Pandemics, Power and People

As a few of you might have noticed, I took a break from posting.  I suppose you could say I have been socially distant in this particular medium.

Social distancing is really nothing new for me; I am perfectly happy where there are few people and far horizons.  I've even been told that I am sometimes socially distant in a crowded room.  Oh, well.

This SARS-CoV-19 global pandemic is something new, but also something old.  Viruses periodically mutate and sometimes move between species (zoonosis).  That is the most likely explanation for what has happened.  It is something we will see more frequently as this old planet fills up with people.  Densely packed populations facilitate the spread of disease.  The answer is social distancing -- spreading apart.

Dense populations -- whether they be temporary or, somewhat permanent -- are also sources of panic behavior.  It's that old "crowd" mentality that causes people to bolt for the door when someone yells "fire!"  In this case, it caused a run on the grocery stores which has temporarily created holes in our amazing system of supply chains which rarely miss a beat.  The massive nature of the shift of consumer demand from "restaurant dining" to eat at home caught the entire system somewhat by surprise.  There is plenty of food -- at least in the developed countries -- it is just in the wrong place, but that is rapidly being corrected.

I'm thankful to live in a small town rather than a city.  Even in our rural setting there are signs of disruption.  We have also had our first case of the disease confirmed.  It will eventually pass through the population of the planet.  It won't infect everyone, but it will touch most of the people in some form or fashion -- from a disease perspective, not just as a disruption to life as we know it.

The biggest fear that I have out of this entire episode of disruption is the amount of power that is being displayed by governmental entities all over the world.  That is a genie that will not be put back in the bottle.

Billionaire Candidates and Agricultural Ignorance

This is from a few years ago and is among my favorite images.  I find it interesting how the curiosity is strong on both sides of the fence.

Agriculture is something that is little appreciated by most people these days.  Social media has been completely crazy with how one of the current Presidential candidates gave a speech a few years ago to a group of highly educated, full-of-themselves individuals, in which he implied that it didn't take much intelligence to be in agriculture.  In fact, that speech (follow the link to see the article which includes the video) was given at about the same time the above image was taken.

The speech has been taken out of context in such a way that everyone in agriculture has gotten angry rather than thought about what was said.  Essentially, he indicated that civilization has evolved through time from what was, for most of history, an agrarian culture to an industrialized economy and now we are in the middle of a technology-based information economy.  He was correct, but his comments leave one wondering if he truly understands the amount of information and technology that are utilized in agriculture today.

Take that bunch of cows in the image above; they were from a registered herd of Angus that have been carefully selected for over 60 years to produce efficient, fertile, highly versatile animals that provide us with some of the highest quality meat in history.  Each animal is carefully measured in many ways, the data collected, collated and compared against their genetic scores which are developed from genomic testing.  They are rigorously selected based on stringent criteria so that only the best animals are allowed to produce breeding stock for future generations.

They are fed protein and mineral supplements that are carefully formulated to meet the nutritional requirements that the animals cannot attain from forage alone.  They are vaccinated to prevent disease.  They are cared for using scientifically-based methods that reduce the amount of stress to which they are subjected.  The forage they eat is also managed based on best scientifically proven practices.

That's just a small part of agriculture -- raising cattle on a ranch.  I won't even address what happens when they head up the production chain to eventual harvest and presentation in the meat case at your local supermarket.  Technology is everywhere.

When you look at farming it gets even crazier.  The tractors are guided by computers to precisely apply the correct amounts of seed, fertilizer, etc. based on satellite images.  The seeds which are planted are frequently the result of advanced breeding techniques -- including genetic manipulation to enhance disease, chemical and pest resistance.  We have more and better quality food than ever before in history -- thanks to the application of technology to agriculture -- and it costs virtually the same as it did 50+ years ago!

The candidate in question mentions the brainpower required to farm vs. work in a factory vs. create the technology which is so pervasive in society today.  I should introduce him to the rocket scientist I know who ranches in Arizona.  He truly is a rocket scientist -- used to work at NASA.  Or, maybe he should meet some of the scientists unraveling the genetic code which determines disease resistance.  Oh, wait, those are scientists.  Yep, I have worked with them most of my career.  They may be able to manipulate a gene, but most of them have no clue how their work impacts the real world.  They are isolated in their cocoon of technology of which they know much, but they don't know what to do with it much of the time.

I think, ultimately, that is the issue.  I call it intellectual snobbery.  It happens in every field of endeavor.  I've seen it in many, many scientific and engineering fields -- and I've seen it in agriculture.  It goes something like this: "If you don't have a PhD in blah, blah, blah, there is no way you can understand it.  You obviously don't have the intelligence to be able to comprehend it, or you would have a PhD in blah, blah, blah."  Sometimes it isn't just a PhD -- with Engineers it is simply a degree in Engineering -- and they have ranks.  I think Aerospace is at the top and Civil is at the bottom.  Each believes if you "aren't one of us, you ain't nothing."

Back to agriculture -- "If you try to learn how to ranch after a career in something else, you had better be prepared to fail."  "If you didn't grow up in it you will never be able to master it."  Those are incorrect too.

Getting back to the article:  I don't like the candidate mentioned in the article.  Period.  I think he would be worse for our country than most of the others.  Just look at the problems in his state and you should agree.  We shouldn't blast him for what was said, though.  Instead, we should realize that what he said is a symptom of something deeper.  The average person, or the self-proclaimed intellectual elite has no idea about what is involved in production agriculture.  Most of them don't even know what is necessary to get the food to their table.  Billionaire Presidential candidates probably have large staffs that take care of it for them anyway -- they don't even know their food comes from the grocery store -- let alone what it took to get it to the store.

If you don't like the candidate, talk about why you don't like the candidate; don't just blast him by taking his words out of context and failing to address the real issue -- ignorance.  Yep, brilliant people can be ignorant.  If you don't know about something, you are ignorant of that subject.  It doesn't mean you lack the gray matter to understand it given time and effort.  I wish all of the candidates would apply a little more of their gray matter to learning about food production.  Those in agriculture just don't add up to enough votes for it to make a difference to them -- at least in their mind.  We need to explain why it does matter.  Even billionaires won't live long without food.

Living to the Next Paycheck

Today is sale day for this group of calves.  They will be sold in the NETBIO (Northeast Texas Beef Improvement) sale.  It is a special sale of pre-conditioned, weaned calves that are certified to have been properly vaccinated and taught to eat from a feed bunk and automatic water system.

I'm proud of this group.  We have been working for a number of years to get our genetics to where we wanted them.  This is a very uniform set that will hopefully do well in spite of a market that has been disappointing recently.

One of the things people outside of agriculture have difficulty grasping is that "harvest" only comes once or twice during the year.  To put it plainly, there is no income, only expenses, for the greatest part of the year.  Selling your crop has to pay all of the expenses required to produce it and provide an income above that to the farmer or, rancher.  It is just a "side gig" for us, so we aren't dependent upon it for our living expenses.

Most people can't imagine living on borrowed money for 11 months of the year and then hopefully, paying it back when you sell your crop.  It makes a person better at budgeting.

Right now, as we enter into the Fall Harvest season, keep the farmers and ranchers in mind.  For many, it has been a very difficult year with flooding, drought, severe storms that brought hail and high winds and it has been a year of "Tariff Wars" that have been highly disruptive of the markets.  Many of the farmers and ranchers won't be able to cover their expenses of producing a crop this year let alone covering their cost of living.

As you enjoy your abundant selection of foods at the grocery store, or in your favorite restaurant, think about the folks that produced it.   They're going through a hard time right now.

The Privilege of Producing Food

Preconditioning is part of the program we use with our cattle.  This is a small group of some of the early calves this year.  The photo doesn't really do them justice.

When we wean the calves, we run them through the processing chute, use an endectocide on them (a pour-on de-"bug"-er), implant steers, put an ear tag in if it hasn't already been done and then we put them into what we call our weaning pen where they have access to fresh, clean hay and water and receive a supplement which you see them eating in the photo above.  The pen has a good net wire fence around it inside the barbed wire.  It is adjacent to the area we call "the trap" which is centrally located on our place and is where the cattle come to water from the different grazing paddocks that radiate from it.  This allows for fence line weaning of the calves -- they can see and talk to Momma, but can't get to her to nurse.

After the calves have been weaned for two weeks we run them back through the processing chute and give them their first round of vaccinations consisting of a modified live 5-way viral shot plus Mannheimia haemolytica which is one of the pathogens causing bacterial pneumonia.  We also give them an 8-way Clostridial vaccine plus Haemophilus somnus.  It covers a number of other diseases to which the calves will likely be exposed in time.  Then, according to the label directions, we will revaccinate the calves a few weeks later for the same pathogens in order to ensure their immune system is reacting properly.

The reason for delaying the first round of vaccines is to allow the calves time to get over the stress of weaning and adjusted to their new environment away from their mother.  When an animal -- or, human for that matter -- is stressed, their immune system is not working properly and often will not mount a proper immune response to the vaccine.

Another thing that happens with how we handle our calves is that they become habituated to going through the processing chute.  Each trip through becomes smoother until the calves almost flow through on their own.  This is important for reducing their stress response and it makes them easier for the next owner to handle.

We use a low-stress handling technique and our facility is set up on a "Bud Box" design.  It is built to accommodate their natural behavior to the extent possible.  This further helps to keep the stress levels down so the cattle remain healthy and able to respond properly to the vaccination regimen.

My goal here isn't to talk about our processing system as much as it is to talk about how 1) we believe it is our responsibility to handle the animals in our care with the best possible methods which are scientifically proven, 2) we believe it is important that we prepare the animals for their next owner so they have the best chance of being successful with them as they are co-mingled with other cattle (like sending your kids to school for the first time) and 3) we believe in doing the best job we can as stewards of the resources placed within our care.

Folks living in the city often get the impression that the people who raise their food are just a bunch of "hicks" who know nothing, abuse the land and are the primary cause of global warming.  They need to understand that isn't the case.  Our cattle operation complements the natural environment in ways that it would take "reams of electrons" to explain.  The land is well-maintained, wildlife are abundant and the water resources are protected by grasses and trees which filter the runoff.  The animals we raise are also handled with respect for the consumer who wants a consistent, quality product that they know is safe for their family to consume.

Some might say providing food for people is a heavy responsibility.  We think it is a privilege.  We do everything we can to do it well.

Chickens and Evolving Agriculture

Our neighbor's chickens like to come across to our place on their never-ending hunt for bugs.  They do a great job of reducing the grasshopper population in the area where they forage.  There are multiple varieties of the chickens, but I thought these two Plymouth Rock hens made a great photo because of how they blend into the grass.  When they sit still they are difficult to see.

One of the popular movements around the country is for "free-range" chickens.  These definitely fit the category -- at least the survivors.  They like to roam onto the county road occasionally where they sometimes fall victim to an automobile.  They also sometimes succumb to a less-than-totally-domesticated canine that prowls the area.  I'm sure their nests are visited by skunks and other egg-loving predators -- often there is the faint odor of Mephitis mephitis (striped skunk) drifting gently on the breeze.

Free-range, at least for the chickens, isn't all it's made out to be.

I remember as a small child my grandmother raising chickens.  A couple of them usually fell to her hunting skills and became Sunday Dinner (that's what we called a big family lunch in the country).  She could catch, kill, pluck and clean a chicken faster than you would realize what was going on.  It was part of her persona that you didn't want to mess with her.

Chickens have traditionally been woven into the everyday fabric of farm life.  They once graced the yards and barnyards of nearly every farm in the country.  They were a source of eggs, meat and even feathers to be used in stuffing mattresses and pillows.  They also carried tiny little critters (lice) that sometimes infested the heads of youngsters who played in those same yards and barns.  They helped to control insects and snakes and they served as an alarm clock.

I suppose I became "burned out" on chicken when I was growing up.  It was an inexpensive meat then, just as it is now.  Then, because they foraged on their own and required little expense for maintenance.  Now, chicken is inexpensive due to its rapid and very efficient growth in controlled environments.  Carefully selected genetics and modern production practices have made chicken one of the most pervasive sources of protein available in this country.  It just isn't my protein of choice.

I prefer beef.  When asked if I want chicken for a meal, I sometimes find myself involuntarily commenting, "No, thank you.  That stuff is just fowl." -- the double meaning being clear that "fowl" equates to "foul."  I have a friend who is also in the beef business.  The first time I recall giving him a hard time about ordering chicken in a restaurant rather than steak he informed me he occasionally had to do "competitive meat research."  I have to give him credit for a good comeback.

We are blessed in this country to have abundant supplies of meat -- whether chicken, pork or beef.  Modern production practices make it available at an affordable price to virtually everyone.  Can you imagine what it would be like if every home had to raise its own food?  We sometimes hear, or see, chickens in our community, but they aren't pervasive.  What would it be like if every household had a couple of dozen chickens, a milk cow, a hog pen and maybe even a calf being raised for beef along with an acre, or more, of garden to supply vegetables?  When you think about it, there is no way it works so that a large population can be supported.  Modern agricultural methods are necessary to feed the masses.  The back-to-small-mother-earth methods cannot possibly feed enough people.  The "footprint" would be completely unsustainable.  It would require much more land than is currently employed to produce our food.

I certainly understand the sentiment of those who wish for the "more natural" methods of farming used in days long ago, but the numbers just don't work.  I don't have those numbers in front of me but, I have enough exposure to and experience of those methods to know that they are much more labor intensive, require a larger "footprint" and are far less efficient.  Expense and efficiency are inversely related.  Low efficiency equals greater expense.  If cheap and abundant food is desired to feed the masses, modern agricultural methods are the answer.

Now, are there better ways to do things?  Most likely, yes.  Innovation is needed in many areas of food production, but going backward isn't the answer.

Flour, Farming and Food

The flour mill in the photo is a reconstruction from the 1930's built on the site of the first flour mill in Texas, which was constructed by the Spaniards at Mission San Jose around 1794, located in what is now San Antonio.  A small acequia, or canal, brought water from the San Antonio River into a chamber below the one you see here which houses the mill.  The flowing water turned a wheel which drove the mill.  This photo was taken a few years ago when we toured the mission.

This small mill provided flour to the communities which grew around the mission.  It was a part of Spanish efforts to "tame" the Indians by converting them from the use of maize (corn) to wheat for making bread.  It is interesting to me how the influence, to some extent, went the other way.  Today, corn tortillas (a primary form of bread) are preferred by many of the descendants of the Spaniards.

There is archaeological evidence that man has been milling wheat since almost 7,000 B.C.  The earliest mills were simple and the feat was accomplished by rubbing the grain kernels between two stones, or by pounding it with one stone against another.  The Romans are believed to be the first to utilize water power to mill flour around 100 B.C.  The industrial advances of the 19th Century caused rapid changes in milling because of the harnessing of better power sources. The early mill stones could be turned at faster rates and the friction generated too much heat.  Roller mills were adopted in the late 1870's.

The reason for milling grains is the the hard bran, or outer layer, which must be broken in order to access the endosperm which is the part of the kernel that provides the most easily digestible nutrients.  Purified flour has had the bran particles removed by a sifting process that leaves only the endosperm.

Flour milling is one of the greatest time-freeing inventions of mankind.  On a trip to Niger in 2009, I observed the women grinding millet into flour with a wooden mortar and pestle.  They spent a large part of their day just grinding enough flour to make bread for their family.  That bread was cooked in outdoor ovens made of mud bricks.  They spent the entire day working to feed their families with very primitive methods.

Today, we hear many people bashing modern agricultural practices and the way we turn those products into food.  Few of them realize that without those methods, they would be spending their days undergoing backbreaking labor just to eat.  The next time you go into a grocery store, take a few minutes in the bread aisle to view the huge variety of breads that are available to purchase.  As you do so, realize that the labor used to produce them wasn't your own.

I will readily admit that I prefer homemade bread.  I am thankful my wife loves to bake and enjoys bread making.  I am also thankful that we don't have to grow, harvest, thresh and mill the wheat in order to have flour to make that bread.  I appreciate the farmers and food technology that has freed us from those difficult tasks.

Feeding the World and Complex Issues

Sometimes the weather cooperates.  The photo above is of a field of grain sorghum (I grew up calling it milo) near Amarillo, Texas, that was taken late last summer.  It is one of the most uniform fields I have ever seen.  If you look closely, there are no signs of disease, or insect damage on the leaves.  The field was planted using minimum-tillage equipment that leaves the remains of the previous crop of wheat stubble intact.  The plant stubble on the field helps to hold moisture in the ground rather than opening it up to evaporation.  The field appears to be weedless as you look across it.

As I view this field I am impressed with what I see.  The crop is extremely uniform.  I recall growing up how there would frequently be odd varieties of plants sticking up here and there in a field of grain sorghum.  The seed in this case must have been very clean with no stray varieties mixed in, or someone spent a lot of time manually removing any that grew.

Fields like this lend themselves easily to automation.  The uniformity is important for utilizing the economies of scale in large equipment that can cover many acres quickly.  The product (grain) will be of the highest quality as long as weather cooperates through the harvest.

This field is also likely home to many hundreds of pheasants.  After the harvest, the birds will be able to easily access seeds that may have fallen to the ground.  The field may also be either grazed by cattle, or the stubble harvested for hay.  Milo butts, if supplemented with protein, can be a good source of energy for cattle.

So, what are the downsides of this type of massive scale agriculture?  One is that the monoculture crop places the entire field at risk to adverse events such as weather, insects, or disease.  Another is that the removal of this much plant material (if the stalks are utilized for hay) means a greater need for the addition of fertilizers.  If grazed, the organic material in the manure adds back to the soil as a rich source of highly available nutrients.

As evidenced by the wheat stubble covering the ground, this crop is part of a rotation system employed by the farmer.  Changing the crop grown on a regular basis helps to mitigate disease and insect risk.

This type of farming requires huge capital investment, but it is highly efficient and part of the reason that U.S. farms are so productive.  In spite of that productivity, due to the capital requirements, the farm is likely only marginally profitable in most years.  It is the result of tremendous scientific advance, although most of that advance is not obvious to the casual observer.

Industrial scale farming is probably not the answer for many parts of the world -- yet.  Perhaps someday.  It is the result of many years of a slow process of advance from subsistence to scale and requires massive amounts of capital to achieve.  As we look at growing populations throughout the world, we need to be cautious about focusing on this single model to resolve the food issues we will face in coming years.  It is my opinion that we should consider a phased approach to move less-advanced agricultural economies by stages into this level of production and we must remain mindful of the social and environmental impacts it will have.

Where the field in this narrative exists was once a prairie ecosystem of short grasses adapted to low rainfall.  The primary large animal was the American Bison.  In a way, what we have described is similar to the way it was 200 years ago -- a field of grass (yes, grain sorghum is a grass) grazed by ungulates.  Today, we add the additional step of harvesting the grain for human consumption.  The natural ecosystem tended to build soil, whereas the current one tends to deplete it.  That is one of the pieces we need to figure out -- how can we have industrial scale agriculture without the need for artificial fertilizers?  Livestock, also utilized for food, may be part of the answer.  They are highly efficient converters of plant material to usable protein.

I've rambled a bit this morning.  The answers to how we produce our food are complex.  Sustainability must include profit in order for there to be advances, but it also must balance the long-term factors such as soil health, resource depletion, capital requirements, labor vs. automation, impact on water and air and myriad other things.  The future of agriculture is bright and attracting some of the best minds to solve these types of issues.  It will be interesting to see the advances just over the horizon.

The Agricultural Impulse

My favorite photograph from a trip my wife and I took to Kenya in 2011, was of this young man selling carrots by the roadside.  I thought of it as entrepreneurship at its finest.  The location was a speed bump in the highway as we were traveling west across the country from Limuru to Kakamega.  Because the speed bumps caused traffic to slow down, roadside vendors had set up and approached travellers with their wares.  I didn't get a photo, but on the opposite side of the vehicle a young lady was carrying a basket of plums, also for the purpose of selling to passersby.

Most of the homes we saw were on small plots of ground.  Areas not utilized by the structure were often intensely "farmed" as the family garden.  Any excess produce was sold in the local market, or as opportunity provided, to anyone with the means to purchase.  It was a clear demonstration of how foundational agriculture is to the economy.

As we consider agriculture around the world we must always be mindful that it is a source of income to the poorest of the poor.  Many would farm on a larger scale if they had access to land.  Control of land varies from country to country, but often it is in the hands of a few who have political connections.  Frequently, foreign investors control large swaths of the most productive land.

Flourishing agriculture goes hand in hand with good governance.  If allowed the means and access to productive soil, most people find a way to grow food.  Even in refugee camps, gardening is seen.  Many of the issues related to food are in the areas of governance, infrastructure and the concentration of people into ever larger cities.  Governance and infrastructure are closely related while the movement to cities is a highly complex issue involving governance, infrastructure, concentration of capital and trade.

Solving the challenges of food supply among exploding populations will require multiple approaches, all of which must consider the social and governance factors which compound the difficulties.  When governments recognize the value of feeding their own citizens -- not through a concentration of power, but by a diffusion of the productive impulse into the hands of the people -- the task will become easier.  The young man from Kenya stands witness.

Fallacies, Farming and Food

There seems to be a growing movement of young people -- well, not all of them are young -- who are becoming "experts" about agriculture.  They scour the Internet for information on everything from the evils of industrial agriculture to the destruction of our health with processed flour.  Their certainty of "right and wrong" is based on, "I read it, therefore it is correct," without ever questioning the source of the information.

Along with this desire to become "experts" on subject matter which requires a lifetime to master, they need to develop a little wisdom.  We have tried to instill in our children and to a lesser extent, our grandchildren, the discipline of questioning what they read.  Just because someone has a PhD after their name, or is considered an expert in their field, doesn't mean they don't have an agenda driven by less-than-pure motives.  It is important to question and dig deeper.

There is no doubt that there are better ways of doing things.  In my lifetime I have observed significant changes in agriculture that are more focused on conservation while still increasing production.  While still in college I spent some time working for an irrigation company converting sprinklers from high-pressure "rainbird" type sprinkler heads to low-pressure emitters on "drops" that used less water, less energy and placed the water closer to the plant so there was less evaporation loss.  Many small grains farmers have switched to minimum, or no-till planting and cultivation systems that leave the land almost undisturbed.  It increases the amount of organic matter in the soil, reduces loss to water and wind erosion and saves energy in the farming operations.

Some farms have switched to "strip-till" methods where they alternate crops in narrow bands.  It is a method to help reduce insect infestations because of the variation in plant species.  It also changes the soil health by utilizing nitrogen-fixing plants alongside nitrogen-depleting plants.

We see more and more farms that utilize grasses to slow runoff from fields and create "filter zones" to catch silt before it enters a stream or river.  Streams are bordered with trees and grasses rather than the crops being planted right up to their margin.  Such practices protect our water supply and provide habitat for wildlife.

Precision farming methods now vary fertilizer application, seed population rates and therefore, plant densities across a field based on the needs and capabilities of the ever-varying soils.  Such methods reduce soil depletion while also reducing, or eliminating fertilizer from being carried off the field by runoff.  It allows the maximization of production with the optimization of inputs.

Yet, the cry is louder each year that farming is "bad" and we need to re-think everything we do in agriculture.  I wish more people had the opportunity to actually spend time with farmers and ranchers to see what they are doing to protect our environment while growing more food, more efficiently, so those very people who complain will have plenty of inexpensive food to eat.

There is always room for improvement, but there is much that has been done and many who are working diligently to make those improvements happen.

Life on the Farm Ain't Really Laid Back....

Sustainability.

S - seeking perpetuity in the ability to deliver.
U - understanding the long-term consequences of actions.
S - securing the welfare of all through thoughtful planning.
T - taking only what is necessary and regenerating where possible.
A - aiming for generational continuity.
I - intelligent use of resources.
N - natural processes that replace damaging practices.
A - acting responsibly toward others and the environment.
B - building systems that focus on renewability.
I - investing in solutions.
L - long-term thinking.
I - integrating economic and environmental systems.
T - teaching responsibility for and to others.
Y - yielding to needs beyond self.

I've been spending time digging into some of the new agricultural technology -- or, at least reading about it.  The buzzword of "sustainability" gets tossed around a lot.  I am a firm believer in sustainability, but I think sometimes the word gets used and abused in ways that subvert the meaning.

Ultimately, sustainability means to look beyond oneself.  All of us follow the natural tendency to focus first on our personal needs and then on the needs of our immediate family.  Rarely, you find those who reach beyond that to their community.  Even more rarely do you see someone who thinks on a broader basis -- to the needs of humanity.  Most of those have some angle that is driving at financial wealth.

We need more people who think in terms of global impact who recognize that we are all -- no matter of race, creed or country -- passengers together on this giant marble swinging around the sun as it hurtles through space.  We need to realize that actions have consequence beyond ourselves.

Am I a globalist?  No.  But, I do believe in a phrase captured in the Declaration of Independence in the words of Thomas Jefferson that "all men are created equal."  In spite of those who would make him an atheist, Jefferson was echoing a Biblical tenet in that we all are descendants of Adam.  We are all part of the human race.  Come to think of it, Darwinians think the same way, but they see us as descendants of primordial ooze.

"Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.  At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need.  Then there will be equality, as it is written: 'He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little.'" -- 2 Corinthians 8:13-15

Feeding mankind will become increasingly challenging as populations continue to grow.  Weather factors affect production in various areas every year.  Seeking ways that work with the local climate, yet recognizing that it won't always cooperate, we must realize that the efforts in one geographic area may ultimately be the salvation of another.  We are dependent on each other -- globally -- for food.  Here in the U.S. many of our fruits and vegetables come from other countries.  They are often luxury foods, rather than our primary foods.  In some other countries that isn't always the case.  Many of them are virtually dependent on imported food to feed themselves.

Profit is necessary in order to fund growth.  It shouldn't be the total focus of man's endeavors, but must be a part of it.  Profit can be defined as "increase" above the cost to produce.  The "increase" of a herd are the calves born.  The "increase" of a crop is that each seed produces many hundreds of seeds.  U.S. food production is profit driven.  In most parts of the world it is survival driven.  We are fortunate to have an economic system that allows us the luxury of building a food system, through its profitability, that surpasses anything in the world.  We must remain aware though, that we cannot feed the world alone and that as our own population grows, there will be increasing pressure on resources by competing needs.

Sustainable practices here can inform sustainable practices worldwide.  We must continue to do more with less.

As to globalism vs. nationalism, I am unashamably a nationalist.  I believe in my country and our system of government.  It is being threatened at a level never before seen -- internally.  Those who would destroy it use everything possible against it -- even food production.  We need to be exporting our beliefs and our systems rather than allowing the destruction of those very things by those who would tear us down in order to build something else.

I suppose I have rambled a bit this morning.  Reading the mess in the news sometimes does that to me....

Trends in Food Production

I was reading this morning about a company in Singapore that is growing shrimp meat in a laboratory.  They populate a "soup" of growth medium with shrimp tissue cells which then grow.  After a period of time, they strain the cultured tissue from the liquid and have what is basically a shrimp puree.  It is being served in high-end restaurants there.

Singapore is a tiny country with a huge population.  Only about 1% of its land mass is devoted to agriculture, so virtually all of their food has to be imported or, harvested from the sea.  That dependence on others for their food has led their government to invest a good deal of money in new technologies such as vertical farming -- or, greenhouses in the sky (in a land of tall buildings, they add greenhouses on the roof).

Here in the U.S. the recent Beyond Meat initial public offering was extremely successful.  They create meat-like products using vegetable proteins.  The products have zero appeal to me, but they must entice a lot of people because investors have bid up their stock to a $5 Billion valuation.  I guess my penchant for beef biases my opinion, but I am concerned about the sustainability of such an enterprise.  The ingredients compete with the vegetable industry more than the beef industry.  Cattle eat plants that are not especially desirable or usable by humans.  Beyond Meat has done a fabulous job on their marketing campaign which appeals to many groups such as vegans, animal rights groups and climate change fear-mongers.

You can probably tell by my posts of the last few days that new food-production technologies are on my mind.  I have always been intrigued by such things, that's probably why I have stayed with a career in agriculture.

There will be proponents of strictly technological solutions to the world's food needs, but I think we also must think about it in other ways.  Fully integrated solutions similar to "First American" practices (American Indians) are another approach.  Many tribes would plant corn (maize) and then plant beans between the stalks.  The corn stalks would act as trellises for the bean vines.  They planted squash and other species such as pumpkins and cucumbers in a similar manner.  They were producing multiple crops on the same land simultaneously.  Modern mechanized farming methods make that all but impossible.

Another initiative that has interested me is the "Whole Earth" approach that creates intensive farms on very small acreages.  It might combine fruit trees, berry vines, vegetable plots, bee-keeping, greenhouses, chickens and swine all in a small space -- maybe 10 acres.  Irrigation water would be cycled and re-cycled and the ditches would be used to grow fish.

The big difference between the two approaches -- technology vs. integrated -- is the labor necessary for success.  A technological solution replaces human labor whereas the integrated solution is labor intensive.  One question I have for the proponents of pure technological solutions is what do people do when all of the jobs are replaced by robotics?  Not everyone is suited to be a computer programmer or, an engineer....

I think we need to consider all approaches to food production.  Each has its place and proponents.  It will be interesting to watch and hopefully be involved in over the coming years.

Budgets and Allocations

Years ago, in one of the various roles I served a small company, (to me it was large, but in the bigger scheme of things not as large as it seemed) I was responsible for developing an operating budget for the areas of business for which I was responsible.  It was in a time of rapidly fluctuating input prices -- particularly for fuel -- which were a significant component of our operating costs.  We were challenged to find ways to reduce those expenditures yet, to grow our top line revenue.

Any type of business operation works somewhat like a funnel.  You, hopefully, have a large amount of material going in the top (revenue) and after siphoning off what is necessary to keep the business running and generate that revenue, a steady stream coming out the bottom of the funnel.  The size of the "out" end of the funnel is larger, or smaller, based on the amount siphoned off to cover those operating expenses.  Most people in management focus on the expenses, whereas most leaders focus on the amount going into the funnel at the top.  That is one of the key differences between management and leadership.  One seeks to control activity and the other seeks to stimulate activity.

In a generalized sense, both types of individuals fill crucial roles in an organization and both are constantly thinking about the allocation of resources to meet various needs.  [I didn't intend such a lengthy preamble to what I wanted to say this morning.]

Allocation of resources is a complex problem for most businesses.  It can be complicated for a household dealing with competing needs -- house payment, groceries, fuel, clothing, etc.  If you expand the thinking to a country economy, or even beyond to the world economic situation, the problem becomes almost insolvable.  We depend on the marketplace to allocate resources based on pricing mechanisms that are often manipulated by governments -- such as the tariff "wars" with China, or the product embargoes against Iran.  Ideally a free market allows for efficient allocation of resources.  That free market can mean large price fluctuations based on temporary shortages, or gluts of specific products -- especially applicable to agricultural products -- food.  These can be local, regional, or global in nature.

Is there a better way?  After all, security issues will always come into play in interactions between countries -- or, between companies.  Those issues affect the movement of goods and services around the globe.

I don't think a "One World" government is the answer -- mainly because it concentrates power in too few hands, but I do think better needs-based intelligence could help provide a solution.  The growth of databases and the computing power now available can help us to solve global issues of resource allocation.  Making that "intelligence" available to businesses can provide better decision-making processes based on the dynamics of resource movement.

The problem is an old one; it is simply that of logistics.  When I was in college I took a course in Operations Research which was the mathematics behind solving efficient allocation of resources.  In simplest terms, an example is the best way to describe it.  If you are a large railroad company moving freight around the country, how do you determine the routing of individual rail cars to most efficiently transport them across the country from their point of origin to the nearest point of termination?  If you really think about it, it can become extremely complex.

For many years this type of problem was solved by brute force computation and a few wild guesses.  Today, it can be solved very quickly with computers.  Now expand that thinking to the worldwide allocation of food....

More Thoughts on Food Production

It seems that across the world people are becoming more and more interested in food production.  I think there are a number of reasons for this:  1)  Growing populations need to eat and some are recognizing a real concern with the ability of our planet to feed everyone adequately.  2)  Environmental impact of food production.  3)  Global warming -- whether you subscribe to human-causation, or not, doesn't matter because enough people do to make it an issue.  4)  Periodic weather events that disrupt agriculture.

I have recently been working with some folks from England regarding a project which they hope eventually to take to the AIM market (Alternative Investment Market -- similar to NASDAQ in the U.S., but on the London Exchange).  They have indicated that the taste for longer-term investments in agricultural technology is something very popular on that market and seek to take advantage of it.  I find that interesting -- the words "longer term."  Here in the U.S. most investors are worried about quarterly reports and fear "long term" operational horizons for their investments.

I mention that because this morning as I perused the Reuters News I came across two articles related to food production.  The first had to do with a vertical greenhouse and the second with a global network of satellites to map heat which is expected to be a useful tool for agriculture.

The vertical greenhouse mentions some of the very ideas that I referred to in yesterday's post regarding proximity of vegetable production to the marketplace.  It is investment intense, yet the advantages on reduced transportation and reduced land-mass footprint are also large.  It allows for better control of pests and invasive plant species (weeds) than do traditional production practices.

The heat mapping is interesting because I believe it will show something that might be even more beneficial in surprising ways than the benefits to agriculture.  I believe it will also show the impact of urban/suburban development on trapping heat.  The earth is an integrated bio-physical "machine" in which what happens in one place affects what happens in others.  I suspect far too little focus has been placed on the impact of urban development than is needed.  Along with adressing some definite opportunities in agriculture production, we need to re-think how we build cities.

Anyway, just my thoughts this morning....

Exploding Populations and Food Production

I generally take information coming out of the United Nations with a great deal of skepticism simply because there is so much of it that is politicized, but their projections for world population growth, whether high, low or dead-on, should be taken seriously.  Barring some major worldwide disaster of unprecedented proportions, the population on the planet will grow.

Feeding that population will create challenges.

In today's world there are strange forces at work when it comes to food production.  1)  You have animal rights activists who believe we should completely eliminate animal proteins of any kind from our diet.  2)  There are environmental pressures -- some believe all agriculture is bad for the environment.  3)  There are trendy movements toward "organic" or "all natural" that affect productivity.  4)  There is the "eat local" movement.  5)  There is the "fresh" movement that would eliminate preservatives.  6)  There are various diets that eliminate certain food groups.  7)  There is competition for the resources to grow it -- land and water.

I'm sure I've missed a few of the anti-food-as-we-know-it pressures, but you get the picture.

My point is that in spite of the need to feed a rapidly growing population, there are pressures that negatively impact agriculture.  Add to that the normal periodic effects of massive weather events such as flooding in the U.S. this year which has delayed corn planting, or the droughts and fires followed by flooding which have hit Australia recently and the ability to feed the planet's population becomes increasingly questionable.

What is the solution?  New technologies that help us to do more with less -- just as U.S. agriculture has done for years -- in new and creative ways.

We need meat protein production for several reasons.  Animals are efficient converters of plants, that are unusable by humans, into excellent foods is the primary one.  Livestock, especially cattle, are also an effective way to manage some environments such as prairies and deserts -- if properly handled.

Vegetables are a different issue.  Locally grown has tremendous merit due to spoilage in transportation.  Transportation is also another problem -- the largest contributor of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is transportation.  Growing vegetables locally would eliminate some of that.  They also lend themselves to industrial-type greenhouse conditions which are effective ways to grow them with a low spacial footprint which helps to solve issues of seasonality.

One of the greater concerns that I have is that of food waste.  In the U.S. it is a real problem.  Previous generations had lower food waste because they utilized the "scraps" and leftovers by feeding them to swine or their dogs -- which by-the-way had "jobs" such as "burglar alarm" and guardian of the domestic stock against predators.  How much potential human food is made into pet food?

Probably the biggest issue that will impact our ability to produce the necessary food to feed the burgeoning world population is water.  Competition between industry, cities and agriculture for this single limited resource will become fierce.  Efficiently utilizing it to meet the various competing needs is a problem we need to accept and begin now to implement plans that will meet the future needs.  With an expected increase of the world population of about 60% over today's numbers to a projected 11.2 billion people by 2050, we need to face the reality that water is going to be a growing issue.  That's only about 30 years away -- the blink of an eye when you really think about it.

Food, Weather and Enlightenment

After missing a couple of days of posting it is a struggle to get back into the groove.  It has been a long week packed into the last couple of days and I just didn't have the time to write.  Sometimes the things we must do get in the way of the things we desire to do.

I got to see a pretty good swath of country this week.  The wheat crop in Kansas looks to be off to an excellent start.  I say start, probably it is past mid-point and looks to be well on its way to a good finish.

The same moisture that has been good for Kansas wheat has created problems in other ways though.  There continue to be many areas that are struggling to get ground prepared and planted.  There is flooding in Texas where many crops have already sprouted.

Further north into Nebraska I understand they are still struggling with the aftermath of the huge "bomb cyclone" that swept through earlier.  The impact will be felt for several years.

Agriculture is dependent on the weather.  For those not in the business of producing food there is little understanding of how important the weather can be for farmers and ranchers.  It would probably be good for everyone if they better understood that element of food production.  As populations grow throughout the world, the fine line between plenty and want will become more and more critical.  A single massive weather event could trigger widespread food shortages.

I had the good fortune this week to meet some young men from the other side of this planet who are developing and managing state-of-the-art facilities for producing a wide range of food products.  They are eager to learn and focused on applying the best technological advances to their art.  I was very impressed.

We struggled a bit with the language, but with the aid of an interpreter were able to have meaningful conversations on many subjects.  In this country we tend to think of ourselves as set apart -- as different from people in other countries.  I have been fortunate to learn that is far from the truth.  We need to remember that there are good and bad people everywhere and in every country.  The young men I met this week are some of the good guys and they are devoted to feeding the world.

Dollars for Idiocy

This crazy world and the "nanny-state" attitude of governing authorities is more than a little disturbing.  The very same people who scream at the top of their lungs that their are too many people in the world are legislating confusion.  Some of the legislation appears to be designed to slow the growth of population -- such as the very liberal attitudes toward abortion.  At the same time, other legislation appears designed to protect people from their own stupidity.  Perhaps the best solution is the Darwinian approach to let nature take its course where only the most fit will survive.

The current controversy over glyphosphate (think Roundup) is one of those things that is a mixed bag.  There is concern among some that it might be a carcinogen.  Well, news flash, almost anything is carcinogenic to certain people under certain conditions.  Some simply have a genetic disposition to being susceptible to develop cancer.  Doing away with glyphosphate as a weed control will change farming practises back to a less efficient time when it was difficult to produce the yields we do today.  With a population approaching 7.7 billion people on this planet, reducing crop yields seems a more likely way to cause deaths than the few who may contract cancer and die due to use of the chemical.  So, legislation is presented that causes deaths by supposedly preventing deaths.  Go figure.

I suppose one explanation would be that our legislators and therefore many of our laws are controlled by the insurance companies.  Think about it.  Death by cancer is a burden on the insurance companies.  Death by starvation in an underdeveloped country doesn't affect them.  Maybe it's simply about the money.

Think about the television commercials that are memorable.  Chances are there are at least 3 if not 4 or 5 of them that are insurance commercials.  What does that say?  It tells us there's a lot of money in insurance.

Big Cities and People, People, People

Imagine for a moment any of the large cities of the world.  The skyscrapers reach to the sky in the city center, or if it is like Dallas, or Houston, in multiple centers of commerce scattered over miles and miles of the terrain.  Around these islands of high-rise buildings there are usually areas of slightly shorter and older buildings that still tower high above the streets and then further out you begin to encounter apartments and condominiums and eventually other urban and suburban residential areas interspersed with shopping and other types of businesses.  Often, there are also areas of distribution or, manufacturing located on the outskirts of these sprawling achievements of man.

Now, think about the number of people concentrated in those areas.  Think of the thousands upon thousands of individuals who daily make the commute from the residential areas to the centers of business.  Think of their families -- spouses and children -- who spend each day in their own job or, in school.  Think of the transportation infrastructure and the utilities such as electricity and water and garbage and sewage disposal.  Imagine for a moment how many gallons of fuel are required for a single day of commerce to occur in that one large city.

Now, multiply that by several hundred, or thousand to account for other cities of similar composition scattered across the globe.  As of this moment, the global population is estimated at 7.6 Billion people.

The average global consumption of food on a daily basis is 1,878 grams that's approximately 4.14 lbs. per person per day.  If you multiply that by the number of people on this planet it comes to 31.464 Billion lbs. of food per day or, 15.732 Million U.S. tons.  That's a lot of food.

When you look at solid waste per person, it is estimated by the World Bank to be .74 Kilograms, or 740 grams per person per day.  That equates to 1.63 lbs. per person daily, or 12.388 Billion lbs. of solid waste daily for the total global population.  It all goes somewhere.

When you start to really look at the numbers it is easy to see why some people have entered "panic mode" about the number of people on this planet and the impact they are having on it.  For those of us who live in rural areas it is less apparent.  I frankly don't see how we are able to feed all of those people that are currently on the planet, let alone the additional ones who will be added in coming years.  The transportation demands alone to get the food from where it is produced to where it is needed is mind-boggling.

Just my thoughts this morning....

Connecting Country and City

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with a group of scientists who were viewing some technology that I have an interest in.  All of them had Doctorate degrees in some field or another and at least one had a couple of Doctorates.  They were an interesting group.

They were part of a research and development team that sought to utilize this particular technology in some of their research.  One of them was dressed in suit and tie, another in boots and jeans and wore a hat (I happen to know he is legit and comes from a ranching background), another was in sweat pants and looked as though he forgot to shave for the last couple of days.  The others were simply and casually dressed as is common within the halls of many technology companies.

The questions they asked were generally over my head on the science issues, but when it came to the practical application of the anticipated results of their research, I was able to enjoy a more active participation in the conversation.  Ultimately, their research is in the field of animal health and practical implications for developing new technologies for food production.

Often there is a disconnect between the science community and those who are in the livestock or farming business.  I was pleased that these scientists sought diligently to bridge that gap and be certain their endeavors would fit practically into a production scheme.  I attribute that attitude to the man wearing the hat.

We need more hats and seed caps in science and technology fields.  We need them in the halls of corporate America helping to educate their co-workers on the importance of agriculture and the impact of their efforts on the future of humanity being able to feed itself.  They are the individuals that can help bridge the gap between the city and the country.

I've heard for years that it is hard to keep young people interested in agriculture.  They all want to go to the cities where they can experience higher wages and an easier lifestyle.  I wonder if it might be a good idea to make sure they take a piece of that country lifestyle along with them.  A large factor contributing to the divided nature of our country today is the disconnect between the city and the country.  We have different values, different outlooks and a different understanding of what the future holds.  Maybe the answer is to groom more young men and women to carry the "country" values into the cities.

Food and Energy for Texas

The whirling blades turn

Restlessly

The cattle graze

Quietly

The horizon stretches

Endlessly

Energy Flows

Food Grows

Texas:

#1 Installed Wind Energy Capacity

#1 Beef Production

What Food Crisis?

In my wealth
I am concerned
That the price of fuel
Has increased significantly.

In his poverty
He has no money
To buy the food
To feed his children.

If I drove less
And bought less
And paid less
For the things I desire

Would he have
More funds
With which to buy
What he needs?

Sadly, no.

In my compassion
I give of my plenty
To those who would
Feed the needy.

Greed siphons
The compassionate gift
Until the trickle remaining
Is almost meaningless.

What is the answer?

One camp says
That we should
Redistribute the wealth
Among the needy.

The other camp says
That we should
Teach the needy
To feed themselves.

The greedy,
The powerful,
The politicians,
The bureaucrats,

All seek to exploit,
Pushing their own agenda,
While I continue to worry about the price of fuel
And he still can't feed his family.