Over the past couple of weeks I have participated in several discussions regarding sustainability and what it “means” to different people. Definitions of sustainability vary between urban people and rural people, environmental activists and active environmentalists, organic producers and conventional producers, “small” producers and “big” producers, and everyone between.
Urban Pressure
With ever growing metropolitan, urban and suburban areas, productive agricultural land is being forced out due to the “annoyance” of smell, noise, etc., resulting from normal farming and ranching activities, the Colorado State Dairy is a prime example. Others are simply bought out, since the value of the land for development surpassed its agricultural value as demonstrated north of Sacramento, where hundreds of homes and the ARCO Arena were built. Without better county planning and more strategic growth of cities, this trend is going to continue at an alarming rate. Additionally, environmental concerns are also ever increasing. Farmers and ranchers are continually being faced with more restrictions and regulations limiting their use of their land and water rights which both increases production costs and decreases productivity.
Environmental Pressure
Farmers and ranchers have always been active environmentalists, providing habitat for birds, wildlife and fish, the same cannot be said for development. However, since those in agriculture have “shallower” pockets, they have been the target of the masses, not “deep” pocketed developers and growing municipalities. The misconception is that developers can buy and set-aside “open space” as a mitigation for building. Yet, that open space is often producing agricultural ground that then goes out of production and into buffer zones. Too often, agency personnel fail to understand and realize the healthy, symbiotic relationship that exists between agriculture and the environment. When agricultural land is regulated out of profitability, the only option is to sub-divide and sell, further reducing food production capability and increasing degradation of wildlife habitat.
Organic v. Conventional
Once again, I am not against organic production. We live in a country where people are able to choose their product and the method in which it was produced. Having said that, one method of production is not any more, or less, sustainable than the other; both are faced with similar market challenges, rising costs of production and transportation of goods and pressure from the urban and environmental communities. Sustainability for both operations hinges on the ability to earn a net profit for the product produced.
Big v. Small
While it is possible for both to be sustainable, it is often much easier for larger producers to absorb changes in the market, and diversify production in order to deal with cyclical changes in both the market and climate. Often times, small producers are left at the mercy of the market and are unable to survive short term challenges in product value and climatic events.
Sustainable?
Our operation is small for our area, 650+ acres. We run ~150 head of registered Angus and Hereford cattle, ~200 head of sheep (Suffolks, Hampshires and crossbreds), ~40 head of horses (Percherons, Thoroughbreds, Quarter horses and Warm bloods) and farm ~200 acres (Alfalfa, Alfalfa/Grass, and Wheat). We have done bank stabilization along the river, planted riparian habitat, built riparian fencing, installed fish screens on both diversions, have permanent rock weirs in place, eliminating the need for push-up dams, and put in locking head gates that are under the supervision of our water master. Additionally, I just installed a center pivot irrigation system to more efficiently irrigate ~120 acres. We rotationally graze, feed nutritional supplements and utilize straw and corn stover for feeding cattle in the winter. My parents run the east side and my wife and I manage the west side and we share one part time employee during the summer. We are NOT sustainable. Both of my parents had off site employment, as do my wife and I, until last year, when I returned to farming and ranching full time. Taxes, fees, fuel, labor, fertilizer and interest payments combine for nearly 85% of our annual operating expenses and over the past five years have led to a net income of 6% of our gross combined. Granted, we have been doing some major repairs and upgrades, but 6% retained net is hardly sustainable considering off site employment is supplementing. Is the land productive? Yes. Will the land be productive for future generations? Yes. Are we environmentally friendly? Definitely. Do we need subsidies to survive? No. However, they do help ensure affordable prices for consumers. Do we need reliable crop and livestock insurance? Certainly. Do we need less regulation founded on poor science, fewer costly and unnecessary permits and fewer fees to use our property and water rights in a beneficial manner? Absolutely!
Farmers and ranchers by in large, utilize best management practices (BMP’s) and adaptive management practices (AMP’s). They also, whether realizing it or not, are very holistic in their operations. However, unless we can remain economically viable, earn a profit for our product, and catch a breather from socio-economic-environmental regulation and legislation, farms and ranches, organic and conventional, big and small, will never be sustainable. Agriculture is the backbone of America. Without a strong and vibrant agricultural industry, the security and wellbeing of our country is in jeopardy.
Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Sustainable Agriculture...Is It Possible?
I find it ironic that the federal government is defining the term “sustainable” for agriculture; the same government that is unable to live within its means and is making it more difficult for agriculture to be sustainable.
Agriculture can only be sustainable when the following exists: product can be grown and sold for a profit; profit from sales allows for re-investment and improvement; and agricultural land can be kept in production
First, the profitability of production is dependent upon two critical factors, input costs and value at time of sale. Relative value of agricultural commodities has not increased at the same rate as the value of other goods and services. In 1964, a rancher could sell ten 750 pound calves or 105 tons of wheat and be able to pay for a new pick-up; today it would take 85 calves or 370 tons of wheat. American society is enjoying cheap, safe and healthy food, while the farmer and rancher continue to be paid relatively the same price as they received 50 years ago. Add on top of that, the continued rise in input costs. Equipment, power, labor, fertilizer, transportation, fuel, veterinary services, taxes, and fees, have all increased, while the value of the product has remained stagnant, thus continuing to shrink the profit margin. Farmers and ranchers have to continually upgrade and expand in order to remain profitable, seek off-farm supplemental income or make the heart breaking decision to sell out.
Second, because of the ever shrinking profit margin, it is more and more difficult to invest in the necessary improvements to remain efficient and operate successfully in very competitive global market. Every additional regulation and restriction, implemented by the government, upon the farmers and ranchers, increases the cost of production and reduces the competitiveness of American grown and produced products in the global marketplace, resulting in an even smaller profit margin. Once again, the choice left to the farmers and ranchers is to expand, seek off-farm supplemental income or sell out.
Third, never ending environmental regulations and restriction, and pressure from urban sprawl further tightens the choke hold on American farmers and ranchers. Once productive and environmentally beneficial, family farms, ranches and orchards are now housing developments, strip malls and non-productive buffer zones, due to the continued spread of our population and failure by our government to recognize the vital environmental importance of farm and ranch land. Despite historical cohabitation and symbiotic relationship between agriculture and the environment, public policy is systematically destroying the environment, their source of nourishment and threatening our National Security. Public policy does not lend itself to promoting the sustainability of agriculture.
It is important to remember that just because a farm or ranch is “organic” does not mean that is sustainable. More often than not, organic farms and ranches face an even smaller profit margin than their conventional counterparts. While they may see a potential for higher product value in niche markets, they also often have lower comparative yields per acre, and higher labor costs, negating much of the increase in value. Also, in the current economic situation, studies indicate that the average consumer will still purchase the item that costs less, thus the niche item is moving off the shelves slower. Organic and conventional farmers and ranchers are facing the same challenges to remain sustainable.
Unfortunately, there is no “magic bullet” that will fix this downward spiral of agricultural sustainability. Public opinion is against “corporate” agriculture, which while it may be “owned” by a corporation, it is managed by families and has grown to remain profitable. Public opinion is for family farms and ranches, but it continues to pass initiatives, legislation and adopt policies that are forcing families to sell out. Public opinion is for a clean environment and abundant wildlife populations, yet they continue to force family farmers and ranchers off their land, only to create non-productive buffer zones or develop it. Until the importance of agriculture is genuinely recognized by the public, sustainable agriculture that can meet the United States and the world’s demand for food is not attainable.
Agriculture (this includes forestry) naturally provides the largest carbon sink in the world. Agriculture naturally provides and enhances habitat for wildlife. Agriculture provides our food, clothing and shelter. Without agriculture, we would not exist.
It is time to stop biting the hand that feeds you.
Agriculture can only be sustainable when the following exists: product can be grown and sold for a profit; profit from sales allows for re-investment and improvement; and agricultural land can be kept in production
First, the profitability of production is dependent upon two critical factors, input costs and value at time of sale. Relative value of agricultural commodities has not increased at the same rate as the value of other goods and services. In 1964, a rancher could sell ten 750 pound calves or 105 tons of wheat and be able to pay for a new pick-up; today it would take 85 calves or 370 tons of wheat. American society is enjoying cheap, safe and healthy food, while the farmer and rancher continue to be paid relatively the same price as they received 50 years ago. Add on top of that, the continued rise in input costs. Equipment, power, labor, fertilizer, transportation, fuel, veterinary services, taxes, and fees, have all increased, while the value of the product has remained stagnant, thus continuing to shrink the profit margin. Farmers and ranchers have to continually upgrade and expand in order to remain profitable, seek off-farm supplemental income or make the heart breaking decision to sell out.
Second, because of the ever shrinking profit margin, it is more and more difficult to invest in the necessary improvements to remain efficient and operate successfully in very competitive global market. Every additional regulation and restriction, implemented by the government, upon the farmers and ranchers, increases the cost of production and reduces the competitiveness of American grown and produced products in the global marketplace, resulting in an even smaller profit margin. Once again, the choice left to the farmers and ranchers is to expand, seek off-farm supplemental income or sell out.
Third, never ending environmental regulations and restriction, and pressure from urban sprawl further tightens the choke hold on American farmers and ranchers. Once productive and environmentally beneficial, family farms, ranches and orchards are now housing developments, strip malls and non-productive buffer zones, due to the continued spread of our population and failure by our government to recognize the vital environmental importance of farm and ranch land. Despite historical cohabitation and symbiotic relationship between agriculture and the environment, public policy is systematically destroying the environment, their source of nourishment and threatening our National Security. Public policy does not lend itself to promoting the sustainability of agriculture.
It is important to remember that just because a farm or ranch is “organic” does not mean that is sustainable. More often than not, organic farms and ranches face an even smaller profit margin than their conventional counterparts. While they may see a potential for higher product value in niche markets, they also often have lower comparative yields per acre, and higher labor costs, negating much of the increase in value. Also, in the current economic situation, studies indicate that the average consumer will still purchase the item that costs less, thus the niche item is moving off the shelves slower. Organic and conventional farmers and ranchers are facing the same challenges to remain sustainable.
Unfortunately, there is no “magic bullet” that will fix this downward spiral of agricultural sustainability. Public opinion is against “corporate” agriculture, which while it may be “owned” by a corporation, it is managed by families and has grown to remain profitable. Public opinion is for family farms and ranches, but it continues to pass initiatives, legislation and adopt policies that are forcing families to sell out. Public opinion is for a clean environment and abundant wildlife populations, yet they continue to force family farmers and ranchers off their land, only to create non-productive buffer zones or develop it. Until the importance of agriculture is genuinely recognized by the public, sustainable agriculture that can meet the United States and the world’s demand for food is not attainable.
Agriculture (this includes forestry) naturally provides the largest carbon sink in the world. Agriculture naturally provides and enhances habitat for wildlife. Agriculture provides our food, clothing and shelter. Without agriculture, we would not exist.
It is time to stop biting the hand that feeds you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- JeffFowle
- Jeff Fowle is a fourth generation family farmer and rancher from Etna, California. He and his wife Erin and son Kyle raise registered Angus cattle, Percheron draft horses, warmbloods, alfalfa and alfalfa-grass hay. They also start and train horses for riding, jumping, and driving. Their family run ranch has incorporated many environmentally beneficial and water efficient technologies and management strategies. Jeff attended college at Colorado State University for two years and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for four and earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science. Following college, he worked in Washington State for a year as a herdsman for BB Cattle Company and then returned to Etna, California in 1995 to own and operate KK Bar Ranch and Siskiyou Percherons. The latter was started by his grandfather, Clarence Dudley, who devoted much of his time to the Percheron Horse Association of America, specifically to developing their youth education program.