Grinder Chicks?

I'm sure this video and story is making the rounds now, but I've been waiting to put it up because of the guest post. Also, it gave me some time to think about my thoughts on the subject ... and after much reflection I realized I'm not sure where I land on this subject. Actually I guess I have an idea of where I land, but the answer is fairly complicated. I'll get to that, but first the video in case you haven't seen it yet (and an article from Fox News).



Here is where it gets complicated. I think there would be a fairly large segment of Americans (maybe even a majority?) outraged at the idea of the chicks being ground up alive because they aren't needed. On the other hand I am completely convinced that a large portion of those that were outraged woudn't not be very excited about the prospect of paying substantially more for eggs or or poultry products (because one of the reason of getting rid of these chicks is because they will be slow growing for the meat market).

So really, I believe it is a catch-22. I do not believe it is very good stewardship to waste so much potential and that is why I think more dual-purpose (both meat and egg layers) chickens are the way to go. But, the average consumer in American wants eggs cheap and on demand and to get that high capacity output our large commercial farms need super birds. And I guess the super egg laying breed boys aren't quite as super as the girls.

What are your thoughts on the subject ... no big deal ... over zealous hidden camera guy ... or something to think about?

Getting Beyond Buzz Words...

Sustainable, Local, Natural, Organic, and all those other "label" words are pretty big right now. And I have to admit that I have used them quite a bit here on the blog and in conversation with people all over the place. Sometimes I think that they are best thing we have to describe what we are doing and what we are striving to do, but there are other times when I think that words just can't say enough or even that certain words are losing their meaning. Words are important to me ... so, this is the kind of stuff that I think of from time to time.

But, as I read Allan Nation's July, 2nd blog post about Horizon Brands new "natural dairy" line of products the idea of word labels and categories really started bouncing around in my mind. Check out this quote from Mr. Nation's blog post:

"Dean Foods’ Horizon Brands plans to create a 'natural dairy' line to profit from consumers’ increasing disillusionment with Certified organic dairy products. Sales growth from organic products has flattened as consumers have learned that much of today’s organic milk did not come from pristine little pastoral farms in Vermont as they had supposed but from large-scale feedlot dairies in the West."

Basically it is time to change the label because the "organic secret" got out. The word "organic" no longer gets milk out of the fridge case quick enough and at a high enough volume so the powers that be in the marketing department have decided that "natural" must be the new thing on the label. I suppose they are hoping that this will bring back all their old organic customers and add some new natural customers.

Of course if this quote is to be trusted it also seems that it will make life easier for the Horizon company:

"Deans new Horizon "natural dairy" line will only claim that the milk is from cows who have not been given bovine growth hormones. This frees them to access all of their milk from industrial dairies without fear of media exposure or chastisement."

I understand our need for labels and descriptive words, but I do have a hard time understanding how easily we let those words influence our purchasing and thought process. Oh well, I guess I'll just invent a word or phrase for our farm ... kind of like Joel Salatin has done!

Giving Local a New Meaning...

Even though I'm not writing for the Epi-Log I still love to check in and comment when there is something there that really piques my interest. Such a post popped up yesterday from James Oliver Curry. He wrote about a recent New York Times article that outlined a new emphasis by Hunt's and Lays Chips on the local ingredients they are using in some of their products. This quote from Mr. Curry's post sums up the idea:

"The New York Times today ran an article about how the folks behind Lay's potato chips (Frito-Lay is owned by PepsiCo) and Hunt's canned tomatoes (ConAgra) are placing the spotlight on the local people and communities involved in making their products (carefully worded not to say "locally grown"). Yes, some potato farmers in Florida supply the ingredients for the chips that are made in Florida. But does that count? Local to the manufacturing plant? Local to Floridians? Am I a locavore if I eat a Lay's potato chip in New York? That's stretching it."

This particular post hasn't drawn a ton of comments just yet, but I would be interested to hear what your thoughts on the subject are. On one hand I can understand the comment that says that it is good that they are at least building the local economy by using things from local farms and employing locals at their plants. But, there is also a strong point with the other side that says calling something like a potato chip local may be a bit of a stretch.

To me the big question is what is the motivation. Are these companies trying to jump on the "localvore" bandwagon just like large corporations jumped on the "organic" bandwagon recently, or are they just trying to highlight the fact that they have American employees?

The John Deere DB120

Have some spring planting to do? Need to put in your field of open-pollinated corn? Got 40 acres that you need to get planted quickly? Do you need to get that 40 acres in quickly? Why not try out the new John Deere DB120 planter. It is a 48 row planting machine that is 120 feet wide (30 inch rows) and that 40 acre field you need to plant ... well, that should take about thirty minutes and you might even have some time to spare when it is all said and done. On the flip side of this whole planter deal, I was recently give a one row garden planter (similar to this one). And, I was pretty excited about it.

I actually don't mind this huge planter on one level because it is made by an Iowa company (not John Deere), and I don't really want to go on about other things related to the fact that it exists. I'm sure John Deere is making it because there is a need and I hope things go well for them with the sales. But, what is mind boggling to me is this...

The cost (that I was able to find online) is $345,000. I saw that and then I really started to think ... $345,000 ... Wow, I could buy 80 acres of pasture with a house and buildings, some livestock, some equipment, and other things I need to build a small farm. In fact if I diversified that small farm and did some market gardening along with livestock through direct marketing I could also probably make a living for my family.

Imagine the 10,000 acres of land that many of the farmers buying this planter are farming split up into 200 acre small and diverse family farms providing food for their communities. That would be 50 family farms ... I think that would be pretty cool, but I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there more intelligent that I am that could show me how it just wouldn't work...

The Benefits of Large-Scale Agriculture...

You will notice that this is a fairly late post today. It was a busy morning that included a trip to check out some storm shelters ... something that is important to think about during this season of the year! Since it is so late in the day I can't take too much time blogging today, but I would like to share a link to a recent article from "Feedstuffs", which is "a weekly newspaper for agribusinness". The title of the article is, "Large-Scale Structure has Benefits," and you can read it for yourself by taking the link above.

Here are a few of my favorite (I use that word loosely) quotes from the article:

• "ANIMAL agriculture's structure has changed "dramatically" in the last 20 years as cattle feeding and hog and poultry production have transitioned to fewer but larger operations, but the change has benefited sustainability, producers and consumers, according to Dr. James MacDonald, chief of the U.S. Economic Research Service's (ERS) Agricultural Structure & Productivity Branch."
• "However, he acknowledged that the impact also has included decreased competition and intense concerns related to air and water pollution."
• "As for size, he said the "midpoint" for a typical dairy in 1987 was 80 head, whereas today, it's 550 head; similarly, feedlots went from 17,500 head to 35,000 head per yard, hog operations went from 1,200 head to 30,000 head and chicken complexes went from 300,000 birds to 600,000 birds."
• "MacDonald said the fewer-but-larger trend also applies to packers/processors, with basically four major buyers of fed cattle, two to four major buyers of hogs and a handful of chicken integrators that contract production with local farmers. However, he said the marketplace has remained competitive."

I suppose it is an interesting point and I guess I can't really argue with many of the facts that are stated in the article. What can be argued though I believe is the suppositions that the article comes to ... such as the statement that says large-scale agriculture is more sustainable. What do you think about this article?

I Overheard a Converstaion

Last Friday I stopped at the tail end of an auction just to see what a few things were bringing and because I was in the area. I wish I had been there the whole time because some of the stuff selling would have come in really handy, but really it is probably for the best because then I didn't spend any more money. There was one very interesting thing though that happened at this particular auction. As I was standing next to a small 12 foot tandem Case disc I overheard a conversation between two farmers ... I found the conversation very sad. Here is what I heard:

Farmer #1: "This is a nice old disc, it reminds me of the old days of farming"
Farmer #2: "Yep, this probably came to the farm the same time as that (John Deere) 530 along with that three bottom plow and two-row picker."
Farmer #1: "Those were the good days when a guy could get started in farming with this smaller equipment."
Farmer #2: "It would probably be better if it was still like that, especially for the younger guys. The young guys can't even get into farming now because it costs so much."

What are your thoughts on that conversation? Whenever I hear things like that I am always amazed at that there are so many farmers out there that realize our system isn't the best, but it is like we are so deep into it now that there is no hope of digging out. I for one do think a guy could do it with a small line of machinery if only they had the land base paid for ... but, therein lies the problem.

Who is Right?

Here is another article that you can chalk up to the "it depends on how you look at things" card. From the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University we find the article, "Boom for Whom? Family Farmers Saw Lower On-Farm Income Despite High Prices". This report seems to run contrary to the findings from the USDA about the 2008 crop year and how the high commodity prices effected farmers. As you can guess from the late post today I don't have a lot of time, but I encourage you to check out the report.

Here are a few quotes I pulled out. I would love to hear your thoughts.

"In 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated net farm income of $89.3 billion, up slightly from the previous year’s record and 50% above the average for the preceding 10 years."

"2007 was a banner year for major crops, with prices significantly higher than they were in 2003, when we last examined this data. Between the two years, corn prices increased 87%, soybean prices rose 47%, and wheat prices jumped 91% in nominal terms. So how much better off were the higher-sales family farms? Quite a bit, as it turns out, but not from farming. Total household income was up 23%, from $59,623 to $73,260, but the entire increase came from off-farm income, which jumped from $30,375 to $47,245 and accounted for 64% of household income. Still, with total household income reaching $73,260 (in nominal terms), 108% of the U.S. average (well below the 128% that USDA farm sector averages suggest), one would have a hard time characterizing these farmers as well-off."

"Who did well, then? The largest commercial farmers were the only family farm subgroup in the USDA survey to show a net increase in income from higher prices in 2007. Very large commercial farms (family-owned operations making more than $500,000 in gross sales) saw a 46% jump in net income from farm sales, from $130,263 to nearly $189,547, easily compensating for their $12,196 drop in government payments between the two years. With off-farm income dropping only slightly between the two years, the 21% increase in total household income, from $220,971 to $267,130, came entirely from on-farm income, thanks to high prices."

There is a bit more in the article, but those are some interesting numbers that they are throwing around. Like I said, I'm sure it just depends on how you look at things ... but, who is right?

Crates, Pens, Huts, or Pasture?

As I was sifting through some threads over on Homesteading Today I came across an interesting thread about the very question I posted in the title of this post. The original poster obviously raises on quite a bit bigger scale than I do and it sounds like he had recently tried some pen farrowing after being used to crate farrowing. The conclusion he comes to is that at his farm he is better off with crates and maybe some turnout pens because he doesn't like the loss of pigs.

I think there are some valid points brought up on each side of the argument. Here are some of the interesting comments from the thread (of course you should check out the whole thing):

• "Part of my decision to use pens was that the farrowing crates are so upsetting to people and I have so much business traffic through the farm, I'm over that now.... hate me!!!!! I'm not goin to watch pigs die to be green and PC...."
• "I think there needs to be an open discussion on why crates are inhumane but low weaning averages are acceptable... low weaning numbers = high piglet mortality.... 100% surival should be the goal....... 95% should be a reality."
• "Keeping hogs in a barn has much higher overhead costs than pasturing. You've got the barn cost, upkeep and maintenance, labor, etc. I'm willing to accept up to 20% mortality due to my lowered inputs."
• "These pens are the same pens that have been used in past generations, when litters were just smaller....In the US the number of weaned pigs has gone up by 3 in 10 years..... I just don't think, the modern genetics of sows can keep up their numbers in pens...."
• "Pig mortality is a trait that can be bred away from. If you have an inattentive sow that lays on pigs, cull her. Keep the sows that don't lose pigs, and keep their daughters. One mistake that I think the farming industry as a whole has made for years is being production driven instead of profit driven. Higher weaning numbers or higher finished pounds does not automatically equal higher profits. How much did your inputs have to go up in order to gain the higher production? If you can wean fewer pigs and finish fewer pounds with dramatically lower inputs, profits may very well be higher than with the higher production numbers."

So, what are your thoughts? I just watched an online farm tour of a pasture farrowing farm that runs 15 or 16 sows per acre. They farrow in huts (the huts are moved inside a hoop building in the winter) and he does lose about 2 per litter or so I believe he said. Despite the losses this is the way he has been doing it for a long time and this is the way he wants to continue because it works best for his farm (the pastured pigs are part of his crop rotation). He mentioned that he can make $2,400 per acre with his pasture farrowing operation when he has pigs in the fields.

As I just mentioned, I would love to hear your thoughts on this debate. There were some interesting points made on either side of the issue. I do have some strong opinions, but I just thought I would throw the information out there and see what everyone thinks.

Hard Times on Chicken Farms...

I can't say that this is surprising, but I do feel for the farmers and the families...

"A chicken housing crisis has cropped up in the U.S., and it's producing some of the same bleak results as the human one -- foreclosures, lawsuits and devastated homeowners.

In the wake of last year's bankruptcy filing by poultry giant Pilgrim's Pride Corp., hundreds of farmers suddenly find themselves unable to make mortgage payments on their pricey chicken coops.

To cut costs, Pilgrim's, the nation's second-largest chicken company, has terminated contracts with at least 300 farms in Arkansas, Florida and North Carolina. Under these contracts, farmers receive a set price per pound for raising chicks supplied by Pilgrim's until they are ready for slaughter. The company turns the birds into nuggets, wings and other food."

Those are the opening paragraphs from, "Farmers Face Empty-Nest Syndrome Amid Chicken Housing Crisis," in Thursdays edition of "The Wall Street Journal". The article by Lauren Etter looks at the situation that a few families are currently facing after losing their production contracts with Pilgrim's Pride Corp. Their contracts gave them birds, feed, and a buyer if they built chicken houses to the companies specifications.

The draw of course to this sort of production is the fact that you know that you will have birds (not all the time I guess) and that you receive an agreed upon price (if they give you birds of course). The downside though is that most people that jump on these deals have to throw all their eggs in one basket (no pun intended) in order to get the financing to build the big buildings needed.

Once you lose your contract though you are left with a really expensive building (they cost more than $200,000 according to the article) that doesn't offer much resale value you or even income generating potential. And, as far as I know there are not many markets for an independent commercial chicken producer to sell at these days because Perdue, Tyson, and Pilgrim's own most of the commercial chickens in the country.

The thing is that the chicken industry probably isn't the only place that sees this "housing crisis" from time to time. I'm sure it exists in the commercial hog world where huge confinement houses are built when prices are high and then are hard to keep going when prices drop. I'm sure the same thing happens in dairy and crops as well.

I see at least two problems working here. The first problem is the fact that the poultry industry in the U.S. has become vertical. Farmers are growing someone's birds and they don't have much say in the operation. The second problem is diversification. If you are a chicken farmer and you lose all of your chickens ... well, I think you lose all of your income.

"A 50-Year Farm Bill"

That is the title of an opinion piece from the New York Times that frequent commenter Yeoman passed on to me the other day. You can check out the article for yourself by taking this link, and I do strongly encourage you to check it out because it is a very interesting bit of right that gives a thinking type of person a lot to think about. I thought I would take a few moments today to share a few of the quotes that struck me the most and then add a little bit of my opinion that that of the authors, Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson.

"The extraordinary rainstorms last June caused catastrophic soil erosion in the grain lands of Iowa, where there were gullies 200 feet wide. But even worse damage is done over the long term under normal rainfall — by the little rills and sheets of erosion on incompletely covered or denuded cropland, and by various degradations resulting from industrial procedures and technologies alien to both agriculture and nature."

-Yes, we did have a lot of rain in Iowa last summer (not just June) and it did cause a lot of soil erosion. I saw pictures from around the state of huge washouts, I drove over roads that lost half of themselves down stream, and I even saw little waterways on our completely grass covered farm grow in size. This loss of top soil is something I find myself thinking about a lot as I drive the seven miles into town for work and see bare fields on either side of the road.

"Civilizations have destroyed themselves by destroying their farmland. This irremediable loss, never enough noticed, has been made worse by the huge monocultures and continuous soil-exposure of the agriculture we now practice."

-I think this is an interesting comment about civilizations destroying themselves by neglecting their topsoil. In fact I would go out on a limb and say one of the man reason that it hasn't destroyed our American civilization yet is because we have a lot more land than many earlier civilizations and because our Midwestern region had seemingly unending topsoil when we got there. But, all you have to do is look towards the Eastern part of our country and understand why many farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries were willing to live on the edge of the wilderness where they had to fear for their safety ... because the land was being used up in the East.

"Industrial agricultural has made our food supply entirely dependent on fossil fuels and, by substituting technological “solutions” for human work and care, has virtually destroyed the cultures of husbandry (imperfect as they may have been) once indigenous to family farms and farming neighborhoods."

-The further we get into our farming journey the more I become keenly aware that we are destroying "the cultures of husbandry". Really the old adage that there is nothing new under the sun is completely true when it comes to farming. The thing is though that we have just about lost what really worked and so it seems like people are coming up with lots of "new" ideas for farm management. Remember ... grass-fed isn't new, organic isn't new, natural isn't new, and extensive crop rotations aren't new!

"And with an increase in the use of perennial plants and grazing animals would come more employment opportunities in agriculture — provided, of course, that farmers would be paid justly for their work and their goods."

-This quote just really struck me because I often wonder how many people out there don't understand that many farmers/ranchers are underpaid for the work that they provide ... and I could even go so far as saying for the security they provide our country. I do like the possibility of increased employment opportunities in agriculture!

"We need a 50-year farm bill that addresses forthrightly the problems of soil loss and degradation, toxic pollution, fossil-fuel dependency and the destruction of rural communities."

-Come on, do we really think we are willing to look that far into the future?

Of course there is a lot more that I could say, but I think this is enough for now. I do encourage you to go check out this short piece and report back with some of your thoughts. If nothing else it should make some good discussion.

As Your New Ag Secretary...

It is about time that I actually take a few moments to throw out some ideas of what I would do if I was the incoming Agricultural Secretary. It is safe to say that many of these things have been mentioned in prior comments, but I think that says a lot about the similarities I have with a lot of this blogs readers when it comes to agriculture. Oh, and as your incoming Ag Secretary I would like this photo to be my official picture for all press releases :)

1. One of the first things I would try to do would be to make a major over-haul of the current farm bill. By major I mean that I would cut out the "social programs" from the farm bill and allow it to focus completely on the nuts and bolts of farming, not the distribution of food (and other peoples money) to others. If this were done I would hope that people could look more objectively at some of the things in the farm bill that actually apply to farming instead of focusing on the social components.
2. After that was taken care of I would take a major look at the current subsidy system and the incentive programs. Not only do I believe that we need to phase out our current love of paying people to own crop land, but I also think we need to look at the ramifications of paying people not to farm. There are lots of good programs that have a lot that can be beneficial (see the Conservation Securities Program), but there are too many loopholes in the programs that we have. For example, our land had been in CRP for 14 years. At the beginning it was seeded down with native grasses, which was great, but in the subsequent 14 years nothing has been done and because of that it has even begun to suffer a little.
3. Here is the big pipe dream, but I would not allow larger seed companies and packers to influence policy. They are going to only be looking out for themselves (as they probably should), but we need a government that hears and sees all sides of the story. Like I said, this is a bit unlikely, but it is what I would do.
4. I would build a program for agricultural education to be taught in schools. I know that our schools have enough to worry about already, but at some point our students need to learn where food comes from and how it is produced. If we can again have educated food consumers (I believe we did at one time) than agricultural policy and support will probably change for the better.
5. I would require staff to have a intimate knowledge of life on the farm, not just fiscal principles. I wouldn't go so far as saying that they had to be farmers (I don't want to be closed minded), but I do think it wouldn't be too much to ask that they at least spend some time with farmers and get to know their needs, wants, and desires.
6. Oh, and one more thing... I would give all of you guys positions in my office so that I would know that I at least had some people willing to think, and think outside of the box!

What Would You Do?

That is the question that Yeoman posed in the comments of my "A New Secretary" blog post. I think it is a great question ... such a great question in fact that I wanted to move it to the front page so that everyone would be sure to see it. I would love to hear all things, from just a little thought to something that may have been kicking around in your head for awhile. It is one thing to know that there is a problem, but if we can come up with some workable (or even pipe dream) solutions we are better off.

So, here is Yeoman's question:

If you (dear reader, and Ethan) were appointed Ag Sec, what would you do.

We'll presume (a big presumption) actual support from the President, and Congress.

So, if you had the reins of power, in ag, what would you do?

There you have it. The question has been posed and now I'm sure we would all love to hear some thoughts. I'll kick in with mine pretty soon.

Back In the Saddle?

Well, after no post for a few days in a row ... I think God decided it was time that I take a break ... I hope to be back in the saddle again and posting regularly. Despite all of the time I have spent running back and forth to the hospital things have carried on at the farm and I've had to carve out time each day to make sure the chores are done and the livestock are taken care of. All of this takes a bit more time during the joys of an Iowa winter, but thanks to the help of my family we are getting along just fine.

One thing that I have been think a lot about lately is a question that Michael Pollan asks in his book, "The Omnivore's Dilemma". He questions, "...why should a nation produce its own food when others can produce it more cheaply?" I thought that was an especially interesting question and one that has answers I believe that effect every part of American culture from defense to social concerns.

Like I said, I'm just beginning to get back in the saddle, so I don't have a lot of time. But, what would your answer to that question be? I'll take some time to expound a little more tomorrow...

**Pastor Jim Update** For those of you thinking of and praying for Pastor Jim and his family I just wanted to let you know that things seem to be going very well. We still have a long road ahead, but the signs are promising and his mind is as sharp as ever it seems. We are praying that he can move into a regular room today and that his blood pressure stabilizes. Thanks for all of your prayers and thoughts!

Only Corn

I just have time for a little mid-afternoon post today, but I heard something that caused me to think on the radio on the way to the hospital today (check the P.S. for an update). What I heard was Ken Root from WHO's "The Big Show" comment that a couple of years ago people were telling him that they didn't want to plant beans ever again. I'm sure this thought process had a lot to do with growing ethanol market (at the time) and the rising corn prices. But, it also has something to do with everything that is involved with the yields and the growing of corn.

Now for the but ... If you plant corn on corn on corn on corn (you get the idea) you are going to have some serious soil nutrient problems. In order to fix the nutrient problem you are going to have to apply a lot of chemicals and what not (again you get the idea). This brings you into a vicious circle that can only be solved by rising grain prices because you can only assume that input costs are going to continue to rise, especially if you use them more and more.

Despite all of the potential problems there are still probably going to be farmers that plant corn on corn this year because there is a possibility for good prices in the future because of dry conditions, debt, and the somewhat stronger position of the dollar compared to a few countries. Ahh, the global market at work! It is an interesting position that we are in right now and even somewhat scary ... what do you think?

Now for the P.S. Today is a good day for Jim (and Laura and the rest of us!). He had the vent removed and has been able to talk a few words and even kiss his wife!!! We have a long ways to go, but today is just a very happy day in the waiting room. In fact we are even talking about the possibility of moving to a different waiting room ... something to look forward to!

What Do You Want Them to Know?

I think that there are a lot of misconceptions about various jobs. In fact I can't count the number of middle school or high school students that have asked me what exactly I do all week as a "youth pastor". Farming seems to be one of those occupations where misconceptions exist, or even better, people just have a plain lack of knowledge about it. On one hand I could argue that this really isn't that big of a deal because people probably have a lack of knowledge about what a lawyer, doctor, or teacher does. But, on the other hand our entire country used to have a pretty intimate connection to the agricultural world so a lack of connection is a departure for our country.

Let me give you an example of that detachment. My mom teachers 2nd grade in an Iowa "city" of about 60,000 people. This "city" (it is a city by my standards) is the home of "Cattle Congress" and multiple John Deere manufacturing plants. But, when she teaches the "farm" unit to her students and brings in all of my toys it is like she is showing them a foreign world. Not that they should be intimately acquainted with all things agricultural, but these kids in a "city" surrounded by agricultural don't have any connection with the farm.

So, since I'm in the midst of reading "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and am in the middle of the section where Mr. Pollan spends a week at Polyface Farm I have had one question that keeps running through my mind. If there were just a couple of things that I could let the average food consumer know about farming and where their food comes from what would it be?

Would I want them to know about the care and work that goes into producing high quality food ... would I want to share with them about the difference in production practices that various farms are using across the country ... would I want them understand some of the food/farm policy that drives much of food prices ... what exactly would I want to share with them?

So, I pose the question to you. What are a couple of your main things about our agricultural world that you would like everyone to know?

Firewood and a Follow-up

Some times I write my posts the night before so that I can get them up early. Sometimes I write the in the morning because I don't have time the night before. But, today is one of those situations where I didn't have time last night (because we were putting up fence) and I don't have a ton of time today (because I need to go cut firewood). But, I will say that it is a perfect day to cut firewood ... it is a bit windy, but the snow is falling and that is my favorite time to be in the woods.

Before I head out though, I wanted to take a few seconds and follow-up on yesterdays post regarding Allan Nation's wheat cost/price blog post. If you haven't had a chance yet I encourage you to check out the comments because there was a lot of good discussion in there. Including some evidence that the numbers might be off a bit from the real world ... or at least some peoples real world.

The most interesting thing I gleaned from the comments though was a great realization of how much the system has changed. It was mentioned a few times in the comments about different crop/livestock rotations that farmers use or have used in the past, but I know in Iowa those have mostly left. What I'm not sure of is the system of corn and bean buying only lead to them leaving or if it was the other way around.

For example, many farmers here in Iowa (even in the best black dirt central Iowa land) used to have a good rotation of alfalfa, beans, corn, and maybe even some wheat or oats. Many of those same farms had cattle also and they would graze their corn fields after harvest or rotate to a pasture now and then. Things have changed now. Most farms rotate every other year between corn and soybeans (and nothing else). They have moved the cattle off the farm so they no longer winter graze their corn fields (plus, they have taken down a lot of the fences so they could plant a few more rows).

We have gotten to the place that if a farmer wanted to raise and alternative crop (anything besides corn and beans) they might have to drive a ways to sell their crop. This makes crop diversification very difficult, and I'm not sure how this sort of system would even be fixed...

Anyways, just a few thoughts from yesterdays post. Thanks so much for the great discussion! Now, I'm off to the woods...

Are the Wheels Falling Off

This morning as I was searching around some of the websites that I like to read for good blogging fodder I found a November, 21 blog post by Allan Nation (on his blog). The post was titled, "A Wylie Coyote Moment In the Wheat Belt" and you can read it by taking the link above and scrolling down a little bit. The thrust of the article is about the falling wheat prices, but Mr. Nation can't resist a little prophecy about the corn market. Here are a few especially interesting quotes from the post.

"Currently, the input costs to grow this winter’s wheat crop are estimated to be around $6.00 a bushel, but elevators are only offering $3.17 for it. This apparent sure loss has not slowed America’s wheat farmers as they start to plant this year’s crop."

"According to one Oklahoma banker, growing this year’s crop will probably make them poor. He estimates that half of the net worth of his current farmer customers will be lost in 2009."

"Watch for a Farm Bailout bill in 2010."

Since in am ignorant in the growing of wheat I was wondering if someone could enlighten me on the "hows and whys" of wheat costing $6.00 a bushel of input costs. I'm not disagreeing with the number, I just don't know what goes into a wheat crop like I do corn or soybeans. But, one thing is for sure, I do understand why the wheat farmers are continuing to plant wheat even when the prices are so low ... because that is what they have been told to do and that is the only agricultural system they know.

I assume that many of the wheat farms are large scale mono-crop type operations and they probably are tooled up enough to just switch operations on the fly. Because of that they just plant wheat and some may even plant more ... because that is what our government wants.

As for corn having the same fate and the 2010 Farm Bailout Bill ... Well, I'm not sure what will happen with corn, but I do know that corn closed at $3.32 yesterday which is darn close to the break even point. As for a farm bailout ... what more could they do that they don't already do in the 2008 Food Stamp ...err... Farm Bill?

The Election is Over, Now it is Time to Vote...

Well, yesterday was what it was and the results are what they are. That is about all the comment you will get from me on the election. But, I don't really believe the voting is done ... in fact I honestly believe that the campaigning needs to continue and that the people need to vote and keep voting. I'm talking about voting with their forks, stomachs, and food purchases! Those are the votes that will matter to the small scale farmers out there. Those are the votes that will matter to the people that want to see America's agricultural systems change. Those are the votes that really matter because they are more than a popularity contest.

Out in California it looks like their Proposition 2 will pass which will put some more regulations on the confinement industry. On the surface that may seem like a victory for grass-based or free-range producers, but I have a feeling that it is going to take more than a ban on confinement agriculture to really change the face of farming in the United States. What it is going to take is for consumers to start dictating what they want with their purchases.

Here is what I think this means... If you are a producer/farmer who believes in the ideas of grass-based agriculture and the fact that it can feed our country you need to get out there and campaign. Not for legislation to help you (although it may be a good idea to campaign for less regulation in some sectors), but rather campaign to the consumers ... the people who buy food for themselves and their families. Let them know what is so great about a farming system that is different from the current conventional norm and then let their stomachs and their forks do the voting.

And, if you are a consumer ... well then get informed, make your decision, and cast your ballot (so to speak). Don't just make the assumption that a cheap food culture is the best way, or that government regulation will give you the safest and healthiest food available. See what is out there. Talk with your local farmers. Then start eating!

Bye, Bye, Barns...

I'm not sure how I missed it, but there was an interesting article in the New York Times (that is why I missed it) on page A1 about Iowa's vanishing barns. But, in reality the article is about more than that. It is about the size of today's Iowa farms. It is about the young people who desire to farm but run into brick wall after brick wall. It is about the older generations who are now involved in the larger farms, but still see that there may be something wrong. In a nutshell it is kind of the same thing about large farms vs. small farms that I have written about before on this blog. But, since I have been blasted a time or two for writing those things I'll just leave you with some interesting quotes from the article ... including quotes from regular ol' Iowans.

• "What had in the 1930s been an ordinary farm here — 80 or 160 acres and a few cows and sheep and chickens — is today far bigger and more specialized to pay for air-conditioned, G.P.S.-equipped combines and tractors, so much fuel and the now-skyrocketing price of farmland."

• "All of that has left some of Iowa’s youngest, newest farmers doubtful that one could make a start in farming anymore without roots and connections and land dating back, say, to the W.P.A. era."

• "“We just don’t neighbor like we used to,” said Donald Wedeking, 81, of Nemaha (A “Mighty Small Town,” as its sign somewhat ambiguously promises), who grows 830 acres of corn and soybeans with his son, far more than his family once did."

• "These days, a farmer’s land can stretch into thousands of acres. When the W.P.A.’s writers came through, they wrote that Iowa had 221,986 separate farms on land totaling more than 34 million acres. Today, on only a little less land (31.5 million acres), Iowa has just 88,400 farms. More than half the farmland is owned by people 65 years old or older, an Iowa State University farm economist says, and about half of that is owned by those 75 or older."

• "But the notion that young people, lured by big cities, have left purely by choice is not always so. On a gravel road near Albert City, a machine — some surreal cross between a spaceship and a gargantuan Transformers toy — suddenly appears in the distance. Cars pull over to make room. It stands 19 feet off the ground, its gaping boom, full of insecticide to battle the aphids in soybean plants, jutting out 90 feet. This sprayer ($168,000, used) is the latest tool in the kit of Josh Bellcock, 31, who farms 3,000 acres with family members. Without his family land and his longstanding ties to older farmers who live here (and from whom he rents land) Mr. Bellcock says he probably could not succeed as a young farmer starting out. Not now."

• "“I’m pretty lucky,” Mr. Bellcock said. “People aren’t willing, unless it’s a family member, to go out of their way to help someone else.”"

The Farm of Tomorrow

I found this video yesterday and thought it was pretty humorous. Apparently it is from "Tex" Avery (Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, and more) and was created in 1954. Of course it is a comical look at what the farm of the future will look like, but I think it does prove a point. We still haven't been able to cross a chicken with an ostrich or a cow with a kangaroo, but we have done as much as we can to genetically modify our livestock and crops. The question then becomes what will that do for the "farm of the future" now?

Enjoy the video below and let me know your thoughts on the question I posed above.

P.S. For some reason the sound pops in and out on my computer, hopefully you have better luck