By Mike Barnett

The possibility of really good times returning to the cattle business any time soon are as remote as a Republican in East Texas.

Although livestock prices are high, the cost of feed and other inputs eat into the profits, said Dr. James Mintert at a recent livestock conference at the American Farm Bureau Federation annual meeting. Add the price of non-existent hay in Texas to stay ahead of the drought and cattle producers continue to be pounded.

To see what a truly healthy beef economy looks like, Mintert drove us back to a half-century stretch between 1925 and 1975. Demand and cattle numbers grew with a growing population and steady income growth.

Things started changing in 1975, when cattle numbers peaked at 132 million head. They’ve been declining since then, to 90 million this past year. That 40 million head drop over a span of 30 years means one thing to Mintert: a lack of profitability.

So how do cattle producers reverse the trend?

• Consumers value convenience. Although beef is making strides, it’s lagging behind chicken.
• Consumers are receptive to information about health and nutrition. Give it to them.
• Food safety is a significant concern.
• Hope the economy gets better. Income is a very important demand driver.

 One bit of good news for cattle producers is a reversal of fortune in the export market. Exports have rebounded from the collapse in 2004—when the discovery of a cow with bovine spongiform encephalopathy shook our markets. Beef exports are due to set a record in 2012.

The biggest concern facing all livestock producers is the drop in total meat consumption. Per capita, consumption dropped from a high of 220 pounds from 2003-2005 to an estimated 200 pounds in 2012. Farmers and ranchers have addressed that concern by putting less meat on the plate. That may keep prices up in the short term. Long term, we need to rebuild that demand.

A lot of rain would help, too.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Gene Hall

Farming and ranching is a tough business to get into these days. There’s no question about that. Production agriculture is capital intensive, requiring huge investments in land, expensive equipment and livestock. Formidable adversaries, like drought, predators, insect pests, volatile markets and government regulation, lie in wait to ambush even the most astute farmer or rancher.

In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature approved the Texas Department of Agriculture’s proposal for the Texas Agricultural Finance Authority (TAFA) to establish the first-of-its-kind Young Farmer Grant Program. Since TAFA’s creation in 1987, the program has provided financial assistance to individuals and businesses through partnerships with banks or other agricultural lending institutions.

Last month, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples announced TAFA awarded $150,000 in the form of matching grants to 15 young farmers. The funds, in the amount of $10,000 each, are awarded through the Young Farmer Grant Program to farmers ages 18-46 who will create or expand agricultural businesses in Texas. Texas farmers fund the program themselves through farm vehicle registration fees.

“According to USDA, the average age of a principal owner of a Texas farm or ranch is 59 years old with only 6 percent under the age of 35,” Commissioner Staples said. “As today’s farmers and ranchers near retirement, we must find ways to support a younger generation who will be tasked with feeding a growing population. The Young Farmer Grant Program, which is funded entirely by Texas farmers and ranchers, offers user-friendly, effective financing options that can help new and young operators get started and become more firmly established.”

When the farmers of this generation pass from the scene, not only will there be a lack of numbers, but of the expertise that could well retire with them. Who will grow food and fiber we’ll need for future generations?  Programs like TAFA and its Young Farmer Grant Program are small parts of the answer. Industry-funded, this is what a private and government partnership should look like.

For a list of the Young Farmer Grant award recipients, click here. For information about the Young Farmer Grant Program and other TAFA programs, visit www.TexasAgriculture.gov.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Dane and Robin Sanders

As we move closer to the Christmas holiday season, I think back to when I was an anxious child awaiting Christmas morning, when my sisters and I would get up and unwrap all of the packages under the Christmas tree. We would have fun all day playing with whatever my parents gave us. This probably sounds very familiar to many of you.

Before we could get started with all of the Christmas fun, my father would come in and wake me up early, like he did every morning that I didn’t have school. We would load up in his pickup and head out to feed and water our cattle. On our farm, the animals took priority to opening presents. By mid-morning, all of the chores would be complete, and we would head home.

While Dad and I were out working, my sisters would help mom make breakfast and patiently await our return before any gifts were opened. Once we arrived back home, the Christmas madness would start, and my sisters and I would be off to the races on opening all of our gifts.

This same routine would take place every year. Work first—and then fun. As a young child, I thought it was almost torture to walk by the Christmas tree and see all of the gifts lying under it and not be able to stop and check them out. But we had to get in the pickup and leave. As I got older, I learned that if Dad and Mom didn’t get up and take care of business on the farm, there would be no presents under the tree.

My parents used after-school and weekend farm chores or jobs to teach me that if I worked hard, I could make money and in return be able to buy the things that I wanted. I spent every summer on the farm working so that when school started, I had earned money to buy school clothes. When I got older, I was able to purchase my first vehicle.

These lessons I learned from working on the farm as a child have taught me about work ethic, the value of a dollar, and how to manage my money responsibly. When you have to work hard to earn what you have, you tend to be more careful with what you end up with than if it were just given to you.

 My wife and I feel that one of the greatest advantages of children working on the farm is that chores and farm responsibilities can be used to teach the same values that our parents instilled in us.

Currently, the U.S. Department of Labor would like to tighten regulations that allow young people to be employed on the farm. Although I can let my children work on my farm, they would not be allowed to be hired by a relative of mine or my next door neighbor. One of the proposed changes would prohibit children from operating a lot of power-driven equipment. These proposed changes would also prohibit children under the age of 18 from being employed in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm-product raw materials. Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.

The DOL is trying to ensure the safety of our country’s children, but I can assure you that there is no one more concerned about the safety of children than my wife and myself. I would never place my children or any other child in harm’s way or allow them to operate equipment that I wasn’t certain they were capable of operating.

The consequences to these changes will prohibit many kids the opportunity to work on a farm and receive a lifelong gift of work ethic, value of the dollar, money management, and being responsible stewards of our land and animals. All of the presents that I received on Christmas mornings as a child eventually faded away. But the values and life lessons taught to me by my parents will last forever.

Dane and Robin Sanders raise cotton, grain and cattle near Floydada.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Garrick Hall

The U.S. Department of Labor is proposing to change the regulations regarding children working on farms.

The proposed rules would ban children from dangerous activities such as working on a hay stack higher than six feet above the ground, using any power tool, or herding cattle with a horse. Under the new rules, children would be required to complete at least 90 hours of classroom instructions before they could be hired to work on a farm.  As you might imagine, as the father of six young farm children, this proposal concerns me. I wrote the following comments and submitted them to the Department of Labor for their consideration:

I am concerned about the Department of Labor child labor rule, “Child Labor Regulations, Orders and Statements of Interpretation” (RIN 1235-AA06). I have been involved with agriculture all my life. As a young boy I helped my grandfather and my uncles on the family dairy farm doing everything from milking cows and feeding calves to hauling hay and helping in the fields. I count my experiences on the farm as a great blessing in my life. The lessons I learned helped form me into the man I have become. Had these proposed new rules been in effect when I was a boy, my helping on the farm would have been against the law. One of the great memories I have of growing up on the farm is each fall filling the old hay loft with approximately 2,000 bales of straw. This was a hot, dusty job that was performed well above the six foot high limit proposed by the new rules.

Today I have chosen to raise my six children on a small family farm. This farm happens to be incorporated. Not only do I have my children help on the farm, I have many neighbors who practically beg me to give their children a job and the opportunity to learn to work, too. The proposed changes would prevent me from allowing children to work on my farm and rob them of the valuable lessons that they could learn.

I understand that safety is an issue. No one is more concerned about that than me. It is my children who work with me. I believe that the work environment I provide for the children on my farm is safe. Children are monitored closely as they work and are only given tasks that are age appropriate.

I could not operate my farm without the help of my children, and the lessons I learned working with my family from my youth.  I would hope this tradition can continue.

Youth need the opportunity to learn responsibility, the value of hard work, and earn a little spending money. This regulation would restrict their ability to do all three. It would not only be bad for farms, it would also be bad for America’s youth.

I would strongly encourage your reconsideration of “Child Labor Regulations, Orders and Statements of Interpretation” (RIN 1235-AA06).

Editor’s Note: This post is reprinted from the American Farm Bureau Federation blog at http://www.fb.org/blog/2011/11/28/children-working-on-the-farm/ .

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

Editor’s note: The following are excerpts from Texas Farm Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke’s address at the TFB 78th annual meeting.

We all share a common bond in agriculture—maybe even more so this year.

Texans from all walks of life have endured a drought of epic proportions, devastating wildfires and in Washington, some leaders refuse to cooperate and move this country forward. For Texas farmers and ranchers, we know what hard times look like and we’ve weathered them before—we will again.

Our challenges only make us stronger as we come together and look ahead to the future.
My father taught me to be proud to be a farmer and I am. Being on the front lines, out in the fields and pastures, working to provide food and fuel that this country cannot do without is why so many of us do it.

Even as we endure the hardships 2011 has brought, we still feel a pride that anyone who steps on a tractor or saddles up a horse can understand. We cherish the fact that we’ve done our part to make America great. 

America, while great, is struggling. Our leaders cannot agree on the direction we should take as a country. Many serve their own self-interests. But can you point to a better form of government, or system of trade that encourages growth and innovation? I can’t. What’s more is that the success of American agriculture is a textbook example of what can happen when we work together. After all, we were a nation of farmers and ranchers long before we became a superpower. 

The issues facing agriculture in Texas and America affect not only farmers and ranchers, but everyone who eats. In the days ahead we will have to make tough decisions about water, government representation, regulations, farm policy and more. If I know Texas farmers and ranchers, I know we are up for the challenge.

Now is a time of change, and for some, uncertainty. But the answers we seek are rooted in the rural values of our past. That story is about hard work, faith and determination and it’s still worth reading—out loud.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Mike Barnett

When it comes to the domestic horse slaughter ban, I hate to say I told you so. So I won’t.

But President Obama recently signed a law that reverses the five-year ban on horse slaughter, a welcomed first step in addressing the unintended consequences of a misguided law.

Even Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), says the U.S. should never have banned domestic horse slaughter—a stance that put the organization at odds with other animal rights activist groups.

“It’s quite an unpopular position we’ve taken,” Newkirk told the Christian Science Monitor. “There was a rush to pass a bill that said you can’t slaughter them anymore in the United States. But the reason we didn’t support it, which sets us all alone, is the amount of suffering that it created exceeded the amount of suffering it was designed to stop.”

I think this is the first time I’ve ever agreed with PETA on anything. But Ms. Newkirk is right about this.

The domestic ban didn’t end horse slaughter. It simply shifted it beyond the reach of U.S. inspectors into Mexico and Canada. In fact, a report issued during the summer by the Government Accountability Office said the ban depressed U.S. horse prices and led to neglect or abuse as owners had no way of disposing of unwanted animals—except selling them for slaughter to our southern and northern neighbors, or quit caring for them all together.

The ban was imposed in 2006 when Congress refused to fund inspection of plants which slaughtered horses for human consumption overseas. Without those inspections, the meat could not be sold. The plants shut down. The agriculture spending bill signed recently by President Obama effectively reverses that position, and the administration said it is ready to conduct inspections should a slaughter plant open.

Reversal of the ban is an important first step. A bigger challenge is the highly vocal animal rights activists who are sure to oppose the opening of any new horse slaughter facility.

But maybe there’s hope for these folks, too. The Obama administration saw the light. PETA says the ban is a mistake. Most in the horse industry will tell you that a quiet, dignified death of an unwanted horse in a humane manner is much preferable to a horse starving to death or being killed in an unregulated foreign slaughter house where anything goes.

Reinstating a humane, accountable and legal management tool is good for horses and horse owners, said Rep. Adrian Smith, a Nebraska Republican who fought for the change. It’s also good policy.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Mike Barnett

Just when you thought it was safe to drive down a dirt road, the dust issue has billowed up again.

The Environmental Protection Agency likes to call dust particulate matter, as in,“ That particulate matter is really blowing today.” That kind of sounds funny to me. But whatever you call it, dust is part of Texas. It’s a natural occurrence. It’s a part of agriculture.

Dust is worse some years, like this one, than others. When you’ve gone a year without rain and the wind is strong, dust blows. EPA took a look awhile back at tightening regulations on “particulate matter.” When they realized regulating farm dust was kind of like putting juice back in the orange—and after outcry from the agriculture community—they backed off. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said she was willing to retain the current standard.

That was some solace to farmers and ranchers. But the dust didn’t light. An environmental advocacy group called WildEarth Guardians petitioned EPA in late October in an attempt to force the agency to come down harder on controlling dust in parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Nevada, Montana, Utah and Wyoming.  According to a DTN story, 18 counties are affected, including 13,700 farms and 7.6 million acres of farmland. EPA is considering the petition. Also in the DTN story, a WildEarth Guardians spokesperson said they would consider suing EPA if the environmental agency doesn’t take action.

All of which makes me think it’s time to resolve this gritty situation.

There’s a bill in Congress—HR 1633, the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act—that could make some common sense amendments to the Clean Air Act. It would prevent regulation of natural occurrences and naturally occurring dust from normal farm operations, unless there is substantial evidence of adverse health impacts. Under current law, EPA’s standards include all kinds of dust—including soil, windblown dust and dust coming from dirt roads. In other words, farm dust.

In a nutshell, HR 1633 would prevent EPA from tightening those standards. It would limit Federal regulation of nuisance dust that is regulated by state and local law. The legislation would put the brakes on EPA should they want to revisit the issue. It could brush off the potential from mischief from environmental groups like the WildEarth Guardians.

HR 1633 offers hope that this agricultural dust issue can be settled once and for all.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Mike Barnett

Once upon a time there was a little red hen. She lived with a food activist pig, a tree hugging duck and a bureaucratic fat cat.

They all lived in a pretty farm house which the little red hen kept tidy. She worked hard every day but the others never helped. The pig liked to complain, the duck liked to protest and the cat liked to raise unreasonable expectations.

One day the little red hen was working in the garden when she found a grain of corn.

“Who will help me plant this grain of corn?” she asked.

“Not I,” grunted the food activist pig. “It might be genetically modified.”

“Not I,” quacked the tree hugging duck. “It might leave a carbon footprint.”

“Not I,” purred the bureaucratic fat cat. “We might raise some dust.”

So the little red hen picked out a spot and planted the seed.

During the summer the grain ripened in the sun until it turned a golden brown. The little red hen saw the corn was ready to harvest.

“Who will help me cut the corn?” asked the little red hen.

“Not I,” grunted the food activist pig. “You sprayed it with pesticides.”

“Not I,” quacked the tree hugging duck. “Global warming has made it too hot to work."

“Not I,” purred the bureaucratic fat cat. “You hired the kid next door and that’s against the law.”

“Okay, I’ll do it myself,” said the little red hen.

 And she did, working hard in the hot sun to harvest the crop.

“Who will take the grain to the mill, so that it can be ground into cornmeal?” asked the little red hen.

"Not I," grunted the food activist pig. “The cornmeal won’t be local because the mill’s too far away.”

“Not I,” quacked the tree hugging duck. “The mill uses coal-generated electricity.”

"Not I," purred the bureaucratic fat cat. “The mill can’t meet proposed emission standards.”

So the little red hen asked the miller to grind it. He sent the bag of cornmeal back to the farm house.

"Who will help me make the cornmeal into bread?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," grunted the food activist pig. “That’s processed cornmeal."

“Not I,” quacked the tree hugging duck. “Trees died so that cornmeal could be packaged.”

“Not I,” purred the bureaucratic fat cat. “The stove is old and doesn’t meet Section 4, Paragraph 6, Item 8 of the Oven Reform Act of 2002.”

“Very well,” said the little red hen. “I’ll make the bread myself.”

And it smelled good. The aroma filled the house and the pig, duck and cat came running.

“Who is going to eat this bread?” asked the little red hen.

“I will,” grunted the food activist pig.

“I will,” quacked the tree hugging duck.

“I will,” purred the bureaucratic fat cat.

“Oh no you won’t,” said the little red hen. “You are shallow, unreasonable and tied up in bureaucratic red tape. I’ll eat it myself.”

And she did.

And the pig, duck and cat starved to death.

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Gene Hall

Mike wrote earlier in the week about that baby born Monday. That little tyke pushed the world’s population to 7 billion. Of course, we don’t know exactly who he or she was, but it’s instructive to speculate on what that life might be like.

Much depends on where the child was born. If it was in the wealthier and technologically astute west, especially in the U.S., then the future contains more promise, though not free of trials. If the child was born outside that fortunate realm, the future is cloudier.

The thing is, we’ve seen nothing yet. When that child turns 38, in the year 2050, there will be 2 billion more souls to keep him company—a world population of 9 billion. The potential toll on resources is almost beyond comprehension. The challenges of feeding that baby and everyone will be daunting and perhaps even desperate.

We have to feed them—ideally, all of them—and we have to do it sustainably. I hesitate to use the word “sustainable.” These days it has far more meaning politically than agriculturally. I use the word to mean we have to produce more food than we ever have before in a way that preserves the resources that make it possible.

The first definition of sustainability that comes up in Webster’s is, “capable of being sustained.” While modern agriculture may not have achieved that goal in all of its thousands of applications, it’s moving toward it with astonishing speed.

I wrote about that in a previous blog. While modern agriculture is not the utopian vision that is all some will accept, it is sustainable in most respects. We are producing much more food and fiber on essentially the same amount of acres in use in 1950, despite losing some of the best lands to urban expansion.

Here are the rules for my definition of sustainable. First, the production unit has to be economically sustainable. A farmer has to make enough money to live well and send his kids to college. The same goes for the people and companies who provide inputs and process the product. Forget the notion that food production is so high and so noble that it should be an altruistic mission. It has to be a capitalist endeavor—not Wall Street capitalism—but the kind Adam Smith wrote about.

My second rule is that every effort should be made to reduce expensive chemical crop inputs—without reducing production. If you read the previous blog, you know this is already happening. It began in the laboratory and is being perfected on farms and ranches. Why use more than is needed of something that is so expensive?

The third rule is that the potential of technology must be enthusiastically embraced in our sustainable model. We can’t feed those 9 billion souls without it. This includes the political hot button of biotechnology. Why would we turn our back on an exhaustively researched technology that increases yield, brings previously unproductive land under cultivation and reduces the need for chemicals and increasingly scarce water?

Multiple generations of American farmers and ranchers have remained on the same land for decades by practicing this kind of sustainability. They’ve made unproductive lands bloom. By practicing crop rotation, rotational grazing, low- and no-till farming, integrated pest management and other techniques, they’ve left the land as good or better than when it was first charged to them. They’ve steadily reduced the use of the practices and chemicals so many find objectionable.

Many times over the years, experts have warned of the population bomb, predicting coming famine. Each time, modern agriculture has forestalled that calamity. But the bomb is still ticking. Can we feed them all? Yes, if we make the right decisions. 

Visit the Texas Farm Bureau website at www.txfb.org .
Follow Texas Farm Bureau on Twitter and Facebook for the latest updates on this topic and many more.

Tweet

By Mike Barnett

Halloween marked the day the United Nations picked for the world population to hit 7 billion.

That’s a scary thought–especially when you consider the modern agricultural methods used to feed that horde is under frequent and steady attacks.

The latest is by the Barilla Center for Food Nutrition. You’d think the geniuses at a think tank would be smart enough to figure out that 7 billion people have to eat.

Apparently not. At a recent summit in Washington, D.C., called “Healthy Food, Healthy Planet,” a spokesman for Barilla—which sponsored the event—directly linked modern agriculture production and farm policy to global malnourishment, domestic obesity, limited water resources because of livestock, climate change, limited food supplies because of biofuels and a partridge and a pear tree.

Okay, not a partridge and a pear tree. Sarcasm is shining this morning. But it’s hard to be civil when activists shout with full mouths and bulging bellies.

I’m not particularly picking on the folks at the Barilla Center. There are many misguided groups out there whose good intentions and faulty assumptions override scientific facts and common sense.

Modern agriculture isn’t perfect. But it’s the best chance we have to keep pace with a booming world population.

Let me throw some numbers at you:

• 1 billion people in the year 1800.

• 2 billion in 1930.

• 3 billion in 1960.

• 4 billion in 1974.

• 5 billion in 1987.

• 6 billion in 1999.

• 7 billion today, Oct. 31, 2011.

 
Those figures aren’t pulled out of thin air. That’s a track of world population over time by the Population Reference Bureau. The numbers represent real people—a huge number of real people—who seek nourishment every day to survive. 
 

The world population has grown to 7 billion only because agriculture evolved to meet their needs. It evolved from the agrarian society in 1800s and early 1900s to the modern production miracle of today—composed of both small and large farms, 98 percent family owned, who share the common goal of making a few bucks and feeding the world.

Many activist groups would like to see agriculture return to the “good old days,” the times of backyard gardens and 40 acres and a mule. That approach worked fine then. Subtract 5 billion people and it will probably work again. |
 

But two babies are born every second. The world population is forecast to grow to 8 billion by 2025 and 10 billion by the end of the century. 
 

Agriculture has met the challenge in the past. I’m sure it will meet this new challenge, too, if given a chance. Checks and balances are fine. They have improved agriculture production methods and the safety and quantity of the food we eat. 
 

But they can go too far. The vision of backyard gardens and 40 acre farms doesn’t pencil out in the stark reality of a surging world population. 
 

The stakes are high in this battle of idealism and modern production methods. Agriculture has to get it right. Seven billion people—and their future sons and daughters and grandchildren—are counting on us.