Scythe & Spade Blog

Healthy Eating

by Chas Bonner

We in the farming industry are blessed yet again. In the past few months, the popular press has been inundated with articles about the importance of healthy eating, and not just because of the exorbitant costs of being unhealthy. From almost any standpoint, human beings do much better eating healthy. To wit:

• The USDA recently released a study illustrating that healthy eating was cheaper than eating high calorie junk food, whereas many had argued in the past that one could get a full meal at a fast food restaurant, and for less than $3.00.
• If measured solely by calories, we get more in a fast food meal, but when measured by healthy calories, vitamins, minerals, poly-unsaturated fats, we get far more sustenance from simple fruits, vegetables, whole grains, meats and dairy products.
• When considering costs, most economists are now calculating full costs, and not just of the food, but the results of the food. We are well aware that the obesity rate in America is now over 30%, expected to rise to 42% by 2030. Obesity is now referred to as the “Next Great Epidemic” in America, and our obesity is largely caused by empty, but perhaps tasty calories.
• Because calories that come from junk food, donuts, candy bars, etc., are digested quickly (simple sugars can bypass the digestive system and go directly into the blood stream), hunger returns quickly, forcing yet more food ingestion and more obesity.
• Man has evolved over almost 4 Million years, and yet modern food processing has evolved over about 150 years. As a result, today we are eating foods that the human body has not yet evolved to eating and processing well.
• In many foods, up to 90% of the cost of the food does not show up at farm gate, but is all processing, packaging, marketing, shipping, and retailing cost. As a result, moving back to simpler foods is cheaper, healthier, and benefits farmers more directly.

We know there are exceptions to every rule, but our opinion is that current food trends will provide more benefit to the growers of that food rather than to the processors and marketers. There is simply too much evidence to support that thesis, and yes, we do feel blessed to be in this business.

Natural Gas & Agriculture

by Monte Nevitt

Natural gas prices are the lowest they have been in a decade.

Gas production is booming, having increased over 10% in just 2 years’ time. As is true of any commodity, overproduction equals reduced prices. Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” is a new technology that has opened millions of acres of shale rock that holds a great deal of gas, and it can finally be accessed. The number of rigs to access that gas has also increased as has the amount of acreage.

Because natural gas is the primary source of ammonium nitrate, the basis of nitrogen fertilizer, the dramatic reduction in gas prices should augur well for fertilizer cost. At the same time, other elements in fertilizer, namely potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, calcium and sulfur are getting harder to find and mine, so it is a pure conjecture where fertilizer prices might go. Luckily, fertilizer production accounts for a mere 2% of US output of natural gas.

There are other influences that will drive up the cost of fertilizer: 1.) Many of the dead plumes in river estuaries are blamed on nitrogen fertilizers; 2.) nitrous oxides in the air are far more deleterious than carbon dioxide, and most research indicates over 70% of nitrous oxides are the result of decomposition of nitrogen fertilizer; 3.) a problem recently discovered is that nitrates and nitrites that are finding their way into water tables, and that will prove a very expensive fix.

As one Newton’s Laws says, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”

Weed Control

by Patina Thompson

 

With the high demand for alfalfa and nearly non-existent supply, a weed control program incorporating grazing animals in early spring can benefit both the two-legged and four-legged parties involved. This organic version to weed management can be used to minimize the spread of certain weeds and to control large infestations. It’s a great option for cleaning up weeds on field borders or corners on overwintering bermuda and alfalfa crops.

 

Livestock grazing can be an effective alternative to herbicide use and can be utilized when weeds are located in areas where other control methods are impractical. The ability to fence problem areas and apply grazing pressure at early stages of weed growth is often the key to weed control. The length of grazing, stocking rates and field rotation are also important.

 

Cattle, sheep and goats are the most common animals used for grazing pasture weeds, with each having their pros and cons. It’s important to not only identify and target your problem weed, but match it to the correct grazer since some plants are less palatable to certain livestock.

 

Cattle prefer grasses and tend to avoid forbs and shrubs. Their larger hooves not only compact a larger surface area of soil, which may be wet due to recent irrigations, they can also cause more damage to young, tender, emerging shoots.

 

Goats can control a large number of spiny and prickly weed species generally untouched by sheep and cattle. Goats have also been used successfully on brush control.

 

Grazing by sheep is probably the most popular method of biological weed control. Sheep prefer broadleaf plants (forbs) and weeds over grasses and shrubs. Being physically smaller, they can be transported easily and overall offer the most efficient choice for weed control due to their ability to adapt easily to a variety of weed species, including poisonous plants.

 

Although grazing in itself does not necessarily kill the plants, it will prevent seed production and may lead to a depletion of root reserves and plant vigor, leaving more soil and space reserves for agricultural plants. As with most management decisions, the costs and benefits of each must be addressed and analyzed. In this case, the farmer can get a head start on the blooming weeds that compete with his agricultural crop, and the livestock owner can get some inexpensive feed, a benefit to all!

Food Borne Illness: Part III

by Chas Bonner

By now you are asking yourselves “Have we not heard about this before?” Our answer is YES, and we are now repeating ourselves for the third time. We are reminded that “Repetition = Recall,” and we want all of our clients and friends to remember the import of this topic.

In a new study by the Agriculture Department at the University of Ohio, Robert Scharff has estimated that the cost of food borne illness in the U.S. is $78BB, but this is only the medical, mortality, lost time, and suffering cost. What is not included in that figure are some of the “softer” costs, but which are nonetheless there. Not the least of those is the cost to primary producers---YOU---especially if you are the producer of a tainted food. But even if you are in the same product line, you will also suffer.

In an earlier blog, we discussed the alfalfa sprouts e. coli outbreak in Germany that took months to trace to the primary producer. All other producers in that region, and any European producers of sprouts were also hurt. Likewise, the listeria outbreak on cantaloupe grown in Colorado absolutely killed the cantaloupe business all summer, as sales declined over 30%, not just in Colorado, but throughout all growing regions. Finally, there have been several East Coast supermarket chains that have decided not to have multiple suppliers, despite market pricing concerns. They now feel there is so much legal risk to selling food that they want only one supplier, and if any problems, that supplier is passed the “hot potato.”

While you cannot prevent market losses from commodity problems like the cantaloupe or sprout examples above, you can prevent outbreaks of disease coming off your own farm. We cannot overstate the danger of this, as there are simply too many examples of producers going out of business. With our population refusing to take any risks in their lives, and with the propensity to always blame others, farming is becoming riskier.

Exercise due diligence, and if needed, we can help.

Sugar Cane Ethanol

by Brett MacNeil, CEO

In previous Blogs and Newsletters, we have warned often about probable changes in subsidy laws and payments, both because of U.S. budget problems, and because farming has become more profitable.

Suddenly (and most corn growers are aware), on December 31, all tariffs and tax credits protecting corn ethanol have been removed. Brazilian sugar cane growers are ecstatic. As stated by Marcos Jank, president of Brazilian Sugar Cane Growers Association, “We have been waiting for this for over 30 years.” Now both countries can compete for the ethanol market directly, and without subsidies of any sort.

Brazilian sugar cane has other advantages over corn-based ethanol; a.) it takes less land to grow comparable ethanol producing sugar cane than corn; b.) it takes less fossil fuel to grow and convert sugar cane to ethanol; c.) cars run well on a higher proportion of cane-based ethanol to gasoline, 18-25% vs. 10% corn-based ethanol. In fact, some vehicle manufacturers, especially motorcycle makers are suggesting no ethanol usage as it is beginning to damage rubber parts in fuel systems (the jury is still out).

The cynics among us have concluded the only reason the subsidies lasted so long was because Congressmen and Senators in corn producing states have been effective in protecting the subsidies, and Iowa is the first state to hold Presidential caucuses, so what candidate in the Iowa caucus would want to suggest ending tariffs and subsidies?

Despite the sudden end of tariffs and subsidies, we still see a huge world-wide demand for corn, and therefore do not foresee a market bust. Nonetheless, we urge our farmers to watch world events and changes, always increasing in number and consequence. Because we carefully watch all governmental activity, let us know of any questions you might have. We insist on “Seeing a trend before it becomes a trend.”

Corn Bottles

by Chas Bonner

While we complain about $4 per gallon gasoline, many of us buy bottled water at $8 per gallon ($.99 for a one pint plastic bottle of water). Then we run up the cost by dumping into the garbage, and current estimates are than 25% of all land-fill is plastic bottles. Decomposition of those bottles might take 1000 years, again adding to societal cost.

Naturally, there is a push for more environmentally friendly bottles, and the agriculture community is again the beneficiary. Clear, plastic bottles can be made out of almost any starch, corn, beets, potatoes, etc., by a process of fermentation which eventually produces polylactic acid which is yet another polymer.

For almost 20 years many companies such as Newman’s Own, Whole Foods or Wild Oats have used starch based bottles, but it was not until Wal-Mart decided to improve their sustainability image, and start using starch based bottles that the industry took off.

Some of the pluses of starch based containers are that it takes an estimated 65% less energy to make compared to oil-based polymers, manufacturing processes produce about 68% less greenhouse gases, corn bottles can degrade into fertilizer in short time (if properly composted), and we cannot imagine going to war over corn or potatoes.

There are always minuses to every product, but they are becoming fewer as we gain more knowledge about the product and manufacturing. Today, starch based bottles cannot take hot product; they melt. If thrown in the garbage with oil based polymers, the starch based containers lose their ability to compost, and take just as long to degrade as others.

Despite the downsides, we continue to see improvement in costs and processes, so we can foresee the day when virtually all food containers will be food based, and someday when all containers are made from reproducible sources.

And in the meantime, all of us in the agriculture business will see improvement in demand which never hurts our business.

Thanksgiving

by Chas Bonner

In our blog last week, we discussed what is right in America and the world.

Our short blog in this Thanksgiving week is based upon yet more good news seen in the December issue of Popular Science magazine. One of the 2011 Grand Award Winners for new scientific advances was Forage Boost, a microbial soil enhancer reportedly containing over 1 Trillion living microbes per milliliter. According to Popular Science, Forage Boost can substantially reduce or even eliminate the 180 million tons of worldwide nitrogen fertilizer use, blamed for causing algae blooms that kill aquatic life. It also increases productivity of land by 20%, decreases water run-off by half, and therefore reduces water use. It has been in development for over 10 years.

Because the product is so new to the market, there was little news in Popular Science. Therefore we urge you to check out the website of the developer: www.sumagrow.com.

Good news is always good at Thanksgiving time.

We wish all of our clients, customers and friends a wonderful Thanksgiving, and recognition of the bounty for which we can be thankful.

Fish & Agriculture

by Patti Jo Hardwick

Yes, there is a connection between fish and agriculture, and not just fish farming. Some of the connection is positive, some negative, but it all proves the inter-connection between most segments of our economy and our lives.

Having lived in Oregon for 15 years, I have grown more and more aware of the ocean fisheries and of the fishers whose livelihood depends on the health and sustainability of that industry. Therefore, when seeing a study done by McKinsey Company management consultants, I read it with keen interest.

McKinsey worked with the Food & Agriculture Organization of the U.N. and with the University of California at Santa Barbara for a long time. Their conclusions were that marine ecosystems around the world are broken, that fish are overexploited, and it probably cannot be stopped because over 180 Million people world-wide derive some or all of their living in an industry producing over $500 Billion in revenue per year. Most of the world’s population lives near the sea, many of them in the developing world where they rely heavily on the consumption of the animal protein for their food supply; without which could mean starvation. While the World Bank estimates that sustainable fishing might increase yields by 10-20%, if done, it would mean reducing catch rates dramatically in the beginning, and carefully controlling output around the globe forever, something improbable, if not impossible to achieve.

If a large source of protein in the human diet is depleted, where will it be made up? Given the critical need of those developing countries, plus growing middle classes around the world demanding more protein, where will it be found?

This is another example of the importance of agriculture today and forever. What is lost from the sea must be replaced from the land. We are thankful to be in the business, and hope to continue contributing to its success.

Positive News

by Danielle Stephens, Head of Accounting and Finance

When continually reading about “Death and Destruction,” it is no wonder we begin to think we might be nearing an end. Unfortunately, the media feels that good news is not news, and we are fed only sensationalism. Sadly, it does sell newspapers.

With two World Wars this century, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Afghan and Iraqi wars, unrest in the Middle-East and Africa, daily doses of murder, terrorism and genocide, it is no wonder we become negative, believing we are far more violent.

And what a surprise to realize we are more peaceful than any time in history---any time in history. A Harvard psychologist, Steven Pinker, recently wrote a book entitled “The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.” It is peer reviewed, is intensely sourced and documented, and was followed by two other authors essentially reporting the same outcomes. As civilizations have evolved, the number of people killed in wars is 1000 fold less in the 20th century than in early millennia. Today, there is an average of 60 people killed in war or genocide per 100,000 population vs. 500 per 100,000 population only a few centuries before.

Naturally, of interest is WHY the decline, especially after reading every morning’s newspaper. According to Steven Pinker, much of it is due to our higher IQ. IQ test scores have consistently risen over time, despite their being adjusted constantly to keep the mean at 100. As we get smarter, we learn there are other ways to settle disputes. Or perhaps it is simply because human life is more precious today.

This is also another reason to value our agricultural communities and the strong moral values encouraged there. We see lower levels of violence and mayhem in rural communities than in urban. We are incredibly blessed to be involved in the agricultural industry and should always recognize and appreciate such a profound environment.

Farming Vertically

by Chas Bonner

There is general agreement among economists and demographers that between 2000 and 2050, world population will increase by 50% and food production must increase 70%. Do we have the land available, or can we expect that kind of productivity increase on existing and new agricultural lands to achieve a 70% increase?

One plan that has been heavily researched is to farm “vertically.” Most population growth has been urban, and demographers predict that by 2050, fully 70% of the world population will be in urban environments. As a result, farms should be built vertically in such environments (or that is one line of reasoning). There are some real plusses:

• Serve the locally grown movement, the “locavores.”
• Far less distribution costs.
• Less spoilage since most production is locally consumed.
• A fraction of the water use because crops would be grown hydroponically, and water is continually recycled with no run off.
• No soil erosion since soil is absent or insignificant in hydroponics.
• Most farm chemicals would see vastly decreased use, with exception of plant food needed to grow hydroponically.
• Air flow through growing crops provides them necessary carbon dioxide.

If so easy, why is this not becoming a reality? One primary answer seems to rule: LIGHT. Plants need natural light and sunlight. In a vertical farm, there are many floors of growing plants, and few can get enough light. To date, artificial light has not worked or is prohibitively expensive. Someday, maybe, but the jury is out.

So keep those farms running, hopefully growing more food with fewer inputs. “Horizontal farming” is essential forever, even if strides are made in the vertical farming arena.