It was a dry summer for the south of England, and by August the entirely objective voice of the ECIU (the Energy and Climate Idiot Unit, or something) was telling us

UK harvest on track for historic lows after drought and heatwaves desiccate crops – new analysis

Well, it was dry in the south. I can attest to that, having seen it. I was too hot on probably two occasions. But it was dry.

There are a number of nuances that might be overlooked if we just consider the ECIU’s headline. The first is that many crops are supposed to dry out. The second is that when they say “historic lows” what they actually mean is “still very high levels, in historical terms.” [Don’t get me started on the distinction between “historic” and “historical.”]

Now that the harvest is in, the numbers are confirmed as down on last year, for the most part. For wheat, the figure given by AHDB is 6.9 t/ha, down from 7.2 t/ha in 2025. To be fair, that is down on the ten-year average of 7.9 t/ha by, er, a round tonne.

The ECIU’s subtitle is,

New analysis of industry forecasts suggests 2026 could be the worst harvest on record costing farmers hundreds of millions in lost revenue

Well, everyone knew it wasn’t going to be the worst harvest on record, and so did they. That means they were lying. You can try to put a spin on it, but that is what it is. We actually have records going back to before the Black Death, so I really doubt that this year is the worst on record – don’t you? It might be the worst in a decade. I don’t know. We’ll see about that in a moment. It has to be said, that the ECIU were loving life. They were making hay while the sun shone, or spreading climate terror while the sun shone, at least. Here is what their expert (Tom Lancaster, land, food and farming analyst) had to say on the matter:

From the wettest winter on record in 2024, to the hottest summer in 2025 and now unprecedented heat and drought this year, we are in danger of UK farming entering a climate doom loop, as repeated impacts undermine the capacity of farmers to drill next year’s crop. Without reducing emissions to net zero, to bring the climate back into balance, conditions will continue to deteriorate. It is now a clear priority for the future of UK food production, farming and the countryside that sustains it. Our green and pleasant land is transforming into a parched and increasingly unproductive one.

There are two alternatives: either he knows that Net Zero cannot have any effect on conditions for farming in the UK, or he does not. Neither option speaks well of the ECIU, given the soundbite he delivered there. Then, they have a bridge to sell us.

“Climate doom loop”? Please, nobody take these clowns seriously any more.

Anyway, let’s get back to the historical context. The wheat yields since 1885 are available at Defra, but we can go back further using painstaking reconstructions derived from manorial records. English agricultural output and labour productivity, 1250-1850: some preliminary estimates by Apostolides et al 2008 is available on Archive.org and includes a figure showing yields up to 1900, which I’ve spliced in true hockeystick style onto the modern data of Defra (after having converted the latter from tonnes per hectare into bushels per acre).

The very old yields were about ten bushels per acre; 2026’s was just over 100 (which, if you were wondering, is considerably higher). I should note that there are a number of uncertainties here, but nothing that affects the scale of the increase in yield.

I should also note that the yield, back when, amounted to 3.36 seeds per seed. So, in order to get 10 bushels from an acre, our distant ancestors had to sow 3. That’s about 5.5 times modern sowing density.

Various agricultural improvements have been made across the centuries (enclosure; seed drills; crop rotation), but things really took off in about 1950. We already had the Haber process and were therefore no longer dependent on animal-derived (or mined) nitrogen fertiliser. Add diesel tractors, irrigation by borehole, (what was then) modern crop breeding and organochlorine pesticides and things improved rapidly: the yield of wheat in 1950 was 40 bushels per acre; now, in this, the “worst on record” year, it is a mere 100 bushels per acre.

Looking back through the data, the last time we had a harvest of wheat lower than 2026 was in fact…

…drum roll…

…

2012.

[Some say, the low wheat yield of 2012 would have been impossible without climate change, but they have no explanation for why the years 2013 to 2026 had higher yields than 2012.]

I must take the opportunity here to state that putting a carbon border tax on imports of ammonia is emblematic of the utter stupidity of climate policy in the UK (and by extension, those setting the policy). The imposition of carbon taxes that have driven diesel refineries to close here is also stupid. Both are products essential to agriculture. Neither survive contact with Net Zero.

7 Comments

  2. Please just leave them too it! If we starve, we starve, at least we hope that Africa or India will put out a record, raise some cash and send Food Aid marked “With Love”.

    Ban ammonia, let’s see the yields we actually achieve without the use of artificial fertiliser……….hmmm, let’s think, has any 21st century country ever tried to feed itself without the use of artificial fertilisers- of course Sri Lanka and its critical crops yield fell by over 20%, I wonder if this was Climate Change or sheer stupidity on the part of the SL government trying to be a World Leader in causing famine thru ideology.

    The country most commonly cited is Sri Lanka, which in April 2021 banned the import and use of synthetic (chemical) fertilisers and pesticides as part of a rapid move toward organic farming. 

    The exact fall in yields depends on the crop and source:

    Rice production fell by about 20% according to several summaries of the policy’s impact. 

    Other analyses reported a 32-33% decline in rice harvests/yields. 

    Some studies found even larger short-term effects, with rice yields down about 53%, vegetables down 57%, and maize down 68% in the most severely affected areas and periods. 

    So, if you’re looking for the headline figure usually quoted in public discussion, it is:

    Sri Lanka banned synthetic fertiliser in 2021, and rice production fell by roughly 20-33% before the policy was largely reversed. 

    The policy was partially reversed within months after food production fell and food prices rose.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Data, data, data. Historical records. Inconvenient truths. Thanks for setting the record straight

    Like

  5. If British farmers want to grow the best quality wheat for bread flour the place to do it in large enough quantity is the southern half of England. There are patches dotted about the northern half and into Scotland it gets less and less. The north is a better area for malting barley. As we’ve seen the wheat belt got a hammering from heat while the north had a good season and relatively stable harvesting weather. Rain during the harvesting season can ruin crops just as easily as heat during the growing season. During the late 70’s and 80’s there were 2 or 3 harvests when combines and tractors had to be fitted with tracks as the ground was so wet, some areas were still trying to harvest in November.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Do BBC editors ever cross-refer between BBC articles?

    This is undated, but can’t be more that 5 years old:

    “Effects of climate change and extreme weather in Scotland”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zwr6fg8/revision/5

    Climate change is already affecting Scotland. Over recent decades the climate has become warmer, there have been changes in rainfall patterns and sea levels have risen.

    The expectation is that Scotland’s climate will continue to change:

    • average temperatures will increase year round
    • summers will usually become warmer and drier
    • winters will usually become milder and wetter
    • weather will become more variable
    • heavy rainfall events will become more common

    Wetter weather and more sudden, heavy rainfall can cause floods, damage and disruption. Recent years have already seen landslides in Scotland cause disruption and even claim lives.

    Compare and contrast with this today:

    “More tea? How Scotland’s crops of the future could be set to change”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxdd80z9yjpqo

    …Droughts, intensive downpours and diseases have created challenges for tea growers across the world as they deal with the impact of a warming planet.

    But some experts believe Scotland’s relatively settled climate [my emphasis] could give the tea industry here a helping hand….

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I’m currently reading “1599 – a Year in the Life of William Shakespeare” by James Shapiro. It references the terrible harvests of the 1590s and the suffering in country areas consequent both on that and on other factors. It led me to wonder if the harvests in the 1590s must have been worse than this year’s “historic lows”. I think it’s a safe bet:

    “Elizabeth I: awful weather”

    https://www.keystagehistory.co.uk/keystage-history-blog/history-topics-in-the-news/elizabeth-i-awful-weather/

    Elizabeth’s reign was plagued by bouts of wretched weather. The winter of 1564-65 was exceptionally hard and long as freezing weather began on December 7 and by Christmas Day the river was frozen over. It remained so until January 13. That gave the opportunity for the first recorded frost fair on the river, as the chronicler Raphael Hollinshed described: “People went over and along the Thames on the ice from London Bridge to Westminster. Some played at the foot-ball as boldly there as if it had been on dry land. Divers of the court, being daily at Westminster, shot daily at pricks [archery targets] set upon the Thames; and the people, both men and women, went daily on the Thames in greater number than in any street of the city of London.” It is thought that Elizabeth I also ventured out to admire the archery and dancing on the ice.

    Later, the 1590s had a run of particularly poor summers and harsh winters, the coldest decade of the 16th century. The summers of 1594 to 1598 were the worst of all and led to poor harvests,

    In 1596 the summer was plagued by “profound shocking rains and great floods”, followed by a disastrous harvest that led to starvation among the poor and mounting disorder, with riots in London.

    What’s worse? A bit of global warming or the Little Ice Age? I know which I’d prefer.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply