Showing posts with label local food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label local food. Show all posts

Saturday, April 25, 2020

Why Don't You Just Sell Meat?!


I've read a number of Twitter threads over the last six weeks that have been focused on supporting local farmers and ranchers. I think this is great! Anything that refocuses our food buying habits on local producers is positive, in my opinion. But even at the local level, our food system is a complex network of relationships, business and otherwise. And producing meat, especially pork, lamb, and beef, is even more complicated. I thought it might be useful to walk through our own decision-making process when it comes to how we market our product as sheep producers.

Fundamentally, we are in the business of harvesting grass and other vegetation with sheep. Through the miracle of rumination, our sheep are able to turn this forage into muscle, fat, bone, fiber, and milk. Basically, we're in the business of turning the products of photosynthesis into meat and wool.

This might come as a shock, but not all grass (or broadleaf forages) are created equal - nor are they of equal nutritional value all through the year. As grazers, we must be concerned with both quantity and quality when it comes to creating an annual forage budget. And we must think about matching our production cycle with our forage availability - in other words, we need to balance supply and demand.

From a quantitative perspective, we have an abundance of green, nutritious forage (in most years) from March through mid-May on our unirrigated rangelands, and from April through late June on our irrigated pasture. After the "summer slump" (when temperatures are too warm for our cool-season forages like orchard grass and clover), we get a second (although lesser) peak in forge production in the late summer and early fall. The most challenging time for us is mid-autumn through mid-winter - our irrigation water ends on October 15, so we must conserve last year's dead grass until the autumn rains germinate the forage on our annual rangelands.

In terms of quality, we focus largely on protein. The rumen microbes that break down cellulose and provide our animals with energy need at least 7-8 percent protein in the forage the sheep are consuming. Green forage is much higher in protein (typically) than dry grass - the forages on our annual rangelands and irrigated pastures right now (late April) are 14-20 percent protein; the dry grass that our ewes graze in July and August are 4-6 percent protein.

On the demand side of the equation, our forage demand (both in terms of quality and quantity) peaks as the ewes give birth and nurse their lambs. Dry (that is, non-lactating) ewes have much lower feed demands - that's why we can graze them on dry annual grass in mid-summer. Growing lambs, on the other hand, need the most nutritious forage we can provide - they need energy and protein to grow muscle, bone, fat, and wool. Since we wean the lambs in mid-June at 65-70 pounds, this means that any lambs we plan to keep and finish on grass (at 100-110 pounds) need the highest quality forage we can grow. And we have a second (albeit) lower peak in nutritional demand in September, when we bring the ewes back to irrigated pasture to get them ready for breeding season.

Regardless of the forage type (green or dry rangeland forage or irrigated forage), we boil the considerations I've outlined into an estimate of sheep days per acre. This is sheepherder talk for estimating how many sheep one acre of forage will support for one day. Last summer, we grew (and harvested with sheep) just over 18,000 sheep days of irrigated pasture forage. If we divide this number by the days in our irrigation season (180 days, to keep the math simple), we see that we can graze 100 head of sheep on our pasture for the duration of the irrigation season. Let's break this down a bit further:

  • From April 15 to June 15, we grazed 80 lactating ewes, 10 replacement ewes, and 110 lambs on our irrigated pasture. Based on how much each of these classes of animals consume, we estimate that we harvested about 9,000 sheep days in that two-month period.
  • Once we weaned the lambs, we sold all but 35 of them (the sheep we kept included 20 replacement ewe lambs and 15 feeder lambs that we wanted to finish on grass). These sheep remained on irrigated pasture from June 15 through August 31 (for our purposes, let's say 75 days). These sheep consumed 2,625 sheep days worth of forage.
  • From September 1 through the end of irrigation season on October 15, we had all of our sheep (ewes, replacement ewe lambs, and feeder lambs) on irrigated pasture - a total of 120 head. During this period, we harvested another 5,400 sheep days of forage.
  • After the end of irrigation season, we had approximately 975 sheep days of forage left - with 120 head of sheep in our flock, this meant we had just over 8 days of grazing left on our irrigated pasture after the water turned off.
So how did a blog post about selling meat end up looking at grazing math?! Let's say that we wanted to direct market more lamb. For example, what if we wanted to finish and direct market 75 lambs - could we do it with our current forage resources? From June 15 through the end of irrigation season, these lambs would require 9,000 sheep days of our best forage. Since we'd already used 9,000 sheep days up to June 15, these lambs would require every blade of grass we could grow after weaning. We would have no grass for growing ewe lambs, nor would we have any grass for our breeding ewes. Our alternatives would be to purchase hay, lease additional irrigated pasture, or reduce the size of our breeding flock. We couldn't simply wake up on June 15 (weaning day) and decide to keep 60 extra lambs because we wanted to sell meat next November instead of feeder lambs next week.

The last issue for me is the added time and cost involved in marketing meat. In a good year, I know I can sell our feeder lambs in late June for $130-150 per head. If I decide to finish them and sell them as meat, I will incur additional costs beyond the cost of feeding these lambs for another 4-5 months. Once they're finished, it will cost me about $150 per lamb to have them harvested and packaged in a form that I can legally sell. I'll have multiple trips to the processor (which take me away from doing work on the ranch). I'll have the time involved in marketing and selling meat (which can be significant). I'll have the cost involved in storing meat. At the scale at which we operate, I've found that selling meat results in higher gross income, but selling feeder lambs in June results in higher net income.

All of this is really long-winded way of answering why we don't just sell meat, I realize - probably more than most folks will want to read. I would love to be able to sell meat from the lambs that we raise locally - but the business has to make sense financially. For us, at least, selling live animals makes more sense given our current resources.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Foodsheds


Over the last 15 years or so, watersheds have become the primary planning unit for a variety of land use and environmental management decisions. Defined as an area that is drained by a particular river or stream, watersheds are a useful way for dividing geography into regions that share a common thread. Watershed planning has been particularly useful in land conservation.

Foodsheds are an emerging planning tool that adapts the watershed approach to a community's food supply. Unlike watersheds, foodsheds are difficult to define on a map, in part because particular food outlets within a single community may have very different foodsheds. For example, the foodshed for the Auburn farmer's market today includes portions of western Placer County, southern Yuba County, and even northern San Joaquin County and the Pacific Coast. By contrast, the foodshed for Auburn's Belair supermarket is global - it includes fruits and vegetables from Central and South America, salmon from the Atlantic Ocean, lamb from New Zealand and grain-based products from the Midwest.

Like watersheds, foodsheds can be evaluated for their existing conditions. They can also be modified to achieve a more desirable condition. For example, the ecological cost (in fossil fuels, pesticides and environmental degradation) involved in shipping fruits and vegetables halfway around the world is enormous. While some may argue that modifying this foodshed requires government action, I believe that modifying our own eating habits is equally, if not more important. Do we really need to eat table grapes this time of year? At the farmer's market today, I'll be able to purchase naval and blood oranges grown in Newcastle, mandarins grown in Penryn, grapefruit grown in Loomis and apples grown in Lodi. By the time I tire of citrus, I'll be able to get local cherries and strawberries. Eating with the season is a big step towards a more sustainable (and more local) foodshed.

Another step towards a more sustainable foodshed is to make more efficient use of the land around us for growing food. As I drive around Placer County, I'm struck by the amount of land that could produce food but is currently idle. In years past, towns like Auburn and Colfax were surrounded by small farms - they could be again. What are missing are the farmers - we've lost at least one generation of people with knowledge of how to work the land. This need is why many of us have created farm internships - we get some help in exchange for sharing our knowledge about farming.

Over the next several months, I'm going to be working on the foodshed idea as an approach to conserving local farmland and food production. I'd be very interested in hearing other perspectives!