Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:59:46.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Animal production and farm size in Holmes County, Ohio, and US agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

Martin H. Bender
Martin H. Bender
Affiliation:
Senior Scientist, The Land Institute, 2440 E. Water Well Road, Salina, KS 67401 ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

Animal production in US agriculture during 1997 was compared with Holmes County, Ohio, in which half the farms belonged to the agrarian Amish whose small farms have been successful. To compare the intensity of animal production in regard to land that was already devoted solely to domestic feed, the two systems were scaled so that their average farm sizes contained equal land areas devoted to domestic feed and then their animal production per farm was adjusted by the same scaling. By breeding populations, as well as large imports of feed, feeder pigs, calves, and broiler chicks. Holmes County produced three times more milk, four times more broilers, about the same amount of eggs and cattle, and twice the pigs per scaled farm, and hence per given land area, as in the US. Despite the average farm size in Holmes County having been 40% smaller than in Ohio overall, this production yielded more than twice the energy and protein per scaled farm, or per given land area, compared to the US, and required almost twice the feed and 85% as much grazed pasture forage per farm. This was in accord with the fact that feed consumption in Holmes County was twice its harvested crop production, implying a net feed import equal to its crop production. The latter fact was the main contribution to the productivity of Holmes County in excess of the US, and also suggested there would be serious problems in widespread adoption of intensive animal production in regard to agricultural markets, soil fertility and farm nutrient losses through manure application. Energy conversion efficiency for the five animal products and breeding populations was greater in Holmes County than the US (10 and 7%, respectively) and likewise for protein (22 and 13%). Besides imported feed, the higher efficiency of Holmes County was also due to its greater emphasis on milk production, which has benefited from USDA milk price support, modern dairy genetics and dairy nutrition programs. The lower overall efficiency of the US has been partly a result of the fact that beef production and breeding, judged by feed alone, have been the least efficient of the five animal products in energy conversion and nearly the least for protein, regardless of the fact that among the five products, beef cattle are the only animals that nationally derived much of their nutrition from the large national area of grazing land.

Keywords

agricultural productivityAmishfeed conversion efficiencyprotein production
Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 70 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, G.C., Hodges, E.F., and Devers, M.. 1974. Livestock-Feed Relationships: National and State. USDA Statistical Bulletin 530. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Baker, A.J. 1998. Estimating feed use: Background and issues. USDA Feed Yearbook. FDS–1998. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/reports/erssor/field/fds-bby (viewed 22 October 2001).Google Scholar
Balch, C.C., and Reid, J.T.. 1976. The efficiency of conversion of feed energy and protein into animal products. In Duckham, A.N., Jones, J.G.W., and Roberts, E.H. (eds.). Food Production and Consumption: The Efficiency of Human Food Chains and Nutrient Cycles. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, p. 171–198.Google Scholar
Bender, M.H. 2001. An economic comparison of traditional and conventional agricultural systems at a county level. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 16:2–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, A. 1982. Nutrition and animal productivity. In Rechcigl, M. (ed.). CRC Handbook of Agricultural Productivity. Vol. II, Animal Productivity. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 195–212.Google Scholar
Byerly, T.C. 1967. Efficiency of feed conversion. Science 157:890–895.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byerly, T.C. 1975. Feed use in beef production: A review. J. Animal Sci. 41:921–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byerly, T.C. 1982. Agricultural productivity: Potential and constraints. In Rechcigl, M. (ed.). CRC Handbook of Agricultural Productivity. Vol. II, Animal Productivity. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 265–304.Google Scholar
Committee on Government Operations. 1986. Federal Grazing Program: All is Not Well on the Range. US Congress, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Crampton, E.W., and Harris, L.E.. 1969. Applied Animal Nutrition: The Use of Feedstuffs in the Formulation of Livestock Rations. 2nd ed.W.H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.Google Scholar
Ensminger, M.E. 1991. Animal Science. 9th ed.Interstate Publishers, Danville, IL.Google Scholar
Jennings, R.D. 1958. Consumption of Feed by Livestock, 1909–1956: Relation between Feed, Livestock, and Food at the National Level. USDA Production Research Report 21. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Johnson, W.A., Stoltzfus, V., and Craumer, P.. 1977. Energy conservation in Amish agriculture. Science 198:373–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, W., Allen, G., and Ash, M.. 1990. Livestock feeds. In Barse, J.R. (ed.). Seven Farm Input Industries. Agricultural Economic Report 635. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. p. 66–78.Google Scholar
NRC. 1989. Alternative Agriculture. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
NRC. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
ODA. 1998. Annual Agricultural Report. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture, Ohio Agricultural Statistics Service, Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/oh/oh.htm (viewed 29 July 2002).Google Scholar
Rosset, P.M. 1999. The multiple functions and benefits of small farm agriculture in the context of global trade negotiations. Policy Brief 4. Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland, CA. Web site http://www.foodfirst.org (viewed 28 May 2001).Google Scholar
Stinner, D.H., Paoletti, M.G., and Stinner, B.R.. 1989. In search of traditional farm wisdom for a more sustainable agriculture: A study of Amish farming and society. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27:77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomich, T.P., Kilby, P., and Johnston, B.F.. 1995. Transforming Agrarian Economies: Opportunities Seized, Opportunities Missed. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA. 1972. Agricultural Statistics. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
USDA. 1985. Agricultural Statistics. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
USDA. 1996a. Agricultural Statistics. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
USDA. 1996b. Major Land Uses (1945–1992). US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/land/89003 (viewed 24 August 2001).Google Scholar
USDA. 1999a. 1997 Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 35, Ohio State and County Data. Chapter 2, County-Level Data. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census (viewed 22 February 1999).Google Scholar
USDA. 1999b. 1997 Census of Agriculture. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 51, United States Summary and State Data. Chapter 2, State-Level Data. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.nass.usda.gov/census (viewed 10 August 2001).Google Scholar
USDA. 2001. Agricultural Statistics. US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC. Web site http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/agr01/acro01.htm (viewed 6 August 2001).Google Scholar