Recently I interviewed my former
supervisor, Jamie Ridgely, to find out more about their progress with this
project. I was impressed with how Agren is using the marketplace to promote
conservation.
How much land in Iowa is rented out from absentee
landowners?
Jamie: Roughly
60% of Iowa land is farmed by someone other than the person who owns it.
Do you think responsible farming is important to absentee
landowners? Why?
Jamie: All of our
survey data supports that absentee landowners feel that responsible farming is
important, and it is part of what they consider when they choose a farmer to
rent their land. But what we often find is that absentee landowners don’t know
what good conservation is, or they're very unsure about how their land impacts
the water quality, soil quality, and environment. And so consequently, if they
don’t know what good conservation is, then there is not differentiation between
farmers who may want to rent the land. Therefore
the farmer willing to pay the most gets to rent the land.
How can farmers use responsible farming practices to obtain
more land? Do sustainable farming practices affect how much land farmers can
rent from absentee landowners?
Jamie: Well, we
think that sustainable farming practices should help farmers when renting more
land. We have been doing some projects to try to understand whether or not farmers
can differentiate themselves from their peers.
Of course, these farmers must actively market their conservation
expertise to differentiate themselves just like any other company must do. If
we can help conservation farmers more successfully market themselves, then yes,
I do think we can help farmers who are operating in an environmentally
responsible manner to rent more land from absentee landowners. So our goal is
to market a farmer’s conservation ethic to absentee landowners who want their
land farmed in a more sustainable way. We
haven’t actually gotten to the point where we have made a match yet. However, our survey of absentee landowners indicate
this is a more important factor when they are choosing a farmer to rent their
land. So, we think that it is a viable
concept, but we really haven’t had the opportunity to work long enough with the
two groups to actually see the concept potential.
To clarify, operators are renters farming the land?
Jamie: Yes. In order to increase your crop operation,
farmers need to rent more land or buy more land. Really, most people increase
the size of their operation by renting more land.
Since crops are a commodity, especially for Iowa grain farmers,
how can a farmer benefit by differentiating themselves as a conservation
farmer? In other words, how can farmers benefit
by being conservation minded if they don’t get paid extra for a bushel of corn
that is raised more sustainably?
Jamie: Unfortunately, raising corn sustainably doesn't make a difference in a farmer’s bottom line because Iowa farmers sell grain as a commodity; one bushel is valued the same
as the next. For people buying corn, one
bushel of corn is the same as the next regardless of how it is grown.
In the last 10 years there have been
several initiatives to encourage farmers to implement environmental management
systems, or more sustainable farming practices. For example, these
environmental management systems encourage farmers to look at the success of
their operation not only from an economic standpoint, but also from a socially
and environmentally responsible perspective. But, that never really worked very
well. If one farmer was sustainable and
their neighbor did a terrible job with conservation, their grain is worth the same
amount of money. It’s all a commodity.
With our work we have tried to
change the perspective of the marketplace.
If conservation farmers can’t get paid more for their grain, they need
to look at the market place differently.
Instead of looking at the value of their grain, they need to consider
how being a conservation farmer can be used as a benefit in another part of
their operation. One way that farmers can be more profitable is to have more
access to land, or farm more acres, if they can rent this land at a reasonable
price.
Unfortunately if absentee landowners
can’t differentiate one operator from another then they will rent their land to
the person who will pay the most rent. Under
this scenario farmers can only compete for more land by paying more rent. So, we do think that there is a lot of merit
to the idea that if conservation farmers can differentiate themselves based on
their conservation ethics and performance, that they should have better access
to that land.
That is the concept behind the idea of
the certified conservation farmer program. If farmers can market themselves as better
farmers that care more for the land they rent, then it is our hope that
absentee landowners will be more likely to rent their land to these
conservation farmers.
It is our hope we can use this
process of differentiating conservation farmers as a market based approach to
encouraging more conservation.
So, the incentive for farmers to do more conservation
farming is to gain more land through renting?
I am looking forward to reading your comments!
For ballpark figures, let's say that land is worth $10,000/acre. If you own 160 acres, it is the same as owning a $1,600,000 beach home. I am willing to bet that any person who owns a 1.6 million dollar beach home is going to be checking on it often to insure it is kept in good repair; that the roof doesn't leak, the siding is still attached, the windows aren't broken, the foundation is in good shape - you get the idea. Knowing what to look for comes from experience. We all live in a house and we have been taught to keep the house in good repair. Unfortunately, when it comes to land, most people do not know what constitutes "good repair". New technology has allowed farmers to greatly increase yields over the years. And rental prices have risen as a result. So, as a landowner, you may be led to believe that your farm is in better shape today than it ever was, because it can produce more. Yet, this is far from the truth. There are few farmers who want to use the same crop inputs, such as crop seed, they used in the 1970s. They know that the increased yields have come from new technology. Most landowners and operators fail to understand how the farming practices are depleting their real asset - the soil. Nor do they look downstream to see the effect their operation has on their neighbors; whether that be next door or down at the gulf of Mexico.
ReplyDeleteThink of it like house siding versus paint. It is easy to see if a piece of siding was ripped off the house in a windstorm. It is harder to see the change in the condition of the paint from day to day. The latter is a gradual loss in condition, much like the damage caused by erosion. Unfortunately, there is no "paint" that can be applied to soil to bring it back to good condition, simply with the stroke of a brush. Improved crop inputs can only compensate for a certain amount of damage.
Eventually, the house deteriorates beyond repair and collapses. Then it sets idle and produces no income; no place to live. Imagine inheriting the beach home and letting it go to ruin.
There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done in educating both landowners and operators on "good conservation". I applaud the conservation farmers who understand how to take care of the asset - the land. If we want to get more conservation on the land, we need the conservation farmers renting more land.
I would think there are a handful of land owners that are not only concerned about conservation, but are engaged enough to know what constitutes good conservation practices. How do these land owners find farmers that adhere to practices they're comfortable with today?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. Great analogy, Stan. It can be difficult for those not involved in agriculture to understand the importance of conservation practices.
ReplyDelete