OCR Text |
Show Volume IX Issue V THE OGDEN VALLEY NEWS Page 13 December 15, 2003 FARMLAND cont. from page 1 between 800 and 1,000 acres to get started. Used equipment—tractor, combine, and planter—could cost another $250,000. To plant and fertilize a crop costs, on average, $150 an acre. Thus, today, joining an existing family farm, held in corporation, is probably the only way most young people can afford to become viable farmers in today’s market. While white men were getting out of the farming business between 1992 and 1997, more women and minorities were entering the industry. Both of these groups saw increased percentages in farm ownership during that same time period. Still, of all private U.S. agricultural land, Whites account for 96 percent of the owners, 97 percent of the value, and 98 percent of the acreage. Nonetheless, four minority groups—Blacks, American Indians, Asians, and Hispanics—own over 25 million acres of agricultural land, valued at over $44 billion. Replacing the generational family farmer is big business—large corporate controlled farms. For example, ten poultry firms control 70 percent of the U.S. market, and the entire industry is composed of 48 companies. In the beef industry, four beef companies process 82 percent of the U.S.’s supply, while, in the pork industry, ten pork firms process 80 percent of the U.S. volume. A national trend is toward vertical integration. In this scenario, a large farming company combines fertilizer plants with feed lots, grain fields, packing houses, and marketing machines; virtually every phase of agricultural development and production comes from inhouse. Another trend shows more farms with ownership by distant corporations, such as Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of New York—a corporate owner that, previously, had never been associated with food production. Large corporate owned farms are on the increase at the same time mid-range farms— with annual sales between $25,000 and $100,000 are decreasing by about 60 percent, according to the farm census. The upside of the trend toward larger farms, which relies on modern technology to improve and streamline production, is our country’s ability to meet the American consumer’s demand for cheap food. America produces food more efficiently and for lower prices than does any other country in the world. Further technological advances are likely to continue the trend of higher yields and increased productivity, boosting output through 2010. Federal government subsidy payments traditionally have shielded many agricultural producers from the ups and downs of the market. Currently, Federal policy trends are opening up the industry to competitive forces. In the U.S., the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (also known as the 1996 Farm Act) was enacted to phase out price supports for agricultural produce such as wheat, corn, grain, sorghum, barley, oats, rice, and upland cotton. In the future, declines in the number of smaller, family operated farms might be counterbalanced somewhat by other changes taking place in the agricultural production industry. Employment in aquaculture (the farming of plants and animals that live in water, such as fish, shellfish, and algae), for example, has been growing steadily over the past ten years in response to consumer consumption demands for such items as fish products. Because of low prices for some agricultural commodities, more farmers are switching to aquaculture production. New developments in marketing milk and other agricultural produce through farmerowned and –operated cooperatives hold promise for many farmers and dairymen. Furthermore, demand for organic farm produce is growing. Consumers are becoming more conscious about pesticide and fertilizer use in conventional agriculture, allowing small acreage farms—which only 12 years ago appeared to have almost no future as working farms—to remain economically viable. Also, Federal, state, and local government programs may increasingly provide assistance targeted at small farms. For example, some programs allow farmers to sell the development rights to their property to nonprofit organizations pledged to preserving open or green space. This immediately lowers the market value of the land—and the property taxes levied on it— making farming more affordable. Government subsidies to farmers benefit everyone in the community. In October 2002, The American Farmland Trust released a report that found that between 1992 and 1997, the U.S. paved over more than 6 million acres of farmland. Americans developed twice as much farmland in the 1990s as in the 1980s. The most dramatic losses are impacting high quality farmland—the land best suited for growing food. Prime farmland is often targeted by developers for building new homes and business parks because it is frequently located in flat, low-lying, fertile valleys. In the West, rights to prime farming real estate also pro- vides rights to scarce water resources—a prime commodity for large developers. “Urban-influenced” counties currently account for more than half of total U.S. farm production; yet these same counties have annual population growth rates more than twice the national average. This rapid growth threatens the nation’s most important cropproducing land. As farmland acreage is lost to urban sprawl, the community diminishes its ability to provide fresh, local food; native biodiversity; and a sustained quality of life environment. Farms provide habitat for many different species of plants and animals, and offer corridors for species to move through between natural areas. The protection of wildlife corridors provides opportunities for species emigration in order to populate new patches of habitat. These links can enhance the genetic diversity of populations by providing for interbreeding among diverse wildlife populations, and allowing dispersal of individuals throughout a species’ range. Because the majority of agricultural land is located near expanding metropolitan areas, farms provide key natural areas for harboring biodiversity. Well managed farms also protect water quality, significantly reducing the need for costly water treatment. They provide open space on the landscape, rural economic stability, and a link with traditional rural lifestyles. The loss of farmland and open space often causes unexpected economic challenges for rural communities. In these communities, farmland, forests, ranch land, and/or open space, tend to be the economic drivers that attract businesses, residents, and tourists. Sprawling development compromises the resources that are the core of a community’s economy. At the same time, sprawling development rarely brings about the economic benefits anticipated. While it is true that an acre of land with a new house generates more total revenue than an acre of hay or corn, today, the cost of providing infrastructure and services to that property is greater for residential development than for commercial, farm, or forest land. Cost of Community Services studies conducted in more than 83 communities show that owners of farm, forest, and open lands pay more in local tax revenues than it costs local government to provide services to their properties—a net gain for governmental budgets. In contrast, residential land uses are a net drain on municipal coffers. On average, farmland, forest, and open land only requires a median 27 cents in services for every dollar of community revenues it generates, while residential development demands $1.15 in services for each dollar it generates. Community members and leaders across the country have found the benefits of protecting farmland and open spaces as a means of strengthening the health and viability of their existing communities. America’s economically sound, sustainable, and optimally productive agriculture base has contributed to the nation’s position as a major influence in the world’s political arena. A strong agricultural base is crucial in maintaining today’s ratio of disposable income to feed costs financially acceptable to the country’s average citizen. A slump in American agricultural production would create a negative rippling effect that would economically impact thousands of agricultural and non-agricultural based industries. Lessened quantities of goods inevitably means higher prices for all, thus a lower standard of living and a diminishing quality of life. As the number of communities and states trying to protect their farmland continues to grow, the need for federal support becomes clearer. By the end of 1998, voters nationwide had passed 170 of 240 proposed farmland and open space protection initiatives. State and local farmland protection programs have grown as well. While there were only two state farmland protection programs in 1977, by the end of 1999, 15 states had implemented authorized purchase of agricultural conservation easement programs. Every citizen can make a difference in the fight to preserve open space. They can educate themselves regarding “smart growth” alternatives, then provide support for smart growth development and conservation practices and programs; and they can lobby against decisions that continue to threaten critical open spaces and rural communities. A smart growth approach to development concentrates on investing in existing communities and already established civic centers. For Ogden Valley residents, that means supporting commercial development and revitalization efforts in already existing, nearby commercial centers such as downtown Ogden. By directing growth to communities where people already live and work, smart growth limits the amount of farmland and open space that is developed, making existing communities more attractive, and bringing new life to blighted areas. This approach minimizes the need for new water, sewer, and road infrastructure that increases taxpayer burdens. It may mean becoming involved in the downtown Ogden community, volunteering to make it a viable place to work and shop, and a place to find rewarding day and nighttime entertainment and year-round recreation and cultural opportunities. Instead of trying to curtail growth, let’s direct it towards already established residential and commercial centers. Open Space & Farmland. Website: www.smartgrowthamerica.com/openspace.html Erickson, Herald, and Paul T. Erickson. “Losing Ground.” Website: http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/losingground U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics. At a Glance Resources 1999 Citizen’s Planner Guide to Subdivision Development. Utah League of Cities and Towns, and Utah Association of Conservation Districts. 1999. Beloit Daily News, “Aging Farmers.” April 12, 1999. American Farmland Trust, “Nation’s Need for Effective Farmland Protection Greater Than Ever.” Website www.farmland.org/news/120699.htm Farmland loss at a glance. Website: www.biodiversityproject.org Gale, Fred. 2002. “The Graying Farm Sector.” Rural America, Volume 17, Issue 3/fall, p. 28-31. Gilbert, Jess, and Spencer D. Wood. 2002. “Who Owns the Land? Agricultural Land Ownership by Race/Ethnicity.” Rural America, Vol. 19, Issue 4/winter, p 55-63. Every single minute of every day, America loses two acres of farmland. From 1992-1997 we converted to developed use more than 6 million acres of agricultural land—an area the size of Maryland. We lost farm and ranch land 51 percent faster in the 90s than in the 80s. The rate of loss for 1992-1997, 1.2 million acres per year, was 51 percent higher than from 1982-1992. We’re losing our best land-most fertile and productive-the fastest. The rate of conversion of prime land was 30 percent faster, proportionally, than the rate for non-prime rural land from 1992-1997. This results in marginal land being left for farming, which requires more resources like water and fertilizers. Our food is increasingly in the path of development. 86 percent of U.S. fruits and vegetables, and 63 percent of dairy products, are produced in urban-influenced areas. Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth itself. From 1982-1997, U.S. population grew by 17 percent, while urbanized land grew by 47 percent. Over the past 20 years, the acreage per person for new housing almost doubled, and since 1994, 10+ acre housing lots have accounted for 55 percent of the land developed. Every state is losing some of its best farmland. Texas leads the nation in high-quality acres lost, followed by Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and Illinois. And for each of the top 20 states, the problem is getting worse. Note: Information from the American Farmland Trust, (202) 331.7300. Forest Service Develops Protocols for Forest Plan Implementation The Monitoring and Evaluation section of the Revised Wasatch-Cache National Forest Plan outlines the program for following important decisions made in the Forest Plan. The Forest Service has now developed further steps or “protocols” for moving forward with this program. A report of this information is posted on the Forest Service’s website at www.fs.fed.us/wcnf under Projects and Plans, Forest Planning. If anyone is interested in obtaining a paper copy, they can call 801-542-3900. DELI AND MARKETPLACE NOW OPEN Breakfast and lunch from 8 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. Boutique shopping featuring local art, gifts, and golf merchandise. 3900 N. Wolf Creek Drive Eden, UT (801) 745-3737 |