Foxhunting around Charlottesville

Horses

Foxhunting in Charlottesville, VirginiaThe tradition of foxhunting has been around in this country since the middle of the 17th century, with such distinguished practitioners as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington keeping packs of foxhounds before and after the Revolutionary War. The tradition has continued down through the years here in Central Virginia, led by a number of very active area hunt clubs.

Located in Albemarle County, a mere six miles outside of the city of Charlottesville, Keswick has a great foxhunting infrastructure and a lot of room to hunt on horseback. The Keswick Hunt Club is close to nearby Albemarle County horse farms Belcourt and Bridlespur and across the street from Keswick Hall. The Keswick Hunt Club works to promote and encourage foxhunting in the community by leading organized hunts from November through March, and it has been since it was founded, back in 1889. The Club, like most, breeds and raises its own pack of foxhounds, which can be seen going on regular walks with the Hunt Master (more so as hunting season approaches). It also engages with the community through charitable actions.

The Farmington Hunt Club is close to Free Union in the northwestern part of Albemarle County. The club and its kennels have been around since 1929; before this, they were the Albemarle Hunt Club. The Albemarle Hunt Club disbanded during the First World War, but area interest in fox hunting continued and members old and new started up FHC. The location, with its picturesque Blue Ridge backdrop and rolling, varied terrain is a very ideal setting. Imagine galloping through the fields flanked by a pack of hounds, breathing in crisp mountain air. The Club used to gather for private events at the Farmington Country Club (they built a show ring there in the 30s), and after moving through a few locations on Garth Road, they settled on their current location. Like most other hunt clubs, many of their events are private, but they do have a fall horse show on October 24 of this year, at Barracks. Their Field Hunter Championships are the week of October 5th.

Out between the cities of Charlottesville and Lynchburg, in Nelson County is the Oak Ridge Hunt Club, whose existence dates back to 1887 (in Lynchburg). It’s been back up and running since 1993, although many informal hunts and gatherings had occurred in between periods of perceived inactivity. The club’s current membership is around 75, half of whom are regular hunters. The expansive territory spans Nelson and Buckingham Counties and is very diverse, with everything from rolling fields to deep ravines to river branches and little feeder creeks, a result of the James River which runs through the middle of the landscape. The Oak Ridge Estate is a sprawling 5000 acres, which is optimal for more than just foxhunting; steeplechases, harness racing and some big game hunting are all well-suited to this land. Hunt events are also held at Cherry Hill Farm.

Further north of Charlottesville is the Bull Run Hunt Club, located across the counties of Culpeper, Madison, Orange, and Spotsylvania. This club also offers truly varied terrain, with both rolling countryside and mountain routes. It was established in 1911 and formally recognized by the Masters of Fox Hunting Association in 1954. The Theodora A. Randolph Field Hunter Championship is held at the Glenwood Park Race Course in Middleburg, VA. Judges design a hunter course for the finalists that tests a horse’s disposition and hunting instincts.

As you can see, central Virginia’s expansive, pastoral landscape makes it a great place for the distinguished hobby of foxhunting. The Blue Ridge, with its rolling hills and idyllic mountainous vistas is a great setting for this sport, and there are various pockets of foxhunters with which to engage in the area. However, many of these clubs restrict events to members or guests of members. But if you’re new to the area and looking for a good club to join, check out some of the links above and get in contact!

Cattle Markets

Cattle

Virginia Cattle FarmsA confluence of factors makes this a very good time to be cow/calf operator. According to a July 24 cattle inventory report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, all cattle and calves in the U.S. totaled 98.4 million head as of July 1. This is 2% above the 96.3 million head reported July 1, 2014. Although there is a slight increase in the number of cattle, the U.S. is still experience a severe shortage in its supply of cattle. Livestock numbers have been dropping steadily throughout the last decade, and 2014 is the year with the lowest number of cattle on record in some 60-odd years, since Harry Truman was president.

In accordance with the laws of supply and demand, the paucity of cattle in the country has driven cattle prices up. The latest information from the NASDAQ has the price per head of feeder cattle at $210. The all-time high was around $235 during the fourth quarter of 2014, but prices were as low as $170 at the start of 2014 and rose steadily, resulting in unprecedented highs for feeder cattle that are just starting to taper off. If you’re a person sitting on some feeder cattle, it’s anyone’s guess whether or not prices for your product will stay high, but it looks like the market is showing some signs of recovery from a supply perspective.

There may be a shortage of cattle in the country, but there is no shortage of good news for cow/calf operators. Improved precipitation in the Plains States has yielded a good, cheap supply of forage, providing cattle farmers with more nourishment for their herds at ever-cheaper costs. This—rather than the actual population of cattle—may be responsible for the more recent tapering off of feeder cattle prices in recent months. At the time of writing we didn’t have access to very recent prices of forage. However we can tell you that the price of corn (which is the primary source of nutrition for feeder cows after a certain age) has gone down from $7.00/bushel in 2013 to around $3.50/bushel this year. Forage and sustenance for cattle is cheaper and more available than it has been in a while and this, coupled with the recent scarcity of cattle means that cow/calf operators are holding on to more cattle than in recent years. They can afford to feed the cattle more and more, resulting in higher weights (and therefore more money per cow than before). The scarcity also means that more heifers are being retained than would ordinarily; this causes a temporary dip in the supply of cattle with the hope that it’ll yield more cattle in coming generations. Improved pasture prospects means that cattle producers aren’t culling as many cows as they would ordinarily during this time of year; more will be going to slaughter in the fall. It’s feasible that because people are feeding cattle to heavier weights, the decrease in slaughter numbers this year will be offset by an increase in the total amount of beef, considering cows on average will weigh more.

Feedlot operators are struggling, because feeder cattle prices are higher than ever while fed cattle prices are declining. They have more of an incentive to hold out for better prices, just feeding the supply that they currently have and waiting for feeder cattle prices to drop (which evidently they are). This strategy has worked in the past, and as we mentioned earlier, forage is cheap and plentiful right now.

A reduction in cow slaughter means that the demand for importing processed beef has risen. Australia, one of the biggest exporters of beef to the U.S. has experienced severe drought in many major production centers, resulting in the exportation of beef which can’t be sustained within its borders. In the first quarter alone, the U.S. imported 412.3 million lbs. of beef from Australia. Beef imports from Canada, Mexico, and Brazil are also higher than they were this time last year. The USDA predicts the U.S. will import 3.3 billion lbs. of beef by the end of the year. For 2016 however, these numbers are expected to drop as domestic supply of beef rises and Australia begins feeling the longer-term effects of the drought on the cattle industry.

Farms and Energy Use

Farm Statistics

A report from the United States Department of Agriculture states that farms of all sizes spend more on indirect energy inputs like fertilizer and pesticides than on direct energy inputs such as fuel and electricity. Data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey shows that 17.1% of operator expenses are put toward indirect energy, compared to the 8.5% for indirect energy.

Small farms have the highest share of direct energy expenditures, medium farms have the highest share of indirect energy expenditures, and large farms spend less overall on energy. Larger farms spend more overall money on both of course, but they have lower shares of their total resources devoted to energy presumably because they require fairly high labor costs to run and maintain. As you can tell by the figure above, fertilizer tends to be the form of energy input that farms spend the most on. In the U.S., farmers usually use inorganic fertilizer. It provides macronutrients to the soil in the form of compounds. Far and away the most common macronutrients are nitrogen (N¬), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K). Multinutrient fertilizers that have two or more nutrient compounds are generally the most common. Usually you get NP or NPK fertilizers (nitrogen and phosphorous or nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium respectively). Making nitrogen fertilizer is pretty energy-intensive. It involves a method called the Haber-Bosch process that uses a lot of natural gas, converting atmospheric nitrogen (N2) to ammonia (NH3) through a hydrogen reaction.

Clean Power Plan

As recently as August 3 of this year, president Barack Obama unveiled the final version of the Clean Power Plan. The plan, ambitious in its scope, aims to cut CO2 emissions by almost a third by the year 2030. He put the effect of the reduction in quantifiable terms by saying the projected reduction of carbon emissions would be similar to taking 166 million cars off the road. Every state will be tasked with a certain standard for emission-reduction, and they’ll all need to submit plans with ideas as to how to meet them. States can reduce emissions through any means, and must submit proposals to the federal government by 2015, lest the EPA devise one for them. The plan is aimed specifically at coal-burning power plants. It’s the latest attempt by the federal government to try and shift the country’s emphasis from coal to alternative forms of energy such as solar and wind power, as well as natural gas. Predictably there are many opponents to this bill in the energy industry, especially in places like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Wyoming where the coal industry is a vital part of economic configuration. Needless to say, it wouldn’t be a surprise if some of these states refused to comply with the EPA’s request for carbon-reduction proposals. Some might say that a federal mandate will be more effective at reducing U.S. reliance on coal. Certainly if you’re a legislator at any level in one of the aforementioned coal-heavy states, chances are a large part of your constituency is employed or in some way related to the coal mining industry. It’s such an entrenched part of life in certain areas that even if you wanted to begin addressing it, you’d have to think about the short-term effects it would have on your political career and chances of reelection. But what does this mean for you if you own rural land in the Greater Charlottesville area?

Effects of climate change and the Clean Power Plan on the agricultural sector

The Clean Power Plan will probably increase energy expenditures, both direct and indirect. The price of commercial electricity tends to increase rather modestly. On U.S. farms, the rate of electricity use remains fairly consistent. If you own farmland in central Virginia you probably already know this, but a lot of the power bill goes to the heating and cooling costs inherent in livestock production. There’s also the use of irrigation systems and sometimes other procedures involving water pumping. Then you’ve got security, which often comes in the form of an electric fence. Then in some cases you have to think about refrigeration and feeders/sprays. For livestock, poultry has the highest share of electricity spending while hogs have the highest average. For crops, cotton and rice farmers tend to have the highest share of electric spending.

An increasing amount of United States electricity comes from natural gas. It’s certainly used more than it was a few years ago and that usage is projected to increase. In 2004, coal was responsible for generating 50% of the country’s electric power, with natural gas at 18%. As of 2013, coal is down to 39% and natural gas is up to 27%. With measures like the Clean Power Plan and a general growing awareness of climate change and its adverse affects, natural gas is sure to play a bigger role. If you’re looking at it from an agricultural lens, consider that the use of natural gas makes up about 80% of fertilizer production costs, especially when we’re talking about nitrogen fertilizers. It’s worth noting that 50% of the United States supply of nitrogen fertilizer was imported in 2011, most of it from Canada and Trinidad and Tobago. Still, if you consider the ripple effect that the Clean Party Plan is expected to have, the costs of natural gas may go up in a considerable amount of places. Some good news for those of you reading this on your Madison County farms is that the Southern Seaboard has a relatively low share of fertilizer expenditures (though we do spend the most on electricity). Plants who use natural gas to generate electricity will in the coming years have to ramp up their supply considerably in order to meet EPA standards. This means the price of natural gas will rise. The EPA definitely projects that the Clean Power Plan will increase commercial energy prices.

So what does this mean for you and your farmland in the Greater Charlottesville area? American farmers are notoriously good at adapting to outside conditions, be they economic or otherwise. Many farmers will probably respond to this either by taking on more energy-efficient practices or scaling back production. Admittedly, climate change takes its toll on agriculture. Climate disruptions to agriculture have increased in the past 40 years. Heat stress in livestock can increase susceptibility to diseases, reduce or impair fertility, and decrease milk production. Temperature changes may also increase the prevalence of parasites and diseases that affect your livestock. An earlier onset of spring could allow some pathogens to live longer. In rainfall-heavy places, moisture-reliant pathogens could start to thrive. There are also obvious considerations when it comes to heat and food storage and transportation.

Fortunately, the agricultural industry is resilient and malleable, and farmers aren’t shying away from alternative energy measures. Consider that the number of on-farm operations intended to produce on-farm renewable energy doubled between 2008 and 2011…guess the times they are-a-changin’. Farmers are looking towards sources of alternative energy that they can rely on themselves to produce: resources like solar panels, wind turbines, and methane digesters. There are also different farming techniques that could save money/energy in the long run. For example, precision agriculture. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, if GPS were used on just 10% of planted acres, it would save 16 million gallons of fuel through increased efficiency. Auto-steering (equipment guiding), field mapping…these are worthwhile endeavors.

Solar power—in the form of photovoltaic cells—is another viable alternative to coal and natural gas. Especially considering that the use of energy on farms is typically motor-generated, this could and already has been a benefit to farmers. You can use it to power water-pumping systems for both irrigation and livestock. It could power those systems whether they were above or below ground. Especially in places with no power lines, it’s a definite way to generate and use electricity and it also happens to be environmentally stable.