January/February 2000

SO MUCH FOR THE MILLENIUM. HOW ABOUT COMPLACENCY——AND FREEDOM TO FARM?: Nobody in production agriculture seems to be very complacent, millennium or not. Every commodity is wrestling for survival by eating the seed potatoes, or hoping for break-even by ignoring maintenance of infrastructure, or in the best scenario, by scrambling for profitability in a consumer-driven world that seems to not value us when it comes to the dinner plate. No, there’s no complacency in sight amongst producers. And that’s probably the most hopeful position to be starting from in the year 2000, whether it’s the new millennium or not. The current arm-wrestling in the sheep industry looks to be much more realistic by far than a decade ago.

I was told, at a minor-league agricultural think-tank meeting about 10 years ago, that production agriculture had become so small (less than 1% of us actively involved in production) that it had fallen under the radar screen of Congress. The U.S. is so urbanized that few in Congress have had any connection with production agriculture, even one or two generations removed, and our vote totals are not even marginally important in most general or state elections. In other words, so we were told at the think-tank meeting, nobody loves us anymore and get ready for tough times, because the long knives are out!

In a very real sense, the think-tank speakers were right. The tough(er) times have come, whether attributable to Freedom to Farm, NAFTA or GATT/WTO, El Nino, plain cussedness, or other factors. But, thanks to the TV news that graphically displays not only ever-present strife and war, but the starvation that inevitably accompanies war, our folks within the Beltway may have attained some crumb of primeval understanding that it’s better to produce as much food within our own borders as possible. Novel thought, isn’t it? Feed our own people, have some or a lot left over for the export trade, produce food as efficiently as possible—sounds good to me. Can the sheep industry cut the mustard on this one?

HEALTHY ENTERPRISES, HEALTHY SHEEP, HEALTHY SHEEP INDUSTRY: Do we want to work from that position (feed ourselves and trade with others), or do we want to forever depend on legislated bail-outs about two years out of three or four? Efforts by producers to join in marketing co-ops is a right-on approach, in my opinion. By itself, that activity won’t counterweight multinational corporations that are currently beyond the reach of government, but it’s a step in the right direction.

How about production efficiency? We don’t need (or want) to become as concentrated as the swine industry, but don’t you agree that we need to push the envelope in the direction of increased commercial flock size? Fifty ewes is not the equivalent of fifty beef cows! Larger flocks (and co-ops) send lambs to market in eighteen-wheelers, not in pick-ups. We can’t improve efficiency of production and meet the consumer’s desire for uniformity of product from a small-flock base. Our two-tiered system should become more clearly differentiated; large flocks marketing together to capture a better ROI from retail and institutional markets, and small flocks serving niche markets at premium prices.

THE CODE WORD: SUSTAINABILITY: Sustainability has come to have a more acceptable meaning to production agriculture in recent years. Universities now unblushingly link their research programs under the banner of ‘Agriculture and the Environment’, which would have gotten administrators tarred and feathered in the recent past. That doesn’t mean that we’re all in complete agreement on the meaning of ‘sustainability’. For example, it’s not the same as survival. At the other extreme, the purist, intellectual meaning of sustainability as envisioned by the alternative agricultural movement—that agriculture should be practiced in such a way that succeeding generations should live and thrive on an earth that is intact, still fertile, and not polluted, and in which small communities thrive—is probably no longer tenable. However, credit them with having framed the terms of the debate in agriculture for the last quarter of the 20th century, and for their sheer doggedness in raising the consciousness of the public to where many consumers (and Congressmen) now understand that food produced in an environmentally-friendly manner simply costs more than we’re currently paying for it. However, only when all the players (producers and consumers, multinationals and niche marketers) defend their practices as being sustainable will the real debate be joined as to what working definition of sustainability will be accepted at the operational level. In your dreams? I don’t think so! It will happen. After all, who wants to publicly state that they support ‘un-sustainable agriculture’?

AND WHERE DO SHEEP FIT IN?: Oh, yes, back to sheep. In truth, sheep, properly managed, are a good and natural fit for sustainable agriculture. Especially do they fit into sustainability when they’re dispersed over the landscape, and when buffers protect the riparian zones of creeks and watersheds from feces and erosion. As in good grazing practices, that is. Lamb feedlots? That’s a tough one, but minimizing the number of days on feed is a good starting point, don’t you think? Lamb feeders are resourceful people, and I trust them to find their way to more sustainable practices. Every producer, feeder, processor and purveyor, and the consumer must get aboard.