FME 2023

The Jury Is Out

ABy Lee Pitts

longtime reader recently insisted that I do something about the evil recombinant mRNA. Don’t feel bad if you have no idea what that is, I didn’t either until the reader brought it to my attention. The reader said the Internet “blew up” over the subject. I’m not exactly what you’d call a participant in social media. I don’t have a single Facebook friend and I’ve never tweeted or twittered. So I missed most of the angst when the Internet “blew up.” But I did Google recombinant

continued on page 2

mRNA and discovered it’s a new way to develop vaccines. In my cursory exploration of the subject I could see right away that mRNA had given beef an unjustified black eye.

GMO’S SECOND COUSIN

According to the National Library of Medicine, “Currently, most of the mRNA vaccines were developed for protecting against zoonotic diseases such as

Ebola, influenza, rabies, and Zika virus disease. Only limited mRNA vaccines have been developed in the veterinary field, and none of them were for beef.”

The best introduction I found to mRNA was written by Dr. Lew Strickland an extension veterinarian and associate professor at the University of Tennessee. He wrote, “A couple of months ago a video was posted on social media that messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology was being used on cattle.

Of course, this was, and is, false information, but it did raise multiple concerns and statements were released from NCBA to confirm that this technology is not being used on cattle.”

The primary misinformation on the Internet about mRNA vaccines was that they could somehow alter DNA in cells, which is akin to genetically modified organisms, and you know how worked up some folks get about GMO’s.

A THIRD WAY

According to Dr. Strickland there are currently two types of vaccinations in beef cattle. “Modifiedlive virus (MLV) vaccines contain a weakened or attenuated form of a live virus. Because the virus has been altered, it should not cause clinical disease, but will very closely mimic a true infection.

“Once the vaccine is administered, the virus will replicate within the animal’s system and create the opportunity for an immune response through the production of antibodies. These antibodies then respond to fight infection if exposed to the natural virus later. A MLV vaccine will typically come packaged as two separate bottles that require mixing.”

According to Dr. Strickland, the advantages of modified-live vaccines are: one initial dose may be sufficient, but boosters are sometimes required; they stimulate more rapid, stronger, and longer-lasting immunity; they’re less likely to cause allergic reactions and post-vaccination lumps; they’re usually less expensive.

The disadvantages of modified-live vaccines are: risk of causing abortion or transient infertility, therefore, they should be administered 6-8 weeks prior to breeding season; they must be mixed on-farm and used within about 30 minutes to 1 hour.

The other type of vaccines used on beef cattle are killed vaccines which contain an inactivated, or killed, antigen that is incapable

For advertising, subscription and editorial inquiries write or call:

Livestock Market Digest

P.O. Box 7458

of replicating in the animal’s system. According to Dr. Strickland, “Because the killed virus does not have that opportunity to replicate, killed vaccines usually require a booster dose. The killed vaccine requires more viral antigen, or pieces of the virus, to get enough immune system recognition after administration, and is prepared with an adjuvant to create an anti-immune response. Typically, killed vaccines are packaged as a single bottle.”

The advantages of killed vaccines are: they’re available for many diseases; there is no risk of the vaccine organism spreading between animals; there is minimal risk of causing abortion and no on-farm mixing is required.

The disadvantages of killed vaccines are: they’re more likely to cause allergic reactions and post-vaccination lumps; two initial doses are required; slower onset of immunity; immunity is usually not as strong or long-lasting when compared to modified-live vaccines and they’re usually more expensive.

The third type of a vaccine is the mRNA vaccine which is a relatively new type of vaccine. According to Strickland, “An example of an mRNA vaccine is the COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine contains genetic material, the messenger RNA, which tells the body how to make a protein. mRNA then provides a recipe that cells can use to make proteins. After injection, the cells in the muscle pick up the mRNA, make the protein, and display it on the cell’s surface. The immune system sees the protein and learns how to make an immune response against it. This protein causes an immune response, which teaches the body how to protect itself from a specific virus by producing antibodies against that virus. It would be false information to say that mRNA vaccines for cattle do not exist. In fact, trial studies have been conducted on cattle at some research facilities but again, here is the important thing for you to know, none of the trial vaccines have been approved for use

Livestock Market Digest (1SSN 0024-5208) (USPS NO. 712320) is published monthly except semi-monthly in September in Albuquerque, N.M. 87104 by Rainy Day, Inc.

Periodicals Postage Paid at Albuquerque, N.M., and Additional Mailing Offices

POSTMASTER-Send change of address to: Livestock Market Digest, P.O. Box 7458, Albuquerque, N.M. 87194 Subscribe Today

Albuquerque, N.M. 87194

Telephone: 505-243-9515

Fax: 505-349-3060 www.aaalivestock.com

EDITORIAL and ADVERTISING STAFF

CAREN COWAN Publisher

LEE PITTS Executive Editor

CHUCK STOCKS ......Publisher Emeritus

RANDY SUMMERS LMD Sales Rep

FALL MARKETING EDITION AD SALES

RANDY SUMMERS, 505-850-8544 email: rjsauctioneer@aol.com

ADMINISTRATIVE and PRODUCTION STAFF

CAROL PENDLETON Production

KRISTY HINDS Graphic Design www.aaalivestock.com

in cattle.”

But I’d bet a dollar to a donut that one day they will be.

THE PILL PEDDLERS

Actually mRNA (the “m” stands for messenger) has been kicking around for a long time. The theory that mRNA existed was first conceived by Sydney Brenner and Francis Crick in 1960 in England. Later experiments at the California Institute of Technology proved for the first time that mRNA actually existed. Not much was heard about mRNA vaccines until they were used to fight COVID-19 in humans. mRNA vaccines are what are referred to as “recombinant vaccines” which are made using bacterial or yeast cells to manufacture a vaccine. Here’s where the opposition to mRNA pops ups: a small piece of DNA is taken from the virus or bacterium scientists want to make a vaccine for and that piece of DNA is inserted into what are called “manufacturing cells.” Detractors claim this is playing God and messing with the genome, which might come back to haunt us in the future.

Modified-live and killed vaccines trigger an immune response by putting a weakened or inactivated germ into our bodies which causes the human body to produce antibodies to fight the targeted illness. This is not the case with mRNA vaccines. Instead, mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a protein that triggers an immune response in our bodies thereby making antibodies.

The pill peddlers love mRNA vaccines because they take less time to develop and are cheaper to make. For example, to fight COVID-19 Moderna designed their mRNA vaccine in just 2 days. They can also be manufactured with fewer errors which can improve responsiveness to serious outbreaks. But one of the biggest problems with mRNA vaccines is they are extremely fragile and some, like Pfizer’s COVD-19 vaccine, must be kept at very low temperatures to avoid degrading, thus giving little effective immunity

the recipient.

According the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades. They like them too because they do not contain a live virus, so there’s no risk of causing disease in the person getting vaccinated. And because these vaccines use only specific pieces of the germ, they give a very strong immune response that’s targeted. One limitation of these vaccines is that you may need booster shots to get ongoing protection against diseases.”

THE GOOD WITH THE BAD

Recombinant technology is relatively new to veterinary medicine, and although they haven’t been used yet to create marketable vaccines for cattle, they have been used on other animals. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS), “Recombinant DNA technology has led to a number of vaccines that will give strong, long-lasting immunity without adjuvants and without the risk of reversion. An example is the canine distemper vaccine by Merial.”

“Recombinant vaccines produced by genetic engineering technology can be good,” according to HSS, “like hepatitis B vaccine, but also bad when it breaks apart beneficial combinations of alleles, and recombination is highly variable across the genome.”

“Other critics opposed rDNA research on ethical grounds, arguing that it amounted to an attempt to upset the order of nature by manipulating DNA, the code of life. Federal lawmakers were troubled about the possible dangers of rDNA technology.”

The naysayers counter that once cells finish making a protein, they quickly break down the mRNA and it does not alter DNA.

According to HSS, “Recombinant vaccines have several advantages over traditional vaccines. They are safer because they do not contain live or attenuated organisms, which can cause disease in some individuals. Secondly, they are more effective because they can induce a stronger and more specific immune response.”

A big disadvantage of a recombinant vaccine is their high cost and limited accessibility. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Anyone who has a severe allergy to any of the mRNA vaccine ingredients should not receive this vaccine.”

One study found that there was a small but increased risk for myocarditis following receipt of mRNAbased COVID-19 vaccines. Another study found that the risk of myocarditis was highest following the second vaccine dose among adolescents and young adult males.

According to Medline Plus, “Like all vaccines in the United States, mRNA vaccines require authorization or approval from the Food and Drug Administration before they can be used. Currently vaccines for COVID-19 and the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, are the only authorized or approved mRNA vaccines for humans.”

WILL THE BUGS WIN?

COVID was the first time ever a mRNA vaccine was licensed for human use and ever since the emergence of mRNA vaccines, has fundamentally revolutionized vaccine development. “In the prevention and treatment of infectious dis-

eases, mRNA vaccines hold great promise,” according to the National Library of Medicine (NLM). “In past years, several mRNA vaccines have entered clinical trials and have shown promise for offering solutions to combat emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases such as rabies, Zika, and influenza. Recently, the successful application of mRNA vaccines against COVID19 has further validated the platform and opened the floodgates to mRNA vaccine’s potential in infectious disease prevention, especially in the veterinary field.”

Another benefit of mRNA vaccines according to NLM is, “The manufacture of mRNA vaccines does not require cell cultures or toxic chemicals, resulting in no chemical or biological contaminations in the final products. Furthermore, mRNA does not integrate into the host genome and so does not pose the risk of insertional mutagenesis and carcinogenesis. Lastly, scaled-up manufacturing to commercial levels at unprecedented scale and speed presents opportunities to effectively address emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases.”

According to the NLM, “Animal infectious diseases remain a considerable challenge that impact animal health and food security. In

2019, the spread of African swine fever virus in China killed nearly half of the pig population. Notably, nearly two-thirds of the pathogens affecting humans originated from animals, such as the avian influenza virus, rabies virus, hepatitis e virus and the recently emerged coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2.”

The big worry is that one of these days a disease could imperil mammal’s life on earth and in the big shootout with the bugs, without mRNA we may find ourselves without any ammunition.

SO, WHAT’S THE VERDICT?

“Foot-and-Mouth Disease,” says NLM, “remains one of the most contagious diseases of cloven-hoofed animals caused by foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV). Currently, most of the commercialized vaccines against FMD are chemically inactivated virulent strains, which have many shortcomings, including the high risk of virulent FMDV escaping from manufacturing facilities, poor immunogenicity, difficult serological differentiation between infected and vaccinated animals, and thermal instability.”

I was surprised to learn that rabies is the most lethal zoonotic disease. “Each year,” says the NLM, “rabies virus infection causes

approximately 60,000 human deaths worldwide, and more than 95 percent of these cases are caused by animal bites, particularly by dog bites.”

“Rabies vaccines were initially produced in animal neural tissues by Louis Pasteur to control rabies. Safer and efficacious vaccines were then developed using egg-culture based systems or cell-culture based systems. However, respective specific precautions are required to handle the infectious rabies virus, rendering the manufacturing slow and extremely expensive. Thus, the development of safe, effective, and affordable vaccines for use in humans and animals remains important.”

Yet currently no mRNA rabies vaccines have been tested on dogs or cats.

Influenza circulates in a wide range of animal species, including birds, pigs, and dogs. “Due to the antigenic drift and shift associated with influenza viruses, annual changes in the composition of influenza vaccines are required to achieve protection through vaccination,” says the NLM. The current influenza virus vaccines used in humans or birds are inactivated, or live-attenuated vaccines. The process from designing to manufacturing typically takes 6–8 months.

More importantly, influenza A virus can be transmitted from birds or pigs to humans, causing severe illness. However, rapid vaccine production following the emergence of an outbreak with the conventional approach is almost impossible.”

According to the National Library of Medicine, “Considering that avian or swine influenza viruses can frequently jump to humans, causing severe diseases, vaccination of the natural hosts with mRNA vaccines matching the emerging virus strains may hopefully control new outbreaks from zoonotic transmission.”

“Although only a few mRNA vaccines have been specifically studied in protecting against animal infectious diseases in their natural hosts, the success of mRNA vaccines in humans has paved the way for advancement in veterinary medicine. Virus infections remain the major perceived threats to the global health and industrial livestock production.”

By the way, there have even been protests over mRNA in China too, only in China the people are protesting because their government doesn’t want to provide them with the mRNA vaccines.

Mr. Chips

by Lee Pitts

It’s no accident that in my dictionary the word “help” comes after “hemorrhoids” and before “Hell” as the following story will illustrate.

The man I call Mr. Chips made his millions with exactly that... chips. And I’m not talking Ruffles with ridges, no, I’m referring to computer chips. He used a week’s worth of interest income to buy a small “ranchette” that bordered part of a ranch we leased and he was the best, and the worst, neighbor we ever had. He had a new chain link fence installed between us and made a pest of himself wanting to help whenever we’d let him. The problem was he was raised on the pavement and the closest he’d ever come to a cow was the milk in his morning Cocoa Puffs.

Mr. Chips learned everything about the cow business from binge watching Yellowstone so he thinks all ranchers do all day is have torrid romances and play cowboys and Indians.

On his way to becoming a cowman, Mr. Chips ordered some checks from the bank with the name of his 20-acre spread on them: “El Rancho Grande.” He paid me to make him a silver buckle with his brand written in gold: CHIPS. He ordered a cow branding iron with letters five inches high and I worried that his calves, if he ever had any, wouldn’t be long enough for the brand to fit. He purchased a new four-horse slant trailer that was 32 feet long and cost north of $100,000 and to pull it he bought a Peterbuilt he didn’t know how to drive, nor did he possess the necessary license to do so.

We let Mr. Chips buy lunch for several of us every day and the hefty price we had to pay was having to listen to him recite his cowboy poetry. Maybe we praised him too highly because the next thing we knew Mr. Chips reserved a room in Elko and started wearing gaudy wild rags and designer neon boots. Despite never having swung his leg over a horse before he bought a 22-year-old nag that fully funded the retirement plan of a local horse trader of questionable repute.

Within the first week of his being a rancher Mr. Chips asked me to teach him how to rope and ride in preparation for branding season which was less than a month away. The first thing I told him to do was quit wearing his custom-made American flag shirts because we didn’t know if we were supposed to rise as one, put our hats over our hearts and sing our national anthem every time he entered the room. I also told him to lose the peacock feather in his new Stetson that he wore straight out of the box.

One week prior to our branding Mr. Chips asked, “Would this be a good time for you to teach me to ride and rope?”

“Maybe we’d better save that for another day.”

“Well then, what can I do to help?”

“I’ll tell you what Mr. Chips, why don’t you bring a pot of beans for the lunch?”

I could see disappointment in his face but on the day of the branding Mr. Chips showed up with a pot of beautiful beans. I should have known something was amiss because the beans were bubbling like a Yellowstone mud pot and they weren’t even over a fire. But they tasted good and Mr. Chips was proud to tell everyone he’d cooked them.

Ours was an all-day affair as we gathered cattle in the morning and went back to work after the noon meal to brand the calves. At least for a little while we did until one by one the ropers slid off their saddles in gastrointestinal distress and the ground crew was hunting for brush they could squat behind.

We only got half the calves branded and henceforth Mr. Chips didn’t dare show up at another branding. Not long after he sold his ranch for twice what he paid and moved back to Silicone Valley where, I’m told, he entertains his rich friends with his poetry while wearing all his cowboy garb. He insists everyone call him “The Computer Cowboy.”

As for me, I put up a big sign at the entrance to the ranch that reads, “NO MORE HELP WANTED!”

USDA Imposes New Wolf Depredation Standards

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Wildlife Services (WS) program has determined that utilizing the accompanying Standards of Evidence is the most scientifically sound and consistently applied method to conduct depredation investigations in the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area in Arizona and New Mexico.

WS spent the last year reviewing and considering the best available science, practices in other states, and the substantive comments received on its proposed written standards before finalizing these Standards.

WS works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and State agencies to assist in the successful conservation of Mexican wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) and ensure the protection of livestock. For the past 20 years, WS has conducted livestock depredation investigations in Arizona and New Mexico to determine if Mexican wolves were responsible for killing livestock.

State and Federal agencies use these investigations, and the subsequent reports, to determine whether to pay compensation to producers for their losses and to determine if wildlife damage management action is warranted.

WS has determined the core Standard of Evidence used to confirm Mexican wolf predation is presence of subcutaneous hemorrhage and underlying tissue damage, which aligns with the standards both WS and other State agencies use in other areas of the United States, including MT, WI, OR, and ID.

USDA APHIS WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS) EVIDENCE STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING LIVESTOCK DEPREDATIONS BY MEXICAN WOLVES IN ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO

WS’ determination of depredation by Mexican wolves relies solely on the physical evidence available at the time of the investigation. WS documents the physical evidence in

the investigative report.

Timeliness of carcass discovery affects the quality and availability of physical evidence. WS makes all reasonable efforts to timely investigate a report of suspected depredation. However, some situations will result in an unknown determination due to insufficient evidence.

Confirmation of Mexican wolf depredations by WS requires that subcutaneous hemorrhage and underlying tissue damage be present on large carcasses. When wolves kill small livestock, however, they often consume much of the carcass, and therefore evidence of subcutaneous hemorrhage no longer exists. The standards below have taken these items into account.

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

SPECIFIC TO MEXICAN WOLF DEPREDATIONS

Subcutaneous hemorrhage is the best physical evidence available to field investigators to directly associate a depredation with a direct and lethal attack by a carnivore. It refers to heavy or uncontrolled bleeding from the blood vessels under the skin layer and/or in the muscle tissue. Subcutaneous hemorrhaging is found only if the skin and tissue damage occurred while the animal was still alive.

Animals that die from causes other than predation typically do not show external or subcutaneous bleeding.

Bite mark measurements, along with other physical evidence, can help distinguish Mexican wolves from other carnivores after a carcass is determined to have been a confirmed predation. Mexican wolf lower jaw canines generally measure from 28.1 to 43.7mm, while upper jaw canines measure from 31.4 to 49.8 mm. If livestock is killed by wolves, then investigators should be able to identify all four canines in each set of bite marks.

Additional observations that can help distinguish wolf predation from other carnivores include:

❚ chewed and broken large bones,

❚ tracks and scat,

❚ ribs, hide, and muscle are eaten to some degree,

❚ attacks on the hindquarters and flanks,

❚ significant damage to underlying muscle,

❚ crushed skulls, severed spines, and massive tissue damage, and

❚ multiple kills in one event.

DETERMINATION CATEGORIES

Confirmed – physical evidence leaves little doubt that livestock was killed by Mexican wolves.

❚ In large livestock (adult cattle, horses, etc.), confirmation is reached by observing and documenting subcutaneous hemorrhage and tissue damage indicating that livestock was attacked and bitten while it was alive. This hemorrhage and damage can be correlated with other evidence to determine that wolves, and not some other predator, killed the animal. Other physical evidence that WS investigators may observe and should record in the depredation report (but, alone, is insufficient to confirm predation in adult livestock) may include bite marks or punctures of appropriate tooth spacing for Mexican wolves, feeding patterns on the carcass align with established wolf patterns, wolf tracks that correlate to the time of death, wolf scat, blood stains, and damaged vegetation at the scene.

❚ In small livestock (calves, sheep, etc.), confirmation can be reached by documenting: 1) subcutaneous hemorrhage and tissue damage; or 2) commingled blood and wolf tracks indicating that the calf was alive when it was killed and moved by wolves. Other physical evidence WS investigators may observe and should record (but, alone, is insufficient to confirm predation), may include bite marks or punctures of appropriate tooth spacing for Mexican wolves, feeding patterns on the carcass align with established wolf patterns, wolf tracks that correlate to the time of death, wolf scat, blood stains and damaged vegetation at the scene.

❚ For injured livestock, bite

marks and/or rake marks with appropriate canine spacing for Mexican wolves, in conjunction with evidence that precludes domestic dogs and coyotes, will be adequate to confirm injuries caused by a Mexican wolf or wolves. A confirmed determination of a wolf kill seeks to prove that the animal was attacked by wolves while alive and subsequently killed. In this situation, the animal has not been killed, but bite marks and/or rake marks prove that the animal was attacked while alive.

Probable – physical evidence suggests that livestock was more likely than not killed by Mexican wolves, but adequate physical evidence is insufficient to support a confirmed determination. Physical evidence that supports a determination of probable may include limited subcutaneous hemorrhaging in mature livestock that does not show adequate evidence to confirm a Mexican wolf attack, bite marks of appropriate tooth spacing for Mexican wolves without the presence of subcutaneous hemorrhaging and tissue damage, attack locations, feeding patterns on the carcass align with established wolf patterns, wolf tracks that correlate to the time of death, wolf scat, or wolf attack scenes with blood stains and damaged vegetation, or other physical evidence.

Unknown – physical evidence is inadequate to suggest Mexican wolf predation as more likely than not the cause of livestock death. Physical evidence of wolf presence may be found on or near the carcass; however, this evidence is inadequate to reach a probable determination. WS does not determine wolf depredation in the case of missing livestock without the presence of any other physical evidence.

Other – physical evidence suggests cause of death from something other than wolves. Examples include depredation from other species, lightning strike, stillbirth, complications from birthing, disease, starvation, dehydration, shooting, vehicle collision, fall from a cliff, etc.

Producer Profitability Initiative Seeks to Spark Conversation,

Unite Industry

Livestock Marketing Association

(LMA) members have a frontrow seat to a disturbing trend: the continued loss of livestock producers across the U.S. They see this as a critical threat, not only to the livestock industry, but to the nation’s food supply. That’s why they’re launching an initiative to strengthen producers’ bottom lines and incentivize the next generation of farmers and ranchers.

Joe Goggins, owner of Public Auction Yards, Billings, Montana, said despite recent record-high livestock prices, it’s tougher than ever to be a producer. Lack of access to land and labor, over-regulation and input costs are causing more people to exit the business, while preventing new producers from getting started.

“We continue to disperse cow herds,” he said. “We continue to disperse flocks of sheep. We continue to lose thousands and thousands of acres out of protein production. And we really feel that we better push back, we better unify this industry somehow, some way, to try to encourage and incentivize people to be in this business.”

Goggins said by working together all industry segments can accomplish so much more than they can individually, and every voice matters.

“I’d encourage producers of all types, sizes and locations to reach out to people in their network and to the organizations they are a part of to have conversations about the biggest barriers to profitability,” he said.

These include, but are not limited to, the death tax, lack of incentives to keep land in livestock production, and competition for land and margin.

Mike VanMaanen, who owns Eastern Missouri Commission Co. in Bowling Green, Missouri, said despite the producer-focus of this initiative, they’re not trying to

expand into an organization for farmers and ranchers — they just know every segment of the industry depends on the others for success.

“We just want to help our customer base by starting the conversation with them,” he said. “And hopefully they’ll take that to the organizations they belong to, and we can all work together toward a common goal.”

He said the producer’s livelihood is the livestock marketer’s livelihood, and for one to be successful, they both must be.

Mandy Geistweidt, who alongside her husband Shaun and family, owns and operates Gillespie Livestock Co., Fredericksburg, Texas, said the initiative will help market owners help their customers — and she’s seen just how much help is needed.

“Our taxes are going up incredibly, because the value of our land is rising astronomically,” she explained.

“So, a lot of what was Dorper sheep and Angus cattle is now becoming vineyards and agritourism.

“On a personal note, I hope I can take this initiative back myself because we have so many small

producers coming out of the city that are just coming to Mom and Dad’s place now. And I hope that I find some ways I can help even those small producers stay — stay active, stay producing.”

But while the message applies anywhere, the implications could be much farther-reaching, Goggins said.

“It’s not only for our benefit if we keep these ranches in production,” he said. “We look at this thing as preserving our food independence in this country. Preserving our national security. The way we look at this is if the world wants the United States to produce the highest quality, safest product in the world, then all we ask is that these people can make a decent living.”

To join the conversation, visit producerprofitability.com or contact your local LMA member livestock marketing business.

■ NEW LISTING! UNION CO., NM – This 1,966 +/- acre ranch located just south of Clayton, New Mexico is in some of the most sought-after grazing land in the Continental U.S.A. The ranch will be excellent for a yearling operation, with high quality grass, good fences and water.

■ GUADALUPE CO., NM – Enjoy ranch life on this 401.38 ac. ranch, 12 mi. W of Santa Rosa. Good location and access. One windmill, pipeline to four drinking troughs, comfortable rustic home, good fences, etc.

■ UNION CO., NM – 2,091.72 ac. (1,771.72 Deeded, 320 ac. -/+ State Lease), well watered w/three wells, two sets of steel pens. Well located just off of the Clayton/Springer hwy. on Barney Road.

■ PRICE REDUCED! DALLAM CO, TX – 1,216.63 ac. +/- of CRP/ranchland w/irrigation, re-development potential, wells & pipelines already in place.

ESTATE GUIDE

■ KB RANCH - Kenney Co., TX – KB Ranch is a low fenced 802 +/- acre property that is surrounded by large ranches. The ranch has abundant whitetail and is also populated with turkey, dove, quail, hogs and varmint species. Axis are in the area and have been occasionally seen. The ranch lies approximately 9 miles south of Bracketville on TX 131 and is accessed by all weather Standart Road.

■ COLFAX COUNTY NM GETAWAY – 1,482.90 ac.+/grassland (1,193.59 ac. +/- Deeded, 289.31 ac. State Lease), great location near all types of mountain recreation.

■ ANGUS, NM – 250 +/- acres with over a 1/2 mile of NM 48 frontage. Elevations from 6,800 to 7,200 feet. Two springs along a creek. Ideal for future development or build your own getaway home.

■ PECOS CO. – 637 ac., Big water, State Classified Minerals.

■ CARSON CO., TX – 640 ac. +/- 5 mi. N of Panhandle on TX 207. 333 ac. +/- under 3 center pivot systems. One well produces 800 GPM. Permanent perimeter and cross fencing.

www buenavista-nm com

■ PALO DURO CREEK TREASURE – 941 acres +/- in Randall

Dimmitt, TX 79027

Scott - Broker

Qualifying Broker 5:00am/10:00pm www.scottlandcompany.com

OR SMALL!

Guadalupe Co., deeded & 519 ranch on both flow daily)

Sumner; wildlife, buyer looking New Mexico

980 ac. +/past, land lays side of Hwy. 54.

Union Co., NM –grassland w/stateremodeled in very good on pvmt.

AG LAND LOANS

AG LAND LOANS

As Low As 6% OPWKCAP 6%

INTEREST RATES AS LOW AS 6%

Payments Scheduled on 25 Years

TEXAS & OKLA. FARMS & RANCHES

• 83 acre wood home with barns, meadows and woods. Fronts State Rd. $545,000

• 160 acre Ranger Eastland Co, $560,000

Joe Stubblefield & Associates 13830 Western St., Amarillo, TX 806/622-3482 • cell 806/674-2062

joes3@suddenlink.net

same family since 1921. Priced at $2,900,000

■ SMITH RANCH — 19.28± section cattle ranch plus 335± acre farm located in Road Forks, N.M. The ranch has 12,343± total acres, 3721± deeded, 2400± acres of NM state land, 6222± acres of BLM, 154 AYL headquarters has mnfctrd homes, shed row barns (equipment/commodity storage), corrals, cattle chute. The north farm has 163± acres (149 +/- is fallow), the south farm has 173± acres, seller retains a “life estate”. Ranch has been in the same family since 1905. Priced at $2,300,000

521 West Second St., Portales, NM 88130 575-226-0671 www.buenavista-nm.com

Rural Properties around Portales, NM

of businesses (Restaurant, Retail, Motel, Business of any kind!) A MUST SEE PROPERTY. MLS#11402703

See all my listings at: paulmcgilliard.murney.com

All properties excellent homes & can have horses, etc.

See these and other properties at www.buenavista-nm.com

SOME

•

listing agent 575-825-1291 www.buenavista-nm.com

+/- heavily livestock w/ fences etc., on the front gate. scenic ac. +/- on by Lincoln in Pines & covered meadow

Penasco. This build a legacy ac. irr., on Mexico, adjoins Potential.

POTENTIAL

Texline Special, +/- w/water & a beautiful 3 bathrooms, metal shop.

developed, crop & cattle, modest improvements. Just off I-20. Price reduced to $1.25 million.

• 840 Immaculate, Hunt Co, TX. Ranch. Pastures, 40 tanks, and lakes. Beautiful home, barns, and other improvements. Some minerals, game galore. All for $1.35 million.

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA RANCH PROPERTY

31 years in the ranch business - see www.ranch-lands.com for videos & brochures

THE SAND CAMP RANCH is a quality desert ranch with an excellent grass cover and above average improvements. Located in southern Chaves County east of the productive Pecos River Valley. The ranch is comprised of 2,598 +/- deeded acres, 6,717 NM State Lease Acres, 23,653 Federal BLM Lease Acres and 480 acres Uncontrolled, 33,448 total acres (52.26 Sections). Grazing Capacity set by a Section 3 BLM grazing permit at 408 Animal Units Yearlong. The ranch is watered by three wells and an extensive pipeline system. This ranch is ready to go, no deferred maintenance. Price: $3,870, 000. Call or email for a brochure and an appointment to come take a look.

DUANE & DIXIE McGARVA RANCH: approx. 985 acres Likely, CA. with about 600+ acre gravity flood irrigated pastures PLUS private 542 AU BLM permit. About 425 acres so of the irrigated are level to flood excellent pastures with balance good flood irrigated pastures. NO PUMPING COST! Dryland is perfect for expansion to pivot irrigated alfalfa if desired. Plus BLM permit for 540 AU is fenced into 4 fields on about

• www.swranches.com

off county road on rear of property as well. Presented “ASIS” New Survey, $4,000,000 $3,800,000

Joe Priest Real Estate 1-800/671-4548 joepriestre.net • joepriestre@earthlink.com

18,000 acres only 7 miles away. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $3,125,000

BEAVER CREEK RANCH: about 82,000 acres - with 2,700 deeded acres plus contiguous USFS & BLM permits for 450 pair; 580+- acres irrigated alfalfa, pasture, and meadow from Beaver Creek water rights and one irrigation well. 3 homes, 2 hay barns, 4 feedlots each w/ 250 ton barns, 2 large reservoirs, can run up to 500-600 cows YEAR ROUND. REDUCED ASKING PRICE - $5,400,000

EIGHT MILE DRAW LAND 740 ± Acres of unimproved native grassland located four miles west of Roswell in the Six Mile Hill area with frontage along U.S. Highway 70/380. This parcel is fenced on three sides and adjoins 120 acres of additional land that may be purchased. Great investment. $600 per acre.

BEAR CREEK RANCH: Approx. 1,278 acres winter range ground and recreational property. Located on Bear Creek and accessed from South Cow Creek Valley Road. Should be great hunting for deer, wild turkey, wild pigs, quail & owner states good trout fishing in Bear Creek. Deeded access easement thru neighbor ranches.

MIAMI 40 ACRES, Colfax County, NM. Private 2 bedroom getaway with elevated views, 2nd guest cabin, irrigation, pole barn great for storage. View private setting. Survey available, septic’s upgraded. $475,000 MIAMI DREAM, 14.70 +/- deeded acres. Approx 1,583 sq ft 2 bedroom 1 bath home. Real country living with barn wood siding, porches, recent remodel for remote workspace. Irrigation and horse facilities, 57 Wampler St., Miami, NM $370,000

$350,000

CIMARRON BUSINESS, Frontage opportunity, house, big shop and office buildings, easy view off Hwy 64. Formerly known as “The Porch.” $295,000

SPRINGER VIEW, 29.70 +/- deeded acres. Large house being remodeled, shop, trees, old irrigation pond. All back off highway with great southern aspect. 311 Hwy 56, Colfax County.

$209,000 $205,000

CONTRACT PENDING

MAXWELL, 408.90 +/- Deeded

ranch that has been owned and operated miles southeast of Corona, NM in Lincoln BLM Lease Acres and 2,240 NM State AUYL. Water provided by five wells and corrals. The ranch had a good summer for a brochure or view on my website.

No improvements & very private inside the ranch. Now only $700 per acre - $894,600

Scott McNally, Qualifying Broker Bar M Real Estate, LLC

BILL WRIGHT, SHASTA LAND SERVICES, INC.

MAXWELL 45, Excellent irrigated pasture with utilities in back of property, including installed septic system, with private views of mountains. 40 irrigable acres and a domestic water meter installed. Great to put down home and bring horses. $249,000

$239,000

P.O. Box 428, Roswell, NM 88202

• www.ranch-lands.com

• DRE# 00963490

530-941-8100

Office: 575-622-5867 Cell: 575-420-1237

Website: www.ranchesnm.com

BAR LAZY 7 RANCH, Colfax County, Moreno Valley 594.38 +/- deeded acres, accessed off blacktop between Eagle Nest and Angel Fire. Historic headquarters. Currently used as summer grazing, pond and trees accessed

Acres. 143.05 Irrigable Acres/Shares with TL pivot covering approximately 80 acres, with balance dry land. Property has one water meter used for livestock, but could support a home as well. There are two troughs located in the middle of the property. Electricity for pivot is back toward the middle of the property as well. Property has highway frontage on NM 505 and Highline Rd, a County Rd. Back up to Maxwell Wildlife area. Colfax County, NM.$599,000

Oregon Initiative Seeks to Criminalize Hunting, Fishing, Farming

Source: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is issuing a warning about a radical animal rights ballot initiative effort underway in Oregon that would make it illegal to hunt, fish, trap and would subsequently frustrate and annul proven, scientific wildlife management, including the North American Wildlife Conservation Model.

Initiative Petition 3 (IP3) criminalizes injuring or intentionally killing animals, including utilizing breeding practices and raising/killing livestock for food. Originally intended for Oregon’s November 2022 election, proponents regrouped and filed a ballot initiative for the 2024 November general election. To qualify, they must deliver 112,020 signatures for verification to the Oregon secretary of state by July 8, 2024.

Proponents claimed they passed the 30,000-signature mark in mid-July. They received a recent influx of $110,000 in campaign donations allowing them to pay signature gatherers. Campaign finance reports show the financial backers are Owen Gunden ($50,000), a philanthropist seeking “ambitious animal rights,” the Karuna Foundation in Colorado ($50,000) and Friends of DxE ($10,000), a network of “activists working to achieve revolutionary social and political change for animals.”

If passed, the initiative would severely hamstring the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in carrying out its mission to protect and enhance the state’s fish and wildlife and their habitats. Approximately 40 percent of ODFW’s budget is generated from hunting and fishing licenses and fees which are used to manage all wildlife species, not just those that are hunted. Fish populations would also be drastically impacted since the $203 million ODFW spends on fisheries and fish hatcheries would be cut off.

Proponents also ignore the importance of conservation funding generated by hunters. Federal excise taxes on guns, ammunition, archery equipment via the PittmanRobertson Act generated more than

$16 billion since its inception in 1937. A 2023 report also shines a spotlight on crucial conservation and economic funding generated by the firearm and ammunition industry. Combined with Dingell-Johnson Act excise taxes on fishing gear, that funding is returned to states, including Oregon, for various conservation, recreation and public access projects.

Additionally, banning hunting and fishing would severely limit or stop those traditions from being passed on to the next generation, thus removing vital revenue that would be generated by future generations of hunters and anglers.

Criminalizing hunting and fishing would have a detrimental, even catastrophic impact on Oregon’s economy. According to an ODFW report, hunters, anglers and wildlife watchers in Oregon spent $1.2 billion in 2019, which directly supported more than 11,000 jobs at motels, gas stations, shops, restaurants and other locally owned Oregon businesses. In addition, those activities generated $385 million in labor income and $51 million in state and local taxes.

Another great concern is food security. IP3 would remove the opportunity for sportsmen and women to maintain their own food

security by outlawing the procurement of elk, deer, fish and other wildlife through hunting, fishing and trapping. In fact, it would force them to be dependent on others to provide meals for their families. Proponents state such on their website: “Oregon is a top-ranking producer of many field and seed crops, fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Within the state of Oregon we have ample food, as well as the resources needed to distribute that food to every citizen.”

IP3 would also prohibit ranchers from raising cattle and other livestock with the intent of breeding them and/or going to market to supply meat to fellow Americans. Instead, proponents “encourage ranchers to transition to an alternative agriculture practice” or “help operate an animal sanctuary.”

The initiative would also force

the Future Farmers of America, 4-H and similar organizations as well as rodeos to “adapt” their programs and procedures to be in compliance or they too would be criminalized.

IP3 states “there would not be a cultural or religious exemption” for Native Americans to exercise hunting and fishing rights. It also bans using animals in a lab setting for furthering medical and disease research.

While IP3 is a ballot initiative focused on Oregon, proponents have their sights set on a much larger landscape. They plan on targeting hunting, fishing, farming and other mentioned activities nationwide across America: “Once successful in Oregon, we hope to bring similar initiatives to every state until the killing of animals is against the law nationwide.” ▫

Tamra S. Kelly, Broker (928) 830-9127

tamra@aglandssw.com

Check out our website! www.aglandssw.com

NEW LISTING! – FX Ranch in Dewey, Arizona – With a carrying capacity of 250 CYL, the FX offers an opportunity to raise quality cattle close to all amenities and near the desirable communities of Prescott and Sedona. The headquarters parcel consists of over 12 acres with a beautiful log home, a managers house, a barn and corrals. Located south of Dewey-Humboldt on Highway 69 the headquarters is approximately 20 miles from downtown Prescott and 40 miles from Sedona. The headquarters enjoys a four season, mild climate at 4500 feet in elevation. Cattle and brand included. $2,690,000

NEW LISTING! – Randall Ranch in Ash Fork, Arizona

This well watered, working cattle ranch includes 85.88 deeded, non-contiguous acres, 5,749 leased acres from the State of Arizona and 12,000 acres of adverse grazing. The current owner operates a cow-calf operation. The ranch historically runs 250 mother cows producing high quality Angus calves with weaning weights between 500 to 550 pounds. Cattle available! $1,250,000

NEW LISTING! RK Ranch in Prescott, Arizona – The RK Ranch is a smaller working cattle ranch located approximately 25 miles north of Prescott, Arizona. The ranch is currently carrying 25 CYL. The RK Ranch encompasses approximately +/-6,736 total grazing acres supporting up to 45 CYL. With 110 deeded acres surrounded by USFS this little ranch is truly a gem of a gentleman’s ranch. Equipment and cattle included. $2,200,000

NEW LISTING! Broken D Horn Ranch in Prescott, Arizona – The Broken D Horn Ranch provides a unique turnkey opportunity to own a remarkable cattle ranch/beef business property nestled in the picturesque Williamson Valley, Arizona. This distinctive offering is the perfect balance between seclusion and accessibility. With 77 acres of deeded land including 50 acres under pivot, state and private leases this ranch runs 130-180 cattle. Equipment and cattle included. $3,389,000

!Nat Ranch in Winslow, Arizona – The Nat Ranch is a 450 CYL ranch located adjacent to I-40 near Winslow, Arizona. The Nat Ranch encompasses approximately +/-36,467 total grazing acres supporting 300 CYL. A well designed feedlot on the headquarters parcel allows the ranch to increase the carrying capacity to 450 CYL while finishing superior calves. $2,400,000

REDUCED! Triangle C Ranch in Reserve, New Mexico

– This working cattle ranch is located east of Reserve, New Mexico in prime grazing lands. Carrying 625 CYL the ranch is located in gentle, rolling grasslands consisting of 2,320 +/- deeded acres, a private lease and a 25,055 acre BLM grazing allotment. Many improvements including two homes, bunk house, hangar, air strip, large shops and working facilities. $4,895,000

REDUCED! Cottonwood Springs Ranch in Red Rock, New Mexico – The Cottonwood Springs is a beautiful, high desert working cattle ranch located approximately 28 miles north of Lordsburg, New Mexico in Grant County. With a carrying capacity of +/-250 CYL, the ranch is well improved with two homes, shop, corrals, interior and exterior fences, working cattle facilities and exceptional water improvements. $2,550,000

!Jack’s Canyon Ranch in Winslow, Arizona – The Jack’s Canyon Ranch is a 150 CYL ranch consisting of 32 Sections of checkerboard grazing encompassing +/300 Deeded acres w/ wells and dirt tanks, +/-9,000 State leased acres and private grazing lease with the City of Winslow. Offered at $1,200,000

SOLD! Sierra Azul Ranch in Hatch, New Mexico –The Sierra Azul Ranch is located in Doña Ana County, New Mexico. The ranch runs 50 CYL and 2 horses on two sections of state land with over four sections of BLM. $650,000

SOLD! Partridge Creek Ranch in Ash Fork, Arizona–85,000+\- acres of strong grazing allowing for 800 animal units year round. 420 acres of deeded land, 480 Arizona state lease, remainder secured by deeded grazing rights. $4,200,000

UNDER CONTRACT! Antelope Wells Ranch in Kingman, Arizona – 100 CYL high desert ranch, excellent browse feed, great water and easy access off 93 South. 40 acres deeded land. $800,000

Federal Funding Blocked for Hunting and Firearms Education in Schools

by Jaclyn Krymowski for Protect The Harvest

In a stroke of his pen, President Biden struck down essential federal funding that has historically supported hunting and archery education and safety programs in schools. Funding had been provided for 58 years under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.

Funding was cut upon Biden signing into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which was passed in both the House and Senate in June of 2022, and supported by gun control advocacy groups that oppose the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill was created with the broad, non-specified, talking point goal of offering “safer, more inclusive and positive” environments for students. Part of that legislation was an amendment to ESEA that would halt any funds involving “training in the use of a dangerous weapon.” No mention was made of those who are

untrained in firearms and archery being potentially more of a hazard.

A LOSS FOR FIREARMS SAFETY AND STUDENT ACTIVITY

As a result of this legislation being signed into law, Tommy Floyd, President of the National Archery in the Schools Program reached out to the news media citing his deep disappointment. This law eliminates essential safety training for the handling of firearms by young people. It also removes an opportunity for students to experience the many valuable lessons and benefits of shooting sports, including personal development, improving skills and confidence-building.

Floyd told FOX News:

“You’ve got every fish and wildlife agency out there working so hard to utilize every scrap of funding, not only for the safety and hunter education but for the general understanding of why stewardship is so important when it comes to natural resources. Any guidance where it’s even considered a ‘maybe’ or a prohibition for shooting sports is a huge negative.”

Another notable concern is how the amendment is being interpreted, citing recreational firearms usage as ‘training’ with a “dangerous weapon.”

Even two Republican U.S. senators who worked to introduce

BSCA, John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, wrote to the Education Secretary Miguel Cardona sharing their concern at this turn of events.

They wrote:

“We were alarmed to learn recently that the Department of Education has misinterpreted the BCSA to require the defending of certain longstanding educational and enrichment programs — specifically, archery and hunter education classes — for thousands of children, who rely on these programs to develop life skills, learn firearm safety and build self-esteem. The Department mistakenly believes that the BSCA precludes funding these enrichment programs. Such an interpretation contradicts congressional intent and the text of the BSCA.”

THE FUTURE OF OUR SCHOOLS

Various advocacy groups in the shooting and hunting space have openly expressed their points of view, including Ben Cassidy, Executive Vice President of Safari Club International, who shared that this is the denial of basic firearm and hunting safety to young people which is valuable information that can allow them to keep themselves and their families safe.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was not surprised by this turn of events, calling the Biden

Administration “anti-gun” and “anti-hunting” and citing that this is yet another case of wielding an intentionally ambiguous law to push an anti-firearms, anti-2nd amendment agenda.

For many young people across America, hunting and shooting sports are beloved parts of their lives. Unfortunately, many of them do not have access to the information and equipment to be involved in these activities unless it is provided by friends and family. This is common in rural communities, but not so much in many urban and suburban environments.

Offering these as extracurricular activities in the school systems give so many youth an opportunity they wouldn’t have otherwise had, in a safe environment, and under the guidance of educated, caring adults.

STANDING UNITED

This is another example of vague laws being used against citizens to practice their rights and freedoms, even in safe, controlled spaces. It should stand as a reminder of the importance of legislative wording and how agenda-driven politicians and advocacy groups manipulate legislation that is not necessary in the best interest of “we the people.”

Keeping America free and fed includes safeguarding access to hunting, firearms and proper education. Restricting funding and the education system is one tactic used to threaten these rights. Protect the Harvest exists to inform Americans about the implications behind complex, and often misleading, legislation. Follow our blog and newsletter for updates on current issues impacting our rights concerning food production, food security, property rights and other important freedoms.

CSU

Study Looks at Regenerative Ag Practices for Storing Carbon in Soil

by Heather Smith Thomas

Astudy from Colorado State University’s Department of Soil and Crop Sciences and the Graduate Degree Program in Ecology found that regenerative practices — including integrating crop and livestock systems — were successful as long-term carbon storage solutions. The researchers recently published their results in a paper entitled “Restoring particulate and mineral-associated organic carbon through regenerative agriculture,” published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This study was led by ecology PhD candidate Aaron Prairie, along with two co-authors: research scientist Alison King and Francesca Cotrufo, professor of soil and crop sciences. For this study, Prairie did a meta-analysis. “This means that rather than doing my own experiment or project, I looked for and collated all existing literature,” he said.

“I was looking at the effect that specific regenerative agricultural practices have on soil carbon. I split soil carbon into two different pools and spent many hours finding various papers, using literature databases including Web of Science and Agricola. I dug through those papers, pulled out all the relevant data and created a big data sheet. Then I did a massive analysis combining the information from all those studies, to form a single effect of response,” said Prairie.

“We looked at studies that split

soil carbon into different pools because these pools of carbon behave differently in soil. By splitting them up, we can get an idea about the mechanisms forming the soil carbon, which can tell us about the health of the soil, or the longevity of the soil carbon,” he explained.

“We’ve analyzed studies that look at the two different pools of carbon, the particulate organic carbon (POC) and mineral-associated organic carbon (MAOC). By separating those, we can then start forming hypotheses about how the different management practices are actually building soil carbon. There are different formation pathways for these different pools, and now we can see that if we do such-andsuch practice it increases POC but not MAOC, or increases MAOC but not POC, or whatever. We can then build new questions and new hypotheses,” he explained.

There has been meta-analysis on this topic before, but only on a small subset of management strategies, and only looking at total carbon. Cotrufo and Prairie felt that if they could study POC and MAOC separately, they could better inform management about how different conditions promote better outcomes. “We can then change our management according to what we want to see in terms of what kind of carbon we are interested in,” he said.

“The main practices I focused on, defined as regenerative practices, include no-till (studies comparing no-till to conventional till, plowing up the soil every year). We also looked at cropping system intensification, which is any practice that increases the number of crops grown each year. This includes cover crops, double crops, intercrops, two crops per year, etc.” There are various strategies that keep soil covered during the entire year, not leaving it bare and exposed without some kind of plants.

“This entails a couple of the main principles of regenerative agriculture—keeping soil covered (soil armor) and increasing the amount of time there are living roots in that soil,” Prairie said.

He also looked at studies that included perennial plants, integrating perennials within the crop rotations. “This would be like a standard corn-soy, corn-soy, cornsoy and then three years of alfalfa before going back to the corn-soy rotations,” he explained.

The final practice he looked into was integrating livestock into a cropping system. “There are fewer studies on this aspect, especially studies that split up the different pools of soil carbon,” said Prairie. Farmers used to utilize livestock to improve soil health for cropping; it’s not a new idea, but hasn’t been done as much during the past 50-plus years. Regenerative practices are now gaining more attention again.

Most farmers have separated the two systems and it makes a lot of sense to integrate them again, especially based on the research findings. “There are not yet a lot of studies on this, so it’s hard to state conclusively the effect of integrated livestock systems, but there is a lot of evidence for a potentially synergistic effect between cover crops and grazing. We’ve seen increases in soil carbon beyond what cover crops or integrated livestock did alone,” he said.

Rather than using fossil fuel to carry manure from the feedlot to farm ground, the manure is deposited on the land, by the animals, where

it needs to be. “I didn’t explore it in this study, but I think there are also other economic advantages and incentives to have multiple revenue streams—having animals as well as crops. Cover crops are expensive to plant and take a lot of water but don’t necessarily give a marketable yield. It’s nice to have some means of profit from the cover crops, beyond just soil health benefits, which are harder to quantify, and take longer to realize,” Prairie said.

There are newspapers coming out, as new studies are being done. “Some of these would fit really well into our meta-analysis. Now we are using this huge data set that I created, to formalize and put into a form we can continue building on, and use it for other projects like modeling projects. We are collaborating with people in computer science here at CSU to build these data bases that are more accessible and easier to input data.”

Now that integrating livestock with cropping is done more frequently again, there is clear evidence that this is very effective, and can

be very beneficial. “There are more people exploring this today, not only from the mechanisms of actions, but also from management perspective, looking at best ways to optimize it. There are people who have been doing this for many years but there haven’t been any studies on their fields.” There is lots of anecdotal evidence that it works, but now we need to do studies to back it up.

It is a challenge to pull together all the different data sets. “People measure and take soil samples differently, from different soil depths and different resolution of number of samples, etc. There’s a need to determine the best ways to sample soil and find better ways to merge these data sets across ecosystems, across the globe,” he said.

“Many of the earlier studies did not measure bulk density, which is necessary in order to calculate soil carbon stocks, rather than just concentrations. This is a measure of soil carbon in a specific volume of soil rather than just relative concentration—to have a more meaningful number.”

Those studies were just comparing practices such as conventional till versus no-till at a specific time. “Very few studies actually took a baseline measurement like 10 years prior. We don’t really know if regenerative practices are actually increasing soil carbon or just reducing the loss of soil carbon, compared with conventional practices. People need to measure baselines and quantify a rate of change, over time. We know that these regenerative practices are better, and definitely reduce change after conversion to these practices, but we don’t know if they are actually increasing soil carbon or just keeping us from losing more,” Prairie said.

“This is especially relevant for modeling, and being able to predict and project trends and changes in soil carbon by changing this or doing that. We need to do large-scale predictions after we’ve gotten certain on-the-ground measurements and baselines and then be able to feed them into our better models that can better predict changes.”

Cotrufo said livestock integra-

tion is the one management strategy that has the largest potential beneficial impact, but needs more studies. “Our conclusions remain a bit speculative because they are based on only a handful of studies. We need more data on this and it needs to combine ranching and farming, to provide more information. Then these ranchers and farmers could think more about how to supplement the feeding of their livestock by having them pass through the crop land,” she said. Grazing crop aftermath and/or grazing cover crops can be very helpful.

“Integrating the two systems can be very beneficial for both, and also for the economy of the farm,” she said. There is a lot of potential in this direction. ▫

State of Colorado Expands Veterinary Student Debt Relief Program, Applicants Welcome

AState of Colorado program that helps pay off student loan debt for veterinarians who practice in underserved areas was expanded by the legislature this spring with additional funding and participant seats. The application period is now open.

The Veterinary Education Loan Repayment Program (VELRP) was signed into law in 2017 and provided up to $70,000 to pay off student loan debt for veterinarians who agreed to serve in a rural, underserved area of the state for up to four years. Funding was provided to two veterinarians, Dr. Kayle Austin and Dr. Callie Kuntz.

“This program has helped me immensely,” Kuntz said. “By being able to decrease my student loan debt, I have been able to purchase my practice, grow my business to more than twice the size it was when I purchased it, and purchase the land and building, all within five years of being in Yuma, Colorado – all while decreasing my loan debt. As a young veterinarian, business owner and mother, it’s been a huge blessing to be able to have received these repayments and pursue what I love, where I love: rural Colorado.”

FUNDING FOR UP TO 6 VETERINARIANS

This spring, the legislature passed amendments to the law through Senate Bill 44. The legislation expanded the available funding to accommodate six veterinarians who can receive up to $90,000 each for working in rural communities with food animal medicine needs. Sponsors of the bill were Sen. Joann Ginal, Sen. Rod Pelton, Rep. Karen McCormick and Rep. Ty Winter.

Preference is given to applicants who graduated from the Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences.

Applications may be submitted online.

The program is overseen by the VELRP Council, which selects the participants, is appointed by the governor, and supported by CSU administrative staff. The current council members are:

❚ Chair: Scott Johnson, Flying Diamond Ranch

❚ Vice-chair: Dr. Kayla Henderson, Colorado Veterinary Medical Association

❚ Dr. Melinda Frye, associate dean of the DVM Program at the CSU College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical

Sciences

❚ Dr. Morgan McCarty, representative of the State Commissioner of Agriculture

❚ Dr. John Raftopoulos, Colorado Livestock Industry

The debt payoffs are phased under the following terms:

❚ Upon completion of six months of the first year of service under the program, up to $15,000

❚ Upon completion of a second year of service under the program, up to an additional $20,000

❚ Upon completion of a third year of service under the program, up to an additional $25,000

❚ Upon completion of a fourth year of service under the program, up to an additional $30,000

Questions about the program can be sent to Jon Stocking at Jon.Stocking@colostate.edu.

INFORMATION FOR APPLICANTS

Each year, the Council selects up to six qualified veterinary applicants to participate in the program. The number of applicants that the council may choose in a given year is dependent on the amount of money available in that year.

Details on required qualifications for applicants and other information about the application process are available at col.st/ZXuvu

California Took Aim at Youth Hunting and Missed

Source: Protect the Harvest

Promoting youth hunting and youth hunter education was for a short time considered illegal in California due to a recent bill that passed. Assembly Bill 2571 was passed by the California House of Representatives and Senate and then signed into law by Governor Newsom on June 30, 2022.

This bill was proposed as a ban on marketing firearms to youth but also included a ban on marketing activities that involve firearms and their accessories.

This bill effectively banned the promotion of:

❚ Youth hunter education

❚ High school shooting teams

❚ Youth hunting events

❚ Youth firearms training

❚ Any activity that involves minors and firearms or firearm-related products

Ninety days after the bill was signed into law and the state’s youth shooting teams were thrown into turmoil, another bill (AB 160) was signed into law protecting youth shooting sports, hunting, and hunter education.

WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED?

The California State High School Clay Target League had put up a notification on its website stating: “Due to recent legislation from the California State Assembly, and signed into Law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the USA Clay Target League, DBA USA High School Clay Target League/California State High

School Clay Target League, has been forced by law to suspend all operations within California.”

“As a school-based activity serving students from 6th-12th grade, these provisions serve to outlaw the very name and existence of the California State High School Clay Target League (CSHSCTL).”

The website went on to quote John Nelson, President of the USA Clay Target League, stating, “The League is the safest sport in high school.” He further states, “Over 1,500 schools across the nation have approved our program. Hundreds of thousands of students have participated, and there has never been an accident or injury.”

The Scholastic Shooting Sports Foundation also put a disclaimer up for those visiting the website:

“NOTICE FOR CALIFORNIA

RESIDENTS: Due to the passage of California Assembly Bill 2571 related to the advertising or marketing of firearms and firearm related products, the Scholastic Shooting Sports Foundation has limited communication with the state of California. The information on this website is not intended for minor audiences in California. If you are a minor in California, please do not continue to use this website.”

CALIFORNIA HUNTER EDUCATION LAW

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife website shows the outright hypocrisy of this bill. The first paragraph of the hunter education page on the CDFW website lists California’s hunter education law which was first enacted in 1954.

The website states:

“The Hunter Education Program, as a state-mandated, federally funded program, must be made available to all persons. No one may be refused training, certification, or otherwise discriminated against because of age, race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, religion, disability, or national origin. Additionally, the program must be made available to all persons as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

CALIFORNIA PASSED A LAW IT COULDN’T COMPLY WITH

If AB 160 had not been put into place to correct the overarching AB 2571, it would have put California’s Department of Fish and Wildlife in a very tough position. They would have been subject to a $25,000 fine per each incidence of incompliance. Each incidence is every “impression,” occurrence, and/or publication of prohibited communication.

A LEGAL BATTLE WAS STIRRED UP

Two separate coalitions were formed to push back against AB 2571. The first coalition consisted of Junior Sports Magazines, California Youth Shooting Sports Association, Redlands California Youth Clay Shooting Sports, California Rifle & Pistol Association, CRPA Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation. They filed against the state of California in the U.S. Central District Court of California on July 20th.

The second coalition to jump on board and protect youth hunting and shooting sports was So Cal Top Guns, Safari Club International, US Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation,

Steve Haglund

September 24, 1956 - December 17, 2022

Modesto, California

Steve Haglund was born in Modesto to Don and Joann Haglund on September 24, 1956 and passed away at home on December 17, 2022. Steve lived in Modesto on the ranch he was brought home from the hospital to, his entire life.

He graduated from Ceres High School in 1974 where he was very active in 4-H and FFA. He loved to show beef cattle and won many awards including the American Farmer Degree. He also loved to hunt and fish, He went to Colorado and Alaska several times and especially loved the annual Kennedy Meadows opening day of deer season trip with all his friends and his sons when they got old enough. There were even a few couples pack trips too.

After graduation Steve wanted to start his own cow/calf herd. Before even getting married he rented some irrigated pasture and got his own loan to do just that. He continued this till his last day.

His father and grandfather were in the livestock auction business and in the late 70s he went to auctioneer school and joined his Dad in the business. After his Dad’s death in 1998 he took over running Farmers Livestock Market in Modesto and in 2007 the business was moved to Oakdale.

Steve will be deeply missed by both family and friends. He married his high school sweetheart Jennifer (Sanders) Haglund in 1981 and they had two sons. Clinton (Stephanie) and Easton (Jillian). He also adored his grandchildren Kendyll, Cash, Paige, Drew, Emily and Weslie. They all loved to come to Grandma and Grandpa’s to run around the ranch and ride horses and quads with him. He also left his sister Sheri (Dave) Linhares, nephew Dylan Linhares and niece Merisha Torrano along with brother in law Jeff Sanders. ▫

and Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. Their complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed with the U.S. District Court Eastern District of California on August 5th.

AB 160 CAME TO SAVE THE DAY

While we congratulate all who worked hard to get AB 160 passed to correct the language that was present in AB 2571, we find it concerning that it even needed to come to this point.

The promotion and marketing of youth shooting sports and youth hunting are once again protected in California, but this should be a wake-up call to all hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts across America.

The story of AB 2571 also demonstrates to citizens how bills are presented, voted on by lawmakers and signed into law without a clear understanding of the overarching consequences. In order to protect and defend our freedoms written into law, we must keep aware of what is happening in our communities and the state where we live. Check out our Protecting Our Lifestyle and Livelihood program on our website to learn more about what you can do.

Global Beef Markets

Lower Demand in Most Regions and Diverging Prices to Affect Exports

Source:RaboBank

According to a new report from Rabobank, most beef markets – other than the US –are seeing softer consumer demand. Global cattle prices have split into two distinct groups: those in North America and Europe and those in the rest of the world. In the US, declining supply and strong consumer demand are driving cattle prices higher, while in most other regions, the opposite is making prices to soften.

DIVERGING PRICES WILL AFFECT BEEF EXPORTS

Compared to 12 months ago, US cattle prices have increased almost 30 percent, whereas Australian cattle prices have dropped by more than 30 percent. “This price split is the largest we have seen in the last ten years,” says Angus Gidley-Baird, Senior Analyst – Animal Protein at

Rabobank. “Such a separation in prices will have consequences for beef exporters’ competitiveness, and we expect to see some shift in trade volumes as a result.”

DEMAND IS LOWER ALMOST EVERYWHERE AND SUPPLY CHAINS ARE FULL

A consistent theme across most markets – other than the US –is softer consumer demand and full supply chains. In a number of regions, particularly in Asian countries, beef purchases made through 2022 and into 2023 in anticipation of recovery from Covid have not been consumed. These are now part of growing stock levels that also include other proteins. “Softer consumer demand is making it harder to move these volumes through the system,” explains Gidley-Baird.

BEEF’S SUSTAINABILITY AGENDA IS EXPANDING, WITH NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN FOCUS

For some time, the sustain-

ability discussion around beef has focused mainly on greenhouse gas emissions. Over the past year, nature and biodiversity have become more prominent issues in beef sustainability discussions, and these topics will be even more relevant over the coming year.

According to Gidley-Baird, fewer companies in the beef supply chain have made voluntary commitments around nature and biodiversity than those that have made emissions

reduction commitments. But the set of drivers for both issues is similar, which can create synergies in how beef supply chain participants respond to both issues and reinforce the action being taken. Forces driving the new focus on nature and biodiversity include intergovernmental agreements and regulation, financial services undertakings, and voluntary commitments from the supply chain.

• All of our nutritionally dense products come completely fortified with mineral packages designed for the desert southwest

• Our Suther Pallisade probiotic yields +7% total diet efficiency and is ALL NATURAL

• We have solutions for the absolute lowest daily cost, winter protein program, on the market, ask about FORAGE MAX

• We design cubes, concentrated protein/mineral blocks, tubs and loose mineral built specifically for the southwest

• You can choose high-fat offerings in both cube (8%) and tubs (10%) to balance your energy needs

• We are experts in natural cattle programs

• You can choose from bulk, tote, bag with delivery or local pick-up

• We are committed to consistent quality, the fastest delivery and reliable local service

Federal Funding Blocked for Hunting and Firearms Education in Schools

by Jaclyn Krymowski for Protect The Harvest

In a stroke of his pen, President Biden struck down essential federal funding that has historically supported hunting and archery education and safety programs in schools. Funding had been provided for 58 years under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965.

Funding was cut upon Biden signing into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which was passed in both the House and Senate in June of 2022, and supported by gun control advocacy groups that oppose the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The bill was created with the broad, non-specified, talking point goal of offering “safer, more inclusive and positive” environments for students. Part of that legislation was an amendment to ESEA that would halt any funds involving “training in the use of a dangerous weapon.” No mention was made of those who are untrained in firearms and archery being potentially more of a hazard.

A LOSS FOR FIREARMS SAFETY AND STUDENT ACTIVITY

As a result of this legislation being signed into law, Tommy Floyd, President of the National Archery in the Schools Program reached out to the news media citing his deep disappointment. This law eliminates essential safety training for the han-

dling of firearms by young people. It also removes an opportunity for students to experience the many valuable lessons and benefits of shooting sports, including personal development, improving skills and confidence-building.

Floyd told FOX News:

“You’ve got every fish and wildlife agency out there working so hard to utilize every scrap of funding, not only for the safety and hunter education but for the general understanding of why stewardship is so important when it comes to natural resources. Any guidance where it’s even considered a ‘maybe’ or a prohibition for shooting sports is a huge negative.”

Another notable concern is how the amendment is being interpreted, citing recreational firearms usage as ‘training’ with a “dangerous weapon.”

Even two Republican U.S. senators who worked to introduce BSCA, John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, wrote to the Education Secretary Miguel Cardona sharing their concern at this turn of events.

They wrote: “We were alarmed to learn recently that the Department of Education has misinterpreted the BCSA to require the defending of certain longstanding educational and enrichment programs — specifically, archery and hunter education classes — for thousands of children, who rely on these programs to develop life skills, learn firearm safety and

build self-esteem. The Department mistakenly believes that the BSCA precludes funding these enrichment programs. Such an interpretation contradicts congressional intent and the text of the BSCA.”

THE FUTURE OF OUR SCHOOLS

Various advocacy groups in the shooting and hunting space have openly expressed their points of view, including Ben Cassidy, Executive Vice President of Safari Club International, who shared that this is the denial of basic firearm and hunting safety to young people which is valuable information that can allow them to keep themselves and their families safe.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) was not surprised by this turn of events, calling the Biden Administration “anti-gun” and “anti-hunting” and citing that this

is yet another case of wielding an intentionally ambiguous law to push an anti-firearms, anti-2nd amendment agenda.

For many young people across America, hunting and shooting sports are beloved parts of their lives. Unfortunately, many of them do not have access to the information and equipment to be involved in these activities unless it is provided by friends and family. This is common in rural communities, but not so much in many urban and suburban environments.

Offering these as extracurricular activities in the school systems give so many youth an opportunity they wouldn’t have otherwise had, in a safe environment, and under the guidance of educated, caring adults.

STANDING UNITED

This is another example of vague laws being used against citizens to

practice their rights and freedoms, even in safe, controlled spaces. It should stand as a reminder of the importance of legislative wording and how agenda-driven politicians and advocacy groups manipulate legislation that is not necessary in the best interest of “we the people.”

Keeping America free and fed includes safeguarding access to hunting, firearms and proper education. Restricting funding and the education system is one tactic used to threaten these rights. Protect the Harvest exists to inform Americans about the implications behind complex, and often misleading, legislation. Follow our blog and newsletter for updates on current issues impacting our rights concerning food production, food security, property rights and other important freedoms.

Spring 2024 Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association Internships Now Open

Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association has opened the application window for 2024 spring internship programs.

These exceptional internship programs offer students the chance to broaden their network and collaborate with Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association personnel and leading industry figures. Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association internships allow stu-

dents to develop skills in various departments such as administration, education, events, association marketing, and more. The opportunities include:

❚ TSCRA Spring 2024 Internship: Semester-long internship in Fort Worth providing opportunities across administration, communications, education, events, membership, and more

❚ TSCRA Spring 2024 Government Affairs Internship:

Semester-long internship in Austin for students with a specific interest in government relations

Applications to the spring 2024 internship opportunities are due Oct. 5, 2023. Additional details including submission instructions are accessible at www.tscra.org/ who-we-are/employment

45th Annual National Golden Spur Award Honors Brings Cody Johnson to the Buddy Holly Hall of Performing Arts & Sciences November 3

The 45th Annual National Golden Spur Award Honors, celebrating the spirit of the American rancher and the enduring tradition of ranching, is set to take place on November 3, 2023, at the Buddy Holly Hall of Performing Arts and Sciences in Lubbock, Texas, featuring an exclusive acoustic performance by country music superstar Cody Johnson.

This prestigious event is the pinnacle of recognition for the ranching and livestock industries, spotlighting those who forge ahead in continuing the incredible story of ranching. The night will be illuminated by the presence of the National Golden Spur Award honoree Craig Haythorn, Arthur, Nebraska, and the Ranching Heritage Association (RHA) Working Cowboy Award recipient Jimbo Humphreys, Dickens, Texas.

“We are thrilled to honor these exceptional individuals who embody the heart and soul of the American ranching tradition,” said Jim Bret Campbell, Executive Director of the Ranching Heritage Association and National Ranching Heritage Center. “With special guest Cody Johnson adding his musical talent to the night, we are sure it’s going to be a memorable celebration of ranching heritage.”

Other notable appearances include professional announcer and host for The Cowboy Channel Justin McKee, Western singer and entertainer Red Steagall, CMA Award Winner Trent Willmon, and other special guests.

Proceeds from the National Golden Spur Award Honors will go towards the preservation of ranching heritage and history. To learn more about the National Golden Spur Award Honors and the award recipients, visit goldenspurhonors.com.

Tickets range from $150 to $400. All tickets include access to the National Golden Spur Award Honors Pre-Show Reception and the Awards Show. Select tickets also grant access to the Cattleman’s Club VIP Dining, a unique culinary experience with exclusively themed food stations and beverages.

Tickets are available through the Buddy Holly Hall of Performing Arts & Sciences box office and website. For more information on ticket pricing, inclusions, the event schedule, and planning your visit, check out the official event website at goldenspurhonors.com.

CLINTEL World Climate Declaration

by CFACT Ed

Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.

To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.

THERE IS NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY

A global network of over 1609 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensify-

ing hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.

EPILOGUE

The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.

From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.

*It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts

Canvas $195 AP Canvas $235

Wyoming is Killing Colorado’s Wolves, Again, and the

State’s Keeping it Secret

by Mike Koshmrl, WyoFile, Colorado Sun

At least one wolf from what is likely the first breeding pack Colorado has seen in 80 years wandered into Wyoming in 2023 and was killed.

That’s according to credible reports from ranchers and other stakeholders interviewed by WyoFile.

No Wyoming or Colorado official, however, has confirmed the wolf killing.

Wyoming claims the information is confidential and that not even Colorado wildlife officials have a right to know.

An 11-year-old state law intended to conceal the identity of people who legally kill wolves in Wyoming is keeping Wyoming officials tight lipped. The statute is being interpreted so broadly that Wyoming Game & Fish Department (WGFD) officials say they cannot share anything more specific than the aggre-

gate number of wolves that have been killed in the state’s 53 million-acre “predator zone” — an area that covers roughly 85 percent of Wyoming. So if a wolf dies well outside of Canis lupus’ normal range in southern Wyoming, even the general region of the killing is considered confidential.

In other words, state officials say merely confirming a wolf killing in a Wyoming county — or even the southern half of the state — would run afoul of the law because that information could somehow identify the person who pulled the trigger.

“We talked to our attorney, and she said basically that we cannot provide [wolf deaths] by location or areas like we used to,” said Dan Thompson, the large carnivore supervisor for the WGFD. “It’s all aggregate.”

The statute, and the Wyoming Attorney General’s reinterpretation of it, are hamstringing Colorado’s ability to monitor its historic and closely watched North Park Pack

Cropland Management and Compost Add Nitrogen to Soil and Combat Climate Change

by Heather Smith Thomas

Colorado State University researchers are showing that relatively simple changes in management of cropland has many benefits. Studies led by CSU provide insights on how applying organic waste to cropland can enhance

carbon and nitrogen retention and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

One study, the longest of its kind, analyzed 16 years of soil data, using a model developed at CSU to quantify the optimal amount and timing of compost (decayed organic matter) application to maximize carbon storage and plant production, while

— founded by a known Wyoming migrant wolf, 1084. The pack, which established a home range in northern Colorado’s Jackson County, has continued to eke out an existence on the eve of the expected broader reintroduction of wolves to the Centennial State, now just months away.

Although Wyoming law has stymied the free flow of information about North Park Pack wolves when they’ve crossed an invisible state border and died, word has gotten out anyway. Last October three black subadult female members of that pack wandered north and were legally killed by hunters, an incident that drew headlines and triggered threats of a lawsuit. Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials learned of the suspected losses to the pack from a private landowner, spokesman Travis Duncan told WyoFile in an email.

There are no seasons or other limitations on killing wolves in Wyoming’s predator zone — eradication is openly the goal — but the state does require that successful hunters and trappers submit reports notifying authorities of their kills. Colorado officials have learned that

their counterparts in the Equality State are unwilling to share those reports, or any information within them.

“Wyoming Game and Fish said they cannot provide those data to us,” Duncan said in the email.

But the southern Wyoming wolf deaths — of animals likely associated with the North Park Pack — continued this year. Colorado didn’t receive any reports of the deaths this time, Duncan said.

‘EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT’

It’s no secret that wolves have been killed recently in Carbon County, not far from the southern border, said Pat O’Toole of the Ladder Ranch. A neighboring Wyoming rancher, he said, killed a wolf “a couple months ago.”

“Everybody knows about it,” O’Toole said. “I’ve seen pictures of it.”

O’Toole’s not thrilled that his Little Snake River-area ranch, which straddles the state line, has once again become the domain of the wolf, a sometimes difficult-to-livewith large carnivore that was eliminated from Colorado’s southern Rockies by the mid-1940s. Wolves

that gain a taste for domestic animals often kill until they’re killed themselves, he said, and they make livestock ranching more difficult.

O’Toole was not surprised that likely North Park Pack wolves haven’t lasted long once they’ve crossed the state line. With a step across that line, a wolf goes from a “State Endangered” classification — fully protected from hunting — to a “predator” that can be shot on sight without a license by anyone.

“This valley is full of hunters, and boy, it’d be a pretty smart wolf to make it in this valley,” O’Toole said. “Everybody here drives around with a rifle in their pickup because that’s the culture.”

Wyoming’s predator zone and unregulated hunting near the state line has hampered wolves’ ability to establish in Colorado.

“Essentially, one state is blocking a national success story from happening,” said Matt Barnes, a rangeland scientist who was a member of the advisory group that helped shape Colorado’s wolf management plan. “It is absolute night and day, either side of this invisible line, which is always not good for wildlife.

minimizing reliance on commercial inorganic fertilizer.

Compost added to soil is a beneficial use of organic waste, making agricultural land more productive. Land that is always farmed loses nutrients from the soil and these must be put back. Modern farming practices add nitrogen via inorganic fertilizer.

When added to fields, about two percent of it escapes as nitrous oxide, which is 265 times more potent as

LT CATTLE COMPANY

SILVER CITY, NEW MEXICO

greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Excess nitrogen—when too much fertilizer is applied—can also can leach into groundwater, creating environmental and health hazards.

The study showed the ideal amount of compost was double the amount typically applied by farmers, and the best rate of application was every other year. After 12 years of biennial applications, no further compost was needed to achieve maximum crop yields.

“Once you add enough compost, you reach a point where you can greatly reduce fertilizer inputs and sustain crop production for a long time,” said William Parton, senior research scientist with the Natural Resource Ecology Lab, and professor emeritus in the Warner College of Natural Resources.

CSU partnered with Veolia, a French company, to model a 16-year experiment, which involves a wheatcorn rotation in fields near Paris. “They came to us because we have state-of-the-art models to look at the impact of different agricultural practices on the ecosystem,” Parton said. “We’ve developed a set of computer models that predict crop production, soil carbon, nitrogen, nitrate leaching, and nitrous oxide and methane emissions.”

Part of the CSU study was done in California, adding compost to grazing land as well as crop land.

LT Cattle Co. has been selling registered and commercial Hereford bulls to cattlemen in New Mexico and Arizona for over fifty years. For 30 years, our herd bulls have primarily come from the Barber Ranch in Channing, Texas. Our calves are born unassisted out in big pastures. When we brand, the calves that are structurally correct, have bone, and a big square hip, are left as bulls. When we wean, if one hasn't developed as we wanted, we cut him. Our bulls are raised and priced for cowherds in New Mexico and Arizona's arid, rugged deserts and mountains. Polled and horned calves will be ready to go in early December ages 8-18 months.

Also, there are Hereford, black, and black baldy heifers for sale.

JIMMY MCCAULEY (575)574-2283 DAVID MCCAULEY(575)538-1828 RYAN

(575)654-4030

“Working with people in Berkeley, we published two papers, one of which discussed our study that looked at the impact of compost from cities like San Francisco. In California, they wanted to look at the impact of adding compost directly to grazing lands,” Parton said. The compost in this study was applied to annual grasslands, which are typical of the central valley of

California.

On farm or ranch land it is difficult to improve productivity because it’s expensive to add fertilizer—especially commercial fertilizer that not only costs a lot but doesn’t have long-term benefit. It usually needs to be applied every year.

“In California, we put on large amounts of compost, in a one-time application, then looked at the impact over time. We got 50 percent increases in plant production that lasted at least three years, in our field observations. We combined that with computer models—which is what I work with and try to see the impact of these different practices over long time periods,” said Parton.

“We used models to project what will happen, and those impacts would actually continue for 30 to 40 years. Compost acts as a slow-release fertilizer. It is organic matter that decomposes at a relatively slow rate, like 5 to 10 years. The only way it would be financially viable, however, is to add large amounts at one time and have a positive effect over a long period,” he explains.

“We were also looking at the net greenhouse gas benefit and it was substantial; plant production goes up and you put more carbon in the soil—increasing soil carbon sequestration. We published a number of papers on that,” he said.

“The other paper we just published was working with the company in Paris, where for 20 years they added different levels of compost and different types of compost to their agricultural system, which was a corn/wheat crop rotation. They had some plots with fertilizer, some with no fertilizer, some with differcontinued on page 15

34 SC:2.2 REA: 0.57

CROPLAND MANAGEMENT continued from page 14

ent levels of compost, in about 10 different plots. The study showed that compost could greatly increase plant production without having to add fertilizer.” After two or three times adding compost, the need for adding fertilizer was reduced, which would increase sustainability.

“Adding slow-release organic material, which we get from compost, lasts many years and continues to have positive effects. Whether you add it to cropping systems or grasslands, it has the same long-term positive impact. The real problem is getting the compost, and having enough of it,” Parton said.

“If you sell organic winter wheat, you can’t add fertilizer, and you get a higher price for the crop, but the problem in the Great Plains or any dry regions is that there are not many good crop rotations that add nitrogen to the system. If you could add one big load of compost, you could probably get 20 years of positive impact and still be organic. The problem is having access to enough of it,” he said.

“And for large expanses of grazing lands it’s difficult to apply, because it’s either too expensive or the supply of compost doesn’t exist out there,” he said.

The old mixed farms that had livestock as well as crops had a good system of rotating crops and grazing, with livestock adding manure/ urine and trampled plant litter to the soil. “The study we did, looking at sustainability and working with ranchers and some friends of mine in Uruguay was typical of crop systems in Argentina and southern Brazil. They use crop rotations that include alfalfa or some other kind of legume crop that fixes nitrogen. They grow that crop for three years, then plow it and plant corn and wheat for several years and then go back to the forage crop that adds nitrogen. Or you can have cover crops over winter that fix nitrogen. There are a number of crops that work for this, if you have enough rain. In many regions you can do that because they don’t have our cold winters,” said Parton.

“These systems work beautifully and we demonstrated that crop rotations where you use alfalfa or another legume as part of the rotation not only produces great forage but also has a long-term positive impact of increasing crop production. This is how farmers used to do that because they didn’t have access to nitrogen fertilizer.”

It’s a bonus if you can plant a cover crop that cattle can graze. This provides forage for the cattle and they add more fertility to the soil with their manure, etc.

“In many systems, we should be going back to the way we were farming years ago. In one region we had a study that went on for 50 years, looking at the impact of every 4 years using a nitrogen-fixing crop producing lots of biomass. Crops following those years had much higher production and didn’t require much fertilizer. This works very well in systems where you can combine crops and animal grazing. It’s a win-win, and the way things used to be, before we started using chemical fertilizers in the 1950s.”

In systems that don’t have animals, cover crops can give a positive effect. “Adding animals is even more beneficial, however, because you can use the cover crop as feed

for them. When you combine these old methods with fertilizer, you can get much higher production and be more sustainable.”

In recent studies the researchers used computer models to simulate the impact of whatever system they are dealing with, looking at all the different crop rotations and ways of growing crops.

“We can simulate what’s going to happen when you combine different practices. Our key goal is to make agriculture more sustainable so we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. We’ve published many studies now that show that if you use best management practices this can work—and one of the best ways is to incorporate the grassland parts of the crop rotation or cover crops.

When you do that, you increase production and reduce greenhouse gases. We think these could be reduced at least 50 percent if you use all of what we know about best management practices. This has already been documented in the literature,” says Parton.

Wellsandt Announced as American Gelbvieh Association Fall Intern

The American Gelbvieh Association (AGA) is excited to announce the hiring of Sydney Wellsandt, Unadilla, Nebraska, as the AGA fall intern. In her internship, Wellsandt will be assisting in all aspects of AGA operations including members programs and services support, member education, and preparation for the 53rd Annual AGA National Convention and AGA National Show activities.

“Throughout the fall, Sydney will gain experience with all facets of a beef breed association,” said Megan Slater, AGA executive director. “We are excited to have her joining our AGA team to assist with customer service, communications and planning our annual convention.”

Wellsandt grew up on an acreage in Unadilla, Nebraska, where she showed cattle with her sister across the state and was active-

ly involved in her local 4-H and FFA programs. Through these activities, she grew a deeper passion for the beef industry and became dedicated to finding ways to give back to the industry.

She is a junior at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln where she is studying Animal Science with minors in Agribusiness, Krutsinger Beef Industry Scholars and Engler Agribusiness Entrepreneurship. She is also involved in Block and Bridle and serves on the Young Nebraska Cattlemen board of directors. Wellsandt plans to pursue a career in the beef industry where she can share her passion with others and work alongside producers.

“I’ve always had an interest in breed associations and the role they play within the beef industry. I look forward to working with members of the AGA and learning how the association works with them to grow the breed,” said Wellsandt.

“The team at the AGA is consistently working hard for the members

and their cattle, and I’m excited to be a part of the positive impact they have on the industry.”

Wellsandt began her internship on September 8 and can be reached at intern@gelbvieh.org or at the AGA office at 303-4652333.

Sydney Wellsandt

Roswell Livestock Auction & Roswell Livestock Auction Trucking

Wooton 575.626.6253 RLA 575.622.5580

The View FROM THE BACK SIDE

Morass

By Barry Denton

(The views expressed in this column are not necessarily those of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association or this publication.)

Ranchers and farmers, it looks like your problems are about to be cured with “virtual fencing” from the University of Alberta, Canada.

In a nutshell you will attach a collar to your cow that looks like a cowbell. Then you will get your I-Phone and draw whatever boundaries that you want your cattle to stay within.

Next you will put up solar panels along your pasture boundaries. From the way I understand it, the cowbell-type device will sound an alarm when the cow gets too close to the boundary.

If it ignores the alarm and continues toward the boundary it will give the animal an electric shock. This is a modern-day version of “Pavlov’s Dogs.”

It just may be effective in big open grassy grazing country. However, it would be a sure killer on rangeland cattle as they would be constantly hung up on every bush or tree that they rub on.

Besides, I would bet that most range cattle will just start moving

faster once you shock them. If they could get all the bugs ironed out of the system, I’d be the first to sign up as I’m for anything that replaces having to build fence.

It appears that you will have to breed cattle that like collars. Of course, with artificial insemination you could probably breed cattle with “collar necks” rather quickly.

You could even develop a new computer game with this. Wouldn’t it be fun to sit home and watch your cattle try and test the barrier? For that matter you could name each cow so that you could make bets on which cows would challenge the barrier the most in a week. You could even give odds and bars could have betting pools.

Finally a way to make money in the cattle business. Just think this virtual fencing could go on to save marriages as well.

If you had a spouse that strayed off the ranch or farm, just sound the alarm and shock them home. I believe that’s the next study that the University of Alberta will be doing.

It seems like we have a constant election cycle in this country that never quits. One thing about it, with the news media having gone almost completely left wing

or communist there’s no point in wasting time watching the news or reading the newspaper.

The other thing I have noticed is that there are very few quality candidates. The interesting thing is, since they have outlawed circuses in some states the circus freaks are gaining new power running for office. Remember when you were in high school there was always a girl with a big mouth that stirred up everyone with her gossip.

Also, there was a token sissy boy in your class who kind of acted like a girl and you had no idea why. Don’t forget the kid in your class that spent half the school year at reform school.

Hey, today these are the people that you are getting to vote for. It doesn’t seem to me like there is any room for a normal hard-working common-sense citizen to run for office.

Why would anyone want to throw in with today’s political parties? It looks to me like you must be anti-American to join the Democrat Party. The Republican Party looks to be half agreeing with the Democrat Party and the other half is too afraid not to.

The primary problem with voting Independent is that you will really have no power in your vote. Remember the days when both parties used to try and come together for the common good?

The situation is dire folks. Step up and change it today! ▫

University to Expand ProgramsTraining for

Meat- and PoultryProcessing Industry

Anew grant awarded to the University of Nevada, Reno will help efforts to bring more sustainability to Nevada’s meat and poultry industry, providing more training to people who want to work in this vital supply chain for the nation.

The University recently received one of seven Meat and Poultry Processing Agriculture Workforce Training awards from the United States Department of Agriculture and its National Institute of Food and Agriculture. It’s part of a $4.5 million effort from the federal government given to learning institutions around the country.

The $650,000 grant for the University will be used by the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology & Natural Resources to enhance its current harvesting and processing training programs for the meat and

poultry industry. The program is a partnership with Western Nevada College. Through the college, students will be able to earn a certificate for the program and apply credits toward an associate degree. University of Nevada, Reno students may be able to earn a transcript endorsement for credits earned toward the bachelor’s degree they are pursuing.

Western Nevada College will be exploring the best format of instruction, including online, in-person and hybrid education for some of the credits needed for the program. The other credits for the program will include hands-on internship work at Wolf Pack Meats, which is part of the University’s Experiment Station unit; the University’s Extension Mobile Harvest Unit; or other Nevada meat- and poultry-processing plants.

“Ensuring our food supply is safe and sustainable is incredibly important to our region,” said Western Nevada College President Kyle Dalpe. “We’re proud to work with UNR and play a role in developing a skilled workforce for the meat and poultry industry in Nevada.”

Staci Emm, professor and Extension educator in Mineral County, said a goal of the program

is to offer a high school-university dual enrollment program by its third year. Emm added that several high schools are in the process of building their own meat labs, which will facilitate the dual enrollment program.

“Students in high school will eventually be able to take classes in the program, and then apply those credits toward a college degree,” she said.

Program leaders are predicting 40 participants a year for the threeyear program, equaling 120 graduates by 2026. It is estimated that at least 40 percent of these graduates would work in a Nevada meat-processing plant.

These programs tie into the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture’s stated goal to build a pipeline of highly skilled meat-processing workers, while also supporting fair wages and safe workplaces.

According to the USDA’s press release on its overall programs for meat- and poultry-processing businesses, the efforts will “make investments to increase independent meat and poultry processing capacity, expand market opportunities for farmers, and support a growing workforce in rural areas.”

For more information on these training programs, contact Emm at emms@unr. edu or 775-945-3444, ext. 1039.

Patronize

EID Ear Tags – Government Intrusion is Getting Expensive

by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman, Northern Ag Network

The lengths to which Joe Biden will go to control our lives knows no bounds. We have been burdened with ‘rules and guidance’ in education, energy production, gun ownership, and even in our choice of home appliances – and now this administration’s costly and unconstitutional overreach is affecting our food production and private property rights.

In January, the unelected bureaucrats within the U.S. Department

of Agriculture (USDA) once again proposed a ‘rule’ mandating that all cattle and bison producers begin using Electronic Identification Device (EID) eartags, while also announcing that they will no longer recognize traditional traceability methods such as brands, back tags and tattoos. This is just the latest abuse by the current administration, proving once again that they view the separation of powers doctrine as nothing more than a nuisance to circumvent, rather than the foundation of our Republic.

In short, it is the job of Congress – the Legislative Branch of our government – to write and pass laws. The Executive Branch is merely tasked with implementing such legislation as written and has no authority to create legally binding mandates out of whole cloth. Despite this fact, and in their relentless drive to put pressure on independent cattle and

bison producers, the USDA is again attempting to implement an EID requirement that will have a tremendous impact on livestock operations. Producers who do not comply will lose their access to interstate markets, thereby putting cattle and bison ranchers in Wyoming in grave peril of going broke.

The USDA’s EID mandate whipsaws ranchers on both ends, with noncompliance restricting their ability to sell their livestock, at the same time that the very cost of such compliance is financially prohibitive. The USDA itself currently estimates that the proposed rule will cost producers an additional $26.1 million per year, a number that significantly downplays the actual economic impact of the mandate.

The USDA reported in 2013 that a full EID mandate could cost as much as $2 billion dollars. It is thus obvious to anyone outside the DC

No

beltway bubble that there is more to the program – and significantly more expensive – than just the actual eartags. Knowing this, the agency bureaucrats have intentionally avoided providing a legitimate cost estimate, ignoring the cost of the EID readers, computers, labor, and the other components necessary to make the tags even functional, along with the expenditures required to maintain these systems.

The proposed rule also currently exempts livestock under 18 months of age (estimated to be around 88 million head of cattle). The cost to producers will thus increase on a yearly basis as more livestock mature and become subject to the rule.

Cost, however, is not the only problem with this rule. The insanity is also evidenced by the fact that there will be a human visual requirement for tracking the EID tags. This means that ranchers will still be tasked with writing down literally thousands of EID numbers to keep track of the livestock. It’s unclear how this could possibly be better than the current tracking methods that have been successfully used for well over a century – but it sure is more expensive and time-consuming!

Contrary to the USDA’s claims about the EID mandate being limited to the eartags, such tags don’t really function without all the related equipment, and it is much more likely that sale barns, feedlots, and similar businesses will need to have the technology (readers and software) in place.

It is thus obvious that USDA’s sole purpose in focusing the cost estimates on the eartags alone is to avoid including the full cost of the program. Once the equipment and labor costs are included, the actual financial impact of the program comes into focus – and it substantially exceeds the $26.1 million included in the rule.

There are two other significant concerns with the rule. First, the creation of electronic records and USDA’s proposal to maintain them for five years will expose ranchers to invasive records requests from members of the public who are out to destroy them.

Not only would the government be surveilling and tracking ranchers, but environmental groups who attribute “climate change” to livestock production could obtain information about the ranchers’ business to use in their attacks on their livelihoods also. Second, this is another attempt by big business to advance vertical integration of the beef supply chain. Smaller independent operators will

struggle to bear the cost and maintain the infrastructure to implement the mandate, likely putting them out of business.

The loss of independent operations will further consolidate the cattle and meat industries. This latter point could explain why the American Farm Bureau is actively supporting this government overreach, while organizations such as the Wyoming Farm Bureau strongly oppose the rule.

It is telling that the biggest advocates for mandatory EID are the biggest ranches in the country, the biggest packers in the country, and the ear tag manufacturing companies. That is quite the unholy alliance, and those of us who care about our independent producers, our consumers, our communities, our food supply, and our way of life are rightfully concerned as to why USDA is doing their bidding.

While I am not opposed to ranchers voluntarily using EID tags, I am most definitely opposed to the USDA adopting any kind of mandate that forces compliance through extralegal lawmaking – a practice that violates our Constitution and undermines our very form of government.

Battles like this are exactly why I ran for Congress in the first place. To combat the overreach of the USDA and out-of-touch, unelected bureaucrats in DC. I have offered an amendment in the upcoming Ag Appropriations bill that would prohibit funds from being used to finalize or implement the proposed rule. We must use every tool available to stop this type of federal overreach and agency abuse. Defunding the program will help to do that.

While we all know that the government is always trying to “fix its last solution,” there is nothing for the USDA to “fix” when it comes to livestock identification and traceability. Our ranchers produce the very best, highest quality, safest meat in the world and forcing them to spend massive sums of money to implement an EID program is unnecessary and outside of USDA’s authority. The better adage to use here is “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I sure wish the federal government would learn that lesson.

Congresswoman Harriet Hageman is serving her first term as Wyoming’s at-large Member in the U.S. House of Representatives. She serves on the House Committee on the Judiciary, the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the Committee on Natural Resources. ▫

industry politics, just commonsense policy.

Thousands

of Old Wind Turbine Blades Pile Up in West Texas

by Russell Gold, Texas Monthly

Every year since 1958, the West Texas town of Sweetwater has hosted the World’s Largest Rattlesnake Roundup, which is exactly what it sounds like. Thousands of the venomous ophidians are rooted out of their dens and brought to the Nolan County Coliseum to be gawked at, “milked,” and often beheaded and skinned.

It started as a way for the region to rid itself of some of its least-welcome residents. Now community leaders wish they could do the same with several giant piles of scrap that have for too long been left to bake in the sun. But that’s proving to be much trickier than wrangling reptiles.

About forty miles west of Abilene on Interstate 20, Sweetwater has unwittingly become home to what is possibly the world’s largest collection of unwanted wind turbine blades. When forklifts deposited the first of these in a field behind the apartment complex where Pamala Meyer lives, on the west side of town, in 2017, she wasn’t initially bothered.

But then the blades—between 150 and 200 feet in length and mostly made of composite materials such as fiberglass with a binding resin—kept coming. Each was cut into thirds, with each segment longer than a school bus. Thousands

Steve Hunt Honored with the 2023 Industry Achievement Award

by Morgan Boecker, Senior Manager of Producer Communications

When the cattle industry needed a leader, Steve Hunt stepped up.

Sure, it was a group effort to launch U.S. Premium Beef (USPB) – ranchers, cattle feeders and allied industry – but they all say one man made the difference between success and failure.

USPB board member Jerry Bohn calls Hunt “a leader, an innovator,

arrived over several years, eventually blanketing more than thirty acres, in stacks rising as high as basketball backboards. Every few dozen feet, a break among the stacks leads into an industrial hedge maze.

“It’s just a hazard all the way around,” Meyer said. She worries about neighborhood children exploring the unfenced piles and says that stagnant pools of water inside the blades breed swarms of mosquitoes.

Matt Jackson, who works in a nearby warehouse, has other concerns. The piles create shaded nooks and crannies, perfect for Sweetwater’s unofficial mascot. “It’s just a big rattlesnake farm,” he said.

The blades were brought here by Global Fiberglass Solutions, a company based in Washington State that announced in 2017 its intention to recycle blades from wind farms across the region. Instead of ending up in landfills, they would be ground up into a reusable material that could be turned into pallets, railroad ties, or flooring panels. Global Fiberglass is one of a few companies attempting to develop a viable business from recycling blades.

Besides the main boneyard— behind Meyer’s apartment—stacks of blades also occupy ten acres a couple miles south of town, and the company is storing blades in other locations in the county. “They have, in my view, abandoned them

an entrepreneur, an idea guy and an executor.” All of that and more made Hunt shine. He was honored on August 22 with the Certified Angus Beef (CAB) 2023 Industry Achievement Award, presented at the Feeding Quality Forum event.

The beef industry was in trouble in the 1980s and ’90s when more than 400,000 ranchers exited. Choice and Prime were no more than 55 percent of fed cattle production, so “it was a coin toss whether a steak was going to be good or bad,” says Randy Blach, CattleFax CEO. “Beef demand was cut in half from 1979 to 1998. The industry was like a buoy in the ocean, directionless.”

Fear of irrelevance had sparked conversations among a group of 21 cow-calf producers in 1995. Always with economics in mind, Hunt says he saw an opportunity to integrate from the bottom up.

First need: value-based pricing

there,” said Samantha Morrow, the Nolan County attorney. “The county doesn’t have and cannot find millions of dollars to clean this up.”

The Sweetwater piles are also at least partly the indirect result of a rule clarification the Internal Revenue Service issued in 2016. Before then, a wind farm could collect valuable federal tax credits for only its first ten years of operation.

But the IRS determined that it would restart the clock on the credits if a wind farm “repowered” its turbines—replacing most of their equipment with newer parts. So, despite the expected two-decade lifespan for turbine blades, wind farms across Texas and other states began replacing many that remained in good shape years early.

Some paid Global Fiberglass to remove the older blades and haul them away. The company set up shop in an empty industrial facility in Sweetwater that was once an aluminum recycling plant, but Don Lilly, the managing director of Global Fiberglass, told me that only a handful of blades have ever been ground up there.

He said the company was close to ramping up and would soon mill the blades into pieces the size of coarse sand. “The blade material is sold,” he said, “but I can’t go into that part yet.”

Sweetwater has heard such pledges before. The county declared the stockpile a public nuisance a year ago. City attorney Jeff Allen said Sweetwater’s local ordinances are aimed at overgrown lots, not turbine blades, leaving the city with

to pay on individual carcass merit. Second, information back to producers from the packer to guide changes at the ranch and feedyard. Third, they needed to gain a direct influence on processing. The group embarked on what they called the “Blue Sky Tour” to share their vision with potential stakeholders.

“As you can imagine, a lot of eyes fogged over when we mentioned that we wanted to become a processor,” Hunt says. Trust was a major challenge.

“Steve would tell you he’s the worst salesman, but he’s very good at explaining the big concept and relating it to producers, too,” says Stan Linville, current CEO of USPB. “He broke down barriers and effectively communicated with each partner what they had to do to make this idea work.”

Hesitancy often met the campaign to find nearly 500 cattlemen to purchase at least 100 shares at $55 apiece. That would secure 100 carcass hooks and payment on their individual merit. Perseverance paid.

“His confidence gave the rest of us confidence to buy in,” says Mark Gardiner, partner at Gardiner Angus Ranch and founding USPB member.

With nearly a million cattle lined up, Hunt and this rogue group of cattlemen negotiated an opportunity to buy up to 50 percent ownership of the fourth largest beef processor in the U.S.

Naturally, Hunt was named CEO.

“Steve was a bridge

limited legal options.

He said he believes Global Fiberglass “intended to be a viable business” but at some point “it just came off the rails.” (Lilly disputes this and says the delays have come from ensuring “all systems were engineered.”)

Sweetwater benefits from the wind-energy industry, including two large wind farms nearby. Drivers arriving on I-20 from either direction are welcomed by a giant wind turbine blade painted with the town’s name.

But even the community’s biggest boosters of renewable energy long ago ran out of patience with Global Fiberglass’s mess. “We’d like to see them gone,” said Karen Hunt, director of the local chamber of commerce. “The sooner the better.”

Sweetwater isn’t the only place Global Fiberglass has stockpiled blades. It has a total of 1,300 in Newton, Iowa, and two other cities in that state, according to the state’s Department of Natural Resources.

After an investigation, the agency concluded in 2021 there was no recycling going on, nor was any likely to happen. It declared the company to be running an unpermitted dump.

Frank Liebl, executive director of the Newton Development Corporation, testified at a state hearing that the initial excitement in 2017 of recruiting a blade-recycling company soon soured. In the intervening years, he asked Global Fiberglass many times when it would begin its recycling. He always got “the same answer: ‘Soon,’ ” he said.

builder,” says Tracy Thomas, vice president of marketing for USPB. “He built relationships so that all segments would talk to each other. Everybody involved learned the quality of their cattle, what we were doing well and what we needed to improve.”

“The biggest thing Steve did for producers was say, ‘Do what you do best: produce,’” says Linville. “And he let National Beef do what they do best, which was run the beef processing side.”

It was a journey to grow pounds efficiently while marbling also increased. While USPB members received feedback from the packer first, Hunt realized improvements in quality and opportunity for value-based marketing were important for the whole industry.

“I like to say it was synergistic: when we incentivized quality cattle, the other processors did, too,” Gardiner says. “We egged them on to do the same thing to compete. That is what has changed the demand equation for beef cattle today.”

For 15 years, Hunt led USPB with its shareholders in mind as the company continued to grow and succeed. He oversaw USPB becoming a majority owner and parent company of the packer and renamed it National Beef Packing Company in 2003. Then in 2004, he restructured USPB into a limited liability company to allow for more market opportunities.

Hunt’s last mark as CEO was leading negotiations for USPB to sell the majority interest in the packing company to Leucadia National Corporation. This gave USPB members liquidity to pass along to the next generation while maintaining the value-based pricing and information transfer.

Some would look at the data to define success. Numbers like

By July 2021, the company owed more than $1 million in unpaid rent in Newton, according to testimony at the Iowa hearing from its landlord’s attorney. In Texas, it failed to pay taxes to Nolan County in 2020 and is now three years in arrears, according to tax records.

Last year, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality fined the company $10,255 for what it described as illegally stored solid waste. It allowed the company to pay the penalty in monthly installments for three years. In June, Global Fiberglass defaulted, according to the commission.

In Newton, pressure from the state of Iowa seems to have worked.

Craig Armstrong, a city employee, said that General Electric recently acquired the blades. It’s unclear whether GE purchased them from Global Fiberglass or from the landlord who was owed the $1 million in rent, who may have taken possession of the blades. The city was promised that they would be sent to a recycling center by the end of the year, although none had been removed by mid-August, according to a Newton city official.

Lilly declined to talk about the Iowa blades. He said the situation in Sweetwater is different and insists that Global Fiberglass will grind down and recycle these blades. “If you come back nine months from now, you will not see the material,” he said.

We’re marking our calendars and will check back in May.

$730 million in premiums USPB members earned through 2022 by delivering more than 18.3 million cattle. Members who made the equity investment, plus associates who lease and deliver cattle total 2,900 producers from 38 states.

The average grid premium the first year was barely $10 per head. In 2022, premiums averaged over $70 per head. USPB cattle have improved from just 45 percent Choice to average 88 percent Choice or higher today.

Value-based marketing might have saved beef demand, Hunt says. “But the measure of success is looking at our members and seeing their sons and daughters in business with them.”

(left to right: John Stika, Certified Angus Beef; Steve Hunt, 2023 Industry Achievement Award honoree; Mark Gardiner, Gardiner Angus Ranch) “USPB has pressed me in every single way–mentally and physically and intellectually–just to accomplish this,” Steve Hunt says. But every person he met was a learning opportunity, from producers at the ranch to the people on Wall Street. (CAB)