Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

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.