I recently posted adescription of a highly sustainable form of row crop farmingthat combines high productivity with low environmental impact.
This is not just a theoretical vision but something which is actually being practiced on a significant commercial scale (e.g.non-tillage,cover cropping,controlled wheel traffic,variable rate fertilization…). It is difficult to know exactly how much American farmland is being farmed this way because the only agency that tracked things like tillage practices (CTIC) lost funding for that activity during the Bush administration.
Knowledgeable observers that my business partners and I have interviewed estimate that something like 5-6% of our major crops are farmed with the full suite of sustainable practices.
Why Aren’t These Practices More Common?
农民不以可持续的方式耕种的一个关键原因是他们大部分的土地都是租来的。它不属于他们。The map above shows theprevalence of leased land for farming in the US.Much of the land in the most productive regions is rented. This is simply an historical artifact. Over the last century there has been a steady migration of the population away from farming to cities. The families that once farmed still own the land, but they lease it to the few who have continued to farm.
Related Post:Free Land: Where and How to Find It
It takes several years (4-6 typically) to realize the “pay-off” of improved soil quality that results from using the most sustainable practices. In the process there is added cost and risk. It definitely requires a long-term view to make the transition. Long-term commitment is simply incompatible with year-to-year leasing.
A grower cannot afford to take these risks if it is uncertain whether they will be the one to lease that field in the future. In the past farmers often rented from someone they knew and therefore they had more confidence in the stability of their lease. Increasingly, those personal relationships are lacking, and the landowner rents to whomever will pay the most on a year-to-year basis.
Long-Term Thinking is Needed From Both the Farmer and the Landowner
Ironically, it is in the long-term interest of the land owners to work with farmers to improve their particular property because they will ultimately be able to rent for a higher price in the future. Cash rents (the amount charged to rent a given piece of land) are the most sensitive measure of the productivity of a given piece of land. Farmers are well aware of which properties have the most potential, and they compete with one another to be able to rent the best mix of land.
Transitioning a given field to the sustainable ideal is a non-trivial exercise that takes both dedication and expertise in addition to technology and money.Realistically there are a sub-set of growers who would be the best candidates for the first few years. If a way could be devised for those growers to participate in the up-side, there are many other growers who would be able to maintain that land quality while the “transition experts” moved on to other fields.
What is needed is a fundamental change in the structure of farm leases. There is the need for an enlightened base of land owners who see both the economic and environmental benefits of such an arrangement. I believe that there is the need for major environmental groups to partner with grower organizations to champion this cause with the broader public. There may also be a role for the federal or state government in encouraging this change.
We could definitely expand the amount of highly sustainable farming in the US and we need to do so tomeet growing demand for food and to do so in the best possible environmental scenario. The barriers are not really technical or philosophical. They are structural, educational and economic.
You are invited to comment here or onmy websiteor by email at email@example.com
Map of Leased Land from the USDA
Looking for oral care products without the chemical soup? Check out our current listings of toothpaste, mouthwash, and dental floss… as well as tooth brushes.
Once upon a time, in America, farmers took on ownership’s responsibilities, cared for the soil, the land, the water supplies. They spread manure, did composting, rotated crops, raised animals, all by Mother Nature’s strict rules. The land flourished under their hands.
Barracuda corporatism however, has more than once, over-fertilized and burned good, fertile land, in a world short of food, ran wells, and even whole water-tables dry for a fast buck, stuffed animals in factory farms, and fed them the cheapest food available, good for the animal or not, wasted the fertilizing manure to the wind, even sickening nearby towns and cities with the fumes. The corporatists are simple following their mandated reason for existing: they serve the shareholder, not the land, not the country, not the people, not God, only and completely serving the shareholder and his quest for ROI (Return On Investment) The corporation is a non-person, a sociopath by the best studies, and is invented, defined, and set free by corrupt anti-America, pro-capitalist, corrupted courts to do horrendous damage to man and society!
Seek the fall of the current Corporatist, Capitalist, mis-adventure! Look to a revival of the once great Democracy America once enjoyed. Look to the future as a bright preservation and husbandry of this fair land by the folks that live here, for their children, and their children’s children. Take offense at polluters, and those, corporate or otherwise, unwilling to practice sustainability, good agricultural practices, fair and honest exchanges with the land. Most of all, do not be tempted by fast profits at the expense of the future of your country!
The Chinese hoards stand on the docks, ready to come, to take over, to show us how, to humanure, to compost, to bio-gas, to preserve the lakes, rivers, streams, to enjoy, in humble manner, our bounteous, fertile and abundant lands. Boat-loads have arrived, uninvited, only to be turned back, for example, by Canadian authorities, only in the last few weeks! Do not be fooled! Do not sell out! All that glitters is not gold! remember too, you cannot eat gold! Don’t trade America away for cheap trinkets, big-screen TV’s, digital toys! Even our fair climate, rich soil and good crops are worth more that that.
We buy dope, trading good American money to foreign lands for it – fools! We sell ourselves out! It can be grown here at home! Make it legal, save our money, and start another All -American industry! We will do the dope anyway, why not make it a win-win , controllable, taxable, proposition? Strange logic to you? Try this out! Google, torrent, the documentary, “Who Stole The American car”. Study it well! Were the American people, the precariat, the patriots, that wanted to keep these superior cars allowed to do so? Who stopped them? Corporatists? Do they rule over us? Who gave them this power? Where did the super-batteries, the proven good ones go? Who did this? Is this strange logic? Is this happening to the the very soil we grow our food in? The very seeds, GMO’ed and patented, from which our foods spring? You are betting your own ass on this American, and it is so!
Virtually all the row crop farms I’m talking about are still family farms. There is nothing corporate about this particular issue
IMHO, two important factors should be taken into account when talking about agriculture in general and sustainable agriculture in particular : technology and globalisation.
Many good husbandry practices have been made obsolete by the mechanical and chemical innovations of the second half of the last century. Manure was the only source of nitrogen readily available to most farmers. Concentration of cattle was limited by the ability to manually apply manure to a nearby field. The depth of water wells was limited to a few meters and hence the amount of water available for irrigation. Crop rotation was necessary to preserve yields over the years. Horses were still widely in use in the 1950′ in Western Europe when my father-in-law started to run his milk farm (he was the first one to own a tractor in his village). Technology made it possible to overcome these limitations. It seems undisputable that it increased yields (whether those yields are sustainable is another debate) and probably brought a solution at a time when workforce started moving from the countryside to factories in the cities. Greed did the rest. Non-tillage and cover cropping may still be perceived by many farmers as dirty work (there is nothing as ‘clean’ as a freshly plowed field).
Even for the smart and non-greedy farmers, globalisation didn’t leave them much choice. As many agricultural products compete with each other on international markets (wheat, soybean, corn, beef, milk, apples and pears), farmers from all over the globe are put in competition with each other. And the competition is made mostly on one criterion : price. Hence, in order to remain competitive, most farmers have no other choice than try and achieve the highest yields possible in the short-term, regardless of the sustainability of their practices. Don’t you find it astonishing that farmers with completely different soils, climates, environmental and social constraints in Brazil, France and the U.S. are paid the same amount of money for each ton of wheat they produce ?
There may be another way of achieving a faster pay-off but it requires an even more drastic change. We (farmers and buyers) must stop considering that a ton of wheat is simply a ton of wheat, that an apple is simply an apple. Farmers must grow and sell wheat that has been grown in a sustainable manner. Buyers must be ready to buy an apple that has been grown in a sustainable way. And this sustainability does not only apply to the soil but also to the GDP of the country and the structure of its society.
Agricultural technology is what has made it possible for 99% of the population in developed nations to work off the farm. No serious person can believe that we will significantly reverse that trend. Small farms are the fastest growing segment of farming, but their total production is negligible.
Wheat has been a globally traded commodity at least since Roman times and wheat is definitely not just wheat. Almost more than any other grain it is grown for highly specific quality characteristics so different types are needed for bread, crackers, pasta, Asian noodles, flatbread… That is why it is so challenging to increase its yield. The breeders also have to make sure the quality traits come along with any advance on disease resistance, drought resistance etc.
Great post, Steve.
While constructing buildings to own as a long term investment is much more common in Europe, here it is customary to build a project with the intent of completely liquidating all assets involved as quickly as possible. In some cases, the developer is already cashed out of the building before it is completely finished as prospective owners are allowed to purchase apartments before the building is complete.
The downside is that it leaves developers with very little impetus to assess their construction with a long term mindset. Why think of 30, 50 or even 100 years down the down when they are going to be cashed out in 2? At present, the only way we have to combat this at present is a more informed consumer base that places value on greener space. In the future, building codes will hopefully require more sustainable standards of construction to counter the short term of investment from their preliminary owners.
I agree. Sustainability is fundamentally about taking a long-term view and frequently the economics of a business don’t support that. For the apartment thing imagine if you could get the future renters/buyers together ahead of time to essentially contract with a builder to build in such a way that their long-term heating/cooling etc would be cheaper.
It is so true Steve…since leasing is not really an option, we look for land to purchase and we are confronted with non-agricultural pricing even though we are looking eight travel hours from Seattle. The land owners are trying to cash out and become millionaires thinking that the land is worth more to those who would develop it into ranchettes and hobby farms. The trouble is that it takes arable land out of the economy and puts into the vacation home category. Many orchards have disappeared for this reason alone… Irresponsible.. yes, understandable.. sort of. And if the water rights lapse it becomes permanently useless…. Oh yeah… that would be the San Joaquin Valley….
I have the impression that one cannot only look at this issue from a technical point-of-view.
If you want farmers to farm sustainably :
– the use of technology has to be assessed and regulated based on its impact on soils, food and society
– the prices of agricultural products cannot vary heavily from one year to the other the way they do at the moment and they have to include the cost of sustainability (something they don’t at the moment IMO)
小农场的优势在于他们有机会自己推销自己的产品(这是大农场在技术上无法做到的)。这使得他们有可能通过提高销售价格或通过节省中间商的利润来计入可持续发展成本。Quid erat demonstrandum
Indeed some small farms that are near population centers can use “direct marketing” to increase their profitability. In general; however, many surveys show that the adoption of important sustainable practices (non-tillage, variable rate fertilization, controlled wheel traffic…) are actually higher with larger farm size. A great many of our small to medium farms are tended by people who also work part to full time off the farm. They don’t always have the time to focus on sustainability.
You are right about the economics. Since we don’t “monetize the externalities” of farming, farmers have to make certain economic decisions to stay in business. Renting land is part of that – it reduces financial risk for the ups and downs of commodity prices. That is why I think it is critical to get the land owners educated, because it is actually in their long-term financial interest for farmers to build soil quality.
Great article Steve!
Thanks. I’m hoping to get this issue on the “radar.” I will bring it up on a panel in D.C. in June and at an Ag2.0 investment conference in Toronto in the fall.
More and more large farmers are and have been for some time adopting technologies that allow us to increase yields all while using less fuel, equipment, pesticides, herbicides, and all other inputs, even seed. We are looking at a new planter in the near future and will be basing some future purchase decisions on the size of the planter in order to allow those implements to follow in the same wheel tracks limiting soil compaction. “Big Ag” can be sustainable. Cover crops is something I may start doing soon, and this year we are going to no-till more acres than in the past.
More power to you for what you are doing!
Do you see an opportunity for USDA farm bill programs be tailored in the 2013 farm bill to target transitional programs for lease holders/operators to adopt more carbon sensitive farming methods? by carbon sensitive I mean what is good for the soil by zero or micro tillage practices, more perennial crops, more woody crops and more high c- residue crops as crops or cover or companion/relay crops!
这很难知道。如果大宗商品价格居高不下(今年春天的种植推迟将使其保持在高位)，如果联邦赤字居高不下，将面临取消或缩减农业补贴的巨大压力，这些补贴可能与可持续做法挂钩。我仍然认为，关键是要改变占主导地位的大部分纯年度现金租金，让农民和土地所有者根据多年来提高土壤质量的良好实践分享土地增值。Without that I don’t see the farm bill being a major part of the solution