4 ms·

Why would Wyoming be a surprise? Serious question. Out here in Wisconsin we think of Wyoming as a state with a lot of wealthy landowners. But that's based mos

Why would Wyoming be a surprise? Serious question. Out here in Wisconsin we think of Wyoming as a state with a lot of wealthy landowners. But that's based mostly on seeing huge farms, (ranches), that aren't actually farmed. (When you see a huge farm that's not being farmed in Wisconsin, you just KNOW the guy's richer than Crassus.)

emodendroket 8y ago
Well, perhaps an embarrassing answer, but that area of the country is kind of an undifferentiated mass to me and I had no idea that Wyoming was richer than its neighbors. I live in New England.
logfromblammo 8y ago
To be fair, the opportunity cost of not farming land in the Mississippi river valley is a lot higher than not farming land in the rain-shadow of the Rockies. Not farming some of the most fertile land in the world makes you richer than Crassus. Not ranching on land that can barely grow enough to support a smallish herd just makes you sensitive to the wholesale prices for grazing animals.
- LyndsySimon 8y ago
  It depends on how much land, doesn't it? A quick search shows that the largest ranch in Wyoming is Q Creek Ranch, at 560,000 acres. That's 1/60th size of the entire state of Mississippi. Even if the land yields 1/10th as much as the rich farmland of Mississippi delta, if it's 1/10th the price and holdings are 10x larger, then the same value is being left on the table.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    ...discounting the scaling operational costs due to vastly increased distances to everything. If you operate a small dairy farm in Wisconsin, with pastures near the barn, and a more remote hayfield that is mechanically harvested, you can definitely raise 20 cows with 40 acres, including plenty of margin for error. You would only have to reduce herd size in a region-wide, multi-year drought. The rest of the time, you're selling hay to your more-risk-tolerant neighbors. That's 200 short tons of milk per year, or 50000 gallons, with likely revenue between $150k and $200k, or $3750-$5000/acre-year, discounting the excess hay, culled beef, and veal calves. If you're just sitting on the land, not even growing hay, you're leaving heaping piles of money on the table. If your land has 1/10 the yield, you now need 20 acres per animal instead of 2. You can't put up just one, convenient dairy barn, so you're just growing meat. If you can get 200 pounds of beef per acre, that's maybe $1500/acre-year. That's significant, but not as significant. The actual ratio is likely much worse than 1:10. With normal rain, a Wisconsin herd could potentially allocate 0.5 to 1 acre per cow. Out west, without irrigation, it can be 35 acres per cow, or more. So if the Q Creek Ranch could raise a herd of 16000 on 560000 acres, a Wisconsin farmer might be able to do the same with 1.5% the land area in a wet year. That's a lot less distance for the cows to walk, especially if the hay is trucked in from remote fields. As it happens, Q Creek grazes from 6000 to 10000 cattle in any given year, and they also maintain a herd (of unspecified size) of elk, deer, and antelope for hunting. I'll estimate 2500 head of them, and call it 45 acres/animal. Rosendale Dairy, the largest in Wisconsin, keeps 8400 cows, with 2800 acres for hay. 1/3 acre/cow.

emodendroket 8y ago

Well, perhaps an embarrassing answer, but that area of the country is kind of an undifferentiated mass to me and I had no idea that Wyoming was richer than its neighbors. I live in New England.

logfromblammo 8y ago

To be fair, the opportunity cost of not farming land in the Mississippi river valley is a lot higher than not farming land in the rain-shadow of the Rockies. Not farming some of the most fertile land in the world makes you richer than Crassus. Not ranching on land that can barely grow enough to support a smallish herd just makes you sensitive to the wholesale prices for grazing animals.

LyndsySimon 8y ago
It depends on how much land, doesn't it? A quick search shows that the largest ranch in Wyoming is Q Creek Ranch, at 560,000 acres. That's 1/60th size of the entire state of Mississippi. Even if the land yields 1/10th as much as the rich farmland of Mississippi delta, if it's 1/10th the price and holdings are 10x larger, then the same value is being left on the table.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  ...discounting the scaling operational costs due to vastly increased distances to everything. If you operate a small dairy farm in Wisconsin, with pastures near the barn, and a more remote hayfield that is mechanically harvested, you can definitely raise 20 cows with 40 acres, including plenty of margin for error. You would only have to reduce herd size in a region-wide, multi-year drought. The rest of the time, you're selling hay to your more-risk-tolerant neighbors. That's 200 short tons of milk per year, or 50000 gallons, with likely revenue between $150k and $200k, or $3750-$5000/acre-year, discounting the excess hay, culled beef, and veal calves. If you're just sitting on the land, not even growing hay, you're leaving heaping piles of money on the table. If your land has 1/10 the yield, you now need 20 acres per animal instead of 2. You can't put up just one, convenient dairy barn, so you're just growing meat. If you can get 200 pounds of beef per acre, that's maybe $1500/acre-year. That's significant, but not as significant. The actual ratio is likely much worse than 1:10. With normal rain, a Wisconsin herd could potentially allocate 0.5 to 1 acre per cow. Out west, without irrigation, it can be 35 acres per cow, or more. So if the Q Creek Ranch could raise a herd of 16000 on 560000 acres, a Wisconsin farmer might be able to do the same with 1.5% the land area in a wet year. That's a lot less distance for the cows to walk, especially if the hay is trucked in from remote fields. As it happens, Q Creek grazes from 6000 to 10000 cattle in any given year, and they also maintain a herd (of unspecified size) of elk, deer, and antelope for hunting. I'll estimate 2500 head of them, and call it 45 acres/animal. Rosendale Dairy, the largest in Wisconsin, keeps 8400 cows, with 2800 acres for hay. 1/3 acre/cow.