Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Range Livestock Production, Food, and the Future: A Perspective

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Range Livestock Production, Food, and the Future: A Perspective
  • Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:19:48 -0700


Lynn Montgomery sent us this link, and this is a subject to which I've been
devoting my remaining years, both as local market grower and online
researcher. This professor Jerry L. Holechek is right here at New Mexico
State University, Las Cruces, pretty close to home. It's partly about the
range cattle business, but covers much of what I've tried to communicate or
predict all along. Thanks, Lynn, and glad to hear your orchard is reviving
with El Nino.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"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. 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. In terms of energy
efficiency, modern industrial agriculture is the least efficient type of food
production in human history."
"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. 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."
"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. 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. If anything disrupts the flow of oil to the United
States, food supply problems in the big cities could become critical. 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."


Range Livestock Production, Food, and the Future: A Perspective
http://www.srmjournals.org/doi/full/10.2111/1551-501X-31.6.20
Volume 31, Issue 6
(December 2009)

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

Jerry L. Holechek (2009) Range Livestock Production, Food, and the Future: A
Perspective. Rangelands: Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 20-25.

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 food indirectly 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=380million 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 crop-land 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 l980s 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
production. 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
Office (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 efficiency, modern industrial
agriculture is the least efficient 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 deficit 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 fighting wars and expanding social
programs without raising taxes.19 The inflation 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 confined 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 profitability 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 benefit 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


How can ranchers take advantage of a shift to a grass-finished market?


How can ranchers reduce energy costs?


How should grazing regulation on federal lands be changed?


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.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page