Sierra Farms Lamb

2012-01-27T17:12:00.000-08:00

Hello Loyalists;

Five inches of rain in the past week has greatly improved my mood and the probability that lamb will return this year. Our operation (and your lamb supply) depends on rainfall and natural grass, which for the past two months did not look good.

In the upside-down world of lamb farming, dark clouds are a good sign—let’s hope they continue to float our direction.

The next lamb delivery will be in April or May this year. This time lag is inconvenient for those needing lamb, and nearly ruinous for us trying to keep our enterprise afloat. Each year we experience a period of cash flow drought that wipes out any gains we had built-up and brings back a disheartening uncertainty common to farm production.

Without being too dreary, I’ll explain some of the considerations we deal with. We have lengthened our lambing time in order to provide lamb over a longer duration, but this method has challenges and added costs when trying to provide a grass-fed product during seasons when no grass is growing. Fortunately, most of you accept alfalfa hay as being a form of preserved grass, which, mixed with other protein sources such as edible dry beans, makes tasty lamb during the dry summer and early fall. Hay prices have nearly doubled in the past 18 months, driven by the dairy industry which also is monopolizing the alternative protein supply. So, the production side is having its share of new challenges.

The same is happening in the revenue side. We kept our delivered price the same last year while the live lamb market went crazy. Throughout 2011, more revenue could be made by selling live lambs than by processing and delivering them, even without considering the costs of either processing or delivery! Talk about disheartening—but loyalty has its value too, so we shepherded on. However, some changes to our unique model of fresh lamb delivery are necessary if we are to continue this service, and because we have a partnership with you loyalists, we’re asking for ideas.

The CSA model, using monthly “subscription” payments, is designed to even income flow across most of the year, as well as providing a sense of demand and working capital. This works for vegetable farming, but I’m not sure it will work for this lamb delivery model. So, I’m at a loss of what options are available or how this model can be improved. We all have a good thing going here, so there should be a way to keep it viable.

Thanks for your support and thoughtfulness,

Mel and Mary Thompson

www.sierrafarmslamb.blogspot.com

Ordering Instructions

2010-08-17T21:18:00.002-07:00

Please place orders by email at any time, rather than waiting for the deadline! The last delivery was filled entirely by pre-orders, without posting to the larger customer base.
Check the other posts here for all the info you need before ordering.

Please keep farmers toiling and local lamb on the menu.
Orders and questions: mmt@digitalpath.net

Delivery Information

2010-08-16T11:52:00.000-07:00

We are experiencing higher demand than usual, so it is important to place your orders at any time, rather than waiting for the monthly newsletter.

New customers: please send your area of residence to match-up with the nearest delivery location. Also send your cell # for delivery day messages or scheduling changes.

We deliver to many Bay Area and Northern California locations, bringing Fresh cut and wrapped lamb, ground lamb, sweetbreads and bones. Ordering is by email; payment is cash or check at delivery.
Sierra Farms is providing this unique monthly delivery of fresh lamb from our farm to your tables to establish moderately priced lamb as a reliable alternative to other meat choices.

Additionally, this service brings lamb lovers the assurance of knowing the farmer and the growing methods and practices that influence the flavor and healthiness of the product.

Our goal is to become the best source of fresh lamb, raised in a realistic manner and efficiently provided at the most reasonable cost. Bay Area and Northern California lamb lovers are uniquely placed to benefit from this endeavor. Please do so...and tell others!

ORDERING IS BY EMAIL: mmt@digitalpath.net

CUTS and PRICES

2010-08-10T11:37:00.000-07:00

Cutting, Price and Delivery Information

Sierra Farms Lamb is establishing a delivery network that will bring fresh, unfrozen lamb to Northern California locations on a 30-45 day schedule, 12 months of the year. Our goal is to become the most reliable provider of direct-marketed fresh lamb, raised sensibly with respect for natural processes and an honest connection between farmers and consumers.

This is an order-based approach, by email, with orders being either 1/2 or whole lamb, cut, vacuum sealed and boxed. We do not sell individual cuts at this time. All processing is done at Superior Farms (USDA inspected) in Dixon to our cutting instructions. Each box is labeled with a net weight and priced per pound. Lambs are harvested on Tuesdays, typically, and delivered two or three days later.
We encourage groups or friends to divide whole lambs among themselves, rather than each person ordering a half lamb box. This reduces the number of boxes on each delivery-- very helpful since delivery freezer space is limited. Dividing is easy!

Typical boxed weights have been 17-20 lbs for a half-lamb and 34-40 for a whole. Current pricing is $7.00/lb. Payment is cash or check at delivery. Please preorder by email. mmt@digitalpath.net

We have been using this cutting list, based on a WHOLE lamb:

(8) packages shoulder chops (2 chops packed together)
(4) pkgs of 4 rib racks, Frenched
(4) pkgs loin chops (4 chops packed together)
(2) pkgs of single-packed foreshanks
(2) pkgs of single-packed hindshanks
(2) pkgs of Denver ribs
(2) pkgs single-packed sirloin steaks
(2) pkgs bone-in leg roasts
(2-4) packages of meaty neck slices for stock or stew

Chops are cut approx. 1.25" thick. We use standardized cutting instructions as much as possible to minimize processing costs. For this reason, we have avoided "boned and rolled" processing since labor costs increase substantially. Besides, bone-in cooking tastes better!

OTHER PRODUCTS:
Ground lamb, sweetbreads and bones are available but do not usually come from our lambs due to processing scheduling. Organ meat from our lambs is not available until further notice.

Current pricing:
Ground lamb is $52 for an 8lb box containing 8 single packages, or $7.00 each package.
Bones are $18 for a 10 lb box. These are lower leg bones, about 6 inches long. Ten lbs makes about 3 batches in a large stock pot.

Sweetbreads are $65 for a 10 lb box, containing over 120 pieces. These can be ordered either fresh or frozen.

Delivery is in a commercial type flatbed truck carrying a freezer that maintains 28-30 degree temperature. Currently we deliver to Vacaville, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, San Jose, Redwood City, Hillsborough, San Francisco, Emeryville, Davis, Sacramento, Napa, Sonoma and Santa Rosa, with future locations in Auburn and Truckee. Please include your area of residence for exact delivery times and locations.

We hope this answers some of your questions. If not, please write back. This is a new concept for us, and perhaps for you as well, so we expect to do as much communicating as it takes. We certainly appreciate your ideas!

Our website is http://www.lambeatersconnection.com/ , see 'about us' for other information.

mmt@digitalpath.net

Lamb Cuts Illustrated

2010-07-30T11:33:00.000-07:00

"Lamb is the New Pig!!"

2010-06-20T15:40:00.000-07:00

This news was exclaimed by Ross Hutchinson, winner of the NY Lamb Takedown in April. He obviously was very excited with success and wanted credit to go to the most deserving member of his team.

He also may have been reacting to years of confined, institutionalized white meat boredom, with its genetic manipulation, bland flavor and general lack of appeal.

However, Ross may not have been using local lamb, as you are lucky to enjoy, since most of the lamb used in the Takedowns is donated as promotional material by the American Lamb Board. The Board is doing a great job of promoting lamb and raising lamb awareness across the country.

If you share Ross's jubilation for progress, or have always enjoyed lamb, take the step that few others are able to take--order Local Lamb. You need not be a professional chef to win this contest.

The 2010 San Francisco Lamb Takedown was won by Chef David Barzelay of Lazy Bear Underground Restaurant (www.lazybearsf.com) using lamb products supplied by Sierra Farms. His exclamation was not recorded, but we're sure it was similar to the chef from New York--maybe "Sierra Farms Lamb is the NEW lamb." No telling.

All About Sweetbreads

2010-06-19T11:41:00.000-07:00

1. Sweetbread - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sweetbreads are the thymus (throat sweetbread) and the pancreas (heart or stomach sweetbread), especially of the calf and lamb (although beef and pork ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetbread - Cached - Similar

2. How to Cook Sweetbreads - the Supreme Offal - ChefTalk.com
These tender and delicately flavored meats come exclusively from young animals, most often lamb or veal. Veal sweetbreads are the most commonly used by ...www.cheftalk.com/.../124-How_to_Cook_Sweetbreads_-_the_Supreme_Offal.html - Cached - Similar

3. Lamb Sweetbreads – Mollejas De Cordero : Asado Argentina
Mar 16, 2007 ... In areas where you have large estancias that raise sheep, such as Tierra Del Fuego, super fresh lamb sweetbreads(mollejas de cordero) are ...www.asadoargentina.com/lamb-sweetbreads-mollejas-de-cordero/ - Cached

4. Image results for lamb sweetbreads
- Report imagesThank you for the feedback. Report another imagePlease report the offensive image. Cancel Done

5. Veal sweetbread vs. lamb sweetbread - General Chowhounding Topics ...
3 posts - 2 authors - Last post: Jan 19, 2007
Which do you prefer? Any other animal sweetbreads you like?chowhound.chow.com/topics/361795 - Cached - Similar

Sweetbreads! - Home Cooking‎ - Mar 29, 2007Butchers with Sweetbreads - San Francisco Bay Area‎ - Jul 8, 2006Lamb Brains and Lamb Sweetbreads - Ontario (including Toronto ...‎ - May 3, 2006Sweetbread - New Orleans‎ - Apr 6, 2004
More results from chowhound.chow.com »

6. lamb sweetbreads - Recipes - p1 - Recipezaar
Looking for a recipe? Recipezaar has 9 lamb sweetbreads recipes. Page 1 of 1.www.recipezaar.com/recipes.php?foodido...sweetbreads - Cached - Similar

7. sweetbread: Definition from Answers.com
sweetbread. The thymus gland (known as throat sweetbread) and the pancreas (stomach sweetbread), especially of the calf and lamb (although beef sweetbreads ...www.answers.com/topic/sweetbread - Cached - Similar

LAMB GROWING and FEEDING PROCEDURE

2010-06-18T22:37:00.000-07:00

Sierra Farms is 700 acres of native Blue Oak savannah grassland located on the western edge of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, north of Sacramento. During the green season, we move the grazing livestock daily to fresh feed across 35 pastures, a practice called rotational grazing. The ewes and lambs appreciate this, as one would expect, but the soil, trees, grass and critters large and small also benefit from being disturbed only once every 35 days. The average pasture is about 20 acres in size (roughly 20 football fields) and has fresh water, oak trees for shade and plenty of fresh air and free range.

Sierra Farms lambs are born in fall or spring and grass-fed on rangeland conditions--green grass in winter and spring, dry grass in the summer months. Fall-born, Spring harvested lambs are completely grassfed. The lambs never are given antibiotics, either by injection or sub-therapeutically in feed, or any form of growth hormone.

We occasionally partner with two other lamb producers who utilize irrigated pasture to produce completely grassfed lambs most of the year. While this is the ideal growing situation, increasing demand for irrigation water in California is challenging this management option. At Sierra Farms, our non-irrigated native grass regimen seems more sustainable in the long term, but requires an understanding and acceptance of lamb growth requirements under that regimen.

As the native grass begins to dry (about July 15) its nutrient value diminishes below the needs of growing lambs. In order to insure their health and meat quality, lambs are brought into feeding paddocks where they receive 3-5 lbs daily of a mix of alfalfa hay, beans and safflower screenings along with native grass. This mix supplies a high level of protein while maintaining a forage basis. This is the most acceptable management alternative, especially when compared to the high corn diet commonly used in commercial feedlots. "Screenings" refers to separation of unusable seeds and chaff.

Beans are human-consumption lima, blackeye, garbanzo and other light-colored beans (but no soybeans) that are separated from retail grade beans for being too large, too small, cracked, split or discolored. Beans are fed very sparingly, no more than 2 lbs/lamb per week.

The lambs enjoy many oak trees for shade, so they are comfortable during hot summer days. Our website shows the oak savannah grassland that they enjoy. It does not show (you’ll have to imagine) the clean air, fresh piped water and peaceful relationship they have with their Livestock Guardian Dog and other wildlife.

Lambs are harvested at 7-10 months of age, at about 110 lbs live weight. This is much lighter than the typical commercial lamb, which is what we prefer for flavor and tenderness. They will be very lean, with about 1/8" fat cover over the back. By comparison, many commercial lambs are corn fed with 1/2" or more of fat cover. Internal fat content usually is proportional to external fat scores.

Harvest and fabrication is done at Superior Packing in Dixon, which uses humane treatment policies and is USDA-inspected. We have a cutting and packaging protocol that provides a combination of basic and ‘boutique’ cuts, to fit all dining or entertaining occasions.

Ground lamb and bones for stock making are available, but will not be derived from our lambs, due to scheduling patterns and difficulty to process small batches economically. Organ meats (hearts, livers and kidneys) are available, from our lambs, if ordered ahead.

Our goal is to provide regularly scheduled deliveries, every month of the year. We have established permanent delivery points in Vacaville, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, Emeryville, San Jose, Redwood City, Hillsborough, San Francisco, Napa, Truckee, Tahoe and Sacramento. Other locations will be added as requested. Our product travels less than 200 miles from ranch to consumer, and is two days “fresh” from harvest to delivery.

Our price currently is $7/lb for either whole or half-lamb boxes. It will be delivered fresh or slightly frozen, depending on processing/delivery schedules. Each box is sealed with a net weight label affixed, delivered in a freezer unit that maintains 28-30 degree cooling. Boxed weights are approximately 18-20 lbs for half-lamb and 35-40 lbs for whole.

We hope this answers most of your questions, and look forward to sharing our bounty. Of course, to make this sustainable, we need as many orders for each delivery as possible, so we welcome all word of mouth referrals you can give, as well as any suggestions for linking to other interested groups or individuals.

Don't be shy with other questions. Please see www.lambeatersconnection.com for more information "About Us." A flyer is available for email forwarding, as well as a cutting chart and delivery schedule. Please reply to my email address, mmt@digitalpath.com

Footprints in the Carbon

2010-06-16T21:37:00.000-07:00

A while ago, we decided to try spreading ash on our rangeland, just to see what might happen. We started with small buckets from the woodstove that burns pretty much non-stop throughout the winter. We spread those ashes on grasses and forbs and bare ground, kicked the piles around with our boots and left. It rained, the ash slowly disappeared into the soil and clover and grasses went crazy. At least around the edges of the ash piles. Where it was deepest, not so much.

This went on for several years. We liked the results. We knew ash had high levels of phosphorous and potassium and maybe some nitrogen. We worried about ‘heavy metals’ and other byproducts. The oak we burned was pure, organic and old, so our concerns were slight. We naturally did not burn treated lumber and other junk or trash.

Lambs love clovers. Clovers love slightly acidic, slightly clay soils and most of all, phosphorous and potassium. Clover is a legume, so it produces nitrogen for itself and its neighbors through nodules attached to its roots. In this process, clover sequesters N from the air, leaving it in the soil for others to enjoy. Nitrogen in grasses and forbs converts to protein for animal use—the higher the N and protein, the tastier the feed. By promoting clover growth, we encouraged grass and forb growth, lamb growth and ultimately, the flavor you enjoy on the dinner plate.

It goes without saying that soil bacteria and other large and small soil organisms also benefited. Gophers are happy, as well as the Gray Foxes, Swainson Hawks, Burrowing Owls and Northern Harriers. We have found at least five different annual clovers growing naturally on our range. In some areas, clover is the predominant species. Life is more complex where ash is spread.

Two years ago we went big time and ordered several truckloads of ash from a nearby co-generation plant that converts tree waste into electricity. The ash left over is available for agricultural use. Our experiment is the only one being done on native rangeland of which we are aware. We incorporated some into the soil, while leaving some on the surface to compare results. As with the bucket experiments, grasses and clovers responded with enthusiasm. More notably, where ash was spread over portions of pastures, the sheep responded equally—sometimes with several hundred grazing almost shoulder to shoulder on the ashed areas while ignoring the rest of the pasture.

Since ash is a form of Carbon*, the bigger question is: Does this add to or subtract from our carbon footprint? Or does it make any difference? Carbon Footprinting and Sequestration are yet other concepts being tossed around these days, considered by experts of all inclinations who worry (or not) for the future of the planet. We aren’t sure, so we’ll continue to monitor our ashy footprints and wonder and wait for the next most definitive answer.

Doing right is becoming a full time job for agrarians. Especially for those selling direct to sophisticated consumers. That’s how it should be, though.

* I've been corrected that ash is mineral, not carbon. While this may be technically correct, the emphasis on grass, forb and lamb growth is changed little by this detail.

What Is Local Food Worth?

2010-06-15T13:57:00.000-07:00

We are always asking ourselves this question...what should we charge for the Lamb we raise and sell? What is our time worth, what is "added value" worth? What are environmental and production assurances worth?

As conventional small farmers, we traditionally have been "price takers", meaning we have gotten whatever someone is willing to pay us for our product. Whatever the commodity is worth on the open market. Lately this has come to reflect global supply, demand, currency value differences, time of year and other complex market differentials. Not something we can influence on our level.

Local food awareness has changed this picture dramatically in recent years. For those producers willing and able to make the transition, consumers are increasingly eager to develop and support a local food economy. We sense we now are being paid for all the value we can pack into our product, and for the distinctions we can make between competing products.

However, it is not easy to leave old habits behind. We are constantly monitoring the commercial lamb market, comparing what we might be "taking" with what we are asking you to pay. As the live lamb market drops, due to lagging demand, we feel our pricing should be adjusted in accordance. Because no matter how special we want to think we are, or our lamb is, the free market always is looming over us as an indicator of how things really are.

And, it works the same for consumers no matter how concerned they are with healthy eating and local food sourcing. As the price of chicken, lamb or tomatoes fluctuates in conventional brick and mortar markets, direct marketed produce should be expected to follow those price/value cycles.

Some direct marketers seem to have an entitlement attitude to pricing--they are entitled to meet their costs of production PLUS a profit. In this method, consumers are expected to subsidize the lifestyle plus all the inefficiencies and quirks associated with new model small scale production.

This will not last long. Local direct marketing should be seen as an improvement over traditional farming just as it is an improvement over commercial food sourcing-- not as a trendy bubble of opportunity. As so much effort and energy is being poured into this cause from many sources (now even USDA, which heretofore has provided only lip service), we producers and consumers should not allow a bubble or elitist mentality to take hold.

How this system develops, and how local food is valued and defined will determine if a local food movement prevails and its benefits to each side continues-- or if it is co-opted by the industrial supply system, making us all price and quality takers, once again.

The End of Cheap Food?

2010-02-17T21:55:00.000-08:00

Below is a well researched and written account of events and trends in food production that have or continue to occur, presented in a fairly unbiased manner. I offer this as useful background information to help explain current ideas, concerns and differences of opinion that increasingly are being voiced, and manipulated.

Range Livestock Production,
Food, and the Future:
A Perspective
Ranching and farming systems could soon drastically change because of rising world
population, depletion of water supplies, agricultural land loss to urbanization,
fossil fuel depletion, and concerns about food health.

By Jerry L. Holechek

There is a growing belief that the era of cheap
food in the United States is ending and that
major changes will eventually occur in how our
food is produced, processed, and distributed.1
Changes in the food production system in the United States
will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world and the prospects
for the human population. This is because the United
States is the world’s primary grain producer and has played
a critical role in preventing famines when food shortages
have occurred in other countries.1 Changes in the world
food outlook have important implications for range livestock
producers.

Under present conditions, every 1 farmer in the United
States feeds about 170 people, compared to 20 in 1900.2
Yields of most crops have tripled, and in some cases, like
corn, they have increased by fivefold. This remarkable
achievement has allowed the US human population to triple
while food costs as a percentage of family income have
dropped from 30% to 10%.

An abundance of cheap foodindirectly helped the United States become the world’s foremost
industrial power in the 1920s, build the interstate
highway system in the 1950s, develop the internet in the
1990s, and become a nation of affluent suburban homeowners.
3 However, there are now many concerns about
future food production in the United States. They relate to
its sustainability relative to energy use, its ethics in treatment
of livestock, its impact on the environment, and its
effects on food nutritional value and healthiness.3,4 I will
discuss the development of US food production from 1900
to the present and then relate my analysis to implications
for range livestock producers.

Changes in Farming
In 1900, the typical American farmer grew a wide variety of
crops and animal species.3 Horses were a necessary animal
on every farm because tractors were still in the developmental
state. Next came cattle, chickens, and hogs. Corn was
the primary crop followed by wheat, apples, hay, oats, and
potatoes. Many farms also grew cherries, plums, grapes,
peaches, and pears. Through this diversity, most farmers
could feed not only their families but also their livestock and
soil.3 The fields were small (5–40 acres) and mostly fenced.
The landscape across large farming areas was highly diverse
and much different than today.
Tractors and other mechanization rapidly eliminated the
need for horses during the 1920s. This increased the amount
of land that could be devoted to producing food for humans
by 30%, as feed was no longer needed for draft animals.3
The tractor also allowed farming of lands not easily tilled
with draft animals and increased the speed of tillage.
The rapid expansion of supply in farm commodities due to
mechanization caused real farm income to drop 75% between
1919 and the Depression in 1932.2
The spreading use of tractors during the 1920s resulted
in the plowing of vast acreages of rangelands in the western
Great Plains that were unsuited for sustained cultivation.4
This would lead to the “dust bowl” of the 1930s.
In the 1930s, New Deal programs from the Roosevelt
administration to combat the Depression restricted farm
commodity production. These programs followed by World
War II in the early 1940s temporarily rescued farmers and
ranchers from the supply glut of the 1920s.2,5,6 However,
another round of farm commodity supply increases started
in the early 1950s. This came from the “green revolution,”
which involved the development of specialized crop varieties
highly responsive to inputs of fertilizer, pesticides, and
irrigation.

The key feature in green revolution productivity was the
heavy use of nitrogen fertilizer. The process of synthesizing
nitrogen fertilizer was developed by the German scientist,
Fritz Haber, in 1909.3 However, nitrogen fertilizer received
little use by American farmers until the 1950s green revolution.
The Haber process of synthesizing nitrogen requires
high inputs of fossil fuel, primarily natural gas. The soil
fertility transformation from natural fertilizers (livestock
manures) and legumes (green manures) to synthesized
fertilizer caused the second big boost in farm production
but further increased the reliance on cheap fossil fuel.
In response to an oversupply of farm commodities in
1956, the Eisenhower administration implemented the “soil
bank” program that idled 30 million acres by 1960 (total
farmland base = 380 million acres). Under this program,
farmers were paid to retire cropland from production. It was
moderately successful in containing crop surpluses but it did
provide important conservation benefits (wildlife habitat
and reduced soil erosion).
In the late 1950s, substantial amounts of marginal cropland
in the drier western Great Plains were reseeded to
perennial grasses and returned to grazing.7 Profits from
western ranching were exceptionally high in the early 1950s
and early 1960s, but weakened during the late 1960s.7 A
rapidly rising human population with increased affluence
(more beef consumption per capita) explains the generally
favorable economic situation for western ranchers during the
1950s into the early 1960s.
The downward trend in farm commodity prices due to
oversupply had a sharp reversal in the early 1970s.2,5,6 Factors
causing this reversal included inflationary macroeconomics
policies by the US government, oil supply shocks, drought
in the US farm belt, and climatic adversity in China, India,
and Russia that depressed world grain production.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War
coupled with the “War on Poverty” put a severe funding
strain on the US government. Rather than raise taxes, the
governments under Presidents Johnson and Nixon basically
chose to fund them through printing the money. The expansion
of the money supply relative to economic output created
pressure for the US dollar to be devalued against other
currencies.8 At the Bretton Woods Conference in 1946, the
major world trading partners established that the US dollar
would be the basic monetary unit of exchange in international
trade. Dollars could be exchanged for gold with the
US government. The US government was able to increase
the supply of dollars to cover its excessive spending
during the late 1960s. However, a point was reached in
1971 when the United States could no longer meet foreign
country redemption of dollars for gold. In August of 1971,
President Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard, which
set the stage for dollar devaluation against other currencies.
This caused US exports, primarily farm products, to become
more competitive on world markets. This also contributed
to its primary import, oil, becoming much more expensive.
Other factors in the increase in oil prices were “peak oil”
in the United States, the Arab oil embargo, the beginnings
of globalization, and currency speculation. Soaring food
prices in 1972 and 1973 caused widespread protest by
American consumers.3 In response, then Secretary of
Agriculture Earl Butz encouraged farmers to plant fence
row to fence row and get big. He ended land idling programs.
Most importantly, he implemented a new system of direct
subsidy payments to farmers that encouraged them to maximize
their production of primary grains (corn, wheat)
regardless of supply. The combination of adverse weather,
Russian grain purchases, and dollar devaluation caused
US farm exports to surge from $7.3 billion in 1970 to
$34.7 billion in 1979.6 In this same period, prices for cattle
and other livestock rose along with farm commodities,
greatly benefiting western ranchers.
This favorable situation for US farmers and ranchers
abruptly changed in the early 1980s due to different
US economic policies under the Reagan administration,
improved climatic conditions, and massive grain surpluses
from the 1970s farm policies.5 Low farm income and a crash
in land values lead to massive bankruptcies of farmers and
ranchers that peaked in 1985.6
Probably the most critical factor affecting conditions for
farmers and ranchers in the 1980s and 1990s were the
economic policies implemented early in the presidency of
Ronald Reagan. The Reagan strategy involved restraining
the money supply to control inflation, business deregulation,
lower taxes, and loose immigration policy to lower labor
costs.2,5,6 The most drastic element of his program was using
the Federal Reserve to restrict inflation by elevating interest
rates. This greatly strengthened the US dollar and broke
the upward inflationary spiral. It caused money to flow from
natural resource assets (gold, oil, farmland) to financial
assets (stocks and bonds).
During the 1980s and 1990s, US farm products were
expensive relative to those of other countries such as
Canada, Argentina, and Australia, due to the strong dollar.
World climatic conditions were quite favorable for food
pro duction. In this same period, new technology involving
genetically engineered plants, coupled with market reforms
in China and several other countries, resulted in a third big
boost in world food production. A precipitous drop in oil
prices due to overproduction improved energy efficiency,
and deregulation contained food production costs.
In the early 1980s, there was growing concern that
another “dust bowl” could occur as a result of the massive
plow-out of rangelands in the western Great Plains in the
1970s. The Conservation Reserve Program was implemented
as part of the 1985 farm bill. It was a land set-aside
program that had dual objectives of controlling soil erosion
and reducing farm commodity supplies. By 1995, about
35 million acres had been set aside at an annual cost of
$1.8 billon per year. The Conservation Reserve Program
was quite effective in controlling soil erosion and increasing
wildlife habitat, but minimally effective in reducing the
surplus of farm commodities. Prices of the primary farm
food commodities—corn, soybean, wheat, rice—remained
depressed throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and into the early
2000s. Basically, further increased yields from green revolution
techniques and genetically engineered plants increased
farm commodities faster than they could be used by the
United States and the world human population.
Starting in the 1950s, the biggest dilemma was what
to do with all the surplus corn. This matter was resolved
by development of corn-based processed food and drink
products for human consumption and by gradually changing
livestock production systems in the United States.3 A huge
surplus of cheap corn made it cost-effective to produce pigs
and chickens on a large scale under confined conditions
using harvested feed. It also made it cost-effective to put a
high amount of fat on finished beef from the feedlot.
Massive supplies of cheap grains available as livestock feed
starting in the 1950s caused the price of chicken and pork
to gradually drop relative to beef. This is because pigs and
chickens convert grain more efficiently into meat than cattle.
The value of traditional livestock feed sources of range grass,
pasture, and crop roughages were reduced by cheap corn.
The desire by large meat packing corporations to control
their supply chains and finished products was also an important
factor in the development of confined animal meat
production systems. This also led to meat packers demanding
uniform cattle, which requires production systems based
on feeding rather than grazing.

A New Era of Agriculture Begins
There are now compelling reasons to believe that the era
of cheap and abundant food may be ending. They center
around depletion of fossil fuels, limits to the green revolution,
depletion of world water resources, losses of farmland
to development, global warming, changed farm policies by
the US government, the return of inflationary monetary
policies, and continuing human population growth.1 The
most important of these factors centers around fossil fuel
depletion, but they are all significant.

Human Population Increase
The world human population is now increasing at about
1.2% per year.1 Fortunately, the rate of growth has been
slowing down. There is hope that the present world population
of 6.5 billion will stabilize at 9–10 billion by 2050.1
However, unless there is some kind of major breakthrough
in energy, it seems almost certain world food prices will rise
in response to more people. The real question is by how
much? There is deep concern that food shortages and
famine could soon occur in some Asian and African
countries.1
World grain harvests have more than tripled since 1950,
keeping up with human population until 2000.1,4 However,
in 7 of the last 8 years, world grain production has fallen
short of consumption.1 World carryover stocks of grain are
at their lowest level in 34 years.1 This situation is now being
greatly accentuated by increased grain demand to produce
ethanol for cars.

Water Problems
Several countries of the world have growing water shortage
problems.1 These problems center around drops in water
tables due to excessive withdrawals from irrigation, loss of
glaciers, and loss of irrigation water to industry/urban users.
China, Pakistan, and India, which collectively account for
40% of the world’s human population, are all experiencing
falling grain production due to gradual water depletion.
The irrigation problem in these countries is being further
compounded by global warming that may or may not be
caused by human activities. The glaciers and snowpacks that
are the upper water sources of the Ganges, Yellow, Yangtze,
Indus, and Mekong River are melting.1 These rivers play a
critical role in irrigating lands that feed millions of people.
In the United States, irrigated land accounts for only
20% of the grain harvest, but in India, it accounts for about
60%, and in China, near 80%.1 Losses of irrigated land from
ground water depletion and more erratic river flows are
being compounded by appropriation of water from farmers
for urban and industrial growth. This problem is most
acute in India and China but is occurring in several other
countries including the United States.
In the United States, groundwater depletion impacts on
grain production have been most severe in the southern
Great Plains where the vast Ogallala aquifer is shrinking.1
This is gradually forcing many farmers in Texas, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Nebraska to
either return their lands to rangeland pastures or adopt
low-yield dryland farming. Rapidly growing US cities, such
as Denver, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, El Paso, and San
Diego, are increasingly meeting their water demand through
appropriation of farmland irrigation water.

Energy: The Biggest Challenge
The biggest current threat to human progress may be
the approach of “peak oil.”1,4,9 Various books and several
television documentary programs have addressed this subject
during the past 2 years. The US Government Accounting
Offi ce (GAO) 2007 report warns that “peak oil” will occur
sometime within the next 32 years and could be occurring
now.9 During the last 3 years, world oil production has
stalled at 85 million barrels per day, which may be the
peak.1,9 Once the peak occurs, the world will have to
rapidly switch to alternative energy sources.
There is no present energy source that can compare
to oil in terms of energy output per unit of input and ease
of handling.4 As examples, domestically produced oil has an
energy output to input ratio of near 20, compared to 10
for natural gas, 9 for coal, 4 for nuclear power, 2.1–2.6 for
wood, 0.8–1.7 for ethanol from sugar cane, and 0.7–1.3 for
ethanol from corn.10,11 Noncarbon renewable energy sources
like wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, and tidal can vary
from 2 to 15 depending on their location and the technologies
needed to develop them. In other words, as peak oil is
reached and other energy sources are gradually substituted
for oil, their net energy yields will be mostly lower. This will
make it quite challenging to maintain, let alone increase, the
energy supply for a growing human population.1,4,9,12 Travel
and production of goods and food will probably become
much more expensive than when oil was plentiful and other
world economies, like China and India, were not rapidly
increasing their oil use.
Few big oil discoveries have occurred since the North Sea
and Prudhoe fields of the 1970s.4,9,12 Presently, the world is
extracting and using five–six barrels of oil for every barrel
that is discovered.13 Since its 1970 oil production peak, the
United States has steadily increased its imports of oil to the
present level of 66%.9 Once world oil production peaks,
initial declines near 2% per year can be expected based on
what has happened in various countries that have already
reached peak oil.4,12,13 In the United States, oil production
has on average decreased about 1.3% per year from the peak
in 1970 (9.6 million barrels per day) to 2004 (5.4 million
barrels per day).9,12 However, between the 1970 peak and
1975, it dropped 10% or 2% per year.9 Within 5 years after
peak oil, a global oil shortage of 10–15% could easily occur
due to reduced supply coupled with increasing world oil
demand. This could completely disrupt the world economy.
9,14 If peak oil occurs within 5 years, the 2007 GAO
report points out that the consequences would be dire
due to a lack of global preparedness. Because the United
States is the largest consumer of oil and so dependent on oil
for transportation of people, goods, and food, it would be
especially vulnerable.9,14

Agriculture and Energy
Since 1940, the productivity of US farmland and US oil
consumption have both grown at a rate near 2% per year.3
All aspects of US food production are fossil fuel intensive,
from tractors and other machinery, to fertilizer, pesticides,
herbicides, crop transport, food processing and packaging,
and cooking.1,4,14,15 The production of a typical food item
at the point of consumption has involved energy inputs of
one hundred to several hundred times its food energy.4
In terms of energy effi ciency, modern industrial agriculture
is the least effi cient type of food production in human
history.1,4,15 The globalization of world food production
systems during the last 20 years has accentuated the use
of fossil fuel inputs. This is because of the replacement of
subsistence cultivation with industrially grown monocrops
for export in many developing countries and food transport
over longer distances.1,14,15
The big driver of the run-ups in world grain prices in
2006 and 2007 has been the crop-based fuel ethanol program
in the United States.1 This program has been around since
1978 but was abbreviated due to the low prices of oil and
gas. When oil rose above $50 a barrel in 2005, it become
cost-effective to convert grain into ethanol.1 This caused
heavy investment in distilleries and drove up demand for
corn. As oil prices shot up further in 2006 and reached $100
per barrel in early 2008, the economics of corn to ethanol
became favorable even without the government subsidy of
$0.51 a gallon. Once ethanol plants now under construction
are completed, grain used for ethanol could double. The key
point here is that as much as 40% of the corn crop in the
United States might soon be used in ethanol production if
oil prices remain above $60 per barrel. Several other countries,
including China, France, Spain, and Germany, are
now converting part of their grain crop to ethanol. Poor
crop production is occurring in some Asian and African
countries, and some farmers are converting from wheat to
corn. This could cause further rises in grain prices and make
food much more expensive throughout the world.
Since 2006, higher grain prices have adversely impacted
range cattle prices because of the squeeze of feedlot profit
margins. The feedlot operators have passed part of these
costs on to the ranchers by lowering the prices they are
willing to pay for cattle going from grass to the feedlot and
greatly reducing the number of days-on-feed. Meat imports
have moderated the impact of higher grain prices on pork,
poultry, and beef in the grocery store. The increase in grain
prices expected 5–10 years from now could change meat
production systems in the United States away from grain
back to forage. This is because food prices that are twice or
more than those right now will greatly affect the capability
of consumers to buy meat. Pending world food shortages
could eventually necessitate that most of the US grain crop
be fed directly to humans rather than to livestock or used
for ethanol production. The raising of livestock for meat
under confined conditions with grain-based diets is feasible
only under conditions of cheap grains and cheap meat transport.
Once peak oil is reached, it could become a major
challenge to avoid massive starvation.1,4,13–15 Keep in mind
that the world went from 1.7 billion people in 1900 to
6.5 billion people today on a pillar of abundant, cheap fossil
fuel. Once the fossil fuel is withdrawn from the equation,
there is doubt that the present world human population can
be adequately fed. Water depletion, loss of farmland, and
global warming could exacerbate problems from peak oil.
Under these conditions, most of our meat could again
be produced like it was all through history until the last
50 years.3 Pigs and chickens could again be primarily raised
by small households and farmers on a variety of feeds
they can scavenge. Most cattle may spend their entire lives
consuming range grasses and other roughages that only their
digestive systems can efficiently utilize. Meat of all kinds
could be very expensive, but that from range ruminants
would likely be cheaper than that from chickens and pigs.

After peak oil, it is believed by some energy experts that
the present system of large industrialized farms will devolve
back into small farms where humans and draft animals again
become the primary energy sources for cultivation, planting,
and harvesting.14,15 They question that large numbers of
people can be supported in big cities on imported food
in an energy-deficient world. Without cheap energy, they
believe that by necessity, people will return to the land and
big corporate farms will dissolve into small farms depending
mainly on human and animal labor.

Concerns About Confined Animal Meat
Production
The present system of confined animal meat production
confronts other serious challenges beyond those relating to
energy.3,16 The treatment of confined pigs, chickens, and
feedlot cattle as discussed in some detail by Pollan3 seems
dubious or not humane to many people. Rather than go into
detail on this matter, I will summarize that animal treatment
concerns have generated a demand for meat from
animals grown under natural (range pasture) conditions.
Some people are willing to pay a premium for so-called
“humanely” produced meat. Pollan also interestingly makes
the case that meat from grass-fed animals is more healthy
than that from corn-fed animals.3 In other words, the
nutritional profile (and taste) of beef, chicken, pork, eggs,
and milk is different when based on range forage or pasture
compared to grains. Specifically, there is preliminary
evidence that meat, milk, and eggs from pastured animals
contain higher levels of the essential omega-3 fatty acids
that play a positive role in human health. Health problems
assigned to beef consumption may be due to the animal’s
grain-based diet, while conversely, the grass-fed animal’s
meat may be nutritionally advantageous. A beef steak from
a grass-fed steer may be healthier than a filet from a farmed
salmon on grain.3 The real point I want to make is that
more people are becoming believers in the health benefits of
grass-fed meat and are willing to pay a 30–50% premium
for it.3 Concerns about diseases from meat of confined animals
and environmental damage from confined meat animal
production systems are also contributing to this demand.
So far, this is a small niche market. There is hope but also
doubt that it will grow. The primary question is whether or
not most consumers will be resistant to paying a premium
for “organic” beef as prices go up for gas, other foods, and
health care.

Is the Present System of Food Distribution
Sustainable?
There is growing belief that the present system of food
transport and distribution in the United States is unsustainable
and puts the country at risk.4,13–15 This concern is based
on the long distances most of our food is transported and
the heavy reliance on imported oil that fuels this transport.
The food production system in most of the United States is
geared to produce the big farm commodity crops (corn, soybeans,
wheat, rice, potatoes), while the fruits and vegetables
come mostly from California, Florida, and Latin American
countries.1,3,6,15 If anything disrupts the flow of oil to the
United States, food supply problems in the big cities could
become critical.13–15 Once peak oil is reached, the costs of
transporting food will probably rise quickly. The whole
Wal-Mart economy based on massive globalization could
crumble. Locally produced foods and goods sold in local
markets and small shops might come back.

Inflationary Monetary Policies
The US government is drifting back into inflationary
monetary policies.1,8,17–19 The high debt and trade defi cit
levels coupled with the house price collapse in the US economy
have put the Federal Reserve Bank under great pressure
to keep interest rates low. Eventually, the dollar could be
severely devalued against other currencies (particularly the
Euro) and gold.8,18,19 The government is again fi ghting wars
and expanding social programs without raising taxes.19 The
infl ation rate at both the producer level and consumer level
started rising in 2007.19 The devaluation of the dollar
associated with these policies, at some point, may stimulate
US meat exports, discourage meat imports, and boost
cattle prices.

Closing Thoughts
Western range livestock producers have been through a
25-year period of financially tough times due primarily to
high supplies of cheap grain. Cheap oil has been the underpinning
of the green revolution and abundance of grain.
Meat production systems in the United States were reorganized
to utilize this cheap grain supply by feeding it to large
concentrations of confi ned domestic animals. This system
has provided the consumer with an abundance of cheap
meat. However, animal treatment ethics, meat nutritional
value, and environmental degradation have been points of
controversy. During the era of cheap grain, the historic,
natural livestock foods of range grass, pasture, and crop
roughages were devalued. Both privately and publicly owned
rangeland came to be viewed by political leaders and the
public as disposable resources because it was thought that
our meat could be efficiently produced with harvested feed
or imported. The era of cheap oil and cheap grain may now
be ending. Conversion of grains into ethanol for cars is
accelerating price run-ups on grains. Government policies
that favor eventual devaluation of the US dollar are now
being implemented, which could make US meat more
competitive in foreign markets. Under these conditions, it
seems likely that range livestock production profi tability in
the long term will improve assuming ranchers can contain
costs, particularly for energy and supplemental feed. I
believe range operators using low-input systems that minimize
costs tied to fossil fuel are the ones most likely to
benefi t from the new trends.20–22 The capability to supply
local markets with humanely produced meat from natural
grass is paying out well for some ranchers, but presently this
market is uncertain and has many risks.
While I introduce the possibility that range livestock
production profitability could improve sometime in the
future, I recognize that I leave many important questions
unanswered. These questions include
1) How can ranchers take advantage of a shift to a grassfinished
market?
2) How can ranchers reduce energy costs?
3) How should grazing regulation on federal lands be
changed?
4) What do these changes mean for part-time or absentee
ranchers?
I hope this article stimulates thought on these questions.
There are many political and corporate leaders who
believe new technologies can solve all challenges relating to
peak oil, climatic change, water depletion, and human population
growth. However, the GAO (2007) report strongly
questions that the new technologies relating to energy could
adequately eliminate the adverse impacts if peak oil came
within the next 5–7 years.9 Basically, there is a complete lack
of preparedness for this “worst case” scenario.

As a rational hedge against the possibility of technological
lag or failure, I most strongly believe everything possible
should be done to conserve and enhance our rangelands and
farmlands so they will meet the basic needs of a world with
ever more people (70 million per year), but with shrinking
energy, water, and agricultural land resources. There are
many sound ways that energy, water, and agricultural land
resources can be conserved and enhanced to meet human
population needs without severely compromising our economy.
1,5,13–15 Therefore, I am an optimist about the future.
However, I am in agreement with Brown (2008)1 and
the GAO report (2007)9 that it is critical we not delay
preparation and implementation of these measures.

References
1. Brown, L. R. 2008. Mobilizing to save civilization: Plan B30.
New York, NY, USA: W. W. Norton & Company. 398 p.
2. Schiller, B. R. 2000. The economy today. 8th ed. New York,
NY, USA: McGraw-Hill. 762 p.
3. Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore’s dilemma. London, United
Kingdom: Penguin Books. 450 p.
4. Heinberg, R. H. 2005. The party’s over. 2nd ed. Gabriola
Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. 306 p.
5. Holechek, J. L., R. A. Cole, J. T. Fisher, and R. Valdez.
2003. Natural resources: ecology, economics, and policy. 2nd
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall. 761 p.
6. Knutson, R. D., J. B. Penn, and B. L. Flinchbaugh. 1998.
Agricultural and food policy. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ,
USA: Prentice-Hall. 521 p.
7. Grey, J. R. 1968. Ranch economics. Ames, IA, USA: The
Iowa State University Press. 534 p.
8. Duncan, R. 2005. The dollar crisis: causes, consequences,
cures. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons. 292 p.
9. United States Government Accounting Office. 2007.
Crude oil: uncertainity about future oil supply makes it important
to develop a strategy for addressing a peak and decline
in oil production. GAO Dept. 07-283. Washington, DC, USA:
Government Accountability Office. 76 p.
10. Cleveland, C. J., R. Constanza, A. S. Hall, and
R. Kaufman. 1984. Energy and the U.S. economy: a
biophysical perspective. Science 225:890–897.
11. Odum, H. I. 1996. Environmental accounting, energy, and
decision making. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
389 p.
12. Tertzakian, P. 2006. A thousand barrels a second. New York,
NY, USA: McGraw-Hill. 272 p.
13. Heinberg, R. H. 2006. The oil depletion protocol. Gabriola
Island, Canada: New Society Publishers. 195 p.
14. Kunstler, J. H. 205. The long emergency. New York, NY,
USA: Grove Press. 525 p.
15. Pfeiffer, D. A. 2006. Eating fossil fuels. Gabriola Island,
Canada: New Society Publishers. 125 p.
16. Schlosser, E. 2004. Fast food nation. New York, NY, USA:
Harper Perennial. 383 p.
17. Leeb, S., and D. Leeb. 2004. The oil factor. New York, NY,
USA: Warner Business Books. 220 p.
18. Wiedemer, J. D., R. A. Wiedemer, and C. S. Spitzer. 2006.
America’s bubble economy. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley &
Sons. 271 p.
19. McGuire, S. 2008. Buy gold now. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John
Wilely & Sons. 224 p.
20. Holechek, J. L. 1992. Financial benefits of range management
practices in the Chihuahuan Desert. Rangelands 14(5):
279–284.
21. Holechek, J. L. 1996. Drought and low cattle prices:
hardship for New Mexico ranchers. Rangelands 18(1):11–13.
22. Holechek, J. L. 1996. Drought in New Mexico: prospects
and management. Rangelands 18(6):225–227.
The author is Professor of Range Science, Dept of Animal and
Range Sciences, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
88003, USA, holechek@nmsu.edu. This paper was supported by
the New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station and was part
of project 1-5-27410.

CUSTOMER APPRECIATION

2009-09-09T17:09:00.000-07:00

Hello Loyalists,

Sincere thank you for supporting Sierra Farms Lamb for 2010.

We truly appreciate your generosity in keeping our farming enterprise alive and our hopes strong.

We are striving to be the most reliable source of fresh, local, farm raised lamb in Northern California--source guaranteed at a realistic price and delivered to your community on a monthly basis.

Our growing schedule allows us to supply fresh, unfrozen, young lamb nearly 12 months of the year--something very few other locally farmed lamb sources can claim.

Thanks,
Mel