Citation
Environmentally protective agricultural practices

Material Information

Title:
Environmentally protective agricultural practices a spatial analysis of the cattle and calf industry of Florida
Creator:
Clare, Darryl Keith, 1951-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 157 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Agricultural land ( jstor )
Agricultural land use ( jstor )
Agriculture ( jstor )
Cattle ( jstor )
Counties ( jstor )
Farms ( jstor )
Land use ( jstor )
Pastures ( jstor )
Ranches ( jstor )
Ranching ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Geography -- UF
Geography thesis, Ph. D
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1996.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 128-137).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Darryl Keith Clare.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023797287 ( ALEPH )
35771596 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES:
A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CATTLE AND CALF INDUSTRY OF
FLORIDA
















By

DARRYL KEITH CLARE

















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1996


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIPFnlmES





























Copyright 1996

by

DARRYL KEITH CLARE






















ii














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


My graduate education began with meeting Dean Roderick

McDavis. He saw something in me that took a few years to

evolve. Dean McDavis, has helped and directed me in ways I

have yet to ascertain. This doctoral portion of my educational

process would not have been possible without the support,

knowledge, guidance, honesty, and regard of Dr. Caviedes, my

committee chair. The academicians that follow, not at all fall

into a subordinate standing. They are the components that

brought me to this point in my educational voyage; Dr. H.T.

Odum for introducing me to a systems approach, an important

tool used to explain complex interactions, Dr. Joann Mossa has

shown that hard work is the way to excellence and at the very

same time, life can be "normal", Dr. Timothy Fik for sharing

his enthusiasm for knowledge, Dr. Marilyn "Micki" Swisher for

demonstrating that the path to success is navigated by

reaching for what seems to be impossible, Dr. Weismantel for

being an essence of encouragement applied at the right time to

succeed in this process.














TABLE OF CONTENTS





ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.............................. .... ....... iii

LIST OF TABLES........................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ .... ix

ABSTRACT.................................................... x

CHAPTER 1 LOCATION OF THE COW/CALF INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA'S
AGRICULTURE ............................................ 1
Introduction ......................................... 1
Intent and Objectives ................................ 6
Objective 1 ........................................ 6
Objective 2 ........................................ 6
Objective 3 ........................................ 6
Objective 4 ........................................ 7

CHAPTER 2 FLORIDA CATTLE RANCHING AND ENVIRONMENTALLY
PROTECTIVE PRACTICES: A LITERATURE REVIEW .............. 8
The Accepted Government Definition of
Sustainability ................................... 13
Adoption of Environmentally Protective
Agricultural Practices ............................ 15
Land for Urban Use Versus Land for
Agricultural Use .................................. 19

CHAPTER 3 THE BASIS OF FLORIDA AGRICULTURE AND THE
LOCATION OF THE COW-CALF INDUSTRY....................... 23
Population and Markets ............................... 31
Land Tenure Patterns ................................. 36
Land Uses in Florida ................................. 37
Urban Expansion and Shrinking of
Crop/Pasture Lands ................................. 41
Land Conversion ...................................... 47
Florida Grazing Lands ................................ 47
iv








The Place of Cattle Ranching in Florida .............. 48
Florida Cattle Ranching Development .................. 49
Effects of Agricultural Development and
Technological Change .............................. 52


CHAPTER 4 METHODS ........................................ 56
Population and Sample Selection ..................... 56
Survey Instrument ................................... 58
Survey Application ................... ................. 60
Population Distribution ............................ 61
Determination of the Sample Size ................ 62
Data Collection and Processing ...................... 64
Regional Analysis ................................... 65
Statistical Procedures Used ......................... 66
Methodology to Examine the Changes in
Agricultural Land Use ............................. 66
Methodology to Examine the
Rural Land to Urban Land Use Coefficients .......... 70
Change in Range Land Use .......................... 70
Herd-size Index ..................................... 71
The Location Quotient ............................... 72

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS ......................................... 74
Geographic Distribution of Samples .................. 74
Significance Testing ............................... 77
Survey Results ....................................... 78
Herd Size ......................................... 80
Demographic Profile of Ranchers .................... 82
Water and Nutrient Management and Concerns ......... 89
Management of Nutrients .......................... 91
Pasture Renovation and Protection of
Endangered Plant Species ......................... 96
Pesticide Management and Weed Control .............. 97
The Future of Florida Ranching .................... 100
Changes of Agricultural Land Use into
Urban Land Use .................................... 103
Results of the Pasture Land Use Analysis ......... 106
Herdsize Change Indices .......................... 109
Application of the Location Quotient to Pasture
Acreage ........................................ 113

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS .................................... 119

REFERENCES ................................................. 128

APPENDIX I THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT.......................... 138
v










APPENDIX II ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS ..................... 153

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...................................... 157















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3.1. Distribution of Vegetable Crops Throughout
the State of Florida .............................. 26
3.2. Water Use for Agricultural Purposes................ 32
3.3. Population of Florida:
Urban Versus Rural Populations.................... 35
3.4. Cash Receipts of Farm Income........................ 36
3.5. Florida Agricultural Land Use........................ 38
3.6. Acreage and Crops in 1990............................ 42
4.1. Kruskal-Wallis Test Results......................... 69
5.1. Cattle Operation Type by Region..................... 79
5.2. Herd Size by Region................................. 80
5.3. Ranch Acreage by Region............................. 81
5.4. Total Ranch Acreage in Southern and Northern
Regions of Florida ................................ 81
5.5. Rancher Mean Age and Age Range...................... 82
5.6. Educational Level by Region......................... 83
5.7. Number of Years in Ranching......................... 84
5.8. Gender of Ranch Operator by Region.................. 85
5.9. Trade Association Membership by Region.............. 85
5.10. Sources of Information Availabe to
Florida Ranchers ................................. 87
5.11. Soil Types Present on Ranches....................... 88
5.12. Pasture Type by Region.............................. 89
5.13. Drinking Water Sources by Region.................... 90
5.14. Ranch Water Source Metering......................... 90
5.15. Soil Testing by Region.............................. 91
5.16. Frequency with which Fertilizing
Records are Kept .................................. 93
5.17. Nitrogen Application Rates by Region................. 94
5.18. P205 Application Rates by Region .................... 95
5.19. K20 Application Rates by Region ................. 95
5.20. Use of Mechanical Procedures of
Pasture Renovation by Region...................... 96
5.21. Florida Ranchers Who Burn
Their Pastures by Region.......................... 97








5.22. Herbicide Application by Region..................... 98
5.23. Ranchers Who Apply Pesticides or Herbicides ........ 99
5.24. Pesticide Application and
Health Protection Usage ........................... 99
5.25. Overview of Florida Rancher
Concerns by Importance ........................... 100
5.26. Florida Rancher Concerns About Profitability....... 102
5.27. Importance of Factors to Ranchers by Region........ 103
5.28. Population Changes in MSA and Non-MSA Counties..... 105
5.29. The Urban Land Use Coefficients.................... 106
5.30. Pasture and Range Land Acreage by Region........... 107
5.31. Pasture and Range Land Coefficients by Region...... 108
5.32. Herdsize Change compared Using Proportional
Index ........................................... 111
5.33. Location Quotient of Four Selected Counties......... 113
5.34. The Location Quotients of Pasture
Land by County and Region ........................ 116


viii














LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3.1. Hardiness Zones.................................... 24
3.2. Mean Average Annual Precipitation.................. 28
3.3. Florida Transportation Routes in 1990.............. 34
3.4. Metropolitan Statistical Areas...................... 44
4.1. Counties Selected for the 1990
Cow/Calf Survey by Region........................ 57
5.1. Florida Cattle Location by Herdsize in 1987....... 110
5.2. Herdsize by County in 1990....................... 110
5.3. Location Quotient for State and
County Pasture Land in 1987..................... 115
5.4. Location Quotient for State and
County Pasture Land in 1990...................... 116














Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES:
A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CATTLE AND CALF INDUSTRY OF
FLORIDA

By

DARRYL KEITH CLARE

August, 1996

Chairperson: Dr. Cesar Caviedes
Major Department: Geography

The Florida livestock cow and calf producers are

reviewed in terms of its environmentally protective practices.

Utilizing a Florida cattle rancher survey conducted in 1993,

cattle ranching is perceived as an agricultural practice that

is capable of safeguarding Florida's natural environment and

face the future in a satisfactory manner.

Florida ranchers were asked how important political and

economic factors are to the future of Florida ranching. Their

responses revealed that Florida ranchers are well informed of

the external forces that affect their industry. Results

indicate that cattle ranchers in Florida believe they are








using many cow/calf production practices which are

environmentally benevolent. The data also indicate that they

are concerned about the potential impacts of environmental

issues and government regulation on both individual ranch

profitability and the future of ranching in the state.

Unfortunately, results also show that most ranchers are

probably not monitoring their ranch operations effectively to

prove that their operations are environmentally sound.

Nevertheless, fierce competition for land resources

exists throughout Florida and affects cattle ranching.

Urbanization is expanding the MSA areas in a manner that will

make it necessary to impose legislation to control land

consumption. Also other forms of agricultural exploitation are

encroaching on the land formerly utilized by cattle ranching.

Both herd size and surface covered with natural or improved

pastures are changing and this change is more dramatic in

southern counties than in northern counties.













CHAPTER 1

LOCATION OF THE COW/CALF INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA'S AGRICULTURE


Introduction



Cattle production in Florida is essentially a cow/calf

operation; its amplitude is indicated by the number of

breeding cows, often called brood cows (1,083,000 in 1990),

and the acreage of pasture (over 11 million acres in 1990

reported by The United States Department of Agriculture,

1990). The cow/calf operation produces calves to be sent to

finishing yards in the western part of the United States.

These calves are later sold to stock yards for butchering and

dressing. Florida provides the largest brood cow population in

the country while supplying a significant number of calves for

finishing.

Maintenance and management of range land in Florida are

vital for wildlife and water recharge. Because pastures and

other forages occupy so much land in Florida, this study will

look into the theoretical and practical association between

the cow/calf industry and patterns of land use in the state.

The study infers that Florida cattle ranchers use management

practices that incorporate an understanding of ecological

1








2
principles to protect the use of watersheds and wildlife

habitat and that, therefore, the Florida cattle industry is

conceptually a "sustainable" agricultural practice.'

This study will also examine how cattle ranchers use and

manage their land. Wise use and management of these lands can

go far toward meeting the goal of sustainable resource use.

Contributions to this body of knowledge are therefore

important both from a conceptual and from an applied

perspective.

The concept of sustainable agriculture requires a

thorough understanding of the food, fiber, and fuel production

processes, including their impact on and interactions with

natural ecosystems and their social implications. There is a

need for a comprehensive study of agricultural production

systems in the state, in general, and livestock production

systems specifically. This project explores the principles of

ecological management of livestock production systems and

other systems, such as natural forests and natural preserves,

to help determine the degree to which Florida ranchers

understand and use sustainable agricultural technology.

Some contend that any conversion of natural land to

pasture and range leads to ecosystem deterioration and loss of

biodiversity to a significant degree. They assume that high-


1 The terms sustainable and sustainability will adopt different
connotations in the course of this dissertation. The quantitatively
appropriate phrase, "environmentally protective" is mostly applicable.








3
intensity, confinement systems inevitably produce large scale

resource degradation. These systems, however, have

traditionally not applied to the Florida cattle industry.

Other authors hold the view that only traditional systems, in

which livestock, crop, and forage production are highly

integrated, can be considered sustainable (Swisher et al.,

1994; Maikhuri, 1992). To some, "sustainability" means a

change from present agricultural methods to the implementation

of completely organic, low input, low impact agriculture.

All the data concerned with the adoption of

environmentally protective agricultural practices comes from a

survey of cattle and calf producers conducted in Florida in

1993. The data assembled in the survey suggest that Florida

cattle ranching could be considered a sustainable agricultural

activity from a qualitative and conceptual perspective. The

data also demonstrate that ranchers are aware of the

environment and take responsibility for its conservation.

Three critical environmental concerns for Florida ranching are

nutrient management, pest management, and water conservation.

Data for all three areas of concern were collected.

Furthermore, economic forces dictate that both the biological

and economic productivity of farms and ranches must be

maintained and that environmental impacts must be minimized to

assure social compatibility (Lightfoot and Nobel, 1993).








4
The concern for environmental problems and the need for

wise resource management and land utilization created an

interest in developing sustainable agricultural production

systems from a conceptual viewpoint. The preoccupation with

maintaining farming systems that are environmentally sound has

gone so far that "sustainability" is one of the goals targeted

in the 1990 United States Farm Bill. The United States

Department of Agriculture expressed this concern and defined

the involvement of the federal government in sustainable

agriculture. However, it was the environmental movement that

forced the agricultural community and society in general to

look at the application of a viable "sustainable agricultural

methodology." The United States Department of Agriculture has

stated that an agricultural system that meets needed economic

and production levels and, simultaneously works in harmony

with the present existing ecosystems is a "sustainable

agricultural methodology."2

The term "sustainable agriculture" as it pertains to

Florida cattle ranching implies using ranching practices that


2 The definition of sustainablity used in this study comes from
the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act, Subtitle A
Title XVI. It is defined as follows:
Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal
production having a site specific application that will, over the long
term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental
quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural
economy depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable
resources and of farm/ranch resources and integrate, where
appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the
economic viability of farm/ranch operations; and enhance the quality
of life for farmers/ranch operation; and enhance the quality of life
for farmers and society as a whole.








5
will help meet the state's agricultural economic needs while

protecting delicate natural ecosystems and maintaining the

state's natural resource base (De Haven et al., 1991).

"Absolute sustainability" may never be achieved. However, it

is necessary that farmers, ranchers, and others seek and

utilize agricultural practices that approach acceptable levels

of sustainability (Swisher et al., 1995).

Too often, the impression is given that all livestock

production occurs in intensive confinement systems.

Insufficient studies have been conducted on the degree to

which ranchers who use pasture based systems, such as those

in Florida, are environmentally protective. Inconclusive

results, based on the characteristics of production systems

that are not typical of cattle production in Florida, have

unsupported conclusions about the negative effects of

Florida livestock systems. This study of Florida ranching

activities also incorporates a geographical perspective. A

location coefficient is used to explain the relationships

between land resources, cattle ranching, and population.

Some historical background is also necessary to place

"sustainability" in an accurate time framework that allows

the assessment of environmental change and provides a

starting point for the measurement of the transformation of

agricultural enterprises.









Intent and Objectives

This dissertation concentrates on four research

objectives:



Objective 1

The first objective is to present a demographic profile

of cattle ranchers and a picture of the basic characteristics

of cattle ranches and their operators, to understand their

role and place in Florida's agriculture.



Objective 2

The second objective is to describe changes in the

practices used in cattle ranching between 1983 and 1990.

This includes assessing the degree to which cattle ranchers

use practices that are environmentally protective. It is

assumed that major changes are occurring within this activity.



Objective 3

The third objective is to examine the opinions of cattle

ranchers and to determine the degree of connection of cattle

ranchers with the scientific community, to understand the

external forces that control cattle ranching as an economic

activity. Factors that affect the profitability of cow/calf

production such as taxes, regulations, and record keeping are

assessed. One goal is to characterize the perceptions of








7
cattle ranchers towards government and to reveal their

attitudes regarding the adoption of environmentally protective

agricultural practices.



Objective 4

The fourth objective focuses on the location of cow/calf

production in the state and the ways these enterprises relate

to other uses of land. Particularly important in this fourth

objective is the growing pressures placed on ranching land by

use for human habitation. Many areas of Florida are

experiencing rapid population expansion and agricultural

shifts. With the prospect of declining environmental amenities

and economic utility derived from the natural resource base,

Florida will have to make some very tough decisions in future

years. This dissertation presents a geographic framework of

this competition for land and discusses the rate of land use

conversion by using land use coefficients and location

quotients. Evidence suggests that differential land conversion

occurs as a result of growth in urban areas and in the areas

used for cattle ranching. If a pattern of land consumption is

established, future land conversion can be predicted, and

better judgments can be made about attempting to restrict land

use change.














CHAPTER 2

FLORIDA CATTLE RANCHING AND ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE
PRACTICES:
A LITERATURE REVIEW




Florida's population increased from 9,746,925

inhabitants to approximately 12,937,922 between 1987 and 1990.

During the same period, the value of Florida's agricultural

products also increased. Despite periodic freeze damage to

citrus and other crops (Weischet and Caviedes, 1987), the

value of cash receipts from all farm commodities produced in

Florida rose by 23 percent between 1984 and 1988 to over $5.8

billion (Jackson et al., 1995). During this period, cash

receipts of all agricultural products in the U.S. grew by only

6 percent. By 1988, Florida was eighth in the U.S. for cash

receipts of agricultural commodities. Both the area in

agricultural production and the area devoted to urban

development have grown. This growth has an economic and an

environmental price tag.

This chapter reviews the trends in cattle and calf

production in the state and describes the environmental

concerns associated with ranching. To the average American,








9
who is at least several generations off the farm, mental

recollection of a farm most often includes livestock.

Today this image is mostly a sentimental image because

farms have typically specialized into either crops or

livestock. For example, in Florida farm numbers have decreased

at a rate of nearly 140 farms per year since the early 1960s.

The number of farms with cattle declined by 260 farms in 1980,

nearly twice the 1960 rate (U.S. Department of Agriculture,

1993). The most significant change is that the farms remaining

are fewer, larger, and mostly crop-only operations. Economic

and social changes over the past century have greatly affected

the presence of livestock in agrosystems. Economies of scale

and the associated transportation costs were the foremost

reason for concentrating the livestock finishing industry in

the central region of the United States. Meat-packing plants

were built alongside the rail centers in Kansas City and

Chicago to ease access for the incoming cattle and the

outgoing carcasses. The livestock finishing industry is still

largely controlled by these strong economic influences. Feed

lots have dominated southwest Kansas and the southern High

Plains. The largest packing plants are now located near the

feed lots, to allow shipping of boxed beef rather than live

cattle. The economy of packing and delivering the highest

quality, most uniform, and cheapest meat products to consumers








10
has thus changed the distribution of livestock across the

country. Calves are raised in Florida and other regions of the

South and are then shipped to midwestern regions for

finishing.

Social factors have further separated livestock from the

other farm endeavors. With the arrival of larger tractors and

tools supporting the work demands of larger farms and fields,

mechanization of the entire farm has been an appealing notion

to the agriculturalist. Depending on the type of operation,

livestock require care throughout the year. Although cattle

has remained a part of the romantic image of western

agriculture, they no longer fit the mold of a contemporary

farm. There are also other social factors that have

discouraged meat consumption. Health concerns about animal

fats, animal rights concerns, and animal welfare issues,

whether perceived or real, have had a negative impact on the

livestock industry.

Although agroecosystems are possible without livestock,

domesticated animals have long been perceived as consumers in

the agroecosystem (Joandet and Cartwright, 1975). Ruminants

have the most potential to diversify and re-diversify the

agroecosystem because they use forage based rations. Livestock

production that is concentrated on the use of high quality

feed grains is not a Florida process. Yet, switching from








11
grain based to forage based rations has widespread

implications for both the livestock industry and the farm

(Wedin et al., 1975). Even the recent attention to organic

farming methods has aroused criticism in that it would require

too many head of cattle (Bender, 1988). The enhanced use of

livestock to enrich the perspective agroecosystem thus seems

confined by rigid economic and social constraints.

Consensus has developed in support of the use of modern

technologies to raise productivity on farms. However, the

newly introduced technologies should not degrade the natural

resource underpinnings. These technologies should offer

benefits to all segments of society now and into the future

(Brklacich et al., 1991; O'Connell, 1991; Trenbath et al.,

1990; Douglass, 1984; Fox, 1991; Miller, 1992; Carter, 1992).

Perhaps the considerable interest in environmentally

protective systems is due to the fact that the United States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) has sponsored research on low

input sustainable agriculture (LISA). Farmers and researchers

are interested in responding to an observed desire of

consumers for healthier food and more environmentally sound

production practices. Being sensitive to market demands is

just good business sense. The research establishment that

supports lower input technologies, marketable alternative








12
crops, and processes has added sustainable agriculture to its

research agenda.

Whatever reasoning is behind the appeal of sustainable

agriculture, one can not help but foresee a profound

revolution about to overtake American agriculture. The basis

for assuming that some of our present livestock production and

resource management practices are not at all sustainable will

be examined further. However, the extent of any assumed

"revolution" in agriculture will depend on what one clearly

understands by "sustainability."

Economic, social, political, and ideological influences

continuously constrain or divert people and institutions from

acting on what are fitting obligations. Gordon Douglass (1984)

has discerned three different uses of the term "sustainable

agriculture" in recent literature:

1) as a long-term food sufficiency, either domestic or

worldwide;

2) as an agricultural system that preserves and

conserves renewable and nonrenewable resources; or

3) as a set of agricultural procedures that encourage

certain values and strengthen the vitality of local

communities.








13
With these connotations in mind, the evolution of an

ecological consciousness that we call "sustainability" is

outlined further below.



The Accepted Government Definition of Sustainability

The 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act

provides a working definition of "sustainable agriculture" as

mentioned earlier. It is clear that the United States

government assumption is that sustainable production systems

are integrated systems that are site-specific and that will

satisfy human food and fiber needs over the long term.

The 1990 United States Farm Bill goes on to say that

these systems should enhance the quality of the natural

resource base. They should make the most efficient use of both

nonrenewable and on-farm resources and should sustain the

economic viability of the farm or ranch while enhancing the

quality of life for both farmers and society as a whole.

In Florida, studies that evaluate agriculture's adoption

of sustainable practices have been performed. Studies

conducted in 1982 by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service

concerning beef forage practices and the 1986 Florida

Cooperative Extension Service research focusing on beef-forage

practices in South Central Florida address some environmental

issues involved in cattle and calf production (Swisher, 1993).








14
Most importantly, these surveys provide information about

ranchers' fertilization practices, suggesting that ranchers

use low nitrogen and phosphorus application rates, reducing

their potential for nutrient discharge into surface and ground

water supplies. These studies, however, do not address water

or crop pest management practices among Florida ranchers.

University of Florida researchers conducted a study of

management practices, particularly water and nutrient

management practices, among fern producers a subset of the

ornamental industry, (Swisher,1993).l

In 1992 the University of Florida completed a study

centering on the Suwannee River Basin, and particularly on

dairy farmers' attitudes towards water quality (Taylor, 1992).

Some argue that the generalized concept of "sustainability"

also involves social equity issues such as accessibility of

technology and information. This has been the case for the

small or resource-poor farmers (Conway, 1987; Lele, 1991;

Smith, 1980; Swisher, 1993). Also stated is the need to manage



SThis researcher goes on to identify other research projects:

A 1988 study by Ridgley (1992) addresses growers adoption of
integrated pest management practices for soybean production. The
results of this study provide detailed information about pest
management practices among soybean growers. However, soybean
acreage is small in Florida and this study does not provide
insights in to nutrient or water management. A very detailed
study of citrus production practices was conducted in 1989
(Taylor, 1992). This study provides a wealth of information and
addresses water, nutrient, and pest management practices. Also
of interest is a study of integrated pest management practices
among organic vegetable producers (Swisher, and Monaghan, 1995).








15
resources wisely to assure equity and provide future

generations with better options (Howarth and Norgaard, 1990).



Adoption of Environmentally Protective

Agricultural Practices

The question of the social consequences of technological

change -- for example, who wins and who loses -- has haunted

much of the academic and political debate over science and

technology. A generally optimistic attitude towards

technological change prevailed during the fifties and sixties.

This optimism was based on the linear diffusionist model of

science and on the belief that the diffusion of science and

technology into a social system would invariably produce

progress. Post-classical diffusion formulations in the

eighties shifted substantial focus from adoption to the

diffusion interests of propagators in order to explain uneven

effects and consequences of technological change. Given the

reduced degree of political support for the linear

diffusionist model that science had enjoyed, technological

innovations have remained relatively slow in adoption.

Many authors, this researcher included, argue that

sociological attributes, such as age, gender, and educational

level (Lockeretz, 1991), including social status, membership

in organizations, and contact with extension and other








16
institutions serve best to predict adoption behavior. Even the

influence of such physical skills as mechanical dexterity on

adoption behavior has been hypothesized (Reynolds and Dillman,

1991). Some researchers emphasize the influence of commitment

to sustainable techniques on adoption behavior (Buttler et

al., 1991, Lynne et al, 1988; Nassauer and Westmacott, 1986).

There are five groups (farmers and other potential

adopters of new technologies) that are distinguished by their

abilities to accept "new" techniques. The groups are:

innovators, early adopters, adopters, late adopters and

laggards (Swisher, 1993). These groups are described primarily

based on their individual characteristics. Innovators, for

example, are typically characterized as younger, with higher

educational levels, and having more intensive and more

frequent contact with sources of information in both the

public and private sector.

None of these constructs considers the importance of

regulations, scarcity of inputs, and farmer awareness of

public opinion in farm decision-making, therefore creating an

incomplete representation of the situation. Although some

attention is now paid to exogenous factors (Green, 1986),

traditional models of predicting utilization of sustainable

agricultural technology continue to frequently assume that

farmers freely choose to adopt or reject a particular practice








17
or technology. Yet, the farmers' decision-making power is

increasingly constrained by exogenous factors. Regulatory

agencies, such as the Water Management Districts in Florida,

may, for example, dictate that farmers reduce input use.

Farmers fear the legal consequences of surface and groundwater

contamination from nutrient application. Yet, studies on the

role of ranchers' perception of regulation and public opinion

are absent from the literature.

The degree to which livestock production systems,

particularly cattle production systems, are sustainable or can

be made sustainable has been controversial. Several arguments

are offered that basically assume that modern livestock

production systems are, by their nature, inherently not

sustainable over the medium to long term (Swisher, 1993).

Expansion of ranching and the accompanying conversion of

natural ecosystems to pasture and other forage lands, has been

blamed for extensive environmental degradation and loss of

biodiversity. Menke and Bradford (1992) indicate that nearly

50 percent of the earth's land area is in rangeland. Nations

and Nigh (1978) were some of the earliest and most vocal

critics of the role of ranching in tropical ecosystem

destruction. They and others (Gradwohl and Greenberg, 1988;

Buschbacher, 1986) have argued that ranching is a leading

cause of forest destruction because it requires small








18
investment in capital and labor and has been subsidized by tax

incentives in many states (Abt et al., 1990). While some argue

that more intensive management of rangelands would reduce

these kinds of destruction, Menke and Bradford (1992: 141)

point out that "the greatest aspects on biodiversity usually

occur on sites with the highest productivity." Intensive

livestock production systems, based on confinement, obviously

reduce the amount of destruction of habitat that non-

intensive, open range systems incur. Other critics, however,

argue that these systems have many undesirable impacts.

Extensive research in Florida and elsewhere has been

conducted to prevent nutrient movement into ground and surface

water supplies (Sutton et al., 1993; VanHorn et al., 1991;

Gallaher et al., 1994). Although high capacity confinement

systems obviously offer the greatest potential for liberating

excess nutrients into water supplies, even livestock grazing

systems are under scrutiny by EPA, primarily where access to

sensitive places such as stream banks, wetlands, estuaries,

ponds, lake shores and riparian zones by livestock can result

in excess nutrient loading of water resources. These

facilities are not part of the Florida livestock operation.

Another argument against modern livestock production systems

focuses on their role in society as a whole (Conway, 1987;

Edwards, 1987; Youngberg, 1984). For example, livestock








19
production is criticized by some for using food grains that

could be used to feed people.

Environmentally protective2 practices in livestock

production, particularly cattle ranching, are clearly

important to the general sustainability of agricultural

production in Florida. Both the extent of land use for beef

production and the economic importance of this activity

justify examining how well Florida's ranches meet the criteria

for sustainability. The next section deals with land use,

another component of sustainable agriculture which is

frequently overlooked when evaluating the farmer's efforts to

sustain agricultural activities. How is land use changing from

intensive agricultural to urban uses? How are these changes

measured and what is the cost associated with these changes?



Land for Urban Use Versus Land for Agricultural Use

Human settlement greatly affects the demand for

agriculturally productive land. If recent migrants were only

involved in agricultural activities, the land resources would

be consumed in crop and/or livestock production activities.

However, this is not the case in Florida. Land in Florida is



SThis dissertation assumes a thesis that defends the use of
environmentally protective practices because the theory of
sustainability has economic aspects, cultural implications and personal
preferences that are not quantitative, and therefore are qualitative in
measurement.








20
proportionately involved in urbanization and agricultural

production and as a result quotients and coefficient measures

are employed to examine settlement patterns.

Florida has been experiencing dramatic economic and

demographic change in this century. The average land/resident

ratio is greater than in other parts of the country (Florida

Statistical Abstract, 1991). Population and industrial growth

have also had more subtle impact on Florida land. In many

areas, rural land has increasingly gone into the hands of

nonresident, often urban, owners (Bureau of Economic and

Business Research, 1989). The latter, who may have inherited

the property or purchased it for recreation or as an

investment, are often unwilling or unable to manage the land

to its fullest potential. The management behavior of non-

industrial private forest owners, for example, has frequently

been identified as one of the greatest uncertainties for long-

term forest management in Florida. The ownership problem is

compounded by widespread division of land into smaller parcels

(which created dis-economies of scale for almost any

productive use) and by the interspersion of urban and rural

land uses, to the detriment of both (Reynolds and Dollman,

1991).

Shifts in land use in Florida have produced significant

environmental changes as well. Clearing bottom land hardwood








21
forests and groves to make way for truck crops has all but

eliminated vast areas of wildlife habitat in several southern

river systems (U.S. Forestry Service, 1980). Of the 2.4

million acres of forested wetlands originally located in the

wetlands, nearly all cleared land has become cropland.

Expansion of pasture onto forest is generally accompanied by

an increase in soil erosion (Pritchard, 1966). Erosion not

only threatens future soil productivity but contributes to

water pollution and to silt buildup in watercourses and

reservoirs. Competition for Florida land has also led to

competition for Florida water (Southeast Water Resources,

1979). Average rainfall is relatively high in Florida compared

to the West and parts of the Midwest. Yet the seasonal

distribution of rainfall in the state in not optimal for crop

production, and Florida farmers have learned that they can

increase yields by irrigating. Intensified use of water in

Florida has, thus far, had two side effects.

First, in several local areas pumping of groundwater by

agricultural irrigators, but mostly by urban users, has

lowered the water pressure within underground aquifers

especially in the southeastern part of the state. This has

resulted in the drying of wells, in some local areas, and has

allowed saltwater to infiltrate into well fields,

contaminating the water supply in a number of communities.








22
Second, there is growing interest in the ownership of water

rights. In Florida, where historically there has been ample

water for all, water users are becoming aware that they must

establish some controls on water if they are to protect

themselves from future shortages. The competition for

settlement land use with other uses will be decided in part by

the automatic operation of land and product markets. All of

these factors are likely to continue to exert their influences

in the years to come. It has been argued that the current

lavish use of land in Florida for settlement activities

(urbanization) is a consequence of the fact that the urban

value of land is high relative to its value in other uses. But

if urban and other residential uses of land begin to reduce

significantly the agricultural land base, prices of crops and

timber will rise. With higher product prices, agricultural and

forestry users of land will be able to pay more to rent or buy

land.














CHAPTER 3

THE BASIS OF FLORIDA AGRICULTURE AND THE LOCATION OF THE

COW-CALF INDUSTRY





The agriculture of the state has developed successfully

in the face of many unfavorable factors (United States

Department of Agriculture, 1990). Under good management, a

large volume of crop and livestock production is achieved.

Much of Florida has a subtropical climate with warm

humid summers and receives and average of 60 to 70 percent of

the maximum sunshine. Nonetheless, while it is particularly

advantageous to the production of citrus fruits and winter

vegetables, it also increases the hazards of plant diseases

and insects. Variations of temperature within the state are

distinct and are important to agriculture. In terms of average

planting dates the state is divided into seven zones. The map

of what is called "hardiness zones" (Figure 3.1) divides the

state into seven temperature regions of mean annual minimum

temperature zones revealing that much of the Southeast United

States and, including, Florida is cooler in the winter than

previously reported.






















Hardiness Zone Map
Zone 8a 10 to 15 degrees
Zone 8b 15 to 20 degrees
Zone 9a 20 to 25 degrees
Zone 9b 25 to 30 degrees 9b
Zone 10a 30 to 35 degrees l10b
Zone 10b 35 to 40 degrees
Zone 11 above 40 degrees 10a



11'



Figure 3.1 Hardiness zones. Source: The United States
Weather Bureau, 1990.


The growing season tends to shorten as one goes inland

from the coast toward the middle of the state. Cold waves are

of short duration, rarely lasting more than three days. Though

temperatures of 15 degrees to 20 degrees may be reached in the

extreme north of the state, temperatures of 32 degrees or

higher prevail in the southern part of the state. Half the

land area of the state has a growing season that ranges from








25
240 to 310 days. The rest, excluding only the Lower Keys, has

a growing season that ranges from 310 to 365 days.

Temperatures are especially important because their

differences are reflected in the distribution of citrus and

vegetable production (Table 3.1). Winter vegetables tend to be

concentrated in southern Florida, whereas spring and fall

vegetables are found in central and northern Florida. The

major citrus producing areas are located south of the line

that marks a normal annual temperature of 70 degrees (Jackson

et al, 1995). Winter minimum temperatures offer a pattern that

will assist in identifying the subtle variations in

temperature throughout the state of Florida (Waylen, Chen and

Gerber, 1986). The daily minimum temperature is the lowest

temperature recorded for each day, it usually occurs at night

or very early in the morning. This measure is important due to

the fact that very low temperatures over a long period (a few

hours in the case of citrus farming) are a danger to crops and

plants by creating frost conditions. Frost is defined as the

condition when the temperature reaches 32 degrees Fahrenheit

or less. The monthly minimum temperature is an average of the

daily minimum temperatures of each month. January is usually

the coldest month of the year where most absolute minimum

temperatures occur.












Table 3.1 Distribution of vegetable crops throughout the
State of Florida (Modified from Marcus and Fernald,
1975).



1. West
Escambia County: potatoes | Holmes, Jackson,
Washington Counties: butter beans, field peas,
watermelons I Gadsen County: pole beans, squash,
sweet corn, tomatoes.
2. North
Stake, Brooker, Lake Butler: lima beans, snap peas,
cucumbers, peppers, squash, strawberries. Hastings:
cabbage, potatoes I Gainesville: Alachua area: bush
beans, cucumbers, peppers, potatoes, squash.
3. North Central
Oxford, Pedro: tomatoes, watermelons I Sanford,
Oviedo, Zellwood: cabbage, carrots, celery, sweet
corn, cucumbers, escarole, greens, lettuce, peppers,
radishes, spinach.
4. West Central
Plant City, Balms: bush and pole peas, lima beans,
cucumbers, eggplants, field peas, greens, squash,
strawberries, cabbage, watermelon I Palmetto, Ruskin:
cauliflower, squash, strawberries, cabbage,
watermelon I Sarasota: cabbage, celery, sweet corn,
escarole, lettuce, radishes.
5. East Central
Fort Pierce: tomatoes, watermelon.
6. South West
Fort Meyers, Immokalee: sweet corn, cucumbers,
eggplant, peppers, potatoes, squash, tomatoes,
watermelons.
7. Everglades
bush beans, cabbage, celery, Chinese cabbage, sweet
corn, escarole, greens, lettuce, potatoes, radishes.
8. Southeast
Martin County: field peas, greens, cabbage,
watermelons, tomatoes I Pompano Beach: cabbage,
celery, sweet corn, radishes, egg plant, squash,
tomatoes I Homestead: cauliflower, squash,
strawberries, cabbage, watermelon, cucumbers,
tomatoes.








27
Florida receives substantial precipitation (National

Weather Service, 1990). Average rainfall totals vary from 40

inches in the Florida Keys to 55 to 65 inches on the mainland

(Figure 3.2). The areas of highest rainfall are the extreme

western counties and the interior southern peninsula, where

annual totals range from 55 to 65 inches. Rainfall

distribution through the year is uneven. In an average year

the summer "rainy" season, extending from about June through

September or early October, produces about 60 percent of the

annual rainfall in the central and southern peninsula. The

four months of the "rainy" season produces about 55 percent of

the average of the northern peninsula and about 45 percent of

the average in the western counties. On the central and

northern peninsula, rainfall diminishes in September and is

low in November. December through March is followed by marked

dry periods in April and May (Winsberg, 1990). In the western

counties, October and early November are the year's driest

period. Rainfall usually increases again during February and

March. Late April, May, and June are frequently dry,

especially in the western counties.

Approximately two-thirds of the land area of the state

has poor to very poor natural surface drainage (Marcus and

Fernald, 1975). Runoff patterns are not well defined in the

poorly drained areas. Excess water moves slowly through broad








28
sloughs into shallow lakes or sluggish streams and finally

into the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean.






S 845 62









Annual Average Precipitation 5 0
The State of Florida, 1990










Figure 3.2 Mean average annual precipitation.
Source: United States Weather Bureau, 1990.

Drainage, water control, or both, are needed for crop

production and, in some areas, are desirable or necessary for

pasture production. Without control measures, large areas of

lower lying lands are subject to constant flooding and cannot

be used as grazing land.

Throughout the state, drainage is an important part of

water control. This is due mainly to the uneven seasonal








29
distribution of rainfall. In wet seasons, it is crucial to

remove water, while irrigation may be required during the dry

seasons. Water control is therefore related to the

inconvenience of removing excess water at certain times of the

year and adding water in times of need. Drainage improvements

that do not follow sound agricultural engineering principles

may unduly lower the water table of adjoining sandy land or

expose muck soils to a high rate of oxidation (Mellinger,

1989).

Irregularity of rainfall, the sandy character of the

soils, the high value of some farm products, and the increase

in intensity of farming have led to an increasing use of

irrigation on agricultural lands in Florida. According to the

United States Census of Agriculture Report in 1990, 1,910,505

acres of land on Florida farms were irrigated in 1990.

Agriculture used 3,806,000,000 gallons of water per day

throughout the state during the same year. However, there are

no records of how much water is used by the Florida cattle

ranchers.

Most irrigation systems are single farm installations

that draw water from wells, lakes, springs and streams. Groves

are mainly irrigated by portable perforated pipe sprinklers,

fixed or moveable overhead nozzle-sprinklers, or by portable

pipes. Flood irrigation from ditch or trench is more common on








30
vegetable lands, although sprinkler and other systems are also

used (Haan, 1977).

The largest acreages of irrigated cropland are located

in central and southern Florida counties. There were very few

counties with sizable acreage of irrigated pastures during the

time of this research project. The 246,000 acres of irrigated

agricultural land were found in Osceola, St. Lucie, Martin,

Palm Beach, Highlands, Glades, Collier, and Hendry counties

(Table 3.2).

Parasites, weeds, insects, nematodes, and diseases

affect the character of agriculture through their negative

effects on yields and costs. Insects, if not controlled, may

destroy a feed crop or reduce yields below an acceptable

profit level during some seasons. The cost of controlling

insects, parasites, or diseases may discourage the production

of a particular crop or class of livestock. The development of

new strains or varieties of feed crops with higher yields or

greater disease resistance may result in an increase in

acreage of this crop in new areas or retention in previous

areas (Baker and Cook, 1982).









Population and Markets

Florida's rapid population growth has also contributed

to an increased competition for land and water resources. The

1995 estimate was 13,846,500, an increase of 908,600 people

over the Census count of 1990 or a 6.56 percent increase in

five years (Table 3.3).

Florida's population of Florida is unevenly distributed

over the state. Five of the 67 Florida counties --Broward,

Dade, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Hillsborough-- contained over

50 percent of the state's population according to the 1990

Census. In a regional breakdown, 37 percent of the population

was in 10 the counties of south Florida, 18 percent in 21

counties of northeast Florida, and 10 percent in the 16

counties of northwest Florida. While the location of the milk

and egg production is highly dependent on urban population

conglomentations the production areas for citrus, livestock

and vegetables are affected more by physical factors.

Florida enjoys good transportation facilities. Federal

and state highways extend to all sections of the state. Most

farms are located on or near all-weather roads.










Table 3.2 Water use for Agricultural Purposes
(Source: US Department of Interior, 1990).

Product Acres Total Ground Surface
Total 1,910,505 2,978.5 1,646.31 1,332.20
Vegetable crops 342,750 496.35 396.43 99.92
Carrots 20,200 18.42 7.34 11.08
Cucumbers 24,548 46.89 46.86 0.03
Peppers 23,092 39.62 39.51 0.11
Potatoes 27,441 37.97 37.97 0.00
Tomatoes 58,154 135.57 132.58 2.99
Sweet corn 65,360 74.32 26.35 47.97
Other Veg. 113,120 122.00 84.28 37.72
Fruit crops 693,317 1,142.20 650.72 491.48
Citrus 610,720 1,009.6 523.68 485.91
Watermelons 47,125 51.44 47.15 4.29
Other fruit 25,340 58.61 58.25 0.36
Field crops 485,597 610.31 72.60 537.71
Field corn 42,629 52.39 34.56 17.83
Peanuts 18,586 11.80 8.90 2.90
Soybeans 9,835 7.36 6.01 1.35
Sugar cane 379,250 505.41 0.00 505.41
Tobacco 6,674 7.03 6.89 0.14
Wheat 10,533 5.03 3.51 1.52
Ornamentals 388,841 663.26 468.29 194.97
Ferns 6,682 32.29 27.46 4.83
Flowers 11,124 58.63 47.07 11.56
Woody ornam. 17,918 99.56 81.22 18.34
Improved Pas. 246,438 222.57 163.62 58.95
Sod & Turf 279,080 250.21 148.92 101.29








33
Railroad service includes three important rail lines the

Seaboard Coastline, the Florida East Coast Railway, and the

Southern Railway. Jacksonville is the major rail gateway for

the state of Florida. Good rail facilities connect Florida

with the North and West but in many areas of the state the

short local lines have been abandoned. Florida is also

served by several ports, Tampa, Jacksonville, Port Everglades,

Palm Beach, Miami, and Pensacola. These sea ports handle most

of the sea going traffic.

When examining the location of the cow/calf industry in

Florida, an approach would be to consider the origins of the

raw materials, fertilizers, mechanical devices, etc.) that

this cattle industry needed and the destination of the feeder

calves, using the transportation system as the key to analyze

ranch location (Figure 3.3). Taking the annual average of cash

receipts in 1987 as a base period equal to 100 index points,

the production index rose from 109.6 in 1988 to 116.9 in 1989

(Dunkle, 1994). During the same time, the annual index of cash

receipts for livestock production fell from 98.2 in 1987 to

96.8 in 1988 and rose to 97.1 in 1989.


















Florida Transportation Reutes

Major and Minor Routes Examined


FLORIDA
- Per_Lo_.Pond
-- Cono novw'gobl
- CanoLoth,,
- Connector
- CountyJland
- Interstate
- Liht.duty
- Roilrood
- $fwmd
- Solt boundL
- Stotebound_W
- Sttedivided
- StoteRoute
- Stot.escondaoy
- Tollrd
- US Route
















Miles

0 50 100


Figure 3.3 Florida transportation routes. Source: Florida
Division of Transportation Planning, 1990.


II










Table 3.3 Population of
populations.


Florida: urban versus rural


Years Total Urban Rural


1830
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980


(June 1)
(June 1)
(June 1)
(June 1)
(June 1)
(June 1)
(June 1)
(June 1)
(April 15)
(January 1)
(April 1)
(April 1)
(April 1)
(April 1)
(April 1)
(April 1)


34,730
54,477
87,445
140,424
187,748
269,493
391,422
528,542
752,619
968,470
1,468,211
1,897,414
2,771,305
4,951,560
6,791,418
9,746,324


0
0
0
5,708
15,275
26,947
77,358
107,031
219,080
353,515
759,778
1,045,791
1,566,788
3,077,989
5,544,551
8,212,385


34,730
54,477
87,445
134,716
172,473
242,546
314,064
421,511
533,539
614,955
708,433
851,623
1,204,517
1,873,571
1,244,892
1,533,939


Percent


Percent
Rural
100.0
100.0
100.0
95.9
91.9
90.0
80.2
79.7
70.9
63.5
48.3
44.9
43.5
37.8
18.3
15.7


(United States Bureau of Census, 1990)




The volume of agricultural products shipped out of the state

by water is not large, but many agricultural supplies are

shipped into the state by this means. Agricultural production

in Florida has grown rapidly during the last eight years

(Table 3.4).











Table 3.4 Cash Receipts of Farm Income

Activity 1987 1988 1989

Crops $4,207,000 $4,688,000 $4,982,000

Cattle $388,000 $372,000 $377,000

(United States Department of Agriculture, 1990)



Land Tenure Patterns

Between 1920 and 1965, agriculture in the state

exhibited two conflicting trends. From 1935 to 1964, there was

a reduction of 44 percent in the number of farms, but acres of

land in farms increased 2.5 times. Average farm sizes

increased from 83 acres to 380 acres. The average value of

land and buildings was $4,407 in 1935 and $109,732 in 1964

(Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987, 1991 and 1995). In 1982

the average farm size was 353 acres and in 1987 it was down to

306 acres. The average value of land and buildings was

$552,586 in 1982 and $543,830 in 1987 (Florida Statistical

Abstract, 1987).

As the number of farms dropped there was a definite

shift in the tenure pattern. The number of tenants decreased

from 28 percent in 1935 to 6 percent in 1964 (Florida

Statistical Abstract, 1967). The importance of full owners

increased although there was a decrease in the absolute number








37
of owners. The decrease in tenants in the state was associated

with the decline in acres in cotton and the increase in acres

in citrus and specialized truck crops.



Land Uses in Florida

According to the Census, the acreage designated as "land

in farms" consists of agricultural lands, land used for crops

and pasture or grazing, and considerable areas of land not

actually under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing.

Woodland and wasteland owned or rented by farm operators is

included in land in farms unless it is being held for a non-

agricultural purpose.

Only 44 percent of Florida's land area of 34,721,280

acres was in farms in 1964, but 70.3 percent of Florida's

acreage was in farms by 1988. In 14 of the state's 67

counties, less than 15 percent of the total land area was in

farms, 19 counties had 20 to 39.9 percent, 16 counties 40 to

59.9 percent, and 18 counties 60 percent or more (Florida

Statistical Abstract, 1990). About one half the counties with

less than 40 percent of the land area in farms was located in

northeast Florida and one fifth in south Florida. Counties

with the highest percentage of the total land area in farms

were located in central and southern Florida (Table 3.5).









Table 3.5 Florida Agricultural Land Use.

Land Use Percent of Total Acres

Cropland 36 3,875,787.72

Other Land 5 538,303.85

Pasture and Range 41 4,414,091.56

Woodland 18 1,937,893.86

Total 100 10,766,076.99

(United States Bureau of Census, 1990)

Land not in farms is the difference between the total

area of a given county in Florida and acres in farms. Thirty-

one percent of the land not in farms was swamp land and other

poorly drained land. Most of this land use lies in the

Everglades National Park Area.

Cropland is the sum of harvested cropland, cropland used

only for pasture, and cropland not harvested and not pastured.

Florida had 6,875,105 acres of cropland in 1910. This was 20

percent of the total land area in the state (US Agricultural

Census, 1980). Considerable variation of farmland under crops

existed from one county to another because of physical

features. The proportion of farmland under crops varied from 2

percent in Franklin County to 92 percent in Dade County. Palm

Beach and Dade counties on the Gold coast had the highest

percentage of farmland in crops. Counties where citrus is

grown had a fairly high percentage of farmland in crops and








39
were located in north and west Florida (Weischet and Caviedes,

1987). Land in farms amounted to 10,766,077 acres in 1992. In

1987 land in farms totaled 11,194,090 acres.

Pastured woodland includes all woodlands used for

grazing. Woodland not pastured refers to all woodland not used

for pasture or grazing, including land placed in the soil bank

and planted in trees.

In 1990, land in farms included 12,869,518 acres in

woodland, of which 57 percent was pastured woodland and 61

percent woodland that was not pastured. Pastured woodland

accounted for 32 percent of the total land in farms in 1967;

in 1990 it had, increased by 25 percent. Pastured woodland is

widely distributed over the state. The counties with the

highest percentage of land in farms have the lowest percentage

of land in pastured woodland.

Woodland not pastured accounted for less than 10 percent

of the total land in farms in half the counties. Woodland not

pastured is distributed differently. The counties in which

woodland not pastured was a sizable percentage of all land in

farms were mainly in north and west Florida.

Improved pasture refers to all land other than woodland

and crop land that was used only for pasture or grazing. It

includes non-crop, open or brush pasture, and cut over or

deforested land that has been improved and is used for








40
pasture. Of the land in farms, 5,386,176 acres were classified

as other pasture (not crop land or woodland) in 1992 (Florida

Statistical Abstract, 1991). This was 28 percent of the land

in farms. Counties with the highest percentage of farm land in

other pasture were those north and west of Lake Okeechobee.

The area of other pasture in counties of North and West

Florida was less than 18 percent of the total land area in

farms.

"Other land" refers to all land not included in the

preceding land use classifications, such as house lots, lanes,

roads, ditches, land area of ponds, and wasteland. Other land

amounted to 1,008,269 acres or 7.5 percent of the total land

in farms in 1980 (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991).

The 1980 United States Census of Agriculture recognized

eight major types of farming in Florida, (1) cash grain, (2)

other field crops, (3) vegetable, (4) fruit and nut, (5)

poultry, (6) dairy, (7) other livestock, and (8)

horticultural. This classification is based on the source of

cash income from farming in 1980. For a farm to be classified

as a given type, it was necessary that it derives 50 percent

or more of the value of farm products sold from the source

indicated in the description. For example, a farm was

classified as a vegetable farm if 50 percent or more of the

cash income from the sale of farm products was derived from








41
tomatoes (United States Census of Agriculture, 1980). Part-

time, residential, and very small farms were not classified by

type. They were called miscellaneous or unclassified farms.

The largest number of commercial farms were classified

as fruit and nut operation. This was followed by other

livestock, and vegetable (Table 3.6). Slightly over half the

farms in the state were unclassified (personal interview

University of Florida Extension agent, 1993). The location of

farms of specific types or combination of types gives rise to

certain types of farming areas.

Lands without direct agricultural use is land in

forests, marshes, and cut-over lands, and often is not

included as a part of the land in farms in this study.

Further, commercial farming occupies only a small part of many

counties. For these reasons, distinct types of farming do not

stand out in Florida as elsewhere in the United States.



Urban Expansion and Shrinking of

Crop/Pasture Lands

Most major expansions of land use for crops or

urbanization in Florida have a pronounced impact on acreage

in pasture. In some parts of the state, large portions of

current pasture land could probably be converted into crop








42
land or into residential land as often occurs in the

southeastern region of the state (West Miami,


Table 3.6 Acreage and crops in 1990.

Crop Acres Under Percent of All

Selected Crop Land Under Crops

Corn for Grain 89,000 1.30

Hay-All Types 690,000 10.04

Land in Orchards 1,935,000 28.15

Peanuts 77,000 1.12

Sugar Cane for Sugar 1,432,000 20.84

Vegetables 2,650,000 38.56

Total 6,873,000 100.00

(Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991)

and Ft. Lauderdale for example). The unremitting increase in

urban and built-up land, especially in southern Florida,

compound this impact because urbanized land would come

directly from pasture and from crop land, in which case

pasture would tend to be converted to cropland to replace

lost cropland (Asher, 1978). Although deprived of much of

its land base, the Florida cattle industry might survive,

partly on the basis of intensive fertilized pasture, partly

on rough lands not suitable for crops, and partly through

increased grazing of forest land.








43
Areas of Florida experiencing rapid population

expansion continue to face the prospect of declining

environmental quality and economic utility derived from the

natural resource base. Paradoxically, in our increasingly

insouciant, service-based economy, the quality and quantity

of environmental goods are the principal factors causing

population growth. Approximately 1.5 million acres of land

were converted into urban uses in Florida from the mid-1970s

to the mid-1980s (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987, 1990).

During that time, the population increased by more than

three million people. The amount of land converted to urban

uses varied from .347 acres per person in MSA counties in

the Central and South to 2.026 acres per person in the non-

MSA counties in the North (Figure 3.4). Urban growth in

Florida results in higher rates of conversion of land to

urban uses than in other areas of the United States.

Florida's intense rate of population growth may have

serious implications for the quality of life in some areas

of the state. As the so-called "bi-coastal economy" develops

the coastal areas of the state are among the most heavily

affected (i.e., Dade and Sarasota counties), but similar

impacts are being felt in certain areas of the "sun belt"

and in many other areas having superior environmental

attributes (Colorado mountain areas, etc.). One particularly









44
important impact on the natural resource base is the

conversion of formerly in extensively used land,

(agriculture, forestry, and wetlands) into urban uses. These

changes are perceived as resulting in a dwindling of

aesthetic and ecological values.












Metropolitan Statisical Areas, 1990

1. Brad.nlon NSA 15. Panama City USA
2. D.ytona Beach MSA 18. Pensacoa MSA
3. P. auderdale USA 17. Sarasota MSA
4, Ft. Meyera MSA 18. Tallaha.see USA
5. Ft. Pierce MSA 19. Tampa MSA
6. Ft. Wliton Beach MSA 20. West P.lm Beach MSA
7. Cainesville MSA
8. Jacksonvill. MSA
9. Lakeland MSA
10. Melbourne Titusvllle MSA
11. Mluni Hiaeh MSA
12. Naple. MSA
13. Ocah MSA
14. Orlendo USA ,*. ~ au- -1

Figure 3.4 Metropolitan Statistical Areas.


In today's market economy the emphasis is on private

property rights and generally flexible land use controls. As

a result, the amount of land converted from extensive uses

to urban uses in different areas increases directly with

population growth. Florida's comprehensive Growth Management

Act of 1985 addresses the issue of more environmentally

responsible growth. It promotes the concept of an ideal








45
urban form, which may be described briefly as a more compact

development pattern with less urban sprawl (Audirac, 1989).

It is assumed that this compact urban growth pattern will

result in fewer acres of farmland, wetland, and other

extensively used land being transformed into urban uses.



Land Conversion

There is a high rate of conversion of land from rural

to urban and from natural lands to pasture use in Florida.

Only about 2 to 3 percent of the total land area of the

United States is accounted for by urban development, and

only a minute fraction of a percent are converted to urban

uses each year (Frey 1986). However, the amount of land in

urban areas in Florida is expanding more rapidly. Urban land

is a relatively small part of the total land area, less than

10 percent, but still high compared to many states. Land in

urban areas in Florida increased from 513,000 acres in 1945

to 2,867,000 acres in 1982.

The environmental impact of land use changes is also

important. Competition between mining, forestry, various

agricultural uses and wetland uses often involves larger

acreage and, occasionally, has potential for environmental

impact as the conversion of land uses takes place. In fact,

the changes of these natural land uses to urban land uses








46
are related to, and perhaps driven by, urban population

growth. It is clear that the hypothesis of the conversion of

wetland to farmland is often an intermediate step in the

process of urbanization, and that such a step is encouraged

by regulation and institutional control.

Cropland acreage in Florida increased by 1.3 million

acres from 1945 to 1982 (Florida Agricultural Census, 1945).

Land in pasture and range grew by about 2.2 million acres,

while land in special uses rose by 4.8 million acres during

the same period. Special uses include urban use, parks,

wildlife refuges, roads, highways, airports, and defense

areas. Increases in land devoted to these uses was made at

the expense of forest land and "other" uses.

Special use areas include areas such as marshes,

swamps, and bare rock. For Florida, most of the land listed

in public data resources as "other land" is likely to be

wetlands. In general, as the demand for agricultural land,

urban, and other land uses increase land is converted from

extensive uses to more intensive uses. Development has moved

further south in the state as well. Additional land has been

converted to cropland and pasture and these agricultural

lands are more vulnerable to urban conversion than wetlands

in the same areas. Population in Florida has doubled every

20 years, increasing from about one million people in 1920








47
to about 13 million in 1990 (Bureau of Economic and Business

Research, 1989). With such population growth, large

extensions of land are needed for homes, schools, shopping

centers, transportation networks, and commercial and

industrial uses. As the demand for high value uses

increases, land is bid away from more extensive uses, such

as cropland, pasture, land and other "undeveloped uses".

Those who wish to develop land for urban uses generally find

it relatively easy to bid land away from extensive uses

because of the higher capitalized net returns (economic

rent) in the more intensive urban uses.



Florida Grazing Lands

Clearly, pasture is an important category of land use

in Florida. Land used exclusively or primarily for grazing

(pasture and rangeland) amounted to 4,871,727 acres in 1987

and 4,551,334 acres in 1990 (Florida Statistical Abstract,

1987). This is 14 percent of the state's total land base in

1987, and 13 percent in 1990. There is also a large but

difficult to measure area of forest land that is grazed,

often on a somewhat casual basis.

Most grazing in Florida is by the beef cow/calf

industry. Smaller grazing demands are made by milk cows and

sheep throughout the state. The bulk of the state's grazing








48
land is in the southern reaches of the state on range land

that has never been cultivated for other crops.

Land use in Florida has changed over time, with

particularly dramatic shifts occurring since the early

1940s. The most recent directions of land use change are

those that have been taking place since 1980. Cropland has

experienced a pronounced net increase, much of it due to

increases in the cultivation of ornamentals and truck crops.

Forest land and grazing land have decreased, while developed

land and land set aside for wild life and rural parks have

grown. The residual category "other lands", has tended to

decrease in recent years, as lands previously so classified

have been drained or cleared for agricultural use,

urbanized, or set aside as parks or wildlife reserves.



The Place of Cattle Ranching in Florida

The need for a comprehensive understanding of

agricultural production systems in general, and livestock

production systems specifically, has been realized in Florida

where agriculture has been characterized by diversity and

continuous growth. There is also a need to explore the social

structure that affects the motivations, methods of production,

and goals of cattle ranchers in Florida through understanding








49
the history and geographic distribution of cattle ranching

throughout the state.



Florida Cattle Ranching Development

The second highest cattle to people ratios in the South

during the 1860s were found in Florida. By 1860, the three

Florida counties of Manatee, Brevard, and Hillsborough had

cattle to people ratios of 37 to one, 31 to one and 13 to one,

respectively (United States Bureau of Census, 1860). With such

high number of cattle, south Florida was the site of

commercial cattle ranching, focused on Cuban markets.

There are few records describing the sandy pinewood

forest cover that dominated the Florida landscape. These

barren lands supported little more than strewn pine trees,

dwarf palmettos and wiregrass (Gilliard, 1855). Though

pinewood land was worthless by agricultural standards of the

time, it was unsurpassed as grazing country. Thanks to the

mild winters, grass grew well and cattle were well supplied

with feed at all seasons of the year. As a result, the

majority of the population in the southern portion of the

Florida peninsula was cattle ranchers, grazing their stock on

the expanses of pinewood ranges.

South Florida's promising cattle trade with Cuba rested

on the shoulders of the Florida "scrub" steer. The scrub steer








50
traced its ancestry to the Iberian cattle, which were

introduced by the Spanish colonialists who settled Florida

before 1820, and mixed with the British stock bought in by

southern ranchers from the Southeastern States who settled in

Florida after 1821. Left to fend for themselves in the Florida

pinewood, scrub cattle evolved into hardy animals, which

survived on native grasses, endured the extreme heat, and

developed an immunity to endemic stock diseases. Though small

and lean the scrub steer was hardy. A mature animal weighed

only 500 pounds, yielding perhaps 250 pounds of beef (Rouse,

1977). Tough by modern standards, scrub beef had a flavor

resembling that of venison, Florida steers proved popular in

Cuba (Kennedy, 1942).

After the Civil War, the open range cattle industry

dominated south Florida's economy. The focus of the cattle

trade at that time shifted from Tampa to Punta Gorda in

southwest Florida. Between 1870 and 1880, south Florida

exported over 165,000 beef cattle, which were valued at more

than $2,400,000 (Mealor, 1972).

Cuba served as the major market for Florida beef until

the early twentieth century, when Venezuelan beef supplanted

Florida steers in the Havana stockyards. Losing their Cuban

trade, Florida cattle ranchers turned to the North American

market. Finding little demand for their small steers outside








51
Florida, ranchers began the long and costly process of

improving their beef cattle. They eliminated endemic stock

diseases, bought registered bulls, purchased grazing lands,

erected fences, planted artificial pastures, and produced

larger and better quality steers that permitted them to

capture a significant share of the American beef market

(Mealor, 1972).

Despite the growth of the improved cattle industry,

traditional cattle ranching survived well into the 1940s. In

the years after World War II, open range cattle ranching gave

way to commercial farming and urban development in much of

south Florida. Truck farmers and citrus growers acquired great

tracts of pinewood range land for their fields and orchards.

In turn, urban areas impinged on the open range, as thousands

of retired Northerners settled in housing developments and

trailer parks.

Open range cattle ranching was simply not compatible

with agribusiness and urban life, as they trampled vegetable

fields and invaded citrus groves, strayed onto public highways

and streets, and even collided with cars and trucks (Mealor,

1972). Complaints about traffic accidents and stray cattle

prompted the Florida legislature to pass a law in 1949,

requiring all stock owners to fence in their cattle. Owners,

who negligently allowed their stock to wander onto public








52
highways and streets could be fined or imprisoned. This law

effectively ended over a century of open range cattle herding

in the State of Florida (Florida Cattleman and Livestock

Journal, 1949)



Effects of Agricultural Development and

Technological Change

Fertilizers and pesticides currently account for a

greater share of input costs for most major crops than they

did in 1965. This is primarily the result of high yield

fertilizer applications and continuous cropping, which has

created favorable pest habitats in certain crops. The national

average cost of fertilizers and pesticides for corn production

in 1986 was about 55 percent of variable costs and 34 percent

of total costs (Bureau of Economic and Business Research,

1989). For soybeans, the figures were 49 and 25 percent and

for wheat, 40 and 23 percent. By increasing use of these

costly agricultural input items, farming has become dependent

on industry. Today, an agricultural enterprise will use

resources that optimized production in order to in optimize

profit.

However, the Florida livestock industry does not require

the same inputs as general farming. The average Florida cattle

rancher is not investing in a series of costly agricultural








53
inputs. Nonetheless, cattle production in 1992 was 54

percent above the total level of production of the 1950

agricultural census period. In 1950 Florida produced

1,054,899 head of cattle, and in 1992, 1,940,000 head of

cattle (Florida Agricultural Census, 1992). Interestingly,

Dade, Palm Beach, Hamilton, Liberty and Putnam counties lost

between 3 and 11 percent of their cattle production during the

same forty-year period.

Increases of 95 to 99 percent in beef production were

experienced in Hardee, Manatee, Hendry, and Glades counties,

illustrating a shift in the location of cattle ranching in

Florida. The shift is toward the southern counties, but away

from the areas of intense urbanization in the southeast of the

state. The average rate of increase over the same period was

6.3 percent per year for all crops and 1.08 percent per year

for livestock. Agriculture brings over $6 billion per year to

Florida's economy in total sales and accounts for one in five

jobs in the state. Cattle production is a very important part

of Florida agriculture.

Permanent pastures and other forages such as hay or

seasonal pastures remain the largest single use of land in

Florida. About 11,194,090 acres were occupied by these forage

crops at the time of the 1987 agricultural census (Florida

Statistical Abstract, 1991). The kind and combination of








54
approaches used by farmers in any specific area result from

the interaction of many factors. The most important of these

factors are soils, topography, climate, market prices, labor

cost, availability and transportation facilities, and just the

farmer's personal judgment. Some of them, such as soils, and

climate, place definite limitations on agricultural

activities. Introduction of new techniques and changes in

economic factors, such as price relationships, have caused

great changes in the agriculture of an area in a relatively

short period. An example of this phenomenon is the southward

migration of the citrus industry due to the increase of

devastating freezes in the northern reaches of Florida

(Miller, 1992). Other factors that affect the farmer's

decision-making process are land use regulations, land use

limitations, resource scarcity, and competition for water and

land.

The mismanagement of inputs, through ignorance or

shortsightedness, carries an expensive environmental cost.

Every human civilization appears to have experienced one or

more of the following problems: water-logged soil, increased

salt concentration in drinking water, soil erosion,

contaminated aquifers, shrinking lakes, and degraded aquatic

habitats. The question to be answered here is: where in the

state are these problems developing into potential hazards?

When these problems become extreme, the agricultural








55
foundation of a society may be destroyed. Anthropologists,

agriculturists, economic ecologists and historians believe

that the failure of large scale agricultural systems have

caused the collapse of several ancient civilizations

(Pointing, 1991). Maintaining a viable agricultural industry

in the state is important for the state's economic health and

expected development. Agriculture must do its part to protect

Florida's delicate natural ecosystem and to maintain the

state's natural resources.














CHAPTER 4

METHODS




This chapter describes the methods and approaches used

to prove the hypothesis that cattle ranchers use production

practices that are environmentally protective. The ranchers'

ability to adopt "current" environmentally protective

agricultural technology will also be examined. Several methods

are used to evaluate the degree to which cattle ranches in

Florida are using environmentally protective agricultural

practices, including improved water, as well as nutrient and

pest management. The chapter is organized as follows:

1. Population description and sample selection;

2. The survey instrument;

3. Data collection;

4. Statistical analysis.



Population and Sample Selection

Personal interviews were conducted with beef producers

in ten Florida counties in the period February to August

1993. Two counties in each of Florida's five Extension








57
Districts were selected for data collection. The selected

counties (10 in total) had the highest acreage in pasture in

each Extension District (Figure 4.1).



Counties In Survey by Region Flor"do Loyer
Date: 1993 [- ct..







Survey
SNoth.rn Co.unti

m-T South.rn Counlti






Miles
4I m0 50 loI0


Figure 4.1 Counties selected for the 1993
region.


cow/calf survey by


County Extension mailing lists obtained from the

extension agents' personal contacts with the ranchers were

used as the basis for selecting the sample of cow/calf

producers. These lists, while not all inclusive, are a

better source than the Florida Cattlemen's Association

membership list inasmuch as there may exist some








58
relationship between such factors as farm size or operator

characteristics that correlate to membership within the

Florida Cattlemen's Association. A total of 1,036 beef

producers were included in these lists. Our sample was

restricted to beef producers with 50 or more head of cattle.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument used to gather the data in this

study was administered through face-to-face interviews with

the cattle ranchers at their business or place of residence.

The survey instrument was designed with the help of Dr. K.

M. Portier of the University of Florida Statistics

Department The survey was expected to be conducted by

personal interview, and because of this fact allowances were

made for about a 5 percent rejection rate. Scalar questions

primarily elicit responses on a four-point scale. The

questions in the instrument reflect the production practices

that are appropriate for the cattle industry and consisted

of 84 closed form questions. Originally, the questionnaire was

formulated as part of a state wide survey to determine the

sustainability of several segments of Florida agriculture.

The questionnaire was examined for content and relevance

by members of the Animal Science Department, County Extension

Directors from several counties, cattle ranchers, and Dr.

Marilyn Swisher, the lead research person. Participants








59
involved in the preliminary survey instrument test provided

information that helped to shape the final questionnaire, but

their responses were not included in the data analyzed

(Appendix A). The survey instrument was divided into three

main subject areas. The first section deals primarily with

demographic profiles and general information about the cattle

ranchers, and is further divided into two subsections:

1.1 operation characteristics, annual production,

acreage devoted to cattle production; and

1.2 demographic information about the cattle rancher;

age, sex, educational level, experience in the

cattle business, and sources of information.

The second section addresses management practices and

changes in cattle ranching practices since 1983. The

questions included are grouped in six subsections

addressing:

2.1 major soil type and pasture type (improved or

unimproved) and the amount of each type of

pasture;.

2.2 water management concerns: whether or not the

rancher is using irrigation to water livestock or

irrigate their pasture, source of drinking water

(well or standing), monitoring of water use (yes

or no);








60
2.3 nutrient management: use of soil testing to

determine fertilizer application rate, factors that

determine when and how much fertilizer is used, and

use of legumes;

2.4 pest management: factors influencing management

decisions, how pesticides are applied (if any), how

and what protective gear is employed for employee

protection;

2.5 crop land use if any; previous land use, and, if

possible, the intensity of land use;

2.6 renovation practices;

The third section reflects the opinions of the cattle

rancher regarding these issues:

3.1 the importance of government regulations, and

3.2 factors that affect the profitability of the ranch

such as taxes, regulations, record keeping, and

animal welfare issues.



Survey Application

All producers participated directly in personal

interviews with the author to reduce experimental errors

that result from multiple interviewers. All interviews with

the cattle producers took place within a six-month period to

reduce biases due to uncertain regulating processes, taxing








61
schedules, changes in environmental conservation and/or

preservation efforts, or other factors that can vary with

time. In addition, it should be pointed out that the types

of questions asked are not time sensitive, like those of

many public opinion polls. That is, producers are unlikely

to change production practices in a short period of time and

personal characteristics are also not likely to change

rapidly. The interview process took place at the cattle

ranch, in the residence or the office, with the owner or

person in charge. While individual surveys are time

consuming but thorough, this method provided a ninety-nine

percent survey response rate.



Population Distribution

Like agriculture in the United States as a whole,

Florida agriculture is highly stratified by region. For

example, the 4.2 percent of largest ranches in the state

(owning over 500,000 head each) account for approximately 46

percent of all cattle that are raised in Florida. Because

production is concentrated on larger scale units located in

the southern part of the state, independent samples for

different regions were drawn (Swisher, 1993). The selection

of independent samples by region permitted analyses both,

within and between different regions. These analyses reveal








62
the relationships, if any, between location (region) and

associated socioeconomic characteristics of the ranch and

sustainable agricultural potential (Swisher, 1993).



Determination of the Sample Size

There are approximately 1,500 cattle ranchers in the

state of Florida. The size of the sample selected for this

study is important because taking a larger sample than is

required to achieve the desired results is inefficient and

costly. On the other hand if samples are too small the

results may be of no practical use. In order to determine

the sample size required for estimating the population mean

of Florida cow/calf producers. This study uses the

confidence interval as determined by Za. Increasing the

magnitude of Z produces a wider confidence interval. In this

study, Z = 1.96ax- and the confidence interval is 95 percent.

The entire area under the normal distribution curve of X-

beyond the confidence limits (a) are i 1.96ox", thus the

area within the confidence limits are 1 a.

The size of the sample is determined by the size of a

(standard deviation), the desired degree of precision (E), and

the desired interval width. This study uses a sample that is

capable of yielding a point estimate of u where E (precision








63
level) is 0.10. The confidence interval is 95 percent, and

there is a 5 percent chance of drawing a sample size (n) with

an estimate for g that is more than 0.10 units off the

acceptable (Cochrane, 1963). The standard deviation of the

study population of 1,500 Florida cattle ranchers is 0.4179.

The desired precision is E = 0.10 or 90 percent, and a

confidence level for the study is set at a = 0.05, or 95

percent. The formula used in this study is

n = (Zd2 a/E)2

n = [1.96(0.4179)/0.10]2

n = 67.08989 w 67

The resulting sample size was determined to be 127 beef

and/or livestock producers. There was some difficulty in

gathering data from the ranches of the southern region and

it was necessary to replace 52 percent of the ranchers

selected to compensate for those who had gone out of

business within the last year, for those who were reluctant

to give information, and for incorrect addresses. The final

sample size of 67 was within the accuracy range. The

expected error rate for a sample of this size is 0.10 with

95 percent confidence interval.









Data Collection and Processing

Following the determination of the sample size and

sample selection, data collection was conducted. This

process involved three steps:

(1) A form letter was sent to each cattle rancher by

the County Extension Director of the Florida

Cooperative Extention Service, explaining the

purpose of the study and urging the participation

in the survey.

(2) Appointments were scheduled by the author with the

help of the County Extension Office.

(3) Following the confirmation of several appointments

in a given county, the surveyor traveled to the

appointment place and conducted the surveys.

There were no distinguishing traits on any of the

surveys and each of them was differentiated only by county.

In this manner, each survey remained anonymous and the

geographic distribution of the data could be inferred. The

list of participants was destroyed after the surveys were

complete and the data deemed accurate.

Once data collection was completed, the data as entered

in a computerized data base and, reviewed for errors in

accuracy. The data were analyzed using SAS v6.04 (SAS

Institute, 1988). Information concerning the demographic








65
characteristics of the Florida cow/calf ranchers (Objective

1) is illustrated by means and frequencies. Objective 2 is

protrayed using the rate of change to ascertain the

application of sustainable cattle ranching practices.

Objective 3 is achieved by examining the perceptions of the

cattle rancher and their views of government regulations,

environmental and economic issues. Objective 4 is of

geographic nature, concerned with the location of

urbanization and cattle ranching operations, rates of

change, and the intensity of cattle ranching as both of

these land uses compete for land resources.



Regional Analysis

The data were analyzed by region: northern versus

southern. This was done because these two regions differ in

their herd sizes, ranch sizes, individual time spent on the

ranch.

The distinction between a northern and a southern

region differs significantly from the Kruskal Wallis

statistical model which tests the hypothesis:



Ho: The medial scores for heard size data categorized

in the two groups are equal. i.e., M, = M2, with MI

representing the average herd size in the northern








66
region and M2 representing average herd size in the

southern region (Ha: M1 M2). The scores shown in

Table 4.1 demonstrate the results of the Kruskal-Wallis

test for differences and reveals clear regional

differences.

Statistical Procedures Used

The Kruskal-Wallis test of differences between two

population distributions was the statistical procedure used to

assess differences between northern and southern ranchers.

There was a measurable difference between the non-parametric

results. Chi-square tests were performed to identify

relationships among the survey variables.



Methodology to Examine the Changes in

Agricultural Land Use

The extension of land converted to urban uses as

related to population growth and agricultural activity was

estimated and the differences in urban land conversion by

geographic area were analyzed with the purpose of revealing

the intensity of urban growth in Florida.

To estimate urban land used for urban purposes, the

population data for areas experiencing urbanization are

calculated using urban and non-urban land use coefficients.








67
These coefficients provide a measure of the amount of land

converted to urban uses per person in MSA and non-MSA areas.

In the United States, about three-fourths of the

population reside in Metropolitan Statistical Areas (U.S.

Bureau of Census, 1990). A Metropolitan Statistical Area

(MSA) is a geographic area containing a large population

nucleus with adjacent communities that have a high degree of

economic and social integration with that nucleus (Bureau of

Economic and Business Research, 1989). Some MSAs comprise

more than one county, but the counties have close economic

and social ties to the major urban area.

In Florida, there are thirty-two counties that comprise

twenty MSAs. Over 90 percent of the Florida population is

located in counties that are part of MSAs. MSA counties

represent 54.4 percent of the total land area of the state

(Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991). More of the state's

population is located in the central and southern part than

in the northern part, although each region contains about 50

percent of the land area. Only about 22 percent of the

state's population live in the north, and in 1984 population

density in the north was about one-half of that in the

central and south.

In northern Florida, 70 percent of the land area is in

MSA counties. Over 60 percent of the population in the north








68
live in non-MSAs, while in southern Florida over 93 percent

are found in MSA counties. The value of transition land

(land changing to non-agricultural uses such as sites for

homes and businesses) is much higher in Central and South

Florida than in the north. At the end of the 1980s, the

value of transition land within five miles of a major town

averaged $3,600 per acre in the northwest and about $5,600

per acre in the northeast. In the central and southern

region, transition land values within 5 miles of a major

city averaged about $10,500 per acre in central Florida and

about $36,700 per acre in southeast Florida (Florida

Statistical Abstract, 1990).

Despite the widespread awareness of the changing nature

of land use in the state of Florida, remarkably little has

been published to illustrate the dramatic rate at which land

use is changing in the state. The land use coefficient

provides a relative measure of this change.









Table 4.1 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test
the variable that addresses herd size.


69
applied to


Northern Counties
Herd Size Test Herd Size Test
1950 Rank 1990 Rank

Alachua 26,331 8 48,000 14
Leon 10,863 5 9,000 2
Sumter 12,616 6 55,000 16
Jackson 9,025 3 34,000 10
Levy 9,430 4 38,000 11

Totals 26 53


Southern Counties
Herd Size Test Herd Size Test
1950 Rank 1990 Rank

Hendry 4,727 1 11,7000 19
Okeechobee 42,589 12 16,8000 20
Collier 45,015 13 1,3000 7
Highlands 33,571 9 11,6000 18
Osceola 49,504 15 10,8000 17

Totals 50 80


n(n+l)/2
T1+T2+T3...
Ha
Critical
D.F.
Reject Ho:
Mi=M2


210
210
8.691
7.815
3









Rural Land to Urban Land Use Coefficients

Urban land use and rural land use coefficients show the

extent of additional land converted to urban or rural land

use for each person added to the population.

The urban land use coefficient (Ur) is calculated as

Ur = (U2 U1)/(P2 P1)

where

U2 = the acres of urban land in 1980;
U1 = the acres of urban land in 1990;
P2 = the population in 1980; and
PI = the population in 1973.

The rural land use coefficient (R,) is calculated as
Rr = (R2 RI)/(P2 P1)


where

R2 = the acres of rural land in 1980;
Ri = the acres of rural land in 1990;
P2 = the population in 1980; and
Pi = the population in 1973.

Data for urban and rural land use coefficients are presented

in tables, and maps in the results of this dissertation

(Chapter 5).




Methodology to Examine the Changes in

Range Land Use

The methodology used to analyze pasture land conversion

in a given geographic area (state or county) is based on

coefficients that compare the state and county grazing land.








71
These coefficients provide a measure of the proportion of

the state or county acreage converted to grazing land.

Pasture land use and state or county area measurement

coefficients are employed to represent the quantity of land

converted to/or established in pasture for each acre removed

from the state and county land base. The pasture land use

coefficient for the state (P.) is calculated as

P, = (P2 PI)/(SI)

where

P2 = the acres of county pasture land in 1990;
P1 = the acres of county pasture land in 1987;
Si = the entire acreage of the state;


The pasture land use coefficient for the counties (Pc) is

calculated as

Pc = (P2 PI)/(C1)


where

P2 = the acres of county pasture land in 1990;
Pi = the acres of county pasture land in 1987;
C1 = the entire acreage of the county;


Herd-size Index

The herdsize index shows the fluctuation in the cattle

population between the years 1987 and 1990. The herd-size

index for a given county (Hi) is calculated as

Hi = (Hi- H2)/ H2









where

H1 = the herdsize of counties in 1987;
H2 = the herdsize of counties in 1990;


The Location Quotient

The location quotient is defined as a ratio of ratios.

The resulting index (quotient) shows whether a larger or

smaller amount of a given factor is present in a certain

area. By using the location quotient the data for the

counties is normalized and thus ready to be analyzed. The

location quotient used in this study is as follows:



county pasture acreage/ acreage of all county land LQ
state pasture acreage/ acreage of all state land



The location quotient expresses a ratio involving two

proportions. This index (LQ) shows the extent to which each

unit of a set of areal units departs from the overall

proportion. In this dissertation the location quotient

allows for the comparison of each county's share of pasture

land with the aggregate total for the state. A location

quotient of 1 means the acreage of pasture land in that

county is of exactly the same relative size for pasture as

is found across the counties of the entire state. A location

quotient greater than 1 indicates an overrepresented acreage

of pasture land. A location quotient less than 1 signifies








73
underrepresentation of acreage of pasture land. This

procedure is used in this dissertation to compare different

counties at different points in time: 1987 and 1990.















CHAPTER 5

RESULTS






The Florida cow/calf industry's use of environmentally

protective practices and spatial distribution are the focal

points of this dissertation. Cattle is raised in virtually all

counties of Florida. Nevertheless, ranch and herd sizes vary

geographically from county to county. Therefore, a stratified

random sampling approach for this industry has been chosen to

insure suitable representation of north and south Florida

ranches.



Geographic Distribution of Samples

Two counties from each of Florida's five Extension

Districts were selected for inclusion in the survey. These

comprise the two counties in the district with the largest

area in pasture according to the 1987 agricultural census.

This stratified random sample is, once again, representative

of the wide range of ecological and economic conditions

74








75
characteristic of the ranching activity in the state. North

Florida counties surveyed include Leon, Jackson, Levy, Alachua

and Sumter. South Florida counties include Hendry, Highlands,

Okeechobee, Osceola and Collier. Independent samples were

drawn for each county. Of the 127 completed questionnaires,

there was a response rate of 99 percent, meaning that 126

surveys were answered correctly and entirely. The sample did

not cover all counties in the state, and the results are not

applicable to all ranches in Florida. However, the geographic

distribution of the sample traversed the major physical

regions of the state and the selected counties had high

acreages in pasture indicating that they are representative of

cow/calf production in Florida. There are significant

differences between cattle production in north and south

Florida (see Chapter 4 concerning Kruskal-Wallis testing) and

there are several pasture types in Florida

1) Native pastures The natural vegetation found on

the unimproved pastures includes perennial grasses

on the low sandy soils or flat pine lands, wire

grasses, wild oats, and broom sedge.

2) Improved permanent pastures These are pastures

established through the destruction of some or all

native vegetation by burning, rotary cutting,

plowing, chopping and disking. Fertilizer is








76
applied and the land is seeded with carpet and

dallis, pangola, napier, bahia, bermuda or heat

tolerant St. Augustine grasses. In the winter

legumes may be planted.

3) Temporary pastures These pastures furnish feed

only for short periods of time and must be

established annually. Winter grazing pastures will

usually contain rye rust resistant varieties of

oats. Summer grazing crops will include cattail or

pearl millet, starr millet, alyse clover, and hairy

indigo (Cunha and Rhodes, 1966).

Farms in general are smaller in north Florida and cattle

ranches are no exception. Use of unimproved pastures and

native range is common in south Florida, whereas the northern

rancher is more inclined to work with improved pasture.

Therefore, the data is presented by northern and southern

regions. Native, unimproved pastures include grasses,

grasslike forbs, and shrubs that are edible by cattle and

wildlife (Mullahey and Tanner, 1992). The stocking rate of a

cow/calf producer is constrained by climate, forage value,

soils, and rancher practices. These variables all differ

regionally.









Significance Testing

The X2 test is widely used as a goodness-of-fit test

(Burt and Barber, 1996). After the examination of the

distribution of each variable in the survey, the next step is

to investigate sets of relationships among two or more of

these variables. This researcher chooses to use a contingency

table form of analysis to test for variable independence.

The test used in this dissertation is




S Fi


The X2 test is a test of statistical significance. It is

designed to help determine whether a relationship exists

between two variables. This is accomplished by computing the

cell frequencies which could be expected if no relationship

were present between the variables given the existing for row

and column totals (marginals). The expected cell frequencies

are then compared to the actual values found in the table

according to the above formula where fi equals the observed

frequency in each cell, and Fi equals the expected frequency

calculated as


F, =
N











where ci is the frequency in a respective column marginal, ri

is the frequency in a respective row marginal, and N stands

for the total number of valid cases. The closer the set of Fi

frequencies (expected frequencies) is to fi (observed

frequencies) the more likely the distribution of the sample

reflects the probability distribution specified in the null

hypothesis. The farther apart the observed and expected

frequencies are, the less likely H, is true. The test

statistic is the sum of the relative squared differences.

The two cases tested are



Ho: The frequency distribution of the data reflects
no statistical independence.


H,: The frequency distribution reflects statistical
independence, reject Ho.



The decision rule used in this dissertation is if X2 > X2 (1

a), conclude H,.



Survey Results

The first section of the survey instrument concentrates

on demographic information about the cattle ranchers. Northern

ranches are more apt than southern ranches to have both cow-








79
calf and breeding stock (Table 5.1). In northern and western

Florida, diversified farming is practiced. Through

diversification, farmers are able to have several sources of

farm income and do not depend on one item.

Table 5.1 Cattle operation type by region.

Region Both Feed Cow/Calf Breeding
and Breed Stock

Northern 0 82.6 17.4

Southern 4.6 88.4 7.0
X2 = 7.68, Pr = 0.021


The northern ranchers' ability to diversify in cattle

production while having both cow/calf and breeding stock

operations allows him to sell both calves for fattening and

keep breeding stock. In view of the demand for low fat,

"healthy" beef products, some Florida ranchers consider

expansion of cow/calf production while others are considering

steer feeding (Personal interview with ranchers, 1993).

Herdsize of livestock ranching in the northern part of

the state is small compared with the large herdsize

characteristic of central and south Florida.









Herd Size

Only 66 percent of the south Florida sample had fewer

than 100 head of cattle, whereas 78 percent of the north

Florida herds had fewer than 100 head of cattle. The remainder

of the north Florida sample, 22 percent, all represented herds

of fewer than 2,500 animals.



Table 5.2 Herd size by region, 1983 and 1993.

Size Range Northern Northern Southern Southern
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
1983 1993 1983 1993

< 100 41.2 47.8 38.9 37.2
101-250 35.3 30.4 30.6 27.9
251-500 5.9 4.3 15.7 18.6
501-1000 11.8 8.7 8.3 9.3
1001-2500 0 8.7 0 0
2501-5000 5.9 0 0 2.3
> 5000 0 0 5.6 4.7
For 1983 2 = 9.007 Pr = 0.061
For 1993 2 =3.101 Pr = 0.054


In south Florida, on the

counted between 251 and

sample were herds of more


other hand, 27 percent of all herds

2,500 head, and 7 percent of the

than 2,500 animals.


The ranches included in this survey comprised some

17,150 acres in North Florida and 164,547 acres in South

Florida. Table 5.3 shows the distribution of ranches by size

for each region. Ranch size was, as expected, smaller in north

Florida, where 61 percent of all ranches had fewer than 500








81
acres total, nine percent had from 501 to 1000 acres, and only

4 percent had from 1,001 to 5,000 acres. There were fewer

ranches in the smaller size category in South Florida. Only 34

percent of ranches had less than 500 total acres; 28 percent

had from 501 to 1000 acres, and 20 percent had from 1001 to

5,000 acres in south Florida.


Table 5.3 Ranch acreage

Category


by region.

Northern Region
Percent in Each
Category


Southern Region
Percent in Each
Category


< 500 Acres 61 34
501-1,000 Acres 9 28
1,001-2,500 Acres 22 20
2,501-5,000 Acres 4 7
5,001-10,000 Acres 4 6
>10,000 Acres 0 5

2 = 23.744 Pr = 0.001


Some ranches, 7 percent, had over 2,500 acres. The differences

in average in the two area's ranching is clearly illustrated

in Table 5.4.


Table 5.4 The total ranch acreage in the southern and northern
regions of Florida.

Region Total Pasture Acreage

Northern 1,889.565

Southern 4,890.000








82
The total ranch acreage in the southern region of

Florida is 2.58 times larger than in the northern region of

the state. There is a tendency for the southern cattle

ranchers to work these ranches full-time as a consequence of

the size, costs involved, and a high demand for investment

returns on their cattle operation. In the north, ranching is

more intensive due to pasture types and higher stocking rates,

however, because of the smaller herdsize, it is less likely to

provide a living.



Demographic Profile of Ranchers

Demographic characteristics include the age of the

cattle rancher, the highest grade completed in school, and

years of experience in the cattle business.



Table 5.5 Rancher mean age and age range.

Age Range Percent in Each Age Mean
in Years Range Age
Northern 51
30-40 21.6
41-50 34.5
51-60 12.9
61-70 21.6
<71 8.7
Southern 57
30-40 9.1
41-50 27.3
51-60 20.5
61-70 18.1
<71 15.9
Mean Age State of Florida 54
X2=9.722 Pr=0.045








83
The mean age of the north Florida sample was 51 years. In

south Florida, the mean was 57 (Table 5.5). Cattle ranchers

are slightly older in the southern region and need to pass

their traditions and methods to the next generation at a

faster rate than in the north.

A possible explanation for the presence of older

ranchers in southern Florida could be found in the history of

cattle ranching. Ranches located in southern Florida had ready

access to the Cuban, Texan, and South American beef market

during the 19th century accounting for the formation of a

tradition of family involvement whereas those of the north

were isolated from these markets and have developed only

recently.


Table 5.6 Educational level by region.

Education Level Northern Rancher
Percent in Each
Category
Less than High School 4.3

High School Diploma 52.2

Some College 30.4

Earn a College Degree 13.0


XZ=7.12


Southern Rancher
Percent in Each
Category
9.1

38.6

27.3

25.0


Pr=0.052


Compared with traditional livestock systems,

environmentally protective farming systems usually require


I








84
augmented management skills and abilities along with greater

reliance on proficient and knowledgeable labor. There is a

pressing need for a greater knowledge base in the future to

address the demands of an environmentally protective

agriculture.

In the north, 52.2 percent of the surveyed ranchers

completed high school, while in the south 38.6 percent had a

high school diploma. However, while 43.4 percent of the

northern ranchers surveyed had attended college, while 52.0

percent of the ranchers surveyed in the south had attended or

graduated from college. Obviously, the southern rancher has

more land, and seems to be more educated.



Table 5.7 Number of years in ranching.

Years of Northern Rancher Southern Rancher
Experience Percent in Each Percent in Each
Category SCa.3tegEry
1-10 31.0 11.4
11-20 21.5 22.0
21-30 17.3 22.8
31-40 8.6 25.1
41-50 17.3 18.2
51-60 4.3 0.0
X2=22.221 Pr=0.001


An environmentally protective approach is not one that

simply rejects customary practices, but adopts innovative

practices offered by the scientific and technological

communities. In north Florida, 78.4 percent of the ranchers








85
surveyed had at least 40 years of experience. In south

Florida, 81.3 percent of the sample had at least 40 years of

experience. Thus, more southern ranches had been in the

business 40 or more years.

Cattle ranching is a male dominated occupation. In both

the southern and northern regions of the state most ranchers

are men (78.3 percent in the north, and 84.1 percent in the

south).


Table 5.8 Gender of

Gender


Male

Female

Total


ranch operator by region.

Northern Rancher Southern Rancher
Percent in Each Percent in Each
SCategory_ Cater__
78.3 84.1

21.7 15.9

100 100


A high percentage of all ranchers belonged to the

Florida Cattlemen's Association.


Table 5.9 Trade association membership by region.

Membership in Trade Associations Northern Southern
Percent Percent
Membership Membership
Florida Cattleman's Association 72.2 83.3
Florida Farm Bureau 68.2 78.6
Breed Association 40.9 25.2
Other Sources 14.3 9.5


Pr=0.127


12=5.708








86
In north Florida, 72.2 percent of all ranchers in the

sample subscribe to FCA and 40.9 percent belong to one or more

breed associations. In south Florida, as many as, 83.3 percent

belong to the FCA and 25.2 percent contribute to one or more

breed associations. Because of the cost associated with

membership, the southern rancher with his large herd size can

afford membership and reap the benefits of the useful

information offered by these organizations. Both northern and

southern ranchers have confidence in advice from the

University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences. Over 50 percent of the state's ranchers rely on the

scientific community's recommendations (Table 5.10).

The Florida peninsula has a rolling landscape that is

characteristic of karst topography. Many soil types consist

of quartz sands. These sands predominate where Florida's

Central-Highland cattle ranches have been established. Table

5.11 shows that 31.8 percent of the surveyed ranchers in the

north are located in the deep sand central region of the

state. These sites of natural vegetation are dominated by

eastern gram grass, switch grass, maidencane, and longleaf

uniola (Mullahey and Tanner, 1992). The endangered plants

and animals on these sites include adder's tongue fern,

spleen wort, climbing dayflower, and culpet fern as well as








87
the Florida black bear and the Florida panther (Mullahey

and Tanner, 1992).


Table 5.10 Sources of information available to Florida
ranchers.

Level of UF or IFAS Consultant Vendor Rep.
Importance Employees
Pr > t 0.008 Pr > t 0.391 Pr > t 0.148
Percentage Percentage Percentage
North South North South North South


Very
Important 18.2 25.6 4.5 12.2 9.1 12.2

Important 50.0 51.2 22.3 22.0 31.8 41.5

Not Very 9.1 15.3 22.7 24.4 35.4 34.1
Important

Not At All 22.7 7.0 45.5 41.5 22.7 12.2
Important


Other significant ranching areas

flatwood regions with 40.9 percent of


are located

the northern


and 55.8 percent of the southern ranches. Cattle ranching

dominates in the flatwood areas because the same land can

not easily be used for citrus groves. As a result of

periodic freezes, the citrus industry has moved further

south, where new technologies are used to plant on flatwood

soils. The southern flatwoods, in their natural state, are

usually strewn with pine trees, saw palmetto, gallberry, and

wiregrasses.


in the

ranches









Table 5.11 Soil types present on ranches.

Soil Type Northern Rancher Southern Rancher
Percent in Each Percent in Each
Category Category

Muck (Organic) 0.0 15.9

Flatwood 40.9 55.8

Deep Sand 31.8 18.2

Loam/Sandy Loam 52.2 38.6
2 = 32.655 Pr = 0.001


The endangered plants and animals of the southern

flatwoods area include the following plants: yellow

squirrel-banana, Florida bear grass, wiregrass, mock

pennyroyal, Edison's ascyrum, fall flowering ixia, Bartram's

ixia, mammals such as the Florida black bear, the fox

squirrel the Florida panther; such birds as the Florida

grasshopper sparrow, red-cocked woodpecker, bald eagle,

Florida sandhill crane, and the burrowing owl (Mullahey and

Tanner, 1992).

Differences in the importance of ranching as a primary

source of income and the tendency of south Florida's ranches

to be generally more dependent on ranching are well

illustrated in Table 5.12. In north Florida, land used for

permanent pasture constituted 74 percent of the total acreage

of the ranches in the sample.









Table 5.12 Pasture

Pasture Type
(PT)


Improved Pasture

Permanent Pasture

Unimproved Pasture


Statistics for Ta
5.12


type by region.

Northern Rancher Southern Rancher
Percent in Each Percent in Each
Category Category
57 31

74 91

17 60

ble X2 = 30.265 Pr = 0.001


In south Florida, permanent pasture makes up 91 percent

of the total acreage on the ranches included in the sample. As

one would expect, unimproved pasture and native range were

much more prevalent in south Florida, accounting for 60

percent of all land on the ranches. In north Florida, by

contrast, unimproved pasture constitutes only 17 percent of

all land. Conversely, improved pasture comprises 31 percent of

the land included in the sample in south Florida ranches.

However, 57 percent of the north Florida sampled ranch land

was improved pasture.



Water and Nutrient Management Concerns

Florida ranchers use water primarily as drinking water

for cattle. Water constraints are among the issues legislative

policy makers are reviewing. Another concern is whether or not

the cattle industry is polluting the aquatic systems with




Full Text

PAGE 1

ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CATTLE AND CALF INDUSTRY OF FLORIDA By DARRYL KEITH CLARE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1996 U N I VERSITY O F Ff_QRIDA LIBRARJES

PAGE 2

Copyright 1996 by DARRYL KEITH CLARE 1.1.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My graduate education began with meeting Dean Roderick McDavis. He saw something 1.n me that took a few years to evolve. Dean McDavis, has helped and directed me in ways I have yet to ascertain. This doctoral portion of my educational process would not have been possible without the support, knowledge, guidance, honesty, and regard of Dr. Caviedes, my committee chair. The academicians that follow, not at all fall into a subordinate standing. They are the components that brought me to this point in my educational voyage; Dr. H.T. Odum for introducing me to a systems approach, an important tool used to explain complex interactions, Dr. Joann Mossa has shown that hard work is the way to excellence and at the very same time, life can be ''nor1r1al'', Dr. Timothy Fik for sharing his enthusiasm for knowledge, Dr. Marilyn ''Micki'' Swisher for demonstrating that the path to success is navigated by reaching for what seems to be impossible, Dr. Weismantel for being an essence of encouragement applied at the right time to succeed in this process. l.l.l.

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS AC~OWLEDCitviENTS l.l.l. LIST OF TABLES Vl.l. LIST OF FIGURES l.X ABS TRA.CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X CHAPTER 1 LOCATION OF THE COW/CALF INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA'S AGRICULTURE Introduction Inten t and Objectives .......................... Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 CHAPTER 2 FLORIDA CATTLE RANCHING AND ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE PRACTICES: A LITERATURE REVIEW ............. The Accepted Government Definition of Sustainability Adoption of Environmentally Protective Agricultural Practices Land for Urban Use Versus Land for Agricultural Use ........................... CHAPTER 3 THE BASIS OF FLORIDA AGRICULTURE AND THE LOCATION OF THE COW-CALF INDUSTRY Population and Markets Land Tenure Patterns Land Uses in Florida ........................ Urban Expansion and Shrinking of 1 1 6 6 6 6 7 8 13 15 19 23 31 36 37 Crop / Pasture Lands .......................... 41 Land C o nversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Florida Grazing Lands ............................. 47 l. V

PAGE 5

The Place of Cattle Ranching in Florida ......... 48 Florida Cattle Ranching Development 49 Effects of Agricultural Development and Technological Change . . . . . . . . 52 CHAPTER 4 METHODS . . . . . . . . . 56 Population and Sample Selection 56 Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . 58 Survey Application . . . . . 60 Population Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Deterrnination of the Sample Size . . . . . . . 62 Data Collection and Processing 64 Regional Arlalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Statistical Procedures Used . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Methodology to Examine the Changes in Agricultural Land Use . . . . . . . . 66 Methodology to Examine the Rural Land to Urban Land Use Coefficients 70 Change in Range Land Use . . . . . . . 7 0 Herd-size Index . . . . . . . . . 71 The Location Quotient 72 CHAPTER 5 'RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Geographic Distribution of Samples 74 Significance Testing 77 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 Herd Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Demographic Profile of Ranchers ................... 82 Water and Nutrient Management and Concerns 89 Management of Nutrients . . 91 Pasture Renovation and Protection of Endangered Plant Species . . 96 Pesticide Management and Weed Control 97 The Future of Florida Ranching ................... 100 Changes of Agricultural Land Use into Urban Land Use 103 Results of the Pasture Land Use Analysis 106 Herdsize Change Indices 109 Application of the Location Quotient to Pasture Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 'REFE'RENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8 APPENDIX I THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT 138 V

PAGE 6

APPENDIX II ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS 153 BIOGRA.PHICAL SKETCH. . . . . . . . . . . 157 V1

PAGE 7

Table 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 3.5. 3.6. 4 .1. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. 5.7. 5.8. 5.9. 5.10. 5.11. 5.12. 5.13. 5.14. 5.15. 5.16. 5.17. 5.18. 5.19. 5.20. 5.21. LIST OF TABLES page Distribution of Vegetable Crops Throughout the State of Florida 26 Water Use for Agricultural Purposes ............ 32 Population of Florida: Urban Versus Rural Populations ................. 35 Cash Receipts of Farrtt Income. . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 Florida Agricultural Land Use ................. 38 Acreage and Crops in 19 9 0 4 2 Kruskal-Wallis Test Results 69 Cattle Operation Type by Region 79 Herd Size by Region 80 Ranch Acreage by Region. . . . . . . . . . . 81 Total Ranch Acreage in Southern and Northern Regions of Florida 81 Rancher Mean Age and Age Range 82 Educational Level by Region 83 Number of Years in Ranching 84 Gender of Ranch Operator by Region ............. 85 Trade Association Membership by Region 85 Sources of Inforrnation Availabe to Florida Ranchers . . . . . . . . . . 87 Soil Types Present on Ranches 88 Pasture Type by Region 89 Drinking Water Sources by Region .............. 90 Ranch Water Source Metering 90 Soil Testing by Region 91 Frequency with which Fertilizing Records are Kept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Nitrogen Application Rates by Region 94 P 2 0s Application Rates by Region 95 K 2 0 Application Rates by Region ............... 95 Use of Mechanical Procedures of Pasture Renovation by Region 96 Florida Ranchers Who Burn Their Pastures by Region . . 97 V11

PAGE 8

5.22. 5.23. 5.24. 5.25. 5. 26. 5.27. 5.28. 5.29. 5.30. 5.31. 5.32. 5.33. 5.34. Herbicide Application by Region 98 Ranchers Who Apply Pesticides or Herbicides 99 Pesticide Application and Heal th Protection Usage . . . . . . . 99 Overview of Florida Rancher Concerns by Importance Florida Rancher Concerns About Profitability Importance of Factors to Ranchers by Region Population Changes in MSA and Non-MSA Counties The Urban Land Use Coefficients Pasture and Range Land Acreage by Region Pasture and Range Land Coefficients by Region Herdsize Change compared Using Proportional Index ........................................... Location Quotient of Four Selected Counties The Location Quotients of Pasture Land by County and Region V111 100 102 103 105 106 107 108 111 113 116

PAGE 9

Figure 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 4 .1. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. LIST OF FIGURES page Hardiness Zones ............................ 24 Mean Average Annual Precipitation ................. 28 Florida Transportation Routes in 1990 ............ 34 Metropolitan Statistical Areas 44 Counties Selected for the 1990 Cow/Calf Survey by Region ................... 57 Florida Cattle Location by Herdsize in 1987 ....... 110 Herdsize by County in 1990 ...................... 110 Location Quotient for State and County Pasture Land in 1987 .................. 115 Location Quotient for State and County Pasture Land in 1990 ............... 116 1X

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES: A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF THE CATTLE AND CALF INDUSTRY OF FLORIDA By DARRYL KEITH CLARE August, 1996 Chairperson: Dr. Cesar Caviedes Major Department: Geography The Florida livestock cow and calf producers are reviewed in terms of its environmentally protective practices. Utilizing a Florida cattle rancher survey conducted in 1993, cattle ranching is perceived as an agricultural practice that is capable of safeguarding Florida's natural environment and face the future in a satisfactory manner. Florida ranchers were asked how important political and economic factors are to the future of Florida ranching. Their responses revealed that Florida ranchers are well informed of the external forces that affect their industry. Results indicate that cattle ranchers in Florida believe they are X

PAGE 11

using many cow/calf production practices which are environmentally benevolent. The data also indicate that they are concerned about the potential impacts of environmental issues and government regulation on both individual ranch profitability and the future of ranching in the state. Unfortunately, results also show that most ranchers are probably not monitoring their ranch operations effectively to prove that their operations are environmentally sound. Nevertheless, fierce competition for land resources exists throughout Florida and affects cattle ranching. Urbanization is expanding the MSA areas in a manner that will make it necessary to impose legislation to control land consumption. Also other for"Icts of agricultural exploitation are encroaching on the land for1nerly utilized by cattle ranching. Both herd size and surface covered with natural or improved pastures are changing and this change is more dramatic in southern counties than in northern counties Xl.

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 LOCATION OF THE COW/CALF INDUSTRY IN FLORIDA'S AGRICULTURE Introduction Cattle production in Florida is essentially a cow/calf operation; its amplitude lS indicated by the number of breeding cows, often called brood cows (1,083,000 in 1990), and the acreage of pasture (over 11 million acres in 1990 reported by The United States Department of Agriculture, 1990). The cow/calf operation produces calves to be sent to finishing yards in the western part of the United States. These calves are later sold to stock yards for butchering and dressing. Florida provides the largest brood cow population in the country while supplying a significant number of calves for finishing. Maintenance and management of range land in Florida are vital for wildlife and water recharge. Because pastures and other forages occupy so much land in Florida, this study will look into the theoretical and practical association between the cow/calf industry and patterns of land use in the state. The study infers that Florida cattle ranchers use management practices that incorporate an understanding of ecological 1

PAGE 13

2 principles to protect the use of watersheds and wildlife habitat and that, therefore, the Florida cattle industry is conceptually a "sustainable" agricultural practice. 1 This study will also examine how cattle ranchers use and manage their land. Wise use and management of these lands can go far toward meeting the goal of sustainable resource use. Contributions to this body of knowledge are therefore important both from a conceptual and from an applied perspective. The concept of sustainable agriculture requires a thorough understanding of the food, fiber, and fuel production processes, i ncluding their impact on and interactions with natural ecosystems and their social implications There is a need for a comprehensive study of agricultural production systems in the state, in general, and livestock production systems specifically. This project explores the principles of ecological management of livestock production systems and other systems, such as natural forests and natural preserves, to help deter1ctine the degree to which Florida ranchers understand and use sustainable agricultural technology. Some contend that any conversion of natural land to pasture and range leads to ecosystem deterioration and loss of biodiversity to a significant degree. They assume that high1 The terms sustainable and sustainability will adopt different connotations in the course of this dissertation. The quantitatively appropriate phrase, ''environmentally protective'' is mostly applicable

PAGE 14

3 intensity, confinement systems inevitably produce large scale resource degradation. These systems, however, have traditionally not applied to the Florida cattle industry. Other authors hold the view that only traditional systems, in which livestock, crop, and forage production are highly integrated, can be considered sustainable (Swisher et al., 1994; Maikhuri, 1992). To some, ''sustainability'' means a change from present agricultural methods to the implementation of completely organic, low input, low impact agriculture. All the data concerned with the adoption of environmentally protective agricultural practices comes from a survey of cattle and calf producers conducted in Florida in 1993. The data assembled in the survey suggest that Florida cattle ranching could be considered a sustainable agricultural activity from a qualitative and conceptual perspective. The data also demonstrate that ranchers are aware of the environment and take responsibility for its conservation. Three critical environmental concerns for Florida ranching are nutrient management, pest management, and water conservation. Data for all three areas of concern were collected. Furtherrnore, economic forces dictate that both the biological and economic productivity of farms and ranches must be maintained and that environmental impacts must be minimized to assure social compatibility (Lightfoot and Nobel, 1993).

PAGE 15

4 The concern for environmental problems and the need for wise resource management and land utilization created an interest in developing sustainable agricultural production systems from a conceptual viewpoint. The preocupation with maintaining fanning systems that are environmentally sound has gone so far that ''sustainability'' is one of the goals targeted in the 1990 United States Far1cL Bill. The United States Department of Agriculture expressed this concern and defined the involvement of the federal government in sustainable agriculture. However, it was the environmental movement that forced the agricultural cornmuni ty and society in general to look at the application of a viable "sustainable agricultural methodology.'' The United States Department of Agriculture has stated that an agricultural system that meets needed economic and production levels and, simultaneously works in har111ony with the present existing ecosystems agricultural methodology. '' 2 l.S a '' sustainable The term '' sustainable agriculture'' as it pertains to Florida cattle ranching implies using ranching practices that 2 The definition of sustainabli ty used in this study comes the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act, Subtitle Title XVI. It is defined as follows: from A Sustainable agriculture is an integrated system of plant and animal production having a site specific application that will, over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs; enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and of farm/ranch resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viability of farm/ ranch operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers/ranch operation; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.

PAGE 16

5 will help meet the state's agricultural economic needs while protecting delicate natural ecosystems and maintaining the state's natural resource base (De Haven et al., 1991). ''Absolute sustainability'' may never be achieved. However, it is necessary that farmers, ranchers, and others seek and utilize agricultural practices that approach acceptable levels of sustainability (Swisher et al., 1995). Too often, the impression is given that all livestock production occurs in intensive confinement systems Insufficient studies have been conducted on the degree to which ranchers who use pasture based systems, such as those in Florida, are environmentally protective. Inconclusive results, based on the characteristics of production systems that are not typical of cattle production in Florida, have unsupported conclusions about the negative effects of Florida livestock systems. This study of Florida ranching activities also incorporates a geographical perspective. A location coefficient is used to explain the relationships between land resources, cattle ranching, and population Some historical background 15 also necessary to place ''sustainability'' in an accurate time framework that allows the assessment of environmental change and provides a starting point for the measurement of the transforn1ation of agricultural enterprises.

PAGE 17

This objectives: Objective 1 Intent and Objectives dissertation concentrates 6 on four research The first objective is to present a demographic profile of cattle ranchers and a picture of the basic characteristics of cattle ranches and their operators, to understand their role and place in Florida's agriculture. Objective 2 The second objective 15 to describe changes in the practices used in cattle ranching between 1983 and 1990. This includes assessing the degree to which cattle ranchers use practices that are environmentally protective. It 15 assumed that major changes are occurring within this activity. Objective 3 The third objective is to examine the opinions of cattle ranchers and to deternine the degree of connection of cattle ranchers with the scientific community, to understand the external forces that control cattle ranching as an economic activity. Factors that affect the profitability of cow/calf production such as taxes, regulations, and record keeping are assessed. One goal is to characterize the perceptions of

PAGE 18

7 cattle ranchers towards government and to reveal their attitudes regarding the adoption of environmentally protective agricultural practices. Objective 4 The fourth objective focuses on the location of cow/calf production in the state and the ways these enterprises relate to other uses of land. Particularly important in this fourth objective is the growing pressures placed on ranching land by use for human habitation. Many areas of Florida are experiencing rapid population expansion and agricultural shifts. With the prospect of declining environmental amenities and economic utility derived from the natural resource base, Florida will have to make some very tough decisions in future years. This dissertation presents a geographic framework of this competition for land and discusses the rate of land use conversion by using land use coefficients and location quotients. Evidence suggests that differential land conversion occurs as a result of growth in urban areas and in the areas used for cattle ranching. If a pattern of land consumption is established, future land conversion can be predicted, and better judgments can be made about attempting to restrict land use change.

PAGE 19

CHAPTER 2 FLORIDA CATTLE RANCHING AND ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTIVE PRACTICES: A LITERATURE REVIEW Florida's population increased from 9,746,925 inhabitants to approximately 12,937,922 between 1987 and 1990. During the same period, the value of Florida's agricultural products also increased. Despite periodic freeze damage to citrus and other crops (Weischet and Caviedes, 1987), the value of cash receipts from all far1n commodities produced in Florida rose by 23 percent between 1984 and 1988 to over $5.8 billion (Jackson et al., 1995). During this period, cash receipts of all agricultural products in the U.S. grew by only 6 percent. By 1988, Florida was eighth in the U.S. for cash receipts of agricultural commodities. Both the area in agricultural production and the area devoted to urban development have grown. This growth has an economic and an environmental price tag. This production chapter in the reviews state the trends in cattle and calf and describes the environmental c o ncerns associated with ranching. To the average American, 8

PAGE 20

who 15 at least several generations off the farnl, recollection of a farm most often includes livestock. 9 mental Today this image is mostly a sentimental image because far1cts have typically specialized into either crops or livestock. For example, in Florida far11t numbers have decreased at a rate of nearly 140 farms per year since the early 1960s. The number of far 11ts with cattle declined by 260 far11ts in 1980, nearly twice the 1960 rate (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993). The most significant change is that the farms remaining are fewer, larger, and mostly crop-only operations. Economic and social changes over the past century have greatly affected the presence of livestock in agrosystems. Economies of scale and the associated transportation costs were the foremost reason for concentrating the livestock finishing industry in the central region of the United States. Meat-packing plants were built alongside the rail centers in Kansas City and Chicago to ease access for the incoming cattle and the outgoing carcasses. The livestock finishing industry is still largely controlled by these strong economic influences. Feed lots have dominated southwest Kansas and the southern High Plains The largest packing plants are now located near the feed lots, to allow shipping of boxed beef rather than live cattle. The economy of packing and delivering the highest quality, most uniform, and cheapest meat products to consumers

PAGE 21

10 has thus changed the distribution of livestock across the country. Calves are raised in Florida and other regions of the South and are finishing. then shipped to midwestern regions for Social factors have further separated livestock from the other farm endeavors. With the arrival of larger tractors and tools supporting the work demands of larger far1rts and fields, mechanization of the entire farm has been an appealing notion to the agriculturalist. Depending on the type of operation, livestock require care throughout the year. Although cattle has remained a part of the romantic image of western agriculture, they no longer fit the mold of a contemporary far1n. There are also other social factors that have discouraged meat consumption. Health concerns about animal fats, animal rights concerns, and animal welfare issues, whether perceived or real, have had a negative impact on the livestock industry. Al though agroecosystems are possible without livestock, domesticated animals have long been perceived as consumers in the agroecosystem (Joandet and Cartwright, 1975} Ruminants have the most potential to diversify and re-diversify the agroecosystem because they use forage based rations. Livestock production that is concentrated on the use of high quality feed grains is not a Florida process. Yet, switching from

PAGE 22

grain based to forage based rations has 11 widespread implications for both the livestock industry and the farm {Wedin et al., 1975) Even the recent attention to organic farming methods has aroused criticism in that it would require too many head of cattle (Bender, 1988). The enhanced use of livestock to enrich the perspective agroecosystero thus seems confined by rigid economic and social constraints. Consensus has developed in support of the use of modern technologies to raise productivity on farms. However, the newly introduced technologies should not degrade the natural resource underpinnings. These technologies should offer benefits to all segments of society now and into the future (Brklacich et al., 1991; O'Connell, 1991; Trenbath et al., 1990; Douglass, 1984; Fox, 1991; Miller, 1992; Carter, 1992). Perhaps the considerable interest in environmentally protective systems is due to the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has sponsored research on low input sustainable agriculture {LISA) Farrcters and researchers are interested 1n responding to an observed desire of consumers for healthier food and more environmentally sound production practices. Being sensitive to market demands is just good business sense. The research establishment that supports lower input technologies, marketable alternative

PAGE 23

12 crops, and processes has added sustainable agriculture to its research agenda. Whatever reasoning is behind the appeal of sustainable agriculture, one can not help but foresee a profound revolution about to overtake American agriculture. The basis for assuming that some of our present livestock production and resource management practices are not at all sustainable will be examined further. However, the extent of any assumed "revolution'' in agriculture will depend on what one clearly understands by "sustainability.'' Economic, social, political, and ideological influences continuously constrain or divert people and institutions from acting on what are fitting obligations. Gordon Douglass (1984) has discerned three different uses of the term ''sustainable agriculture" in recent literature: 1} as a long-teritL food sufficiency, either domestic or worldwide; 2) as an agricultural system that preserves and conserves renewable and nonrenewable resources; or 3) as a set of agricultural procedures that encourage certain values and strengthen the vitality of local communities.

PAGE 24

With these connotations in mind, 13 the evolution of an ecological consciousness that we call outlined further below. "sustainability" The Accepted Government Definition of Sustainability 15 The 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act provides a working definition of "sustainable agriculture" as mentioned earlier. It is clear that the United States government assumption is that sustainable production systems are integrated systems that are site-specific and that will satisfy human food and fiber needs over the long ter1t1. The 1990 United States Farm Bill goes on to say that these systems should enhance the quality of the natural resource base. They should make the most efficient use of both nonrenewable and on-farm resources and should sustain the economic viability of the far1n or ranch while enhancing the quality of life for both farcters and society as a whole. In Florida, studies that evaluate agriculture's adoption of sustainable practices have been performed. Studies conducted in 1982 by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service concerning beef forage practices and the 1986 Florida Cooperative Extension Service research focusing on beef-forage practices in South Central Florida address some environmental issues involved in cattle and calf production (Swisher, 1993).

PAGE 25

14 Most importantly, these surveys provide infor1t1ation about ranchers' fertilization practices, suggesting that ranchers use low nitrogen and phosphorus application rates, reducing their potential for nutrient discharge into surface and ground water supplies. These studies, however, do not address water or crop pest management practices among Florida ranchers. University of Florida researchers conducted a study of management practices, particularly water and nutrient managem e nt practices, among fern producers a subset of the ornamental industry, {Swisher,1993) 1 In 19 9 2 the University of Florida completed a study centering on the Suwannee River Basin, and particularly on dairy faritLers' attitudes towards water quality (Taylor, 1992). Some argue that the generalized concept of ''sustainability'' also involves social equity issues such as accessibility of technology and infor1t1ation. This has been the case for the small or resource-poor far1r1ers (Conway, 1987; Lele, 1991; Smith, 1980; Swisher, 1993). Also stated is the need to manage 1 This researcher goes on to identify other research projects: A 1988 study by Ridgley (1992) addresses growers adoption of integrated pest management practices for soybean production. The results o f this study provide detailed information about pest management practices among soybean growers. However, soybean acreage is small in Florida and this study does not provide insights in to nutrient or water management. A very detailed study of citrus production practices was conducted in 1989 ( Taylor, 1992). This study provides a wealth of information and addresses water, nutrient, and pest management practices. Also of interest is a study of integrated pest management practices among organic vegetable producers (Swisher, and Monaghan, 1995).

PAGE 26

15 resources wisely to assure equity and provide future generations with better options (Howarth and Norgaard, 1990). Adoption of Environmentally Protective Agricultural Practices The question of the social consequences of technological change -for example, who wins and who loses -has haunted much of the academic and political debate over science and technology. A generally optimistic attitude towards technological change prevailed during the fifties and sixties. This optimism was based on the linear diffusionist model of science and on the belief that the diffusion of science and technology into a social system would invariably produce progress. Post-classical diffusion for11tulations in the eighties shifted substantial focus from adoption to the diffusion interests of propagators in order to explain uneven effects and consequences of technological change. Given the reduced degree of political support for the linear diffusionist model that science had enjoyed, technological innovations have remained relatively slow in adoption. Many authors, this researcher included, argue that sociological attributes, such as age, gender, and educational level (Lockeretz, 1991), including social status, membership in organizations, and contact with extension and other

PAGE 27

16 institutions serve best to predict adoption behavior. Even the influence of such physical skills as mechanical dexterity on adoption behavior has been hypothesized {Reynolds and Dillman, 1991). Some researchers emphasize the influence of commitment to sustainable techniques on adoption behavior {Buttler et al., 1991, Lynne et al, 1988; Nassauer and Westmacott, 1986). There are five groups ( f arrrters and other potential adopters of new technologies) that are distinguished by their abilities to accept ''new'' techniques. The groups are: innovators, early adopters, adopters, late adopters and laggards {Swisher, 1993). These groups are described primarily based on their individual characteristics. Innovators, for example, are typically characterized as younger, with higher educational levels, and having more intensive and more frequent contact with sources of inforntation in both the public and private sector. None of these constructs considers the importance of regulations, scarcity of inputs, and farrtLer awareness of public opinion in farrtL decision-making, therefore creating an incomplete representation of the situation. Although some attention is now paid to exogenous factors (Green, 1986), traditional models of predicting utilization of sustainable agricultural technology continue to frequently assume that farmers freely choose to adopt or reject a particular practice

PAGE 28

17 or technology. Yet, the far111ers' decision-making power lS increasingly constrained by exogenous factors. Regulatory agencies, such as the Water Management Districts in Florida, may, for example, dictate that f arnLers reduce input use. Far1ners fear the legal consequences of surface and groundwater contamination from nutrient application. Yet, studies on the role of ranchers' perception of regulation and public opinion are absent from the literature. The degree to which livestock production systems, particularly cattle production systems, are sustainable or can be made sustainable has been controversial. Several arguments are offered that basically assume that modern livestock production systems are, by their nature, inherently not sustainable over the medium to long ter1n (Swisher, 1993). Expansion of ranching and the accompanying conversion of natural ecosystems to pasture and other forage lands, has been blamed for extensive environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. Menke and Bradford (1992) indicate that nearly 50 percent of the earth's land area is in rangeland. Nations and Nigh (1978) were some of the earliest and most vocal critics of the role of ranching in tropical ecosystem destruction. They and others (Gradwohl and Greenberg, 1988; Buschbacher, 1986) have argued that ranching is a leading cause of forest destruction because it requires small

PAGE 29

18 investment in capital and labor and has been subsidized by tax incentives in many states (Abt et al., 1990). While some argue that more intensive management of rangelands would reduce these kinds of destruction, Menke and Bradford ( 1992: 141) point out that ''the greatest aspects on biodiversity usually occur on sites with the highest productivity.'' Intensive livestock production systems, based on confinement, obviously reduce the amount of destruction of habitat that non intensive, open range systems incur. Other critics, however, argue that these systems have many undesirable impacts. Extensive research in Florida and elsewhere has been conducted to prevent nutrient movement into ground and surface water supplies (Sutton et al., 1993; VanHorn et al., 1991; Gallaher et al., 1994). Although high capacity confinement systems obviously offer the greatest potential for liberating excess nutrients into water supplies, even livestock grazing systems are under scrutiny by EPA, primarily where access to sensitive places such as stream banks, wetlands, estuaries, ponds, lake shores and riparian zones by livestock can result in excess nutrient loading of water resources. These facilities are not part of the Florida livestock operation. Another argument against modern livestock production systems focuses on their role in society as a whole (Conway, 1987; Edwards, 1987; Youngberg, 1984). For example, livestock

PAGE 30

19 production is criticized by some for using food grains that could be used to feed people. Environmentally protecti ve 2 production, particularly cattle practices ranching, in are livestock clearly important to the general sustainability of agricultural production in Florida. Both the extent of land use for beef production and the economic importance of this activity justify examining how well Florida's ranches meet the criteria for sustainability. The next section deals with land use, another component of sustainable agriculture which is frequently overlooked when evaluating the farmer's efforts to sustain agricultural activities. How is land use changing from intensive agricultural to urban uses? How are these changes measured and what is the cost associated with these changes? Land for Urban Use Versus Land for Agricultural Use Human settlement greatly affects the demand for agriculturally productive land. If recent migrants were only involved in agricultural activities, the land resources would be consumed in crop and/ or livestock production activities. However, this is not the case in Florida. Land in Florida is 2 This dissertation assumes a thesis that defends the use of environmentally protective practices because the theory of sustainability has economic aspects, cultural implications and personal preferences that are not quantitative, and therefore are qualitative in measurement.

PAGE 31

20 proportionately involved in urbanization and agricultural production and as a result quotients and coefficient measures are employed to examine settlement patte r ns. Florida has been experiencing dramatic econorcuc and demographic change in this century. The average land/resident ratio is greater than in other parts of the country (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991). Population and industrial growth have also had more subtle impact on Florida land. In many areas, rural land has increasingly gone into the hands of nonresident, often urban, owners (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1989). The latter, who may have inherited the property or purchased it for recreation or as an investment, are often unwilling or unable to manage the land to its fullest potential. The management behavior of non industrial private forest owners, for example, has frequently been identified as one of the greatest uncertainties for long ter1tl forest management in Florida. The ownership problem is compounded by widespread division of land into smaller parcels (which created dis-economies of scale for almost any productive use) and by the interspersion of urban and rural land uses, to the detriment of both (Reynolds and Dallman, 1991). Shifts in land use in Florida have produced significant environmental changes as well. Clearing bottom land hardwood

PAGE 32

21 forests and groves to make way for truck crops has all but eliminated vast areas of wildlife habitat in several southern river systems (U.S. Forestry Service, 1980). Of the 2.4 million acres of forested wetlands originally located in the wetlands, nearly all cleared land has become cropland. Expansion of pasture onto forest is generally accompanied by an increase in soil erosion (Pritchard, 1966) Erosion not only threatens future soil productivity but contributes to water pollution and to silt buildup in watercourses and reservoirs. Competition for Florida land has also led to competition for Florida water (Southeast Water Resources, 1979). Average rainfall is relatively high in Florida compared to the West and parts of the Midwest. Yet the seasonal distribution of rainfall in the state in not optimal for crop production, and Florida farners have learned that they can increase yields by irrigating. Intensified use of water in Florida has, thus far, had two side effects. First, in several local areas pumping of groundwater by agricultural irrigators, but mostly by urban users, has lowered the water pressure within underground aquifers especially in the southeastern part of the state. This has resulted in the drying of wells, in some local areas, and has allowed saltwater to infiltrate into well fields, contaminating the water supply in a number of communities.

PAGE 33

22 Second, there is growing interest in the ownership of water rights. In Florida, where historically there has been ample water for all, water users are becoming aware that they must establish some controls on water if they are to protect themselves from future shortages. The competition for settlement land use with other uses will be decided in part by the automatic operation of land and product markets. All of these factors are likely to continue to exert their influences in the years to come. It has been argued that the current lavish use of land in Florida for settlement activities (urbanization) is a consequence of the fact that the urban value of land is high relative to its value in other uses. But if urban and other residential uses of land begin to reduce significantly the agricultural land base, prices of crops and timber will rise With higher product prices, agricultural and forestry users of land will be able to pay more to rent or buy land.

PAGE 34

CHAPTER 3 THE BASIS OF FLORIDA AGRICULTURE AND THE LOCATION OF THE COW-CALF INDUSTRY The agriculture of the state has developed successfully in the face of many unfavorable factors (United States Department of Agriculture, 1990}. Under good management, a large volume of crop and livestock production is achieved. Much of Florida has a subtropical climate with warrn humid summers and receives and average of 60 to 70 percent of the maximum sunshine. Nonetheless, while it is particularly advantageous to the production of citrus fruits and winter vegetables, it also increases the hazards of plant diseases and insects. Variations of temperature within the state are distinct and are important to agriculture. In terms of average planting dates the state is divided into seven zones. The map of what is called ''hardiness zones'' ( Figure 3 .1) divides the state into seven temperature regions of mean annual minimum temperature zones revealing that much of the Southeast United States and, including, Florida is cooler in the winter than previously reported. 23

PAGE 35

8a Hardiness Zone Map Zone Ba 10 to 15 degrees Zone 8b 15 to 20 degrees Zone 9a 20 to 25 degrees Zone 9b 25 to 30 degrees Zone 10a 30 to 35 degrees Zone 1 Ob 35 to 40 degrees Zone 11 above 40 degrees Figure 3.1 Weather Hardiness zones. Bureau, 1990. 9b 10a Source: The 24 9a 10b 11? United States The growing season tends to shorten as one goes inland from the coast toward the middle of the state. Cold waves are of short duration, rarely lasting more than three days. Though temperatures of 15 degrees to 20 degrees may be reached in the extreme north of the state, temperatures of 32 degrees or higher prevail in the southern part of the state. Half the land area of the state has a growing season that ranges from

PAGE 36

25 240 to 310 days. The rest, excluding only the Lower Keys, has a growing season that ranges from 310 to 365 days. Temperatures are especially important because their differences are reflected in the distribution of citrus and vegetable production (Table 3.1). Winter vegetables tend to be concentrated in southern Florida, whereas spring and fall vegetables are found in central and northern Florida. The major citrus producing areas are located south of the line that marks a nor1rtal annual temperature of 70 degrees (Jackson et al, 1995). Winter minimum temperatures offer a pattern that will assist in identifying the subtle variations in temperature throughout the state of Florida (Waylen, Chen and Gerber, 1986). The daily minimum temperature is the lowest temperature recorded for each day, it usually occurs at night or very early in the morning. This measure is important due to the fact that very low temperatures over a long period {a few hours in the case of citrus f ar11ting) are a danger to crops and plants by creating frost conditions. Frost is defined as the condition when the temperature reaches 32 degrees Fahrenheit or less. The monthly minimum temperature is an average of the daily minimum temperatures of each month. January is usually the coldest month of the year where most absolute temperatures occur. minimum

PAGE 37

Table 3.1 Distribution State of Florida 197 5) of vegetable crops throughout the (Modified from Marcus and Fernald, 1. West County: potatoes Counties: butter I Gadsen County: tomatoes. Escambia Washington wa ter rctelons sweet corn, I Holmes, Jackson, beans, field peas, pole beans, squash, 2. North Stake, Brooker, Lake Butler: lima beans, snap peas, cucumbers, peppers, squash, strawberries. Hastings: cabbage, potatoes I Gainesville: Alachua area: bush beans, cucumbers, peppers, potatoes, squash. 3. North Central Oxford, Pedro: tomatoes, watenctelons I Sanford, Oviedo, Zellwood: cabbage, carrots, celery, sweet corn, cucumbers, escarole, greens, lettuce, peppers, radishes, spinach. 4 West Central Plant City, Balms: bush and pole peas, lima beans, cucumbers, eggplants, field peas, greens, squash, strawberries, cabbage, watermelon I Palmetto, Ruskin: cauliflower, squash, strawberries, cabbage, wa terntelon I Sarasota: cabbage, celery, sweet corn, escarole, lettuce, radishes. 5. East Central Fort Pierce: tomatoes, water1nelon. 6. South West Fort Meyers, Imrnokalee: sweet eggplant, peppers, potatoes, wa terntelons. 7. Everglades corn, squash, cucumbers, tomatoes, bush beans, cabbage, celery, Chinese cabbage, sweet corn, escarole, greens, lettuce, potatoes, radishes. 8. Southeast Martin County: field peas, greens, watermelons, tomatoes I Pompano Beach: celery, sweet corn, radishes, egg plant, cabbage, cabbage, squash, squash, cucumbers, tomatoes I Homestead: cauliflower, strawberries, cabbage, water1c1elon, tomatoes. 26

PAGE 38

Florida receives substantial precipitation 27 {National Weather Service, 1990). Average rainfall totals vary from 40 inches in the Florida Keys to 55 to 65 inches on the mainland (Figure 3.2). The areas of highest rainfall are the extreme western counties and the interior southern peninsula, where annual totals range from 55 to 65 inches. Rainfall distribution through the year is uneven. In an average year the summer "rainy" season, extending from about June through September or early October, produces about 60 percent of the annual rainfall in the central and southern peninsula. The four months of the ''rainy'' season produces about 55 percent of the average of the northern peninsula and about 45 percent of the average in the western counties. On the central and northern peninsula, rainfall diminishes in September and is low in November. December through March is followed by marked dry periods in April and May (Winsberg, 1990). In the western counties, October and early November are the year's driest period. Rainfall usually increases again during February and March. Late April, May, and June are frequently dry, especially in the western counties. Approximately two-thirds of the land area of the state has poor to very poor natural surface drainage (Marcus and Fernald, 1975). Runoff patterns are not well defined in the poorly drained areas. Excess water moves slowly through broad

PAGE 39

28 sloughs into shallow lakes or sluggish streams and finally into the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Ocean. 5 fd--\-t=trr Annual Average Precipitation 5 The State of Florida, 1990 0 66 Figure 3.2 Mean average annual precipitation. Source: United States Weather Bureau, 1990. Drainage, water control, or both, are needed for crop production and, in some areas, are desirable or necessary for pasture production. Without control measures, large areas of lower lying lands are subject to constant flooding and cannot be used as grazing land. Throughout the state, drainage is an important part of water control. This is due mainly to the uneven seasonal

PAGE 40

29 distribution of rainfall. In wet seasons, it is crucial to remove water, while irrigation may be required during the dry seasons. Water control 1S therefore related to the inconvenience of removing excess water at certain times of the year and adding water in times of need. Drainage improvements that do not follow sound agricultural engineering principles may unduly lower the water table of adjoining sandy land or expose muck soils to a high rate of oxidation (Mellinger, 1989). Irregularity of rainfall, the sandy character of the soils, the high value of some farnt products, and the increase in intensity of fai::1ning have led to an increasing use of irrigation on agricultural lands in Florida. According to the United States Census of Agriculture Report in 1990, 1,910,505 acres of land on Florida fancts were irrigated in 1990. Agriculture used 3,806,000,000 gallons of water per day throughout the state during the same year. However, there are no records of how much water is used by the Florida cattle ranchers. Most irrigation systems are single faritt installations that draw water from wells, lakes, springs and streams. Groves are mainly irrigated by portable perforated pipe sprinklers, fixed or moveable overhead nozzle-sprinklers, or by portable pipes Flood irrigation from ditch or trench is more common on

PAGE 41

30 vegetable lands, although sprinkler and other systems are also used (Haan, 1977). The largest acreages of irrigated cropland are located in central and southern Florida counties. There were very few counties with sizable acreage of irrigated pastures during the time of this research project. The 246,000 acres of irrigated agricultural land were found in Osceola, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Highlands, Glades, Collier, and Hendry counties (Table 3.2). Parasites, weeds, insects, nematodes, and diseases affect the character of agriculture through their negative effects on yields and costs. Insects, if not controlled, may destroy a feed crop or reduce yields below an acceptable profit level during some seasons. The cost of controlling insects, parasites, or diseases may discourage the production of a particular crop or class of livestock. The development of new strains or varieties of feed crops with higher yields or greater disease resistance may result in an increase in acreage of this crop in new areas or retention in previous areas (Baker and Cook, 1982).

PAGE 42

31 Population and Markets Florida's rapid population growth has also contributed to an increased competition for land and water resources. The 1995 estimate was 13,846,500, an increase of 908,600 people over the Census count of 1990 or a 6.56 percent increase in five years (Table 3.3). Florida's population of Florida is unevenly distributed over the state. Five of the 67 Florida counties --Broward, Dade, Palm Beach, Pinellas, and Hillsborough-contained over 50 percent of the state's population according to the 1990 Census. In a regional breakdown, 37 percent of the population was in 10 the counties of south Florida, 18 percent in 21 counties of northeast Florida, and 10 percent in the 16 counties of northwest Florida. While the location of the milk and egg production is highly dependent on urban population conglomentations the production areas for citrus, livestock and vegetables are affected more by physical factors. Florida enjoys good transportation facilities. Federal and state highways extend to all sections of the state. Most farrns are located on or near all-weather roads.

PAGE 43

Table 3.2 Water use for Agricultural Purposes (Source: US Department of Interior, 1990). Product Total Vegetable crops Carrots Cucumbers Peppers Potatoes Tomatoes Sweet corn Other Veg. Fruit crops Citrus Watermelons Other fruit Field crops Field corn Peanuts Soybeans Sugar cane Tobacco Wheat Ornamentals Ferns Flowers Woody ornam. Improved Pas. Sod & Turf Acres 1,910,505 342,750 20,200 24,548 23,092 27,441 58,154 65,360 113,120 693,317 610,720 47,125 25,340 485,597 42,629 18,586 9,835 379,250 6,674 10,533 388,841 6,682 11,124 17,918 246,438 279,080 Total 2,978.5 496.35 18.42 46.89 39.62 37.97 135.57 74.32 122.00 1,142.20 1,009.6 51.44 58.61 610.31 52.39 11.80 7.36 505.41 7.03 5.03 663.26 32.29 58.63 99.56 222.57 250.21 Ground 1,646.31 396.43 7.34 46.86 39.51 37.97 132.58 26.35 84.28 650.72 523.68 47.15 58.25 72.60 34.56 8.90 6.01 0.00 6.89 3.51 468.29 27.46 47.07 81.22 163. 62 148.92 Surface 1,332.20 99.92 11.08 0.03 0.11 0.00 2.99 47.97 37.72 491.48 485.91 4.29 0.36 537.71 17.83 2.90 1.35 505.41 0.14 1.52 194.97 4.83 11.56 18.34 58.95 101.29 32

PAGE 44

Railroad service includes three 33 important rail lines the Seaboard Coastline, the Florida East Coast Railway, and the Southern Railway. Jacksonville is the major rail gateway for the state of Florida. Good rail facilities con nect Florida with the North and West but in many areas of the state the short local lines have been abandoned. Florida 15 also served by several ports, Tampa, Jacksonville, Port Everglades, Palm Beach, Miami, and Pensacola. These sea ports handle most of the sea going traffic. When examining the location of the cow/calf industry in Florida, an approach would be to consider the origins of the raw materials, fertilizers, mechanical devices, etc.) that this cattle industry needed and the destination of the feeder calves, using the transportation system as the key to analyze ranch location (Figure 3.3). Taking the annual average of cash receipts in 1987 as a base period equal to 100 index points, the production index rose from 109.6 in 1988 to 116.9 in 1989 (Dunkle, 1994). During the same time, the annual index of cash receipts for livestock production fell from 98. 2 in 1987 to 96.8 in 1988 and rose to 97.1 in 1989.

PAGE 45

Fleriaa Transpertatien 1'.eutes Major and Minor Routes Examined FLORIDA 0 Per_Loke._Pond Conol_novigoble ConoLolher Connector Counly_Jond tnterstole LiqhLduty Ro il rood sfwmd Stolc_bound_L Stote_bound_W Stote_divided Stote_Route Stote_secondory Toll_rd US_Route Miles 0 50 100 Figure 3.3 Florida transportation routes. Source: Fl orida Division of Transportation Planning, 1990. 34

PAGE 46

Table 3.3 Population of Florida: populations. 35 urban versus rural Years Total Urban 1830 (June 1) 34,730 0 1840 (June 1) 54,477 0 1850 (June 1) 87,445 0 1860 (June 1) 140,424 5,708 1870 (June 1) 187,748 15,275 1880 (June 1) 269,493 26,947 1890 (June 1) 391,422 77,358 1900 (June 1) 528,542 107,031 1910 (April 15) 752,619 219,080 1920 (January 1) 968,470 353,515 1930 (April 1) 1,468,211 759,778 1940 (April 1) 1,897,414 1,045,791 1950 (April 1) 2,771,305 1,566,788 1960 (April 1) 4,951,560 3,077,989 1970 (April 1) 6,791,418 5,544,551 1980 (April 1) 9,746,324 8,212,385 (United States Bureau of Census, 1990) Rural 34,730 54,477 87,445 134,716 172,473 242,546 314,064 421,511 533,539 614,955 708,433 851,623 1,204,517 1,873,571 1,244,892 1,533,939 Percent Rural 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.9 91.9 90.0 80.2 79.7 70.9 63.5 48.3 44.9 43.5 37.8 18.3 15.7 The volume of agricultural products shipped out of the state by water is not large, but many agricultural supplies are shipped into the state by this means. Agricultural production in Florida has grown rapidly during the last eight years ( Table 3.4).

PAGE 47

36 Table 3.4 Cash Receipts of Farm Income Activity Crops Cattle 1987 1988 1989 $4,207,000 $4,688,000 $4,982,000 $388,000 $372,000 $377,000 sees s e soosousuuuu usu sea u an e e u ea a uuuuuseuea ;Jo;;;; c es: 4a ea a ;uuusuouccuusuusous a a ts ass cease auewouucuuususuesse u ca usu ue a ace; ea u (United States Department of Agriculture, 1990) Land Tenure Patterns Between 1920 and 1965, agriculture in the state exhibited tw o conflicting trends. From 1935 to 1964, there was a reduction of 44 percent in the number of farms, but acres of land 1.n farnts increased 2.5 times. Average f ar sizes increased from 83 acres to 380 acres. The average value of land and buildings was $4,407 in 1935 and $109,732 in 1964 (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987, 1991 and 1995). In 1982 the average farm size was 353 acres and in 1987 it was down to 306 acres. The average value of land and buildings was $552,586 in 1982 and $543,830 in 1987 (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987). As the number of far1ns dropped there was a definite shift in the tenure pattern. The number of tenants decreased from 28 percent in 1935 to 6 percent in 1964 {Florida Statistical Abstract, 1967) The importance of full owners increased although there was a decrease in the absolute number

PAGE 48

37 of owners. The decrease in tenants in the state was associated with the decline in acres in cotton and the increase in acres in citrus and specialized truck crops. Land Uses in Florida According to the Census, the acreage designated as ~1and in farms'' consists of agricultural lands, land used for crops and pasture or grazing, and considerable areas of land not actually under cultivation or used for pasture or grazing. Woodland and wasteland owned or rented by far1tt operators is included in land in far1cts unless it is being held for a non agricultural purpose. Only 44 percent of Florida's land area of 34,721,280 acres was in farms in 1964, but 70. 3 percent of Florida's acreage was in farms by 1988. In 14 of the state's 67 counties, less than 15 percent of the total land area was in farms, 19 counties had 20 to 39.9 percent, 16 counties 40 to 59. 9 percent, and 18 counties 60 percent or more { Florida Statistical Abstract, 1990). About one half the counties with less than 40 percent of the land area in farnts was located in northeast Florida and one fifth in south Florida. Counties with the highest percentage of the total land area in farcts were located in central and southern Florida (Table 3.5).

PAGE 49

38 Table 3.5 Florida Agricultural Land Use. Land Use Percent of Total Acres Other Land Pasture and Range Woodland 5 41 18 538,303.85 4,414,091.56 1,937,893.86 na:u,, a,,..,,,,,,,, n en,, c nn ens en, a ms an no en n nee tr e rm -.,.a vvrn r r n reerer r etn'10%tnn ea n rn n rte et nu e mn e, n e rnn en nnne nnn n nn r en r nrn en, e en ere rnennnn a nae a as a r nn s a Fa so a n r a a neeenenrennn rent a r rt.as r en e rn ,.., nm n rnnn nv nn sen n n n n son n as nn n a a nnr Total 100 10,766,076.99 neneteeennncennttnnteecan tnnenr sennnteorsstsntsw n snnnss,e nan ta ts nrnn n n n n n son a arr ea a nr n ssn ternnnsnnn sent sea no rt s an n nnnn non r erntt%ttttsnrrvaraanannnnn nnnnnnnnnnntnnnnnn sanes anon nnnnnt n ens an a nnr an arts a r a ran an n,,. son ea r (United States Bureau of Census, 1990) Land not in far1tlS is the difference between the total area of a given county in Florida and acres in fa11cts. Thirty one percent of the land not in far1ns was swamp land and other poorly drained land. Most of this land use lies in the Everglades National Park Area. Cropland is the sum of harvested cropland, cropland used only for pasture, and cropland not harvested and not pastured. Florida had 6,875,105 acres of cropland in 1910. This was 20 percent of the total land area in the state (US Agricultural Census, 1980). Considerable variation of farmland under crops existed from one county to another because of physical features. The proportion of farnlland under crops varied from 2 percent in Franklin County to 92 percent in Dade County. Palm Beach and Dade counties on the Gold coast had the highest percentage of farmland in crops. Counties where citrus is grown had a fairly high percentage of farrt1land in crops and

PAGE 50

39 were located in north and west Florida (Weischet and Caviedes, 1987). Land in far111s amounted to 10,766,077 acres in 1992. In 1987 land in far1ns totaled 11,194,090 acres. Pastured woodland includes all woodlands used for grazing. Woodland not pastured refers to all woodland not used for pasture or grazing, including land placed in the soil bank and planted in trees. In 1990, land in farms included 12,869,518 acres in w o odland, of which 5 7 percent was pastured woodland and 61 percent woodland that was not pastured. Pastured woodland accounted for 32 percent of the total land in farnts in 1967; in 1990 it had, increased by 25 percent. Pastured woodland is widely distributed over the state. The counties with the highest percentage of land in far11ts have the lowest percentage of land in pastured woodland. Woodland not pastured accounted for less than 10 percent of the total land in farms in half the counties. Woodland not pastured is distributed differently. The counties in which woodland not pastured was a sizable percentage of all land in farrts were mainly in north and west Florida. Improved pasture refers to all land other than woodland and crop land that was used only for pasture or grazing. It includes non-crop, open or brush pasture, and cut over or deforested land that has been improved and 15 used for

PAGE 51

40 pasture. Of the land in farms, 5,386,176 acres were classified as other pasture (not crop land or woodland) in 1992 (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991). This was 28 percent of the land in farnts. Counties with the highest percentage of fantt land in other pasture were those north and west of Lake Okeechobee. The area of other pasture in counties of North and West Florida was less than 18 percent of the total land area in farms. ''Other land'' refers to all land not included in the preceding land use classifications, such as house lots, lanes, roads, ditches, land area of ponds, and wasteland. Other land amounted to 1,008,269 acres or 7.5 percent of the total land in far111s in 1980 (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991). The 1980 United States Census of Agriculture recognized eight major types of f arnting in Florida, ( 1} cash grain, ( 2) other field crops, (3) vegetable, (4) fruit and nut, (5) poultry, ( 6) dairy, (7) other livestock, and ( 8) horticultural. This classification is based on the source of cash income from fanrting in 1980. For a far1ct to be classified as a given type, it was necessary that it derives 50 percent or more of the value of far111 products sold from the source indicated in the description. For example, a farr11 was classified as a vegetable fanct if 50 percent or more of the cash income from the sale of farm products was derived from

PAGE 52

41 tomatoes (United States Census of Agriculture, 1980). Parttime, residential, and very small fanns were not classified by type. They were called miscellaneous or unclassified farns. The largest number of commercial far1rts were classified as fruit and nut operation. This was followed by other livestock, and vegetable (Table 3.6). Slightly over half the farms in the state were unclassified {personal interview University of Florida Extension agent, 1993). The location of farms of specific types or combination of types gives rise to certain types of far1cting areas. Lands without direct agricultural use is land in forests, marshes, and cut-over lands, and often is not included as a part of the land in farnts in this study. Further, commercial farming occupies only a small part of many counties. For these reasons, distinct types of far1ning do not stand out in Florida as elsewhere in the United States. Most Urban Expansion and Shrinking of Crop/Pasture Lands maJor expansions of land use for crops or urbanization in Florida have a pronounced impact on acreage in pasture. In some parts of the state, large portions of current pasture land could probably be converted into crop

PAGE 53

42 land or into residential land as often occurs in the s o utheastern region of the state (West Miami, Table 3.6 Acreage and crops in 1990 ... c.rop .. ..................... ,,,_, ............................................... Acr:es"unaer .......... ........... "i?"e 'i cen t .... 6 f Ai.I .. Selected Crop Land Under Crops c orn c;ra 1n ...... ..... .. . .. .. . .. . ... ....... ... .... ........ .. .. ... ........... .. .. .. Hay-All Types Land in Orchards Peanuts Sugar Cane for Sugar Vegetables Total 690,000 1,935,000 77,000 1,432,000 2,650,000 6,873,000 (Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991) 10.04 28.15 1.12 20.84 38.56 100.00 and Ft. Lauderdale for example). The unremitting increase in urban and built-up land, especially in southern Florida, compound this impact because urbanized land would come directly fr o m pasture and from crop land, in which case pasture would tend to be converted to cropland to replace lost cropland (Asher, 1978). Although deprived of much of its land base, the Florida cattle industry might survive, partly on the basis of intensive fertilized pasture, partly on rough lands not suitable for crops, and partly through increased grazing of forest land.

PAGE 54

Areas of Florida experiencing rapid 43 population expansion continue to face the prospect of declining environmental quality and economic utility derived from the natural resource base. Paradoxically, in our increasingly insouciant, service-based economy, the quality and quantity of environmental goods are the principal factors causing population growth. Approximately 1.5 million acres of land were converted into urban uses in Florida from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s {Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987, 1990). During that time, the population increased by more than three million people. The amount of land converted to urban uses varied from .347 acres per person in MSA counties in the Central and South to 2.026 acres per person in the nonMSA counties in the North {Figure 3. 4) Urban growth in Florida results in higher rates of conversion of land to urban uses than in other areas of the United States. Florida's intense rate of population growth may have serious implications for the quality of life in some areas of the state. As the so-called ''bi-coastal economy'' develops the coastal areas of the state are among the most heavily affected {i.e., Dade and Sarasota counties), but similar impacts are being felt in certain areas of the ''sun belt'' and in many other areas having superior environmental attributes {Colorado mountain areas, etc.). One particularly

PAGE 55

important impact on the natural resource base l.S 44 the conversion formerly of in extensively used land, (agriculture, forestry, and wetlands) into urban uses. These changes are perceived as resulting in a dwindling of aesthetic and ecological values. Metropolitan Statisical Areas, 1990 1 Bradenlon MSA 15 Panama City MSA 2 Daytona Beach MSA 16 Pensacola MSA 3 Ft Lauderdale MSA 17 Sarasota MSA 4 Fl Meyers MSA 18. Tallahassee MSA 5 Fl Pierce MSA 19 Tampa MSA 6 Fl Walton Beach MSA 20 West Palm Beach MSA 7 Gainesville MSA 8 Jacksonville MSA 9 Lakeland MSA l O Melbourne Titusville MSA 11 M i ami H i aleah MSA 12 Naples MSA 13 Ocala MSA 14 Orlando MSA Figure 3.4 Metropolitan Statistical Areas. In today's market economy the emphasis l.S on private property rights and generally flexible land use controls. As a result, the amount of land converted from extensive uses to urban uses in different areas increases directly with population growth. Florida's comprehensive Growth Management Act of 1985 addresses the issue of more environmentally responsible growth. It promotes the concept of an ideal

PAGE 56

45 urban form, which may be described briefly as a more compact development pattern with less urban sprawl (Audirac, 1989). It is assumed that this compact urban growth pattern will result in fewer acres of farmland, wetland, and other extensively used land being transformed into urban uses. Land Conversion There is a high rate of conversion of land from rural to urban and from natural lands to pasture use in Florida. Only about 2 to 3 percent of the total land area of the United States is accounted for by urban development, and only a minute fraction of a percent are converted to urban uses each year (Frey 1986). However, the amount of land in urban areas in Florida is expanding more rapidly. Urban land is a relatively small part of the total land area, less than 10 percent, but still high compared to many states. Land in urban areas in Florida increased from 513,000 acres in 1945 to 2,867,000 acres in 1982. The environmental impact of land use changes is also important. Competition between mining, forestry, various agricultural uses and wetland uses often involves larger acreage and, occasionally, has potential for environmental impact as the conversion of land uses takes place. In fact, the changes of these natural land uses to urban land uses

PAGE 57

46 are related to, and perhaps driven by, urban population growth. It is clear that the hypothesis of the conversion of wetland to farmland is often an intermediate step in the process of urbanization, and that such a step is encouraged by regulation and institutional control. Cropland acreage in Florida increased by 1. 3 million acres from 1945 to 1982 (Florida Agricultural Census, 1945). Land in pasture and range grew by about 2.2 million acres, while land in special uses rose by 4.8 million acres during the same period. Special uses include urban use, parks, wildlife refuges, roads, highways, airports, and defense areas. Increases in land devoted to these uses was made at the expense of forest land and "other" uses. Special use areas include areas such as marshes, swamps, and bare rock. For Florida, most of the land listed in public data resources as ''other land'' is likely to be wetlands. In general, as the demand for agricultural land, urban, and other land uses increase land is converted from extensive uses to more intensive uses. Development has moved further south in the state as well. Additional land has been converted to cropland and pasture and these agricultural lands are more vulnerable to urban conversion than wetlands in the same areas. Population in Florida has doubled every 20 years, increasing from about one million people in 1920

PAGE 58

47 to about 13 million in 1990 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 198 9) With such population growth, large extensions of land are needed for homes schools, shopping centers, transportation networks, and commercial and industrial uses. As the demand for high value uses increases, land is bid away from more extensive uses, such as cropland, pasture, land and other ''undeveloped uses''. Those who wish to develop land for urban uses generally find it relatively easy to bid land away from extensive uses because of the higher capitalized net returns (economic rent) in the more intensive urban uses. Florida Grazing Lands Clearly, pasture is an important category of land use in Florida. Land used exclusively or primarily for grazing (pasture and rangeland) amounted to 4,871,727 acres in 1987 and 4,551,334 acres in 1990 (Florida Statistical Abstract 1987). This is 14 percent of the state's total land base in 1987, and 13 percent in 1990. There is also a large but difficult to measure area of forest land that is grazed, often on a somewhat casual basis. Most grazing in Florida is by the beef cow/calf industry. Smaller grazing demands are made by milk cows and sheep throughout the state. The bulk of the state's grazing

PAGE 59

48 land is in the southern reaches of the state on range land that has never been cultivated for other crops. Land use in Florida has changed over time, with particularly dramatic shifts occurring since the early 1940s. The most recent directions of land use change are those that have been taking place since 1980. Cropland has experienced a pronounced net increase, much of it due to increases in the cultivation of ornamentals and truck crops. Forest land and grazing land have decreased, while developed land and land set aside for wild life and rural parks have grown. The residual category ''other lands'', has tended to decrease in recent years, as lands previously so classified have been drained or cleared for agricultural use, urbanized, or set aside as parks or wildlife reserves. The Place of Cattle Ranching in Florida The need for a comprehensive understanding of agricultural production systems in general, and livestock production systems specifically, has been realized in Florida where agriculture has been characterized by diversity and continuous growth. There is also a need to explore the social structure that affects the motivations, methods of production, and g o als of cattle ranchers in Florida through understanding

PAGE 60

49 the history and geographic distribution of cattle ranching throughout the state. Florida Cattle Ranching Development The second highest cattle to people ratios in the South during the 1860s were found in Florida. By 1860, the three Florida counties of Manatee, Brevard, and Hillsborough had cattle to people ratios of 37 to one, 31 to one and 13 to one, respectively (United States Bureau of Census, 1860). With such high number of cattle, south Florida was the site of commercial cattle ranching focused on Cuban markets. There are few records describing the sandy pinewood forest cover that dominated the Florida landscape. These barren lands supported little more than strewn pine trees, dwarf palmettos and wiregrass (Gilliard, 1855). Though pinewood land was worthless by agricultural standards of the time, it was unsurpassed as grazing country. Thanks to the mild winters, grass grew well and cattle were well supplied with feed at all seasons of the year. As a result, the majority of the population in the southern portion of the Florida peninsula was cattle ranchers, grazing their stock on the expanses of pinewood ranges. South Florida's promising cattle trade with Cuba rested on the shoulders of the Florida '' scrub'' steer. The scrub steer

PAGE 61

50 traced its ancestry to the Iberian cattle, which were introduced by the Spanish colonialists who settled Florida before 1820, and mixed with the British stock bought in by southern ranchers from the Southeastern States who settled in Florida after 1821. Left to fend for themselves in the Florida pinewood, scrub cattle evolved into hardy animals, which survived on native grasses, endured the extreme heat, and developed an immunity to endemic stock diseases. Though small and lean the scrub steer was hardy. A mature animal weighed only 500 pounds, yielding perhaps 250 pounds of beef (Rouse, 1977). Tough by modern standards, scrub beef had a flavor resembling that of venison, Florida steers proved popular in Cuba (Kennedy, 1942). After the Civil War, the open range cattle industry dominated south Florida's economy. The focus of the cattle trade at that time shifted from Tampa to Punta Gorda in southwest Florida. Between 1870 and 1880, south Florida exported over 165,000 beef cattle, which were valued at more than $2,400,000 (Mealor, 1972). Cuba served as the major market for Florida beef until the early twentieth century, when Venezuelan beef supplanted Florida steers in the Havana stockyards. Losing their Cuban trade, Florida cattle ranchers turned to the North American market. Finding little demand for their small steers outside

PAGE 62

51 Florida, ranchers began the long and costly process of improving their beef cattle. They eliminated endemic stock diseases, bought registered bulls, purchased grazing lands, erected fences, planted artificial pastures, and produced larger and better quality steers that pernli tted them to capture a significant share of the American beef market (Mealor, 1972}. Despite the growth of the improved cattle industry, traditional cattle ranching survived well into the 1940s. In the years after World War II, open range cattle ranching gave way to commercial far1cling and urban development in much of south Florida. Truck fariclers and citrus growers acquired great tracts of pinewood range land for their fields and orchards. In turn, urban areas impinged on the open range, as thousands of retired Northerners settled in housing developments and trailer parks. Open range cattle ranching was simply not compatible with agribusiness and urban life, as they trampled vegetable fields and invaded citrus groves, strayed onto public highways and streets, and even collided with cars and trucks (Mealor, 1972). Complaints about traffic accidents and stray cattle prompted the Florida legislature to pass a law in 1949, requiring all stock owners to fence in their cattle. Owners, who negligently allowed their stock to wander onto public

PAGE 63

52 highways and streets could be fined or imprisoned. This law effectively ended over a century of open range cattle herding in the State of Florida (Florida Cattleman and Livestock Journal, 1949) Effects of Agricultural Development and Technological Change Fertilizers and pesticides currently account for a greater share of input costs for most major crops than they did in 1965. This is primarily the result of high yield fertilizer applications and continuous cropping, which has created favorable pest habitats in certain crops. The national average cost of fertilizers and pesticides for corn production in 1986 was about 55 percent of variable costs and 34 percent of total costs (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1989). For soybeans, the figures were 49 and 25 percent and for wheat, 40 and 23 percent. By increasing use of these costly agricultural input i terns, faritling has become dependent on industry. Today, an agricultural enterprise will use resources that optimized production in order to in optimize profit. However, the Florida livestock industry does not require the same inputs as general faritling. The average Florida cattle rancher is not investing in a series of costly agricultural

PAGE 64

inputs. Nonetheless, cattle production in 1992 was 53 54 percent above the total level of production of the 1950 agricultural census period. In 1950 Florida produced 1,054,899 head of cattle, and in 1992, 1,940,000 head of cattle (Florida Agricultural Census, 1992). Interestingly, Dade, Palm Beach, Hamilton, Liberty and Putnam counties lost between 3 and 11 percent of their cattle production during the same forty-year period. Increases of 95 to 99 percent in beef production were experienced in Hardee, Manatee, Hendry, and Glades counties, illustrating a shift in the location of cattle ranching in Florida. The shift is toward the southern counties, but away from the areas of intense urbanization in the southeast of the state. The average rate of increase over the same period was 6.3 percent per year for all crops and 1.08 percent per year for livestock. Agriculture brings over $6 billion per year to Florida's economy in total sales and accounts for one in five j o bs in the state. Cattle production is a very important part of Florida agriculture. Permanent pastures and other forages such as hay or seasonal pastures remain the largest single use of land in Florida. Ab o ut 11,194,090 acres were occupied by these forage crops at the time of the 1987 agricultural census (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991}. The kind and combination of

PAGE 65

54 approaches used by far1t1ers in any specific area result from the interaction of many factors. The most important of these factors are soils, topography, climate, market prices, labor cost, availability and transportation facilities, and just the far1rter' s personal judgment. Some of them, such as soils, and place definite limitations on agricultural climate, activities. Introduction of new techniques and changes in economic factors, such as price relationships, have caused great changes in the agriculture of an area in a relatively short period. An example of this phenomenon is the southward migration of the citrus industry due to the increase of devastating freezes in the northern reaches of Florida (Miller, 1992) Other factors that affect the far1ner' s decision-making process are land use regulations, land use limitations, resource scarcity, and competition for water and land. The mismanagement of inputs, through ignorance or shortsightedness, carries an expensive environmental cost. Every human civilization appears to have experienced one or more of the following problems: water-logged soil, increased salt concentration in drinking water, soil erosion, contaminated aquifers, shrinking lakes, and degraded aquatic habitats. The question to be answered here is: where in the state are these problems developing into potential hazards? When these problems become extreme, the agricultural

PAGE 66

55 foundation of a society may be destroyed. Anthropologists, agriculturists, economic ecologists and historians believe that the failure of large scale agricultural systems have caused the collapse of several ancient civilizations (Pointing, 1991). Maintaining a viable agricultural industry in the state is important for the state's economic health and expected development. Agriculture must do its part to protect Florida's delicate natural ecosystem and to maintain the state's natural resources.

PAGE 67

CHAPTER 4 METHODS This chapter describes the methods and approaches used to prove the hypothesis that cattle ranchers use production practices that are environmentally protective. The ranchers' ability to adopt ''current'' environmentally protective agricultural technology will also be examined. Several methods are used to evaluate the degree to which cattle ranches in Florida are using environmentally protective agricultural practices, including improved water, as well as nutrient and pest management. The chapter is organized as follows: 1. Population description and sample selection; 2. The survey instrument; 3. Data collection; 4. Statistical analysis. Population and Sample Selection Personal interviews were conducted with beef producers in ten Florida counties in the period February to August 1993. Two counties in each of Florida's five Extension 56

PAGE 68

57 Districts were selected for data collection. The selected counties (10 in total) had the highest acreage in pasture in each Extension District (Figure 4.1). Ce11n ties In Survey lty Jte:ier1 Da t e: 1 993 "7 . ... v ....... . 't: ........ .. __ .. \ I .____1 -~J. U l J. Flor i do Loyer [ _ J Co unt i es Survey No r the r n Co u n ti es fiII) S o uthern C o un t i es M il e s 0 50 1 00 Figure 4.1 C o unties selected for the 1993 cow/calf survey by region. County Extension mailing lists obtained from the extension agents' personal contacts with the ranchers were used as the basis for selecting the sample of cow/calf producers. These lists, while not all inclusive, are a better source than the Florida Cattlemen's Association membership list inasmuch as there may exist some

PAGE 69

58 relationship between such factors as farm size or operator characteristics that correlate to membership within the Florida Cattlemen's Association. A total of 1,036 beef producers were included in these lists. Our sample was restricted to beef producers with 50 or more head of cattle. Survey Instrument The survey instrument used to gather the data in this study was administered through face-to-face interviews with the cattle ranchers at their business or place of residence. The survey instrument was designed with the help of Dr. K. M. Portier of the University of Florida Statistics Department The survey was expected to be conducted by personal interview, and because of this fact allowances were made for about a 5 percent rejection rate. Scalar questions primarily elicit responses on a four-point scale. The questions in the instrument reflect the production practices that are appropriate for the cattle industry and consisted of 84 closed forct questions. Originally, the questionaire was for1ctulated as part of a state wide survey to deter1nine the sustainability of several segments of Florida agriculture. The questionnaire was examined for content and relevance by members of the Animal Science Department, County Extension Directors from several counties, cattle ranchers, and Dr. Marilyn Swisher, the lead research person. Participants

PAGE 70

59 involved in the preliminary survey instrument test provided information that helped to shape the final questionaire, but their responses were not included in the data analyzed (Appendix A) The survey instrument was divided into three main subject areas. The first section deals primarily with demographic profiles and general infor1ctation about the cattle ranchers, and is further divided into two subsections: 1.1 operation characteristics, annual production, acreage devoted to cattle production; and 1. 2 demographic infor1t1ation about the cattle rancher; age, sex, educational level, experience in the cattle business, and sources of infornLation. The second section addresses management practices and changes in cattle ranching practices questions addressing: included are grouped in since 1983. The six subsections 2.1 major soil type and pasture type (improved or unimproved) pasture;. and the amount of each type of 2.2 water management concerns: whether or not the rancher is using irrigation to water livestock or irrigate their pasture, source of drinking water (well or standing), monitoring of water use (yes or no) ;

PAGE 71

2. 3 nutrient management: 60 use of soil testing to deterntine fertilizer application rate, factors that deter1ctine when and how much fertilizer is used, and use of legumes; 2.4 pest management: factors influencing management decisions, how pesticides are applied (if any), how and what protective gear is employed for employee protection; 2. 5 crop land use if any; previous land use, and, if possible, the intensity of land use; 2.6 renovation practices; The third section reflects the opinions of the cattle rancher regarding these issues: 3.1 the importance of government regulations, and 3.2 factors that affect the profitability of the ranch such as taxes, regulations, record keeping, and animal welfare issues. Survey Application All producers participated directly in personal interviews with the author to reduce experimental errors that result from multiple interviewers. All interviews with the cattle producers took place within a six-month period to reduce biases due to uncertain regulating processes, taxing

PAGE 72

61 schedules, changes in environmental conservation and/or preservation efforts, or other factors that can vary with time. In addition, it should be pointed out that the types of questions asked are not time sensitive, like those of many public opinion polls. That is, producers are unlikely to change production practices in a short period of time and personal characteristics are also not likely to change rapidly. The interview process took place at the cattle ranch, in the residence or the office, with the owner or person in charge. While individual surveys are time consuming but thorough, this method provided a ninety-nine percent survey response rate. Population Distribution Like agriculture in the United States as a whole, Florida agriculture 15 highly stratified by region. For example, the 4. 2 percent of largest ranches in the state (owning over 500,000 head each) account for approximately 46 percent of all cattle that are raised in Florida. Because production is concentrated on larger scale units located in the southern part of the state, independent samples for different regions were drawn (Swisher, 1993). The selection of independent samples by region permitted analyses both, within and between different regions. These analyses reveal

PAGE 73

62 the relationships, if any, between location (region) and associated socioeconomic characteristics of the ranch and sustainable agricultural potential (Swisher, 1993). Determination of the Sample Size There are approximately 1,500 cattle ranchers in the state of Florida. The size of the sample selected for this study is important because taking a larger sample than is required to achieve the desired results is inefficient and costly. On the other hand if samples are too small the results may be of no practical use. In order to determine the sample size required for estimating the population mean of Florida cow/ calf producers. This study uses the confidence interval as determined by Za. Increasing the magnitude of z produces a wider confidence interval. In this study, z = 1.96axand the confidence interval is 95 percent. The entire area under the normal distribution curve of xbeyond the confidence limits (a.) are 1. 96crx-, thus the area within the confidence limits are 1 a.. The size of the sample is detenciined by the size of a (standard deviation), the desired degree of precision (E), and the desired interval width. This study uses a sample that is capable of yielding a point estimate of where E (precision

PAGE 74

63 level) is O .10. The confidence interval is 95 percent, and there is a 5 percent chance of drawing a sample size (n) with an estimate for that is more than O .10 units off the acceptable (Cochrane, 1963). The standard deviation of the study population of 1,500 Florida cattle ranchers is 0.4179. The desired precision is E = 0 .10 or 90 percent, and a confidence level for the study is set at a = O. OS, or 95 percent. The for1crula used in this study is n = (Za 12 O'/E) 2 n = (1.96(0.4179)/0.10] 2 n = 67.08989 67 The resulting sample size was determined to be 127 beef and/or livestock producers. There was some difficulty in gathering data from the ranches of the southern region and it was necessary to replace 52 percent of the ranchers selected to compensate for those who had gone out of business within the last year, for those who were reluctant to give information, and for incorrect addresses. The final sample size of 67 was within the accuracy range. The expected error rate for a sample of this size is 0.10 with 95 percent confidence interval.

PAGE 75

64 Data Collection and Processing Following the determination of the sample size and sample selection, data collection was conducted. This process involved three steps: (1) A form letter was sent to each cattle rancher by the County Extension Director of the Florida Cooperative Extention Service, explaining the purpose of the study and urging the participation in the survey. (2) Appointments were scheduled by the author with the help of the County Extension Office. (3) Following the confirmation of several appointments in a given county, the surveyor traveled to the appointment place and conducted the surveys. There were no distinguishing traits on any of the surveys and each of them was differentiated only by county. In this manner, each survey remained anonymous and the geographic distribution of the data could be inferred. The list of participants was destroyed after the surveys were complete and the data deemed accurate. Once data collection was completed, the data as entered in a computerized data base and, reviewed for errors in The data were analyzed using v6.04 (SAS accuracy. Institute, 1988). Information concerning SAS the demographic

PAGE 76

65 characteristics of the Florida cow/calf ranchers (Objective 1) is illustrated by means and frequencies. Objective 2 is protrayed using the rate of change to ascertain the application of sustainable cattle ranching practices. Objective 3 is achieved by examining the perceptions of the cattle rancher and their views of government regulations, environmental and economic issues. Objective 4 is geographic nature, concerned with the location of of urbanization and cattle ranching operations, rates of change, and the intensity of cattle ranching as both of these land uses compete for land resources. Regional Analysis The data were analyzed by region: northern versus southern. This was done because these two regions differ in their herd sizes, ranch sizes, individual time spent on the ranch. The distinction between a northern and a southern region differs significantly from the Kruskal Wallis statistical m o del which tests the hypothesis: Ho: The medial scores for heard size data categorized in the two groups are equal. i.e., representing the average herd size in the northern

PAGE 77

66 region and M 2 representing average herd size in the southern region (Ha: The scores shown in Table 4.1 demonstrate the results of the Kruskal-Wallis test for differences and reveals clear regional differences. Statistical Procedures Used The Kruskal-Wallis test of differences between two population distributions was the statistical procedure used to assess differences between northern and southern ranchers. There was a measurable difference between the non-parametric results. Chi-square tests were performed to identify relationships among the survey variables. Methodology to Examine the Changes in Agricultural Land Use The extension of land converted to urban uses as related to population growth and agricultural activity was estimated and the differences in urban land conversion by geographic area were analyzed with the purpose of revealing the intensity of urban growth in Florida. To estimate urban land used for urban purposes, the population data for areas experiencing urbanization are calculated using urban and non-urban land use coefficients.

PAGE 78

67 These coefficients provide a measure of the amount of land converted to urban uses per person in MSA and non-MSA areas. In the United States, about three-fourths of the population reside in Metropolitan Statistical Areas {U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990). A Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is a geographic area containing a large population nucleus with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social integration with that nucleus (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1989) Some MSAs comprise more than one county, but the counties have close economic and social ties to the major urban area. In Florida, there are thirty-two counties that comprise twenty MSAs. Over 90 percent of the Florida population is located in counties that are part of MSAs. MSA counties represent 54.4 percent of the total land area of the state ( Florida Statistical Abstract, 1991} More of the state's population is located in the central and southern part than in the northern part, although each region contains about 50 percent of the land area. Only about 22 percent of the state's population live in the north, and in 1984 population density in the north was about one-half of that in the central and south. In northern Florida, 70 percent of the land area is in MSA counties. Over 60 percent of the population in the north

PAGE 79

68 live in non-MSAs, while in southern Florida over 93 percent are found in MSA counties. The value of transition land ( land changing to non-agricultural uses such as sites for homes and businesses) is much higher in Central and South Florida than in the north. At the end of the 1980s, the value of transition land within five miles of a major town averaged $3,600 per acre in the northwest and about $5,600 per acre in the northeast. In the central and southern region, transition land values within 5 miles of a major city averaged about $10,500 per acre in central Florida and about $36,700 per acre in southeast Florida (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1990). Despite the widespread awareness of the changing nature of land use in the state of Florida, remarkably little has been published to illustrate the dramatic rate at which land use is changing in the state. The land use coefficient provides a relative measure of this change.

PAGE 80

69 Table 4.1 Results of the Kruskal-Wallis test applied to the variable that addresses herd size. Northern Counties Alachua Leon Sumter Jackson Levy Totals Herd Size Test 1950 Rank 26,331 10,863 12,616 9,025 9,430 Southern Counties Hendry Okeechobee Collier Highlands Osceola Herd Size Test 1950 Rank 4,727 42,589 45,015 33,571 49,504 8 5 6 3 4 26 1 12 13 9 15 Herd Size Test 1990 Rank 48,000 9,000 55,000 34,000 38,000 Herd Size Test 1990 Rank 11,7000 16,8000 1,3000 11,6000 10,8000 14 2 16 10 11 53 19 20 7 18 17 ----~~--------~-------Totals n(n+l)/2 210 Tl+T2+T3 ... 210 Ha 8.691 Critical 7.815 D.F. 3 Reject Ho: M1=M 2 50 80

PAGE 81

70 Rural Land to Urban Land Use Coefficients Urban land use and rural land use coefficients show the extent of additional land converted to urban or rural land use for each person added to the population. The urban land use coefficient (Ur) is calculated as where U 2 U 1 P 2 P 1 the the the the acres of urban land in 1980; acres of urban land in 1990; population in 1980; and population in 1973. The rural land use coefficient (Rr) is calculated as R r = (R 2 R 1 ) / (P 2 P1) where R 2 R1 P 2 P1 the the the the acres of rural land in 1980; acres of rural land in 1990; population in 1980; and population in 1973. Data for urban and rural land use coefficients are presented in tables, and maps in the results of this dissertation ( Chapter 5). Methodology to Examine the Changes in Range Land Use The methodology used to analyze pasture land conversion in a given geographic area ( state or county) is based on coefficients that compare the state and county grazing land.

PAGE 82

I 71 These coefficients provide a measure of the proportion of the state or county acreage converted to grazing land. Pasture land use and state or county area measurement coefficients are employed to represent the quantity of land converted to/or established in pasture for each acre removed from the state and county land base. The pasture land use coefficient for the state (Ps) is calculated as where the the the acres of county pasture land acres of county pasture land entire acreage of the state; in in 1990; 1987; The pasture land use coefficient for the counties calculated as where the acres of county pasture land in 1990; the acres of county pasture land in 1987; the entire acreage of the county; Herd-size Index l.S The herdsize index shows the fluctuation in the cattle population between the years 1987 and 1990. The herd-size index for a given county (H 1 ) is calculated as

PAGE 83

where the herdsize of counties in 1987; the herdsize of counties in 1990; The Location Quotient 72 The location quotient is defined as a ratio of ratios. The resulting index (quotient) shows whether a larger or smaller amount of a given factor is present in a certain area. By using the location quotient the data for the counties is normalized and thus ready to be analyzed. The location quotient used in this study is as follows: county pasture acreage/ acreage of all county land = LQ state pasture acreage/ acreage of all state land The location quotient expresses a ratio involving two proportions. This index (LQ) shows the extent to which each unit of a set of areal units departs from the overall proportion. In this dissertation the location quotient allows for the comparison of each county's share of pasture land with the aggregate total for the state. A location quotient of 1 means the acreage of pasture land in that county is of exactly the same relative size for pasture as is found across the counties of the entire state. A location quotient greater than 1 indicates an overrepresented acreage of pasture land. A location quotient less than 1 signifies

PAGE 84

73 underrepresentation of acreage of pasture land. This procedure is used in this dissertation to compare different counties at different points in time: 1987 and 1990.

PAGE 85

CHAPTER 5 RESULTS The Florida cow/ calf industry's use of environmentally protective practices and spatial distribution are the focal points of this dissertation. Cattle is raised in virtually all counties of Florida. Nevertheless, ranch and herd sizes vary geographically from county to county. Therefore, a stratified random sampling approach for this industry has been chosen to insure suitable representation of north and south Florida ranches. Geographic Distribution of Samples Two counties from each of Florida's five Extension Districts were selected for inclusion in the survey. These comprise the two counties in the district with the largest area in pasture according to the 1987 agricultural census. This stratified random sample is, once again, representative of the wide range of ecological and economic conditions 74

PAGE 86

75 characteristic of the ranching activity in the state. North Florida counties surveyed include Leon, Jackson, Levy, Alachua and Sumter. South Florida counties include Hendry, Highlands, Okeechobee, Osceola and Collier. Independent samples were drawn for each county. Of the 127 completed questionnaires, there was a response rate of 99 percent, meaning that 126 surveys were answered correctly and entirely. The sample did not cover all counties in the state, and the results are not applicable to all ranches in Florida. However, the geographic distribution of the sample traversed the major physical regions of the state and the selected counties had high acreages in pasture indicating that they are representative of cow/calf production in Florida. There are significant differences between cattle production in north and south Florida (see Chapter 4 concerning Kruskal-Wallis testing} and there are several pasture types in Florida 1) Native pastures The natural vegetation found on the unimproved pastures includes perennial grasses on the low sandy soils or flat pine lands, grasses, wild oats, and broom sedge. wire 2) Improved penctanent pastures These are pastures established through the destruction of some or all native vegetation by burning, rotary cutting, plowing, chopping and disking. Fertilizer 1S

PAGE 87

applied and the dallis, pangola, land 1S napier, seeded with carpet 76 and bahia, berntuda or heat tolerant st. Augustine grasses. In the winter legumes may be planted. 3) Temporary pastures These pastures furnish feed only for short periods of time and must be established annually. Winter grazing pastures will usually contain rye rust resistant varieties of oats. Summer grazing crops will include cattail or pearl millet, starr millet, alyse clover, and hairy indigo (Cunha and Rhodes, 1966). Far1cts in general are smaller in north Florida and cattle ranches are no exception. Use of unimproved pastures and native range is common in south Florida, whereas the northern rancher is more inclined to work with improved pasture. Therefore, the data is presented by northern and southern regions. Native, unimproved pastures include grasses, grasslike forbs, and shrubs that are edible by cattle and wildlife (Mullahey and Tanner, 1992). The stocking rate of a cow/calf producer is constrained by climate, forage value, soils, and rancher practices. These variables all differ regionally.

PAGE 88

77 Significance Testing The x 2 test is widely used as a goodness-of-fit test (Burt and Barber, 1996). After the examination of the distribution of each variable in the survey, the next step is to investigate sets of relationships among two or more of these variables. This researcher chooses to use a contingency table foritL of analysis to test for variable independence. The test used in this dissertation is w=i (Ji Fi) 2 2 L F' =X ; l The x 2 test is a test of statistical significance. It is designed to help determine whether a relationship exists between two variables. This is accomplished by computing the cell frequencies which could be expected if no relationship were present between the variables given the existing for row and column totals (marginals). The expected cell frequencies are then compared to the actual values found in the table according to the above f orrnula where f 1 equals the observed frequency in each cell, and Fi equals the expected frequency calculated as F = C;r, N

PAGE 89

78 where ci is the frequency in a respective column marginal, ri is the frequency in a respective row marginal, and N stands for the total number of valid cases. The closer the set of Fi frequencies (expected frequencies) 15 to (observed frequencies) the more likely the distribution of the sample reflects the probability distribution specified in the null hypothesis. The farther apart the observed and expected frequencies are, the less likely H o 15 true. The statistic is the sum of the relative squared differences. The two cases tested are test H 0 : The frequency distribution of the data reflects no statistical independence. H a : The frequency distribution reflects statistical independence, reject H o The decision rule used in this dissertation is if x, 2 > x, 2 (1a.), conclude H a Survey Results The first section of the survey instrument concentrates on demographic information about the cattle ranchers. Northern ranches are more apt than southern ranches to have both cow

PAGE 90

79 calf and br ee ding st o ck (Table 5.1). In northern and western Florida, diversified farttLing l.S practiced. Through di versification, farnLers are able to have several sources of farm income and do not depend on one item. Table 5.1 Cattle operation type by region. ,, ........... ..... Re g'"i o;;................... ..,, ,., B;rii Feed ..... -----... ., cowica: 1f ......... .. and Breed on a #II us au aas s a Breeding Stock .. -Northern 0 82.6 17.4 Southern 4.6 88.4 7.0 .. x, 2 = 7. 68, Pr = 0. 021 The northern ranchers' ability to diversify in cattle producti o n w hile havin g both cow/calf and breeding stock operations allows him to sell both calves for fattening and keep breeding stock. In view of the demand for low fat, ''heal thy'' beef products, some Florida ranchers consider expansion of cow/calf pr o duction while others are considering steer feeding (Personal interview with ranchers, 1993). Herdsize of livestock ranching in the northern part of the state l.S small compared with the large herdsize characteristic of central and south Florida.

PAGE 91

80 Herd Size Only 66 percent of the south Florida sample had fewer than 100 head of cattle, whereas 78 percent of the north Florida herds had fewer than 100 head of cattle. The remainder of the north Florida sample, 22 percent, all represented herds of fewer than 2,500 animals. Table 5.2 Herd size by region, 1983 and 1993. uscew,,,,1s,no,cecassceeeeacousesescsescssase ... .. ssuuuuuusuuoea uceccsecoocueeua;susesa cs: e ucs ecu eceecsuucuus e eeeeesaacauseeceeaeesueous cauuee:sauu Southern Percentage 1983 Southern Percentage 1993 Size Range Northern Percentage 1983 Northern Percentage 1993 < 100 41.2 47.8 101-250 35.3 30.4 251-500 5.9 4.3 501-1000 11.8 8.7 1001-2500 0 8.7 2501-5000 5.9 0 > 5000 0 0 38.9 30.6 15.7 8.3 0 0 5.6 37.2 27.9 18.6 9.3 0 2.3 4.7 For 1983 x, 2 = 9.007 Pr= 0.061 ,.,.,., ,.,... .,_,,..'1.,swww 4 4 4 4 '" .,...,._~._,, ,, , ueftswwc ,,_..,, u ,es iil'IN ao; ....... .,..., .. ...,... ... e u u woo cc, uuuc c e u seoeoW\iooooA~ u c cu cu u u u e oooAouo e u z ee a ue s a e 1'4 us,,.,..., uucu u c eo au u e u a usu euouuuc .:ow uuuu ;u a a au u cc es a o a a a a a a a ea at For 1993 x, 2 = 3.101 Pr= 0.054 ~vee ye ,,,~.,....~~,Nete,ete~~ e e e enecne ,..,,,., eeeec n, nrens,, e v, ,,, en rnne eceeess re nee, es rt n nnrn e,u mn,c tnntt nett r r rs no r en snntnetan, In south Florida, on the other hand, 27 percent of all herds counted between 251 and 2,500 head, and 7 percent of the sample were herds of more than 2,500 animals. The ranches included in this survey comprised some 17,150 acres in North Florida and 164,547 acres in South Florida. Table 5.3 shows the distribution of ranches by size for each region. Ranch size was, as expected, smaller in north Florida, where 61 percent of all ranches had fewer than 500

PAGE 92

81 acres total, nine percent had from 501 to 1000 acres, and only 4 percent had from 1,001 to 5,000 acres. There were fewer ranches in the smaller size category in South Florida. Only 34 percent of ranches had less than 500 total acres; 28 percent had from 501 to 1000 acres, and 20 percent had from 1001 to 5,0 0 0 acres i n south Fl o rida. Table 5.3 R anc h acreage by region. Cate go ry Northern Region Percent in Each Category Southern Region Percent in Each Category < 5 0 0 Acres 61 34 501-1, 00 0 Acres 9 28 1,001-2,500 Acres 22 20 2,501-5,0 0 0 Acres 4 7 5,001-10, 00 0 Acres 4 6 >1 0 00 0 Acres 0 5 x, 2 = 2 3.744 Pr= 0.001 .. 'e .. ....._..,.h;cueuueuueuwouuuuu.-uuouauuu sue ... ee c ucuueuA a s de eseuuueuuus t(l'c es arauuuuusuuusuu uuuce au es sea see a see Some ranches, 7 percent, had over 2,500 acres. The differences in average in the two area's ranching is clearly illustrated in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 Th e total ranch acreage in the southern and northern regions of Florida. Re g ion Total Pasture Acreage Northern 1,889.565 Southern 4,890.000 ,_.,,.,.NIIJuN'Wl#IIJJIJJIF ...,.,, PPoUAcuv"e ._., .. ,nn,vsren,~ ntflAssssu., s tu nr n cu e a uueiofls n s esJ'sAsnsnAeuNs~eauueseev e"cttean

PAGE 93

82 The total ranch acreage in the southern region of Florida is 2.58 times larger than in the northern region of the state. There 15 a tendency for the southern cattle ranchers to work these ranches full-time as a consequence of the size, costs involved, and a high demand for investment returns on their cattle operation. In the north, ranching is more intensive due to pasture types and higher stocking rates, however, because of the smaller herdsize, it is less likely to provide a living. Demographic Profile of Ranchers Demographic characteristics include the age of the cattle rancher, the highest grade completed in school, and years of experience in the cattle business. Table 5.5 Rancher mean age and age range. Age Range in Years 30-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 <71 30-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 <71 Percent in Each Range Northern Southern Age 21.6 34.5 12.9 21.6 8.7 9.1 27.3 20.5 18.1 15.9 Mean Age 51 57 Mean Age State of Florida 54 sesuussuucsu uc a sc au .. oouooucau uusesuuooeoues a esuucuoceuo:s uou u a ace u u uu u:A U'l'II .. A-"'.,....."'- se aueea awe uses ea a ea A aAeeusAsec ca hbdt so; zs sec ;;es ;es svucod!b u a ea a ea a .s u au a a as sea a a hd x, 2 =9. 722 Pr=O. 045 eneeeneeeneeeecu nn er n r eeeeee mm anna er s s s a nrenss ea,, n sea .. vnnoncnnenli'lltntnenneeeenconrn en nn nccnnvrn etnner,es n et n an s an nn ten a esntnntt eenr n seers sons see,vsn n ,,...,,non enn son ea n ,a,,_...,,,"'__,.,, a Yiot n:qeennna,a enntnneren

PAGE 94

83 The mean age of the north Florida sample was 51 years. In south Florida, the mean was 57 (Table 5. 5) Cattle ranchers are slightly older in the southern region and need to pass their traditi o ns and methods to the next generation at a faster rate than in the north. A p o ssible explanation for the presence of older ranchers in southern Florida could be found in the history of cattle ranching. Ranches located in southern Florida had ready access to the Cuban, Texan, and South American beef market during the 19th century accounting for the for 1clation of a tradition of family involvement whereas those of the north were isolated from these markets and have developed only recently. Table 5.6 Ed u cational level by region. ..... ..... , ,Aa eeA se No.ocW'u;uAcUl'lhssAca"ce..,,.,. ,..,,,.,, s> ~usu;; ca-.: sac s _., ..-,~Aus cc,..... '1 as set'-..,......, e ssu:tsNsa'o,..ANAJIAt:W: c 4 tAlllliAl'N ",NIJN.-,wnnnnnnn s as n a Southern Rancher Percent in Each Category Education Level Less than High School High School Diploma Some College Earn a College Degree Northern Rancher Percent in Each Category 4.3 52.2 30.4 13.0 9.1 38.6 27.3 25.0 .. x 2 =7.12 Pr=0.052 ,, r ~ye.,, n ye en y ,-.,,reeeeee rent st n en en e tree n c n, n n n n n ye en n n n n n n ere n n r non en,. ..,, ve en,...,-..., neeene nn, et n reenea a a nn c n n n n e en ere res n a an n a v n n P n n nnP p PPP n r n r s a nn n n sn n a F n n n n n n n F n F n FF n P n nn ne en e e nnenne nnnnn n n s nn nn ssnsns nzen Compared with traditional livestock systems, environmentally protective farming systems usually require

PAGE 95

84 augmented management skills and abilities along with greater reliance on proficient and knowledgeable labor. There is a pressing need for a greater knowledge base in the future to address the demands of an environmentally protective agriculture. In the n o rth, 52.2 percent of the surveyed ranchers c om pleted hi g h school, while in the south 38.6 percent had a high sch oo l diploma. H o wever, while 43.4 percent of the n o rthern ra nc hers survey e d had attended college, while 52. 0 percent of the ranchers surveyed in the south had attended or graduated fr o m college. Obviously, the southern rancher has more land, a n d seems to be more educated. Table 5.7 Number of years in ranching. Years of Experience Northern Rancher Southern Rancher Percent in Each Percent in Each Category Category . .... .. .. . .. . .. ......... .. .. .. ...... .... .. ..... .. ...... ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ..... .. ... ........ 11.4 22.0 22.8 25.1 18.2 110 1120 2 1-3 0 3 14 0 415 0 51-60 31.0 21.5 17.3 8.6 17.3 4.3 0.0 .. x 2 =2 2 22 1 P r= 0.001 eyee eeeeeeee, e, v ,,...,. an,, n,, en, n nee nee e e e e e ene eee r r seeeee e, a ea e ea n e v nee,, en e en e e en e e e e eeee e e en,,.., ere e, re nee erec en r near n n:vn n en n tr-....,,..,,, nee er ere ere r sens res eeeeeec an en n n ere n n zero e e ore ore re erere erreres an r s r n rs r or res s r r car An environmentally protective approach is not one that simply rejects customary practices, but adopts innovative practices offered by the scientific and technological c o mmunities. In north Florida, 78. 4 percent of the ranchers

PAGE 96

surveyed had at least 40 years of experience. 85 In south Flor i da, 81.3 percent of the sample had at least 40 years of experience. Thus, more southern ranches had been in the business 40 or more years. Cattle ranching is a male dominated occupation. In both the southern and northern regions of the state most ranchers are men (78.3 percent in the north, and 84.1 percent in the south ) Tabl e 5.8 G en d e r o f ranch operat o r by region. G e n de r N o rthern Rancher Southern Rancher Percent in Each Percent in Each Category Category .. .. Male 78.3 84.1 F e male 21.7 15.9 T o tal 100 100 A hi g h percentage of all ranchers belonged to the Fl o rida Cattl e men's Association. Table 5.9 Trade association membership by region. 1AA4oc wcssa'nANWt'AWtlo!SUll!cec,ooooAtlOudAssooueuececouoosce uuecuscssucus au uus,....Assseobcaec eessua a a cuuses uuscu esuaueueseeuesuuuecu ea zsAtlhSNlfoeuuss;e ::ca see s see M e mbersh i p i n Trade Ass o ciations Northern Southern Percent Percent Membership Membership Florida C a ttle m an's Ass o ciati o n 72.2 83.3 Fl o rida Farm B u reau 68. 2 78. 6 Br ee d Ass o ciation 40.9 25.2 O ther Sources 14.3 9.5 ucu ;ts;soo;u;;uuuoec u Nutlilf4{JjW........,. JS1$1S; e as x 2 =5. 708 Pr=O .127 He Yen nee nee nee e e e e e o c e e e e e e o o coo,,...,, nee vne nee ,,veett,-ei,e so en nee o e o e e ee e e c eon et o t t t n tr a ace tats, w,n v IN coo een o ,.,_,sivq n v n en re o on o oeonntuJttton a ea ea e toe econ rent tr eeene er ee e en e eon oeone.,..._,s, n ve.no"o e PP en e eneoa a n a o a a a a a on Pone

PAGE 97

86 In north Florida, 72. 2 percent of all ranchers in the sample subscribe to FCA and 40.9 percent belong to one or more breed associations. In south Florida, as many as, 83.3 percent belong to the FCA and 25.2 percent contribute to one or more breed associations. Because of the cost associated with membership, the southern rancher with his large herd size can afford membership and reap the benefits of the useful information offered by these organizations. Both northern and southern ranchers have confidence in advice from the University of Florida' s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Over 50 percent of the state's ranchers rely on the scientific community's recommendations (Table 5.10). The Florida peninsula has a rolling landscape that is characteristic of karst topography. Many soil types consist of quartz sands. These sands predominate where Florida's Central-Highland cattle ranches have been established. Table 5.11 shows that 31.8 percent of the surveyed ranchers in the north are located in the deep sand central region of the state. These sites of natural vegetation are dominated by eastern gram grass, switch grass, maidencane, and longleaf uniola (Mullahey and Tanner, 1992) The endangered plants and animals on these sites include adder's tongue fern, spleen wort, climbing dayflower, and culpet fern as well as

PAGE 98

87 the Florida black bear and the Florida panther (Mullahey and Tanner, 1992). Table 5.10 Sources of information available to Florida ranchers. Level of Importance UF or IFAS Employees Pr> t 0.008 Consultant Pr> t 0.391 Vendor Rep. Pr> t 0.148 Percentage Percentage Percentage ~AcN11:N',,IIN1isasczsc vren ..,,.,. .. tN~ "' uuu~suwsssa,~sscuol\l'1r17 ,a:-...........,.eae#Asauua rnnrnvna a ,., ,...,.,,_,,,,:rw'ssas'9osoA:Accuclla North South North South North South . .. .. . ... .. . .. .. .... .. .... ........ -Very Important Important N o t Very Important Not At All Important 18.2 50.0 9.1 22.7 25.6 51.2 15.3 7.0 4.5 22.3 22.7 45.5 12.2 22.0 24.4 41.5 9.1 31.8 35.4 22.7 Other significant ranching areas are located in 12.2 41.5 34.1 12.2 the flatwood regions with 40.9 percent of the northern ranches and 55. 8 percent of the southern ranches. Cattle ranching dominates in the flatwood areas because the same land can not easily be used for citrus groves. As a result of periodic freezes, the citrus industry has moved further s o uth, where new technologies are used to plant on flatwood soils. The s o uthern flatwoods, in their natural state, are usually strewn with pine trees, saw palmetto, gallberry, and wiregrasses.

PAGE 99

88 Table 5.11 Soil types present on ranches. so AWVl:IJllll~=='1l.oorAPt vsuuu a ~~1nnn'WifT1"1tnnsnvn.Pr>, ~ ,....,...vo111NV......,.~~,_....,.u.&, A assus nnnn Soil Type Northern Rancher Southern Rancher Muck ( O rgan ic ) Flatwood Deep Sand Percent in Each Percent in Each Category Category 0.0 40.9 31.8 15.9 55.8 18.2 Loam/Sandy Loam 52.2 38.6 x 2 = 32.655 Pr= 0.001 ..., Ml nee n teen re tr tr t re n enc tr n re, nee nm en, n e seeen nan e e, n r eyn n ...,, n en e e, r n,, n re n n n r n n n r n acne, ..,., nov nan n en n v, en e et e en en et e en ans n s nm n n n en,, ans a a e en nee en ere en er ea n en n n n seen n e, o e c onona n n r n nre n n n n eennne nns enenoe none e new The endangered plants and animals of the southern flatwoods area include the squirrel-banana, Florida bear following plants: grass, w1.regrass, yellow mock pennyroyal, Edison's asc y rum, fall flowering ixia, Bartram's ixia, mammals such as the Florida black bear, the fox squirrel th e Fl o rida panther; such birds as the Florida grasshopper sparrow, red-cocked woodpecker, bald eagle, Fl o rida sandhill crane, and the burrowing owl (Mullahey and Tanner, 199 2 ). Differences in the importance of ranching as a primary source of income and the tendency of south Florida's ranches to be generally more dependent on ranching are well illustrated in Table 5 .12. In north Florida, land used for perrctanent pasture constituted 7 4 percent of the total acreage o f the ranch e s in the sample.

PAGE 100

89 Table 5.12 Pasture type by region. .. UAW~ P 1'"W}lN ..... ;J(t~ id'W\. C ...,,_. JA_111:11lMliJ t t? P $ AUS $ SO Ms#li t A J $ $ J $ $ S CiWtlllllVJt 7 0 7 l\[%111,j bl t.VlltlbJ11tft1A i i $ ,C,U $ ""~ V $ t."JIPP TtliJhllDiilJ usu ..... .... AIWi iltNoi b $ b b 4 b b % I Southern Rancher Percent in Each Category Pasture Type (PT) Improved Pasture Penrtanent Pasture Unimproved Pasture Statistics for Table 5.12 Northern Rancher Percent in Each Category 57 74 17 x, 2 = 30.265 31 91 60 Pr= 0.001 In south Florida, perittanent pasture makes up 91 percent of the total acreage on the ranches included in the sample. As one would expect, unimproved pasture and native range were much more prevalent in south Florida, accounting for 60 percent of all land on the ranches. In north Florida, by contrast, unimproved pasture constitutes only 17 percent of all land. Conversely, improved pasture comprises 31 percent of the land included in the sample in south Florida ranches However, 57 percent of the north Florida sampled ranch land was improved pasture. Water and Nutrient Management Concerns Florida ranchers use water primarily as drinking water for cattle. Water constraints are among the issues legislative policy makers are reviewing. Another concern is whether or not the cattle industry is polluting the aquatic systems with

PAGE 101

90 animal wastes. Only 1 7 .1 percent of ranchers in the north supply drinking water from surface sources. In the southern part of the state, 60.5 percent of the cattlemen use surface s o urc e s o f w a ter. Table 5.13 Drinking water sources by region. Drinking Water Source P um ped Surface Water N or thern Rancher Percent Using Source 82.9 17.1 Southern Rancher Percent Using Source 39.5 60.5 ... .. ..... ... ..... ...... .. .. . .. .. ....... .......... .... . ..... . ..... ...... ... .. . . .. -... . ... .. .. . .. .. . .. ....... . ....... .. ......... ....... ....... . Statistics fo r Table 5.13 x, 2 = 39.661 Pr= 0.001 .................. .... ............... J a, Sb 4Si:1D$$ SOU!IZU 44UO b .. Sb U SSC see bl l bl l bl Where surface water sources are used some potential for c o ntamination by animal wastes exist if animals or their wastes c o me into contact with the surface water. Very few ranchers, ( 13. 0 p e rc e nt in the north and 5. 8 percent in the s o uth ) use m e t e rs to deteritLine the volume of water consumption ( Tabl e 5.14 ) Table 5.14 Ran c h water s o urce metering. Metered o r N o t? Percent of N o rthern Percent of Southern Ranchers Who Have/ Ranchers Who Have/ Do Not Have Water Do Not Have Water Meter Meter .. .... .. .. .. .... ........ .... .. .. .......... .. .. .... ...... .. .. .... . ... . .. .. . .. .. .. . ..... .... ... __ .. . ... _. .. Yes No 13.0 87.0 5.8 93.2 Statistics for Table 5.14 x 2 = 2.155 Pr= 0.142 c dOU&A u u a suzcAouAuzc u u AzAeuu; a a a a cc sec a a as szeu a sec s a au a a a; a; uucw'

PAGE 102

91 Management of Nutrients It is preferable that soil testing be done at the beginning of a pasture cycle. Soil testing is a low cost process, however, 43. 5 percent of the northern ranches and 51.5 percent of the southern ranches rarely test their soils (Table 5.15). Soil testing offers instant financial advantage if fertilizer application rates can be reduced. Selecting the best pasture rotations or planting schedules for the Florida climatic and soil conditions demands comprehensive and careful estimation of crop response and definitive soil management decisions. Soil testing is one way to estimate nutrient needs and calculate fertilizer requirements (Table 5.16). The survey reveals that a little over a third of the ranchers throughout the state test their soil as part of their pasture management processes. Table 5.15 Soil testing by region. Response Almost Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Northern Rancher Percent Response 39.1 0.0 17.4 43.5 Southern Rancher Percent Response 34.8 11.4 2.3 51.5 oolVAVt'cuc ....,, oucsuu u uuuuuc u ucuuuu uu u u cu uuuus au e u c sc eucuuuuu a o co uu e Nb....,_ we_., N us cu suuoe a a a suuc u a au u oz cu Ace uuuuauwWffecue uuuu uuAauA ,,.......,.,,..,,Vt I\NlfYNWW

PAGE 103

92 Respondents were asked about keeping records of the application of fertilizers (nitrogen phosphate, and/or potassium) Fifty percent of the ranchers in the southern region rarely keep records concerning application of fertilizer to their pastures or hay fields. Whereas 34.8 percent of the northern ranchers seldom keep records of their rates of fertilizer application (Table 5.16). Florida ranchers were also asked if they kept records of the nutrient content of their pastures or hay fields. In north Florida, 52.2 percent of the ranchers rarely keep those kinds of records. The southern ranchers answered (75 percent) that they rarely keep records concerning the nutrient content of the pastures. Similarly, 69.6 percent of northern ranchers rarely keep yield records for pasture and hay fields, and in the south, that percentage is 75.7.

PAGE 104

93 Table 5.16 Frequency with which fertilizing records are kept. .......... s u e c ; Ai s $4 cox U; 4 ......... II i U!J!J U c cu s c aeuuuuuu C ..,........,. U 4 AU h 4 U CUC C l S l I... S la I l S db ca:tt.V O J O SU$$ l l l l l l U $ l l l lb Sb lb ........... $$$ U 4 l $ 0 Aeus UL U l bl l Record Keep Fertilizer Keep Crop Keep Crop Yield Records by Percent Keeping Application Nutrient Scale Records by Content Percent Records by Percent ... .. ....... .... . .......... ........ .. .......... .... .. .......... .................... .. .. .... .. .... .. .... .. .. .. ..................... .. ... .. .... ....... .. .......... .. .... .. ... .......... .. .. .... .. .... .... .. .............................. .... .... .. .. .... .. .. ....................... .. .. ...... .. .... ........ . .. .......... .... .. .... .. .. .. ... .... .. ...... .................. .. -----North South North South North South A l most Alwa y s Usually S o metimes Rarely Total 34.8 8.7 21.7 34.8 100 38.6 11.4 0.0 50.0 100 17.4 4.3 25.1 52.2 100 9.1 2.3 13.6 75.0 100 8.7 21.7 0.0 69.6 100 15.3 4.7 2.3 75.7 100 .... ; 4 ''" ;;1'1 o;r,c;coA ...... .. w ,, ..... ,,n....,.,.., O ............. ., ................................ 4 0 4 4 I _,. t Cl l I Statist i cs for x, 2 = 24. 984 Pr = 0. 001 Fertilizer Applicati o n 4 ...... s 4 *"""' .... i I ................... cc ... I I I e c U U 4; C $ $ i b A ...... U I 4 l U U I l U A tlJIIU i $ i ...,.,. b .................. .. Statistics for x, 2 = 11. 228 Pr = 0. 011 Nutrient Content ... A,.,...,.IAA=--uwv. .. a; a u e Pr= 0.001 Statistics for Pasture Yield 'X, 2 = 15.892 Application rates of nitrogen were low in both the n o rth e rn and southern regions. In the northern counties surveyed, 40 percent of the pastures were fertilized with 416 0 p o unds per acre. The application rates in the south were l o wer; 5 2 percent of those surveyed used between 41 and 60 pounds per acre (Table 5.17). Phosphate and potassium were applied at lower rates. For this reason, the results are generalized for all counties. The application rates of P 2 0 5 (phosphate) were very low in both the northern and southern regions, with surveyed, 50.2 percent of

PAGE 105

94 th e pastures in the n o rthern counties being fertilized with only 1 0 -20 p o unds per acre and 42 percent in the south (Table 5 .18) Table 5.17 Nitrogen application rates by region. ~V'ILIUA~ccsuzeuAUUISU4S.....,....._ 4 ss!/1 .... YS.....,Vt~ pp..... ........... A ,,,.~, ., .........,.,, Pounds / Acre of Northern Rancher Nitrogen Percent within Range ss , nr v n u s es s u r u s A*lot!/ ts ,., t a ......., 10 as as a I\P Southern Rancher Percent within Range 10-20 2.9 5.9 21-4 0 11.5 11.8 41-6 0 40.0 52.9 61-8 0 2.9 5.5 81-1 00 14.3 3.9 101-1 2 0 8.4 0.0 121-14 0 3.0 0.0 141-1 60 8.6 11.8 1 6 1-1 80 5.7 2.6 181-2 00 2.718 4.6 Total 100 100 .. ... St at is tics for 1., 2 = 11. 228 Pr = 0. 011 Nutrient Content Application rates of potash (K 2 0) were again, very low in both regions. In the northern counties surveyed, 89.57 percent of the pastures were not fertilized with potash at all (Table 5.19}. Of the s o uthern region's ranchers 83. 5 percent did not use K 2 0 on t h e i r pastures or hay fields (Table 5.19). In north Florida, 7,738 acres, or 61 percent of the land devoted to pasture and hay production, was fertilized in 1993.

PAGE 106

95 Table 5.18 P 2 0 5 application rates by region ; ; 0 ....... ,:AAt..,. NH,....,._,, u ........................... W'W#~"'l0,l1'SUUUUU sues ea a a suuuuuuu so A NIR.l'IUUU t 4 ea U e e e A., 4 U U a ....... U uuueuuoeA t A CSU U uses SU U U a a a U a U U a 4 AUUUUU Pounds/Acre of P 2 0 5 Northern Rancher Southern Rancher 0 10-20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 Total Percent within Percent within Range Range 24.8 0.0 50.2 42.1 25.0 38.4 0.0 7.6 0.0 5.3 0.0 5.6 100 100 ......... . .. ............... ._. ________________ ........ ... ........ _______ ...... ......... .. ... _. _____ ..................... .......... -.-.... Pr= 0.001 Statistics for Pounds/Acre of P20 s x 2 = 29.143 _,,,ax u e Aacse cue;; cu au ,,, u A %9ftl'l us sea zuuauuzeae a au ,.,..,.,.,..,..,,, s sec_s ass s 4 s es Nitrogen application rates averaged 122 pounds per acre on those acres that were fertilized and P20s application averaged 34 pounds per acre. Application rates were even lower in south Florida. Table 5.19 K 2 0 application rates by region. Pounds/Acre of K 2 0 Northern Rancher Southern Rancher Percent within Percent within Range Range 0 89.57 83.5 10-20 2.98 0.00 21-40 7.45 0.00 41-60 0.00 0.00 61-80 0.00 5.50 81-100 0.00 11.0 Total 100 100 .. . ~......................................................... ..... ... ..... ........................... ............... .... ........ .......... .... .......... ..... Pr= 0.001 Statistics for Pounds/Acre of K 2 0 x 2 = 27 .112 .. .. .,,.._O'lfWf'O'i#W,A. .. .. .. as a cAsN:a u a au a ,.rcNW.,......saA; esscJsJlss!s ;a a,., u .. sn .. sM\Ahlleueueuaus a M enez a,, ea Only 32 percent of all pasture and hay lands were fertilized. Nitrogen application rates averaged 52 pounds per

PAGE 107

96 acre and P 2 0s rates averaged only 14 pounds per acre. In north Florida there is the propensity to grow forage that is not native to the state, (rye, rye grass, Ber1ttuda grass, Bahai grass, and some native grasses mixed). These improved grasses require more nutrients than native pastures. Pasture Renovation and Protection of Endangered Plant Species Florida ranchers use a variety of methods of renovation. Pasture renovation l.S accomplished by mechanical methods. There are concerns as to whether this method of renovation is a threat to rare and endangered species. Table 5.20 Use of mechanical procedures of pasture renovation by region ,,,,,, nnrn ,.._......,,..., ..,,,,nnnnnen, nrernnr............,,...,..,.,.,, re rnennenn.............,,een nnnn nee yeeeete,tfoll,t nn 1,r nn n nnnntnnrrnrensrsv nnr a ears an r n nsans nesst nan a non s n non r nn s a "'1111,....,.nennnennn n r n a rev vvncannennPt r a on as snnnns n r Southern Rancher Percent Using Mechanical Renovation Mechanical Renovation or Not? Yes No Total Northern Rancher Percent Using Mechanical Renovation 35.0 65.0 100 Statistics for Mechanical Renovation 'X, 2 27 .112 51.2 48.8 100 Pr= 0.001 About half, 51.2 percent of southern ranchers use mechanical methods of soil renovation, while fewer, only 35

PAGE 108

percent of the northern livestock producers mechanically. 97 renovate Pesticide Management and Weed Control Burning has traditionally been a method of weed management for some Florida ranchers. This practice may endanger some species in that their habitat for breeding and f oo d supply may be destroyed. Most, 82. 6 perecent, northern ranchers d o not burn their pasture. Fewer, 52.3 percent, southern ranchers never burn. Table 5.21 Florida ranchers who burn their pastures by region ....,........, u o uuuuuuuuuAo uA u :N; usu a, u seuuuuuusuu su cu u u u uuu u u u; a e ou A use u a see a euuoouuc souuuuu a ersuuu a o cu eouusu a au u u cu a ft e u u; e e e ea sue;; u u Ao llli" ea s uaailllieuuu u u suuuucuuuuu u u co use a as a a uusuuuesuAaeeu w s s suss ea au a a : : Florida Ranchers Percent Asked if They Burn Pasture Southern Ranchers Percent Asked if They Burn Pasture Response Every Year Every Other Year Every Three Years Never Northern Ranchers Percent Asked if They Burn Pasture 0.0 4.3 13.1 82.6 4.5 14.4 18.4 62.7 4.5 20.5 22.7 52.3 ... ........ .. .... .... .. .... .. .. .... ... . . .. ... .. ........ . ..... ....... .. .. . .. .......... ........ ........ . .. .. .......... .. .... .. . .. .. . .. .... ... .......... ..... ......... . ... .... . .. .. . .. .. 100 Total 100 100 --staTI:s:csrorPasEt1re--t:-so4 .. ...... ,, .. ,, ., Burning ~uu~ezs :scrurtl4cuu_.,..,,,~,sasssssua et eA uc:A.1ISAfllllU~~~Ntt ~veeeeei,et.tNSPP7iti vu. u tr 1000 IIA:ss VW S"llll nnssrsr,:eeneennnnn ussussau %JP .IA VAS : ; ; Livestock producers in the state of Florida use small amounts of herbicides, mostly spot applications to remove clumps of soda apple, coffee weed, and dog fennel.

PAGE 109

98 Table 5.22 H e rbicide application by region. " '" 0 Frequency of Application U O O 4 0 0 U O 0 Yes No Herbicide Application to Improved Pasture by Percent 0 4 $ 0 U 4 O $ 44 4 4 0 DP O 0 : 4 4 North 11.9 88.1 o o I South 5.9 94.1 .. ........... .. .. sta:rs .. ................. . .. .. _x 2 .... ............. .............. P.r-;;-o:13 ... -... --.. Herbicide Application .,,...,. .... ...,... .... bb$$$ACA~ s#tJIUSS~ ..... ,N. YsN#POSii~ a ,,,..... esccllMU P%1MUJASJ ........... ,,,.,,. allJllJJUS ,,,____,.,,,,"'.#111,,A ......... ,.. ...... ,, ,_......., n .. The survey asked if the livestock producer had applied pesticides of any sort, specifically herbicides, to unimproved or native range on their ranch land during the last five years (Table 5.22 ) In south Florida 5.9 percent of the ranchers in the survey reported applying pesticide. There was more herbicide u s e in north Florida; 11. 9 percent of ranchers in this region of the state indicated that they had applied herbicides. The southern livestock producers are less inclined to apply pesticides or herbicides to their pastures than their northern colleagues. The survey revealed that 40.9 percent and 42.9 percent of the northern ranchers applied pesticides and herbicides respectively c o mpared to 25.0 and 26.6 percent in the south ( Table 5.23). Ranchers are not responsible for the use of safety equipment by custom applicators. Of the northern livestock producers surveyed who apply their own pesticides,

PAGE 110

99 15 percent almost always wear gloves when applying pesticides, 5 percent a l m o st always wear boots, and 20 percent almost always wear a respirator. Table 5. 2 3 R a n c hers who a p ply pesticides or herbicides. nosnr,renre,,n,nnnnnnrnrvnnnrnncnn ,,,,....,,,nnnen. nnnnnnreennnnntnn nnntn ,....,v,rrneennnneen ors a a sssaonnnnnnssnnrrrrossnt a rnons nnennt r a n a nannsszrr Pest Management Percent of Ranchers Percent of Ranchers Meth od who Apply in the who Apply in the N o rthern Region Southern Region ............ ... ... ... .... .. .. ....... ...... ..... . ... .. . .. .. --Pesticide 40. 9 25. O H e rbici de 42.9 26.6 ~=,~ e e en e ~a, n ,....,,, ee e an re net re ~.-.neen.vn, en ere=~,.,, e eeee,,,,..,,,, re e er n YAl"tl'4N e y,11 an v e e e e e c n n Vl#P n n sr r nee tt ev.,...,. ,.,., en n n n en e nee es n n ,, e e eneer rs nnnn an n n r-.... n nn r n n n,..,, yen nc n n n n en n nv nay non n c n e , n en tense n n v t In the s o uthern region, the surveyed livestock producers revealed that 11. 5 percent always wear gloves when applying pesticides, 7 percent wear boots and 4.5 percent always wear a respirator. T a ble 5.24 P e sticide application and health protection usage. F requenc y of Applicati o n Rubbe r G l ove Us a ge by Percent Pr= 0.154 Rubber Boot Usage by Percent Pr= 0.061 Respirator Usage by Percent Pr= 0. 0 01 ... . . ... ..... ............ .... .. ..... . .. . ..... .... ..... .... ... .. .. ... ........ . . ..... .. ............ .. .......... ... .......... .. ....... . ..... .. ... .. . .. . . ..... ....... ... .. .. .......... ........ ..... .. .......... . .. .. ...... .. .... ... . .. North South North South Alm o st Alwa y s Usually Sometimes Rarely D o es N o t Apply T o tal N o rth 15.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 65.0 10 0 South 11.5 7.2 2.6 2.7 75.0 1 0 0 5.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 65.0 1 0 0 7.0 4.7 4.6 7.0 75.7 1 0 0 20.0 4.5 5.0 1.3 0.0 4.7 10.0 7.0 65.0 82.5 100 100 .. .. "=~,.uuusuuuuuuuuuuu cu, cs a susANJ.uuu ouuueuuaucuucuuuua seAAo ccucutl'U uc a; a cuce a o asuzuua uc sscuuauuua eseeo ee esuouu\lauil'OUeuau au euuea auuuuee u eaueuueeeua

PAGE 111

100 The Future of Florida Ranching Florida ranchers were asked how important the following factors are to the future of Florida ranching: (1) decreasing beef consump t ion, ( 2 ) foreign beef production, (3) pressure from animal rights groups, (4) rising land values, (5) rising property taxes, ( 6) availability of labor, (7) government regulati o ns about land use, and (8) government labor r e gulations. Their resp o nses revealed that Florida ranchers are aware o f the external forces affecting their business (Table 5.25 ) Table 5.25 Overview of Florida rancher concerns by importance. Issues of Concern Consumption of Beef Animal Rts. Groups Percent of No. Ranchers Consider Issue Very Important 73.9 56.5 Percent of So. Ranchers Consider Issue Very Important 75 54.0 Percent of No. Ranchers Consider Issue Not Important 6.1 8.7 Percent of So. Ranchers Consider Issue Not Important 2.3 2.3 Rising 69.6 70.5 4.3 4.5 Taxes Land Use 8 6. 4 77. 3 9. 1 11. 4 Regulation Environ. 86.4 79.5 4.5 9.1 Regulation Labor 4 7 8 52. 3 4 3 15. 9 Regulations sta t f .. 2 == x 2 ... .. .. ... .. ... . ... Rancher Concerns Pr= 0.021 Pr= 0.012 W~v.....,.,,v~"""""'"''W''rNs:AY""'INllMllliltJJJI s """"" ...,_,,,,,,,,~.,,,,..,,tn ,,,..,,,,,,,,es .,, srsnsvsnn as n r Vt.....,were 'lllbh\iihVlil:IWtlV'1Ylit:WVA,..,,, ,.-.,,,., ,,nn,rv eon, n snsssn neas as net

PAGE 112

101 Each of these factors was ranked on a scale of 1 to 4 (Very Important to Not At All Important). Table 5.25 ranks the ranchers' responses according to this scale. The combined responses of 1 and 2 {Very Important and Important) and 3 and 4 (Not Very Important and Not At All Important), reveal that the ranchers questioned tended to rank the two very high. The ''environmental and regulatory issues'' included in the list of factors, 86.4 of northern ranchers and 79.5 of southern ranchers found environmental regulation very important. Ranchers seem to feel that environmentalists cause a great many of their problems. This was expressed in most of the discussions with the southern Florida ranchers and the larger cattle ranchers in north Florida. Ranchers also indicated how the following factors affected profitability: (1) beef prices, (2) labor costs, (3) costs of inputs, (4) veterinary care expenses, (5) cost of equipment, ( 6) interest rates, (7) investments required to meet environmental safety standards, and (8) cost of keeping records for the government. Ranchers in both regions considered beef prices and the cost of inputs as having the greatest impact on the profitability of their operations. Nonetheless, their investments required to meet environmental safety standards and the cost of keeping records ranked nearly as high in both cases.

PAGE 113

102 Results indicate that cattle ranchers in Florida believe they are using many production practices which are environmentally benevolent. Table 5. 2 6 Florida rancher concerns about profitability by region. .,...,. s; ............ "'"'' UA.Na!lll ,. .......... 4 UOOSW'SSIIIWWAUO st tAO oft t c ............ .,,. ..................... eAAUUUUUU U l ssu SU usscuouu b U t Ubl l ............. .,. 4 $ $ $ ...... 044 $4 4 C Percent of Percent Percent Issues of Concern Beef Prices Environmental Standards Equipment Costs Input Costs Record Keeping Average Percentages Percent of No. Ranchers Consider Issue Important 100 74 57 98 87 83 So. Ranchers Consider Issue Important 91 86 86 93 87 89 of No. Ranchers Consider Issue Not Important 0 26 13 2 13 11 of So. Ranchers Consider Issue Not Important 9 13 14 7 38 15 y n ,, en v er an a e .,, n n n ca en et ennrner a r v n nan nm e nae e nnenece n e e en e yeses,_,,..,_ n n ea e en n c n en es n n n a en an r nneee en an n s nan n c rnnnnr a en nne rt ens n s an nan st e AA? n e t'1,t a r enc s n n n a a an n n nnnenens ass a a ass so a a n s a r n n n sn tao, ants s er a so r tan tat t t QM Statistics for x. 2 = 84. 76 Pr = 0. 001 Entire Table ,, tee yen en rv e en cneenet n n er a,, e v n e cv eeennee-., ea RN a e eeee en n en e en e e t.t !VNl1' e yen n en e no neectl\,n n n at neons n eeeeee nee ans nano seen an ta canner n n e en en near nar,11AOJ1An e,neen nones n nan n n t n neeeeeen en n n n a an a a or sen case n n n n nan tan t non en n n n eras n n n n n n n nt Statistics for x. 2 = 6.49 Pr= 0.165 Whether Issue is Important 44 ........ ........... ...... t ,, .. ,..... ,,.,,.,., ttSSJilill#IMCCll)lfAUSACilS1la:tOIOJ$llliV S ...... ..,,.,,.,, t YNVa rnrnn~seA.r ,, U V,,...,Ci1tlJl:.Q.JWlWJS O VMllt?t S l bl rv Statistics for x. 2 = 23. 96 Pr = 0. 001 Whether Issue is Not Important .. .. .. ueueeeu a a The data also indicate that they are concerned about the potential impact of environmental issues and government regulations on both individual ranch profitability and the

PAGE 114

103 future of ranching in the state. Unfortunately, results also show that most ranchers are probably not monitoring their ranch operations effectively to prove that they are environmentally sound, as the data about record keeping discussed earlier show. Table 5.27 I m p o rtance of factors to ranchers by region. -'#lh~Fll'W"~, ~...,.,.,,~ca,""',,r~AAh~'luucussAl'u~u.......,_,..,..,VA,"W"V~ scu::::IIN'cllWW\I errs ~1se#A...,.._,....,,,,ru~aee u s 1Aetu;ornssnnsr Environmental Concerns by Percent Response t=l.37 Labor Regulations Concerns by R e sp o nse Ra ng e Land U se Concerns by Percent Resp o nse t=l.4 3 Percent Resp o nse t=2.73 .... .. .. .... ....... ~ .. .. South North South Very Imp o rta n t Important Not Very Important Not at all Important N o rth S o uth North 85.4 4.5 o.o 9.1 77.3 5.8 4.5 11.4 85.4 9.1 0.0 4.5 79.5 4.5 5.8 9.2 47.8 30.4 17.4 4.4 52.3 18.2 13.6 15.9 .. .. ...... ........ .. ..... .. .. . ... ..... ... . ..... .... ...... T o tal 100 1 0 0 100 100 100 100 "11~V e e e ,,, r.ot en et"*~,.... ~n~ en et net ts en n tr re~., ene enne teen e ev ti:,nt e eye en t tee,,,...._, v, ,......,_, ,-.,n tree en eve en en et nee e nee enes v e e e nee nnn nnn nn n t t n tees nee t sen n n t n n snot nee nee n n s,y..., a,_1 n.a sen n n t n t n PPP Changes of Agricultural Land Use into Urban Land Use Nine of the twelve fastest growing metropolitan areas in the 1980s w e re in Florida. The others were in California, Nevada, and Texas. Naples, Florida, grew by 77 percent during

PAGE 115

104 the decade, making it the fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States. The redistribution of metropolitan population that took place on a statewide scale in the twentieth century occurred in the context of a rapidly changing economy which was shifting from an agrarian and light industry base to a postindustrial service and/or high technology base (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987, 1990). During the period of 1973 through 1984, both population and the extent of urban land increased substantially. The amount of urban land in Florida (excluding Dade and Monroe counties) increased by 1,456,079 acres (Table 5.28). The increase in urban land in MSA counties was 2. 6 times the measure of land converted to urban uses in the non-MSA counties. Therefore, the land converted to urban uses per person was higher in the non-MSA counties than in MSA counties. The urban land use coefficients for MSA and non-MSA counties are presented in Table 5.29. These coefficients represent the amount of land converted to urban uses for each additional person added to the population base from 1973 to 1984. The urban land use coefficient for MSA counties in Florida was 0.435. That l.S, during that period, the amount of land converted to urban use amounted to 0.436 acres for each added person.

PAGE 116

105 The data reveal that the land use and population settlement patterns differ regionally between the central and southern region versus the northern region of the state. 1 The urban land use coefficient for the MSA counties in the north was found to be O. 803 acres per person, whereas the coefficient for the MSA counties in the central and south was 0.347 acres per person. Table 5.28 Population changes in MSA and non-MSA counties between 1973 1984 ........................ swecuucuoooc ;; ; c 4 ........... a As; s s us cAIA'UOOUU U Us cc s soc 441.A\!"4 St S S Sb SU J JC; U l @UAUAIJU U OU U U 4 AS ......... Na SU c 4 UC U U 4 lb U l 4 U ASWiilVCUUUOUUUU C sou 4 '1 l l l b UC a SUS l l d U l d 4 MSA Counties Non-MSA Florida Urban Land 1973 1984 Change Population 1973 1984 Change 1,445,069 2,499,936 1,054,867 5,785,150 8,206,926 2,421,776 Counties 240,483 641,695 401,212 609,987 910,958 300,971 1,685,552 3,141,631 1,456,079 6,395,137 9,117,884 2,722,747 The MSAs in the central and southern counties are more densely populated, land values are higher, and there l.S stronger competition for land (Table 5.29). Population growth in Florida has resulted in the conversion of natural and rural 1 The northern region is comprised of the Ocala, Gainesville, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Panama City, Ft. Walton Beach, and Pensacola MSAs. The central and southern region include the Miami, Hialeah, Ft. Lauderdale, H o llywood, Pompano Beach, West Palm Beach, Ft. Pierce, Naples, Ft. Myers, Cape Coral, Sarasota, Bradenton, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Lake Winter Haven, Orlando, Melbourne, Titusville Palm Bay, and Daytona Beach MSAs.

PAGE 117

106 land to urban land uses at higher rates than in other areas in the United States. Urban land use in the non-MSA counties was 1.33 acres, about three times higher than the coefficient of MSA counties. The coefficient for non-MSA counties in the north is 2.026 acres per person, which is almost three times the coefficient in the central and south (0.682). Other studies have also f o und that urban land use coefficients are consistently higher in non-MSA counties. Table 5.29 The urban land use coefficients. Region MSA Counties Non-MSA Counties Acres/Person Acres/Person Florida South North .436 .347 .803 Results of Pasture Land Use Analysis 1.333 .682 2.026 The entire state of Florida comprises 34,660,480 acres. The state is divided into northern and southern regions for this section of the analysis.

PAGE 118

107 The northern region consists of the following counties: Volusia, Putnam, Clay, Citrus, Sumter, Dixie, Lake, Taylor, Orange, Leon, Seminole, Okaloosa, St. Johns, Holmes, Levy, Flagler, Jefferson, Pasco, Jackson, Bradford, Madison, Gulf, Bay, Gilchrist, Columbia, Duval, Alachua, Suwannee, Union, Washington, Franklin, Gadsden, Liberty, Hernando, Marion, Walton, Lafayette, Wakulla, Calhoun, Hamilton, Santa Rosa, Nassau, Baker, and Escambia. The southern region includes the following counties: Polk, Collier, Sarasota, Charlotte, Broward, Brevard, St. Lucie, Pinellas, Hardee, Glades, Lee, Indian River, Highlands, Hillsborough, Hendry, Manatee, Osceola, Palm Beach, Dade, De Soto, Martin, Monroe, and Okeechobee. Florida pastures are concentrated in the southern part o f the stat e (Table 5. 30) Cattle will not only affect the d e mand for p asture and rangeland but also the demand for cropland. Table 5.30 Pasture and range land acreage by region. ,e et eeeM;W;-..en,,~ n n n n ere reeeeeenst ,,, e vn n a ,y n n n n n ,,,,nan en n n a r n n n ea nee enee en nnee s a a a a nw n s n r nnnnn nnneern1111mncan ts nae en nan a er a a a a a an........, v na,neene e e eee;eee nones n v n n.rn n a one a seen none noes a a av t nan n.., n nn ea n nernosr a a a a nr Region Pasture and Range, Pasture and Range, 1987 1990 .. .... .. .. ..... .................. .......................... .. .. .. ....... .. ........ .. .... .... ...... .. .... ...... .. ........ .. .. .......... .... ....... ....................... ...... ....... .. .. ...... ........ .. _ _ __ ...... .. .... ............... .. .. ........ ... .. .. ................. .. . .. .. ................ .. ... .. ..... . . ........ .. .. ...... ... .. .. Northern Countie s Southern Counties Total 1,248,288 1,254,888 3,623,439 3,296,446 4,871,7 2 7 4,551,334 Even if we accept the likelihood that the national and internati o nal demand for beef will rise no more than 0.5 or 1 percent ann u ally, there remains the possibility that the

PAGE 119

108 various economic, political, and social forces that deterittine how cattle are raised will cause the industry to expand disproportionately within Florida. Between 1987 and 1990, however, the surface of pasture and range land decreased substantially in the north and less so in the south (Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987). The amount of pasture and range land in Florida decreased by 320,393 acres (Table 5.31) in the period 1987 to 1990. Obviously, the land converted from pasture has gone into some other use. The previous analysis concerning urbanization supports the hypothesis that the land use conversion in the north has been largely to urban development. In south Florida, both urbanization and agricultural diversification account for the conversion. In the north, ranching occupied 1 percent more of its counties' 1990 pasture acreage than in 1987 (Table 5.31). In the south, approximately 3 percent of the counties pasture acreage has gone into some other use. Table 5.31 Pasture and range land coefficients by region. c UCL I 4 ........ .,.; A cue a U t ................... O OZ I SUS l SU ds sou ..... usAa'4JIN.00UUUU UUU UUW I ... SU 4 a U 4 Region Coefficients of County Coefficients of County Pasture and Range: 1987 Pasture and Range: 1990 Northern Counties Southern Counties 5.79 23.95 7.09 20.81

PAGE 120

109 When examining the land use coefficients for pasture land in the northern counties of the state, for every acre of pasture there was approximately 5. 79 acres of county acreage in 1987 and 7.09 acres of county land for every acre of pasture 1 and in 1990. In the south, for every acre of pasture there was 23.95 acres of county acreage in 1987. In 1990, for every acre of pasture there was 20. 81 acres of county acreage in 1990. The southern region had more land in their counties not involved in cattle ranching, despite having larger ranches associated with larger herd sizes. Herdsize Change Indices Changes in county cattle herdsizes between the years 1982 and 1990 were examined. The indices generated by a proportional evaluation revealed that for every head of cattle in the southern region in 1982, a decrease of approximately O. 39 in southern counties (Table 5. 32a) In the north, for every head of cattle there was a 0.25 increase in county herds. This decrease in herd size in the south would at first seem to show that Florida is losing part of its cow/calf industry. However, Florida is still producing at levels that meet the present demand. By the time this analysis was concluded, greater proportional increases in herdsizes are

PAGE 121

found mostly in the southern portion of the state. 110 This analysis serves to develop the objectives of the location quotient as it further explains what is occurring within counties along with land uses (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). I ~' lria~ Cattle Ppulatin Y e a r C onside red : 1 982 Fl o rido Lo y r c u .. II 929 l o 11 3 7 7 ll .l7 1 lo 2 1, l2 0 21 ]2 1 I 40 N 7 40 ... ,, 1 ., 21 M il es 0 50 100 Figure 5.1 Florida cattle location by herdsize in 1987. Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987. F1ric41 Cattle Ppulatin Yea r Considered: 1990 Figure 5.2 Herdsize by c o unty in 1990. f"lor l do L o yer 0 Co ..,. H tt J-u.,i .t C a ~ :k !I 321 lo 7 -'00 7 501 lo 14 500 to Jl 000 Jl 001 t o IM 000 M il es 0 50 1 00 Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1990.

PAGE 122

111 Table 5.32 Herdsize changes compared using a proportional index. ................................. ....wif:ljj .... U .:u11uuuue~-~~ U $ 4 l , ..... uowcuuu l l i S $ l $$ Sb l l l $ l l l SU l $ 4 l County Cattle 19 8 2 Cattle 1990 Index Region .. Hard e e 74,888 108,000 0.31 South Brevard 24,849 33,000 0.25 South Seminole De Soto Okeechobee Lee Highlands Pasc o P o lk Charl o tte Citrus Lafayette Glades Hendry Manatee Osce o la Indian River Hillsborough Hernando Sarasota St. Lucie Dade C o llier Broward Palm B e ach Pinellas Totals 7,485 71,327 162,128 13,527 97,525 50,615 113,731 29 0 47 8,871 22,791 68,654 133,501 71,581 117, 8 70 31,528 85,379 29,243 38,691 53,514 10,678 29,571 2 7, 23 9 3 7 6 59 1,549 1,413,441 9,500 82,000 186,000 15,000 103,000 50,0 0 0 111,000 28,0 0 0 8,5 0 0 22,000 65,000 117,000 63,000 101,000 26,000 70,000 22,000 23,000 31,000 5,500 15,000 11, 00 0 11,000 409 1,316,909 0. 21 South O .13 South O .13 South O .10 South O. 05 South -0. 01 South -0. 02 South -0. 04 South -o. 04 South -0. 04 South -0.06 South -0 .14 South -0.14 South -0.17 South -0.21 South -0. 22 South -0. 33 South -0.68 South -0. 73 South -0. 94 South -0. 97 South -1.48 South -2. 42 South -2. 79 South -0. 39 Average n tt nee, n e e an r r ,,,,-..,.,, eeenee re err n nee v v mo-. r nm eee, r, s et e e es n r r nt e e ee e een n a a 2 nee eeern rem n en en n n n n sr n en n n n n neeeree n r n n t n r n n r-., ,,._.,., n e er n ,.., en r enc nee n en e e nan nee n n n cert n n r a enncneneen r r n n n n n s n

PAGE 123

112 Table 5.32b Herdsize changes compared using a proportional index. owuco111ouuoueoouesuesuou1111uswuuweu .. see s s e as a ae a usuuuue Coun~y Cattle 1982 Cattle,,_l~_~O_ -~I?:de~ Region St. Johns 4,977 5,500 0.10 North Okaloosa 10,065 11,000 0.09 North Escambia 9,377 10,000 0.06 North Lake 28,058 30,000 0.06 North Levy 32,541 34,000 0.04 North Union 10,067 10,500 0.04 North Alachua 46,322 48,000 0.03 North Calhoun 4,933 5,000 0.01 North Bay 929 900 -0. 03 North Bradford 9,115 8,500 -0.07 North Nassau 14,487 13,500 -0.07 North Baker 5,958 5,500 -0.08 North Taylor 6,097 5,500 -0.11 North Marion 58,953 52,000 -0.13 North Washington 13,521 12,000 -0.13 North Sumter 58,280 50,000 -0.17 North Jackson 39,656 33,000 -0.20 North Suwannee 40,801 34,000 -0.20 North Leon 12,156 10,000 -0.22 North Liberty 1,479 1,200 -0.23 North Volusia 18,639 15,000 -0.24 North Jefferson 23,322 18,500 -0.26 North Orange 18,335 14,500 -0.26 North Clay 18,038 14,000 -0.29 North Columbia 21,320 16,500 -0.29 North Madison 22,215 17,000 -0.31 North Santa Rosa 9,897 7,500 -0.32 North Holmes 19,721 14,500 -0.36 North Hamilton 12,476 9,000 -0.39 North Flagler 9,125 6,000 -0. 52 North Gilchrist 40,867 26,000 -0.57 North Martin 52,028 31,000 -0.68 North Gadsden 13,617 6,500 -1.09 North Putnam 15,091 7,000 -1.16 North Walton 17,122 7,500 -1.28 North Duval 29,678 12,500 -1. 37 North Dixie 9,175 3,700 -1. 48 North .! .. .... ~----,.,,,,_,.,..,.,.,,,.,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,?,,?,,~,!-~-~-~---,,,,,,.,,,,,.,,,.,,,,,.,.,,,9,,!?,,!,,~,9,.9.,,,,---,,,,,:,9.,,:,,~~---,AY~.~~-~~-------V ___ ____ ----------------

PAGE 124

113 Table 5.32c Herdsize changes compared using a proportional index ..,........,.,. .................... ... .,...~Nts~.-.VW-:W.tW.,,n,nvnn~=-" ,,...lftll,P"W'llluCUUbbdbA ............ SP on 7 ,,,,,~..., ............................................... ... ,.,.~W4 uses ......... .. f; 9..~~!.Y. .............. .. . .. g.~.t.! 1.~ ..... !.~.~ ? .. . ... .. .. ... ~.~.t.!.J:.~ ..... !.~.~.9 ............ !.~.9.~~ ....... . . ~~.9..!.9.!} . ... .. ..... Monroe 1,234 483 -1.55 North Gulf 1,453 456 -2 .19 North Franklin 1,157 328 -2.53 N o rth Wakulla 1, 6 00 365 -3.38 North Totals 5,444 1 632 -2.41 Avera2e ~==~llil\lS'll~Ve~~ .. ~.....,_..,IIW"l/',n~ss,ecs,..esse ............ ,.,._.,.~cccP5wesaseou-,...._,,,,l}ll)llNo 1\1' Application of the Location Quotient to Pasture Acreage A locati o n quotient equal to 1 means the acreage has exactly the same relative frequency for pastures as is found acr o ss the e ntire state. A location quotient greater than 1 indicates that pastures are overrepresented in the acreage and hence has a large relative concentration in pasture acreage. The higher the location quotient value, the greater the degree of concentration of acres in pasture within a given c o unt y Table 5. 33 {1987, L o cation 1990} qu o tients of four selected counties ,..,,a,n an er re n n :v n n r nreeers-., r a r n en r n, e en e e, ,, , rte,, e rte,, e ,, re, tt m r rrr tt ten, e et en t n nee n T)tA. u u oJW n ne nen n ten n rs e n emn ee e e,, n vcn.,, ,, ....,nm. rt mnntt v n n tern n a r en as a r n rs n n a; County Location Qu o tient 1987 Location Quotient 1990 Region p 1 .a s .. .. .. .......... ... .... .... .. 1 .. : .. o .. 3 ...... .. . ..... .. ..... .. ... .... . .. .... ............ .. ..... .. .. .. .... ..... .. . .. .. .. .... .. ... o.~ .. 6 .. ... ..... ... ...... . .... .. .. .... .... .. .... .. .............. so .. u .. EE .. ... .. ..... Hernando Highlands Okeechobee 0.59 2.91 3.06 0.57 3.11 3.28 North South South nrnnrcnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn n ss,s a nrcnsnrnn snnssnnnssnnnnr

PAGE 125

114 A location quotient less than 1 shows an underrepresentation of acres in pasture. This measure can be used to compare different county's pasture acreage, or a county's pasture acreage at different points in time. The results in these examples suggest that, in comparison with the ratio of pasture land for the state as a whole, the percentage of county pasture land contained in (a) Pinellas county 1S approximately equivalent, and relatively decreases in pasture land acreage in 1990 (b) Hernando county has a substantially lower location quotient, ( C) Highlands county 1S noticeably greater, and ( d) Okeechobee county 1S slightly higher. As pasture changes into another form of land use in one area, land the change positively affects the location quotient in all the counties within the state. LQ is a convincing method of measurement since it is independent of scale. The location quotient allows observations made for different situations to be compared, since they are standardized by their overall map scope. Any departure from unity will have proportional results, regardless of the phenomenon involved (Table 5.34a and 5. 34b) This is a measure based upon count data and is centered around unity. Under-representation 15 condensed into the interval (0, 1) while over-representation 15

PAGE 126

115 unrestricted in the interval ( 1, oo) Figures 5. 3 and 5. 4 for 1987 and 1990 rev e al the distribution of the location q uo tients of the over-r e presented category with an interval of (1, oo ) l ocated in the southern region of the state. The LQ indicate s regional differences in proportion of pasture used by c o unty by the cow/calf industry in Florida Lecatie r1 euetient fer Pasture Year Examined 1987 Pasture Loyer ( __ J Co u ntie s Locot i on lndicies ii O t o 0 9 Ill) 0. 9 t o 0.99 1 to 1 5 1 .5 1 t o 3 .06 M ile s 0 50 1 00 Figure 5.3 L o cation quotient for state and county pasture land in 1987. Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987. I

PAGE 127

Lcatien tie11t fer Pasture Year Examine d 1 990 Pasture Loyer [= ] C ou nt i e s Locotion lndic i es 0 to 0 .9 0 9 t o 0 99 1 to 1 5 1 .5 1 t o 3 5 M iles 0 50 100 Figure 5.4 L o cation quotient for state and county pasture land in 1990. Source: Florida Statistical Abstract, 199 0 116 T a ble 5.34a Location qu o tients of pasture land by county and region. iY' e ee n r en IIIA1 t t en net u t mt t n n en n Y vn eon neeeee rev AJIAIIN......-, n ,,eennen e ea,ennenvMe:Yt tr rte an r err nnnenn rneanr a eeee nnr a es over en en e et e e en nee c en e Ate can Y.mteee..,,,.., en eeey n n:;c en 11:r,r, n a a a an 1:tT?tnneeeent COUNTY Quotient Quotient Change Region 1987 1990 Points ....... .............. .......... Brevard O. 99 3. 40 2. 41 South Clay 0.94 3.01 2.07 South Dixie 0.52 1.50 0.98 North Osceola 2.03 2.74 0.71 South Holmes 0.34 1.0 2 0.68 North Taylor 1.58 2.25 0.67 North Bradford 0.00 0.61 0.61 North G il c hrist O. 35 0. 58 0. 23 North Martin 3. 06 3. 28 0. 22 South Highlands 2 .91 3.11 0.20 South Palm Beach O .11 0. 27 0 .16 South

PAGE 128

117 Table 5.34b Location quotients of pasture land by county and region. "A:_..AAu .. .. lhA0'5A.-wwi.,_sAcauesus.,,.,.,.,...,_,_,__ ... ttR,eAaNWl:auuuuueuuuou us cue ass uses asuew ca .. .. sssuaau11111 COUNTY Quotient Quotient Change Region Alachua Volusia Seminole Charlotte Gadsden Franklin Hendry Marion Lake Wakulla Orange Leon Flagler St. Johns Collier Hardee Okaloosa Calhoun Walton Union Jefferson Jackson Hamilton Suwannee Duval Dade Broward De Soto Bay Baker Liberty Nassau Escambia Monroe Santa Rosa Columbia Lafayette Hernando Hillsborough Washington Lee Madison 1987 1990 Points 1.17 1.32 0.15 1.26 1.35 0.09 1.19 1.28 0.09 1.72 1.80 0.08 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.02 0.09 0.07 1.86 1.93 0.07 1.08 1.15 0.07 0.64 0.68 0.04 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.55 0.59 0.04 0.56 0.60 0.04 0.55 0.59 0.04 0.54 0.58 0.04 0.98 1.01 0.03 1.88 1.90 0.02 0.36 0.38 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.22 0.02 0.33 0.35 0.02 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.97 -0.01 0.41 0.39 -0.02 0.59 0.57 -0.02 2.88 2.83 -0.05 0.08 0.00 -0.08 1.20 1.05 -0.15 0.70 0.55 -0.15 North North North South North North South North North North South North North North South South North North North North North North North North North South South North North North North North North North North North North North South North North North

PAGE 129

118 Table 5.34c Location quotients of pasture land by county and region. Wlil'""'"'"' ... .. .. ... ~A.,_...'W!W00415A .. .. COUNTY Pasco Gulf Levy Pinellas Manatee Okeechobee Indian River Glades Sarasota Polk Sumter Citrus St. Lucie Putnam Quotient 1987 1.40 0.30 0.91 1.03 2.83 3.01 1.60 2.26 2.93 2.79 2.58 1.40 2.44 2.43 Quotient 1990 1.23 0.11 0.70 0.76 2.54 2.45 1.00 1.64 2.31 1.96 1.27 0.06 0.61 0.57 Change Points -0.17 -0.19 -0.21 -0.27 -0.29 -0.56 -0.60 -0.62 -0.62 -0.83 -1.31 -1.34 -1.83 -1.86 Region North North North South South South South South South South North North South North

PAGE 130

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS This dissertation has described the conditions under which the Florida calf and cow industry has developed. The survey-generated data suggested that ranching in Florida is largely an environmentally protective agricultural activity. However, further steps should be taken, using a systems approach, to address issues of sustainability for cattle ranching in Florida. A systems approach perrcti ts examination of complex interactions between each subsystem (i.e., cattle ranching, dairy f arnting, truck faritling, and urban land use) As mentioned in the introduction, one goal of this study was to describe the major land uses in Florida and their environmentally deteriorating effects. Despite the controversy concerning livestock based production systems, the data tends to support the view that Florida's livestock industry has relatively little potential for detrimental environmental impact compared to other agricultural systems. Furtheritlore, the survey results show that Florida's ranchers are well aware 119

PAGE 131

of the environmental issues are concerned about them. The main objective of 120 involving the beef business and this study was to gain an understanding of demographic factors and specific info.t"Itlation about ranchers and their operation. The mean age of the ranchers sampled in North Florida is 51 years. In South Florida, the mean age is 57. In the northern region, 47. 5 percent of those surveyed had over 30 years of experience in the cattle business and in the southern region 67.1 percent of those surveyed had over 30 years of experience. The southern cattle ranchers are somewhat older than those in the northern region. As to the use of available resources such as water, irrigation is not an issue for most Florida ranchers. Very few of those surveyed irrigate their pastures. In the north, some of the cattle's drinking water, 17 .1 percent is drawn from surface sources, but most is drawn from wells. In the southern part of the state, 60.5 percent of the ranchers surveyed use surface sources of water. Nitrogen application rates were low in both the northern and southern region. Across all counties surveyed, 35 percent of the ranchers applied more than 60 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre and 65 percent applied less than 60 pounds per acre. Application rates in south Florida are lower; 52 percent of those surveyed apply

PAGE 132

121 between 41 and 60 pounds per acre. At these application rates contamination of surface and sub-surface water is not a high risk. This study revealed that the ranchers make good use of available technology in their ranch management. They are also well aware of external forces that affect the future of the cattle industry financially and politically. The questionnaire asked ranchers about the importance of several factors such as government regulations, foreign beef production, decreasing beef consumption, rising land values, and availability of labor, to the future of ranching in Florida. They were also asked how important beef prices, labor costs, input costs, veterinarian costs, equipment costs, interest rates, record keeping, and environmental safety standards are to profitability. All ranchers, regardless of location, identified four factors as being important for the future of the cattle industry in Florida. In general, the results of this survey show that Florida's ranchers apply low rates of chemical fertilizer, irrigate very little pasture or forage land, and use modest amounts of pesticides to control weeds and pests. Nonetheless, the results also suggest that ranchers keep relatively few records of the kind that could help establish how they manage their ranches over time. Lack of water meters, water sampling programs, and reliable records on water use make it difficult

PAGE 133

122 to show how ranching in Florida has responded to environmental issues over time. Further, these records could be critical, when used in the future, to establish the kinds of practices that are occurring on the large acreage that is devoted to beef production in the state. It's easy to forecast a tendency toward more stringent requirements for operations that may ostensibly contaminate ground water or surface water. For a variety of reasons, we live in a time when people are increasingly concerned about all forrrts of threats to public health and to environmental degradation. Many of these people know very little about beef cattle producers or the beef industry and most of them feel no need to learn. In fact, in the same measure that urban populations are growing they are sending more urban delegates to in the legislature, increasing their control over public policy. These considerations indicate a greater need for agricultural operators and interests of all kinds to teach, and communicate their concerns. At the same time, is important for agricultural interests to have more credibility among those they wish to influence. This credibility comes with more knowledge, integrity and demonstrated efforts to "do the right things.''

PAGE 134

123 A key concept is the capacity of f arrtters to respond positively to the numerous shifts in the economic, social, political and ecological systems in the midst of which they operate. All agricultural systems are in a state of flux, even "traditional 11 ones. How ranchers tackle environmental challenges will be critical to the sustainability of ranching over the long term in Florida. The geographic analysis in this dissertation focuses on the spatial location of ranching. Land coefficients on Florida's cattle/calf industry and urban dynamics are used to examine the relationship between cattle ranching and residential land use. Most areas of Florida are experiencing rapid population expansion and resulting shifts in agricultural production. Florida Metropolitan Statistical Areas are expected to undergo substantial increases in population, resulting in more conversion from pasture to other land uses. The relatively high rate of urban land conversion 1.n Florida may have serious implications for some areas of the state. Let us assume that the Florida population increases by 2. 8 million people from 1990 to 2000, as projected by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research in 1989. According to this projection, population growth in the central and southern portions of the state will bring 2.2 million more people, with

PAGE 135

94.3 percent of the population increase occurring 124 in MSA counties. In the north, population is projected to increase by 0.6 million people with 84.9 percent of the growth occurring in MSA counties. With the urban land use coefficients estimated in this study and the population projections by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research in 198 9, the amount of land converted to urban uses during the 1990s is expected to be 1,396,555 acres overall, or 126,960 acres per year. The number of acres converted is expected to be less in the smaller MSAs of North Florida, but it is difficult to estimate how much the urban land use coefficients may decrease during this relatively short time span. The relatively low rate of rural land conversion into grazing land in Florida may be an economic indicator for some special areas of the state that are not under urbanizing pressures. The largest herd sizes are in the southern reaches of the state. The grazing land use coefficient demonstrates that for every acre of county land that is not involved in ranching, there is a proportionate amount of county land that is pasture land. The results indicate that 15 of the 23 southern counties have changed their land use from grazing to some other use. Southern ranchers were diversifying at a rate of 7.3 percent between 1987 and 1990 while northern ranchers are di versifying at a rate of 6. 8 percent during the same

PAGE 136

125 period. Between 1987 and 1990 the pasture acreage increased in the north by 4.6 percent of the total land available in the counties, while the percentage in the south, was 13.4. Thus, the southern ranchers are not only di versifying at a faster rate, but also their land under pasture is augmenting faster than that of the north. Truly, the southern cattle industry is exhibiting much more dynamic characteristics than those of the northern cattle industry. A very significant trend in northern grazing has been the increased use of winter wheat and other minor grain crops on a small scale north of Ocala. In most cases, these are double cropped and seldom irrigated (infor"Irtation gathered through rancher interviews by author, in 1994) With these crops, a fanner can use the land in a single year to produce, for example, a late summer crop of soybeans, allow for winter grazing, and have an early summer harvest of grain. It seems that there is some interest among southern beef cattle ranchers to keep animals all the way through to slaughter weight (field discussion with several ranchers, 1993). This transition would mean Florida ranchers would have to confront many of the stringent environmental constraints already in place. It is suggested that the recent growth in the southern Florida population and hence the increased market for low fat meat, increased transportation costs, and the

PAGE 137

126 increase in the cost of feed grains have encouraged Florida ranchers to think of investing in alternative meat sources (ostrich, sheep, etc.). Development of a finishing industry in Florida would have its associated consequences as shown by the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, which supports irrigated production of much of the grain used in the Great Plains feed lots. The use of the location quotient, herd size indices, land use coefficients and population coefficients revealed that the southern region of the state is experiencing a strong competition for agricultural and urban land. Land use conflicts and competition of land will persist as an important issue in Florida. Friction between those who own land and want to change its use, and other individuals living in landed properties who do not want the use changed will be a major problem that will take on an urban versus rural aspect. The reason for this dispute 1S that urban developers view large blocks of land as potential open space, passive recreational outlets, and areas of scenic beauty that should be preserved. Many agricultural land owners who hold this type of land, especially near urban centers, view the property for future urban expansion and development. 1 1 The region of most profound conflict is noted to be south central Florida, an area where both urbanization and agricultural production are intense.

PAGE 138

127 Florida land owners face the possibility of increased legislation and regulation by government. Increased availability to fund growth management programs will most likely accelerate conflicts between land owners and others, and a lack of funds will probably result in less stringent regulation. The court system will gradually move towards a clearer definition of the taking issue and sustainability issues. A precise definition l.S not possible at present, but throughout time history has moved towards clarification. It is important that agricultural land owners become more actively involved in the planning process. This will require an increased effort to educate themselves about existing laws and regulations, about future issues, to attend meetings, hearings and workshops and to formulate the potential impacts associated with proposed planning laws clearly and concisely. The land does not only produce commodities for Florida agricultural land owners, but it generates collateral for operating funds and l.S an investment for the long ternL economic well being of the land owner and a source of revenues for the state.

PAGE 139

REFERENCES Abt, R., W. Hubbard, D. Kelly and S. Economy. Draft Skorns-Smith, manuscript. 1990. Forestry in Florida's Asher, William, 1978. Forecasting: An Appraisal for Policy Makers and Planners. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Audirac, Ivonne, 1989. Urban Development Issues: What Is Controversial in Urban Sprawl? Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Gainesville: College of Business Administration, University of Florida. Baker, T.C., and Pathogens. Society. R.T. St. Cook, Paul, 1982. MN: Biological Control of Plant American Phytopathological Bender, J. 1988. Does organic f ar1ning require so much Journal of Alternative Agriculture livestock? American 3:2. Brklacich, M.; C.R. Bryant and B. Smit. 1991. Review and appraisal of the concept of sustainable food production systems. Environment. Holt Rinhart and Winston Management Company. 15(1) :1-14. Roland Press. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1989. Number of households and average household size in Florida: April 1 1988. Population Studies. Bulletin nNo. 87. 22{1). University of Florida, Gainesvile, Florida. Burt, James E., Statistics Press. Buschbacher, R.G. development. and Gerald M. for Geographers. Barber, 1996. Elementary New York: The Guilford 1986. Tropical deforestation and pasture Biological Science 36{1) :22-27. 128

PAGE 140

129 Buttler, T. M., A.G. Hornsby, D. E. Short, R. A. Dunn, and G. W. Simone, 1991. Managing Pesticides for Crop Production and Water Quality Protection: A Supplement to the IFAS Pest Control Guides. Circular 991. Gainesville: University of Florida, !FAS, Florida Cooperative Extensi o n Service. Carter, H.O., 1992. The agricultural sustainability issue: an overview and research assessment. In: E. Javier and U. Renborg (eds.), The Changing Dynamics of Global Agriculture. Proc. Seminar on Research Policy Implications for National Agricultural Research Systems, Feldafing, Germany. Pp. 115-135. Cochrane, w. G., 1963. (2nd ed.). Chapter 4, The Estimation of Sample Size. Sampling Techniques, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Cochrane, Willard Agriculture. 1979. The Development Minneapolis, MN: University of Press Conway, G.R. Systems 1987. The properties of agroecosystems. 24 (2): 95-117. American Agric. Cunha, T. J., and Gifford N. Rhodes, Florida. Bulletin Number 28. Department of Agriculture. 1966. Beef Cattle in Tallahassee: Florida De Haven-Smith, Lance, and the nation. Press. 1991. Environmental Concern in Gainesville: University of Florida Florida Douglass, G.K., 1984. sustainability. In: sustainability in a Westview, Pp. 3-29. The meanings of agricultural G. K. Douglass (ed.), Agricultural changing world order. Boulder, CO: Dunkle, John, 1994. The Florida Graphic Atlas, number 5, Agriculture and Natural Resources, A Companion to the 1993 Florida Statistical Abstract, Gainesville: The Cartographic Library, Geography Department, University of Florida. Editor, 1949. Cattlemen Must Make New Cattle Law Work. The Florida Cattleman, vol. 13, pp. 6, 23

PAGE 141

Edwards, C.A. 1987. The concept of integrated lower input/sustainable agriculture. Alternative Agriculture, Pp. 76-82. 130 systems in Amer. J. Florida Agricultural Census. 1945, Annual Report. Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. Florida Agricultural Census. 1980, Annual Report. Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. Florida Agricultural Census. 1992, Annual Report. Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office. Florida Cattlemen and Livestock Journal, 1949. Kissimee, Florida. Florida Division of Transportation Planning, 1990. Annual update of Florida's principal highway and street systems. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Geographic Atlas, University of Florida. 1990. Geography Department, Florida Statistical Abstract, 1967. Gainesville: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida. Florida Statistical Abstract, 1970. Gainesville: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida. Florida Statistical Abstract, 1987. Gainesville: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida. Florida Statistical Abstract. 1990. Gainesville: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida. Florida Statistical Abstract. 1991. Gainesville: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida.

PAGE 142

131 Florida Statistical Abstract. 1995. Gainesville: University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, College of Business Administration, University of Florida. Fox, G. 1991. Agriculture and the Environment: Economic Dimensions of Clepper, In: Henry Clepper, ed. 1966. Origins of American Conservation. New York: Roland Press. Pp. 1-45. Frey, Jacqueline, Development Boulder. A., 1986. Alternative Paradigms Thesis (Ph.D.) University of for Urban Colorado Gallaher, R.N., H.H. Van Horn and T.A. Lang. 1994. Nitrogen and phosphorus in waste-water from nine spray-fields on seven North Florida dairies. Agronomy Research Report AY-94-01. Gainesville: Agronomy Department, University of Florida. 16 pp. Gilliard E.L., 1855. Medical topography of Florida. Debrow's Review. 19:257. Gradwohl, J. and R. Greenberg. 1988. forests. Island Press: Washington, Saving the tropical D.C. Pp. 102-137. Green, Maurice B., 1986. The Natural Resistance of Plants to Pests: Roles of Alleochemicals. Washington DC: American Chemical Society. Haan, C. T., 1977. Statistical Methods in Hydrology. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Howarth, R.B. and R.B. Norgaard. 1990. resource rights, efficiency and social Economics 66(1) :1-11. Intergenerational optimality. Land Jackson, L. K., R. M. Davis, J.M. Bulger, G. F. Fairchild, R. P. Muraro, and D. P. H. Tucker, 1995. Introduction to the Florida Citrus Industry: Its Production, Harvesting and Marketing Practices. Gainesville: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, !FAS, University of Florida. Joandet, G. E., and T.C. Cartwright. production systems. Animal Science 1975. Modeling 41:1238-1246. beef Kennedy, Stetson, 1942. Palmetto Country. New York: Duell, Sloan, and Pearce.

PAGE 143

132 Lele, Uma J. 1991. Pursuit of Sustainable Development: Global Debates and Local Agriculture Management Systems in Africa. Gainesville: IFAS, University of Florida. Lightfoot, c., and Nobel R. 1993. A Participatory Experiment in Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Farming Systems Research-Extension 4: 11-34. Lockeretz, William {ed.). 1987. Cities. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Sustaining Agriculture Near Water Conservation Society. Lockeretz, William. 1991. Information requirements of reduced chemical production methods. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(2) : 97-102. Lynne, G. D., Shonkwiler, Attitudes and farnier Journal of Agricultural J. S., and Rola, L. conservation behavior. Economics 70(1) :12-19. Maikhuri, R. K., husbandry in 959-67. 1992. Eco-energetic analysis traditional societies of India. R. 1988. American of animal Energy 17: Marcus, Robert and Edward A. Geographical Approach. Publishing Company. Fernald, Dubuque, 1975. IA: Florida. A Kendall/Hunt Mealor, William T., 1972. The Open Range in South Florida and Its Contemporary Successors, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Mellinger, H.C. 1989. Florida fresh market vegetable production: Integrated pest management. In: Alternative Agriculture. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. Menke, J. and G.E. Bradford 1992. Rangelands. Agriculture Ecosystems, and Environment 42:141-163. Miller, C. 1992. Issues in Sustainable are the Next Steps? Bulletin No. Fields Agricultural Institute, 22 pp Agriculture: What 2. Davis: Michael Mullahey, R., and Bill Tanner, 1992. Forages Gainesville: IFAS, University of Florida. in Florida

PAGE 144

133 Nassauer, J. I., and Westmacott, R. 1986. Progressivness among faritlers as a factor in heterogeneity of faritled landscapes. In: M. G. Turner (ed.). Landscape Heterogeneity and Disturbance: New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 199-210. National Weather Service, Observations. Silver Department of Commerce, Atmospheric Administration. 1990. Cooperative Station Spring, National MD: United States Oceanographic and Nations, J.D. and R.B. Nigh. 1978. Cattle, Cash, Food, and Forest: the Destruction of the American Tropics and the Lacand o n Maya Alternative. Culture and Agriculture, Bull. Anthropological Study Group on Agrarian Systems, No. 6. Davis, CA: University of California. Sustainable Agriculture. In: O'Connell, P.F., Agriculture Agriculture. 1991. and the USDA: Environment. The 1991 yearbook of Washington, DC: USDA 175-185. Pointing, Clive, 1991. A Green History of the World. London: Sinclair Stevenson. Pritchard, H. Wayne. 1966. Soil Conservation. In: Origins of American Conservation. Henry Clepper (ed.) New York: The Roland Press. Push for productivity kills off Third World breeds. New Scientist v. 133, February 1, 1992, p16. Reynolds, John, and Buddy L. Dillman, 1991. Land Use Change in Florida's Urbanizing Areas. Gainesville: IFAS, University of Florida. Ridgley, A.M., and S.B. Brush, 1992. Social factors and selective technology adoption: The case of integrated pest management. Human Organization 51:367-378. Rouse, John E., _1977. The Criollo: Spanish Cattle Americas Norrnan: University of Oklahoma Press. SAS Institute, 1988. v6.04, Cary, North Carolina. in the Smith, N.J.N., 1980. Anthrosols and human carrying capacity in Amazonia. Annals Assoc. Amer. Geographers 70: 553566.

PAGE 145

Southeast Water Resources, North Carolina, Water {Spring}, 1979. Chapel Hill Resource Institute, 134 University of vol. 1, no. 2 Southeast Conference on Water Conservation and Alternative Water Supplies, 1979. A Summary Report, Southeast Conference on Water Conservation and Alternative Water Supplies/; held at Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, November 8-9, 1978. Chapel Hill: Water Resource Research Institute, University of North Carolina. Sustainable agriculture, 1992. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 39:647653. Sutton, A.L., D.D. Jones, D.M. Huber and B.C. Joern, 1993. Integrated swine manure nutrient management. In: J.K. Mitchell (ed.), Integrated resource management and landscape modification for environmental protection. St. Joseph, MI: Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng., Pp. 29-38. Swisher, Marilyn. 1993. Sustainable Agriculture in Florida, Gainesville: University of Florida Press. Swisher, M.E., R. N. Thorpe and T.H. Yeager, 1994. Florida's Horticultural Nursery Industry Is Adopting Sustainable Practices (Circular). Gainesville: University of Florida, !FAS, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Swisher, Marilyn and Darryl Clare, 1995. Florida's Ranchers: Sustainable or Not? Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, Proceedings 54:21-23. Swisher, Marilyn and P.F. Monaghan, 1995. Organic farrning: an alternative for Florida agriculture. Florida Scientist, 58(1):1-9. Taylor, R. D., 1993. Wildlife Management and Utilization in a Zimbabwean Communal Land. Harare, Zimbabwe: WWF Multi species Project. Thomas, J. K., H. Ladewig, and W.A., McIntosh 1990. The adoption of integrated pest management practices among Texas cotton growers. Rural Sociology 55(3) :395-410.

PAGE 146

135 Trenbath, B.R., G.R. Conway and I.A. Craig. 1990. Threats to sustainability in intensified agricultural systems: analysis and implications for management. In: S.R. Gleissman (ed.), Agroecology: researching the ecological basis for sustainable agriculture. New York: Springer Verlag. United States Bureau of Census {Population} footnote 4, p. 54 1860. United States Bureau of Census {Agriculture}, 1987. Bureau of Census footnote 4, p. 54 1860 United States Bureau of Census {Agriculture}, 1990. Bureau of Census Washington D.C. United States Department and Rural Economic Research Service: Service--NASS. United States Department and Rural Economic Research Service: Service--NASS. United States Department and Rural Economic Research Service: Service--NASS. United States Department and Rural Economic Research Service: Service--NASS. United States Department and Rural Economic Research Service: Service--NASS. of Agriculture, 1972. Agricultural and Social Indicators. Economic Herndon, VA: Economic Research of Agriculture, 1986. Agricultural and Social Indicators. Economic Herndon, VA: Economic Research of Agriculture, 1987. Agricultural and Social Indicators. Economic Herndon, VA: Economic Research of Agriculture, 1990. Agricultural and Social Indicators. Economic Herndon, VA: Economic Research of Agriculture, 1993. Agricultural and Social Indicators. Economic Herndon, VA: Economic Research United States Forestry Service, 1980. An Assessment of the Forest and Range Land Situation in the United States Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office. United States Soil Conservation Service, Basic Statistics, 1977 National Resource Inventory.

PAGE 147

136 United States Department of Interior Annual Report, 1990. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office. United States Department of Transportation Administration, 1990. Washington DC: Federal United Highway States Government Printing Office. United States Forestry Service. Southern Region. USDA, United Forestry Service Report, 1980. Washington DC: States Government Printing Office. United States Weather Bureau, 1990. Oberservations. Silver Springs, MD. Commerce, National Ocenographic Administration. Cooperative Station U.S. Department of and Atmospheric University of Research, Florida. University of Research, Florida. University of Research, Florida. Florida 1986. Florida 1989. Florida 1990. Bureau of Economic University of Florida, Bureau of Economic University of Florida, Bureau of Economic University of Florida, and Business Gainesville, and Business Gainesville, and Business Gainesville, University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 1989. Number of Farms and Average Fa.r1n Size in Florida: April 1, 1988. Population Studies. Bulletin No. 87. 22(1). Van Horn, H.H., R.A. Nordstedt, A.V. Bottcher, E.A. Hanlon, D.A. Graetz and C. F. Chambliss. 1991. Dairy Nutrient Management: Strategies for Recycling Nutrients to Recover Fertilizer Value and Avoid Environmental Pollution. Service Circular 1016, Gainesville: Florida Cooperative Extension. 16 pp. Waylen P. E., T. Chen, and J.F. Gerber, 1986. A method for estimating the probability of cold spells in Florida. Proc. Florida State Horticultural Society. 99:1-8. Wedin, W. F., H. J. Hodgson, and N. Utilizing plant and animal resources food. Animal Science 41:667-686. L. Jacobson, in producing 1975. human

PAGE 148

Weischet, W. and C.N. Caviedes, 1987, Ecological management and nature's freeze. Erkunde 41:210-22. 137 Citrus in Florida. latest intervention; Winsberg, M.D. 1990. Florida Weather. Orlando: University of Central Florida Press. Youngberg, G. 1984. Alternative agriculture in the United States: ideology, politics and prospects. In: D. Knorr and T.R. Watkins (eds.), Alterations in food production. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Pp. 107-135.

PAGE 149

APPENDIX I THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT BEEF CATTLE RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE These questions provide some general information about your farm or ranch. 1. 2. When did you first start raising cattle on this farm? Year Do you sell primarily feeder calves or breeding stock? Check one. Feeder calves Breeding stock 3. Not including calves, how many animals do you have in your herd today and how many animals did you have in 1983? 4. 5. Herd Size 1983 Less than 100 101 250 251 500 501 1,000 1,001 2,500 2,501 5,000 More than 5,000 What is the total acreage of your farm or ranch? How much of this land do you own and how much of it is rented? What is the major soil type that you use for pasture land? 1993 --------, Total acreage Owned acreage Rented acreage Muck (organic) Flatwood Deep sand Loam/sandy loam 6. Do you or the farm belong to any trade associations? Florida Cattlemen's Florida Farm Bureau Breed association. What? Other. What? 138 ----------

PAGE 150

139 7. How many acres, including both owned and rented acres, of each of the following did you have on your farm in 1993 and in 1983? Use Acres Acres 1993 1983 Permanent Pasture Improved Pasture (cleared, planted to an improved variety, and usually limed and fertilized) Native Range or Unimproved Pasture Cool Season Annual Forages ( small grains, rye grass, etc., including pasture or hay fields overseeded with cool season annuals, not including forage legumes) Hay Fields (not including legumes) Warm and Cool Season Forage Legumes (such as white and red clovers, aeschenomenye, hairy indigo, desmodium, etc.) Other Forage Crops ( silage sorghum, etc.) Planted Pines How Much of Your Land Do You Consider as Wetland Citrus Row Crops Other What? Now we would like some information about the business farm operator. 1. 3. 4. Age Years ---2. Years of formal education Sex ___ M F Years if less than 12 High school diploma Some college (years?) Earned a college degree Area? Years experience in managing a beef cattle operation? Years

PAGE 151

140 5. How important are the following sources of information to you? (if a source will keep you in the black then it is very important). Source Very Important Not Very Important Important --~ --Extension Agent Other University of Florida or IFAS Employees Consultant Vendor Representative Veterinarian Trade Association Other Cattlemen The following questions are about how you use your land. 1. Have you planted any improved pasture since 1983? --If NO, please go to the next question. Yes Not At All Important No If YES, please fill out the chart below. For each area planted in improved pasture since 1983, indicate the year the pasture was planted, how many acres were planted, and the previous land use. 2. Year Acres Previous Land Use Planted Unimproved Natural Pasture Woodland or Have you planted any citrus on land that was in pasture since 1983? Wetland Yes Other What? No

PAGE 152

3. 4. 5. If NO, go to next question. If YES, in which years and how much acreage did you plant in citrus? Do you normally graze stock in woodland? that apply. your live Check all Do you usually rotationally graze your pasture? Do you have any mixed grass and legume pastures or hay fields ( for example, a mixed desmodium and grass pasture) OR pure stands of legumes? Year Acres No Yes, Yes, in in natural planted Yes Yes If NO to Question 5, please go to the next section. 141 woodland pines No No 6. If YES to Question 5, please fill out the chart below. This information is for mixed legume and grass pastures or hay fields or pure stands of legumes ONLY. Please indicate the year that the grass and legume mixture or the pure legume stand was established, how many acres were established, and how you use the field. ~--Write Type of Grass Year Acres and/or Legume Below Planted We are also interested in some of your pasture management practices. Questions 1, 2,and 3 apply to native range or unimproved pasture only. If you DO NOT HAVE ANY NATIVE RANGE OR UNIMPROVED PASTURE, please go to question 4. 1. On the average, how often do you burn your native range unimproved pasture or range? If NEVER, please go to the next question. Every year Every other year Every 3 years Less than every 3 years Never

PAGE 153

142 Which month or months of the year do you prefer for burning? Put an "X" on those that apply. Jn 2. 3. Fb Mr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Spt Oct Nov Dec -----------Have you applied any herbicide native range or unimproved during the last five years? If NO, go to question 3. to your pasture Yes No Please tell us what kind of weed problems you had, the years you experienced these problems, how many acres were affected, and how many herbicide applications you had to make to correct the problem. Weed Year Have you used a roller chopper, web plow, disk harrow, or other mechanical means to renovate your native range or unimproved pasture during the last 5 years? If NO, go to question 4. -~---Acres No. of Affected Applications Yes No If YES, please tell us the years you renovated, how many acres were renovated, and the month that you renovated. Year Month Renovated Acres Renovated Questions 4 and 5 apply to improved pasture only. If you DO NOT HAVE ANY IMPROVED PASTURE, please go to question 6. 4. Jn On the average, how often do you burn your improved pasture? If NEVER, please go to the next question. Which month or months of the year do you "X" on those that apply. Fb Mr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Every year Every other year Every 3 years Less than every 3 years Never prefer for burning? Put an Spt Oct Nov Dec

PAGE 154

5. 6. 7. Have you applied any herbicide to your improved pasture during the last five years? If NO, go to the next question. Yes 143 No Please tell us what kind of weed problems you had, the years you experienced these problems, how many acres were affected, and how many herbicide applications you had to make to correct the problem. Weed Year Have you applied any pesticide, including herbicide, to a crop (citrus, vegetables, beans, greens, etc.) on your farm during the past five years? Acres Treated Yes No. of Applications No If NO, go to the next section about fertilization. What percentage of the pesticides, including herbicides, used on your farm are applied by you, your hired labor, and a custom applicator? (Please N o te: Owner Manager Informa tion found in Question 8, Hired Labor in Question 9, and custom Applicator in Question 11). % Owner or Manager % Hired Labor % Custom Applicator If ALL BY CUSTOM APPLICATOR, please go to Question 11.

PAGE 155

144 8. Please fill out the chart below if the owner or manager applies 25% or more of all pesticides that are used. How often do you use the following clothing and equipment when applying pesticides? Item Alm o st Al Usually Some Rarely ways (50 75% times (< 25% { > 75% of the (25 49% of the of the Time of the Time) Time) Time) Long sleeved shirt Cotton gloves Rubber boots Rubber gloves i Respirator Full Suit 9. Please fill out the chart below and answer the question after the chart if hired laborers apply 25% or more of all pesticides that are used. How often do your hired laborers use the following clothing and equipment when applying pesticides? Item Almost Al Usually Sometimes Rarely ways ( > 75% of the Time) Long sleeved shirt Cotton gloves Rubber boots Rubber gloves Respirator Full Suit How often do you provide training for hired laborers about pesticide safety? Check the one that applies best. {SO 75% (25 49% {< 25% of the of the of the Time Time) Time) ___ At hiring ______ Periodically (yearly, for example) When the need arises --

PAGE 156

145 10. If pesticides are loaded into application equipment and/or mixed on your farm, what kind of mixing and loading facility do you have? Check all that apply. Concrete Floor Containment system (sump, for example) Roofed Dipping Vat Out in the Open

PAGE 157

146 Please describe your fertilization program as completely as possible. 1. Fill in the chart below for permanent grass pasture used primarily for grazing only, not including fields planted in legumes or in mixed grass and legumes and not including hay fields. Bahai or Lbs. per Lbs. per Lbs. per Acres Other Acre Acre Acre Grass? Nitrogen P 2 0 s K 2 0 --------~-------2. Fill out the chart below for permanent grass fields usually cut for hay, not including fields in mixed grass and legumes or pure legumes. Bahai or Lbs. per Lbs. per Lbs. per Acres Other Acre Acre Acre Grass? Nitrogen P 2 0 s K 2 0 -----------3. Fill out the chart below for mixed grass and legume OR pure legume stands, used both for grazing and for cutting hay. Mixed or Lbs. per Lbs. per Lbs. per Acres Pure Stand? Acre Acre Acre Nitrogen P 2 0s K 2 0

PAGE 158

Please describe any changes program since 1983. that you have made 1.n your 147 fertilization 4. Have you changed the total Nitrogen applied on any acreage? Type of Pasture Acres 1983 1993 or Hay Field Affected Application Rate Application Rate --~--~5. Have you changed the total P 2 0 5 applied on any acreage? Type of Pasture Acres 1983 1993 or Hay Field Affected Application Rate Application Rate -.. 6. Have you changed the total K 2 0 applied on any acreage? Type of Pasture Acres 1983 1993 or Hay Field Affected Application Rate Application Rate

PAGE 159

148 We would like some infonnation about other aspects of your farm or ranch management. 1. 2. Jn 3. Jn 4. 5. Do you irrigate any of your pasture or hay fields? If NO, go to Question 3. How many acres do you usually irrigate? How much water do you usually apply? What is the primary source of water for your cattle during the rainy months? Yes No Acres Pumped Surface water During which month or months of the year do you use this water supply? Put an "X" on those that apply. Fb Mr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Spt What is the primary source of water for your cattle during the dry months? Oct -------Nov Dec Pumped Surface water During which month or months of the year do you use this water supply? Put an "X" on those that apply. Fb Mr Apr May Jun Jul Aug ------~ Do you have a meter on any of your wells? If NO, go to Question 3. Spt If YES, when was the first meter installed? Does your local water management district monitor the amount of water that you use? Oct Nov Dec Yes No Year Yes No About what percent of the time do you keep track of your water use? Almost Always (more than 75% of the time} Usually (50 75% of the time) Sometimes (25 49% of the time} Rarely (less than 25% of the time} Do you have any ground water monitoring wells on your property? If NO, go to Question 4. When were the wells installed? About how often are samples from the wells analyzed? Yes No Year Times per year

PAGE 160

6. Do you ever take samples from surface waters (canals, sinkholes, etc.) on your property and have them analyzed? No Yes. How often? 149 7. About what percentage of the time do you keep any of the following kinds of records? Record Almost Usually Sometimes Rarely Always 50 75% 25 49% Less than More than of of 25% of the 75% of the the Time the Time Time Time Soil test results Fertilizer application to pasture or hay fields, by field . Nutrient content of pasture or hay fields Yield of pasture or hay fields, by field -~-~

PAGE 161

150 Finally, we have two questions about the future of your farm or ranch. 1. How important are the following factors for the future of ranching in Florida? Factor Very Important Not Very Not At All Important Important Important Decreasing beef consumption in the us Foreign beef production Pressure from animal rights groups Rising land values Rising property taxes Availability of labor Government regulations about land use Government environmental regulations Government labor regulations ---2. How important are the following factors to the profitability of your ranch or farm? Factor Very Imporant Not Very Not At All Important Important Important Beef prices Labor costs Costs of inputs like fertilizer Cost of veterinarian care Cost of equipment Interest rates Investments required to meet environmental safety standards Cost of keeping records for the government

PAGE 162

151 3. What percentage of your family income comes from each of the following sources today and what percentage came from these sources in 1983? Source of Income % in 1983 % in 1993 Off farm employment Your cattle operation Other farming activities

PAGE 163

APPENDIX II ADDITIONAL SURVEY RESULTS

PAGE 164

Lecatien uetie11t fr Pasttire Years Examined 1987 and 1990 Differences between the LQ of 1987 and 1990. 153 Pasture Layer 0 Counties Change Po i nts -1.86 lo -0.08 l9 -0.08 to 0.01 0 01 to 0 07 11 0 01 to 2 41 Miles 0 50 100

PAGE 165

Pepulatien -istriltuti e11 lty Ceun ty Year Examined 1987 154 Population Loyer r 1 Counties Population Quartiles ii 4 .035 to 15 ,281 11D 15,290 to 49 ,287 49 .28 8 to 148 .85 5 148 856 to 1,825,509 Miles a so 100 Florida population by county in 1987. Source: Florida Abstract, 1987.

PAGE 166

Pepulatien -istriutie11 lty Ceunty Yea r Examined 1 990 '. i j~]lJ t J i~1iz '=-_ : I ,11,, *~= .. := II I [ ---.-~::--;-~ --;;_~ .;.fiifj:: ~' =;:-~.. < ... -~ ,''.~, ,~ . q1r' .,_ -. : ~' ',, .... .. : .... }'):..I(: _-:~~, ._ . , .... \ . . . . :.: : : . 1 11 I] . I f JI 155 Populat i o n Loyer [: ::] Cou n ti es Population Quart il es = 5 569 lo 18 4 8 6 IJI 18 4 87 lo 7 8 02 4 lo 19 4 83 4 to 1 937 09 4 Miles 0 50 100 Population distribution by county in 1990. Source: Florida Abstract, 1990.

PAGE 167

Herasi ze Chan:e I ~ ntiex 1,1 7 aria 1,,1 Con1patea Florida layer r-1 Co u n tie s Ch ~n:c lnlf ic ies 3 4 to 2 2 -1 1 9 t o o. 9 156 -0 89 t o -0 10 0 0 to 0.3 1 D Lok e Oke e c h o bee Miles 0 50 100 Herdsize change index differences between 1987 and 1990.

PAGE 168

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Darryl Keith Clare, the second born of three children, was born in Harlem, New York, on August 8, 1951, to Mr. George and Mrs. Doris Clare. He received his primary school education in Harlem, at Saint Charles Borrowmeo Elementary School, and secondary school education at De Witt Clinton High School in the Bronx and post-secondary education at Carolina Military Academy in Maxton, North Carolina. In 1982 he graduated from Saint Mary's College in Moraga, California with a bachelor's degree in business management. He pursued a master's degree at the University of Florida after working two and a half years in Zomba, Malawi, as a secondary school math teacher. In 1990 he was awarded the Master of Arts degree in Urban and Regional Planning. His urban and regional planning research led him to the slums (favelas) of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. While there, he learned conversational Portuguese, and presented his findings in Rio de Janeiro and Belo Horizonte. He then returned to the University of Florida to pursue a doctorate degree. He has pursued his course work in Geography with his minor in Urban and Regional Planning. 157

PAGE 169

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor / ~ 1/ ? Philosophy Cesa N .ea:v"' i edes Chairman Professor of Geography I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Timothy J Fik Associate Professor of Geography I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Jo Mossa A stant Professor of Geography I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosop~n e .....,..(.1-.L------Marilyn E Swisher Associate Professor of Home Economics

PAGE 170

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy William L Weismantel Professor of Urban and Regional Planning This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Geography in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy August 1996 Dean Graduate School

PAGE 171

LO 1780 199 -SC1 NC E L IBR .~ RY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA II I 1111111 11 I I I I 3 1262 08554 9417


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E7H72H2KI_H2RZ1J INGEST_TIME 2013-01-23T13:47:06Z PACKAGE AA00012927_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES