wbvs58
Well-known member
I think 30 years ago the concensus was that we were all going to freeze to death.
Ken
Sustainable Agriculture?
- Thread starter Logan52
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
Ken
50/50Farms
Well-known member
If this summer ain't better than the last I'll be wishing they were right.
dave_shelby
Well-known member
Going to try remember that quote
callmefence
Keyboard cowboy
Again Texas Rancher. You tell yourself whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day.
DNelson
Well-known member
exactly, when production exceeds demand it's not competition.
Dave
Well-known member
Oregon put in some pretty strict development laws 40 years ago or so. Land that is zone ag is ag. You just can't go out and buy a farm a split it up to build houses. You have to move heaven and earth to change the zoning. For the most part it is impossible to change the zoning on actively farmed ag land. I was talking to a lawyer about a different issue and he said you need 320 acres is the minimum sub division where I am.
greybeard
Well-known member
That's not how the State of Texas looks at it. For arable, timber and livestock land, they (and the counties) make a clear distinction between 'production' and 'consumption'. (The other category is 'investment' land)
Any land used for your own ag use is consumption. Doesn't matter if you are 100% food self sustaining (you grow ALL your own food) it's still not 'production'.
I wish our county would follow those rules closer. Dang near anyone that lives in the county and has more than an acre gets an ag exemption. I think this is the reason the county is broke. Also people looking to move see the low tax rate and think it's a bargain. The state actually came down on the county a few years back and raised the taxes some but I doubt they have the man power to ever go through everything and get it right.
RDFF
Well-known member
Last several times I've been to Texas I was shocked by how much "development" had blown up out in the countryside. I saw this trend developing already when I first visited about 40 years ago, but it's been stepped up dramatically in the last 15, from what I can tell. Seems like there's almost no "countryside" actually left in NE TX... used to be mostly beef, dairy and hay operations, now mostly "ranchettes" and housing developments around every corner.
Is that what you there all WANT, or is it just being forced onto you, with little you can do about it? I mean, I can see that if you have some land out in the country and it's not "making it" financially with farming, then you have to turn to the next option, which might just be selling it for development if that's how it's going around you anyway... and then I can see how you wouldn't want the laws changes so that you CAN'T do that... I mean, that might be your only means to come out ahead in the end.
But you know what that means then too... all they have to do is create that situation (where you can't make ag land pay with ag operations), and even the ranchers/farmers that have land will vehemently oppose any regulatory (laws/ordinances/zoning) attempt to prevent encroachment into ag property by the developments.... because it erodes away their "property value".
I kind of had already given up on most of the stuff east of the Mississippi years ago, because of how "overpopulated" the rural areas were quickly becoming. I just don't care to cross that river anymore at all unless I have to. Too much traffic, too much development, not "rural agricultural enough" anymore for me to enjoy it. I keep saying that I like Wyoming/Montana... but the west coast money is discovering them too now. Much as I hate the idea of more regulation, I'm beginning to become convinced that it's the only way that we'll be able to preserve ag land into the future from "development potential".
Scary thought to consider that our food supply might not be able to be "self-sustaining"... NOT because we don't know how to grow food..., but because we won't be ALLOWED to grow food, because everybody instead wants to put houses and strip malls on all the ag land. There won't be enough "ag protected land" left, at the rate we're gobbling it up willy nilly.
And what does it mean to be "ag protected"? To me, that means that we are going to protect this "ag land" from every OTHER kind of potential use... FOR AND IN FAVOR OF AG. So then how is it that you can't put a "hog setup" or "feedlot" on ag protected land in an ag protection district, simply because there's a house within a half mile? Doesn't make any sense to me. Don't get me wrong... I get that nobody wants to live right next to a feedlot, for example... and if you built your house out there, and then a feedlot is proposed next door, I get that wouldn't sit too well with that homeowner... even if that homeowner was me. But THAT IS what is done in ag areas, like it or not. And you should realize that THAT is the kind of thing that can and will happen in that area... It WON'T happen in an area zoned "residential". If you want your home protected from ag impacts, then DON'T build your home, and don't BUY a home, in an ag disctict, PERIOD.
I'm tired of arguments and ordinances that are intended/designed to try to protect RESIDENCES from perceived negative agricultural impacts in an ag protection district.
Last edited:
greybeard
Well-known member
It's preventable IF the county will work with you. IF the county is only concerned with increasing the property tax revenues, then there isn't a lot that can be done.
The appraisal district's manager (Chief appraiser) is appointed as a candidate by any one or more of several of the county entities (school district, sheriff dept, water district etc) and is elected by members of those tax supported entities. IF, the county is all revenue hepped up, then the chief appraiser may very well be anti-ag exemption. That chief appraiser is all but untouchable and his/her word is usually the final word. I know of no way for the public to force a recall of the chief appraiser except thru the same folks that elected that person to begin with, even if that 100ac was not under ag exemption.
100 acres will support a moderate subdivision. Will be appraised on the value of each home built and bought. That total cumulative value tax wise will far exceed the tax value of the same 100 ac that were previously ag.
https://www.cattletoday.com/threads/coming-to-a-pasture-near-you-exurbs.126365/post-1693554
Honestly tho, for a lot of counties, I would accept and maybe even prefer that smaller parcels get ag exemption instead the land all be bought up & going into sub-division development.
Last edited:
I agree but they don't enforce it. Same thing with rodeo stock. Raising bucking bulls, barrel or roping horses, or corrientes for roping is not agriculture production.
In true govt fashion they jeed to focus on enforcement of current laws before they start making more.
The acre limits is a flawed deal, IMO. You can produce quite a bit of hay or produce on small acreage. We have tons of 20-40ac tracs with arenas and roping steers getting ag examptions. There needs to be a form where you show a taxable profit from ag production in order to get an ag exemption. It needs to allow for all properties encompassed in the operation, despite size, including leases.
If you get rid of the abuse it will generate more than just cutting people off based on size.
Last edited:
Travlr
Well-known member
It never fails to amaze me that the human inclination is to build on the best soil... and then as development makes the bottomland scarce we put higher prices on the hillsides and call it "view lots."
Travlr
Well-known member
And it would be nice if they reviewed ideas regulating and affecting rural residents, WITH rural residents, before implementing their ideas.
US beef productions saving grace has been the quality of the beef we produce. Other countries can produce more volume, cheaper.
Guess what all the major seed stock producers are doing? Shipping our genetics all over the world and teaching our techniques to them.
How is that going to pan out in 5, 10, 15 years when south America has the beef volume and quality of the US? Good luck competing against that.
Guess what all the major seed stock producers are doing? Shipping our genetics all over the world and teaching our techniques to them.
How is that going to pan out in 5, 10, 15 years when south America has the beef volume and quality of the US? Good luck competing against that.
Travlr
Well-known member
I've got a question... I've had several crossbred Brahman but never butchered one for personal use. Never seen a purebred Brahman carcass. And from my understanding pretty much all South American cattle are not European breeds, or at least not pure European. Are Indicus cattle as high quality on the rail?
So how does that affect your thoughts on what seed stock producers are doing? Are Indicus crossed cattle as high in quality? Will they ever be? Do purebred bos taurus have an advantage?
Rafter S
Well-known member
They're pretty particular about it in my county. They require a minimum of ten acres to qualify, though in some cases you can get an exemption for smaller tracts (such as if you have eight or so acres adjoining another similar or larger tract belonging to a family member and they aren't fenced separately).
I believe the minimum acreage varies between counties in Texas but I'm not sure about that.
That reminds me of something I heard one of our locals say a few years ago. "All these people move to Grimes county because of the low tax rate, and then they want curbs and gutters and street lights in front of their house."
greybeard
Well-known member
There is no rule or stipulation stating that the production of anything has to be directly involved with FOOD production.
Breeding stock for roping horses is plainly spelled out as an exception to the pleasure horse rule, as the horses are used in the herding and working of cattle.
From Pg 8 of the Texas Comptroller's Manual for the Appraisal of Agricultural land:
Horses In 1993, the Texas Supreme Court essentially set out in Tarrant Appraisal Dist. v. Moore, 845 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. 1993), the test to determine whether land used principally for horses qualifies for agricultural appraisal. Land used primarily for "raising, breeding, and/or grazing horses" and other activities that are for "farm or ranch purposes" are agricultural uses. In particular, "growing grass on land for the purpose of feeding animals, including horses, is an agricultural use." As with the review of all 1-d-1 applications, the intensity of use issue also is required to be evaluated before granting special appraisal. The principal use of the land must be agricultural—for "farm or ranch purposes"—not recreational ones. "
Rodeo stock is kinda iffy. Left up to the county chief appraiser.
greybeard
Well-known member
Oh yes. I made a concentrated effort in 2020 to catalog all Texas county ag regs from Beaumont up to Texarkana East of I-45 and the differences were quite large.
East Texas ag requirements for grazing
This is what it is. Every entry is accurate only to the extent that the individual county's website was or if website didn't include the requirements for 1d1, then it depends how informed the Central Appraisal District's person on the other end of the phone line was. If you are fairly sure your...
www.cattletoday.com
I don't have those answers. I've eaten some kind of Brahman X my whole life but it was ground beef to raise kids on, not really graded steaks.
From what I am seeing the American Brahman breeders are moving toward beef quality like every one else. They have feed programs, they scan animals, etc like every other breed. From what I see and hear, most the publications you see on Brahman cattle are not up to date and will become more and more out of date as each year passes.
Some thing to always remember, you can get most animals to grade with enough corn. It's not about will they grade... it's the cost to get them there. There is a big misconception that certain breeds will never grade. My understanding is that is not the case, they just require more to get there.
I would bet Brahman type cattle are feeding more people in the world than Angus.
The county I live in has a size of just over 677,000 acres and a population of less than 12,000. We don't have a Wal mart or anything bigger than a few Dollar Generals. The only chain restraunts I can think of are a McDonalds, Dairy Queen, and a Sonic, all 3 are 30 plus years old. The surrounding counties have gotten all the growth. Myself and the majority of the people would just as soon it stay this way. In the last several years we've gotten an influx of people from all over buying up 1-10 acre lots and building everything from big houses to what looks like a lawn mower shed for a house. Most of these folks have a few goats and chickens with maybe a donkey or two thrown in. I don't see the county officials pushing for growth but it's bound to happen sooner or later. The main State Hwy through the county is scheduled to go from a 2 lane to a four this year and I figure that's when the real growth will start. We don't have a sizeable lake either which has got to be a killer for any industry moving in.
