Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 15, 2016
The True Cost of Food
The true cost of food has been an issue that has affected me since the beginning of my farming life. Ever since I started farming back in the 1970s, I produced milk, wheat and carrots as sustainably as I could manage, but found it difficult to compete with my neighbours who were using chemical production methods, heavily subsidised through the Common Agricultural Policy.
It did occur to me that the root of the problem was connected to the failure of the market to take into account the cost of the damage done by such chemical methods to the environment and public health, evidence of which I recently uncovered when I found a copy of an old article in the Guardian newspaper written in 1984 in my garage. It featured the Sustainable Food Trust board member, Peter Segger, and I asserting that intensively produced crops reliant on pesticides and fertilisers did not actually produce cheap food at all, despite what the price on the shelf may say.
Impacts from food production
Food production has multiple impacts both on and off the farm. These can often be negative, such as the pollution of rivers, the emission of greenhouse gases, the spread of antibiotic resistance, the degradation of soil, the rise of obesity and the spread of disease. Yet none of this damage has featured in the balance sheet of farmers using chemical methods. Although these costs are not reflected in the price of food, consumers are paying in other hidden ways, such as through taxes, health care costs, pollution clean up and water rates. There are also deferred costs, including emissions causing climate change which will have to be paid for by subsequent generations.
Distorted markets
Back in the 1980s, before a full understanding of the scale of the impact of uncosted damage to the environment and public health became clear, I naively assumed we could solve the problem in the marketplace. Throughout my years at the Soil Association we attempted to tackle this through the development of standards which allowed us to charge premiums for organic food. The intention was to ensure farmers received a fair income for the efforts they made in adopting more sustainable production methods. However, even though the organic market has grown, organic producers still have to compete unfairly with a system that financially benefits the intensive, large scale chemical farmers who are receiving misdirected agricultural subsidies and are not charged for the damage they cause to the environment and public health.
More recently, I have come to realise that our economic system is distorted and totally fails to represent the reality of the costs and benefits associated with different methods of food production. But it wasn’t until I set up the Sustainable Food Trust in 2011 that we began to develop the concept of True Cost Accounting.
Towards true cost
This evolving way of thinking seeks to assess the costs and benefits of different food production systems. In doing so, those using production methods that are detrimental to the environment and society would have to pay for the damage they do, while those that are sustainable and deliver a wide range of benefits would be rewarded. This should ultimately have the effect of making food produced in a damaging way expensive, or ideally phased out, whilst sustainable food could become more affordable.
Armed with the necessary knowledge and data, governments would be able to introduce policy and economic measures that bring about the change needed. This could involve a mixture of ‘carrots and sticks’ such as taxes on damaging inputs and subsidies for sustainable practices.
In 2013 we held our first events on this theme. First a symposium in Louisville, Kentucky, followed by a two day event in London. This conference included speakers such as Pavan Sukhdev, leader of ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB), a global initiative focused on the economic benefits of biodiversity, and Professor Jules Pretty, author of key papers that put costs on externalities.
Shakirah Simley of Bi Rite Market speaking at The True Cost of American Food conference held in San Francisco
In April 2016 we held another major event spanning three days in San Francisco. The True Cost of American Food conference brought together high level leaders, scientists and influential thinkers in the world of food and farming. Topics covered ranged from a detailed critique of production systems such as CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), to hard hitting issues such as public health, to bigger picture questions such as how can we put a price on the ‘priceless’.
Can we measure everything?
As part of this conference we worked with Dr Harpinder Sandhu, of Flinders University South Australia, to develop a sustainability assessment tool that could be applied to individual farms. During the course of his research, Sandhu assessed three US farming operations, including organic dairy farms supplying the Straus Organic Creamery in Petaluma, Joel Salatin’s diversified Polyface farm in Virginia and Jim Erdahl’s corn and soy farm in Minnesota. In each case, Dr Sandhu created his own accounting system of the farm which included all inputs and outputs, not only product sales, but also environmental and social impacts.
Sandhu uses ecological economics to quantify and give a monetary value to environmental and social benefits and costs such as pollution, pollination, soil carbon sequestration and knowledge generation. For example, with his accounting system, Sandhu illustrates the value of knowledge generation on Polyface farm which runs regular farm tours and workshops. Or, for the organic dairy farms, he illustrates the environmental costs associated with animal feed and manure management and for the corn and soy farm there are environmental costs associated with GHG emissions from fertiliser use. In summary, this accounting system illustrates that diversified farms generate more environmental and social benefits than monocultures. Sandhu: “When these benefits are included, farm products [from diversified farms] present better value to society as a whole than the so called cheap beef and milk from feedlot systems, which isn’t really cheap at all.”
Academics like Sandhu approach the complex task of quantifying and putting a price on the costs of producing food in many different ways. In the longer term it would be helpful if they could work towards a common methodology so that comparisons could be drawn more easily. One question is whether it is possible, or even ethical, to value everything. We can only attach surrogate (not actual) costs to animal suffering, species extinction or a breathtaking view, for example. Yet, agricultural policies dictate the food systems we have, and these are set by politicians and largely based on harsh economics. So while we need to recognise the limitations and the potential traps of placing a monetary value on everything, doing so is necessary for the widespread transition to more sustainable food production, processing and consumption.
Challenges
Of course our advocacy of True Cost Accounting has its challenges. Being an issue of immense complexity, spanning the worlds of economics, public health, ecosystems, environment and society, it requires an integrated approach. Unfortunately, at least until recently, these different worlds have tended to operate in siloes. For true cost accounting to work, we must share knowledge and data, and adopt a more systemic way of thinking.
Another major issue is conducting the research and gathering the information. At the moment we have relatively little data on the costs of agricultural externalities, and while we are currently drafting a report that will bring together the known research, there remains a huge amount of work to do. Governments urgently need to fund and support research in this area, specifically looking at the impact of agriculture on things such as public health and the environment, but crucially, attempting to put monetary values on these impacts.
A political opening
This data is sorely needed as we rework agricultural policy post-Brexit. With potentially quite dramatic subsidy changes looming on the horizon, we must take this as an opportunity to put sustainability at the heart of future policy. There are encouraging signs that a consensus of opinion is emerging and that such an approach will be the best way to improve the economic environment for sustainable food production. As an example, Dame Helen Ghosh, chief executive of the National Trust, made national headlines when she called for a major shift in post-Brexit farm support with all future subsidies needing to be directly connected with tangible, measurable and ultimately monetised public benefits. Even a few years ago, when Dame Helen was permanent secretary at Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), calling for such a change in the framework of farm support would have been inconceivable.
So, although more than 30 years have passed since Peter Segger and I were calling for such changes in the Guardian article of 1984, at last the external conditions have arisen whereby such actions could become politically possible.
28 Comments on "The True Cost of Food"
farmlad on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 8:50 am
Patrick Holden proposed what I think would be a great starting point which is taxing chemical nitrogen fertilizers, due to the use of fossil fuels to produce them and all the carbon that they tend to burn out of the soil and release it into the atmosphere, and the nitrate pollution of aquifers.
Davy on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 9:05 am
Taxing fertilizer sounds good but it will hit farmers hard and farming is alread a precarious occupation. We need to go after agribusiness and we need to change consumer choice away from processed foods and long distance foods. That is a monumental task.
Ghung on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 9:37 am
Could easily be “The True Cost of Everything”.
Lawfish1964 on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 10:26 am
Taxing synthetic fertilizer would help, but do you think big Ag is going to let that happen? They have a death grip on the poison food industry, so the only way sustainable farming will gain any traction is if the people demand organic food and are willing to pay for it. Growing your own is a great contribution, although few have the time and land to truly grow everything they eat. For now, I’m content to grow a significant portion of what I eat and otherwise catch or kill my meat, and of course, get eggs from my backyard chickens.
farmlad on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 11:33 am
Davy You’re right starting to tax chemical fertilizers would have negative results as well. Ideally this should have started in the 60s.
Taxing chemical ag inputs in any nation would definatley need to be coupled with import duties, and be implimented with time that we have very little left.
Shortend on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 1:44 pm
Earl Butz said it “Get Big or Get Out”…
What the independent non corporate farmer didn’t realize the “Get Out” was his neighbor..per Wendell Berry… Listen this has been going this direction for generations…its gotten so bad that farmers are not even tracked by the Labor Department.
So, the price we pay is exploited land, people, and denuded food.
Go Speed Racer on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 3:09 pm
Hey everybody, while we are talking about food,
Better spend two hours surfing on ‘gutter oil’.
Start here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutter_oil
Look at the article links at bottom of page,
especially
Time Magazine.
This is some heavy duty serious poison.
So next time somebody tossed you some
imported fortune cookies, just say ‘no thanks’.
Unless you really enjoy that burning in your throat,
a 24-hour aftertaste of $hit, and cancer.
Seems the Chinese are really willing to poison
each other. Even in white trash Trump America,
that seems more taboo. Maybe all they got to
feed you is roadkill and Coca Cola, but unlike China, USA white trash wont serve you melamine and motor oil.
makati1 on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 6:27 pm
A traditional farm needs no outside fertilizers. They grow their own manure factories in the form of horses, cows, chickens, etc. A natural balance free from Mother Nature. Stores that sell fertilizer are scarce here in the Ps. Most cannot afford it. But, they have the natural factories supplied by Mother Nature. Animals.
No gimmicks, taxes, or other dreams of the ‘transition’ crowd are going to work. Food is going to get more and more expensive and more and more people are going to die everywhere, either in food riots, during migrations, or quietly at home from starvation. THAT is the future. At least until there are none of us left.
makati1 on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 6:36 pm
Go Speed, do you knowe what you are eating? I bet not.
What growth hormones and antibiotics are in that meat?
Why is sexual maturity happening at a younger and younger age?
Radiation in your seafood? Pacific salmon, shrimp, sardines, tuna, etc.
How about that list of Dow Chemicals on the label of your favorite junk food?
Ditto for canned soups, fruits snd veggies from your favorite American corporations?
How about the many reports of food contamination in the U$?
All the stuff pulled off the shelves AFTER? Or maybe just relabled?
Do you know what is in your food, or even where it comes from?
I bet you don’t.
Apneaman on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 6:45 pm
mak, I can tell they are messing around with the meat animals. I don’t know everything they give them, but it’s some Powerful Stuff.
I’m 50 and eat tons of meat – been doing it all my life. It’s probably the reason that even at my advanced age I still need to jerk off 3 times every morning before I get out the door. Sorta like other people are with their coffee – Powerful Stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaEHFxlmf-k
makati1 on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 8:36 pm
Ap, I missed that the first 20 or so years of my life, but I enjoyed breathing DDT, working with paint containing lead and burning gasoline with lead additives. Maybe that is why I have allergies? lol
Most have zero idea what they are putting into their bodies, and some will only find out in later life when the bill comes due. Soon, embalming will not be needed and cremation will be a hazardous waste disposal exercise. ^_^
DerHundistlos on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 9:33 pm
Farming a precarious occupation? Farmland has never been so expensive. I beg to differ in that I have yet to see any farmers living in run-down shotgun shacks. With farmland selling at $10,000 to $30,000 an acre, precarious farmers are multimillionaires.
DerHundistlos on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 9:46 pm
Food stock are being turned into cannibals by feeding them reprocessed body parts such as the spinal cord. This is done to get the animals to put weight on more quickly (as well as hormones and antibiotics).
The result is that many millions of people are incubating a terminal disease, Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy. And it’s not just domestic animals. The infectious agent, Prions, are almost impossible to kill and now there is strong evidence that wild animal populations are also becoming infected.
The primary source of food for cattle is grass and grain supplement. We have long known that grass can be contaminated by many factors including; pesticides, herbicides, contaminated water, even long term radiation exposure. Of course this list is not comprehensive, but all these factors are linked to environmental contamination.
Alternatively, contamination may also be derived from food supplements. For cattle and other grazers this would be feed grain. Much of the grain currently given to animals contains reconstituted animal parts that have been added for nutritional purposes. In many cases these additives originate from the same kinds of animals that ingest them. The greatest threat from reconstituted grain for both cattle and the humans who in turn eat them, lies in the formation of prions. A prion is an abnormally-shaped protein strand that plays havoc with brain tissue and internal organs of the host that ingests it. Unfortunately, it’s especially dangerous if it comes from ingesting the reconstituted remains of the same species. Prions belong to a broad category of diseases known as Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE), and this category includes Mad Cow Disease, Scrapie, and Kuru. All of these diseases form as a result of the formation of prions. In addition:
“The ban on meat from Europe because of the specific TSE disease called Mad Cow was put in place because of the deleterious effects that this meat could have on humans. There is also a high degree of support that TSE-tainted meat could be responsible for Alzheimer’s disease. The reported cases of this disease have shown a marked increase since 1975 and it continues to rise. Since the rise of Alzheimer’s is a relatively new development, some theorize that it could be the result of the ingestion of tainted meat.” [19]
Another factor that suggests prions may be the reason why cattle and other grazers are being mutilated is that there have previously been a lot of TSE-related outbreaks in the previous years among various wild animals in the United States. Specifically, the elk and deer populations of North America have suffered various TSE plagues and there was a well-documented case of Mink deaths as a result of being fed TSE-contaminated milk. This last observation could account for why udders are often removed from cows during mutilation.
Perhaps the most instructive factors in considering why monitoring the presence of prions or prion-like agents in our food chain may be the reason for the long term mutilation of our livestock is that testing for the presence of prions in infected animals is extremely specific and requires laboratory instruments. Specifically, four organs are used in a necropsy to test for the existence of TSE prions. These organs are the rectum, reproductive organs, tongue, and eye; the very same organs most commonly taken from mutilated animals.
It’s also possible that TSE-tainted meat could be responsible for Alzheimer’s disease. As previously noted, the number of reported Alzheimer’s cases continues to rise at an alarming rate. While there exists no definitive proof that Alzheimer’s is caused by the ingestion of prion tainted meat, its possibility remains highly suggestive. Aliens with a more advanced bio-technology may have a sophisticated understanding of the harmful effects of various pathogens upon the food chain. Ecological studies have shown that human beings are a part of a complex web where minor alterations can cause complex repercussions; repercussion perhaps not appreciated by us, but clearly evident to entities with a more evolved bio-consciousness.
It is also well recognized in the abductee literature that many aliens subject their “guests” to a kind of environmental indoctrination. They are shown scenes of our Planet’s environment’s morphing from a pristine world to one degraded by human mismanagement and war into a kind of purgatory devoid of all beauty and splendor. I can imagine that expanding civilizations far more advanced than our own may realize that Earth-like planets are extremely rare and the richness in biodiversity our planet provides may be of special interest to them. In their prolonged experience, aliens may feel that our Planet deserves greater care than we have thus far provided. Of course whether this concern for our planet’s well being is for us, them, or a hybrid race, or even both is impossible to discern.
Evidence supporting the existence of a phenomenon known as animal mutilations is ubiquitous and robust. Conventional explanations have failed to account for a number of attributes associated with the phenomenon, specifically; preciseness of the mutilations, bizarre forensic findings uncovered during necropsies, the lack of any known human activity that could account for the assaults, and lastly their enduring prevalence and global distribution. What remains is a body of circumstantial evidence that suggests animal mutilations are extraterrestrial in origin. Though unorthodox, this hypothesis remains the most viable explanation as to the cause of the phenomenon.
The motive for these events is still unclear. One possibility advanced in this paper is that aliens are using the toxicology of cattle, sheep, and other grazers to monitor the effects of ingested toxins throughout the food chain. In support of this hypothesis, many of the tissues being excised from mutilated animals have rapid rates of cellular growth. These include parts of the animals containing the gastrointestinal tract and sex organs. Both of these organ systems have rapidly growing cell lines making them ideal for studying the effects of toxins. One such class of toxins called Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE’s), are known for their propensity to produce detrimental unevenly folded proteins known as prions. In turn, prions have been associated with mad cow disease and a number of other pathogenic anomalies, possibly even Alzheimer’s disease. Assuming the extraterrestrials are indeed responsible for animals mutilations, their actions may be motivated by a desire to monitor the effects of environmental toxins on mammalian tissues.
However, there may be a darker side to the phenomenon. It’s undeniable that governments, scientists, and prominent media have stubbornly refused to recognize the existence of an animal mutilation problem. In view of the phenomenon’s overwhelming prevalence, and the fiscal burden placed upon ranchers, farmers and herders who continually loose their livestock to these mutilations, it’s difficult to justify why these state and federal agencies have steadfastly remained inattentive to the matter. This official lack of concern may simply be a misguided sense of responsibility for the public’s welfare, or it could signal something far more sinister; that humans as well as animals are being mutilated and the activity cannot be regulated through governmental authority.
It is my opinion that the mutilation phenomenon is but a single tile to a complex alien jigsaw puzzle. Yet, I sense a growing willingness to openly and frankly discuss the possibility that aliens are already here and that their presence is reflected in other unexplained phenomenon taking place throughout the world that cannot be accounted for by traditional means. It is imperative that individuals of conscience do their utmost to accurately report events even if their observations are not congruent with our current views of what is possible or real.
Something is going on that cannot be explained. We know that it’s real despite declarations to the contrary by many respected authorities. All we can do is remain faithful to what we see, hear, and experience without being swayed by the disfavor of those who continually deny their possibility. Ultimately, reality will not be constricted by our understanding of it.
makati1 on Tue, 15th Nov 2016 11:07 pm
Der, All land is worthless unless someone is willing AND able to buy it. Nothing has value without a buyer. And, maybe you have not noticed pictures of the dust bowl years or the depression years when they DID live in what you would call ‘shacks’ today. No heat, no running water, no electric, etc. All of that is coming back. Be patient.
You have the same mindset as those fools who think that owning a million dollars worth of ‘stock’ today is real. They too are about to get a lesson in reality. Farmers are millionaires? LMAO.
Go Speed Racer on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 12:49 am
Hi Makita, well when I buy that jumbo Hot Dog
out in front of Home Depot, then I don’t know
what’s in there. Maybe some USDA grade AA rat.
but usually I try and get some organic labelled
foods, from the Yuppie grocery store.
DerHundistlos on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 1:18 am
News flash mak….exorbitant prices for farmland are the norm due to the demand outstripping the supply or do you require an education in the economics of supply and demand.
Now, if you are an owner of farmland that you are willing to sell at Dust Bowl era prices, I promise you that you will have a buyer- me.
Further, maybe you have not noticed, but 2016 is not the Dust Bowl era.
What a clown.
Davy on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 4:27 am
Der Hund, try farming sometime and then get back to me on what you think. It is called having your ass on the line every crop season for a variety of reasons. There are some farmers who are doing well because they are diversified. Some are large and in good niches. Many have their wives working. Some have made out on buying and selling land. If you are farming family land that is a big plus if it is paid off but the temptation is to mortgage the land for working capital. Sometimes this turns out bad and families lose their farms. Government subsidies are barely adequate if prices dump. Many are hobby famers trying to supplement their income only to find unless you get big you are not going to make much if any money. Many suffer drought, flood, and poor prices and never recover. It is a big investment in land, equipment, and inputs with slim margins. Most are not living 1%’er lifestyles. Go out into the third world and the picture is even more difficult. There are the agribusiness just like other corporate rackets that are the tendency towards the profit taking. These are the folks you need to be pointing your finger at.
makati1 on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 6:44 am
Der, you are full of shit. Most farmers are deep in debt. If they could sell their farms to get out of debt, most would. Land, or your house, is only worth what someone will pay for it. Ask the millions who own homes that are ‘under water’ what a house is worth. You are guzzling that government propaganda Koolaid again. LMAO.
DerHundistlos on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 10:53 am
Davy and Mak:
Firstly, I know the ins and outs of farming. My family owned and operated a 730 acre farm in Franklin County, Missouri. So your ASSumption is dead wrong.
Regarding farm household income, the numbers tell everything:
“Mean and Median Farm Household Income Is High”
According to the US Department of Agriculture, the mean household income in inflation adjusted dollars in 2014 was $131,754 compared to the US average family income of $75,738.
DerHundistlos on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 10:56 am
Addendum to above comment. Insert FARM OPERATOR HOUSEHOLDS.
According to the US Department of Agriculture, the mean household income in inflation adjusted dollars for FARM OPERATOR HOUSHOLDS in 2014 was $131,754 compared to the US average family income of $75,738.
Davy on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 12:24 pm
Der Hund, I farmed 1000 acres up near Jefferson City where Osage and Missouri rivers meet in partnership with two other guys. We had day jobs too. That was the hardest work I ever did and the most stressful. I knew you were from Franklin County because we discussed this in the past.
I stand by my point farming is precarious for many. It is also dangerous work and many die at it. Last week a strained my shoulder when I fell off my flatbed truck onto a skid steer forks. It still hurts like hell but I was lucky I didn’t break anything.
Your mean income reference is deceiving because there are many farmers in those numbers that are barely making it. There are a few very high net worth farmers in those numbers that skew the mean. There are many who are not even counted as FARM OPERATORS. They are small farmers who do other things.
This is also the issue of farm income. What was there expenses? What good is it to make $131K and have expenses of $100K. Income don’t mean shit if there is no disposable income. Like I said it is a mixed bag of very rich connected farmers organized as a small business and many small farmers some who are barely making it.
DerHundistlos on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 7:10 pm
Davy, I agree depending on the circumstances. Today it’s impossible for a young person interested in agriculture to buy a farm. If you guys were renting the land or went heavily in debt to buy the acreage, than I certainly do agree. I am talking about owner/operated farms. In my instance, my Dad originally owned 247 acres and kept adding acreage. Then around 2000, a housing developer paid him $8 million dollars for the land. He made a boat load of money, although I was sad to lose the farm. I used to be involved, but when my Dad decided to make a few bucks by allowing the last stand of virgin oak and hickory to be cut down that’s when I decided it was my time to exit. These old growth trees were home to any number of species- gone and in the process the dozers tore up the land creating massive gulley erosion. All for several thousand dollars.
makati1 on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 7:46 pm
Der, your dad took advantage of a bubble. It has burst. Past history is NO indication of future gains. FEW farmers own their farms outright and then there is the little matter of real estate taxes that, if not paid, causes you to lose the farm. No income, no farm. Value…gone.
DerHundistlos on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 9:59 pm
Mak-
All you do is pull information directly from your ass. I cite data and facts. Following is additional information that debunks your BS. In terms of property taxes, farms receive a special tax exemption.
Information from Oxfam and USDA:
“Increasing farm real estate values coupled with several years of high farm incomes have helped maintain and increase farm household wealth levels. In 2014, the typical farm household had nearly $900,000 in wealth. Households operating commercial farms had more than $2.5 million in total wealth, substantially more than the households of residence.”
Unless you have facts to present, learn to shut your pie hole.
makati1 on Wed, 16th Nov 2016 11:08 pm
Der, cite some sources for your “FACTS”. I pull them from the real world that I have lived in for the last 72 years. Do a bit of research outside your narrow little world and see for yourself. Anything is only worth what someone will pay for it when you want to sell. Logic needs no references.
Note: A government source (USDA) is NOT reality. And OXFAM is just another greedy, tax avoiding, for profit, NGO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam
“…Oxfam’s report was a “commercial move” aimed at backing a rival supplier which backed Oxfam, and Oxfam…”
“Accusations of hypocrisy:”
“Oxfam has been criticized[68][69] for aggressively expanding its specialist bookshops, using tactics more often associated with multi-national corporations.”
As I said, a greedy, for profit/power NGO.
Davy on Thu, 17th Nov 2016 7:13 am
Shut your pie-hole Makati everyone knows your agenda. It is old and stale and a failure. Growing old it is said we grow into children. You are well on your way to being childlike.
Davy on Thu, 17th Nov 2016 7:28 am
Der Hund, I know where you are talking about more or less. That area exploded with rural/suburban sprawl. I know people like your dad that made a killing in that period of huge land appreciation. Back around 96 I was looking for a farm around there. Land was already high and getting worse. I ended up buying 150 acres further west where acreage was less. It was west of Marthasville along the river hills. It was a great place to live and hang out but not much of a farm as in a farm operation. In 2000 some partners and I bought acreage along the Missouri river for a corn and soybean farm operation. We each had good skills. I was the business end being a finance guy. One partner was good with planting and harvesting and the other mechanical. It worked well in that regards but we had weather issues and crop prices were never adequate. I made the interest on my land note but didn’t earn any money for my effort. IOW I got an education and an ass-kickin. That is how I got my 4 year education on farming. I am now south of Rolla on a family farm. I am now just a small cattle and goat operation. I am no longer interested with making lots of money and getting big. It is poor down here and not much changes. I am now doing my doomstead and preparing for a radically changed world in the making.
DerHundistlos on Thu, 17th Nov 2016 1:58 pm
Yes, Davy, for me it’s very sad that young people like you and your associates face too many barriers to entry. It’s not only sad on a personal level, but the country losses when even dedicated and well educated persons like yourselves can’t make a go at it. Everything started to change in this direction beginning with Reagan. The result is with each passing year fewer and fewer family farms, and more and more mega and corporate land ownership with a singular interest in maximizing profits- no regard for the environment and good land stewardship.
The good news is you have found your niche, and you are right that money isn’t everything. I could care less about all the stupid trappings of McMansions, motor toys, etc. Instead for me I live a content existence by investing my wealth in the conservation of endangered species via land purchases. I am focusing on Colombia due to the fact that Colombia is home to more biodiversity than any other country. I was introduced to Colombia thanks to an appeal that I received for funds to purchase the feeding and nesting habitat for the last colony of Yellow-Eared parrots to exist. These noble and beautiful birds mate for life and reproduce only in a social setting. Consequently, captive breeding program was a non-starter. Either we saved this paramo or the forests would be razed to make way for a massive Palm Oil plantation and the extinction of the Yellow-Eared parrot. If you are interested, following is an article describing the successful project. I will also add that the local community benefited greatly in that as a result of preserving the land the reserve provides the residents with a pristine water source provided at no cost. As a result, the locals are vigilant in protecting the reserve from poachers and illegal lumber and mining operations. Today the population of parrots has grown from 81 to more than 1,000!!!
The overall population of Yellow-eared Parrot dwindled to near zero during the latter half of the 20th century as a result of extensive habitat loss. The bird was generally thought extinct–until 1998, when researchers from Fundación ProAves were stunned to find a colony of 81 Yellow-eared Parrots in Colombia’s Andes Mountains.
That discovery presented a new responsibility and a critical challenge: protecting the quickly-vanishing habitat of these extremely rare birds and growing the colony to levels that would better ensure long term survival.
Fundación ProAves, in partnership with American Bird Conservancy, Rainforest Trust, Conservation International, and the Loro Parque Foundation, spearheaded the Yellow-eared Parrot Project to ensure the survival of the bird and to purchase land for protection in its fragile habitat.
This extraordinary success is the result of years of surveys and monitoring by ProAves researchers, who documented the most important areas for conservation in a region where less than 5% of the native forest survives.
“Today, almost 11 years later, we see the results of the ongoing work of over 180 individuals and 47 organizations around the world. This also includes contributions by local communities as well as success in research, conservation, and environmental education activities,” said ProAves President Alonso Quevedo.
Key to this breakthrough were the habitat-conservation efforts of various individuals and organizations.
In April 2009, Rainforest Trust was presented with an urgent appeal to purchase critical habitat for the Yellow-eared Parrot. Recognizing the importance of this appeal, Rainforest Trust donor Frank Friedrich Kling from Illinois, committed to funding half the acquisition cost as part of a matching gift campaign. This generous matching support persuaded many Rainforest Trust supporters to donate to the appeal, allowing ProAves to acquire 7,448 acres. Our donors also helped leverage additional support from American Bird Conservancy, IUCN Netherlands/SPN in conjunction with the Netherlands Postcode Lottery, Conservation International, and Robert Wilson, allowing a further 2,614 acres to be acquired.
In total, our partner acquired and saved 10,062 acres on the eastern slope of the Central Andes of Colombia which connect to a further 6,653 acres of cloud forest already under their protection on the mountain chain’s western flank, creating an expansive natural reserve for the parrots.
“This amazing success is proof positive that Rainforest Trust, working in conjunction with local partners, is making a demonstrable difference in the preservation of critically endangered species,” said Rainforest Trust supporter Frank F. Kling.
“I am grateful to have participated in the fundraising campaign that made this possible and now look forward to the next Rainforest Trust critical appeal.”
“In light of the numerous challenges facing wildlife conservation, it’s inspiring to know that we are making the difference between extinction and preservation,” Kling added.
The 14-mile-long Yellow-eared Parrot Conservation Corridor gives this burgeoning population of endangered parrots a secure place to call home and stands as a testament to the power of private land purchase for conservation.
Today, the population of Yellow-eared Parrots numbers over 1,000 individuals, a key threshold for the recovery of the population. Conservation efforts continue with the hope that the spectacular Yellow-eared parrot will once again be a common sight across the Andes of Colombia.