been a market gardener for almost 50 years, finally retiring, or at least trying to. It's been lonely, as in addition to being a market gardener I'm also a scientist by training and I've always objected to the anti-science position of so much of the modern "organic" movement. When someone tells me that to improve my soil I need to fill a cow horn with manure and bury it on a full moon night, then make a homeopathic dilution of it, I've tuned out. I use mainly organic methods to grow my produce, but I understand it's a luxury for rich people, not a way to feed the masses. These days people just want to believe in what they want to believe and ignore reality. Their lives have been sheltered enough for the most part to get away with that, one of these days that will change. Another great video. Thanks.

[@nickcalaway2955]

Some forms of organic farming are more affordable to poor people than conventional agriculture. For example food forests are a growing practice in poorer countries.

[@neilbennett9281]

The Organico growers of Cuba were formed by exactly the contrary. Organic is cheaper to buy than nonorganic as nonorganic is seen as, how wealthier nations do it. Depending on just how deep you are in the fog, it can be all but impossible to see things for what they are. With respect.

[@spoonikle]

If more people lived countryside and our culture raised us, not for consumption, but for growth of community - we could all spend an hour or two in the food forests doing good work. The reality is we are coddled city folk and spoiled nobles - but broke.

[@ronchappel4812]

Thanks for commenting. One weird thing i notice when food and farming are mentioned ,everyone on the internet has a very strong opinion - and most are waaaay off. Hey while i'm here i have a question you may be able to answer. Why are the united nations saying 1/3 of all food worldwide is wasted? How did they come up with that outrageous number?? I've been involved in various types of farming for 45 years,plus some work in distribution etc.I've never seen anything wasted to the extent the they're claiming. It's not even remotely close to that! And from the little ive seen of poor countries ,they waste even less. So what the hell are the UN thinking?

[@1voluntaryist]

@@ronchappel4812 The UN is all politics! It is authoritarian/collectivist propaganda for a few, at the expense of the many.

[@CorrectHorse126]

As a lifelong urban person interested in agriculture and in politics and economics, this is all incredibly fascinating! I hope the series will eventually get up to the modern day - I'm particularly interested to see what you think of the recent Waitrose announcement about sourcing all their UK meat/produce/dairy from farms that "use regenerative practices" by 2035.

[@gillsmoke]

Well looking at how moncultures have denuded the soils and how input costs have skyrocketed. I'm pretty sure the organics are actually right. Yields are through the roof but nitrition is in the basement. Regenerative and organic practices are reversing soil erosion and even here in the US cover cropping is becoming way more common as a way to reduce erosion and fertilizer costs. Studies show that grass ed beef have way more nutrition of grain fed beef. There's so much wrong with industrial farming that returning to older patterns is inevitable.

[@jameskoss]

I suspect that this well intentioned lad will revert (or move strongly) on a lot of his current quick opinions. Good fun. Not like the experiments and chaos aren't continuing regardless. Hopefully, we avoid further disaster, as a whole.

[@srantoniomatos]

Love this series. Tanks. As a permaculturist (and pro landscaper) one can see how the same concepts are just being reload nowdays. Labels like organic, regenerative, permaculture etc are mostly anti capitalist, anti comercial, and a bit of new peasent, both in its ideologic origins and its pratices. And its funny how comodities corporations are literaly buying this labels to sell its products to urban costumers who love to pay more for it to avoid their guilt of convinience. For every new "no till" market garden, or new permaculture homestead , a thousand traditional more productive small holder agriculture disapear (in south america, africa, asia) , and big comodity high tech agro business gets even bigger and more centralized...but it looks great, on the internet, or as summer camp vacation eco turism workshop kind of thing. Dont even known what to think...specially because im part of it. "Its funny" i guess. More and more see that living on the land (more then off the land) as a small land owner, homesteading type of thing, its a privilege, certainly not a right. A privilege that demands work and sacrifices. And most people that "love it" online would hate it in real life.

[@montrealbroadway]

Back in the good old days, homesteading was just called “living”. I’m fairly convinced that those days will come back, as the human population shrinks back down to a manageable size.

[@srantoniomatos]

​@@montrealbroadwaybelive the "good old days" were not that good at all. Lots of ignorance and misery. Humanity live better in the last 50 years then ever before. At lears the majority. Theres always wars, desease and other problems...

[@montrealbroadway]

@@srantoniomatos for sure. But the good living of the last 50-100 years is all due to the extraction of oil from the ground. This finite resource is depleting, and there is no replacement in sight. The bad old days will return

[@srantoniomatos]

@@montrealbroadway sure oil and its products (plastics etc) are a big part of why the world (and agro) got so big and rich in the last 80 years. But so far i dont see it going away anytime soon. They just keep finding more and more oil, everywhere. And having big wars to control it. Add to it nuclear and " renewables...and things we dont even know yet...seem like if we dont died of nuclear war its gonna be greater then ever!

[@jupiterlily13]

@@srantoniomatos okay, but we've learned. We don't have to go back, but we do need to go forward. We can take the good from each and leave the bad behind. That's what growth is. Educating people is good, destroying the planet for profit is bad. Communities being involved with the production of their food locally is good, antibiotic resistance is bad.

[@TheCruxy]

Do any of the blood and soil organicists have connection to theosophy or Gnosticism?

[@Michael-j4l3d]

Lots of people who might be Gnostic involved but they rarely self identify so people use odd choices of words to identify them, Maybe but hard to prove.

[@avnavcgm]

This is a really interesting channel, well done exploring the agriculture/history niche!

[@andrewtrip8617]

Modern scientific farming is a blood and soil ideology in practice .blood = livestock and plant genetics ,soil = fertility management for the requirement of the crop stock .Its the same idea with different names .

[@paulthompson8467]

Really enjoying your videos as a part time farmer and someone who loves learning about agricultural history on the British isles this is right up my street 🙂

[@samw9089]

I’m curious what your opinion on Vandana Shiva’s soil science work would be.

[@thebigreddub]

Saying organic farming is fascist because some fascist believed in organic farming is like saying Catholicism is fascist because Franco was Catholic or that vegitarianism is fascist because Hitler was a vegetarian. Ya just bein silly.

[@skyworm8006]

When it comes to bandying around this word 'fascist' everyone suddenly becomes braindead.

[@jupiterlily13]

And plenty of soil scientists are practically begging farmers to just understand their soil microbiome etc. and not get stuck in a cycle where they have to keep buying products from companies.

[@tombrown407]

No, don't you see, the only valid form of agriculture is based on SCIENCE! (from 80-140 years ago) and we don't need to think about any scientific developments made in the last 40 years.

[@jupiterlily13]

@@Vroomfondle1066 sure. That’s maybe where it came from or how things were in the past. But we’re currently in the present day and we have a different culture landscape, different forces motivating things and different priorities. Basically everything in our society was founded by rich white dudes, especially when it comes to science. Rich white dudes made it so that they were the only ones allowed to do science at all. They were literally rounding women up and burning them for being intelligent in multiple countries. We can have the debate over the motives and beliefs of the originators of almost any scientific field. So what’s the point? How is it helpful to us in our present day? This video doesn’t seem to be about access to science or the culture of science. This video is about organic farming. So why not talk about what modern day soil scientists etc. are saying about our current farming practices? Why aren’t we talking about the consequences of our current practices and how that will impact our ability to farm in the future or even over the next 10 years.

[@TeamCropDusters]

Glad I found your channel. Looking forward to watching you grow. Your content is good... keep at it.

[@abody499]

I'm struggling to find a connection between the health of plants animals and people being one and blood and soil ideology. I think all references to such ideology herein are huge leaps from no real evidence at all to make the link. In short, I think either you don't really understand said ideology, or the arguments are made to create false consciousness.

[@samw9089]

Your channel is a fascinating look at the intersection of history, agriculture, and capitalism

[@RealisticCookingIRL]

I'm really enjoying this series, farming has become just another bullet point to go through on a government manifesto, interesting how through the 18-20th Centuries it formed a far more major part of politics. In regards to modern organic buying trends, I really think people just see "organic" = "a good word, like life", therefore the food must be better, somehow, and are willing to pay a premium. I doubt Joe or Jane Bloggs considers the environmental impact of ORGANIC farming when they're buying their onions in Waitrose. Like many things in life, there's a simple, face-value, black-and-white answer, and a grey, complicated, usually more boring true answer. Love your videos, you deserve more subs, a real diamond in the rough 👍 I'd love to hear what you have to say about lab grown meat, eating insects, and concerns around food supply in the future.

[@AliAnwar-co6mx]

Really enjoyed your video, and it finally provides some nuanced thinking outside of the greenwashing you often see on places like LinkedIn. However, I think Howard’s point on pesticides brought in an ecological perspective to pest and disease control. You say that nature is where pests and diseases evolved, but you must take into account what they evolved with, natural predators, and an environment that wasn’t a monoculture field that they can flourish in. So using cultural controls like intercropping, hedgerows,mulching and reducing spraying to bring beneficials back in. Generally speaking I think that Howard and Fukuoka’s main criticism of the agricultural science is that it’s monofactorial, only considering the effects of one factor at a time, and that nature is holistic, doing one thing will effect everything else in some way shape or form. Really enjoy your channel and keep up the videos!

[@audreybarnes6527]

I believe we have around 60 million acres of agricultural land in the UK, so thats roughly 1 acre per person, which is more than enough. I'd like to flag up that farmers, science and capital brought us mad cow disease, swine flu, bird flu and let's not forget the damaging effects of agricultural chemicals on farmers themselves. This idea that farmers are not in the business of damaging their soils in a nonsense. Grab yourself a microscope, take a few samples and measure the organic matter. Agricultural chemicals burn away the topsoil over time, this is not news to anyone. I can understand why blood and soil is so offensive. The Nazis did a lot of cultural appropriation. I truly hope the health of the nation and our agricultural practise are not linked and the billions of pounds we spend on health care is not because we are mainly eating fruit, animals and eggs that are devoid of nutrition and pumped full of water. Good luck with your channel.

[@tomhalla426]

Begging the question? Assuming “organic farming” is both real and beneficial?

[@waelisc]

according to the World Bank in 2021, just 0.09 hectares (0.2 acres) of *arable* land per person in the UK. You're assuming pasture could be converted into equally productive land, which isn't realistic. You're also ignoring population growth (7% since 2011) and climatic factors impacting yields, like increasing rates of flooding.

[@davidkottman3440]

Don't forget all the disease & famines in existence prior to capital & science intensive agriculture... We can only strive to improve by solving problems, there was no former agrarian utopia to return to.

[@srantoniomatos]

Can you show us the scientific studies that demonstrate :eggs, animal and fruit depleted of nutrition"? Even if there was 1 acre per person, do you really think 1 acre can produce all the food you eat in year? Not only food...fibers, medicines, etc? Teh amount of "farmland" includes forestry and pastures... And about "organic matter"... sure it add something good...but no, its not essencial to grow crops. Put water in a sandy desert and it will bloom! Water, light, hydrogen, oxigen, nitrogen, etc are more important then organic matter...

[@nickcalaway2955]

@@srantoniomatosYou can produce more than enough food for a person in an acre.

[@nicks4934]

If you consider that the ice age reset the soil then how did nature enrich it?

[@tanyakilbane7636]

Microbes and insect colonies, falling , rotting, dead organic matter.

[@man_at_the_end_of_time]

Loess

[@jaydnhughes6947]

Could you expand on that question? I don’t understand what you mean.

[@man_at_the_end_of_time]

@@jaydnhughes6947 Loess is wind blown fine dust and then there are volcanic ash plumes and weathering plus the action plants. Nor should we forget nitrogen from lightening and humus from decayed grass.

[@skeletalbassman1028]

So organic matter isn't necessary for plants? Are you really making propaganda in support of modern, industrialized, synthetic chemical-based agriculture? You actually think that policy makers who have never grown a bean plant before make better planners than people who have worked soil sustainably all their life? I'm having a hard time believing you are serious.

[@srantoniomatos]

@@skeletalbassman1028 you dont even need soil...its call hydroponics! Actually...you probably eat things growing inplastic for some years now, like tomatos and peppers...

[@skeletalbassman1028]

@@srantoniomatos yes hydroponics works for some plants, but not all. It’s really best for herbs and lettuces; you certainly can’t grow potatoes or carrots hydroponically! Meanwhile, they’ve found microplastics in fruit and vegetables at this point and you can bet it’s from growing using plastic mulch or hydroponics. We are killing ourselves and our planet with our so-called agriculture.

[@srantoniomatos]

​@@skeletalbassman1028 funny enough...most "organic agro" seem to be mostly things you can grow in hydroponics.. like lettuce! You seem to want to get rid off agriculture, specially organic agriculture, since that one is specially dependent on plastic: tarps, mulch, irrigation, greenhouses, plastic to transport and storage. From begginning to end, the new fashionable "regenerative market gardens" could be called: plastic agriculture! Whats your solution?

[@theopeterbroers819]

@@skeletalbassman1028 From the Internet: "Growing Hydroponic Carrots - A Complete Guide Written by Altiné Growing carrots hydroponically might sound challenging, but if you put the effort and time into learning how to grow hydroponic carrots the proper way, you will reap all the benefits. The hydroponic growing method refers to growing plants without soil with the help of an artificial medium that helps the plants grow effectively. Carrot is among the best vegetables to grow hydroponically.

[@Rick-the-Swift]

Fwiw, I agree with you. I've tinkered with and researched many types of growing systems, and nothing imho has compared to the ease, and health of a garden fruit than good old fashioned dirt. People can play around with hydroponics, and yes that stuff is very cool, but how easy is it for them to set up and maintain? How much fossil fuel energy and hose water is needed for those endeavors? How many chemicals are they introducing to the environment by feeding and medicating their lab plants? If you find the right spot in nature, you can plant a seed and forget about until it's time to harvest. And also fwiw, I have grown The biggest tomato plant I've ever seen in my life doing just that- sticking a seed in the dirt, watering it in, then absolutely nothing else. This thing had 8 vines that all grew 10 feet or more, putting off maters until late October. I had many other tomatoes growing in raised beds, using higher technology, like "self watering" containers, drip irrigation and such, but nothing has ever produced anything as healthy, and vibrant as that one mammoth plant that grew in my secret garden spot last year. What's more is I planted another tomato (different variety) in that exact same spot again this year, and it's doing the same thing. It's early July and I haven't watered it once, yet it's never shown any sign of fade or weeping, while all of my other tomatoes in the raised beds have needed rescued with the hose several times as we've had a draught like summer here in Indiana.

[@j.p.9669]

How about: “we don’t know, we should look after it and use our senses to tell if the soil is screwed”.

[@baneverything5580]

I just grow whatever I can because I love to grow things and I love fresh fruits, berries, vegetables, herbs and such. I eat most of it raw like my squash, tomatoes, cucumbers, mint, puslane and basil I picked today. I tried my first ever Golden Berry today and WOW they`re so delicious and I`ll have figs soon if the birds aren`t watching them. I have a mesh covering though that I can make fig baggies from with twine. How much are cucumbers at the stores now, 4 bucks each?

[@el_sembrador]

Although your analysis of organic agriculture vs. "scientific" agriculture is very different from mine, I appreciate the care you put into the making of the videos. You start this episode by quoting Howard when he says, "The health of soil, plants, animals, and humans is one and indivisible." And you point out that this is "blood and soil" ideology. I would like to ask you, why is that statement "blood and soil" instead of a clear way of describing how all organisms are conected? Is it not true? Let me ask you this: if that statement is false, why would a small poisoned fish, because it has eaten some toxic algae, pass (depending on the type of poison) that toxicity through the food chain to the last link, the human? Can we not say that in this case the disease (or poison) of the algae, the small fish, the larger fish that eats the small fish, and the human who catches the big fish and eats it, is one and indivisible? And if this were the case, could we not say that in the absence of poison, when there are only healthy organisms, health is one and indivisible?

[@farmingexplained]

I will make a video clarifying this (I rested on the previous video a little too much here), but the statement is not true at all. You can have a healthy agriculture and poor nutrition, just as it would be possible to have an entirely synthetic food system (e.g. hydroponics) and good nutrition. Soil health is important for agriculture but this statement seeks to tie people into a 'natural order of things', indivisible from the natural world, which in the political context of the time was intended to be aristocratic/fascist

[@el_sembrador]

@@farmingexplained Why do you want to link Albert Howard with fascism if he was not a fascist? This is something that strongly catches my attention in your analysis. The fact that there were fascists who defended organic agriculture does not mean that Howard was fascist. Regarding his quote, you say it is completely wrong. Well, what do you think about this other quote? In this case, it is Albert Einstein, who wrote: 'A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.' Do you also find it fascist? Blood and soil ideology? As you know, Albert Howard was a mycologist and had a great interest in studying the mycorrhizal associations established by plant roots with soil fungi. Howard realized back then that artificial fertilization inhibited mycorrhizal associations. If you study soil ecologists today, like Christine Jones, for example, one of the most respected figures in soil studies related to agriculture, you will see that they confirm much of what Howard pointed out 100 years ago. Today we know the importance of the microbiota in the human body, which is crucial for our health. The soil microbiome is no less important for the nutrition and health of plants. Because artificially fed plants grow in soils with very low microbial presence, pesticide cocktails are necessary, just as a malnourished person is more prone to illness. A lettuce growing in fertile soil cannot have the same richness in its tissues as one that has grown on a reduced diet of certain macronutrients and pesticides.

[@farmingexplained]

Howard hung out with Fascists at the Farleigh Experiment and contributed to their books. And he wrote books of his own promoting the same ideology. It's not that I want to link him to Fascism, he was linked to Lymington and Balfour's British organicist fascism. This is not to say we could not learn from elements of the ideology (soil health, nutrition, community are all important) but their conclusion that you must tie people to land and have them be entirely self sufficient isn't necessary for that, and in our urbanised age is unachievable

[@christopherhowse1217]

@@farmingexplained Is there any evidence that hydroponics (or any other synthetic food system for that matter) can produce good nutrition?

[@abdullah7304]

Can I debate you? I run as Vairom Ltd R&D head. -My point is simply ( Organic farming gives higher crop yield than conventional farming with less capital investment). Regards, Abdullah Alfarteesh Vairom Ltd R&D director

[@Beyonder8335]

Organic farming absolutely does not give greater yield. Where is the source for such a bold claim?

[@comitatocentrale2022]

Conventional agriculture produce cheaper food because it doesn’t pay for negative externalities, if it did it would be less economical than organic

[@alexannal]

The best description I have for organic farming is not paying your diets. If you remove something from the soils, you have to pay it back. That's my theory and my soil samples back it up.

[@bolengerin]

This is true on the most extreme end of conventional agriculture, but the ideal set of practices for maximized long-term systainable yields including externalities in most places will use certain critical conventional practices and be rejected by organic certification and hardcore ideological organic growers Critical examples might be GM crops that can survive now-endemic disease- like papaya in Hawaii, an initial spray of herbicides on perennials after removing land from fallow (rather than burning it), and certain synthetic insecticides are selective and less damaging to the wider ecosystem- rotenone being an organic one which causes localized fish kills, etc.

[@jupiterlily13]

@@bolengerin That sounds like a problem with capitalist beurocracies and not a problem with the organic "movement". Most the organic farmes I know don't bother with the certification, their focus is on doing what's right for the land and their families/communities. I'm sure there are people who are doing what you're saying, but it does seem like a lot of different groups and views are being bundled up under the umbrella of the "organic movement" here.

[@bolengerin]

@@jupiterlily13 most of the organic movement is deeply opposed to transgenic crops even when they are reasonably justified. Also have you ever tried to clear an overgrown tropical or subtropical field without herbicide, fire, or a bulldozer/large tractor to prepare for planting? Back-breaking work due to the vines, shrubs, bunching grasses, etc. You will quickly how difficult "by the book" organic is. I agree with you, there is a pragmatist side that does allow for some synthetic products... but most of the public intellectuals are gentleman growers who promote a belief system that has (almost) all if the prohibitions of bureaucratized organic cert and handwave away the great value (in nearly organic systems) and pathway to sustainability for certain non-organic and industrial practices. The shocking thing about their ideological domination of the organic movement and cert process is it bars a vast number of impoverished (nearly) organic farmers from exporting their crops into developed countries where they can seller for higher prices if it can be marketed as organic. Some of those crops have clear advantages in regard to energy expenditure and profit when imported from 1000s of miles away too compared to a greenhouse or trucking, and the profit premium goes farther due to lower cost of living in less affluent regions. Buying local and seasonal is the typical hand-waving response, but often is not true. The transit costs are very compared to other greenhouse gas expeditures in production. There are a great many organic growers I deeply respect and wish to emulate, but the ideological side organic farming tends to appeal more to urbanites with little lasting experience with farmland and the neighboring wilds.

[@michaeljhonfarrar]

I have been watching a few of your videos and it's criminal how little engagement you're getting, you are clearly putting in plenty of work and I wish you the best of luck with these videos

[@TheGraemeEvans]

In our modern world we are highly dependent on a very complex system of agriculture. You won't notice when it's working but if it fails even a little bit it'll be catastrophic. It's dependent on things outside our control like foreign imports, water and energy supply. If these were disrupted we could not all survive. Howard's system is devolved, there could not be a system wide failure, but it would not support as many people.

[@johannk.6908]

I think the general statements made in this viedeo are right. The criticle point in this video is in my view the use of the phrase blood and soil, because the real meaning of it is has way more to do with general fascist ideologie than with fascist farming. It means that there is a certain race, when you see it from a 'Blut und Boden' stand point its a germanic race, wich belongs to a certain area with a certain ground, wich it has to expand and dont let it being used by others. Its maybe a small misstranslaition of the world 'Boden' wich means Soil or Ground. So its much more broad than just Soil.

[@georgeniceguy3934]

soil is also a very good metal band

[@alexannal]

Brilliant videos excellent content

[@Chase_Telemetric]

Howard’s ideology is more relevant today than ever Humis is the environment for microbes The religion of chemistry is not based on science it is based on corporate greed The history is well presented but the interpretation is very different

[@DavidRose-m8s]

Liebig was horrified by non return city waste-streams, and wanted municipal treatment with Charcoal to capture nutrient, and return it to the land. Economist's love Low skill Contract labor for farms which may on the surface be efficient, but would you want productivity of words per minute in an office without the Grammar, and the spelling. Mass production is an artifact of the Genesis of a 6 day creation where God is at the center of the universe rather than nature so living systems can be deferred as God is revered above while the soil below is Dirt.

[@kazparzyxzpenualt8111]

All you need to add is biochar.

[@Chase_Telemetric]

Innoculate it with microbes first otherwise it will suck all the nutrients out of your soil and take too much time to release it to roots

[@marktaylor2645]

You say our soil isn’t depleted, but almost everyone in Britain and the entire Anglosphere now dies from malnutrition.

[@ricardoDLMMDF]

Fantastic information, thanks!

[@pdsnpsnldlqnop3330]

My nomination for the sheep names: The flock: "Raid Shadow Legends" Sheep #1: Keeps Sheep #2: Manscape Sheep #3: Hello Fresh Sheep #4: Surf Shark Sheep #5: AG1 Sheep #6: Factor I believe that this naming scheme will be able to help you attract sponsors to the channel so you can waste viewers time contriving videos just to get a few pennies from a venture capital backed marketing concern. If the sponsors don't pay up then you can revert to more sensible names such as Osama bin Laden, Frida Kahlo and so on. Also, I feel the series has jumped the start a bit. Can we rewind to when the Romans arrived and there were pastoral Celts living off cows and dairy, versus the farmers that had hill forts and granaries? Just asking for a friend.

[@mashpotaeto]

So *actually* what he was on about was a very particular form of urbism.

[@srantoniomatos]

On this series you could do a video on how agro in general and organic farmming in particular are greatly improved and even become dependent on oil and its products, specially plastic. Nowdays its impossible to do organic farmming (comercial) without oil and plastic: plowing, irrigation, greenhouses, plastic bags, etc.

[@jupiterlily13]

Is it possible to do any commercial farming without oil on this planet at the moment? I think it's impossible for most people in the global north to do anything without using oil or plastic even indirectly. As someone who actively tries to avoid it it's impossible. That's not their fault though. It's the fault of market forces incentivising suppliers to use plastic in their packaging and oil still being subsidised. I know plenty of people have already pointed it out but this is one of the reasons people say we should move back to community based subsistence farming, because then it's easier to reduce the amount of oil and plastic being used.

[@nicolasmaciaswoitrin3377]

I agree with the previous comment. Your videos are very interesting and very well made, but you keep referring to late nineteenth and early twentieth century conceptions of agriculture to dismiss what science and academia is discovering today. Blood and soil ideology were definitely real but that does not mean today's Organic and Sustainable Farming advocates are in line with fascist ideology. That is, as you often call things, twaddle. There are incredibly serious researchers and academics out there producing strong and reliably science. However, instead of comparing current scientific findings form different farming approaches, you sustain a narrative where organic agriculture is always against science and flirting with fascism. It can be irresponsible to simplify things that much. What to do with principles like "One Health"? Dismiss them even though there is actual scientific efforts that back up their claims? Is that Blood and Soil ideology too? You will find a great push for the rights, the dignity and the wellbeing of the world's industrial and urban working classes within the Sustainable and Organic movements if you stop and look around.

[@farmingexplained]

A valid concern - we're working through history chronologically, stick around for a couple months and we'll be talking and we'll get to the present day

[@IntermediateSolutions]

You seem to have missed much of 'the science'! kzbin.info/www/bejne/iamXnWd5qZusm8k

[@donnahudson4813]

Wow! Great link! Yes, if you kill the symbiotic fungi, the whole system goes downhill. I remember a retired soil scientist saying that once you got over 3.5% organic matter that everything would go well for your crops.

[@IntermediateSolutions]

@@donnahudson4813 there are claims that chemical fertiliser is just as good as 'natural' fertiliser but it perhaps needs a field scale trial rather than a plot sized trail... I haven't read much of their research. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eHmWiJZpipKir9U Although it's still mostly fossil fuel sourced which alone is a problem.

[@atomictraveller]

per epistemological solipsism, only self knowledge is rational, so science is obviously a hustle. oh, i should add. imagine yourself screaming in the middle of tucson. humus rofl.

[@wvhaugen]

This guy is hilarious.