From hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com Sun Dec 28 23:54:20 1997 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 97 09:59:43 PST From: Greg and Lei Gunthorp To: sanet Subject: Dennis Avery Article on Confinement Hogs [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] Whoa! Did Dennis Avery ever make some sweeping generalazations about confinement and pasture hog producers. It all comes down to his last paragraph. He states Iowa confinement swine farms project 18% returns on investment(12% if they have no use for the manure). Why didn't he find out a return on investment figure for pasture operations? It would have ruined his whole article. Pasture hog operations will at least double those confinement figures! They also don't smell. They don't pollute the environment if they are pasture operations(grass or legumes not bare dirt). He made a lot of statements describing outside operations. (Ones on bare dirt that never rotate pastures.) And pasture operations give economic power to independant farmers. Isn't that the true problem with low input farming? If managed properly it can be too profitable for agriculture? We apparently don't want farmers to make a decent living. We also apparantly don't want farming systems that have long term sustainability. My family will continue to raise pigs on pasture for at least another 50 years if we have a market.(And still basically the same size as when it started!) Tell me a confinement operation that can say that. Best wishes, Greg Gunthorp hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com Sun Dec 28 23:57:55 1997 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 97 17:32:53 PST From: Greg and Lei Gunthorp To: Craig Harris Cc: sanet Subject: Re: Dennis Avery Article on Confinement Hogs [The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set] [Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set] [Some characters may be displayed incorrectly] I'll send some financial information over the Sanet if thats ok with the group. Anybody know where I can find out the average hog price for the last ten years? I've got a pretty good idea, but I don't want to skew the data. I would argue with most numbers from other sources. Normally productivity of the sows is too low for the amount of feed BECAUSE THEY ARE OUTSIDE OPERATIONS NOT PASTURE OPERATIONS! Pigs have to be on pasture not bare dirt to make money outside. Otherwise its a toss up between spending extra feed or spending extra on buildings. Pasture hog operations have to contain a controled grazing component, especially to control sow feed costs and protein costs for market hogs. Did your sources contain those? My operation lowers feed costs and building costs compared to a confinement operation. How can my return on investment be lower? My margins are significantly higher and my investment is significantly lower. I was at an alternative swine conference and saw Jim VanDerPol show figures of over 30% with pasture farrowing and hoop house finishing. I've honestly never figured mine but I will guess it to be in Jim's ball park. I do know where my cost of production is and I know that virtually my whole investment to raise hogs will outlast confinement investment by at least twice as long. I still have market hog coops that my grandpa built in the early 1950's. How do you even put a cost per pig on something with a lifespan of 50 years? Of course any repairs to it are in my cost of production. I expect my high tensile fences to last 25-40 years. My cost of production is below $30. How does that compare with your other sources? Ask the seasonal dairies where the "other sources" are for accurate financial information. I think what all this goes to prove is that the universities have for so long justified the confinement industry that they have lost track of where the low cost pasture operations are headed. And don't get me wrong. Its starting to change. But my land grant university is still passing out pasture hog information from the late 1960's! Ask my dad, He will tell you it was at least 20 years out dated when it was published! Thanks for the reply. We in the sustainable agriculture movement have our work cut out to get the word out about true low cost systems. ------ > while i'm not a fan of confinement hog operations (or of dennis avery), > i'm curious about the claim in greg gunthorp's communication (below) . . > . as i understand greg's message, the return on investment for hogs on > pasture would be 36 percent per year; this strikes me as considerably > higher than figures i see in other sources . . . i'm curious if greg or > anyone else has any figures that would support that expectation . . . > perhaps some explanation of how return and investment are being measured > would help clarify the discussion > cheers, > craig > > craig k harris > dept of sociology > michigan state university > east lansing michigan 48824-1111 > u.s.a. > t: 517-355-5048 > f: 517-432-2856 > > > > ---------- > > From: Greg and Lei Gunthorp > > Sent: Sunday, December 28, 1997 12:59 PM > > To: sanet > > Subject: Dennis Avery Article on Confinement Hogs > > > > Whoa! Did Dennis Avery ever make some sweeping generalazations > > about confinement > > and pasture hog producers. > > It all comes down to his last paragraph. He states Iowa confinement > > swine farms project > > 18% returns on investment(12% if they have no use for the manure). > > Why didn't he find out > > a return on investment figure for pasture operations? It would have > > ruined his whole article. > > Pasture hog operations will at least double those confinement figures! > > They also don't smell. > > They don't pollute the environment if they are pasture > > operations(grass or legumes not bare > > dirt). He made a lot of statements describing outside operations. > > (Ones on bare dirt that never > > rotate pastures.) > > And pasture operations give economic power to independant farmers. > > Isn't that the true problem with low input farming? If managed > > properly it can be too profitable for agriculture? We apparently > > don't want farmers to make a decent living. We also apparantly don't > > want farming systems that > > have long term sustainability. My family will continue to raise pigs > > on pasture for at least another > > 50 years if we have a market.(And still basically the same size as > > when it started!) Tell me a > > confinement operation that can say that. > > Best wishes, > > Greg Gunthorp > > hey4hogs@kuntrynet.com > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe > > sanet-mg". > > To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command > > "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". > > > To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From ssikerd@muccmail.missouri.edu Mon Dec 29 21:47:56 1997 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 15:49:12 CST From: ssikerd@muccmail.missouri.edu To: sanet-mg@shasta.ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Confinement Hogs & Environment -- Myth or Reality? (4 pgs) Confinement Hogs Help the Environment -- Myth or Reality? Dennis Avery, in his Dec. 7, 97 article in the Des Moines Register, used the age old tactic of building a "straw man," in this case a stereotypical hog farmer, and then proceeding to tear it down. He creates the image of conventional production as hogs wallowing around on muddy stream banks. Feed is scattered on the ground around sloppy self-feeders. It's mid-winter and only a few huts are scattered here and there to protect the hogs from the driving wind, sleet, and snow. Now contrast this image with a heated, air-conditioned hotel-like hog facility. The waste is "flushed" and disappears into a disposal unit, just like at a hotel. Nutritional needs are carefully monitored so the hogs will clean their plates with no waste or mess. With these two pictures in mind, which type of production would you guess Mr. Avery is going to conclude is best for the environment and for rural communities? Let's take a look at the myths that result from this distortion of reality. Myth: Confinement hog farms take less land from nature. Avery continually pursues the fallacy of spatial separation as a means of supporting his goal of an intensive, high-input agriculture. His real concern is not that we have more space for wildlife, but that we continue to concentrate agriculture in the smallest space possible. Concentration maximizes the demand for purchased inputs and marketing services, both of which must be bought from the agribusiness sector. The real objective of Avery's support for concentrated production is to maximize profit opportunities of agribusiness firms. Concentration takes less land nature only if: (1) we ignore the space required to "effectively" produce inputs and dispose of wastes "without" doing irreparable harm to the environment and (2) we assume that environmental space can be effectively separated -- isolating hog farms from wildlife and people. How much land does it really take to produce a confinement hog? I don't know and neither does anyone else. But, in general, the farther be deviate from nature in our systems of production, the more ecological harm we will do somewhere and the greater the total "ecological space" needed somewhere to heal the wounds. Is ecological space separable? No! The fundamental law of ecology is that "you can't do just one thing." You may put thousands of hogs in a building somewhere out of sight with a high fence around it. But you can't contain the ecological, economic, or social impacts within that fence. Spatial separation only creates an "illusion" of ecological separation. We share the "same" space with wildlife, and with each other, whether we are willing to admit it or not. If we are to sustain human life on earth, we must learn to live, work, and play while sharing the "same" space with other forms of life. Spatial interconnectivity is an ecological fact. Myth: Big confinement hog farms protect our water quality. Here Avery paints the picture of hogs wallowing in the stream on the typical family hog farm to contrast it with his hotel-like sanitary waste treatment scenario for the large-scale, confinement production unit. No one can deny the existence of water polluting family hog farms. But, neither can anyone any longer deny the water quality risks associated with "real world," large-scale confinement hog operations. However, hogs wallowing in streams are not typical of family hog farms. Even if it were, there are economically viable family farm alternatives, such as pasture rotation systems and hoop-house systems, which are capable of effective hog waste handling without water pollution. However, the supposed best of the high-tech confinement hog operations have been responsible for major lagoon spills and water pollution incidents over the past few years. Water quality problems associated with large-scale, confinement operations cannot be solved, because they are inherent within the system. The problem is concentration of too much waste in too few places. Any mistake or breakdown in the waste management system results in ecological damage simply because of the large quantities of waste involved. There is far more room for error when hogs are scattered across the landscape, as they are on small-scale feeding and pasture-based systems on family farms. Nature is designed to absorb small shocks. The poison is in the dose - in the level of concentration. Ask the water quality experts in North Carolina if big, confinement hog operations protect water quality. North Carolina recently enacted a moratorium on further building of large-scale hog operations because of environmental damage. Myth: Confinement hogs produce less soil erosion. Soil erosion is a consequence of poor management, regardless of whether it occurs in livestock or cropping operations. Erosion in livestock operations is a consequence of duration of impact far more than intensity of impact. In fact, the rooting tendency of hogs may be put to good use when managed effectively within the context of a diversified, whole-farm system. Regardless of any utility of rooting, hogs can be produced with minimal erosion in well-managed hoop house or pasture-based hog operations. The fact that soil erosion in confinement systems is out of sight does not mean that it doesn't exist. Erosion in the fields where the crops are gown to feed hogs quite likely far overshadows whatever occurs in places where hogs are grown. Myth: Confinement hogs take less feed. Again, feed efficiency is far more a function of effectiveness of management than of any particular systems of production. The new large-scale confinement operations probably produce more pork per pound of feed than does the average Midwest hog farm. However, financial records of hog farmers collected by Universities in the Midwest consistently show that the better managed family-sized hog farms can produce hogs more efficiently, overall, than can the large-scale hog factories. The "average" feed costs may be slightly higher for family hog farms, but an "average or better" managed family hog farm certainly is "cost competitive" with the factory operations. In addition, the production technologies that account for most of the feed and reproduction efficiencies on the large-scale operations may be adaptable to far smaller family operations. The fundamental question seems to be: Why don't we help family hog farmers become more efficient and remain competitive rather than turning them into "hog factory workers?" We know that family farms, with better-than-average managers and good production technologies, can produce hog as efficiently as the large operations. Why don't we help all hog farmers to do better tomorrow than do the "average" hog farmers today? Myth: Confinement hogs suffer lower death losses. Here, the myth is mainly in the implication - the "needless suffering" and loss of life that Avery attributes to pigs being raised out-of-doors. Avery seems to assume that pigs are just like people. They are not. Pigs can thrive in environments other than confinement, if they are provided with the basic needs of a pig - e.g. protection from the wind and precipitation and plenty of bedding. Death loss might still be less in confinement than outside, but surely Avery would not argue that pigs would "prefer" confinement to a humane outside environment. Quite possibly, human death rates are lower and "feed efficiency" higher in human prisons, but does that mean people would prefer being locked up in a small cell - like a hog in confinement? The final myth that Mr. Avery puts forth in the Des Moines Register article is that factory hog farms are good for Midwest communities. It takes people, not just production, to support viable rural communities. Factory hog farms employ fewer people per hog produced. That's one of their principal economic "advantages." In addition, the hog factory worker is likely to have far less commitment to the local community that does the family hog farmer -- even if many of today's hog farmers end up as tomorrow's hog factory workers. A typical American dream of today's factory workers is to someday own their business - to be their own boss. Why take those who already have this American dream, the family farmer, and force them to settle for something less? The comparative advantages of the Midwest in hog production are tied to the inherent strengths of relatively small-scale, diversified, land-based family farming operations. Industrialization, specialization, and mass production are systems of the past -- not of the future. And they certainly are not well suited for the rural Midwest. We already know that industrialization pollutes the environment, degrades human dignity and productive capacity, and alienates people from each other in families, communities, and society in general. Why should we want to industrialize rural America? We need to be looking for solutions to the problems that won't make the problems even worse. Why don't we explore the natural comparative advantage of hogs as scavengers of wastes rather than as consumers of grains? Why don't we explore the possibility of local and regional food systems that would reconnect hog farmers with their customers and reestablish trust between hog farmers and their neighbors rather than building more walls between them? Why don't we invest in programs that will help hog farmers build their management capacities rather than expanding waste handling capacities for factory hog farms? As long as we allow "the problem" to be disguised as "the solution," we will never really explore the many positive possibilities for a brighter future for families on Midwest hog farms. John Ikerd Co-coordinator, Sustainable Agriculture Extension Programs University of Missouri To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest". From dmhinds@acnet.net Mon Dec 29 21:48:20 1997 Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 16:35:21 -0600 From: "Douglas M. Hinds" To: Greg and Lei Gunthorp Cc: Craig Harris , sanet Subject: Hog Prices Greg and Lei Gunthorp wrote: > Anybody know where I can find out the average hog price for the last ten years? As I recall, the ams (agricultural marketing service) of the USDA maintains data for the last 5 years prices on their website. I don't deal much in animal products and will have to check my bookmarks to see how I got in there (I was checking on lard prices some time back and there are different ways in - directly through the USDA or through various universities), but I suggest you try the following and let me know if you don't find what you need. http://www.usda.gov/ams/search.htm Here's somthing closer that I found in my files: gopher://shelley.ca.uky.edu:70/11/agmkts/market_wire/meat also: gopher://shelley.ca.uky.edu:70/00/.agwx/usr/markets/usda/NWLS442 I these don't come through as active links you'll have to copy them to your browers URL window etc., or gopher to them if you use that. One or both may be linked to specific dates so you'll probably have to navigate a bit from there to find just what you need. -- Douglas M. Hinds, Director General Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural A.C. (CeDeCoR) (Center for Community and Rural Development) - (non profit) Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412 6308 (direct) e-mail: cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net, dhinds@ucol.mx To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg". To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command "subscribe sanet-mg-digest".