An important consideration in promoting a transition to grazing is that land previously used for corn and soybeans will not produce abundant forage for cattle in the first years without substantial inputs (depending on soil testing: nitrogen for grasses, potassium for clover, mycorrhizal fungi for soil life, lime for pH). For year-round production and the cost-effective option to have breeding stock, one would also need to bale graze throughput the winter (and freeze-proof water). I speak from experience and from a small farm startup with very little capital to invest in that transition. We practice rotational grazing so we also have water lines and movable stock tanks. If we could handle the labor and water needs for winter bale grazing it’s likely that ten years after introducing cattle we would have a lush drought resistant pasture. Without sufficient and costly inputs, it took us four years to introduce cattle, and then it was a drought so we had to buy hay.
I’d argue that time horizons is at the root of all our ag problems. Currently, profit returns are yearly (5 years max). You’ll find a few waxing poetic about passing their farm to the next generation, but those are warm, fuzzy anecdotes. The incentives (and mentality) are such that each year, the farmer shoots the moon (max N for max possible yield). Really, it would be better to manage and mitigate risks for something like a 10 year average. BUT, you got to pay that operating loan.
If you’re conservative with N and miss yield goals; you’ll be the talk of the gas station coffee club and answering to your banker. If you over apply N and get wiped out by a flood - you’ll get crop insurance and the N is somebody else’s problem.
That and, as mentioned, infrastructure in farm and off (how far away is the sale barn?).
Absolutely yes to off-farm income. We have just under 10 acres and are not in it to make a living as this is a retirement lifestyle choice to be a small part of the local food network. Additionally, it’s great to have perennial pasture as a carbon storage plot of land adjacent to our small woodland.
What I love about this piece is that it is SO easily understood by people like me who know next to nothing about farming, soil, and animal husbandry. Thank you for not giving up on us and continuing to help us understand.
One thing that tends to get overlooked by those who rant about methane from ruminant animals is that the US Mainland was highly populated with ruminants (bison, elk, antelope, deer, goats, sheep) before European settlers arrived. It has been estimated that the total weight of ruminant animals then was similar to the total weight of ruminant animals today. That means that the amount of methane that was released by ruminants far in the past is similar to the amount of methane being released by ruminants today. And, since methane oxidizes to CO2 in about a decade, the amount of methane in the atmosphere from ruminants does not increase--it remains at a steady state level.
SO glad you're on board with this Chris! I fight this fight every day with vegans and vegetarians who think they're saving the planet by not eating something that occurs naturally - and is necessary - in our environment. Our dear friend Neal Flora could cite chapter and verse on the research that showed pastured meat sequestered more carbon than it released, by far, and that it's all about how you grow it. Thank you for covering this ground, so to speak.
I only read the start of this, about chicken and I already think it is a tremendous article. I plan to steal from it (I will use citations) and quote it liberally! I will be back and read the whole thing. As a grass farmer who deals in grass fed and pastured meats, this states a lot of my positions and also adds a good bit to my knowledge.
I think you're on to some important ideas here Chris. Cattle are scapegoats to a degree within the environmental community. Particularly in the plains though, they could mimic the natural activity of native buffalo, which of course are all gone. When done right, that could convey benefits to grasslands, plants, insects etc. As you point out though, we tend to not farm like that, but rather stuff them into feedlots. You would need to be careful with riparian areas, but we have all the tools to do that now. The price of beef is high. And I would much rather buy a grass fed steak from Iowa than an imported one from China or Argentina or wherever. The cow path could indeed be a good one with smart and thoughtful leadership.
I doubt we will import higher $$ primals from Argentina but more of the ones for making ground beef. Historically cull cows and bulls along with neck meat and trimmings are used to make ground beef. Now that are cow herds are at at historic lows there is less of that type of meat.
Repeating since we need to hear it again and again—People don’t like hearing this when I say it, but here it is: WE CANNOT SOIL HEALTH OUR WAY OUT OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE.
I have to disagree on this one but it's a matter of semantics. We COULD 'soil health' our way out of the problem. My definition of soil health involves actually following the six principles of soil health, not just paying them lip service. It means a complete redesign of the farming system to include diverse crop rotations and in many cases integration of ruminants and other animals on the landscape - not in confinement buildings. Just planting some cereal rye between corn and beans doesn't cut it.
There has been talk among Iowa conservationists about using cattle-grazing to help manage tracts of prairie, both original and reconstructed. Large-animal grazing can help prairie ecosystems in important ways. Using bison would be ideal. But bison require levels of fencing and expertise that would not be possible/practical on many prairie tracts.
However, for the cattle-prairie idea to work, the focus would need to be on what kinds and levels of grazing are needed by the prairie, not what is needed for maximum profit for the cattle producer. The cattle might need, in some cases, to be regarded and paid for as a service. The whole idea would require careful planning and thought-shifting.
I talked with someone years ago who bought an Iowa original-prairie pasture in order to protect and manage it as an original prairie. It was being very heavily grazed by cattle. She asked the person who had been renting the pasture for grazing if he would be willing to reduce the size of the cattle herd, and of course the rent would be reduced accordingly. There was a very long pause, and then the renter asked, "You mean take off one cow-calf pair?"
Per the essay, I don't doubt that cattle can be grazed in timber without causing "great ecological damage." But in terms of woodland/savanna-ecosystem health, "healthy" does not describe the the kinds of grazing I've seen in some Iowa timber pastures. And I haven't (yet?) heard Iowa conservationists talk about using cattle to help manage woodlands and savannas. Converting marginal cropland to pasture seems to me, off-hand, to hold far more promise for a healthy Iowa landscape than more grazing of woodlands. I'd be very interested in other thoughts on that.
As a side note, I recently read some dissing of pasture beef as being worse for climate change than feedlot beef. This essay is needed partly for that reason. Thank you, Chris, yet again, for your good work.
In the carbon-efficient path (yay! an economist! Cow patty alert!) producers face incentives to maximize carbon values. So we're in Tonnes Avoided Carbon (TAC), and a hamburger gets priced in Kilos Avoided Carbon. Or in dollars, as the dollar economy adjusts so that relative prices reflect relative TAC.
Land carbon can be measured. In the carbon economy farmers recognize the carbon in their soil on their balance sheets (and borrow against it, especially for soil restoration projects and adoption of carbon-efficient tillage, crop selection, etc.).
If we stick a cow-fart tax on beef, it will kick up the price of a burger. And burgers will still get et. Because some people like beef, they will pay the higher price (in TAC or the TAC-reflective currency) . We covered "beef is a superior good" in our undergraduate economics, so we understand that there is still a place for a burger in the carbon economy.
Ideally good tasty grass-fed. That factory beef goes away because of the gross carbon inefficiency of the feedlot system.
The forest-adjacent carbon economy supports localized beef processing. It works across the west, wherever the pine trees once grew large. It works with the eastern hardwood forest. Dunno about Iowa!
Well researched, well written. One drive past the beef CAFO alongside Highway 18 near Monona should make all Iowans aware of what cattle farming in Iowa has become. Iowa is on its way to becoming Dalhart, Texas. One drive past those feed lots, and you will never eat beef again.
Funny you mention Dalhart. A year ago on our way to AZ for the winter we had to spend 3 nights there due to ice and snow in New Mexico. Surprisingly the motel was very nice and new. But by the third night when the rain/snow finally ended the cattle stench then permeated even the motel room.
This well-written post is partly about water politics in Iowa. Here's another example.
At the bottom of just about every communication from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship is a brief description of what the DALS does. An excerpt: "[The DALS] also promotes conservation efforts to preserve our land and enhance water quality for the next generation. "
Note that phrase -- "enhance water quality." Not improve or help, but enhance. And here is how writers are supposed to use the word "enhance," from ASK A TEACHER. Other language websites said the same.
"Use 'enhance' to talk about making a good thing even better."
Since Eddie Andrews was amusingly mentioned in this post, I can hardly wait to read about Randy Feenstra's water plan. It will be especially interesting to see if Feenstra even bothers to come up with a water plan before the primary.
Meanwhile, another long-shot Republican would-be governor, Adam Steen, has been darkly hinting that unbeknown to most Iowans, there are "scary" (not named) "multiple toxins in our soils" that are getting into our water but apparently have nothing at all to do with agriculture. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
What about the opportunity the CRP land presents, I live near the Mississippi, in Allamakee county, surrounded by CRP land, thankfully, what happens if in this administrations wisdom they decide we need to get rid of this program? More corn, more soybeans, on degraded soils and land that slopes its runoff directly into our water, our aquifers?
I would suggest grazing operations, pay these farmers to produce beef, grass fed, give them financial incentives to provide all of us locally, a good, environmentally sound protein product, that is healthier than a corn fed animal. Thanx Chris for your insights into raising animals, to feed us protein, in an environmentally, financially sound way. It will take hard work, opportunities for young farming entrepreneurs that is the lifestyle they crave.
I would pray that your input here doesn't lie in obscurity. That younger Iowans and other Corn Belt denizens will take heed to the recommend path you've sketched out.
But in the current environment where the News cycle is commandeered minute by the freaking minute by the latest barrage of obfuscation, deception and 3 card Monte shell games played by Trump on the National, Hell-International conscious, we could have incoming bombs from North Korea and this Administration would want to blame Joe Biden and a poorly lit photo of himself in the Smithsonian.
We need air, water and soil fit for living. Maybe the next generation gets it, if they don't, they could easily become one of the last.
Wonderful. It's astounding how little we know about farming now. I think as rexently as 1925- a hundred years ago! a majority of Americans lived on small independent farms. Not a bad life, all things considered, now.
An important consideration in promoting a transition to grazing is that land previously used for corn and soybeans will not produce abundant forage for cattle in the first years without substantial inputs (depending on soil testing: nitrogen for grasses, potassium for clover, mycorrhizal fungi for soil life, lime for pH). For year-round production and the cost-effective option to have breeding stock, one would also need to bale graze throughput the winter (and freeze-proof water). I speak from experience and from a small farm startup with very little capital to invest in that transition. We practice rotational grazing so we also have water lines and movable stock tanks. If we could handle the labor and water needs for winter bale grazing it’s likely that ten years after introducing cattle we would have a lush drought resistant pasture. Without sufficient and costly inputs, it took us four years to introduce cattle, and then it was a drought so we had to buy hay.
Thanks for this information
I’d argue that time horizons is at the root of all our ag problems. Currently, profit returns are yearly (5 years max). You’ll find a few waxing poetic about passing their farm to the next generation, but those are warm, fuzzy anecdotes. The incentives (and mentality) are such that each year, the farmer shoots the moon (max N for max possible yield). Really, it would be better to manage and mitigate risks for something like a 10 year average. BUT, you got to pay that operating loan.
If you’re conservative with N and miss yield goals; you’ll be the talk of the gas station coffee club and answering to your banker. If you over apply N and get wiped out by a flood - you’ll get crop insurance and the N is somebody else’s problem.
That and, as mentioned, infrastructure in farm and off (how far away is the sale barn?).
Did u use off farm income to help with family living as u accomplished this?
Absolutely yes to off-farm income. We have just under 10 acres and are not in it to make a living as this is a retirement lifestyle choice to be a small part of the local food network. Additionally, it’s great to have perennial pasture as a carbon storage plot of land adjacent to our small woodland.
I am favor of making the transition to grazing for the reasons Jones cites. I hope that ways to do this can be implemented.
*throughout
What I love about this piece is that it is SO easily understood by people like me who know next to nothing about farming, soil, and animal husbandry. Thank you for not giving up on us and continuing to help us understand.
One thing that tends to get overlooked by those who rant about methane from ruminant animals is that the US Mainland was highly populated with ruminants (bison, elk, antelope, deer, goats, sheep) before European settlers arrived. It has been estimated that the total weight of ruminant animals then was similar to the total weight of ruminant animals today. That means that the amount of methane that was released by ruminants far in the past is similar to the amount of methane being released by ruminants today. And, since methane oxidizes to CO2 in about a decade, the amount of methane in the atmosphere from ruminants does not increase--it remains at a steady state level.
SO glad you're on board with this Chris! I fight this fight every day with vegans and vegetarians who think they're saving the planet by not eating something that occurs naturally - and is necessary - in our environment. Our dear friend Neal Flora could cite chapter and verse on the research that showed pastured meat sequestered more carbon than it released, by far, and that it's all about how you grow it. Thank you for covering this ground, so to speak.
I only read the start of this, about chicken and I already think it is a tremendous article. I plan to steal from it (I will use citations) and quote it liberally! I will be back and read the whole thing. As a grass farmer who deals in grass fed and pastured meats, this states a lot of my positions and also adds a good bit to my knowledge.
Thanks, be my guest
I think you're on to some important ideas here Chris. Cattle are scapegoats to a degree within the environmental community. Particularly in the plains though, they could mimic the natural activity of native buffalo, which of course are all gone. When done right, that could convey benefits to grasslands, plants, insects etc. As you point out though, we tend to not farm like that, but rather stuff them into feedlots. You would need to be careful with riparian areas, but we have all the tools to do that now. The price of beef is high. And I would much rather buy a grass fed steak from Iowa than an imported one from China or Argentina or wherever. The cow path could indeed be a good one with smart and thoughtful leadership.
I doubt we will import higher $$ primals from Argentina but more of the ones for making ground beef. Historically cull cows and bulls along with neck meat and trimmings are used to make ground beef. Now that are cow herds are at at historic lows there is less of that type of meat.
Repeating since we need to hear it again and again—People don’t like hearing this when I say it, but here it is: WE CANNOT SOIL HEALTH OUR WAY OUT OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE.
I have to disagree on this one but it's a matter of semantics. We COULD 'soil health' our way out of the problem. My definition of soil health involves actually following the six principles of soil health, not just paying them lip service. It means a complete redesign of the farming system to include diverse crop rotations and in many cases integration of ruminants and other animals on the landscape - not in confinement buildings. Just planting some cereal rye between corn and beans doesn't cut it.
As Chris has pointed out many times, fixing the problem isn't rocket science, we just lack the political will to do it: https://understandingag.com/from-symptoms-to-solutions-addressing-the-underlying-causes-of-water-quality-degradation/
There has been talk among Iowa conservationists about using cattle-grazing to help manage tracts of prairie, both original and reconstructed. Large-animal grazing can help prairie ecosystems in important ways. Using bison would be ideal. But bison require levels of fencing and expertise that would not be possible/practical on many prairie tracts.
However, for the cattle-prairie idea to work, the focus would need to be on what kinds and levels of grazing are needed by the prairie, not what is needed for maximum profit for the cattle producer. The cattle might need, in some cases, to be regarded and paid for as a service. The whole idea would require careful planning and thought-shifting.
I talked with someone years ago who bought an Iowa original-prairie pasture in order to protect and manage it as an original prairie. It was being very heavily grazed by cattle. She asked the person who had been renting the pasture for grazing if he would be willing to reduce the size of the cattle herd, and of course the rent would be reduced accordingly. There was a very long pause, and then the renter asked, "You mean take off one cow-calf pair?"
Per the essay, I don't doubt that cattle can be grazed in timber without causing "great ecological damage." But in terms of woodland/savanna-ecosystem health, "healthy" does not describe the the kinds of grazing I've seen in some Iowa timber pastures. And I haven't (yet?) heard Iowa conservationists talk about using cattle to help manage woodlands and savannas. Converting marginal cropland to pasture seems to me, off-hand, to hold far more promise for a healthy Iowa landscape than more grazing of woodlands. I'd be very interested in other thoughts on that.
As a side note, I recently read some dissing of pasture beef as being worse for climate change than feedlot beef. This essay is needed partly for that reason. Thank you, Chris, yet again, for your good work.
In the carbon-efficient path (yay! an economist! Cow patty alert!) producers face incentives to maximize carbon values. So we're in Tonnes Avoided Carbon (TAC), and a hamburger gets priced in Kilos Avoided Carbon. Or in dollars, as the dollar economy adjusts so that relative prices reflect relative TAC.
Land carbon can be measured. In the carbon economy farmers recognize the carbon in their soil on their balance sheets (and borrow against it, especially for soil restoration projects and adoption of carbon-efficient tillage, crop selection, etc.).
If we stick a cow-fart tax on beef, it will kick up the price of a burger. And burgers will still get et. Because some people like beef, they will pay the higher price (in TAC or the TAC-reflective currency) . We covered "beef is a superior good" in our undergraduate economics, so we understand that there is still a place for a burger in the carbon economy.
Ideally good tasty grass-fed. That factory beef goes away because of the gross carbon inefficiency of the feedlot system.
The forest-adjacent carbon economy supports localized beef processing. It works across the west, wherever the pine trees once grew large. It works with the eastern hardwood forest. Dunno about Iowa!
Really great article. Thank you.
Well researched, well written. One drive past the beef CAFO alongside Highway 18 near Monona should make all Iowans aware of what cattle farming in Iowa has become. Iowa is on its way to becoming Dalhart, Texas. One drive past those feed lots, and you will never eat beef again.
Iowa's state rules defining that monstrosity as an "open feedlot" don't help the problem!
Funny you mention Dalhart. A year ago on our way to AZ for the winter we had to spend 3 nights there due to ice and snow in New Mexico. Surprisingly the motel was very nice and new. But by the third night when the rain/snow finally ended the cattle stench then permeated even the motel room.
This well-written post is partly about water politics in Iowa. Here's another example.
At the bottom of just about every communication from the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship is a brief description of what the DALS does. An excerpt: "[The DALS] also promotes conservation efforts to preserve our land and enhance water quality for the next generation. "
Note that phrase -- "enhance water quality." Not improve or help, but enhance. And here is how writers are supposed to use the word "enhance," from ASK A TEACHER. Other language websites said the same.
"Use 'enhance' to talk about making a good thing even better."
Subtle but shady, Secretary Naig.
Yes there are people in the legislature that deny there is anything wrong with the water
In public?? Wow.
Since Eddie Andrews was amusingly mentioned in this post, I can hardly wait to read about Randy Feenstra's water plan. It will be especially interesting to see if Feenstra even bothers to come up with a water plan before the primary.
Meanwhile, another long-shot Republican would-be governor, Adam Steen, has been darkly hinting that unbeknown to most Iowans, there are "scary" (not named) "multiple toxins in our soils" that are getting into our water but apparently have nothing at all to do with agriculture. Nothing. Nada. Zip.
What about the opportunity the CRP land presents, I live near the Mississippi, in Allamakee county, surrounded by CRP land, thankfully, what happens if in this administrations wisdom they decide we need to get rid of this program? More corn, more soybeans, on degraded soils and land that slopes its runoff directly into our water, our aquifers?
I would suggest grazing operations, pay these farmers to produce beef, grass fed, give them financial incentives to provide all of us locally, a good, environmentally sound protein product, that is healthier than a corn fed animal. Thanx Chris for your insights into raising animals, to feed us protein, in an environmentally, financially sound way. It will take hard work, opportunities for young farming entrepreneurs that is the lifestyle they crave.
I would pray that your input here doesn't lie in obscurity. That younger Iowans and other Corn Belt denizens will take heed to the recommend path you've sketched out.
But in the current environment where the News cycle is commandeered minute by the freaking minute by the latest barrage of obfuscation, deception and 3 card Monte shell games played by Trump on the National, Hell-International conscious, we could have incoming bombs from North Korea and this Administration would want to blame Joe Biden and a poorly lit photo of himself in the Smithsonian.
We need air, water and soil fit for living. Maybe the next generation gets it, if they don't, they could easily become one of the last.
Wonderful. It's astounding how little we know about farming now. I think as rexently as 1925- a hundred years ago! a majority of Americans lived on small independent farms. Not a bad life, all things considered, now.
Great article. Well done.