[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NSAS Newsletter no. 60, Fall, 1997
NEBRASKA SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE SOCIETY NEWSLETTER
Fall 1997, Number 60
The Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society promotes an agriculture
that builds healthy land, people, communities and quality of life, for
present and future generations.
This is an abridged version of the NSAS newsletter. If you wish to read
the complete version, please visit our web site at
www.netins.net/showcase/nsas
NSAS is a non-profit membership organization. Annual membership costs
$25, which includes a year's subscription to the NSAS newsletter. For
more information about NSAS or the information in this newsletter,
please contact: NSAS, PO Box 736, Hartington, NE 68739; 402-254-2289.
Fax: 402-254-6930. E-mail: cecarusi@hartel.net.
The NSAS newsletter is published quarterly. We welcome articles,
letters, poetry and other contributions, which should be sent to the
above address. Articles appearing in this newsletter may be reproduced;
please credit the authors and the NSAS newsletter. This newsletter is
supported in part by grants from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.
In This Issue:
Let the Animals Do the Harvesting
Invite Some Chickens to Your Garden
NSAS News
Annual Meeting Set for February 28
Western Conference Announced
NSAS Directory Available
Dairy Graziers are Optimistic About Farming
Hogs Thrive in Alternative Production System
Large Farms are Thriving
Let the Animals Do the Harvesting
Terry Gompert, Knox County Extension Educator
Today I'm not going to discuss the negative and positive points of
large-scale livestock confinement. Instead, I'll try to express the
excitement and the positive things that I've seen in the alternatives.
Nearly all the alternatives involve using the animal as the harvester.
Results are no less than fantastic! They are nearly unbelievable!
Reports suggest significant profits and improved quality of life for the
livestock owners. The land, soil, and the environment are protected.
Consumer acceptance of the meat is high.
Manure is valuable if it's in the right place! The manure produced
annually per 1000 pounds of animal weight are as follows: dairy cow - 15
ton; beef feeder - 11 ton; beef cow - 11.5 ton; sheep - 7.5 ton; poultry
broiler - 13 ton; and horse - 8.5 ton.
For the individual who has developed a grazing system, this manure is
"money in the pot." A 100 head beef cow herd will produce approximately
1150 tones of manure. The University of Nebraska has valued each ton,
on a nutrient basis, at $9.57. The gross value of that manure is a
whopping $11,005.50.
The exciting opportunity is to capture as much of the manure as is
possible. The extra bonus is that the better job you do in your grazing
system, the less you have to work.
I once heard someone say that before he developed a good grazing
system, he was continually hauling. He harvested and hauled feed to the
bins; he hauled it to the livestock; and he hauled the waste to the
field. Once he let the animal do the work, time was saved, less
equipment and fertilizer was needed, and the profits went up.
Did you know that those who are in the business of haying or cropping
are mining minerals? A ton of prairie hay, for example, contains 4
pounds of phosphorus, 22 pounds of potassium, and 2 pounds of sulfur per
ton. Over time, the minerals are depleted in the soil and commercial
fertilizer needs to be added. Livestock manure can also be added back
to the soil, but much of the advantage is lost in hauling.
A beef animal recycles mineral very efficiently. For example, 95% of
the potassium ingested by an animal passes through its urine. 70 to 80%
of the ingested phosphorus passes through the animal in its feces.
Good grazing programs recycle nutrients. The only free lunches in
agriculture are sunlight, rainfall, and minerals recycled through the
grazing animal. The better we capture these three, the greater our
reward.
Where do I hear of the excitement? I hear it from dairy graziers,
stocker and cow/calf operators, beef finishers, and buffalo producers.
Pastured poultry, ducks, turkey, geese, elk, deer, pasture farrowing,
and horse rearing is where I hear the excitement. I hear it from new
farmers and ranchers. It takes less investment to graze. We are talking
about a great opportunity when compared to confinement.
Crop producers cut costs when the animal harvests the crop: no storage
bins, no hauling, no "heavy metal" harvesting equipment, lower
fertilizer costs, less hired labor, and more fun.
The public likes to eat livestock raised in a grazing program. It
seems healthy. It seems environmentally safe. It seems right.
Do you see why there is excitement about the alternatives to
large-scale confinement livestock production? Consider letting the
animal be the harvester.
Invite Some Chickens to Your Garden
Thomas N. Tomas
Most any size garden can benefit from a few chickens. They will root
out persistent perennial weeds, eat insects, fertilize the soil, and
provide eggs and meat in the bargain. All it takes is a little planning
and a small investment in fencing and shelter.
I keep about a dozen hens and one rooster year-round. They get regular
feed plus table scraps, damaged fruit and vegetables, insects, weeds and
grass clippings. We get all the eggs we need, an occasional chicken
dinner, and the best compost you can imagine.
To make my chicken pen, I built seven 4 x 12-foot panels out of 1 x
4-inch lumber and covered them with chicken wire. One panel has a four
foot access gate built into it. I put four of the panels together to
form a 12-foot square, and put the other three on top to keep the
chickens in and predators out. The outside two top panels are hinged so
I can lift them up to throw in grass clippings, leaves, or garden waste
for bedding.
Feeders hang from a pipe across the pen, and fresh water is available
at all times. For a coop, I use an old pickup camper shell, complete
with roost and nest boxes, next to the pen. The whole setup can be taken
apart and moved to a new location without too much trouble.
Over the summer, about a foot of compost accumulates in the pen. In the
fall, I move the pen to a new location and apply the compost to the
garden. By spring, another foot of compost has built up in the new
location and it is time to move again. By adding grass clippings in the
spring and leaves, straw or hay in the winter, fly and odor problems are
kept down and the proper carbon to nitrogen ratio is maintained for good
composting. The chickens do the turning and mixing of the compost, as
well as providing the nitrogen.
In the spring, I may allow two or three of the hens to set on a clutch
of eggs and hatch out some chicks. The grandchildren really like to
watch the whole process from the time the hens are starting to set until
the fluffy yellow chicks peek out from under her wings.
The chicks and hens can be put out on new grass, and by the end of
summer another area is ready for garden. The roosters can be butchered
and the best hens kept to replace burned-out cluckers destined for that
great pot of home-made chicken noodle soup Campbell's hasn't even
dreamed of yet.
When we toured Tom Larson's farm this summer, he showed us his "chicken
tractors." These are portable, covered pens on skids that he moves each
day to new grass. After starting his chicks in a brooder, he raises
several batches of broilers in his portable pens. Fresh water and feed
is available to the birds, and the grass supplements their diet.
By moving the tractors, the birds are always on clean ground. If the
tractors are moved often enough, the grass will recover and grow back.
It can be pastured again in a few weeks. If the tractors are left in
place long enough for the chickens to thoroughly scratch up the grass,
it can be tilled and prepared for garden.
To learn more about chickens in the garden and how to set up your own
"chicken tractor," check out these books from your library or NSAS, or
contact the publisher:
Chicken Tractor: The Gardener's Guide to Happy Hens and Healthy Soil,
by Andy Lee. Published by Good Earth Publications, PO Box 160, Columbus,
NC 28872. Phone and Fax: 704-863-2288.
Pastured Poultry Profits, by Joel Salatin. Published by Polyface, Inc.,
Swoope, VA. Available through the Stockman Grass Farmer.
NSAS News
Annual Meeting Set for February 28
The 1998 Annual Meeting of the Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Society
will address Wise Choices, Bright Futures: Questioning Trends in Food
and Farming Systems. The meeting is planned for February 28 at the
Leadership Center in Aurora. (Please note the new location!)
Dr. Charles Benbrook will join NSAS members for a day of presentations
and workshops on critical issues facing agriculture today. Dr. Benbrook
will present the implications of biotechnology on production
agriculture, the environment and consumers. His discussion will focus on
changes in the seed and pesticide industry, labeling issues, and the
treatment of genetically engineered organisms in the organic
certification process.
Dr. Benbrook is a private consultant who works with consumer and
environmental groups, researchers and the government to explore policy
issues and possible solutions. He authored the report Pest Management at
the Crossroads.
The meeting will include interesting, practical workshops on a wide
range of topics such as sustainable hog production, organic farming and
gardening, biological pest management, urban gardening, and rural zoning
issues. An overview of the past ten years of research and education
projects funded through the USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) program will be presented.
Other plans include a delicious noon meal featuring food grown by NSAS
members and a silent auction.
Registration materials will be included in the winter NSAS newsletter.
For more information, call NSAS at 402-254-2289.
Western Conference Announced
Recognizing the unique climate and farming conditions of western
Nebraska, NSAS holds a special conference every year focusing on issues
relevant to farmers in this region.
The 6th annual NSAS Western Conference will be held on Saturday,
January 31, 1998, at the Mid-Plains Community College in North Platte.
The theme will be Renewing People, Profit and the Environment for
Agriculture: Rural Community-Friendly Strategies. Mark your calendars
now for what promises to be the biggest and best Western Conference
ever! More details will be published in the November Update.
If you have any suggestions for this year's conference, contact western
organizer Jane Sooby at 308-254-3918.
NSAS Directory Available
The 1997-1999 NSAS Directory will be ready in October. This is our most
complete and informative directory ever! It includes contact information
for most NSAS members as well as an extensive listing of sustainable
agriculture resource organizations, groups participating in the Nebraska
IMPACT Project, and the NSAS Speakers' Bureau. The directory is indexed
and includes listings of NSAS members by county.
The directory will be mailed to NSAS members and IMPACT groups during
the month of October. If you are not a current NSAS member, join or
renew now and receive your copy of this invaluable resource! See page 11
for membership information.
Dairy Graziers are Optimistic About Farming
Victoria Mundy, University of Kentucky
You read lots of trade magazine stories about how management intensive
grazing (MIG) systems benefit dairy farms. But are you just hearing
about the successes?
Wisconsin researchers needed some good answers to that question,
since dairy is so important in their state. So, they did two very
large, random surveys of Wisconsin dairy farmers. The survey results
reflect the practices and intentions of Wisconsin dairy farmers in
general, not those of a select and highly visible group of graziers.
MIG for dairies in Wisconsin is well established. More than 14%
of Wisconsin dairiers are now fully or semi-intensive graziers. And
that number is growing fast.
A "fully intensive grazing dairy" is one in which pasture is the
primary source of total feed for milking cows during grazing months. A
"semi-intensive grazing dairy" is one in which pasture provides for
milking cows' forage needs, but is not the primary source of total feed
during grazing months. In both systems, cows graze in pasture paddocks,
moving to fresh pasture at least once a week.
The growth of MIG is concentrated in regions where topography,
land prices, land tenure arrangements, and regional economic activity
encourage grazing dairies. Farmer grazing networks and Extension agents
can encourage MIG in their areas, too.
Wisconsin farmers who use intensive grazing are very similar in
age and education to dairy farmers who don't — except that graziers tend
to have weaker family ties to dairying. This implies that a farmer
whose family historically used another system, or who has money invested
in a different system, might find MIG hard to adopt.
Wisconsin MIG dairy farmers tend to use few
production-maximizing technologies and business management practices
such as Total Mixed Ration machinery, Bovine Growth Hormone, or Dairy
Herd Improvement Association services. MIG dairies typically do have
lower milk production per cow and are much smaller than other dairies.
On the other hand, more MIG dairy farmers than non-MIG farmers
report that they are likely to expand their operations.
MIG farmers have a strong "environmental ethic." They are
especially concerned about erosion and chemical use. Wisconsin dairiers
in general resolutely support a structure of agriculture with
moderate-sized, family-operated farms.
Economically speaking, MIG dairies are competitive — depending
upon how you look at it. Financial return to capital is higher for MIG
dairies than other dairies. Total farm income is lower since MIG farms
are smaller. When full costs including labor and management are
considered, MIG and non-MIG returns are about equal.
Farm economics are only part of the whole picture. MIG farms
require considerably less family labor time, even though labor per cow
is greater than on non-MIG farms. So, family members are more likely to
have off-farm jobs — and total family income is about the same on MIG
farms as on other dairy farms.
Fully intensive MIG farmers are more optimistic about farming than
other Wisconsin dairiers are. They are more likely to see themselves
farming in the future, partly because of their off-farm income.
So MIG does look helpful for dairy's future in Wisconsin. What
about Nebraska?
A brief 1994 survey of Nebraska dairy farmers indicated that, at
the time, only about 100 farmers might be described as semi-intensive
graziers. But the survey also revealed that more than 350 of the 1135
licensed Nebraska dairy farmers were interested in learning about
grazing for dairy operations.
Given the positive results that Wisconsin is experiencing with
MIG for dairies, Nebraska dairy farmers who want to learn more are onto
something good.
References:
Anderson, B.E., and R. Grant. 1994. Dairy/Pasture Use Survey.
p.17-19. Dairy Report. Nebraska Cooperative Extension MP65-A.
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. Lincoln, NE 68583.
Jackson-Smith, D., B. Barham, M. Nevius, and R. Klemme. 1996. Grazing
in Dairyland. Agricultural Technology and Family Farm Institute
Technical Rpt. #5. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI
53706.
Hogs Thrive in Alternative Production System
Jane Sooby
Conventional hog production is moving more and more toward the model
pioneered by the poultry industry. In this production system, farmers
construct expensive, high-tech confinement facilities and raise hogs
under contract with a corporate partner. The expected life of a
confinement facility is about 10 years. Often by the time the farmer
pays off construction costs, the facility is obsolete and the cycle
begins all over again.
Because water is required to flush and handle the manure produced in
confinement systems, large amounts of semi-liquid material need to be
disposed of. The odor and possible water contamination associated with
this system are causing alarm in the general public. The crowded
conditions in which the animals live create major stresses on the hogs'
health and well-being.
While proponents of industrialized hog production would like us to
believe that this is an inevitable trend, sustainable farmers across the
country are demonstrating alternative hog production methods that are
clean, humane, and profitable.
Two central Nebraska farmers raise hogs differently from the industry
norm of concentrated, large-scale production. Rod Nagorski keeps his
hogs outdoors while Bryce Ritz runs a 112-sow farrow-to-finish operation
in hoop structures. Both of these farmers from Comstock, Nebraska, use
these alternatives for financial and hog health reasons.
Construction costs for total confinement hog structures are too
expensive for most family-sized farms to enter large-scale hog
production.
"Even if you get it paid for in 10-15 years," said Bryce, "by then the
facility will be too old" and obsolete. "The farmer is at (financial)
risk, has to build the facility, and never totally recoups his
investment."
Rod concurs that high construction costs and interest rates are a major
barrier to large-scale hog production. "You have so much money wrapped
up in those buildings, you have to raise hogs the rest of your life to
pay for it. You can't get out if you want to," he said.
Rod keeps 110 sows outdoors, providing a shed and hay bales for shelter
in the winter. "These hogs will be mine a lot sooner than the banker's,"
he said. His main cost is feed. Sows and gilts are run on alfalfa in
season and fed on corn and barley in colder weather. Some of his sows
farrowed in weeds this year, producing "nice, big pigs." Rod plans to
build A-frame structures to house the hogs. Because he doesn't rely only
on his hog enterprise, he has the flexibility to run as many or as few
hogs as he feels comfortable with. Besides hogs, Rod raises buffalo,
cattle and chickens for meat and eggs.
Bryce raises his hogs in a hoop structure, a semi-circular frame
covered with a canvas top. The main advantages of hoop structures are
the low cost (around $6,000 for a 30' x 60' structure), and a better
environment for the animals. Hogs are healthy and physically fit in his
production system. Bryce concedes that in confinement systems, feed
conversion in winter is better than in the hoop structure because the
controlled environment keeps the hogs warmer and none of their energy is
lost to warming. Fall and spring feed conversion rates and rates of
gain, though, for Bryce's hogs compare favorably to hogs in confinement
systems.
Bryce farrows his sows in a crate where they remain for a week to 10
days. Then the sow and piglets are moved to a free-stall pen where the
sow can get up and move around, improving her condition and attitude.
The piglets are weaned at about four and a half weeks, compared with 2
weeks in confinement production. They are kept in the pen until they are
five weeks old, giving both the sow and Bryce a break.
Bryce maximizes the capacity of his building by running four groups of
28 sows each, cleaning the building between each group. But he feels
that this is more than his farm can support. Running 56 sows, or two
groups of 28, better fits the feed and bedding he can produce on his
farm, and still generates enough compost to fertilize his crops.
By using the waste from his hog production to fertilize his crops,
Bryce completes the nutrient cycles on his farm. Because the manure is
in a dry, aerobic condition, the smell is less offensive than liquid
manure.
Bryce and Rod are concerned about the health of pigs in confinement
systems and the resulting quality of meat that comes out of them. "If
you're running hogs in that environment," said Bryce, "there's no way to
keep them without high levels of antibiotics and medication. It's not a
healthy animal if it requires medication to keep it alive."
Bryce points out that scientists have introduced a "stress gene" into
hog genetics that encourages leanness. This gene can produce porcine
stress syndrome, a disease resulting from extreme stress that can cause
hogs to die from the stress of just being moved from one place to
another. Pigs suffering from this syndrome frequently produce pork that
the food industry characterizes as "PSE" or pale, soft, and exudative.
This meat is watery, unusually pale, and gives off fluid when cut. This
low quality meat is almost useless in the meat industry.
Bryce is a member of a farmers' marketing group that cooperates to get
a good bid for their meat and sends out a semi load once a week. He
believes that small-scale farmers can get a better price for their
product by working together.
These central Nebraska farmers are developing alternative models of hog
production and marketing that reduce overhead costs, environmental
waste, and hog health problems while producing high quality pork.
Bryce Ritz and Rod Nagorski demonstrated their hog production systems
at a farm tour this August. The tour was co-sponsored by OCIA NE #1.
Large Farms are Thriving
An Agricultural Brief issued by the Bureau of the Census of the U.S.
Dept. of Commerce contains fascinating data on large farms versus small
farms. Based on data from the 1992 census, the brief shows how large
farms are thriving while smaller farms appear to barely be hanging on.
The Bureau defines a large farm as one with over $100,000 worth of
sales per year. The brief reports that while the total number of farms
has decreased from 2.7 million in 1969 to 1.9 million in 1992, the
number of large farms has increased from 51,995 to 333,865 in that same
period.
According to the Bureau, in 1992 large farms operated 54% of farmland
and produced 83% of all farm products sold in the U.S. A huge 98% of
poultry and poultry products were sold by large farms in 1992, as well
as 92% of cotton, 93% of vegetables and melons, and 91% of nursery and
greenhouse commodities.
In 1992, large farms were only 34% of the total number of farms but
received 63% of government payments. Small farms comprised 66% of the
total number of farms but received only 37% of government payments.
At the same time, more than 90% of large farm operators considered
farming their main occupation, while only 47% of small farm operators
did. Only 24% of large-farm operators worked off-farm compared with 57%
of small-farm operators.
According to the Brief, large farms averaged an annual net cash return
of $83,812 (excluding government payments), compared with an average net
cash return to small farms of $1,836.
You may order a free copy of "Large Farms Are Thriving in the United
States" by calling 1-800-523-3215, or look at
http:/www.census.gov/ftp/pub/econ/www/
- Jane Sooby
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".