Utah Agriculture Sustainability Task Force: Planning for Agriculture

8/3/2019 Utah Agriculture Sustainability Task Force: Planning for Agriculture

1/44

State of Utah

AAAGRICULTUREGRICULTUREGRICULTURE SSSUSTAINABILITYUSTAINABILITYUSTAINABILITYTTTASKASKASK FFFORCEORCEORCE

Planning for Agriculture

January 2012

State of Utah


2/44

2


3/44

State of Utah

3

Task Force Members

Role Name Title Location

Chair Lt. Governor Greg Bell Lieutenant Governor SLC

Co-Chair Commissioner Leonard Blackham Commissioner, Utah Department of

Agriculture and Food/Utah Conservation Commission (UCC)

SLC

Senators Gene Davis

Lyle Hillyard

David Hinkins

Wayne Niederhauser

Ralph Okerlund

Jerry Stevenson

Kevin VanTassell

Utah State Senate

Utah State Senate

Utah State Senate

Utah State Senate

Utah State Senate

Utah State Senate

Utah State Senate

SLC

Logan

Orangeville

Sandy

Monroe

Layton

Vernal

Representatives Joel Briscoe

Mel Brown

Jack DraxlerBrad Galvez

John Mathis

Rhonda Menlove

Mike Morley

Mike Noel

Christine Watkins

Bill Wright

Utah House of Representatives


Utah House of RepresentativesUtah House of Representatives







SLC

Coalville

North LoganWest Haven

Vernal

Garland

Spanish Fork

Kanab

Price

Holden

Local Government and

Landowners

Bob Barry

Stuart Bowler

Alan Brown

Scott Chew

Larry Ellertson

Bruce Karren

David MansellJ.T. Martin

Randy Parker

Phil Rasmussen

Flint Richards

Tyson Roberts

Curtis Rowley

Ed Sunderland

Brent Tanner

Jay Tanner

San Juan CD/UCC

Dixie CD

Wasatch County CD/UCC

Uintah County CD

Utah County Commissioner/Quality Growth Commission

North Cache CD/UCC

Utah Association of Realtors/Quality Growth CommissionSalt Lake City Council/Quality Growth Commission

Utah Farm Bureau

USU Sustainable Ag. Research and Education/UCC

Farm Bureau/Quality Growth Commission

Davis County CD

Landowner

Landowner

Utah Cattlemens Association/Quality Growth Commission

State Grazing Board/Conservation District/UCC

Monticello

Veyo

Heber City

Jensen

Provo

Lewiston

SLCSLC

Sandy

Logan

Erda

Layton

Santaquin

Chester

SLC

Grouse Creek

Staff John Bennett,staff lead

Evan Curtis

Gina DAlesandro

Sherie Edginton

Martin EsplinJill Flygare

Larry Lewis

Thayne Mickelson,staff lead

Alex White

Jack Wilbur

Governors Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB)

GOPB

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food (UDAF)

UDAF

GOPB InternGOPB

UDAF

UDAF

GOPB Intern

UDAF

SLC

SLC

SLC

SLC

LoganSLC

SLC

SLC

Provo

SLC


4/44

4

Preface..5

Executive Summary...7

Action Summary...8

Utah Agricultural History...10

Section 1: Grazing & Public Land12

Section 2: Confined Animal Production Agriculture....14

Section 3: Grains, Specialty Row Crops, Fruits & Vegetables...17

Section 4: Food SecurityUrban Interface......19

Appendix I: Issues Overview .26Appendix II: Issues (strategies, actions/tasks, and outcomes).....29

Food Security

Invasive Species (including weeds)

Grazing Improvement

Immigration

Urban Agriculture

Utah Agriculture Promotion and Profitability

Next Generation Farms (young farmers)

Irrigation Infrastructure

Contents


5/44

State of Utah

5

Preface

Dear Utah Citizen:

As co-chairs of the Agriculture Sustainability Task Force, we are delighted to share thisreport with you. In this report, we have tried to capture the work of the Task Force andprovide you with critical information about Utah agriculture.

What is sustainability?

There are two ways of looking at sustainability: The capability of being sustained, andthe capability of sustaining. The taskforce looked at both ideas. We wanted to know howagriculture sustains our communities, and how our communities sustain our agriculturallands, producers, and heritage. To understand sustainability, consider the following keyquestions:

What is Utah agriculture?Every farm or ranch is different. Usually, we think of ranchers on horseback surroundedby their animals, or a farmer in a large field with a tractor. These types of farms stillaccount for the majority of agricultural products in Utah, but urban farms are also addingto our local food supply. These are small acreage operations growing vegetables, fruits,eggs, honey, and sometimes meat, for the consumer market. What distinguishes them isthat they are in cities, or suburbs, rather than far away in rural areas. The otherdifference is that they often use different marketing strategies such as farmers markets orCommunity Supported Agriculture (CSA) subscriptions to sell their products.

Why conserve our farms?Farms of all sizes provide a number of benefits that are critical to our quality of life.They produce food, fiber, nursery stock, and flowers. They clothe us, beautify oursurroundings, and supply us with the energy we need everyday. Utah farms and ranchesalso contribute significantly to the states economy. Everything grown here can beimported from outside of Utah, but the cost of transporting them and the concerns withthe safety, nutrition, and availability of imported products make having local capacity to

produce food very important and beneficial to us. It is important not to becomedependent on foreign sources for such a basic critical need as food.

Why is this important to me?Population growth, land prices, and fluctuating operating costs and market prices foragricultural products make it hard for farmers to make a living. As farm businesses arethreatened, our local food security is at risk and we are all subject to additionalinflationary costs for our food.

Agriculture Sustainability In Utah

Commissioner of Agriculture and

Food, Leonard Blackham (left), co

-chaired the Task Force with Lt.

Governor, Greg Bell (right).


6/44

6

What can we do?

There are many things that we can do. Mostly, however, it boils down to this: we have tomake it easier for farmers and ranchers to make a living on the land available to them.

Strategies to do this may include:

providing new markets for agricultural products

finding ways to keep more of the billions of dollars we spend each year on foodwithin the State of Utah

using new media, the internet and other innovative marketing strategies to inform thepublic of our efforts

changing tax policies and zoning regulations to favor agricultural production

creating other options to help promote the economic health of our farms and ranches

Current tools, such as conservation easements or transfer of development rights to ensurethat our agricultural lands are permanently protected, can be used when necessary toprotect the health of these vital assets. Another important tool is the USU ExtensionService and its ability to provide critical information to our farmers and ranchers.

What are the benefits of protecting farms and ranches?In general, farmers and ranchers are good stewards of the land. Their wise managementprotects critical watersheds, provides habitat for important wildlife, maintains cleanwater and air, and provides environmental benefits too. Overall, this kind of managementhas the power to promote a better quality of life.

Recommendations:We have developed and adapted recommendations for the State, local governments,producers, and consumers.

We trust these recommendations will start deliberations on important issues and willresult in concrete solutions to protect farms, ranches, farm families, and mostimportantly, the communities that are served by the benefits of Utah Agriculture.

Preface...Continued

Utah Agriculture Sustainability T

Force members at work, 2011


7/44

State of Utah

7

Executive Summary

As agriculture in Utah continues to face increased pressure from urban development, changing demographics, economic

pressures, and a myriad of other issues, it is becoming increasingly important that policy makers and citizens understandthe critical role that agriculture plays in promoting Utahs security, economy, society, culture, and well-being.

To better understand and address these concerns, Lieutenant Governor Greg Bell and Commissioner of AgricultureLeonard Blackham convened the Utah Agriculture Sustainability Task Force. The Task Force was comprised of statelegislators, local government officials, conservation districts, agricultural producers, and other interested parties. Theycame together to gather and analyze data and information, and to make recommendations to promote the sustainability ofall types of agriculture in Utah. During the discussion of key agricultural sectors, eight major issues emerged:

Food Security- Local farming gives us the ability to feed people in their communities independent of outsideinfluences and keeps dollars spent on agricultural products in the local economy. Once prime or importantagricultural lands are converted to urban development, the ability to produce food is lost and our ability to be self

-sufficient is decreased.

Invasive Species -More effective coordination is needed to inventory and control weeds on public and private lands.Increased public awareness is critical to minimize the spread of invasive species.

Grazing Management - Livestock grazing is the dominant sector in Utah agriculture. While the number of permittedlivestock on public lands has been decreasing, rangeland can support additional livestock grazing that isbeneficial to wildlife, healthy lands, and quality recreational opportunities, if it is properly managed. Landscape-scale grazing management can be a tool to effectively manage natural resources for wildlife and livestock.

Immigration -Utah farms and ranches require an ample, sustainable, and legal workforce.

Urban Agriculture- Urban agriculture is a growing segment in which every acre counts. Creating agriculture-

friendly zoning ordinances will help expand food-producing opportunities throughout our cities and counties.

Agriculture Promotion and Profitability -To be sustainable, agriculture must beprofitable. This will requireincreased local marketing opportunities, processing capacity, and distribution networks.

Next Generation Farms - As the average age of farm operators in Utah continues to increase, it will be important toprovide Utah farmers and ranchers with reasonable options for generational farm transfer.

Irrigation Infrastructure - The availability of water is critical to agriculture. Improving water distribution systemsto deliver water to farm lands in a cost-effective manner will be important for both sustainable agriculture andprojected population growth.

In order to address these issues, the Task Force developed a list of proposed actions that state, local and federalgovernments, and the private sector can implement. All proposed action items were unanimously supported by allmembers of the task force, with the exception of conservation easements. A few members of the task force had concerns

with the structure and appropriateness of conservation easements.


8/44

8

Action Summary

The 2011 Agriculture Sustainability Task Force proposes the following:

Policy Statement:Prime, important and unique agricultural lands and soils are vital to sustain human life. The protection ofprime agricultural lands should be given the same consideration as other lands by federal agencies, the Stateof Utah, and its political subdivisions. It is important these lands be conserved for our food security needs.

Proposed Actions:

State

Develop legislative policy that provides protection for important agricultural lands and soils equal to wetlandsin order to sustain food security.

Fund conservation easement legislation that gives priority to important productive agricultural lands with primsoils or important farmlands. Dedicate greenbelt rollback monies to conservation easements or other

productive agricultural uses within the counties where rollback funds are generated. Enable local conservationdistricts to make recommendations to county commissions related to the use of annual rollback funds.

Provide new monies to the LeRay McAllister Fund to match funds for conservation easements on productiveagricultural lands with prime state or locally-important soils.

Create a separate greenbelt designation for smaller-acreage productive operations.

Amend Utah law to fund mitigation of agriculture lands lost to eminent domain.

Amend Utah law to encourage energy producers to use directional drilling and other techniques to minimize thsurface impacts on agricultural lands caused by energy development.

Provide a $1,000,000 increase in money from the State of Utah General Fund for invasive species mitigation,especially weed control.

Consider other sources of funding for weed control tied to the spread of weed seeds including: funds earnedfrom unclaimed property, trailer licenses, noxious weed impact fees from recreational ATVs, gravel pit feeassessments, a portion of the sportsmen fees gathered by the Utah Department of Natural Resources, and other

appropriate sources.

Provide $1,000,000 of on-going state funding to increase landscape-scale coordinated resource management

planning . Where feasible, this money will facilitate the development of grazing management plans, watering

facilities, fencing improvements, weed control, and other grazing improvement projects.

Augment existing funding or develop alternative funding sources to improve and update irrigation system

technologies.

Enhance the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Big Game Depredation program to mitigate crop and other

damages caused by big game to farm and ranch land.

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food

Increase the capacity of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food to directly participate in the planning ofstate and local infrastructure needs when agricultural lands are an issue.

Work with the Governors Office of Economic Development to improve local processing capacity.

Develop incubator kitchens in each county to provide small agricultural companies places to test new products


9/44

State of Utah

9

Local

Encourage local governments to recognize the importance of agricultural land uses in their general plans,

policies and ordinances.

Encourage local governments to develop specialized local food security plans that work toward these goals.

Partner with USU Extension, conservation districts, county and city officials, and other interested parties toprovide technical assistance for conservation.

Federal

Encourage the federal government to eliminate subsidies for agriculture-related products diverted from the foodsupply for energy production.

Urge the federal government to allow greater state agricultural environmental stewardship oversight using thetraditional educational and voluntary programs of the USDA, conservation districts, and the Utah Department of

Agriculture and Food as models.

Create federal block grants to fight invasive species on federal and state lands.

Pass a resolution calling on Congress to create a new national agriculture guest worker program.

Support federal legislation to provide funding for improved agriculture irrigation infrastructure.

Call To Action

Under the leadership of UDAF, engage partners, educational institutions, support groups, and others to:

Update the inventory of invasive species in Utah, more clearly define the role of county weed boards in statute,and identify and prioritize weed control measures.

Establish outreach and education campaigns to inform the public about how to minimize the spread of invasive

species.

Improve agricultural product distribution capacity by supporting the existing Utahs Ownprogram to provide:

Incentives and/or legislation to encourage local stores, restaurants, school lunch programs, state agencies,and other public sector services to buy Utah products first, (when available)

A fund to facilitate central distribution points for the purchase of local Utah agricultural products

Promotion of innovative agricultural practices and products in our partnerships with food buying groups,restaurant groups and emerging businesses

Increase the funding and effectiveness of predator control, and allot reasonable and sufficient compensation toagricultural producers for wildlife impacts that may disrupt agricultural production.

Support Utah House Bill 116: an ample, sustainable and legal workforce is critical for our farms and ranches.

Oppose using E-verification to verify worker status until federal guest worker laws are in place.

Work with Utah State University and support groups to develop and implement planning and farm transferprograms that will complement retirement and insurance programs for farmers and ranchers. Support efforts tomatch farmers without identified successors, with young farmers seeking opportunities to purchase or leasefarms or ranches. Encourage the financial community to finance farm ownership transfer.

Work with conservation districts in a statewide effort to map Utah irrigation systems, and educate the generalpublic about the irrigation needs of agriculture and the benefits of well-maintained irrigation delivery systems.

Action Summary ...Continued


10/44

10

Urbanization in Utah

For hundreds of years, nativepopulations hunted game, gatherednatures bounty, and farmed alongrivers, streams, marshes, wetlands,and lakes.

In the mid 1800s, pioneers began toarrive in Utah. One of the first thingsthese settlers did was dig ditches toprovide water to their land. They grewcrops and raised livestock.

By 1900, 60 percent of Utahspopulation lived in rural areas. As of2010, only 10 percent of thepopulation lived in rural areas.Overall, Utah is one of the moreurbanized states in America.

Unfortunately, urban growth hasoccurred on some of our mostproductive farm land. This is acommon trend across America.During the 1990s, rural land lost to

development in the U.S. totaled about2.2 million acres per year.

In Utah, much of the agriculturallands lost to development were highquality crop lands. If current trendscontinue, the loss of prime andimportant farm land will accelerate

with population increases and will

demand emergency attention.

According to a 2008 GovernorsOffice of Planning and Budgetreport,if current development trendscontinue,by the year 2030 nearly200,000 additional acres of farmlandwill be converted to urban uses.Much of this development will occuron the most productive farmlands incounties along the Wasatch Front.

Change in Farms & Ranches

The number and size of farms andranches has dramatically changed inUtah. From 1900 to 1990, thenumber of Utah farms decreased.Beginning in 1990 the number offarms began to increase again (figure1). The 2011 Utah AgriculturalStatistics report recorded 16,600farms.

Although the number of farms have

increased through the 1990s (figure2), since1997 the size of those farmshas decreased. Twenty years ago,the average size of a Utah farm wasapproximately 200 hundred acreslarger than it is today.

Utah Agricultural History

The average age of farmers continu

to increase nationally and in Utah.Current farmers are aging while stilworking to maintain their lands. Thaverage age of a Utah farmer is 57.Farming is losing its successors asmany children are choosing otheroccupations. It is more difficult nowto transfer the farm to the nextgeneration. Because of high land

Figure 1Number of Utah Farm

Figure 2Size of Utah Farm


11/44

State of Utah

11

values, regulation, and inheritance

taxes, it has become harder for newfarmers to enter the field and make aprofit. Current farmers are land richand cash poor, and because of this,they often choose to sell their land atthe time of retirement.

Economics

The state of Utah ranks 37th

in thenation in agricultural receipts, withover $1.5 billion in cash receipts fromfarms and ranches:

cattle ($319 million)

dairy products ($301 million)

Utah Agricultural History ...Continued

hay ($261 million)

hogs ($168 million)

poultry/eggs ($140 million)

sheep ($18 million)

Utah also ranks 25th in the UnitedStates in the amount of private landin agricultural use: a total of about11,100,000 acres. Since Utah isprimarily a public lands state,much of our land is used to supportlivestock grazing. Many privateranches in Utah also graze livestockon public grazing allotments. Thisadds an additional 45 million acresto the land in agricultural use.

Utah farming and ranching has agreat impact on the states economy.Agricultural sales account for about$1.5 billion annually. Food growers,processors, and other agriculturerelated businesses employ more than66,000 people and contributeapproximately 14 percent to theStates economy. Grocers are notincluded in these figures.

Equine IndustryHorses were used for farming andranching until the industrialrevolution, when mechanical

Utah farming and ranch-

ing has a great impact onthe states economy. Agri-

cultural sales account for

about $1.5 billion cash

receipts...

Utah Agricultural Statistics

equipment replaced horses for

cultivating and harvesting crops.However, horses are still an importantpart of ranch management. Horses areused on the ranch to herd livestockfrom pasture to pasture. Sometimeshorses are still used in old-fashionedcattle drives over longer distances.

In addition, many people enjoy horsesfor leisure riding, racing, rodeos,cutting competitions, and othersimilar uses.

While official statistics are not kept,the economic impact of the horseindustry and the connection it has toagriculture is far reaching. Veterinaryservices, boarding, feed, equipment,and transportation of horses are allpart of the equine industry.


12/44

12

1930 (Banner et al, 2009).

In 1929, at the onset of the GreatDepression, wool was selling at thehighest price ever. This trend,however, like everything else in theeconomy, was badly hurt by theeconomic downturn and was senttumbling downward in 1929(Murphy, 1996).Since that time, the sheep industry

has declined by more than 89percent (Banner et al., 2009). Inaddition to declining wool prices,Congress passed the Taylor GrazingAct in 1934 to restore damagedwatersheds and limit grazing. Thesenew measures had significanteffects on the number of sheep inUtah, reducing them by almost onemillion following the passage of thisact. (USU Extension, 2011).

Cattle now Rule

This period of decline in the sheepindustry was followed by growth inthe beef industry, as producersfound themselves switching fromsheep to cattle in order to produce

History of Grazing

Livestock grazing in Utah began withthe arrival of the pioneers in 1847.Livestock production has sinceincreased over the years to parallelterritory and population growth.

By 1890, the range throughout thewest was fully stocked. Heavygrazing on these lands in the earlypart of thetwentieth-centuryleft the rangelands

depleted andwatershedsdamaged.Additionalrepercussionsincluded theerosion of oncefertile soils and anincrease indevastating naturaldisasters, such asfloods, that

occurred largelybecause of bareground created bypoorly managed livestock herds.

It was during this time that the federalgovernment established forestreserves in the form of the NationalForest Service in an effort to try tocurtail overgrazing and harmfulsocietal side-effects. This periodmarked the beginning of the scientific-range-management style that we seeon our lands today (Banner et al.,2009).

Sheep were DominantSheep production was the dominantlivestock sector in Utah at the start ofthe 1900s, reaching a peak of nearlythree million sheep and lambs by

Section 1: Grazing & Public Land

the same profits (Godfrey, 2008). T

number of beef cows in Utah hasnearly doubled since 1920 (Banner al., 2009) to become what is now thdominant sector in Utah agriculture(Godfrey, 2008).

Grazing is changing

In Utah, there are nearly 45 millionacres of grazing land; 73 percent

federally owned, 9 percentstate owned, and 18 percentprivately owned (GOPB,

2011).The largest portion of thisgrazing, done on federal landis currently decreasing. Federgrazing permits are allotted inAnimal Unit Months, or(AUMs). An AUM is theamount of forage required tofeed an animal unit theequivalent of a mature, 1,000pound cow for one month. OnBLM lands, AUMs have

declined from 2,749,000 in1940 to less than 1,000,000AUMs in 2009, a 63 percent

reduction (Banner et al., 2009).

Forest Service lands haveexperienced a similar decline,decreasing from 2.7 million AUMs the 1940s, to 600,000 in 2008. Whithe percentage of forage harvested blivestock on federal lands isdecreasing, the total number ofAUMs in the state has remained

relatively stable over the past 60years (Godfery, 2008). This seemssuggest that an increasing percentagof feed may be coming from private

-owned feed sources.

Utah BLM currently manages


13/44

State of Utah

13

Section 1: Grazing & Public Land...Continued

approximately 1,400 grazingallotments that cover a 22 million

acre area of BLM land in the State.Many of Utah's BLM grazingallotments are common allotmentswhere more than one permittee isauthorized to use the allotment.Grazing on these allotments isauthorized through the issuance of1,462 grazing permits that provided

for just over 675,000 AUMs in 2008.

Utah's rangeland managementprogram remains focused on

maintaining and improving rangeconditions throughout the state byassessing Utah's Standards forRangeland Health, monitoring rangeconditions, and making necessaryadjustments to livestock management

on public and private land.

Utah citizens, including ranchers,have a great appreciation for vibrant,healthy rangelands and wildlife.However, the age old questions ofwho should bear the costs, and who

receives the benefits from publiclyowned wildlife, often puts adisproportionate burden on theagricultural community. This issue isnot isolated to Utah. In fact, it isamplified in the western states wherethere is a high percentage of publicland. Fortunately, among the westernstates, Utah has been the mostproactive in efforts to resolve this

dilemma thus far.

Frequently, when resources are heldin the public trust, there is an inherentlack of accountability and incentivesto manage those resources at thehighest level. The Perverse Triangleof Incentives (figure 3) graphicallydemonstrates the problem. Wildlifebelong to the public, who has limited

opportunity to manage for thosevalues. The Utah Division of

Wildlife Resources (DWR) has theresponsibility to manage thewildlife, but DWR doesnt own thewildlife or the habitat on which theyare so dependent. Landowners ownthe habitat (in the case of privateland) and as permittees, are the keyplayers in grazing management onpublic land. However, landownershave little opportunity or incentive

to manage for wildlife values.

The Legislature recognized thisissue and created the CooperativeWildlife Management Unit(CWMU) program to provideincentives for large private landowners to manage for wildlife

values. The program has resulted invastly increased huntingopportunities and has mostlyresolved wildlife/rancher conflictson large private land holdings.However, restitution of damages tocrop land is still inadequate. Theprogram, guided by DWR, putsmanagement in the hands of thosemost capable to achieve results andallows these large landowners torecover the cost of production forwildlife. Finding similar programsto provide solutions for smaller

operations has been elusive.

The health of Utahs public andprivate rangeland resources willdepend on our ability to provideincentives to ranchers, who have thegreatest capability/opportunity tomanage the land sustainably. If Utahis to improve the health of its publicand private rangelands/watersheds,the State will need to provideguidance and incentives to achieve ahigh level of grazing management ona large scale. The scientifically

based principles to accomplishimproved management are wellknown, but the technical guidance,social recognition, political will, andfinancial resources to bridge this gapare in short supply. Land owners andpermittees are the boots on theground needed to achieve ecologicsustainability and create wealth from

the land to be sustainable.

Well managed livestock grazing,though poorly understood by the

average citizen, is the most effectiveway to manage vegetation on a largescale to benefit watershed health andpreserve wildlife habitat. Improvinggrazing management on Utahspublic and private rangelands shouldbe viewed as high leverage and along-term priority. A 1998Government Accounting Officereport titled,Forest Service Barriersto Generating Revenue or ReducingCosts, portrays the importance of

economic sustainability on USForest Service Lands anddemonstrates the critical importanceof multiple uses for the lands. Thereport provides good examples for amore capitalistic approach to publicland management based on private

land models.

Figure 3Perverse triangle of incentives


14/44

14

Confined Animal Production

The industries discussed in this sec-tion include: beef cattle (feedlots) dairy swine chicken and eggs turkey mink

What is Confined Animal Produc-

tion Agriculture?Animal production agriculture refers

to animal feeding operations, or

AFOs. These operations produce largenumbers of animals in a relativelysmall space.

AFO/CAFOAn Animal Feeding Operation is afacility that maintains animals in aconfined space, for a specified period

Section 2: Confined Animal Production Agriculture

of time, in order to ready animals for

market sale. Concentrated AnimalFeeding Operations, or CAFOs, areessentially larger AFOs. The differ-ence between an AFO and a CAFOis the number of animal units withinan operation. An animal unit isequivalent to 1,000 pounds of ani-mals (figure 4). This unit was origi-nally developed to describe a motherbeef cow and her calf, which gener-ally average about 1,000 lbs.

In 2010, the Utah Legislatureamended Utah Code (4-18) to in-clude the Utah Conservation Com-mission as a partner and advisor tothe Utah Department of Environ-mental Quality in regulations relatedto AFOs and CAFOs. The legisla-tion also included language that pro-vided Environmental StewardshipCertificates to agricultural producersexemplifying quality managementpractices. The Utah Conservation

Commission provides oversight forcertification.

Beef (feedlots)Beef cattle finished in feedlots arefed higher percentages of grain.Corn is the main staple used formaximum daily weight gains. As aresult, most calves coming off therange in the fall are shipped out ofstate to areas of the country wherethese sources of feed are more abun-

dant. With escalating energy costs,including transportation, it is becom-ing more economically viable tofinish cattle in Utah. While we dohave feedlots and processing facili-ties in the state, their current capaci-ty is not equal to the amount of cat-tle raised here.

Are you an AFO or a CAFO?

Large CAFO1000+ Beef, heifers, or calves700+ Cows (milking or dry)

125,000+ Layers

55,000+ Turkeys

2,500+ Swine (>55 pounds)10,000+ Swine (55 pounds)3,000-9,999 Swine (< 55 pounds)

3,000-9,999 Sheep150-499 Horses

Small AFO

1-299 Beef, heifers, calves1-199 Cows (Milking or dry)

1-37,499 Layers1-16,499 Turkeys

1-749 Swine (>55 pounds)1-2,999 Swine (


15/44

State of Utah

15

Dairy

The number of dairies in Utah hasbeen decreasing over the last 40years. In 1970, the number of dairy

farms in Utah was approximately3,800. The Utah Dairy Council re-ported in 2010 that there were 259dairy farms in the state. (figure 5).However, despite the declining num-ber of dairies, the number of milkcows on farms in Utah has actuallyincreased. Consequently, todaysdairies are much larger than they

were in 1970.

Furthermore, the amount of milk eachcow produces has also increased dra-matically. In 1940, the average cowwas producing just over 5,000 poundsof milk per year. A Utah cow in 2010produced more than four times thatamount: an average of 21,000 poundsof milk per year. This statistic indi-cates that the overall amount of milkbeing produced in the state today has

actually increasedcompared to theamount produced in 1970.

SwineThe number of hog farms in Utah hasalso declined over the past 40 years.In 1970, there were 2,000 hog farmsin Utah. By 2007, only 610 farms

remained (figure 6). Hog numbers inthe state have traditionally been vol-

atile. From 1950 to 1990, the num-ber of hogs in Utah declined from84,000 to 33,000. In about the year2000, the number of hogs hadjumped up to 650,000 animals as aresult of the opening of Circle FourFarms in Milford, Utah.

Poultry and Egg ProductionUtah egg production has been stead-ily increasing over the years. Since1960, the average number of henslaying eggs has more than doubledand the eggs per laying hen has alsoincreased; in 1970, there were 271million eggs laid in Utah by2010, the number of eggs laid hadincreased to 920 million (figure 7).

2007- Only610 farmsremaining

Figure 6Number of Utah Hog Farms

The egg market, however, is currentlyundergoing many changes. In additionto traditional production, we nowhave another market of eggs producedby chickens raised in larger cages.Regardless of cage size, it is the priceof eggs that has been the largest deter-mining factor in predicting whicheggs consumers will choose to buy.A recent survey of egg prices in Utahmarkets indicated that eggs producedusing traditional methods cost any-

where between $1.30 to $2.00 perdozen. For the eggs produced usingnew methods with larger cages, thecost varied from $3.50 to $6.00.

Some consumer surveys also indicatethat shoppers are willing to pay higherprices for eggs produced using non-traditional methods. The State of Cali-fornia recently passed a law that re-quires these new methods. Sixty-seven percent of California voters

approved this measure, yet only fivepercent of California consumers actu-ally buy the higher priced eggs.Nonetheless, these changes to eggproduction are still occurring. Ulti-

0100200300400500600

700800900

1,000

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Total Egg Production in Utah (Millions)

Figure 7Total egg production in Utah

Section 2: Confined Animal Production Agriculture...Continued

(Dairy CouncilJune 2011 meeting 259 operations

remaining)

Figure 5Number of Utah Dairy Farms 1970-2010


16/44

16

Section 2: Confined Animal Production Agriculture...Continued

mately, it will be the consumers that

have the final say in how eggs areproduced in Utah, based on their pur-chasing habits.

TurkeyUtah is one of the lone turkey produc-ing states in the West. Information onUtah turkey production is limited be-cause there is only one major produc-er, Norbest. There is always a con-cern about sole-source data becauserevealing production figures could

reveal proprietary information.

The Task Force was able to obtaininformation about Turkey productionfrom Sanpete County, Utah, the larg-est turkey producing area in the state.These results showed that SanpeteCounty had 125 producers in 1960that supplied 2.5 million birds to pro-cessing plants. Today in Sanpete, fivemillion birds are supplied to pro-cessing plants from only 47 produc-

ers. Thus, the county now producesdouble the amount of birds with lessthan a third of the producers.

Turkey production in the UnitedStates has grown. In 1975, about 120

million turkeys were produced in the

U.S. By 2007, that number had in-creased to 275 million (figure 8).

MinkIn 2009, Utah was the second largest

mink producer in the US. Yet the

number of mink farms in Utah hasbeen in decline for 40 years. In1970, there were 260 mink farms inUtah, but by 2007 only 65 farmsremained (figure 9).

As in other agricultural in-dustries, mink farms in Utahare increasing in size. In1975, there were approxi-mately 308,000 pelts pro-duced, in 2010, there were

615,000 produced. The aver-age price per pelt has alsoincreased. Recently, theprice has been at an all timehigh. In 1975, mink sold forabout $25 a pelt. By 2010,the price had risen to $65

per pelt.

Federal Regulatory Burdens

There are three main issues regardinthe regulatory burdens on farmers.

Increasing federal regulatory man-dates with a one-size-fits-all ap-proach puts excessive pressure onagricultural businesses.

However, state driven programs thaconnect farm operators with localsupport groups and local regulatoryauthorities allow for greater commu

nication and opportunities to findstreamlined solutions to problems.Cooperative voluntary programs thareward agricultural producers withenvironmental stewardship incentivhave proven to be the most effectivmodels for compliance in Utah.

Every Farm CountsBecause there are fewer farms pro-ducing more animals and products ieach of these segments, the impact

losing even one more farm will begreater than in the past.

Figure 8National turkey production

Figure 9Number of mink fa

Sanpete County Turkeys1960 125 Producers = 2.5 million birdsToday 47 Producers = 5 million birds


17/44

State of Utah

17

Section 3: Grains, Specialty Row Crops, Fruits & Vegetables

Utah History and Climate

Utah is the second driest state in thenation. The average annualprecipitation in the valleys variesfrom 10 to 15 inches per year. Thelength of the growing season alsovaries, depending mostly onelevation. Our growing season rangesfrom a short season of approximately60 days, to a longer seasonapproaching 190 days. The differentlengths of our growing seasons allowdifferent areas of the state to produce

different agricultural products.

Grain ProductionGrain production including wheat,barley, grass hay and alfalfa, showvery similar trends when compared toother sectors of Utah agriculture. Thetotal acreage under production inthese sectors has declined, however,the totalyield per acre has increased,thus indicating our ability to bettermaximize our output with the given

inputs. When adjusted for inflation,the prices for all commodities in thissector have remained relatively stableover time.

The only anomalies among thesecommodities are those of grass hay

and alfalfa. Both show a slight

increase in number of acres underproduction (figure 10). This reflectsthe amount of grass hay and alfalfaexported out of our state. In fact, 99percent of all hay exported out ofthe country comesfrom Utah,California, Idaho,Washington,Nevada, Oregon,and Arizona(NAFA, 2008).

Additionally, earlyestimates for 2011show that hayprices are rising inUtah. The pricesare projected toreach $180 a ton.Many farmers arealready receivingupwards of $230-250 a ton for their

hay (Merlo, C.2011).

CornMost corn in Utah isproduced as feed or silagefor livestock herds.However, as a nation, wesubsidize the corn marketfor ethanol, a product wedont produce in Utah.The subsidies have

resulted in substantiallyhigher prices for corn andall grains. These higherprices have created anextreme hardship on the

dairy, poultry, and hogindustries. The price of grain is nowtied to the price of oil. The wide

0

200

400

600

800

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Total Hay Acres Harvested in Utah

Figure 10Total acres of hay harvested in Utah

swing in oil prices has created tre-

mendous instability in the productioncosts for our protein farmers. It hasalso resulted in increased meat anddairy prices for consumers.

Fruits and VegetablesThe pioneers brought many differentfruits with them when they settledthe area. The first organized steps togrow fruit in the state came in the1890s with the beginning of the UtahAgricultural Experiment Station atUtah State University; a laboratorythat tested the susceptibility ofgrowth for various fruits. This exper-

imentation soon led to a boom incommercial orchards, and ultimately,surpluses in production.

By 1947, the number of fruit trees inproduction was only half what it wasin 1914 and the industry began tostabilize. Urbanization had pushed

The orange dots on this map show the Farm subsidies through-

out the country. The majority is throughout Iowa, down the Mis-sissippi River, and you can see the three lonely dots in Box Elder

County.

Figure 11Number of farms receiving corn subsidies nationall


18/44

18

fruit production to the fringes of cit-

ies and caused a rapid erosion of theindustry. By 1970, the fruit industrybegan a revival as growers startedbuying cheaper land outside of urbanareas. Many fruit producers movedand developed land around southernUtah County.

As part of that expansion, weve seensignificant growth in tart cherries andapple trees. They are now two of thelargest fruit crops produced in the

state. Nationally, Utah ranks secondin tart cherry production. Our cherriesare produced primarily for processingand canning.

Utah also ranks high nationally in theproduction of other fruit. We are thirdin production of apricots, eighth insweet cherries, ninth in pears and 18 thin peaches.

Utah County is the states, largest

producer of tree fruit, except apricots.Box Elder County is the second larg-est producer, followed by Weber andDavis. Cache, Washington, Grand,and Emery are the most importantfruit producing counties located out-side the Wasatch Front (Utah HistoryEncyclopedia).

The Green River area produces mostof the melons grown in Utah. Rasp-berries and other berries for directsales and commodity sales are grownmostly in Rich, Cache, and Box Eldercounties.

Most vegetables grown in Utah are

marketed directly to stores or con-

sumers. Onion production in Davisand Weber counties account for theonly significant vegetable commodi-ty production in Utah.

Bees and HoneyWhile there is a growing backyardand urban beekeeper population inthe Beehive State, there are roughly26,000 commercial honey producingcolonies in Utah. Those coloniesproduce 780,000 pounds of honey

annually (Utah Agricultural Statis-tics). Additionally, many Utah beesspend the winter in nearby stateswith warmer climates pollinatingcitrus, berry, flower and vegetablecrops.

Split EstatesWith less than 18 percent of Utahland privately owned, increasingpressure for energy development onfarms and ranches with split estates,where the surface and the mineralestates have different ownership,creates greater potential for conflict.Many of these farms and ranchesproduce hay and grain that requireirrigation. To provide a stable envi-ronment, one which promotes agri-cultural production and protects thefinancial investments on surfaceproperties, while not adversely im-pacting energy development activi-ties, we recommend:

Reasonable accommodation foroil and gas developers shouldinclude accommodation for sur-face rights and investments by

mitigating intrusion. Exercisingdue regard for preservation of tproperty through technology,

such as directional drilling,should also be considered.

Good faith negotiations should rendered between mineral rightand surface rights owners. Oil agas developers should reachagreement to protect surfaceproperty resources and provideadequate compensation for losscrops, surface damages, and losof value to surface owners proerty rights.

An independent mediation pro-cess for conflict resolution shoube provided.

Public policy should provide protection for privately held surface rightthat are at least equal to federal statutes that protect BLM administeredsurface properties, and state statuterelated to privately held surface proerties and SITLA owned mineralrights.

Section 3: Grains, Specialty Row Crops, Fruits & Vegetables...Continued


19/44

State of Utah

19

Section 4: Food SecurityUrban Interface

Food Security

Local farming gives us the ability tofeed local people independent fromoutside influences.

The Urban InterfaceThe Urban Interface is the areawhere urban and rural land uses in-termingle and sometimes clash. InUtah, as growth pushes developmentfurther into the countryside, newdevelopment occurs on convertedagricultural lands near urban areas.

Agricultural lands on the urbanfringe play several important roles tonearby communities.

Keep revenues in the local economyIt is estimated that only 20-25 percentof the retail cost from fresh fruit andvegetables is retained by the farmer.The remaining 75-80 percent isfiltered into marketing, transportation,processing, retailing, and otherservices external to the farmer

(Stewart, 2006). Local foodproduction and direct-to-consumersales increase the percentage of profitthat farmers receive and are muchmore efficient for local economies(Schwartz, 2009).

They put the consumer close to the

productAccording to a study commissionedby Envision Utah, 32 percent ofUtahns have lived or worked on a

farm in their lifetimes, yet only threepercent currently live or work on afarm. This study demonstrates thatagriculture close to urban areas canbecome key educational tools to teachfuture generations about the origins of

their food.

The above photograph is a good example of the urban interface. Suburban develop-ment has expanded to meet up with farmland. The absence of major roads and a citycenter suggest that this development represents the urban fringe of this area.

The Urban Interface is

the area where urban and

rural uses intermingle and

sometimes clash.

Utah Agriculture Sustainability Task Force

Provides local food optionsMany Utahns are looking for locally

-grown produce. For them, eating

local food protects the environment,improves personal health, enhancesthe freshness of the food, and con-tributes to the local economy. Hav-ing agricultural lands close to popu-lation centers is a critical element inserving the need for locally grownfood.

Local Food Production (Direct-to-

Consumer sales)

Farmers MarketsNationally, the number of farmersmarkets increased by 17 percent in2011 (USDA, 2011). Utah also add-ed new markets and new shoppersthis year. Several examples illustrate

the growing popularity of Utah

Farmers markets:

Since 2007, attendance at USUsBotanical Center Farmers Mar-ket saw a nearly 300 percent in-

crease (Olsen, 2011).

The number of vendors at theCache Valley Gardeners Marketwent from about 40 vendors in2006 to about 100 vendors this

year (Huball, 2011).


20/44

20

Currently, there are 13 farmers

markets in Salt Lake Countytwo of which are new to the

valley this year.

The Downtown Farmers Marketin Salt Lake City that started withfive vendors currently has over300. Regular Saturday attendancenow averages nearly 10,000people. Gross revenues for themarket have increased by over500 percent since 2004 (Farley,

2011).

Community Supported

AgricultureCommunity Supported Agriculture(CSA) programs have also grown. In2004, only four CSAs existed in theState. Today, there are at least 30CSAs (CSA Utah). In a CSA,individuals pay for a share of thefarmers product up front, thussharing the risk of poor yields, and thebenefit of excesses, among

shareholders.

Local Food Production / Local

Economic Benefit

Between 1997 and 2007, direct-to-consumer sales, such as farmersmarkets, rose by 105 percent twotimes faster than total agriculturalsales. At the same time, the numberof farms selling directly to theconsumer increased by 24 percent.Direct to consumer sales is a small,but economically important, sector

of agriculture.

History of Urban Agriculture

Local food production has increasedin popularity in recent years, but, theneed and desire for locally-grownfood is not new. The United Stateshas seen at least six periods whenurban agriculture was an importantsource of local nutrition.

During the recession of the late1800s, school gardens andvacant-lot cultivation began as a

way to save money and improvepublic health.

During WWI reducedagricultural production in

Europe resulted in increaseddemand and higher pricesfor U.S. farm product.Liberty Gardens began asan answer to higher pricesand because local farmproduction was needed to

aid the war effort.

During the GreatDepression, relief gardensestablished by citygovernments provided

opportunities for food and work

The federal government gave o$3 billion to such programsduring the years of 1933 to 193

During WWII, communitygardens provided up to 44 perceof the nations vegetableproduction. The War FoodAdministration created a NationVictory Garden Program to freeup transportation fuels andrailroad cars for war efforts,

produce food for the localpopulation, and preserve finiteresources. In addition, thesevictory gardens were meant toincrease morale by getting peopoutside and connected with theland around them.

During the 1970s Energy Crisiscommunity gardens saw aresurgence when increasingenergy prices caused food costs

rise. This time, gardens werelocally organized by communitthemselves, rather than bygovernment-sponsored programof the Depression and the twoworld wars that had previouslyinstigated such gardens.

Recently, citizens have requesteopportunities to create commungardens and facilitate homeproduction. In response, many

cities have adopted policies toencourage urban agriculture.

As populations urbanize, landvalues also increase. Property tarelief for small acreage urban

Section 4: Food SecurityUrban Interface...Continued


21/44

State of Utah

21


farming helps maintain local food

security.

History of Planning in UtahLand use planning in Utah has existedsince the first permanent settlements.Protecting agricultural lands hasalways been part of these plans. Earlyleaders in the state stressed theimportance of self-reliance and localfood production, often at the expenseof economic successes. TerritorialGovernor, Brigham Young, stated,

The time will come that gold willhold no comparison in value to abushel of wheatGold is not halfas good as the soil from which weraise our wheat, and other necessariesof life(Journal of Discourses, 1:, p.250).

In many ways, planners in Utah arelooking to the past as they plan afuture with an acute focus onrelatively dense community centersand greater emphases on agriculture

and open space in the areassurrounding our urban centers.

Agricultural Land ConversionUtah is a rapidly growing state.According to the latest census, from2000 to 2010, Utah was the nations

third fastest growing state.

In 1960, Utah had fewer than onemillion residents. Today, ourpopulation has reached nearly threemillion people. This growth has been

concentrated along the Wasatch Frontand in Washington County. The areaswith such substantial growth alsonaturally tend to be the mostfavorable climate regions for

agricultural success.

Also by 1960, about 250,000 acres ofland had been developed in Utah. By2008, 750,000 acres in Utah had beendeveloped for non-agricultural uses.It is predicted that by 2030, morethan a million acres of land in Utah

will be developed for urban uses.

The four Wasatch Front countiesWeber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utahdeveloped approximately 135,000

acres of land between 1988 and 2008,and will likely increase the amount ofdeveloped landarea by morethan 160,000acres by 2030.The loss ofthese landswouldsignificantlyimpair theability of these

rapidly growingcounties toprovide for theirfood security.Those fourcounties alongthe Wasatch

Front, where much of the growth is

taking place are uniquely suited forgrowing fruits and vegetables.

In a recent survey of land useplanners in Utah, most respondentsestimated that a substantial amount ofviable, working agricultural lands intheir communities would be gonewithin 50 years. Planners are notalone in these fears. As a part of a1998 Earth Day event, severalmembers of Future Farmers of

America submitted essays about openspace and future land uses. TheDeseret News reported that acommon theme among the essayswas ...fear that there will be no land[for them] to farm in thefuture (Spangler, 1998). Currently,96 percent of the orchards in Utah arein the rapidly urbanizing WasatchFront counties or WashingtonCounty. These are the only areas ofthe state that can produce consistent,

high yields of fruit. These counties

Urban Growth

1988

2008

2030

Source: GOPB

Irrigated

Non-Irrigated

Sub-Irrigated

Urban

Water

Figure 12Growth in Salt Lake and Utah counties 19882030 (projected)

In many ways, planners in

Utah are looking to the past

as they plan a future with an

acute focus on relatively

dense community centers

and a greater emphasis on

agriculture and open

space...



22/44

22

combined will add nearly 1.8 million

more people to Utah by 2050.

Agriculture Sustainability and Food

SecurityWhat does sustainable mean? Onedefinition is: capable of beingsustained using a resource so thatthe resource is not depleted orpermanently damaged (Merriam-Webster). This definition isappropriate, yet, it is also important tothink about sustainability as, being

capable ofsustaining. This definitionis implied because the purpose ofagriculture is to sustain life byproviding the food and fiber necessary

for human existence.

Planning for Agriculture

The most basic needs of humankind

are food, water, and shelter. Without

them, life, society, and economies

cease to exist. Currently, communities

plan for water and shelter, but few

local governments plan for food.

When planners in Utah were asked

which of these three elements their

general plans considered, 94 percent

of respondents said they planned for

future housing needs, 75 percent said

they planned for future water needs,

and less than 10 percent said they

considered future food requirements.

The consequences of not planning foragriculture are serious. According to

researchers at the University of Utah,

the life-span of a house is about 150

years (Nelson, 2009). Once prime

agriculture lands have been paved

over, the opportunity to farm is lost

for generations and the resource

itself is actually gone. So too, is the

ease we once had in our ability to

feed ourselves from our own land. In

the same way that we are largely

dependent upon foreign oil sources

for our transportation needs, we may

become increasingly dependent upon

outside sources of food for our

nutrition needs.

Our food security depends on this

ability to plan for agricultural

production.

On the left, a subdivision in Perry, Utah, is surrounded by fruit orchards in the mid-

1990s. By 2006 (right), development has almost completely filled in the existing or-chards.



23/44

State of Utah

23


Supply and Demand

The demand for food will increase

with the population. By 2050, the

U.S. is projected to grow by 100

million people. During that same

time, the earths population will

increase by three billion people. Only

the countries of India and Pakistan are

expected to have larger growth rates.

Population increases are a

significant concern as they

clearly impact our natural

resources and food supply

very closely. With limited

food, fuel, energy, and fiber,

also comes increased global

competition for these same

resources. As the demand for

these necessities rises, the

supply will decrease. The

result will be an increased

price of food. Up to 80

percent of the retail cost of

fruit and

vegetables isrelated to

transportation,

processing, and

marketing. The

further our food

has to travel, the

greater the

impact fuel costs

will have on the

price of the food.

The reverse is

also true.

Food Security

Utah probably does better than most

states in encouraging self-reliance

and emergency preparation. As such,

we would do well in a short-term,

localized, disaster. However, in the

event of a global crisis, such as

prolonged war, disease, energyshortage, or economic hardship,

69% of the acreage in orchards is located in UtahCounty

Utah County is projected to add 700,000 residents by2050

96% of orchards in Utah are in rapidly urbanizingcounties

Upper Jordan River Watershed (Utah Lake)

Figure 13Increased growth in Utah County vs. decreased land in orchards

could Utah grow enough to feed

itself? This scenario is not withoutprecedent. During World War II, the

United States grew approximately 44

percent of its food locally in victory

gardens. However, since then, Utah

has added over two million residents

and has converted hundreds of

thousands of acres of agricultural

lands to urban uses. To help answer

the question of how well the State

would fare if it had to rely on locally-

produced food, Mr. Martin Esplin, a

Utah State University graduate

student, looked at what Utah

currently produces compared to our

nutritional requirements.

Utahs Production vs. Utahs

Nutritional Need

The purpose of this study was to

compare Utahs agriculturalproduction to its nutritional needs to

answer the question:

Does Utah produce enough food to

feed its population?

Historically, Utahns had to sustain

themselves with local production.

Now, produce can be transported

thousands of miles to reach our

tables, a convenience that leads us to

be less dependent on products grown

locally. Because of the affordability

and ease of transporting food, people

are blessed with a great variety of

agricultural products throughout the

year. In this situation, one might ask,

Figure 17Business Week, February 2010Buying local not only supports local agriculture but keepsmoney in the local communityhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htmhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_09/b4168057813351.htm


24/44

24

why worry about food origin? If the

stability we presently enjoy were

threatened by economic instability,

political crisis, or natural disaster, the

transportation of food could be

interrupted. If this were to happen,

local supplies would become

extremely important. Even without

future crisis, the rising cost of fuel will

affect the transportation of food and

the price that we pay for it.

What are the nutritional needs of

Utahns?

USDA standards offered at the

website choosemyplate.comprovide

information about individual servings

needed, sorted by age and gender. An

average of these categories was used

to calculate the amount of food needed

to feed an individual for a day in each

of the five basic food groups. This

number, multiplied by the population

of the state, was used to determinehow much food Utah needs to feed its

population for a day. Then that

number was multiplied by 365 days to

calculate the food required to feed

Utah citizens for a year.

The 2010 Utah Agricultural Statistics

and Utah Department of Agriculture

and Food Annual Report provided

information on how much food Utah

produces. The study compared the

states consumption with the reported

production. The comparison for each

of the five catego-

riesgrains,

dairy, meat/

protein, vegeta-

bles, and fruitis

explained in the

following para-

graphs.

Dairy

This study com-

puted dairy con-

sumption as milk

only. The recommendation from

USDA is an average of three 8 oz.

servings per day per person. This av

erage was used to

calculate our dairy needs. Utah has

comfortable surplus of milk produc

tion to meet its nutritional needs in

this category (figure 14).

Meat/Protein

In this study, meat is used as the so

source of protein. Products such as

soy, nuts, and beans are not abunda

enough to be considered significant

protein sources.

The sources of meat in the report ar

beef, pork, lamb, poultry, eggs, and

trout. Most Utah cattle ranches are

cow-calf operations. Cattle are ofte

sold out of state for finishing, and a

not included in the calculation of


Figure 14Dairy production vs. consumption

Figure 15Meat production vs. consump

Lbs. of protein/y


25/44

State of Utah

25


available protein sources. However,

we produce a lot more cattle than we

process. The study methodology in-

ventoried cattle processed in Utah and

includes animals brought in from out-

side sources.

Actual meat production in Utah indi-

cates we produce

slightly less pro-

tein than we con-

sume.

Produced protein

totals in 2010 were

estimated to be

610,343,150

pounds of eggs,

chicken, lamb,

pork, beef and tur-

key combined. For

that same year

Utahns consumed an

estimated

665,336,217 pounds of protein from

the same sources (figure 15).

Beef production totals are three per-

cent less than the consumption rate of

Utahns. It is important to note that

public and private lands are used to

sustain the beef industry.

Healthy rangelands and watershedsare an important factor in maintaining

the livestock industry in Utah.

Grain

Utah produces a number of grains.

Our wheat is primarily grown for hu-

man consumption. Other grains,

such as barley, oats, and corn, are

reserved for animal feed. In 2009,

Utahs grain needs exceeded Utahs

wheat production by a small margin

(figure 16).

Vegetables

The amount of

vegetables pro-

duced in Utah is

not available in

the 2010 Utah

Agricultural Sta-

tistics report.

Utah doespro-

duce vegetables,but the amounts

are only collect-

ed every five

years. Based on

past data, we do

Figure 16Wheat production vs. consumption

not commercially grow nearly as

many vegetables as we consume. In

the case of vegetables and fruits, the-

se essential parts of human nutrition

can only be grown in certain parts of

Utah where the climate is favorable.

However, these are also the areas

where most growth in our state is

occurring. As our population grows

and prime lands for vegetable pro-

duction are developed, the gap be-

tween how much we grow and howmuch we consume will continue to

increase.

Fruit

Utah is second in the nation for theproduction of tart cherries. Otherfruits produced in Utah are apples,sweet cherries, peaches, and apricots.Utah produces roughly 10 percent ofthe fruit it needs (figure 17). Utahsclimate and elevation limit the places

where fruit can be grown commer-

Figure 17Fruit production vs. consumption


26/44

26


Advertising locally grown Utah produce in a local grocery store, 2011.

Photo by Evan Curtis

cially. Unfortunately, these areas are

also the most threatened by develop-ment.

Utahs farmlands are a precious com-modities. They are critical for Utahsagricultural self-reliance. Rates ofagricultural productivity have in-creased over time, meaning farmershave been able to maintain produc-tion levels with less land. But, thistrend cannot be sustained very farinto the future. Once agricultural

land is converted for other uses it islost forever.

Further research is needed to estab-lish the amount of land required tosupport our food independence.Clearly though, we need to protectsome farm lands to ensure local foodproduction while also accommodat-ing the demands of development inorder to meet the needs of Utahsgrowing population.

It is clear from this study that Utahfarmers and ranchers currently do notproduce enough food overall and inmost individual sectors to feed ourpopulation. In all agricultural lands,and especially the prime fruit andvegetable growing soils along theWasatch Front, every acre counts.Policies need to be developed to helpprotect these valuable resources.However, often times current poli-

cies actually work against protectingfarmland.

Eminent Domain Issues:

The West Davis Corridor

Metropolitan areas along the Wa-satch Front have added transporta-tion pressures as the population hasincreased. Transportation corridors

have historically taken agriculturalproperties through eminent domain,a legal seizure of private propertyfor public good. The approval of anadditional corridor is currently pro-ceeding through the National Envi-ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) pro-cess. This example shows, onceagain, that our most valuable farm-land and prime soil may be lost totransportation and developmentsimply because it is the path of least

resistance.

Davis and Weber counties havesome of the best soils available inUtah. They are home to a unique

micro-climate that is better suited thanywhere else in the state for growimany high-value vegetable crops.Many of these vegetables are grown

on 62 Century Farms in the area. Utneeds every possible acre of theselands to maintain a critical mass tosustain agriculture along the Wasatcfront. Where food security issues arconcerned, the protection of primeagricultural lands should be given aleast the same or higher consideratias other lands by federal agencies, tState of Utah, and its political subdvisions. It is important to conservethese lands for our food security

needs.


27/44

State of Utah

27

As the Utah Agriculture Sustainability

Task Force, we focus on eight issueareas and work to develop strategiesand actions for all eight of these cate-gories.The issue areas are:

Food Security

Invasive Species (includingweeds)

Grazing Improvement

Immigration

Urban Agriculture

Agriculture Promotion and Profit-ability

Next Generation Farms (youngfarmers)

Irrigation Infrastructure

Food SecurityWe propose that the Utah State Leg-islature make the following state-ment: Prime and unique agriculturallands and soils are the most importantlands for sustaining human life. Thevalue of these lands surpasses thevalue of wetlands, lands that arehome to sensitive species, and nearly

every other conceivable use, andshould be reserved for our food secu-rity needs.

We propose introducing and fundingconservation easement legislationthat gives priority to important pro-

Appendix I: Issues Overview

Prime and unique agri-

cultural lands and soils

are the most important

lands for sustaining life.


ductive agricultural lands with prime

soils.We propose legislation to create aseparate greenbelt designation forsmaller-acreage productive opera-tions.

We propose legislation to dedicategreenbelt rollback monies to conser-vation easements or other productiveagricultural uses within the countywhere rollback funds are generated,and to enable local conservation dis-

tricts to make recommendations tocounty commissions related to theuse of these annual rollback funds.

We propose that the legislature pro-vide new monies to the LeRayMcAllister fund to match funds foragricultural conservation easementsthat give priority to important pro-ductive agricultural lands with primeor locally important soils.

We propose that the legislature, theLeague of Cities and Towns, the As-sociation of Counties, and other in-terested parties work to create localzoning options that recognize theimportance of agriculture for the citi-zens of Utah and protect agriculturalland uses from unwanted encroach-ments. We also propose that localgovernments develop specializedlocal food security plans to worktoward these goals.

We propose Utah law be amended tocreate requirements that fund offsetreplacement of lost agriculturallands. We further propose a legisla-tive policy that develops equity be-tween current wetland protection and

these new agricultural protection

laws.To accomplish these tasks, we willincrease the capacity of the Utah De-partment of Agriculture and Food toassist directly in the planning ofstate and local agricultural preserva-tion processes.

We propose that Utah law be amend-ed to encourage energy producers towork with the owners of surfacerights on split estates to minimize

lost agricultural production. We alsoencourage the use of directional drill-ing and other techniques to minimizethe impacts on agricultural lands.

We will work with our federal coun-terparts to promote food security bydeveloping a statement that urges thefederal government to eliminate sub-sidies for agricultural products usedin energy production.


28/44

28

We also propose a statement urging

federal adoption of state environmen-tal stewardship oversight.

Invasive Species (including weeds)The spread of invasive species is an-other critical agricultural issue ad-dressed by the Task Force.

We propose improvements in the in-ventory of invasive species in Utahby more clearly defining the role ofcounty weed boards in statute, and by

identifying and prioritizing weed con-trol measures. We propose that theState Legislature provide a$1,000,000 increase in weed controlfunding from the States general fundin order to accomplish this.

Because motor vehicle use, hiking,camping, and other activities, oftenspread weed seeds, the Task Forcealso recommends that the legislaturelook at other sources of funds includ-

ing: the money earned from un-claimed property, licensed trailers,noxious weed impact fees from recre-ational ATVs, gravel pit fee assess-ments, collection of a portion of thesportsmen fees gathered from theUtah Department of Natural Re-sources, and money gleaned fromsubmittal of requests to create federal

block grants to fight invasive species

on federal and state lands. We alsosupport the work of the DupontHealthy Habitat Coalition in promot-ing these block grants.

In addition to asking for funding tomitigate damage from invasive spe-cies, we propose the establishmentof a public outreach and educationcampaign to educate the public onhow to stop the spread of invasivespecies.

Grazing ImprovementWe propose a continuation of recentsuccesses in grazing managementprograms by providing $1,000,000of on-going state funding to the UtahDepartment of Agriculture and Foodto increase coordinated resourcemanagement planning at a largescale. Where feasible, this moneywill facilitate the development ofgrazing management plans at a land-

scape level, and will support thefunding of watering facilities, fenc-ing improvement, weed control tocomplete these landscape-scale graz-ing improvement plans, and mainte-nance and increased managementcosts.

Landscape level management re-quires both grazers and browsers onthe range. Cattle and elk are grazers;sheep and deer are browsers. Range

conditions can improve if the popu-lations of mule deer and sheep areincreased on many Utah ranges. Toinsure better health of both wildlifeand livestock herds, we propose anincrease in the funding and effective-ness of predator control, and an al-lotment of reasonable and sufficient

Appendix I: Issues Overview...Continued

compensation to agricultural produc

ers for natural wildlife impacts thatmay disrupt agricultural production,especially of sheep.

ImmigrationWe support Utah house Bill 116 be-cause an ample, sustainable and legaworkforce is the key to sustaining ofarms and ranches.

We propose that the Utah Legislaturpass a resolution calling on Congres

to create a national agriculture guestworker program. We oppose E-verification until federal guest worklaws are in place.

Urban AgricultureThe Utah Department of Agricultureand Food (UDAF) will work with local governments to create or improvurban and backyard agriculture-friendly zoning ordinances.

We will also encourage state and loc

governments to use vacant govern-ment-owned land as small-plot agri-culture areas to increase the accessi-bility of agriculture in our increasingly urban settings.

We propose the monetary support ofarmers markets and Community

We support Utah house

Bill 116 because an am-

ple, sustainable and legal

workforce is key to sus-

taining our farms and

ranches.



29/44

State of Utah

29

Supported Agriculture (CSA) promo-

tion programs to strengthen the con-nection between farmers and the pub-lic via advertising and the direct ex-change that occurs in these settings.

We also propose the funding of start-up agribusinesses by providing finan-cial support to small-scale agricultur-al operations for infrastructure whichhelp them develop new products andbusiness opportunities.A specialist at the UDAF will be as-

signed to help with new agricultureoperations, navigate licensing andfood safety requirements, and educatestart-up businesses about the im-portance of networking and market-ing opportunities in these ventures.

Agriculture Promotion and Profita-

bilityWe propose improving local pro-cessing capacity by working with theGovernors Office of Economic De-

velopment to support processing fa-cilities in all sectors of agriculture.We recognize the need to increasecull cow processing facilities.

We also propose developing incuba-tor kitchens in each county to providesmall-scale agricultural start-up pro-cessing businesses with a place to testnew products.

We propose improving agricultural

product distribution capacity by sup-porting the existing Utahs Ownpro-gram to provide incentives for localstores when local products are boughtand advertised first. This helps to cre-ate incentives and/or legislation toencourage school lunch programs,state agencies, and other public sector

services, to buy Utah products first

(when available). We encourage thecreation and funding of central dis-

tribution pointsfor the purchaseof local Utahagriculturalproducts, andwe plan to pro-mote innovativeagricultural

practices and products in our part-nerships with food buying groups,

restaurant groups and emergingbusinesses.

Next Generation Farms (young

farmers)We support additional coordinationwith Utah State University (USU)and other agricultural supportgroups to develop and implementbusiness planning and farm transferprograms that will complement re-tirement and insurance programs for

current farmers and ranchers.

We support efforts to match farmerswithout identified successors withtheir younger counterparts who areseeking opportunities to purchase orlease farms or ranches. We also en-courage the financial community to

Appendix I: Issues Overview...Continued

We propose improvinglocal processing capacity

by working with the Gov-

ernors Office of Econom-

ic Development to support

processing facilities in all

sectors of agriculture.


finance farm ownership transfer.

Irrigation InfrastructureWe propose that UDAF work withconservation districts in a statewideeffort to map irrigation systems.

We support educating the publicabout the irrigation needs of agricul-ture and the benefits of well-maintained irrigation delivery sys-tems. We propose that the legislatureaugment existing funding or develop

alternative funding sources to im-prove and update irrigation systemsand technologies.

The Task Force recommends that thelegislature work with the Utah Con-gressional delegation to support legis-lation to provide funding for im-proved water infrastructure.


30/44

30

Goal: Ensure the protection of Utahs critical farmlands by working with local, state and federal partner

STRATEGIES:

Develop a policy statement that increases our commitment to food security by maintaining our prime agricul-

tural land base for local food producon

Preserve farmland through easements

Balance zoning between development and agriculture, including a policy for the transferring of development

rights

Create migaon process for agriculture land taken by eminent domain

Increase urban and backyard farming

Inuence federal legislaon to provide for energy and environmental stewardship

ACTIONS/TASKS:

Devise food security legislaon

o Determine what kind of statement would be needed in State law (Food Security Act) to elevate prime

farmland (conicts with wetlands) for food producon?

Promote locally produced food

Include legislave statement: Nothing is more important than prime agriculture soils. These

lands surpass the value of wetlands, invasive species, sensive species, etc. Easements

o Provide increased funding for agricultural easements to those who would like to take advantage of the

program

o Develop soluons to implement term easement opons

Support range of easement term opons

o Modify greenbelt designaon and rollback tax laws

o Develop agricultural land preservaon criteria that idenes and maintains local agricultural capacity

and decision making by idenfying:

Prime and unique soils

Agricultural lands in areas of moderate climate condions

Agricultural lands with adequate water availability

At-risk industry-specic agricultural producon

Local program administraon and oversight

Issue: Food Security

Appendix II: Issues (strategies, actions/tasks, and outcomes)


31/44

State of Utah

31

o Easement legislaon should include:

Priority given to important producve agricultural lands, and prime or important soils

Funding:

Dedicang rollback monies or other producve agricultural uses to conservaon ease-

ments in that county (e.g. insucient funds for easements) (class of county)

Recommendaon that the legislature fund the LeRay McAllister fund

Governance

Support local Conservaon Districts and make recommendaons to County Commission to approve such rec-

ommendaons

Advocate local zoning

o Work with local governments to educate them about zoning opons (Santaquin City example)

o Develop policy for local food security plans

Produce eminent domain migaon

o Require funding for oset replacement of lost agricultural land

o Develop legislave policy that develops equity between wetland protecon laws and agricultural pro-

tecon laws

o Increase capacity of UDAF to contribute to state and local planning processes

Encourage urban and backyard farming

o Promote local ordinances that encourage urban farming

Inuence federal legislaon

o Eliminate subsidies for food products used for energy producon

Deliver proposed statement to Federal government

o Promote State Environmental Stewardship oversight, thus reducing federal environmental mandates

o Protect agricultural interests related to split estates (impacts of oil producon on farmland)

Provide statement to consider producon that is lost

Ombudsman help:

When possible, work around agricultural properes (direconal drilling)

Support legislave eorts

OUTCOMES :

Outcomes related to farmland protecon include increasing local and state capacity to preserve and protect

crical agricultural land for the producon of food in the face of a rapidly increasing populaon.

Issue: Food Security ...Continued



32/44

32

Goal: More effective coordination for weed control on public and private lands

STRATEGIES:

Improve the inventory of invasive species in Utah

Increase funding sources for invasive species management

Devise public outreach campaign

Promote federal legislaon related to invasive species control

ACTIONS/TASKS: Improve weed inventory

o More clearly dene county weed boards (statutory claricaons)

Conservaon District Board involvement

o Idenfy and priorize weed control measures

Consider funding invasive species management

o Increase state funding for invasive species control by $1 million from the general fund (mix of ongoing

and one-me)

o Consider other possible State funding sources:

Money from unclaimed property

Licensed trailers

Noxious weed impact fee on recreaonal ATV/vehicles

Gravel pits

DWR/DNR (sportsmen fees)

Ask for federal block grant funding to ght invasive species, especially related to Federal lands

Dupont Healthy Habitat Coalionstate block grants

Create public outreach campaign

o Appropriate state funding for a Quagga Mussel-style public educaon campaign

o Give priority to organizaons that include volunteerism

Insgate federal invasive species control

o Lobby for State Farm Bill to block invasive species grants

o Coordinate with federal agencies to increase invasive species control eorts

OUTCOMES :

Outcomes related to invasive species include increasing weed control, improving watershed health, and increas

ing forage quality and quanty for the livestock and wildlife of Utah.

Issue: Invasive Species, including weeds



33/44

State of Utah

33

Issue: Grazing Improvement

Goal: Improve grazing management strategies and infrastructure that enhance landscapeand watershed health, and improve sustainable production on public and private lands

STRATEGIES:

Promote proven, science-based grazing management strategies, especially at landscape scale

o Help bridge the nancial gap to implement watershed scale management improvement projects and allow it

to become economically sustainable in the future

Work with partners to incenvize the balance between grazers and browsers

o Grazers: cale, elk

o Browsers: sheep, goats, deer

Promote/support Utahs livestock industry as the economic mainstay for rural communies

ACTIONS/TASKS:

Appropriate $1 million of on-going legislave monies to fund grazing management (Coordinated Resource Manage-

ment planning)

o Increase funds, and leadership to enhance locally driven, large-scale,Coordinated Resource

Utah Agriculture Sustainability Task Force: Planning for Agriculture

Documents

Transcript of Utah Agriculture Sustainability Task Force: Planning for Agriculture