WW2 why no incedury attacks on crops

Given the total war I am a little surprised that I have not heard of air attacks on crops.

Was there a moral element?

Was it simply that incedury bombing of say the East Anglian countryside just before harvest would not have had much effect?
 
I'd imagine Hitler was trying to keep the Ents out of the war. :D

Seriously though, causing crop damage would require a disproportionate amount of effort to its effect. Being primarily 'wet', western Europe would be resilient to incendiary attacks on crops. The UK itself is not self-sufficient in any case, so attacks on convoys were more effective in attempting to starve the population than fire-bombing fields would ever be.

To effectively destroy a countries agricultural base, you'd need an effort along the lines of the US's use of agent orange etc in Vietnam and then some to have any effect.
 
Given the total war I am a little surprised that I have not heard of air attacks on crops.

Was there a moral element?

Was it simply that incedury bombing of say the East Anglian countryside just before harvest would not have had much effect?
Its my understanding that the US was examining the potential for use of chemical agents against Japanese crops in 1945, as part of the blockade option. Someone else could probably provide more info on the matter.
 
Top